Thread: To the Ron Paul Campaign--Where do you Stand?

Most libertarians have cockeyed views when it comes to immigration.

First of all, even if you eliminated every aspect of the welfare state in this country it would only marginally reduce the influx from our So. border. The reason people come here is because they live in places like Mexico and El Salvador, not simply because we have become a welfare state. If South Korea eliminated all of its social welfare benefits tomorrow do you think people from North Korea would say "whoa, better stay put in this hell-on-Earth?"

Secondly, the people who come here are hard core socialists. They're not wading across the Rio Grande with copies of The Road to Serfdom and Atlas Shrugs in their rucksacks along with bottles of water. Paying obeisance to an abstract principle that might theoretically dovetail with "libertarian" principles-such as open borders-while eradicating liberty in the process-illustrates the hypocrisy of most self-described libertarians in this country.

The one that bothers me is Freddy CFR Thompson. The media has built him up to mythical "savior"

That’s because they know if he gets the nomination that Hillary would likely beat him in the general election. It’s a little early to make any kind of prediction, but we may know a little more after Iowa. I fear that once again I will be casting my vote for the lesser of two evils.

Originally Posted by htxpert

The one that bothers me is Freddy CFR Thompson. The media has built him up to mythical "savior"

That’s because they know if he gets the nomination that Hillary would likely beat him in the general election. It’s a little early to make any kind of prediction, but we may know a little more after Iowa. I fear that once again I will be casting my vote for the lesser of two evils.

Steve Malzberg was interviewing the editor of Insight Mag on his show the other day and he basically agreed with that line of reasoning.

To a certain extent, it has some resonance.

Thompson strikes me as the type of candidate who just doesn't have the ruthlessness necessary to destroy HRC.

Conversely, Her Shrillness is the weakest candidate the Dems could possibly nominate.

She already gives away 45% of the vote before she gives her acceptance speech at the convention, whereas all the other Dems enter the general election with a presumptive advantage over their Republican opponent.

The only exception is Clinton.

I could see a viable third party emerging next year, but it would need a good candidate to galvanize that discontent among the American public.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

I want a patriot. A cultural conservative. Tom and Duncan fit the description.

Yesssss!

Oh, almost forgot! In case anybody is interested in information about my choice, please drop by ... http://www.gohunter08.com/

If Bloomberg enters the race as an Independent it could totaly change the race. I wonder if there is any lobbying going on between the HRC and yet to be announced Bloomberg campaigns.

Originally Posted by htxpert

If Bloomberg enters the race as an Independent it could totaly change the race. I wonder if there is any lobbying going on between the HRC and yet to be announced Bloomberg campaigns.

It wouldn't surprise me, to be honest.

The thing is that if it's Giuliani v. Clinton_ -Bloomberg seals the deal for Shrillary since Giuliani and Bloomberg are both cut from the same Rockefeller Republican, i.e. faux Republican cloth.

On the other hand, if it's Thompson v. Clinton, then Bloomie could take a hunk out of Lady MacBeth's flesh.

Shapka wrote:

Giuliani and Bloomberg are both cut from the same Rockefeller Republican, i.e. faux Republican cloth.

Two peas in a pod, or should I say dos gotas de agua.

Both of them made NYC the sanctuary city it is today! Either of them make it into the White House and a path to legalization (amnesty) for illegal aliens won't be far behind (you can take that to the bank).

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Also, Tancredo does not support leaving NAFTA

Got any facts to back-up your statement ?
Why did Tancredo COSPONSOR H.CON.RES.487 ? which is the bill to get out of NAFTA

H.CON.RES.487
Title: Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Sponsor: Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] (introduced 9/28/2006) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 9/28/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 12/7/2006 Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 9/28/2006
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 12/7/2006 Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 9/28/2006
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 9/28/2006 Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 12/7/2006

Likewise, I'm waiting for some facts to support the assertion that Rep. Tancredo does not support leaving NAFTA.

This is not the first time that a Ron Paul supporter has attempted to link Rep. Tancredo to some favorable view of NAFTA. Thus far, the Ron Paul supporters have failed to produce a shred of evidence to support their claims.

Originally Posted by chloe24

I think Ron Paul would be more in favor of the individual states protecting their own borders rather than having it come from our federal government.

I'm new to this, so I'm just going by his stance in less government and more power to individual states.

Why should it be the responsbility of a state to protects its citizens from an invasion on an international border? Shouldn't it be the first role of the federal government to protect American citizens from a foreign invasion.

Ron Paul is wrong. It should be the responsibility of the federal government, not state governments, to protect American borders form an invasion.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Originally Posted by girlygirl369

It sure is getting tiresome listening to people complain because Ron Paul is against our military on the border. For the 4th time today.......

OUR MILITARY IS FOR FOREIGN PURPOSES.........O N L Y.

DOMESTICATE (MEANING WITHIN THE U.S.) PROBLEMS WILL BE HANDLED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RON PAUL WAS VOTING ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

I also checked H RES 365(2002) and HR 1885 (2001). People using these votes to discredit Paul, are really grasping at straws. Before accepting this info as gospel, check for yourself before passing this erroneous info on.

Foreign purposes only????

Boy, I don't understand that one?

I don't undestand that one either.

Ron Paul's belief that is unconstitutional for the United States military to defend this nation's border against an invasion is absurd.