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

Originally Posted by MW

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).

Actually, Ed Koch was the one who signed that executive order.

It wasn't a sanctuary city in the way we think of it now, but it disallowed the NYPD and emergency service personnel from asking the immigration status of people seeking public services so the affect was identical.

It was eventually shot down by a federal court, but a few years later Bloomie was strongarmed by Hiram Montserratte and other Dodos on the City Council into signing a law that effectively nullified the ruling that declared it unconstitutional.

Ironically, Koch came out strongly against the amnesty proposal just shot down in Congress.

Some people grow wiser while others simply grow older.

And, as much as I dislike a lot of Giuliani's policies, I have to disagree with you there.

George W. Bush is a true-believer when it comes to open borders and embracing Mexico.

Giuliani tailors his political beliefs to whatever audience he's trying to appeal to.

That's why he could press aggressively for deporting Haitian boat people and IRA terrorists back to their home countries as a member of the Reagan DOJ, but become anti-"la migra" when he ran for mayor of this city.

Believe me, if he thinks it's in his political interest to be opposed to amnesty he will.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Believe me, if he thinks it's in his political interest to be opposed to amnesty he will.

Think we can strong-arm him into enforcing the law if he actually is elected?

Shapka wrote:

Actually, Ed Koch was the one who signed that executive order.

That may be, however, I stand by my original statement.

Both of them made NYC the sanctuary city it is today!

Shapka wrote:

Believe me, if he thinks it's in his political interest to be opposed to amnesty he will.

Yeah, until his elected as President of the United States.

Originally Posted by tancredofan

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.

Dude, c'mon - you are venturing onto demogoguery -- You are liking the border crossing to an invasion? In my eyes, I abhore illegal immigration, but its not an "invasion" - so stop with the dramatics... as I mentioned earlier, army and airforce national guard is completely within the jurisdiction. Also, there have been several quotes by Ron Paul that, not verbatim, ala "we need to get our troops home to secure our own borders" - this is in print.

I was told about Tancredo and NAFTA from another Ron Paul supporter. I will inquire with him to that claim. If he is baseless, I will prostrate myself and apologize -- internet representation of course.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Dude, c'mon - you are venturing onto demogoguery -- You are liking the border crossing to an invasion? In my eyes, I abhore illegal immigration, but its not an "invasion" - so stop with the dramatics... as I mentioned earlier, army and airforce national guard is completely within the jurisdiction. Also, there have been several quotes by Ron Paul that, not verbatim, ala "we need to get our troops home to secure our own borders" - this is in print.

I was told about Tancredo and NAFTA from another Ron Paul supporter. I will inquire with him to that claim. If he is baseless, I will prostrate myself and apologize -- internet representation of course.

BN, lots of people here call it an invasion.....Is it really? Well, it is the largest human migration in recorded history. It is illegal foreigners -- many hostile to the United States. The migration is supported by a foreign government which promotes dual citizenship and a "Mexico first" attitude for the illegals. And the entire goal is to strengthen Mexico City's power and influence within the United States.....the very same Mexico City who's embassies here distribut text books to American schools emphasizing Mexican nationalism and the Mexican side of the mexican/American War.

If your still not convinced......Mexican military have made numerous incursions onto our soil and fired at BP officers. I demand swift military action for this. It is an unacceptable affront to our security and sovereingty, and it is absolutely military in nature.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by Shapka

Believe me, if he thinks it's in his political interest to be opposed to amnesty he will.

Think we can strong-arm him into enforcing the law if he actually is elected?

I don't think it's a matter of strongarming.

He's pigheaded, but he's also politically malleable when he thinks it will advance his career.

He's an RFK Democrat who was forced into the Republican Party because the Democratic Party had been taken over by far-left McGovernites.

If this were 1972 he wouldn't even be in the GOP, let alone a serious candidate for POTUS.

His objections to the amnesty bill that was tabled by the Senate were purely procedural.

It's like his views on abortion.

As mayor he's more pro-abortion than even Hillary Clinton, but now he takes the federalist position on Roe v. Wade.

My point is this.

Bush & McCain are true-believers so in a sense they are our worst enemy because they can not be convinced to abandon their open-borders ideology under any circumstances.

Giuliani and Romney are political opportunists who will go the same way the wind blows.

Thompson is a big question mark, and the other candidates-even the one I support-are not going to win.

I think that our focus needs to be on electing congressmen and senators who will thwart whoever becomes POTUS in 2008, because there's a strong likelihood that the future POTUS will be as bad or worse than Bush.

We can't have a repeat of what happened last year, otherwise the resurrection of the disastrous Kennedy bill will be the least of our worries.

Originally Posted by Shapka

I don't think it's a matter of strongarming.

He's pigheaded, but he's also politically malleable when he thinks it will advance his career.

He's an RFK Democrat who was forced into the Republican Party because the Democratic Party had been taken over by far-left McGovernites.

If this were 1972 he wouldn't even be in the GOP, let alone a serious candidate for POTUS.

His objections to the amnesty bill that was tabled by the Senate were purely procedural.

It's like his views on abortion.

As mayor he's more pro-abortion than even Hillary Clinton, but now he takes the federalist position on Roe v. Wade.

My point is this.

Bush & McCain are true-believers so in a sense they are our worst enemy because they can not be convinced to abandon their open-borders ideology under any circumstances.

Giuliani and Romney are political opportunists who will go the same way the wind blows.

Thompson is a big question mark, and the other candidates-even the one I support-are not going to win.

I think that our focus needs to be on electing congressmen and senators who will thwart whoever becomes POTUS in 2008, because there's a strong likelihood that the future POTUS will be as bad or worse than Bush.

We can't have a repeat of what happened last year, otherwise the resurrection of the disastrous Kennedy bill will be the least of our worries.

OK Shapka, I guess what I am asking is: Is Rudy politically opportunistic enough to enforce the law to get re-elected?

This has happened in the past. Example: JFK ran hard against Nixon in 1960 claiming the Eisenhower administration "lost Cuba." Its questionable that JFK beleived his own hard talk.....still, he ran on a "get tough with Cuba" platform, and once elected, had to make due. The results were the Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, and numerous invasion plans/assassination attempts (which may have contributed to his own). The point is that re-election attempts can make presidents do some things that they themselves don't neccessarily agree with.

Politics works that way sometimes. Of course this is not 1960, and the electorate may not be able to comprimise the pres as we did in the past.

If the public feels the same way it does now when/if he's elected, then "yes."

He's not going to risk reelection simply to appease the open borders crowd, even if he might agree with their ultimate goals.

How much he even agrees with them is another issue altogether since, as I've stated, so many of his expressed ideological convictions are political expedients, not genuine philosophical tenets he holds.

Originally Posted by Shapka

If the public feels the same way it does now when/if he's elected, then "yes."

He's not going to risk reelection simply to appease the open borders crowd, even if he might agree with their ultimate goals.

How much he even agrees with them is another issue altogether since, as I've stated, so many of his expressed ideological convictions are political expedients, not genuine philosophical tenets he holds.

This is actually good news coming from a New Yorker

Democracy is funny.......If we can comprimise an opportunistic man, so that both our goals are realised......Well, that is good enough for me!! I know he doesn't agree with it. I guess it is a matter of who can influence him more: oursevles or the globalists.

RUDY '08!!



Of course I am saying this in jest.