Thread: Hunter and Tancredo put America first!

BrightNail wrote:

You all are getting your panties in a bunch over dubai

Do you always have to be so condescending toward others when puffing up your favorite presidential candidate?

Duncan Hunter on trade:

[quote]Keeping American Industry and Jobs in the U.S.

“American workers are the most productive and innovative labor force in the world. Unfortunately, they are asked to compete in an unfair environment against other workers who make only a fraction of a living wage and are employed by companies that face few, if any, responsibilities to the environment or the long-term prospects of their employees. Our domestic manufacturers are forced to compete against foreign companies that benefit from their country’s currency and regulatory regimes. Ominously, China is cheating on trade and using billions of American trade dollars to build ships, planes and missiles at an alarming rate while, at the same time, taking millions of American jobs. I will reverse this “one-way streetâ€

Originally Posted by MW

BrightNail wrote:

You all are getting your panties in a bunch over dubai

Do you always have to be so condescending toward others when puffing up your favorite presidential candidate?

oh no. only towards you and Duncan Hunter. I will give what I get. I dig Tancredo and regardless of others who support him saying goofy stuff, I like Tom. But Duncan will drive us into the ground with his war agenda and neo-con strings.

But when I find someone who goes out of their way to keep posting, and keep posting over and over the same stuff they posted a week ago, and then a week before - it gets tiresome.

I could literally find at least 6 or 7 of your posts in which it looks like you just cut/pasted. Every week or so, you post the same stuff. You are predictable and simplistic. The only reason you are doing it is because you fear Ron Paul stealing votes from Duncan Hunter. Thats it.

Because when we look at things logically your posting of the same stuff becomes obsessive. Hunter will drop his bid for president within a month. He barely has enough money to buy lunch. Okay, so when he drops - you will support Tancredo. Now, Tancredo has already accepted matching funds, so he has no money. He will hang around a while to promote his agenda, which is great. But he will drop too!

So, "IF" you are as read about the candidates as you say, then you know your only choice then would be Ron Paul. So, to me - the logic in which you are manuevering makes no sense. But, I get the sense that you absolutely love these wars and believe that they are 'just', so I actually see you moving towards McCain or Ghouliani. which then, it would all makes sense.

But barring those two lamebrains (mccain / ghouliani), it doesn't make sense on your tactics.

Selling off 20% of the Nasdaq has nothing to do with free trade, in fact it's utter Stupidity and Dangerous. This is no more different then selling off our ports and other stratigic interest that is vital to our security and economy. This is why our country is in the state it's in.

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Here are the answers to your questions:

Ron Paul on Trade Deals:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=12

I did not read any one article and only scanned through a couple. Seems to me that "free trade" is to eliminate taxes (tarrifs) to our citizens who are buying goods from abroad (import) and what every tarrifs (taxes) other countries put on our goods going (export) is none of our concern. I'll read more of those articles later and get back with an opinion.

In regards to your "who should own something" - is interesting. Your sentence didn't make sense, so I can't answer it unless you repost it. You mentioned something about muslims and then who whites?? not sure what all that means.

I did not state "who should own something". Muslims believe through their religion and the Koran that other races such as whites and blacks, a large population of our Sovereign Nation, are unequal to them. I do not think most of the people in this forum, especially after 911, would want a muslim based company owning portions of our infastructure such as our ports, stock exchange, or "federal reserve".

In regards to your illegal immigration not being symptom. It is, and you proved it with your wording. You disagreed with me, yet used the same wording. Illegal immigration is a Piece of the puzzle for the NAU. So illegal immigration is NOT the end plan, but a lever in the equation. It is because of the plan for the NAU that we have illegal immigration (in addition to the gov. wanting all the new people to pay into the ss system because its being robbed because of out of control spending AND to generate a cheap labour market).... BUT we are both agreeing illegal immigration IS NOT the issue in and of itself. Illegal immigration is caused for many reaons and you have to "deal" with those reasons if you want to deal with illegal immigration.

Agree only illegal immigration can also be used for other agendas, the NAU just happens to be Bushes agenda, and possibly the argument could be made that the NAU will be a symptom of continuous illegal immigration that will eventually lead to the NWO.

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Here are the answers to your questions:
Ron Paul on Trade Deals:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=12

I did not read any one article and only scanned through a couple. Seems to me that "free trade" is to eliminate taxes (tarrifs) to our citizens who are buying goods from abroad (import) and what every tarrifs (taxes) other countries put on our goods going (export) is none of our concern. I'll read more of those articles later and get back with an opinion.

From Ron Pauls library:

...When the colonies did not thrive well prior to the Constitution, two of the main reasons why the Constitutional Convention was held was, one, there was no unified currency, that provided a great deal of difficulty in trading among the States, and also trade barriers are among the States.
Even our Constitution was designed to make sure that there were not trade barriers, and this was what the interstate commerce clause was all about. Unfortunately though, in this century the interstate commerce clause has been taken and twisted around and is the excuse for regulating even trade within a State. Not only interstate trade, but even activities within a State has nothing to do with interstate trade. They use the interstate commerce clause as an excuse, which is a wild distortion of the original intent of the Constitution, but free trade among the States having a unified currency and breaking down the barriers certainly was a great benefit for the development and the industrialization of the United States...

OK I understand where Paul is coming form with free trade and the Constitution however we are not in the same situation now that the Colonies were in then prior to the Constitutional Convention also the Colonies/States merged into one Country with free trade and we want soveriegnty. I agree with the Libertarian view on eliminating taxes however there are some issues with "free trade" that need to be discussed.
An argument can be made that our corporations who fund la raza, support NAFTA, CAFTA, NAU, etc... are doing so because they are at a disadvantage to their foriegn competition here due to foriegn tarrifs on our goods. However that is just an argument there are other corporate interest such as expanding there patents here on to other corporations in foreign countries (control).
What is fair for our corporations who sell goods beyond without mirror tarrif agreements with each country we deal with?
Instead of a tarrif (tax) for our corrupt Congress to waste maybe that mirror tarrif (tax) money could be put into a fund to help local business competition here...

...International trade management is to be and trade law is to be dealt with by the U.S. Congress, and yet too often the Congress has been quite willing to renege on that responsibility through fast-track legislation and deliver this authority to our President, as well as delivering through agreements, laws being passed and treaties, delivering this authority to international bodies such as the UN-IMF-World Trade Organizations, where they make decisions that affect us and our national sovereignty...

Clinton and Bush are good examples of why Congress should not "renege" this authority to the President. Quite possibly if Ron Paul were President he would remind Congress of their responsibility unlike Clinton and Bush.

...There really are no costs in the long run. Free trade does not require management. It is implied here on conversation on the House floor so often that free trade is equivalent to say we will turn over the management of trade to the World Trade Organization, which serves special interests. Well, that is not free trade; that is a misunderstanding of free trade.
Free trade means you can buy and sell freely without interference. You do not need international management. Certainly, if we are not going to have our own government manage our own affairs, we do not want an international body to manage these international trades.
Another thing that free trade does not imply is that this opens up the doors to subsidies. Free trade does not mean subsidies, but inevitably as soon as we start trading with somebody, we accept the notion of managed trade by the World Trade Organization, but immediately we start giving subsidies to our competitors...

...I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.
We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.
It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year...

...The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing. Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so...

Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate for me however I will vote for him over the socialist Republicans.

I am still studying but I know for sure that anyone who votes for a stronger Palistine or any other radical filled muslim nation . Any sympathizers with islam won't get my vote .They rule the UN through OPEC leaders and other middle east groups . I think our president is doing all he can to promote this religion and it's working.

After 911 they should have been given a choice like the Japanese had in ww11 ,imo. Leave until this radical part of your religion is taken care of or be interned .

Originally Posted by sturmruger

Instead of a tarrif (tax) for our corrupt Congress to waste maybe that mirror tarrif (tax) money could be put into a fund to help local business competition here...

I would be open to that. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about tariffs. The Constisution explicitly gives the government the right to regulate trade through tariffs. And the founders carried that out in their governance. For the majority of this nation's history much of the government's revenue came from tariffs, and they protected American business and jobs. The Constitution Party favors eliminating the income tax and replacing it by going back to the tariff based revenue system.

I'm not suggesting we turn back the clock, but I'm willing to have it on the table for consideration. If for no other reason than to prod trading partners into lowering their respective tariffs. We DO already have tariffs in place (as we always have) however they are minuscule -- I think we have an industrial tariff of about 2.5% presently......To put it in perspective, GM would face a 25% tariff if they export to China. This is a ridiculous imbalence that is effecting our trade deficit. We need more balence and reciprocity when persuing trade relationships.

Originally Posted by NOamNASTY

I am still studying but I know for sure that anyone who votes for a stronger Palistine or any other radical filled muslim nation . Any sympathizers with islam won't get my vote .They rule the UN through OPEC leaders and other middle east groups . I think our president is doing all he can to promote this religion and it's working.

After 911 they should have been given a choice like the Japanese had in ww11 ,imo. Leave until this radical part of your religion is taken care of or be interned .

yikes. so it appears you bought into this Islofascistnazi proganda religious war. OPEC rules the UN? What does AIPAC rule? Now its the presidents job to promote our religion world wide by forcing our beliefs and culture onto others. Even those who's culture is older than our own? wow!

I am not sure where you are coming from. So by not openly being against these "radical muslim" lands, you are for them? I wonder how our muslim alipac subscribers feel about your racist views.

This poster is exactly why Ghouliani and Shillary are being pushed by the media. To promote these endless wars in the middle east by fueling the fight with religion and hate. In by doing so, relinquishing our own liberties here at home - all the while keeping our borders wide open. Who do you think will issue iraq's currency once a bank is set up over there?

Originally Posted by BrightNail

yikes. so it appears you bought into this Islofascistnazi proganda religious war. OPEC rules the UN? What does AIPAC rule? Now its the presidents job to promote our religion world wide by forcing our beliefs and culture onto others. Even those who's culture is older than our own? wow!

The Christians were in that region prior to the Muslim invasion after Muhammed wrote the Koran. Muhammed wrote the Koran about 600 years after Christ so the Christian culture is older, almost 80% of USA citizens are Christian https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html.

I am not sure where you are coming from. So by not openly being against these "radical muslim" lands, you are for them? I wonder how our muslim alipac subscribers feel about your racist views.

So if the dominate countries in the Middle East happened to be Neo Nazis you would feel the same way? The only difference between Muslims and Neo Nazis is the color of their skin! Quite possibly why Neo Nazis and Al Qeida have terrorist camps together all over the world, they respect each others Socialist Racial views.

This poster is exactly why Ghouliani and Shillary are being pushed by the media. To promote these endless wars in the middle east by fueling the fight with religion and hate. In by doing so, relinquishing our own liberties here at home - all the while keeping our borders wide open. Who do you think will issue iraq's currency once a bank is set up over there?

Personally I'm not for the war rather I believe in individual responsibility and the same for Sovereign Nations. For me our borders are the priorty however I do not have a problem with our citizens privately funding and selling arms to our friends in the Middle East.