Thread: THE CNN DEBATES

PineStrawGuys wrote:

Ron Paul has an excellent shot at winning because his message has ENERGIZED all of us.

His voting record on illegal immigration/border security certainly hasn't "ENERGIZED" me.

I haven't made up my mind yet - but I am leaning toward Paul.

But when we say their voting record says it all - it really doesn't - unless we know exactly everything that is in that bill. If we have read all the bills and know what is there and still want it passed, then base it on the voting record.

The border fence sounded so good - really good - until you look at it.
We have had 'border security' waved around in our faces as if they voted in the fence - so everything is fine. The fence is a good idea - but a long term idea. They haven't even gotten it designed yet - and it will only be a mile a day - that's 365 miles in a year. It's better than nothing - but barely without strong interior enforcement.

nntrixie wrote:

But when we say their voting record says it all - it really doesn't - unless we know exactly everything that is in that bill. If we have read all the bills and know what is there and still want it passed, then base it on the voting record.

The man has voted on amnesty (that's unexcusable in my book). That alone should be enough to disqualify him from consideration with most hardline amnesty opponents. Personally, I won't vote for anyone that has voted for amnesty in any shape or form.

IMO, if you want the true position of where an individual sitting in the Oval Office is going to land on the issues that are important to you, it would be in your best interest to assign a lot higher value to his voting record and less to his campaign rhetoric. How can the elimination process get the justice it deserves when folks decide to ignore past occurrence?

These were not all bills, some were amendments.

Amendments:

- Voted against an amendment to reduce funding for the visa waver program.

- Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005.

- Voted against amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2005.

- Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Bills:

- Cosponsored legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006 (H.R. 793).

- Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998 (H.R.3736).
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 FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in 2002.

- Voted in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i) in 2001 (de facto amnesty as defined by NumbersUSA).

- Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien Section 245(i) program in 1997.

The voting bill and amendment information was taken from NumberUSA.

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=787

I realize all the candidates have strengths and weaknesses (most seem to have more weaknesses than strengths, IMO), however, I consider a person disingenuous when his campaign rhetoric differs noticeably from his actual voting record. For those that want to make excuse for someones voting record, I would humbly ask that evidence be provided that would justify the individual votes, not obfuscation of the issue with extraneous information and excuses.

Originally Posted by MW

nntrixie wrote:

But when we say their voting record says it all - it really doesn't - unless we know exactly everything that is in that bill. If we have read all the bills and know what is there and still want it passed, then base it on the voting record.

The man has voted on amnesty (that's unexcusable in my book). That alone should be enough to disqualify him from consideration with most hardline amnesty opponents. Personally, I won't vote for anyone that has voted for amnesty in any shape or form.

IMO, if you want the true position of where an individual sitting in the Oval Office is going to land on the issues that are important to you, it would be in your best interest to assign a lot higher value to his voting record and less to his campaign rhetoric. How can the elimination process get the justice it deserves when folks decide to ignore past occurrence?

These were not all bills, some were amendments.

Amendments:

- Voted against an amendment to reduce funding for the visa waver program.

- Voted on House floor against amendment to increase security with border fence in 2005.

- Voted against amendment to fund program to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2005.

- Voted against authorizing the use of the military to assist in border control functions in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Bills:

- Cosponsored legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006 (H.R. 793).

- Nearly doubled H-1B foreign high-tech workers in 1998 (H.R.3736).
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 FOR Section 245(i), a form of amnesty for illegal aliens in 2002.

- Voted in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i) in 2001 (de facto amnesty as defined by NumbersUSA).

- Voted AGAINST killing pro-illegal-alien Section 245(i) program in 1997.

The voting bill and amendment information was taken from NumberUSA.

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfil ... &VIPID=787

I realize all the candidates have strengths and weaknesses (most seem to have more weaknesses than strengths, IMO), however, I consider a person disingenuous when his campaign rhetoric differs noticeably from his actual voting record. For those that want to make excuse for someones voting record, I would humbly ask that evidence be provided that would justify the individual votes, not obfuscation of the issue with extraneous information and excuses.

The Isaeli Palestine thing was enough for me .

But after reading this, I don't even want him for vice President !

I am now down to 2 possibles , Hunter and Tancredo , Hunter being my favorite so far .

I always liked Anderson Cooper. His integrity is now on the line because he let Hill's shills ask questions at a Republican debate. What a shame.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

The post-debate talk a guy named "Jeffrey Toobin" calls Ron a KOOK for talking about the NAU and the Superhiway saying that he is a kook for talking about such things. This is what we are all up against. I am not talking about Ron Paul, but how the MSM tries to tell the masses this is 'crazy and kooky' stuff. Nevermind that THEY used the youtube question. So, they 'ask' the question and then call him a kook for answering it.. uhmmm. yeah right.

Also, its true.... It was a show for those who the MSM want to see win.

What a shame. The only three not sold out to the CFR are pretty much ingored in the debates....

You know what's so ridiculous about this whole thing with Toobin? Lou Dobbs has been reporting about the NAU for the past 2 or 3 years now. On CNN!! Yet here you have Toobin working at CNN as a political analyst completely ignoring this fact. What an idiot! Too bad we can't get this out nationally because it would make him look like a complete fool.

Originally Posted by MW

minnie wrote:

I'm talking about THIS war.
I don't believe 9/11 was an islam terrorist job.
I believe it was an INSIDE job.

Okay, humor us, minnie, who was responsible for blowing up the WTC? Also, if the folks who were responsible for 9/11 weren't Muslim terrorist, who were they?

Is it safe to assume then, that you believe the official 9-11 Commission report? Many Americans do not. Personally, I became suspicious when they fought tooth and nail to even HAVE an investigation.

Consider the following:

Event: Sinking of the Titanic.
Number of days after an independent investigation was ordered: 6

Event: JFK Assassination.
Number of days after an independent investigation was ordered: 7

Event: Challenger Disaster.
Number of days after an independent investigation was ordered: 7

Event: Pearl Harbor Attack.
Number of days after an independent investigation was ordered: 9

Event: 9-11.
Number of days after an independent investigation was ordered: 441

Maybe it's me, but if you've got nothing to hide why then such resistance?
Whether it was Muslim terrorists or not, something is not right here. That's all I'm saying...