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

Originally Posted by HarmFamily

Ah, no deal. Well then, have at it, however:

Tancredo is mentally ill by his own admission

Tancredo supported Vietnam, but refused to serve

Tancredo avoided his DUTY to serve in our military because he was "depressed"

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You go ahead and vote "Tancredo" and keep turning threads into some sad campaign for Tancredo. I'm going to aspire to keep threads on track, and keep my discussions germain to what this forum is about, preventing illegal immigration. This little sidetrack was fun for a few minutes, but clearly you're foaming at the mouth for Tancredo regardless of his being a coward and liar. Great role model, chief.

He's a joke, he's bad for America, he's pandering to the weak-minded with his "tough on immigration" status and would just as soon violate Posse Comatitus instead of enforcing laws on the books, and anyone paying attention knows it.

Have a great day.

You posted the following: "Sure, we need military securing our borders, but not from civilians. Border Patrol and legislation." Would those civilians about which you are speaking be illegal aliens? Gee, I don't usually refer to illegal aliens simply as civilians.

I supported ALIPAC financially when it was in its infancy. I joined the forums on April 27, 2005. You joined the forums on June 26, 2007. I never directed a single post to you until you posted comments directed at me. I have never commented upon nor mentioned any of your posts in any of my posts until you posted comments directed at me. In both this thread and another entitled "How can the army aiding Border Patrol be unconstitutional?", you posted comments directed to me, though I had never posted a word about you or to you in those threads.

Putting the United States military on the border immediately would secure the border. It will take several years for the thousands and thousands of additional Border Patrol agents that would be necessary to secure the southern border. The Mexican border needs to secured now, not several years from now. There are illegal alien drug dealers, illegal alien child molestors, illegal alien murderers and illegal alien gang members that are crossing the Mexican border in the year 2007. The entry of such "civilians" should be stopped in the year 2007, not years from now.

Ron Paul not only opposes placing the United States military on the border, he also opposes federalizing national guard troops without the persmission of a governor. He made it clear when he was interviewed on The Terry Anderson Show that he would only support national guard troops guarding the border if a governor gave permission for those troops to be used. If Ron Paul were elected president, not only would there not be any members of the United States military guarding the Mexican border against entry by illegal aliens, there might also be no national guard troops protecting the Mexican border if no governors gave permission for their national guard units to be present on the Mexican border.

Tom Tancredo does support enforcing the laws on the books. While Ron Paul was voting to reward hundereds of thousands of illegal aliens with amnesty that have broken this nation's immigration laws, Tom Tancredo was voting agsinst the legislation that contained those amnesties.

While Tom Tancredo was opposing legislation that would have nearly doubled the number of high-tech H-!B foreign worker, Ron Paul was voting to support such legislation.

Placing the United States military on the border to stop illegal aliens from entering this country does not violate the Posse Commitatus Act. Neither you nor any other Ron Paul supporter has posted any language from the Posse Commitatus Act or the constitution that prohibits the president from using the military to stop the entry of illegal aliens into the Unted States.'

The Posse Commitatus Act was never intended to prohibit the commander-in-chief from using the military to secure this nation's borders.

There are no court decisions that support your claim that it is unlawful for this nation's military to protect its citizens from the unlawful entry of illegal aliens into this country.

Copied below are portion of the NumbersUSA webpage that addresses Ron Paul's voting record on legal and illegal immigration:

Nearly doubled H-1B foreign
high-tech workers in 1998
Rep. Paul helped the House pass H.R.3736. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years. Although the foreign workers receive temporary visas for up to six years, most historically have found ways to stay permanently in this country. Rep. Paul voted for more foreign workers even though U.S. high tech workers over the age of 50 were suffering 17% unemployment and U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.



Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans
to make room for foreign workers
Before the House passed the H-1B doubling bill (H.R.3736), Rep. Paul had an opportunity to vote for a Watt Substitute bill that would have forbidden U.S. firms from using temporary foreign workers to replace Americans. Rep. Paul opposed that protection. The substitute also would have required U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Rep. Paul voted against that. The protections for American workers fell 33 votes short of passing.



Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005
Rep. Paul voted against the Hunter Amendment to H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Hunter Amendment would shore up security by building fences and other physical infrastructure to keep out illegal aliens. Specifically, it mandates the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border. As well, it includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border. The Hunter Amendment passed by a vote of 260-159.



Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2005
Rep. Paul voted against the H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 245-184.



Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 2004
Rep. Paul voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 231-191.



Voted against extending a voluntary workplace verification pilot program in 2003
Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 2359, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003. H.R. 2359 would extend for five years the voluntary workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. This program is an important component of preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from those who have the legal right to work in this country. H.R. 2359 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 8 before being brought up on the suspension calendar. Because it was brought up on the suspension calendar, no amendments were allowed to be offered to the bill and the bill needed a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Thus, even though a majority of Representatives voted in favor of H.R. 2359 (231-170), it failed because a two-thirds majority did not vote in favor of it. However, the Basic Pilot Extension Act eventually passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent as S. 1685. Then, the House passed by voice vote S. 1685 and it was signed by the President, becoming Public Law No. 108-156.


Voted against using the military to assist in border control functions in 2003
Rep. Paul voted AGAINST the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588, to authorize members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border control functions. The Goode Amendment passed the House by a vote of 250-179.



Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control efforts in 2002
Rep. Paul voted against H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain circumstances, to assist the Bureau of Border Security and U.S. Customs Service of the Department of Homeland Security on preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Goode of Virginia, passed the House by a vote of 232-183.



Voted FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty
for illegal aliens in 2002
Rep. Paul voted FOR H RES 365, which was brought up and passed in a new form in March of 2002. The vote in favor of the bill was a vote in favor of rewarding illegal aliens via a four-month reinstatement of Section 245(i). That is an expired immigration provision that allows illegal aliens with qualified relatives or employers in the U.S. to pay a $1,000 fine, to apply for a green card in this country, and to be allowed to stay in this country without fear of deportation until their turn arrives for a green card years, and even decades, later. The illegal aliens also would not have to go through the usual security screening in U.S. embassies in their home countries. The lowest estimate from supporters of the bill was that some 200,000 illegal aliens would benefit. H RES 365 included language that would implement some important visa-tracking regulations helpful to discouraging illegal immigration. But all of those provisions had already been passed previously in H.R. 3525, making the assistance to illegal aliens the sole purpose of the bill.

Rep. Paul was one of 275 Representatives who voted in favor of the 245(i) amnesty. The bill narrowly passed by a vote of 275 to 137 (a two-thirds majority was needed in order to pass).



Voted in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i) in 2001
Rep. Paul voted on the floor of the House IN FAVOR OF a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1885, a four-month extension of Section 245(i), which is a de facto amnesty in that current federal policy did not deport illegal aliens once they applied for Section 245(i) and allowed them to remain in the U.S. for years until they were allowed to become official immigrants. The vote on the four-month extension represented a compromise of the White House push for a longer extension. Even though the four month extension was better than a year-long or permanent extension, it still would have resulted in at least 200,000 more people being added to the country through illegal immigration. Rep. Paul was part of a 336-43 majority voting in favor of the four-month extension of Section 245(i). It did not become law, though.



Voted AGAINST authorizing troops on the border in 2001.
Rep. Paul voted not to enforce the border by voting AGAINST the Traficant amendment to HR 2586. This amendment authorized the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 173, but this measure was never considered by the Senate.



Voted in 2000 against authorizing troops on the border.

Rep. Paul voted AGAINST enforcing the border by opposing the Traficant amendment to H.R.4205. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assign, under certain circumstances, members of the Armed Forces to assist the INS with border control duties. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 243 to 183, but the Clinton Administration never chose to exercise this power.



Voted against authorizing the use of troops on the border in 1999
Rep. Paul voted against the Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. This amendment authorized the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Border Patrol and Customs Service only in drug interdiction and counter terrorism activities along our borders. The Traficant amendment passed by a vote of 242 to 181.



Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien
Section 245(i) program in 1997
Given the chance to vote against a notorious pro-illegal immigration program called Section 245(i), Rep. Paul declined. The Section 245(i) program dealt with certain illegal aliens who were on lists that could qualify them eventually for legal residency. It provided them a loophole in which they could pay a fee and avoid a 1996 law’s provision that punishes illegal aliens by barring them for 10 years from entering the U.S. on a legal visa as a student, tourist, worker or immigrant. The controversial experimental program was supposed to “sunsetâ€

You know what? This doesn't serve any purpose. Support the guy you've decided on and stop all this mud slinging on two decent men who I feel are the only few candidates who are actually concerned about our country.

I wouldn't dare stand in judgement of someone who might have gone through a depression. It's a mental illness and not everyone would be comfortable even admitting that fact. So I'm giving Tancredo the benefit of the doubt here.

As far as Ron Paul being for illegal immigration is complete bull. He stated his positions and I'm sure there were other amendments in those bills that he was uncomfortable with, so stop jumping to conclusions when you don't have all the facts yet.

We're all on the same side here people, remember?

Not sure why you keep coming back to engage me directly in the forum and seem to not let it die, but I've indicated to the good folks running this forum that I won't entertain any more of your personal attacks and juvenile foolishness, and I suggest you take your games to a more appropriate venue or find someone else willing to waste their time on such foolishness.

Apologies to those who had to put up with this nonsense. I'm clearly attempting to avoid the issue and respect the forum and it's participants. That makes one of us. Sorry folks...

You posted the following: "Sure, we need military securing our borders, but not from civilians. Border Patrol and legislation." Would those civilians about which you are speaking be illegal aliens? Gee, I don't usually refer to illegal aliens simply as civilians.

"Gee", crack a book, namely, a dictionary:

civilian

ci·vil·ian [ si vÃ*llyÉ™n ] (plural ci·vil·ians)
noun

Definition:
nonsoldier: a citizen who is not a member of the armed forces
[Early 14th century. < Old French civilien "of civil law" < civil "civil" < Latin civilis (see civil)]

Cleary your confusion on what a civilian is intentional and self-inflicted. This game isn't fooling anyone, and if you are truly that devoid of comprehension, I'm not going to continue to re-type what I've said over and over and over again for your personal benefit. Get someone to help you with the big words if you need to, but I'm not going to retype my position on anything for you. Period.

I supported ALIPAC financially when it was in its infancy. I joined the forums on April 27, 2005. You joined the forums on June 26, 2007.

I'm sure you're very impressed with yourself. Congratulations. You'd think in that amount of time you'd have learned how to act like a reasonable adult and not initiate personal attacks on other members who are here for the very same reasons you're presumably here, to combat illegal immigration.

I never directed a single post to you until you posted comments directed at me. I have never commented upon nor mentioned any of your posts in any of my posts until you posted comments directed at me.

Who cares. Non-point. Next.

In both this thread and another entitled "How can the army aiding Border Patrol be unconstitutional?", you posted comments directed to me, though I had never posted a word about you or to you in those threads.

Yeah, get used to it. It's a forum. It's for addressing others en masse, otherwise we'd all be writing this stuff in our personal journals and tucking them under our beds to keep 'em a secret, wouldn't we?


The fact of the matter is that you didn't like what I had to say and went off on a hysterical, emotional tirade of personal attacks on me over it.

Look, you're clearly a bit too sensitive to be posting where others can share their knowledge and respond to ideas, as evidenced by the juvenile tirade you engaged in here earlier today and are now attempting to justify with your doublespeak.

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your ridiculous irrelevant post as casual perusal shows it's the same thing, over, and over, and over, and over, ad infinitum.

You're here in a forum. Make a comment, expect a response. Because it doesn't include my lips on your arse doesn't make it personal attack, nor does it give you permission to engage in such nonsense.

This will be the last response you'll get from me on anything. Period. You've gained no points and earned no respect from me, nor likely from anyone who bothered to waste time reading our "tit for tat" engagement you initiated.

Good day, Ma'am.

Originally Posted by Sam-I-am

I would like to see proof of ALL the below. Since you made the accusations you have the onus of proving them.

Originally Posted by HarmFamily

Ah, no deal. Well then, have at it, however:

Tancredo is mentally ill by his own admission

Tancredo supported Vietnam, but refused to serve

Tancredo avoided his DUTY to serve in our military because he was "depressed"

It's a matter of public record, but it's here if you'd like to challenge it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo

Thank you, drive through.

Originally Posted by MW

HarmFamily wrote:

To ask me "Geez, is it your desire to have even more dope pushers selling to children and more kids using?" is not only personally insulting

I apologize for insulting you, however, I will not apologize for my views on ILLEGAL DRUGS.

[quote:2pk3b23l]It makes NO sense to indicate that legalization of marijuana would lead to children "sneaking pot" from their parents. If they would do so, THEY'D BE DOING IT NOW TOO.

Sorry, it makes complete sense to me. Guess I'll just have to live with the fact that some will perceive my logic as nonsense. As for children stealing pot from their parents - well, none of my children ever acquired as much as a seed from my house. [/quote:2pk3b23l]

No problem MW, thanks for the response. I would never expect someone to apologize for their personal views. Certainly you're entitled to yours as I am to mine. Thanks for engaging the topic with a level head.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, and that's ok. I don't think your logic is nonsense per se, just that based on the facts that I have on the subject I don't think it's founded with regard to kids stealing pot from parents suddenly becoming a major avenue for kids to get marijuana if it were legalized. The data shows the opposite, that in fact, take Amsterdam for instance, that amongst teenagers, marijuana usage is reduced and far less than it is compared to the U.S. The data is there to support my assertion.

Anyhow, this probably isn't the forum for this discussion, but thanks for engaging on it. Let's move on, shall we?

Thanks all,
HF

Originally Posted by Sam-I-am

I would like to see proof of ALL the below. Since you made the accusations you have the onus of proving them.

Originally Posted by HarmFamily

Ah, no deal. Well then, have at it, however:

Tancredo is mentally ill by his own admission

Tancredo supported Vietnam, but refused to serve

Tancredo avoided his DUTY to serve in our military because he was "depressed"

The Wikipedia entry on Rep. Tancredo states the following: "Tancredo eventually received a "1-Y" mental health deferment after telling doctors during his physical that he had a history of mental illness and had been treated for depression."

The Denver Post Article that is listed as the source for the that information in the Wikipedia entry states the following: "Tancredo said he went for his physical, telling doctors he'd been treated for depression, and eventually got a "1-Y" deferment."

The Denver Post article mentions nothing about Rep. Tancredo telling doctors that he had a history of mental illness.

Harm Family, somehow I doubt that this will be the last response from you that I will receive. You directed these words "I'm not going to waste any more time on this" to me prior to your latest post directed to me. I look forward to you actually abiding by your promise and not responding to any of my posts.

I had never posted any comments directed at you in any thread nor had I ever made any comments about you in any thread prior to you posted the following comment to me: "How hard is THAT to wrap your head around?" That comment made by you is interesting in light of your comments about "personal attacks and juvenile foolishness", epecially when one considers that you made that comment to me at a time when I had never posted a comment to you or about you.

I don't intend to stop posting at this forum based upon a suggestion by you that I do so. In more than two years of posting here, you are the first person that ever chose to intiate an attack upon me and did so when I had never posted a word to you or about you. Further, you did so after having joined these forums twenty-five (25) days ago.

I'm glad that you are able to use a dictionary. I never stated that illegal aliens weren't civilians. Illegal aliens are civilians. I said that I don't usually refer to illegal aliens as civilians. When I'm speaking about illegal aliens, I call them illegal aliens. If you want to refer to illegal aliens as civilians, immigrants, undocumented immigrants or undocumented workers, those are certainly choices you can make. I will continue to refer to illegal aliens as illegal aliens.

"The fact of the matter is that you didn't like what I had to say and went off on a hysterical, emotional tirade of personal attacks on me over it." My words in the post to which you responded by among other things saying ""How hard is THAT to wrap your head around?" were merely that "If he is elected president, Rep, Tom Tancredo will put the United Stares military on the southern border to help stop the invasion of our southern border." Apparently, you believe those words I wrote about Rep. Tancredo justified you launching into an attack upon me.

I believe that the military should be used to stop illegal aliens, as well as marijuana and other illegal drugs from entering this country. You and Ron Paul believe both that the military should not be used to stop illegal aliens from entering this country and that marijuana should be legalized.

I guess that's the end of Tancredo's presidential bid then. I can't see him winning the presidency w/those skeletons in his closet. I'd still vote for him, but I can't see him getting the kind of support he needs to win the presidency.

Do you still think Tancredo has a chance?

Originally Posted by tancredofan

The Wikipedia entry on Rep. Tancredo states the following: "Tancredo eventually received a "1-Y" mental health deferment after telling doctors during his physical that he had a history of mental illness and had been treated for depression."

The Denver Post Article that is listed as the source for the that information in the Wikipedia entry states the following: "Tancredo said he went for his physical, telling doctors he'd been treated for depression, and eventually got a "1-Y" deferment."

The Denver Post article mentions nothing about Rep. Tancredo telling doctors that he had a history of mental illness.

Originally Posted by Sam-I-am

I guess that's the end of Tancredo's presidential bid then. I can't see him winning the presidency w/those skeletons in his closet. I'd still vote for him, but I can't see him getting the kind of support he needs to win the presidency.

Do you still think Tancredo has a chance?

Originally Posted by tancredofan

The Wikipedia entry on Rep. Tancredo states the following: "Tancredo eventually received a "1-Y" mental health deferment after telling doctors during his physical that he had a history of mental illness and had been treated for depression."

The Denver Post Article that is listed as the source for the that information in the Wikipedia entry states the following: "Tancredo said he went for his physical, telling doctors he'd been treated for depression, and eventually got a "1-Y" deferment."

The Denver Post article mentions nothing about Rep. Tancredo telling doctors that he had a history of mental illness.

I can say that this issue was fought out in great detail in Rep. Tancredo's 1998 Congressional election. I understand some people not voting for Rep. Tancredo because of this issue. I consider immigration and illegal immigration to be the number one issue facing the country. I want legal immigration reduced and I want illegal immigration stopped. I am proud that Rep. Tancredo had the courage in a presidential debate to stay that legal immigration must be reduced. Because of his position on legal and illegal immigration, as well as the fact that he is the most conservative candidate running for president, I will be voting for Rep. Tancredo.

Thanks for your respsonse.

Deleted by poster.