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

Well, that's the problem withsomeone who has no scruples.

It's also the virtue of them, I suppose, if we're talking about politics.

Personally, I think an honest fanatic-in this instance, Bush-is more dangerous than an amoral politician.

But neither one is an ideal choice.

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.

People, please do not fall for this drivvle... --> thinking ghouliani is a good choice.

You are gonna assume ghouliani is gonna make good on a very important issue because some other new yorker says so? nawwww.

You guys were hammering on Ron Paul for some stance he took in 1988! Also, if any of you follow Ghouliani over Paul or Hunter or Tancredo, forget it!!! If Ghouliani goes with the winds of political correctness then he is NOT a man of his word or faith.... he is an opportunist.... You must back a man of principle. C'mon now.. lets not loose our minds.

Rudy is a globalist.. he supports NAFTA, NAU and his firm represents Cintra... forget Rudy -

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

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.

hahahha.. I just saw your "in jest"... I was thinking to myself.. "wow, that tancredo fellow turned like benedict arnold!" hahahahaha.... you gave me a scare!

Originally Posted by BrightNail

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.

People, please do not fall for this drivvle... --> thinking ghouliani is a good choice.

You are gonna assume ghouliani is gonna make good on a very important issue because some other new yorker says so? nawwww.

You guys were hammering on Ron Paul for some stance he took in 1988! Also, if any of you follow Ghouliani over Paul or Hunter or Tancredo, forget it!!! If Ghouliani goes with the winds of political correctness then he is NOT a man of his word or faith.... he is an opportunist.... You must back a man of principle. C'mon now.. lets not loose our minds.

Rudy is a globalist.. he supports NAFTA, NAU and his firm represents Cintra... forget Rudy -

Your not following, BN.....Myself and Shapka OPPOSE who you aptly refer to as Ghouliani. His opportunism is exactly what we are discussing. When it comes down to it.......Tom, Ron, and Duncan probably won't win. So, we may need to do what we did to the treasonous Senate. Force their hand. I'm just looking at the big picture, being practical, and trying to envision saving our nation. We don't support Rudy. I hope this clears it up.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

hahahha.. I just saw your "in jest"... I was thinking to myself.. "wow, that tancredo fellow turned like benedict arnold!" hahahahaha.... you gave me a scare!

I know, I know.....I am looking as opportunistic as Rudy at this late hour......time for BFR to just go to bed LOL.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

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.

If there is any demagoguery present in this thread or other threads about the use of the military on the border, it is coming from Ron Paul supporters.

Apparently, you don't consider millions of illegal aliens unlawfully invading this country to be an invasion. I do consider the illegal entry of millions of illegal aliens into this country to be an invasion.

Further, it was a Ron Paul supporter that made the point that it was the National Guard's constitutional duty to repel an invasion and not the constiutional duty of the United States military. That Ron Paul supporter. girlygirl369, is wrong. The U.S. military can constitutionally repel an invasion.

It is not necessary, though, for there to be an invasion in order for the United States military to lawfully and constitutionally be present on the United States borders. It is constitutional for the U.S. military to guard this nation's borders against the entry of illegal aliens.

You apparently believe it is unconstitutional for the U.S. military to protect this nation's borders from the entry of illegal aliens. Many Ron Paul supporters also believe that. Ron Paul supporters have posted that Ron Paul believes it is unconstitutional for the U.S. military to guard this nation's borders.

Ron Paul voted seven (7) times against using the U.S. military to assist the United States Border Patrol in guarding this nation's borders. On the June 25, 2007, edition of The Terry Anderson Show he once again refused to support the use of the U.S. military to guard the borders.

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Originally Posted by BrightNail

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.

If there is any demagoguery present in this thread or other threads about the use of the military on the border, it is coming from Ron Paul supporters.

Apparently, you don't consider millions of illegal aliens unlawfully invading this country to be an invasion. I do consider the illegal entry of millions of illegal aliens into this country to be an invasion.

Further, it was a Ron Paul supporter that made the point that it was the National Guard's constitutional duty to repel an invasion and not the constiutional duty of the United States military. That Ron Paul supporter. girlygirl369, is wrong. The U.S. military can constitutionally repel an invasion.

It is not necessary, though, for there to be an invasion in order for the United States military to lawfully and constitutionally be present on the United States borders. It is constitutional for the U.S. military to guard this nation's borders against the entry of illegal aliens.

You apparently believe it is unconstitutional for the U.S. military to protect this nation's borders from the entry of illegal aliens. Many Ron Paul supporters also believe that. Ron Paul supporters have posted that Ron Paul believes it is unconstitutional for the U.S. military to guard this nation's borders.

Ron Paul voted seven (7) times against using the U.S. military to assist the United States Border Patrol in guarding this nation's borders. On the June 25, 2007, edition of The Terry Anderson Show he once again refused to support the use of the U.S. military to guard the borders.

well, wait up... I am not saying I agree with his stance. I think that Ron Paul has a more laid out plan, to me. Now I WANT military on the border, others don't. I hate illegal immigration. But you have been known to pull bills out of the past (almost 20 years ago) and use that as a basis for things when certain parts of any particular bill might be in violation of the constitution.
To me Ron Paul is alot strong than Tancredo on Foreign policy, monetary considerations.. and I don't agree with pre-emptive strikes...

I put forward alot of your concerns to ron paul's followers and put these same questions to his campaign to answer.. so hopefully they will be address.

I agree, to me, there is a disconnect with the border being 'international', thus falling within federal jurisdiction.... To me that seems odd - so I do agree with you. BUT that is not to say that I think Ron Paul is soft on illegal immigration, on the contrary, he is very hard on it. It really depends on what you find important on the issue... if you think military on the border is huge, then Tancredo is stronger, if you think cutting all social and state services, then Ron Paul is your man...

Hopefully those others will get back to me.. because I am still trying to wrap my brain around the border being national or international etc...

Originally Posted by BrightNail

HERE IS ONE POINT THAT I THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE AWARE OF.

If you don't like Ron Paul, or Tancredo or Hunter, that is cool... But I think that if ANY OF THEM are in a close race with ghouliani or thompson then we need to support one of those three: Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter.

I do NOT think that More than ONE OF THOSE THREE will make it to the end... so, we need to stand firm on the strongest. If you do not like Tancredo or Ron Paul etc.. its fine, but EACH OF THEM is MUCH STRONGER than ANY of the other candidates....

In other words, If Paul doesn't make it thru, I will support Tancredo/Hunter.. etc... and if Tancredo or Hunter doesn't make it thru, support Ron Paul. I HOPE you all do the same.

Personally, I have a list...

1. Ron Paul
2. Tancredo
3. Hunter (might bump him up to 2nd)

Excellent reply. Seems we're on the same wavelength Brightnail. Those are my exact thoughts as well.

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.

Hillary WILL indeeed beat anyone from the GOP. That's why we have to make sure Ron Paul gets the nomination. He is the only one who can defeat her because he has strong support from both sides. This isn't just a typical campaign run. Ron Paul supporters are turning it into a national movement. I'm telling you, this thing is really taking off and his supporters are very passionate. American teenagers, who we all seem to think are more interested in their iPods, are actually engaged in the Paul campaign and are in fact educating their own parents about him. (That in and of itself is pretty impressive, wouldn't you agree??)

The one way to stop electing the same old elitist politicians into office time and time again, is to break this ridiculous cycle of voting for "the lesser of two evils." Aren't we sick enough of this merry go round??

Please, everyone, for the sake of saving our country, vote based on principle. The lesser of two evils only brings us more evil! If more people were to vote like this perhaps we'd finally get a decent person in the whitehouse who truly represents "we the people."

STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS. STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS. START BEING GOOD AMERICANS.

Chloe24 wrote:

Hillary WILL indeeed beat anyone from the GOP. That's why we have to make sure Ron Paul gets the nomination. He is the only one who can defeat her because he has strong support from both sides.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't agree with this assessement. Obviously some of you folk have a lot more confidence in Hilliary than I do. She may look good now, but when the pimaries are over - it's a whole new ball game. Honestly, I don't believe Hildabeast will take one single red state from a Republican candidate. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Obama. I do believe he has the potential of taking a couple red states if he can get the African-American community out in force.

Furthermore, I posted this earlier and think it bears repeating:

IMO, Duncan Hunter, if he were to make it through the primaries, would have an excellent chance against any Democrat the DNC pushed before us. If Hunter were to make it through the primaries, the media could no longer ignore him. He has a message that will resonate well with a wide variety of Americans. Furthermore, every candidate has baggage, but after a thorough research of the candidates, I find Hunter's suitcase to be suprisingly light when compared to his rivals from both parties.

A few of Hunter's successes and positions I find very appealing:

- Extremely strong on border security and illegal immigration issues. He wrote the Secure Fence Act, extending the San Diego fence 854 miles across California, Arizona, N. Mexico, and Texas.

- Does not support, nor never voted in favor of the WTO, NAFTA, or CAFTA. He believes in fair trade, not free trade (this will appeal to Democrats).

- A decorated war veteran that served as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee for five years. His experience will prove extremely valuable in dealing with China, North Korea, and Iran. He is the best choice for our next Commander-In-Chief.

- Exceptionally strong on national defense. He believes in peace through strength. During the Clinton administration our military forces and readiness were cut drastically. That's one reason many of our national guard unites and reserve forces are rotating in and out of Iraq now. Hunter wants to reverse the previous gutting of our military and improve our readiness to contend with potential enemies should the situation arise. A strong military capability does deter aggresive enemies and save American lives.

- Publicly expressed his deep concerned with the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision greatly broadening local government's use of eminent domain in Kelo vs. New London and believe it is important that Congress protect the property rights of private landowners and curb the government from excessive regulatory takings. Cosponsored H.R. 3268 (Gingrey-GA), the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act of 2005, which abolished the capital gains tax on private property taken by the government through eminent domain. The rights of private land owners is a huge issue with me.

- Led the successful fight against the ACLU to protect the Mt. Soledad Veterans’ Memorial in San Diego (he beat the ACLU).

- Cosponsored and voted in favor of H.J. Res. 88 (Musgrave-CO), which proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman.

- Extremely strong on the 2nd Amendment. He firmly believes it's about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. According to Hunter, "We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims."

- Strongly opposes using federal funds for any group that produces material that has questionable artistic, scientific or political value. For that reason, he has consistently voted against funding increases for the NEA.

There's more, much more, but I won't bore you any further...........

I respect your opinion Chloe, however, even though Paul is my third choice, I don't believe him to be the second coming.