Buckle Up For 4 More Years Of Mass Illegal Immigration (enemy, law, American)

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by Ozark-Baby

[b]

Sure, there's Ron Paul, but he has his other "foibles" that almost assure he won't be re-elected.

What foibles?

I predict he will run as a third party candidate, and he will win. If we can have a first black president, or first woman president, why not a first 3rd party candidate?

[ProLogic]

Ron Paul is a contradiction with a body.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by ProLogic

Ron Paul is a contradiction with a body.

How so? He seems very consistent to me.

He is only a contradiction if your mind is stuck in the confines of what the current definition of democrat and republican is.

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by eskmd

How so? He seems very consistent to me.

He is only a contradiction if your mind is stuck in the confines of what the current definition of democrat and republican is.

Immigration stance: Wants illegals out! yet.. does not want to enforce the borders. What does that say? he really doesn't care.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by ProLogic

Immigration stance: Wants illegals out! yet.. does not want to enforce the borders. What does that say? he really doesn't care.

Actually, his stance has been to bring the troops back from Germany, Korea, Iraq, and everywhere else and put them on our border. Go to youtube and you will see him say that over and over. If you have a clip that is contradictory to that stance, I would love to see it.

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by eskmd

Actually, his stance has been to bring the troops back from Germany, Korea, Iraq, and everywhere else and put them on our border. Go to youtube and you will see him say that over and over. If you have a clip that is contradictory to that stance, I would love to see it.

I'm talking about his immigration stance. This is the immigration forum after all is it not?

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by ProLogic

I'm talking about his immigration stance. This is the immigration forum after all is it not?

So was I. He wants to send the illegal aliens packing, and put our troops on the border to keep people from coming in.

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by eskmd

So was I. He wants to send the illegal aliens packing, and put our troops on the border to keep people from coming in.

He's not a contradiction eh? Take a look at this:

• If economy were good, there'd be no immigration problem. (Dec 2007)
• Amend Constitution to remove aliens' birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007)
• Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)
• No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)
• Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)
• No amnesty, but border fence isn't so important. (Jun 2007)
• We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)
• Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
• Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
• Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
• Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
• Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)

In 2006 he voted YES on a border fence yet in 2007 said No amnesty but fence is not important. Ok?! wtf?!

[AnesthesiaMD]

You said "he doesn't want to enforce the borders", not "he doesn't feel the wall is so important". Those are two VERY different statements. Now I don't know where this info is coming from, but if true, I would be willing to bet he thinks "if we are going to have all our troops at the border, and we start enforcing the law, why do we need to spend all that money on a fence too."

[ProLogic]

Originally Posted by eskmd

You said "he doesn't want to enforce the borders", not "he doesn't feel the wall is so important". Those are two VERY different statements. Now I don't know where this info is coming from, but if true, I would be willing to bet he thinks "if we are going to have all our troops at the border, and we start enforcing the law, why do we need to spend all that money on a fence too."

If you think about it.. thinking that the border fence isn't important and not enforcing it is sort of the same statement. If you don't think its important than why enforce it? Think about it.. a fence is more long term than troops. Say you have 10,000 troops on the border with a salary of $30k a year? thats $300,000,000 a year. Thats way more than what they are costing us.