Thread: Presidential DEBATE TONIGHT ON FOX!!!!!

BTW, Chuck Norris has endorsed Huckabee lol... he is no different than McInsane, Hilary, Guiliani etc... a Neocon!
http://www.betterimmigration.com/can...beePres08.html

Paul supporters may find this interesting:

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=11832

Originally Posted by MW

SOSADFORUS wrote:

MW, and Slyhunter[/b], are you calling an elderly man in his 70's a pansy because he believes in trying to talk to people first and formost.

Pansy is not the exact word I would have used. However, I do believe Paul would still be talking when it was past time for action.

I'm a firm believer in striking first when a fight is imminent.

If you are talking about a fist fight that is one thing and I agree, But when we are talking about something that could start world war 3 take thousands if not million of lives without using caution or trying all you can to prevent it that is something else. There has been so far no indication Paul would be afraid to defend us if it came to that, unless you have information I don't.

I found this about how he stands on a Guest Worker Program:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3580.html

On immigration, Paul emphasized his border security bona fides. He opposes any guest worker program giving illegal immigrants citizenship, saying he would not reward them "in any way whatsoever." He also said he opposed giving any federal benefits -- education or medical care -- to illegal immigrants.

"Illegal immigration is one of the top issues no matter where I go around the country," Paul said. "People are really, really disgusted with it. My position is, if you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize and encourage illegal immigration."

SOSADFORUS wrote:

If you are talking about a fist fight that is one thing and I agree, But when we are talking about something that could start world war 3 take thousands if not million of lives without using caution or trying all you can to prevent it that is something else.

I didn't say we shouldn't utilize all available avenues to avert a war. What I said was, I'm a strong believer in striking first if a fight is imminent. That goes for a nuclear war or a fist fight.

Originally Posted by MW

SOSADFORUS wrote:

If you are talking about a fist fight that is one thing and I agree, But when we are talking about something that could start world war 3 take thousands if not millions of lives without using caution or trying all you can to prevent it that is something else.

I didn't say we shouldn't utilize all available avenues to avert a war. What I said was, I'm a strong believer in striking first if a fight is imminent. That goes for a nuclear war or a fist fight.

then we agree!!

Originally Posted by MW

SOSADFORUS wrote:

MW, and Slyhunter[/b], are you calling an elderly man in his 70's a pansy because he believes in trying to talk to people first and formost.

Pansy is not the exact word I would have used. However, I do believe Paul would still be talking when it was past time for action.

I'm a firm believer in striking first when a fight is imminent.

Ditto. Nothing wrong with talking first. But when you see that talking isn't working it is time to use force. The prime example was Saddam thumbing his nose at us. Allowing him to get away with that would've been catastrophic. Another example is Iran. Allowing them to gain Nuclear power would be disastrous. Standing around and talking about it while he gets closer and closer to the bomb is stupid. Waiting around to use force until after he nukes Israel would be repeating the mistakes we made prior to WWII.

On second thought, no way in hell I'd vote for Ron Paul. I'd vote for Romney first and yes I know he is a flip flopper. Hunter, Tancredo, Romney in that order. However, whoever wins the Republican nomination will get my vote because anyone is better than Hillary or Obama.

Originally Posted by MW

Paul supporters may find this interesting:

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=11832

There are those who won't click on the link and they wouldn't of read the below quote from that link.

Ron Paul's voting record
I'd collected Ron Paul's voting record on the very strategies urged that night to reverse the influence of "one-world government:" hiring Americans, no amnesty for illegal aliens and border security based on Paul's Immigration Voting Record & Report Card on the NumbersUSA website:


(1) Paul consistently voted every year since 1999 against putting the military on the border:

2006: H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815
2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588
2002: H. Amdt. 479 to H.R. 4546
2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586
2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.


(2) Paul voted in 1997, 2001( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue Section 245-i amnesties for illegal aliens.

(3) Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359),

(4) Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437 - "Enforcement Only" Bill).

(5) Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 199. In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners.

So Paul is a flip flopper too?

Thanks April, so that looks great although he says it is unrealistic to think we can deport 10 million, I wonder what he suggests, hopefully attrition.

Listening to presidential candidate Ron Paul, it's sometimes hard to tell that he really is a Republican.

The Texas congressman is a fierce critic of the Iraq war, believes the Bush administration is violating personal civil liberties and thinks Republicans have not controlled the rise of federal spending.

He also makes clear that none of the other GOP presidential candidates appeal to him, and that he is not likely to endorse any of them if he fails to capture the Republican nomination.

"Quite frankly, I haven't seen anybody running for the presidency on the Republican ticket that is actually offering to stand up and stand for the principles the Republican Party has been built on," Paul said in an interview Tuesday with Politico reporters and editors.

The interview is one in a series of sessions with Republican candidates in advance of the May 3 GOP Presidential Candidates Debate. The event is being hosted by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in conjunction with MSNBC and Politico.com.

Ten candidates have accepted invitations to participate in the debate, the first of the cycle for Republican presidential candidates. It will air exclusively on cable's MSNBC, with full coverage on MSNBC.com. The Politico will stream the debate live on Politico.com, providing an exclusive and unprecedented opportunity for viewers to ask and vote on questions via the Internet

Rep. Paul, 71, was the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988 and is well-known on Capitol Hill for his outspoken, maverick positions. He opposed authorizing federal funding to victims of Hurricane Katrina. He was one of only three Republicans to vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001. He has called for abolition of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Department of Education and for a return to the gold standard.

Paul said he still considers himself a Republican and did not consider seeking the Libertarian nomination again. He also stands by his party on several key issues in the campaign.

The congressman voted against the Democratic Iraq supplemental appropriations bill, saying it combined two things he fervently opposes: continued military intervention and pork.

"The supplemental had three things: one, a huge amount of money to continue a bad policy. It had a lot of pork stuck on it to buy some votes, and then they had detailed restrictions telling the president to maneuver troops on such-and-such day. And I didn't like any of them," Paul said. "It was a very easy vote for me. And I voted with my Republican Party."

On immigration, Paul emphasized his border security bona fides. He opposes any guest worker program giving illegal immigrants citizenship, saying he would not reward them "in any way whatsoever." He also said he opposed giving any federal benefits -- education or medical care -- to illegal immigrants.

"Illegal immigration is one of the top issues no matter where I go around the country," Paul said. "People are really, really disgusted with it. My position is, if you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize and encourage illegal immigration."

He added, however, that it is unrealistic to deport the more than 10 million illegal immigrants in the country.

The candidate is one of the most outspoken defenders of gun rights in Congress and has never voted for a bill restricting gun ownership. He thinks this week's tragedy at Virginia Tech could have been prevented if the university allowed students and professors to carry concealed weapons.

"People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there. A concealed gun carried by a responsible person, that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech, with one person being killed, or two people being killed," he said.

Another signature Paul proposal is support for the elimination of income taxes. His campaign slogan in congressional elections has been "The Taxpayer's Best Friend."

"I don't think we need an income tax," Paul said. "I promised my people I would do anything and everything I can to get rid of the income tax, to repeal the 16th Amendment, never vote to raise taxes and always vote to lower taxes. And it's been a popular position."

Ron Paul Interview Excerpts
Meanwhile, his position on sending aid to other countries will not endear him to much of the Jewish community. During his House career, he has voted against foreign aid to Israel and to all other countries.

"I think we should be friends with Israel. We should trade with Israel. We shouldn't give them any money," Paul said. "Strategically, it's been very detrimental because we sit there and they have no incentive to work out peaceable relations with their neighbors."

Paul criticized the front-loaded presidential primary calendar, culminating in a week where more than two dozen states will be holding a national primary of sorts in February 2008. He has limited financial resources, raising $640,000 for the first quarter, all in small donations from 466 individuals. He recently made campaign trips to Iowa, New Hampshire and Arizona.

"We actually wanted to limit the campaign to four, five early states," Paul said. "Of course, the pressure is to have all (of the primaries) together, so small candidates like myself are cut off before we get any traction whatsoever."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3580.html


I would not have agreed with Pauls standing on the war if this government had taken a hard stand on securing or ports and borders, but s long as they keep using the same stupid statment "if we don't take care of them there they will follow us here" it makes it very hard to take them serious, because for some reason they are not really worried about protecting us from terriorist, or ports and borders would already be secure instead of wide open after 6 years, and not even inspecting 10 percent of what comes in at our ports.

OK, several have asked for the source of Paul wanting a guest worker program. Here it is......First off, most of the video is really good, BUT it is the end of the clip that caught my attention. He does say, "we need laborers," and would support, "a generous work program."

I don't want a fight over this. This is Ron Paul speaking. I did not say these things. Ron Paul said them. If there is a problem with it, take it up with Ron Paul. He said virtually the same thing in one of the debates, and has supported guest worker programs in the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38