Thread: How we stand on Lou Dobbs

Originally Posted by GR

Personally, I still agree with Lou.

There are those who officially speak for ALIPAC, and that is not me, because I'm not of a level within ALIPAC to do so.

As far as I know, Lou was suppose to have made references that he agreed with a form of amnesty for illegal aliens.

Do not quote me on that, because it could have been some other issue.

Though, before Lou left CNN I did hear him be rather soft on illegal aliens, however it was a fleeting moment in my experience of him.

Furthermore, I am totally against any form of amnesty for any illegal aliens.

Here's why.

The illegal alien invasion that began before 1986 was already driven by mexico, though they denied it at that time. Events have occurred to prove that mexico, indeed, has taken the primary position for advocating invading America especially if you are not legally a citizen of America.

Rare few illegal aliens come through America's borders to only work.

The majority of illegal aliens have learned through those who came before them, including "the" nation of mexico who is driving the main position of leading people worldwide, who join mexico, to invade America's borders illegally.

A huge part of the mexico driven "education" of all foreign nation's fledgelings illegal aliens is to teach them all where America's tax dollar benefit offices are and where they can get fraudlent identifications in multiple forms, so they can appear to be whomever and whatever they need to be at any given moment as illegal aliens.

One could consider recent days illegal aliens as "professional illegal aliens", as they spend their lifetime in many forms of training with others who have succeeded them, and who are more than will (many times for a price) to spread the word of the . . .

All American FREEFALL LOTTO WIN tax dollar giveaway.

You agree with Lou Dobbs that we need to provide a path to citizenship for illegal aliens? If you agree with Lou on that, then ALIPAC is not place for you.

We oppose any form of Amnesty for illegal aliens especially espoused by that turncoat Lou Dobbs that had us all supporting him because we thought he was our champion but in the end he joined the Globalists.

He is very valuable to them, when he talks all tough on illegal immigration lots of people still buy it. That will be of great help to them the next time they push the Amnesty legislation forward and your boy Dobbs steps up to bat to push for passage.

If any of you are willing to let Lou Dobbs step all over good Americans that believed in him and get away with it then you will only encourage more abuse like that from these Billionaire elites like Judas Goat Dobbs.

Some of you may need to dig back into our Announcements archives and watch the Telemundo or Univision interview that ALIPAC busted Dobbs with.

Our official position on Dobbs stands here at ..
www.LouDobbsforPresident.org


W

CNN's ratings woes not limited to Campbell Brown and Larry King

July 27, 2010 | 6:20 pm

While CNN is spending much of its time focusing on jump starting its 8 and 9 p.m. hours, it might want to start paying a little more attention to the 7 and 10 p.m. hours as well. That's what a quick look at the July ratings reveals.

At 7, John King's show is off 42% in viewers and 36% in adults 25-54 from what Lou Dobbs was averaging last July, according to Nielsen. Last year, Dobbs averaged 723,000 viewers, and while that was far behind Shepherd Smith's show at Fox News, he was beating everyone else. Now, though, CNN has dropped to fourth in that hour.

Anderson Cooper also doesn't have a lot to smile about. His 10 p.m. show had a disappointing July, averaging only 575,000 viewers. Not only is that down 56% from July 2009, it is the second-least-watched month ever for Cooper who spent much of his time on the road covering the British Petroleum oil spill and the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.

CNN is working hard to revamp the 8 p.m. hour. Campbell Brown recently left her show, citing its disappointing ratings as one of the causes for her exit. CNN is going to launch a political chat show featuring former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and columnist Kathleen Parker this year. That show was seen as a shift toward the more debate and issues approach to cable news of its rivals.

Larry King also gave notice that he will be leaving the 9 p.m. hour he has anchored for over two decades this fall. However, there apparently isn't a lot of sentimentality regarding news of King's exit because his July audience was off 55%. Of course, last July King was able to milk the death of Michael Jackson for big ratings.

CNN is certainly struggling in the ratings right now and is off 53% in prime-time viewers compared to last July, but its stronger rivals can't crow too much. Fox News is still on way out on top, but its prime-time average is down 11% in viewers compared to the same month a year ago while MSNBC was off 9%. CNN's sister channel HLN saw 20% of its audience disappear.

-- Joe Flint

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... -king.html

Nobody is listening to those liberals traitors any more. They know that that whole group are working AGAINST the people of this country, not for it.

By the way, that radio show Coast to Coast did just an incredible three hour show on the illegal immigration issue last might (Aug 2). I wish a copy of that show was running non-stop 24 hours a day. Just a fantastic show. And even Jim Gilcrest -- who is another that ALIPAC has mixed feelings about, for good reason -- aquitted himself quite nicely.

Did anybody else catch that show? They covered everything. From MS-13 to the ACLU and everything in between.

While I'm at it I'd like to raise a question regarding people like Dobbs, Whitman, Gilcrest, etc -- people who maybe a lot of us feel aren't 100% on the right side of this issue. And this is a crucial question that any mass movement has to grapple with. Which is what we are now.

Bill Clinton is a total lowlife, but he's a genius politician. And he described politics thusly: "Politics is the art of 51%."

I strongly supported Poizner over Whitman in the California primary. But now I'm supporting Whitman because at least she's saying SOME of the right things. My feeling? We just need to keep pushing the ball in the general direction. As a mass movement we need to be as inclusive as possible.

How do you guys weigh in on this? Is it all or nothing with you? Or 51%?

Acebackwords wrote,

How do you guys weigh in on this? Is it all or nothing with you? Or 51%?

I would like to seperate this question in to two pieces. First, the political players, that is the personalities that will participate, ie, the politicians running for offices.

As for the politicians, Americans will have little choice when it comes time to vote. You will make your decision based on what seems best at that time,....that will be the "pushing the ball in the general direction," a non-starter, as it was the only thing to do. What will count more IMHO will be what people do after the election. Will they stay focused and continue to play ball?

The second part, I view as an issue based question. All or nothing. Period. No need backing up to run over the corpse, it is dead! Let us learn from the past and do as the progressives like to spout,..... move forward!

hardline wrote,

Righteous Republic

Where does this term originate?

Originally Posted by Acebackwords

While I'm at it I'd like to raise a question regarding people like Dobbs, Whitman, Gilcrest, etc -- people who maybe a lot of us feel aren't 100% on the right side of this issue. And this is a crucial question that any mass movement has to grapple with. Which is what we are now.

Bill Clinton is a total lowlife, but he's a genius politician. And he described politics thusly: "Politics is the art of 51%."

I strongly supported Poizner over Whitman in the California primary. But now I'm supporting Whitman because at least she's saying SOME of the right things. My feeling? We just need to keep pushing the ball in the general direction. As a mass movement we need to be as inclusive as possible.

How do you guys weigh in on this? Is it all or nothing with you? Or 51%?

With out going into details...I had a hard road here at first. But I came to respect W and the hard line Alpack policy of 100%.

Originally Posted by roundabout

hardline wrote,

Righteous Republic

Where does this term originate?

Interesting that out of the article...this is the only thing you question. But I think it is so very good to question everything and take nothing for granted.

http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverme ... ocracy.htm
In those days there was no king in Israel. Each man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25 )

The last verse of the Book of Judges is a summary, the bottom line, of the entire book. It reminds us of the repeated pattern for the previous 21 chapters. Israel kept sinning against God. But what was their problem? Why did Israel go wrong? And what does the Book of Judges, and this verse in particular, have to tell us about God’s ideal civil government – and America today?

By comparing Scripture with Scripture, one comes to the following conclusion: God’s ideal civil government is what may be called “the Righteous Republic.â€

Originally Posted by escalade

Originally Posted by HAPPY2BME

IMO, he was too close to the heat and had to get out of the kitchen.

He wants back in the pantry, but forgot how to cook. What he does cook up nowadays, most folks are afraid to eat for fear it would make them sick.

;>)

In October, 2009, Lou Dobbs home was shot at and his wife was about 15 feet away from the bullet. Dobbs announced his departure from CNN the following month. The local law enforcement and the press labeled it a stray hunters bullet. Apparently, the retreived bullet was not from a hand gun or shot gun. Dobbs felt it was retaliation from someone for his outspoken stance on lack of border security.

Geee...I guess bad guys don't use other kinds of guns...

hardline,
The term "righteous republic" caught my eye. With a little research the term, a buzz phrase, seems to imply social connotations moreso than political connotations. Which government has ever declared itself to be a righteous republican form of government? (the article was comparing forms of government)

Furthermore, it seems to be critical of Christian principles in that it has been used by social historians to veiw (from a eastern or far-eastern perspective) western imperialism led by this form of "righteous" republicanism as a means to discredit western, or more specifically, American republicanism. The critical link intended to be debunked is that the founders did indeed study and adhered to Biblical tenets to form our Constitution.

No, the founders did not give us a "righteous republic," and I do not believe there is any such thing in the political sense. Who would declare themselves righteous, let alone their form of government? But they did not give us a republic devoid of righteous tenets drawn from a Christian perspective either.

"Separation of church and state" comes to mind, only "righteous republicanism" failed to make its way into the socialists lexicon.

We are better off. JMO