Posted on 09/19/2007 2:08:57 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
My bad! LOL
Ha!
****I did overlook your tag.
A Paul-bearer then. I rest my case.****
I liked the line someone came up with the other day. Something like, “yes, we are Paul-bearers and we are going to carry our bloated, anti freedom, interventionalist federal government to its grave.”
“Our last chance to change the direction of the country—Ron Paul”
**Ha!**
Perhaps you can tell me what a republican congress for 12 years, 6 of which controlling the legislature and the presidency, did to change the direction of the country??????
Now you think a wishy, washy senator/lobbyist is going to do it?
Even worse...a Paul-istinian!
Nothing like having a Rudy staffer on board! Gives the campaign instant credibility with conservatives, ya know.
remember 1996?
Don’t you have Ron Paul bumperstckers to superglue on people’s cars or something?
“Our last chance to change the direction of the country—Ron Paul” Then we’re screwed!
When you speak of me, speak well. (political hack)
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility. I am committed to:
Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.
Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.
-Fred Thompson
http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues
I see you got taken in by Fred’s politicalspeak. Thing is, with our recent battle against the Bush/Kennedy amnesty, we know that even the most ardent supporters of amnesty won’t call it that. They stick a $1,000 fine on there and call it “earned citizenship” or something of the sort. Hence Fred’s denial that he supports amnesty, viewed in light of his statement that he supports citizenship for illegals, means about as much as the one Bush made.
***remember 1996?
Or maybe 1988 ****
Yeah, Reagan should have dumped him in 84, but he was not that type of person. Bush I never really believed in Reagan economics or a lot of other Reagan ideas. However, as the sitting vp, he was a shoe in.
Hence Fred’s denial that he supports amnesty, viewed in light of his statement that he supports citizenship for illegals, means about as much as the one Bush made.
He said he supported aspirations of citizenship. Shall we examine the meaning of the words aspirations or can I trust that you know what it means and are being deliberately obtuse as a rhetorical device? There are quite a number of Americans who support the “aspiration for citizenship” just so long as it requires legal entry into the United States and adherence to our laws. Care to explain to me where Fred has said he feels differently?
****“Our last chance to change the direction of the country—Ron Paul” Then we’re screwed!***
Well, we will be screwed if we don’t elect Ron Paul. Other than him, you can choose between Demo, or Demo lite. You can continue to have big business and lobbyists running the country and selling out our rights, freedoms, etc. or you can elect a real patriot.
Care to supply a quote for that assertion? I’m a lazy Fredhead and don’t feel like searching for one on my own.
Rep Paul,
As a member of Congress in a party that was in the majority until last year, how do you explain your lack of ability to effect change in Washington DC? Do you attribute this lack of success to your inability to influence other members of your party? Perhaps it was the fact that you come from a small state with very little political clout- no that can’t be it!? Or perhaps you were simply marginalized and while you faithfully railed against big spending and corruption in both hearings and on the House floor, you were unable to vote your conscience because of party arm twisting?
No matter how you choose to explain your failure to enact change in the House of Representatives, the “people’s House”, how is it you expect to enact change in the White House? In the White House you will be even more marginalized and completely unable to even so much as vote on spending bills, war powers acts, or immigration measures. Given your supreme inability to create a working coalition within your own party, much less the Congress as a body entire, why should the American people trust in your ability to change the system from within the Beltway?
Sincerely,
a citizen
Sincerely,
a citizen****
Pretty simple, he will have the veto power and the bully pulpit. While I would expect that a lot of legislation would be passed over his veto, it is a lot harder to do. All he would need is 34% of the congress to support his actions to stop bad legislation.
Additionally, if he would get elected, it would be a sea change in our national politics. The public would have spoken that they no longer want politics as usual. 1994 was like that, but the republicans let us down. Ron Paul would not blink like Newt did against Clinton.
He could do a lot of things by executive order and with the other powers of the presidency. He would be appointing heads of government agencies with orders to carry out his mandates.
Oh, I don’t think the old guard would give up easily, but I think Ron Paul would stand up to them. It would be a battle royal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.