Thread: Something To Think About in 2012

Originally Posted by stevetheroofer

imblest this is what bothered me about Paul, and I'm tired of having to choose the lesser of 2 evils.

"No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals"

You can't have both.

Steve, thanks for answering

I agree with Ron Paul that it is impractical and VERY expensive to round up all the illegals and return them to wherever they came from. I also agree with Ron Paul that if we stop them from getting jobs, driver licenses, free education, free medical care, etc., and make it hard on them to be here, that MANY will self-deport, saving us a ton of money. I think this method of deportation has a lot of merit! That also doesn't mean that some won't be deported the conventional way as well, but right now, many of those deported jump right back across the border. By stopping the jobs, freebies, and benefits, there will be no reason to come back nor to stay here for them. So I think you can have it both ways.

I agree with you that I am so tired of choosing the lesser of two evils!! Ron Paul is one of about 3 politicians that I know of that I TRUST. (The other two are personal friends.) I know that he has always voted by looking at the Constitution, and I know that I can trust that he will continue to do that. He will not sell out ever! Did you know that his Congressional district in Texas usually re-elects him with about 80% of the vote? I am much more bothered by people like Romney and McCain who say whatever they think people want to hear in order to get elected.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I agree with him on immigration and many other issues, and I trust him. I know where he stands. So I'd rather have him that I don't always agree with instead of someone who tells me what I want to hear and then turns around and stabs me in the back.

Thanks for reading this far

Originally Posted by imblest

OK guys, so what is in here about Ron Paul that you don't like???

Plenty.

Please read through it further. Paul says that people who attack bi-lingualism are "jealous and feel inferior." He says that if we had a truly free market economy "illegal immigrants would no longer be the scapegoat. We would realize that we would probably need them, and they woud be acceptable."

The fact that he has changed his position since 1988?? Did YOU think immigration was a problem in 1988?? Immigration wasn't even on my radar in 1988!!

Yes absolutely. Not only was illegal immigration on my radar, it was right outside my front door. Illegal immigration was ruining California in the late 80s, meanwhile Paul was making this asinine assertion. California was experiencing what the rest of the nation is just now waking up to. The stage was being set for the outright take-over of my state. Illegal immigration was definitely a problem for California in 1988. It just wasn't a problem for Ron Paul.

Furthermore, I don't believe his views have even changed all that much. The only probem he mentions now days is the welfare state. Not crime. Not wage depression. Not anti-Americanism. Just welfare. All of these things were starting to ruin California in the 1980s and he had no problem with it. He has slightly changed his views since then, but they are essentially the same -- end welfare, and open up immigration.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by imblest

OK guys, so what is in here about Ron Paul that you don't like???

Plenty.

Please read through it further. Paul says that people who attack bi-lingualism are "jealous and feel inferior." He says that if we had a truly free market economy "illegal immigrants would no longer be the scapegoat. We would realize that we would probably need them, and they woud be acceptable."

The fact that he has changed his position since 1988?? Did YOU think immigration was a problem in 1988?? Immigration wasn't even on my radar in 1988!!

Yes absolutely. Not only was illegal immigration on my radar, it was right outside my front door. Illegal immigration was ruining California in the late 80s, meanwhile Paul was making this asinine assertion. California was experiencing what the rest of the nation is just now waking up to. The stage was being set for the outright take-over of my state. Illegal immigration was definitely a problem for California in 1988. It just wasn't a problem for Ron Paul.

Furthermore, I don't believe his views have even changed all that much. The only probem he mentions now days is the welfare state. Not crime. Not wage depression. Not anti-Americanism. Just welfare. All of these things were starting to ruin California in the 1980s and he had no problem with it. He has slightly changed his views since then, but they are essentially the same -- end welfare, and open up immigration.

BFR, I was asking justthefacts and stevetheroofer. You and I went round and round about all of this in 2007. You have your opinion and I have mine, and that's okay. I will discuss with people who want to discuss, but I think you and I just have to agree to disagree because I'm not going to argue with you. I'm glad you are passionate and concerned because I know you are acting on that, and America always needs more citizens who have her best interest at heart.

"Self Deport" the sweetest words a Alipacer ever heard.
Thanks imblest delightful and insightful.
This fight would be a lot easier if we could get "A LITTLE HELP OVER HERE!"
"I don't want a New better tasting America, I want the original recipe!"
This whole thing seems ass backwards to me, we should be telling congress "Hey! we could use some help over here" And congress says "Hey! no problem, we have plenty of legal immigrants to help you out if you need it" and I say "Really, thanks for lookin' out!" Peace!

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

I just feel we were so splintered in the last election that we allowed
a moron to skate right in.

Politics requires pragmatism. As Voltaire said, the better is the enemy of the good.

Candidates are human beings. Human beings never agree with other human beings on everything. If you have a candidate who has a great chance of winning, but you only agree with them 75% of the time, they're better than the candidate you agree with 95% of the time that has no chance of getting elected.

Voltaire would first ask himself why someone thought of so poorly by others that there would be no chance of him being elected also happens to be someone you agree with 95% of the time. And somehow I think "everyone else must be an idiot 'cept me.....and him", wouldnt be high on his list.

Last election we saw what happens when conservatives forget this. Conservatives were splintered and the Dems were not, so Dems were able to unite behind Barry Soetero and get that abomination elected. As a result, we now have a president with whom conservatives agree .01% of the time.

So I take it you didnt like your taxes going down? Although if you;ve been locked into the FOX echo-chamber where 99.99% of things Obie does are reflexively opposed, you'd never know the evidence contained in your own wallet. Voltaire would be curious to know about whether or not people were using his own disdain for somebody or something to lead him into falsely believing bad things about him and thereby screwing himself when he thought he was just doing what was obvious to everyone else as well.

I think if you actually checked out what he did at some relatively objective websites, you'd find you actually hate 99% of what you've been told you hate, and that frequently he did no such thing. Revenge for all those years of [piuling on Dubya may seem sweet, but when it comes at the cost of not knowing what is actually going on with regard to issues you take seriously and to heart, then the price is wayyyy too high.

"Personally, I'd rather have a president with whom I agreed 75% of the time than one I agree wth .01% of the time, like the one we have now. :evil

Again, how will you know the next time you are led intofighting 2 wars under false pretenses while being bought off from questioning too closely by a guy who knows that all he has to do is lower everyone's taxes, althewhile transfering the HUGE cost of it all onto future generations and by selling off the US middle classes jobs to China and India, transfering the greatest amount of wealth away from the MC and into the pockets of his friends at the AEI ever seen since the Greeat Depression.
Why since then? Because the last time wealth became so lopsided in America that it resembled something more like is seen in a feudal monarchy. the capitalism couldn't bear it then either and the Greeat Depression was the result then too!
Check the stats yourself! No, you never hear that on the so-called "liberal" media because the media is now firly in the hands of corporate interests who want to keep you screaming at each other when its the trans-national corp execs flying back and forth on private jets, many using gold cutlery (for real!) and are up there RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK! And are doing everything in their very considerable power to make sure the "lower-downs" never catch on to who it is that Wasihngton really answers to. All else is diversion and deception.[/quote]

Originally Posted by imblest

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by imblest

OK guys, so what is in here about Ron Paul that you don't like???

Plenty.

Please read through it further. Paul says that people who attack bi-lingualism are "jealous and feel inferior." He says that if we had a truly free market economy "illegal immigrants would no longer be the scapegoat. We would realize that we would probably need them, and they woud be acceptable."

The fact that he has changed his position since 1988?? Did YOU think immigration was a problem in 1988?? Immigration wasn't even on my radar in 1988!!

Yes absolutely. Not only was illegal immigration on my radar, it was right outside my front door. Illegal immigration was ruining California in the late 80s, meanwhile Paul was making this asinine assertion. California was experiencing what the rest of the nation is just now waking up to. The stage was being set for the outright take-over of my state. Illegal immigration was definitely a problem for California in 1988. It just wasn't a problem for Ron Paul.

Furthermore, I don't believe his views have even changed all that much. The only probem he mentions now days is the welfare state. Not crime. Not wage depression. Not anti-Americanism. Just welfare. All of these things were starting to ruin California in the 1980s and he had no problem with it. He has slightly changed his views since then, but they are essentially the same -- end welfare, and open up immigration.

BFR, I was asking justthefacts and stevetheroofer. You and I went round and round about all of this in 2007. You have your opinion and I have mine, and that's okay. I will discuss with people who want to discuss, but I think you and I just have to agree to disagree because I'm not going to argue with you. I'm glad you are passionate and concerned because I know you are acting on that, and America always needs more citizens who have her best interest at heart.

I never said I did not like Ron Paul ,
I'm thinking of the big picture , We need to find someone electable , I'm putting him in the same catagory as if Dennis Kosinich ran on the left , The hard libs love Dennis but he has very little chance of winning a nomination.

My thoughts on denying jobs and bennys to illegals...... Most of the illegal aliens here work in small jobs or for themselves , Joes pool service, Freds floor cleaning service, gardeners , nannies , corner car washes , these sort of jobs will always attract them no matter how many regs govt puts on business to use e verify or regulate their employees, They have to be stopped at the border period ,
In the course of a day police encounter thousands of illegals , they simply have to be held and deported. Proof of citizenship at schools, EM care for emergencies only and then reported to ice , We could clear up this problem easily in a couple years at a far less cost then we pay now for all the bennys they get.
And yes , once we get serious about cracking down many would self deport.

Justthefacts wrote,

I never said I did not like Ron Paul ,

Just some observations and nothing more,

Like or dislike should be put aside and credit due none the less.

Ron Paul brought forth a revolution. Hard to deny. People are beginning to think outside the box.

So Ron Paul's gift in my estimation is not his personality, but the idea of thinking aside from the preconceptions that are spoon fed to the masses.

Personalities are, or can be, manufactured or doctored in the Land of Oz.

Will they bring together, under the Constitution, or divide for their debt to others?

Stevetheroofer and Justthefacts:

Self deportation is definitey our goal, and RP would definitely eiminate social services for illegal aliens....However, I have never seen any convincing evidence that he would deny employment to illegals, and that is the #1 magnet. Its true that many illegals work independently and would not be effected by employer sanctions, but employer sanctions would go a LONG way to solving the problem -- agri-business, construction, hotel industry, restaurants etc. And because some illegals will come even when the labor laws are enforced, we indeed do need the border sealed. RP has no identifiable effective plan for sealing the border. He does not believe in military on the border nor the border fence.

All of this is really moot

I don't believe he will run again

I don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a wad over Ron Paul. He isn't going to be nominated. We need to focus on getting someone nominated who BEST represents what Tea Party Americans want, who understands the inherent danger of illegal immigration and has a chance of winning. Everything else is just meaningless chatter. Conspiracy theories aside, IMO, Sarah Palin won't run for office. She has more clout doing exactly what she is doing now, raising awareness, asserting conservative values and pissing off the liberal left. Hopefully soon we will all see a leader emerge that we can feel good about. Rubio? DeMint? Sessions?