Thread: Shocking Lou Dobbs Video! Opinions Needed ASAP

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by cynthiatweedle

Originally Posted by SwimMan

I didn't like his attitude toward the interviewer. She kept her cool, I thought, but he got impatient, and upset with her bringing up the past, which is understandable, but the way he handled it still bothered me. By the end, I was doubting his sincerity. I don't know--at least SHE conceded that he had made his points, but he would never seem to concede to ANYTHING she said. [b] Confused is my response. I was impressed with her more that him, really, yet I DEFINITELY SUPPORT A MUCH NEEDED PLAN TO HALT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. I feel more comfortable supporting YOUR efforts than him as a person or viable candidate.] Make any sense??????

It makes perfect sense. ALIPAC has managed without Dobbs before and can do it again.

Well, Cynthia, that's really not true. So far, ALIPAC has managed without anyone in the White House in our camp and of course will continue to do so if that condition persists. But ALIPAC was created after Lou Dobbs was attacking illegal immigration on CNN and on his radio show, not before. So in actuality, ALIPAC has never functioned without Lou Dobbs on CNN and his radio show beating this issue to death every single day, with reruns, so we're entering a new era without Lou Dobbs on television any more.

I found ALIPAC without any help from Dobbs at all. It's too bad he didn't work with ALIPAC and send his supporters our way but he did NOT even bring ALIPAC up until near the end. My impression was that Dobbs wanted his own audience separate from what others were doing. I agreed with him on most issues but the man was NOT perfect. It's a shame he has ruined his reputation, but it was his own doing and the impression made on the public at large is negative. He's a lame duck candidate now. Accept your loses and move on. To drag your feet may keep you from recognizing a more viable candidate.

I was disappointed about the interview on Telemundo with Lou Dobbs....but considering the young lady (Marie) who was interviewing him and the stupid questions she was throwing at him and her "racist" attitude and rudeness.....I am willing to give him some slack on his responses.

Four years ago there was very little being reported about the border and illegal issues...but then the border watches began in 2005 and the two most outspoken TV news personalities in support of getting the word out were Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs. I was very impressed with Dobbs' investigations and reporting about what was going on at the borders and all over the country. For that....I am grateful and am not willing to condemn him yet until I hear more from him on these issues. I would like to see Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and some of the other talk show hosts have him on their TV and radio shows and allow him to explain his comments on Telemundo. Marie was a smartmouthed, rude young lady who was not being "fair and balanced" and I was more outraged at her stupid questions/comments and actions than I was with Dobbs. (She reminded me of Bill O'Reilly and his penchant for interrupting his guests....but worse!!)

As far as running for office....I would prefer to see Lou Dobbs in Congress where he could do the most good. Our country needs conservative reps and senators in Congress who can block Obama's outrageous actions until he is kicked out or voted out of office!!! When the rubber meets the road....I believe Dobbs will still be on our side!!! I'm not willing to sack him yet!!!

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by yankee0001

I like Ron Paul for his economic stance and agree with him on many national issues, but some of his foreign policy opinions are a little too far-fetched for me. Chuck Baldwin needs to make a name for himself first. Even I barely know what this guy is all about. I also liked Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson for President. The problem with some of the best names we can come up with is the reality that they don't stand a snowballs chance in he** because they are relatively unknowns. I understand that they are relatively unknowns because the liberal media won't give them the time of day, but the inconvenient truth still remains that most of our nations voters are sadly lacking in enough education to vote for representatives based on their stances on the issues, and the paths they intend to take this nation on. Knowing this, we need someone who is well-known, likable by most people, and is unwavering in their commitment to our nation and the values most of us hold dear. Kind of like a Ronald Reagan type. As we can see, this is not easy to do.

Yet, Ronald Reagan signed the first amnesty for illegal aliens in our nation's history, and a lot of people don't know that he was a Democrat before he became a Republican or that Ron Paul voted against making E-Verify mandatory and that he and Chuck Baldwin both support unrestricted free trade treason that's sucked 40 million jobs out of the United States. We're deep into our Period of Ironies and Opposites and Rushes to Judgments are Very Risky Business.

This is news to me that Baldwin was all free trade. His stance on a variety of issues was very much like Lou Dobbs. He impressed me with his savy and knowledge on these issues. He may or may not make it up there as a well known, but who's fault is that. If the rest of the conservative talk show hosts would build him up he could take off like Huckabee did until we found out his history. People just use the excuse well he couldn't make it and give up. How can we make changes when people think like that???

Lou Dobbs was in the hot seat so-to-speak, and I think he did very well correcting the false or inaccurate statements that was brought before him. I don't see him as abandoning his beliefs about the illegal alien invasion and the need for border control. He still stands strong on his beliefs. Remember, he may be running for office (Senate or President) and he will be for his beliefs,a nd the middleclass as he said when he told us he was leaving CNN..

Originally Posted by CruiserCT

Lou Dobbs was in the hot seat so-to-speak, and I think he did very well correcting the false or inaccurate statements that was brought before him. I don't see him as abandoning his beliefs about the illegal alien invasion and the need for border control. He still stands strong on his beliefs. Remember, he may be running for office (Senate or President) and he will be for his beliefs,a nd the middleclass as he said when he told us he was leaving CNN..

He ruined himself on amnesty. Do you understand what an amnesty is??

CruiserCT,

I agree, it was a hostile interview.

Dixie

Originally Posted by yankee0001

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by yankee0001

I like Ron Paul for his economic stance and agree with him on many national issues, but some of his foreign policy opinions are a little too far-fetched for me. Chuck Baldwin needs to make a name for himself first. Even I barely know what this guy is all about. I also liked Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson for President. The problem with some of the best names we can come up with is the reality that they don't stand a snowballs chance in he** because they are relatively unknowns. I understand that they are relatively unknowns because the liberal media won't give them the time of day, but the inconvenient truth still remains that most of our nations voters are sadly lacking in enough education to vote for representatives based on their stances on the issues, and the paths they intend to take this nation on. Knowing this, we need someone who is well-known, likable by most people, and is unwavering in their commitment to our nation and the values most of us hold dear. Kind of like a Ronald Reagan type. As we can see, this is not easy to do.

Yet, Ronald Reagan signed the first amnesty for illegal aliens in our nation's history, and a lot of people don't know that he was a Democrat before he became a Republican or that Ron Paul voted against making E-Verify mandatory and that he and Chuck Baldwin both support unrestricted free trade treason that's sucked 40 million jobs out of the United States. We're deep into our Period of Ironies and Opposites and Rushes to Judgments are Very Risky Business.

Very good Judy. Thank you for that. Yes, I am no expert either and I did not know many of the additional items you just stated. Although I trust your statements, I would have to verify them first (as any good researcher should). Unfortunately, I am out of energy at 12:30am my time. It does go to show that debate and gaining knowledge is the best medicine this country can ask for and that there are no perfect candidates to root for at this point in time. We do seem to see eye-to-eye on many of the issues though, which is great. Have a great weekend!

You're most welcome.

Here's a link on Chuck Baldwin and his unrestricted free trade position, just like Ron Paul's.

Baldwin: ‘Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none’
June 3rd, 2008 · 11 Comments

While speaking with a group of Ron Paul Meetup members, Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin fielded questions on medical marijuana and foreign policy.

Of medical marijuana, he said it was a “state’s issueâ€

[quote="Judy"]

Here's a link on Chuck Baldwin and his unrestricted free trade position, just like Ron Paul's.

Baldwin: ‘Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none’
June 3rd, 2008 · 11 Comments

While speaking with a group of Ron Paul Meetup members, Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin fielded questions on medical marijuana and foreign policy.

Of medical marijuana, he said it was a “state’s issueâ€

The following information is for those who are unfamiliar with previous amnesties....and if you notice....all but one was granted in Bill Clinton's time in office:

(According to www.kateraynor.com/articles/usa-amnesty.html)

When the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, it was only meant to be a “one timeâ€

Originally Posted by cynthiatweedle

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by yankee0001

I like Ron Paul for his economic stance and agree with him on many national issues, but some of his foreign policy opinions are a little too far-fetched for me. Chuck Baldwin needs to make a name for himself first. Even I barely know what this guy is all about. I also liked Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson for President. The problem with some of the best names we can come up with is the reality that they don't stand a snowballs chance in he** because they are relatively unknowns. I understand that they are relatively unknowns because the liberal media won't give them the time of day, but the inconvenient truth still remains that most of our nations voters are sadly lacking in enough education to vote for representatives based on their stances on the issues, and the paths they intend to take this nation on. Knowing this, we need someone who is well-known, likable by most people, and is unwavering in their commitment to our nation and the values most of us hold dear. Kind of like a Ronald Reagan type. As we can see, this is not easy to do.

Yet, Ronald Reagan signed the first amnesty for illegal aliens in our nation's history, and a lot of people don't know that he was a Democrat before he became a Republican or that Ron Paul voted against making E-Verify mandatory and that he and Chuck Baldwin both support unrestricted free trade treason that's sucked 40 million jobs out of the United States. We're deep into our Period of Ironies and Opposites and Rushes to Judgments are Very Risky Business.

This is news to me that Baldwin was all free trade. His stance on a variety of issues was very much like Lou Dobbs. He impressed me with his savy and knowledge on these issues. He may or may not make it up there as a well known, but who's fault is that. If the rest of the conservative talk show hosts would build him up he could take off like Huckabee did until we found out his history. People just use the excuse well he couldn't make it and give up. How can we make changes when people think like that???

I know Cynthia, but Chuck Baldwin was definitely for unrestricted free trade and I posted his statement on the subject in my post above. He is for "free trade with all, alliances with none". This is the "sky is the limit" for globalists policy, just like Ron Paul's which of course will as it has bankrupt the United States.

It's up to US to make the changes. It's up to US to demand restoration of protected trade policies that tell all these scum bags, if you want to sell it here, then by God you're going to make it here with American Workers. These people have tried to turn the word "protectionism" into a dirty word, when in reality it's the life-blood of the US economy and we have 233 years of economic evidence to prove it. When we don't protect our trade, we go bankrupt. It's just that simple and has always been just that simple.

Now, take Lou Dobbs, a life-time Republican protectionist. That has value for the American People. That with securing our borders and enforcing US immigration law is a real solution to the recreation of 40 million good jobs for American Workers if he would follow through on it, and I believe he would just as I believe he will.

I want to send that message to every candidate in every election that stopping illegal immigration and restoring protected trade policies are winning platforms, because the number one issue with our country is lack of sustainable employment and that problem gets solved by these two positions. We also need to pass the FairTax so we can welcome our industries home and tell them, we don't need you to pay tax and control our government, we need you to produce, serve, hire and pay your bills and payrolls on time, and when you do we will work hard for you and use our wages and earnings which are also tax free under the FairTax, to buy your American Made products and hire your American Provided services.

If we can find a Presidential candidate who will just stand up for these 3 simple things to start with:

1. stop illegal immigration
2. pass the FairTax
3. protect our trade

then we can and will have the country we all grew up with and dreamed about, where everyone who wanted or needed a job had one, and when they got one, they could live and pay their bills and move on and up from there without turning to the government for hand-outs, subsidies and entitlements that have bankrupted our treasuries.

And the rest of the details of immigration policy we'll figure out when we get to that point. The first thing we have to do is find a Presidential candidate who will secure the borders, stop illegal immigration, enforce our laws, deport illegal aliens under the rule of law and oppose amnesty at least until our borders are secure and illegal immigration has stopped, THEN, see what needs to be done on a "humane" basis under conditions. I oppose anything but deportation, but if someone will promise to secure the borders and stop illegal immigration, I'm willing to fight them on the "legalization under conditions" while they're in the White House if they try to "legalize" the remainder years from now when we are hopefully at that point of succeeding with our goals.