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

girlygirl369:

DOMESTIC protection is by the NATIONAL GUARD (states militia).

Then why is the border patrol federal and not part of the "state militia" ?

It's an international border - not a domestic border

Ron Paul has a flawed interpretation of the constitution and will not get my vote

Originally Posted by Shapka

Originally Posted by BrightNail

The reason we were attacked and the reason we are hated is because of our international nation building philosophy. As noted, our sanctions in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east, have resulted in the deaths of 100's of thousands of civilians... yes, think on that.

There's not much to "think on" since your assertions are completely and utterly without merit

1. The sanctions regime was instituted after the conclusion of the First Persian Gulf War, which-need I remind you-was initiated by the Hussein regime. They were enforced with the consent of the United Nations Security Council, of which the United States is but one member.

2. The amount of people who starved to death because of international sanctions is a subject of some dispute-although I'm glad that you boned up on this issue enough to invoke the sparkingly precise "hundreds of thousands" figure, good job there-but what is not subject to dispute is the fact that Saddam Hussein, with the connivance of an inherently corrupt U.N. bureaucracy and with the assistance of a multitude of avaricious foreign allies, diverted most of the funds that should have devoted to feeding his people to opulent palaces and sex orgies for his masochistic, demented heirs.

3. What "nation-building" philosophy would be that? Your contention is that containing Iraq somehow provoked the 9/11 massacre initiated by a Saudi terror kingpin living in Afghanistan so I can only assume that you believe this ill will existed prior to our second invasion of and subsequent occupation of Iraq. What "nation-building" were we doing in Iraq, which was not occupied at the time, which engendered such enmity, just out of curiosity?

This is the same argument as who has more of a right, the palestinians or Israel and who is the in the wrong and who isn't.

Al Queda is as strong or strong NOW than they were before 9/11. Apparently, something is wrong - wouldn't you agree? I am not gonna get into a discussion with you by discussion what came first, then what follows because at that point its all semantics.

first off, as has been completely verified.. Iraq was not behind 9/11 --> okay, so now what? Why are we there? To nation build? To secure ourselves from terrorism? well, america didn't really have a big terror problem here at home, did we? And don't bring up the puerto rican terrorist groups. So why are we in Iraq? Now we are considering pre-emptive strikes on Iran... Our whole foreign policy stinks. because we use force and embargos or whatever to faciliate change...

Some intervention is needed, no doubt.. nobody is saying otherwise.. but what really is the topic is 9/11 --> How was Iraq involved?

The bases we have have been attacked, or outposts we man, have been attacked.. but aren't they ALL on contested land? So, we set up bases to protect what? Oil? Israel? who what? special interests?

Originally Posted by Once_A_Democrat

girlygirl369:

DOMESTIC protection is by the NATIONAL GUARD (states militia).

Then why is the border patrol federal and not part of the "state militia" ?

It's an international border - not a domestic border

Ron Paul has a flawed interpretation of the constitution and will not get my vote

Well, that is your decision. But are you look at the whole picture?

I am not sure how specific he can get..

"Border Security and
Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure
borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines.
We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials
must track visa holders and deport
anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans
have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive
to enter the U.S. illegally will remain
strong.
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current
system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow
up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage
Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods"

Also, the national guard consists of the army and air force.... so, keep that in mind.

Also, Ron Paul understands that you have to do "other" things.. such as end birthright citizenship (actually amend the constitution - not the other bills that can easily be changed), end ALL services for illegals.. these are HUGE at ending the influx..... So, while there are obvious 'haters' on Ron Paul - look at the whole picture. Just putting military on the border ain't gonna do it... Not sure what the big difference between army and air force national guard and the military is.. maybe somebody can let me know.

Also, Tancredo does not support leaving NAFTA - so go figure.[/b]

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)

Originally Posted by BrightNail

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.

I think everyone here on this site (other than the illegal trolls), have the same view. ANY of these 3 is the only viable option. However, up to seeing some fallout from the primaries, we can not say where any of them actually ARE at with the primary voters. I know that Tom has done very well here in IA (when some actual people have been polled), and I also know that Ron has done well on some internet polls.

I have met Tom several times (some MMP events), and have done volunteer work for him. I do know that Ron also has many volunteers in his corner.

I certainly hope that the 3 do merge into a "viable" candidate. Actually, I hope they merge into a true ticket, even during the primaries.

I would certainly like to see a ticket with 2 out of these 3 on it. I believe it would be able to tromp on billery or whatever talking head is put out by the donkeys.

H.

well, I have been reading that Tancredo and Paul are friends.. so, I am sure or hope.. that if either of them drop, they will support the other.

I think Ghouliani will loose some support ove the firemens debacle and other things.... but you know, other than the internet.. I have not SEEN anything about the latest news regarding him. Have you?

Originally Posted by BrightNail

well, I have been reading that Tancredo and Paul are friends.. so, I am sure or hope.. that if either of them drop, they will support the other.

I think Ghouliani will loose some support ove the firemens debacle and other things.... but you know, other than the internet.. I have not SEEN anything about the latest news regarding him. Have you?

I am pretty sure that outside of NYC, Ghouliani will not do well. Once the media is not able to sugar coat his backside (i.e. he gets blown out on actual poles), then he will sink as fast as McLame.

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

H.

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

Originally Posted by nntrixie

We have supported Israel for all this time. Israel probably would not exist today without US support. However you might stand on that issue - that is the truth.

No, it isn't.

It's completely wrong-as are most of the other assertions you've made-but since we've already veered far off-topic I'll leave it at that.

Can't you/they see all this is doing is squandering our/their support?

We need a full ticket, my choice would be Hunter/Tancredo, but I realize that Ron Paul has a hardcore following, so aslong as Hunter or Tancredo were on the Paul ticket I'd consider supporting it. Paul isn't my first choice but realizing the movement he has, we could be smart to play on it.

Until I see a full ticket though my support still lies with Hunter.