http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57545
2007-09-10 18:40:58 · 14 answers · asked by vox_of_reason2 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes sir, you've got to control the borders that's where the insurgency is coming from. We ought get out the way and let the Iraqi's duke it out while we patrol the perimeter.
Oh... you mean American borders, the answer is still yes. It's crazy to have wide open borders and at the same time have troops in Iraq fighting what, "terrorism"? Imagine if those same troops were doing border patrol here and keeping the airports safe.
2007-09-10 18:48:50 · answer #1 · answered by unbridled optimism 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nope. Anti-occupation's all good, but border control has a lot of issues that, as of yet, doesn't make it very sensible. The costs of instituting it would be massive, and it shows a lot of our superiority complex when we shut other countries out. This country was founded on a diverse base of people, yet we plan to shut others out. Of course problems arise from an influx of people, but that doesn't mean we should remove our own ideals to stop it.
2007-09-10 18:49:12 · answer #2 · answered by whiteflame55 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Ron Paul is pro-appeasement, pro-surrender, pro-put on blinders by shutting down the intelligence agencies.
His fiscal policy is not all bad, but he could NEVER get it done.
He wants to legalize drugs, thus making us another Amsterdam...if you have never been there, go check it out before you vote for anyone who supports turning America into such a junkie wasteland.
In short, Ron Paul is a great candidate for president of Antarctica, but certainly not for America.
ANYONE WHO CALLS RON PAUL A REPUBLICAN IS LIKE CALLING THE POPE JEWISH! Ron Paul is a rabid and nutty libertarian. I agree that the reps should tell him to get the R out from behind his name.
netjr...I agree...anyone who blames America for 911 should never even be considered for dog catcher, let alone president!
2007-09-10 18:49:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes. The question is what type of border control?
2007-09-10 18:49:21 · answer #4 · answered by LBee 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well,,, that means that it would not be a Democrat in the oval office.
Still very upset of the Spanish speaking Democratic debate. I wonder if any Latino countries ever use English to gain votes and to pander?
2007-09-10 18:46:17 · answer #5 · answered by Dina W 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Oh boy.... more Ron Paul spam... I didn't see that coming from the subject line... *YAWN*
BTW, the blogger in your link should get a haircut that's not so bottom-of-the-class-of-1994 if he wants to be taken seriously.
2007-09-10 19:28:43 · answer #6 · answered by Fretless 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Life long Republican here; and if the media some how made Ron Paul a "Republican contender" and he won the primary I'd vote for Hillary first. He is a lunatic fringe libertarian and honestly I'm ashamed our party would allow him to run on its ballot and believe they should kick him out. Any politician that wants to blame our attempts at helping other nations for attacks on our nation (911) should not hold political office with an "R" behind their name. The man is a loser, a lunatic and I'd say it too his face. He embarrasses the Party.
2007-09-10 18:45:22 · answer #7 · answered by netjr 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Ron Paul is a Libertarian running under the Republican ticket. He wants to get rid of the FBI,CIA,etc. This guys smokes too much weed.
2007-09-10 18:48:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Times like these call for a President that is going to be brave and tough and be able to put up with alot of cry babies in our Country and stand up for what he believes in no matter what. kind of Like President Bush. Nuff Sed!
2007-09-10 18:48:44 · answer #9 · answered by EddieX 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Perhaps but I would not vote for a candidate that is pro-regressive taxation, anti-choice, anti-poor people, pro-racism and many other faults that Ron Paul has.
2007-09-10 18:47:18 · answer #10 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋