Ron Paul Unplugged: Cutting Benefits for Illegal Immigrants

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: bamacre

Well, considering the only source you can offer is from an op-ed, I honestly don't care.

Even if the statement is true, it doesn't affect my support for him. Changing his stance on a position from 20 years ago is one thing. Running a campaign on one stance, then changing it the day you set foot in office is completely different.

Now, in 1987, immigration wasn't so much of a problem. Now that the neo-cons have pissed off a lot people, and the Democrats have given illegals so many incentives, it is now a bigger problem, both economically and for national security. Again, I say this assuming the statement is true, and I now have some doubt, considering the only source.

The truth is that many, if not all, of Paul's positions haven't changed, in decades. His political beliefs have remained consistent. On everything from foreign policy, to the war on drugs (from 1988).

it wasn't? Then why did Reagan have the need to sign the big amnesty bill
http://www.change.org/changes/change_page/1192

I didn't say it wasn't a problem, I said it wasn't as big of a problem.

And, politicians always like to make illegal immigration a front-page problem when they screw up in the foreign policy arena..

 

[samanthatang]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Text

Well at least they don't censor the internet.

hmm that i disagree...

 

[Craig234]

In the late 60's, we had George Wallace; in the 70's, John Anderson; in the early 90's, Ross Perot; by 2000, Ralph Nader - Ron Paul is the next on the list of forgotten alternative candidates.

Wouldn't it be better that instead of the Ron Paul supporters putting so much effort in to getting him from 1% to 4% or 8% of the vote, they put effort into the underlying issues in the system that cripple any third party candidacy (Ron Paul is still effectively running as the Libertarian candidate, even if from within the Republican party this time)?

It's remarkable the passionate efforts they make for his campaign, while the real issues are ignored again, such as campaign finance reform and media coverage, which has now reached the point that the media is explicitly citing candidates' fund raising as a filter for their being invited to a debate.

Instead, after the election, Ron Paul will be another small part of the story, forgotten, waiting for the next election and 'refreshing outsider' to get frustrated over.

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Instead, after the election, Ron Paul will be another small part of the story, forgotten, waiting for the next election and 'refreshing outsider' to get frustrated over.

And your man Kucinich will be FAR less than that.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: Craig234
Instead, after the election, Ron Paul will be another small part of the story, forgotten, waiting for the next election and 'refreshing outsider' to get frustrated over.

And your man Kucinich will be FAR less than that.

True, even if unfortunate.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work" - Ron Paul

Any of you RP bots want to address his stance from 10+ years ago?

LEGALLY

I believe the context was him suggesting there should be no national immigration policy so clearly legality was not part of his stance. It may be part of his stance now, but it wasn't then.

Where did you pull that quote from?

Edit: I found only one link...
http://www.google.com/search?h...nd+work%22&btnG=Search

Odd that a direct quote like that only produces one result on google. Perhaps it is inaccurate?

Compare...
http://www.google.com/search?h...ietnam.%22&btnG=Search

That's why I want you RP supporters to give it more context because right now the context is only what the reporter wanted to give. I'd really love to see his full comments from 10+ years ago on this issue.

I am by no means an RP bot but I would suspect that quote means he favors a return to the days before the 1924 quota system placed the restrictions we are familiar with today on immigration.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: Craig234
Instead, after the election, Ron Paul will be another small part of the story, forgotten, waiting for the next election and 'refreshing outsider' to get frustrated over.

And your man Kucinich will be FAR less than that.

Yes, hence my pointing out the need for fixing the system whether about him or Ron Paul.

But of course your point was to miss that and attempt some sort of pot shot that the man I see as the best choice isn't in the top few polling and almost certainly won't win.

One of those 'Captain Obvious' comments would probably fit about here.

 

[xochi]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and WORK. The problem is the welfare state. Paul wants to abolish all state benefits for illegal immigrants. Until that is done, no immigration. But once all of the state incentives are removed, he doesn't have a problem with it.

If you want to make your own way without counting on taxpayers, you should be welcome here.

What are the benefits that illegals are getting?

Welfare/TANF...no
Foodstamps....no
Unemployment....no

Just curious.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
How do you know if he is lying? Because his lips are moving.

True of both you and your heroes, Dave. :laugh:

Ron Paul is wrong on a lot of issues (IMHO) but he's right on immigration.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Instead, after the election, Ron Paul will be another small part of the story, forgotten, waiting for the next election and 'refreshing outsider' to get frustrated over.

No, I disagree. Like Paul or hate him (And I'm in the latter mostly) he's energized a lot of people in a way that no third-party or 'alternative' candidate ever has. Want to talk about a "forgotten" part of the story? Kucinich. He'll be forgotten right along with the UFOs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Instead, after the election, Ron Paul will be another small part of the story, forgotten, waiting for the next election and 'refreshing outsider' to get frustrated over.

No, I disagree. Like Paul or hate him (And I'm in the latter mostly) he's energized a lot of people in a way that no third-party or 'alternative' candidate ever has. Want to talk about a "forgotten" part of the story? Kucinich. He'll be forgotten right along with the UFOs.

I've stated this before - RP will be forgotten in due time just like Perot was. Yes, he energized a lot of people, but so did Perot but the movement died out as it's not sustainable enmass. Will it have an impact on the Republican party? I sure hope so because I'd rather have RP type Conservatives in the Republican party than the fake Conservative types(followers of mr.9/11, romney, and to a lesser extent McCain).

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I've stated this before - RP will be forgotten in due time just like Perot was. Yes, he energized a lot of people, but so did Perot but the movement died out as it's not sustainable enmass. Will it have an impact on the Republican party? I sure hope so because I'd rather have RP type Conservatives in the Republican party than the fake Conservative types(followers of mr.9/11, romney, and to a lesser extent McCain).

I don't know. Perot never seemed to garner a level of support even approaching Ron Paul's. Hell, there's even a few Ron Paul signs in my hometown, and I cannot recall seeing a single Perot sign during his run there.

If nothing else, hopefully he will be a change agent, as you describe. We need good, solid Republican candidates who are true Conservatives. Not a bunch of flip-flopping RINOs who could quite easily be confused with a Hillary Clinton if it weren't for the (R) behind their names.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Instead, after the election, Ron Paul will be another small part of the story, forgotten, waiting for the next election and 'refreshing outsider' to get frustrated over.

No, I disagree. Like Paul or hate him (And I'm in the latter mostly) he's energized a lot of people in a way that no third-party or 'alternative' candidate ever has. Want to talk about a "forgotten" part of the story? Kucinich. He'll be forgotten right along with the UFOs.

I've stated this before - RP will be forgotten in due time just like Perot was. Yes, he energized a lot of people, but so did Perot but the movement died out as it's not sustainable enmass. Will it have an impact on the Republican party? I sure hope so because I'd rather have RP type Conservatives in the Republican party than the fake Conservative types(followers of mr.9/11, romney, and to a lesser extent McCain).

There is one major difference since Perot, actually a few. One is the internet. A major source of information provided freely and less biased than MSM. Then you also factor in the distrust the government has created (blowback in US as well) in its people too. There is a myriad of factors that make this election quite different and much more favorable to Ron Paul's message compared to Ross Perot's.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I've stated this before - RP will be forgotten in due time just like Perot was. Yes, he energized a lot of people, but so did Perot but the movement died out as it's not sustainable enmass. Will it have an impact on the Republican party? I sure hope so because I'd rather have RP type Conservatives in the Republican party than the fake Conservative types(followers of mr.9/11, romney, and to a lesser extent McCain).

I don't know. Perot never seemed to garner a level of support even approaching Ron Paul's. Hell, there's even a few Ron Paul signs in my hometown, and I cannot recall seeing a single Perot sign during his run there.

If nothing else, hopefully he will be a change agent, as you describe. We need good, solid Republican candidates who are true Conservatives. Not a bunch of flip-flopping RINOs who could quite easily be confused with a Hillary Clinton if it weren't for the (R) behind their names.

Ahem

Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)

I think RP would be hard pressed to get that sort of support as a 3rd party candidate. Maybe he will but I doubt it. So again, Perot's phenomenon is much bigger than RP's even though RP's contingent is really loud. If RP gets anywhere near 39% at any time during this election cycle - I'll humbly conceed the point.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Instead, after the election, Ron Paul will be another small part of the story, forgotten, waiting for the next election and 'refreshing outsider' to get frustrated over.

No, I disagree. Like Paul or hate him (And I'm in the latter mostly) he's energized a lot of people in a way that no third-party or 'alternative' candidate ever has. Want to talk about a "forgotten" part of the story? Kucinich. He'll be forgotten right along with the UFOs.

I've stated this before - RP will be forgotten in due time just like Perot was. Yes, he energized a lot of people, but so did Perot but the movement died out as it's not sustainable enmass. Will it have an impact on the Republican party? I sure hope so because I'd rather have RP type Conservatives in the Republican party than the fake Conservative types(followers of mr.9/11, romney, and to a lesser extent McCain).

There is one major difference since Perot, actually a few. One is the internet. A major source of information provided freely and less biased than MSM. Then you also factor in the distrust the government has created (blowback in US as well) in its people too. There is a myriad of factors that make this election quite different and much more favorable to Ron Paul's message compared to Ross Perot's.

Actually their message is quite similar. Yeah, RP has the war as an issue but you'll have those differences due to current events. But looking at their policies - they are quite similar although not exact. Yeah, the internet is much bigger but then why isn't RP doing better? He has the advantage of the internet when Perot did not. Perot put up some huge support numbers without it. And your comment about the MSM - you don't remember much from '92 do you?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I've stated this before - RP will be forgotten in due time just like Perot was. Yes, he energized a lot of people, but so did Perot but the movement died out as it's not sustainable enmass. Will it have an impact on the Republican party? I sure hope so because I'd rather have RP type Conservatives in the Republican party than the fake Conservative types(followers of mr.9/11, romney, and to a lesser extent McCain).

I don't know. Perot never seemed to garner a level of support even approaching Ron Paul's. Hell, there's even a few Ron Paul signs in my hometown, and I cannot recall seeing a single Perot sign during his run there.

If nothing else, hopefully he will be a change agent, as you describe. We need good, solid Republican candidates who are true Conservatives. Not a bunch of flip-flopping RINOs who could quite easily be confused with a Hillary Clinton if it weren't for the (R) behind their names.

Ahem

Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)

I think RP would be hard pressed to get that sort of support as a 3rd party candidate. Maybe he will but I doubt it. So again, Perot's phenomenon is much bigger than RP's even though RP's contingent is really loud. If RP gets anywhere near 39% at any time during this election cycle - I'll humbly conceed the point.

Actually, the graph says Perot ended up with 18.9% of the popular vote. If Paul runs as a 3rd party, I think he'll do better than that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I've stated this before - RP will be forgotten in due time just like Perot was. Yes, he energized a lot of people, but so did Perot but the movement died out as it's not sustainable enmass. Will it have an impact on the Republican party? I sure hope so because I'd rather have RP type Conservatives in the Republican party than the fake Conservative types(followers of mr.9/11, romney, and to a lesser extent McCain).

I don't know. Perot never seemed to garner a level of support even approaching Ron Paul's. Hell, there's even a few Ron Paul signs in my hometown, and I cannot recall seeing a single Perot sign during his run there.

If nothing else, hopefully he will be a change agent, as you describe. We need good, solid Republican candidates who are true Conservatives. Not a bunch of flip-flopping RINOs who could quite easily be confused with a Hillary Clinton if it weren't for the (R) behind their names.

Ahem

Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)

I think RP would be hard pressed to get that sort of support as a 3rd party candidate. Maybe he will but I doubt it. So again, Perot's phenomenon is much bigger than RP's even though RP's contingent is really loud. If RP gets anywhere near 39% at any time during this election cycle - I'll humbly conceed the point.

Actually, the graph says Perot ended up with 18.9% of the popular vote. If Paul runs as a 3rd party, I think he'll do better than that.

Yes, after he dropped out and re-entered he ended up with almost 19%. However if he hadn't dropped out he'd have had much more in the end. Like I said. If RP polls anywhere close to 39% during the cycle - I'll conceed the point that RP garnered more support than Perot but at this point - RP is no where near the levels that Perot had.

 

[BoberFett]

If Paul ran as a 3rd party, he'd be lucky to get anywhere near what Perot pulled in for votes. The system is biased against third parties but Perot was able to buy his way into that system. Paul doesn't have Perot's billions at his disposal.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Yes!!! Another RP Thread.


I have not seen one of these well... it must be ole... i don;t know... 2 seconds.

Well they are holding back just a tad.

Haven't seen any banner ads yet but I'm sure they are coming.

What else would they do with the millions they have donated?

the man is the only person I have heard that wants to save America and change course instead of sounding like the same ol BS politicians that say what they think is popular he talks about WHAT IS REAL

You honestly believe that? Especially a career politician from Texas?

How do you know if he is lying? Because his lips are moving.

his voting record speaks for him.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I've stated this before - RP will be forgotten in due time just like Perot was. Yes, he energized a lot of people, but so did Perot but the movement died out as it's not sustainable enmass. Will it have an impact on the Republican party? I sure hope so because I'd rather have RP type Conservatives in the Republican party than the fake Conservative types(followers of mr.9/11, romney, and to a lesser extent McCain).

I don't know. Perot never seemed to garner a level of support even approaching Ron Paul's. Hell, there's even a few Ron Paul signs in my hometown, and I cannot recall seeing a single Perot sign during his run there.

If nothing else, hopefully he will be a change agent, as you describe. We need good, solid Republican candidates who are true Conservatives. Not a bunch of flip-flopping RINOs who could quite easily be confused with a Hillary Clinton if it weren't for the (R) behind their names.

Ahem

Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)

I think RP would be hard pressed to get that sort of support as a 3rd party candidate. Maybe he will but I doubt it. So again, Perot's phenomenon is much bigger than RP's even though RP's contingent is really loud. If RP gets anywhere near 39% at any time during this election cycle - I'll humbly conceed the point.

Actually, the graph says Perot ended up with 18.9% of the popular vote. If Paul runs as a 3rd party, I think he'll do better than that.

errr , he is running as a republican. but he is not a republican anymore than I am.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Yes!!! Another RP Thread.


I have not seen one of these well... it must be ole... i don;t know... 2 seconds.

Well they are holding back just a tad.

Haven't seen any banner ads yet but I'm sure they are coming.

What else would they do with the millions they have donated?

the man is the only person I have heard that wants to save America and change course instead of sounding like the same ol BS politicians that say what they think is popular he talks about WHAT IS REAL

You honestly believe that? Especially a career politician from Texas?

How do you know if he is lying? Because his lips are moving.

Partisan politics much?

Hmm........how is that partisan when he's talking about politicians in general?

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Yes!!! Another RP Thread.


I have not seen one of these well... it must be ole... i don;t know... 2 seconds.

Well they are holding back just a tad.

Haven't seen any banner ads yet but I'm sure they are coming.

What else would they do with the millions they have donated?

the man is the only person I have heard that wants to save America and change course instead of sounding like the same ol BS politicians that say what they think is popular he talks about WHAT IS REAL

You honestly believe that? Especially a career politician from Texas?

How do you know if he is lying? Because his lips are moving.

Partisan politics much?

Hmm........how is that partisan when he's talking about politicians in general?

Because Paul isn't a general politican. We call him Dr No in Texas because he votes no on anything that the constitution does not allow the Federal government to assume power of. He's principled.

 

[OokiiNeko]

Perot never seemed to garner a level of support even approaching Ron Paul's.

That statement is flat out bullsh!t. Perot was HUGE and basically set the agenda for the Presidential debates. He was big on the budget, had NO problem getting on the ballot of all 50 states and reached many people through his infommercials.

While some may argue this point, I believe he was on his way to actually winning the election before he pulled out with the "someone`s going to interfere with my daughter`s wedding" excuse.


FYI, you are on your Pabster login in this thread.

 

[MadRat]

The globalists snuck into power on a Republican ticket, why not the anti-globalists?

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Yes!!! Another RP Thread.


I have not seen one of these well... it must be ole... i don;t know... 2 seconds.

Well they are holding back just a tad.

Haven't seen any banner ads yet but I'm sure they are coming.

What else would they do with the millions they have donated?

the man is the only person I have heard that wants to save America and change course instead of sounding like the same ol BS politicians that say what they think is popular he talks about WHAT IS REAL

You honestly believe that? Especially a career politician from Texas?

How do you know if he is lying? Because his lips are moving.

Have you taken a peek at his voting history?

Yeah I have he votes no on almost everything. So does Dennis Kucinich....

With bills like the PRO IP bill Dave's family brought to the table and things like additional funding for the Iraq war, NO isn't a bad thing.

Have you looked at some of these bills coming out to strip away the last bit of freedom we have?