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

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.

Whoa! Whoa! Why don't you simmer down there Tancredofan. I'm a Ron Paul supporter but I was fighting against illegal immigration long before I even heard of him. You don't speak for me. I happen to think that illegal immigration is a very serious issue.

Some of us here have contacted Paul's campaign HQ's requesting that he speak out more on this issue and clarify some of his positions. Why don't you just chill out wait to hear what the man has to say before you continue to trash him and his supporters. Geez... Next topic please....

Speaking for myself, I like Ron Paul, and I agree with him far more often than I disagree with him. Having said that, more on regular U.S. military troops guarding borders: www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/history/blackjack.html

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of open borders

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

How much of this has rubbed off on Ron Paul? From his voting record – a lot

Once_A_Democrat

Get your facts straight. Paul has a very strong voting record on immigration and boarder issues. He has earned a B grade from NumbersUSA, not perfect, but his stance on other issues ( monetary, personal freedom, less federal government over reach, foreign policy, IMO make him the strongest candidate.

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of open borders

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

How much of this has rubbed off on Ron Paul? From his voting record – a lot

Just as you can't assume Ron Paul will follow the Republican party line just because he's a registered Republican, you also can't assume he would follow the Libertarian party line just because he ran as a Libertarian candidate years ago. If you really want to know where Ron Paul stands on issues, I would suggest a visit here-

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Look at the issues he puts a priority on.

BTW, I was once a Democrat too, a LOOONNG time ago but have been officially Unaffiliated for years now! And I love your avatar!

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of open borders

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

How much of this has rubbed off on Ron Paul? From his voting record – a lot

Good point!

There has yet to be a single credible explanation from Ron Paul supporters for Ron Paul voting seven times against the use of the military to assist in border control efforts.

The assertion from some Ron Paul supporters that it is unconstitutional for the military to guard the borders is ridiculous. The United States Army has previously guarded the Mexcian border in the twentieth century. The 4th Cavalry Regiment of the United States Army guarded the Mexican border in Texas from 1911 to 1913. Here is a link to a Wikipedia article that mentions this fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Cavalry .

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of open borders

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

How much of this has rubbed off on Ron Paul? From his voting record – a lot

Ron Paul certainly seems to agree with the Libertarian Party's support of the legalization of marijuana.

Here is a link to a webpage that displays the cover the November 1988 edition of High Times magazine: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34107/Ron-Pau ... -Candidate . On part of the cover of that edition of the magazine, it says the following:

RON PAUL
Pro-Pot
Presidential
Candidate

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of open borders

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

How much of this has rubbed off on Ron Paul? From his voting record – a lot

Ron Paul appeared on The Morton Downey J. Show. A young man asked Ron Paul a question in which the young man advocated using the military to stop drugs at the source on the border. Here is a link to a YouTube video of the question and Ron Paul's response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo .

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of open borders

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

How much of this has rubbed off on Ron Paul? From his voting record – a lot

Ron Paul certainly seems to agree with the Libertarian Party's support of the legalization of marijuana.

Here is a link to a webpage that displays the cover the November 1988 edition of High Times magazine: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34107/Ron-Pau ... -Candidate . On part of the cover of that edition of the magazine, it says the following:

RON PAUL
Pro-Pot
Presidential
Candidate

Excellent!! Domestically grown marijuana SHOULD BE LEGAL for adult consumption. Let's quit ruining American families for what amounts to prohibition (we all know how well THAT worked...), let's quit wasting our tax dollars prosecuting and jailing people who make a personal choice in their lives to smoke an herb that, in all recorded history, hasn't killed a single person, and let's START using those resources to PROSECUTE AND JAIL some employers of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Besides, none of this means anything when attempting to use other's viewpoints to attempt to shine a positive light on Tancredo, who was loudly PRO VIETNAM, yet, when it was HIS time to serve, suddenly claimed "depression" and indicated "a history of mental illness".

Now, how about you stop taking every thread and turning it into a "let's go Tancredo" thread, I'll stop pointing out why that's such a bad idea, and let's get BACK to how to deal with illegal immigration?

Deal?

Originally Posted by tancredofan

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of open borders

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

How much of this has rubbed off on Ron Paul? From his voting record – a lot

Good point!

There has yet to be a single credible explanation from Ron Paul supporters for Ron Paul voting seven times against the use of the military to assist in border control efforts.

The assertion from some Ron Paul supporters that it is unconstitutional for the military to guard the borders is ridiculous. The United States Army has previously guarded the Mexcian border in the twentieth century. The 4th Cavalry Regiment of the United States Army guarded the Mexican border in Texas from 1911 to 1913. Here is a link to a Wikipedia article that mentions this fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Cavalry .

Avoiding the obvious answer doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means you're plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..." loudly while someone's explaining it to you.

Posse Comitatus is why. "Guarding our borders" from civilians and "guarding our borders" from invasion by another military force are two very different things indeed.

Posse Comitatus prohibits the military from enforcing domestic policies. Pretty simple. Not entering the "grey area" is a good thing.

Enforce the laws we have on the books, and apply the appropriate $$$ and manpower to get it done. Use the forces we DO have, beef them up, increase THEIR numbers....ever hear of the Border Patrol? That's what their function is, not the military. Sure, we need military securing our borders, but not from civilians. Border Patrol and legislation. That's what's in place, and it WILL WORK if BushCo would stop screwing the American middle class and start putting the money into the laws we've already mandated.