TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:ETA: By "sensible immigration reform" I primarily mean a guest worker program, not necessarily including a path to citizenship.

Why do we need unskilled guest workers when there's 10% unemployment?

Because we pay people to be lazy. When illiterates with no job skills can get more money not working, they have no reason to work hard manual labor jobs.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/05/04/ ... cant-read/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part of the solution is to cut off the handouts, but how would the Democrats get re-elected?

texasmusic wrote:What's wrong with Paul?

I ask because I know a little about him, but from what I hear him say, he has his head on straight.

Too much baggage to be electable.

Don't get me wrong, I like his stands on the issues, especially his prinicipled federalism and non-interventionism. I just don't think he stands a chance in a national election.

texasmusic wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:he's a nut-job, but he's our (Texas') nut-job. He's very, very insolationist.

He's quite adamant that he's non-interventionist, not isolationist.

The one thing that worry's me about him is, he needs to be able to wage on heck of a war if we need him to. If we are just going to step to the side of the global scene (which I believe we should) we should be prepared for whatever consequences that has. It may lead to peace because we stop funding both sides of every conflict, it may lead to a serious war because we took everybody off international welfare. I just think a president who is going to pull out of international affairs right now needs to realize that it might have unexpected consequences. He might think too much about the principle of the former and not the latter.

While libertarians tend to be opposed in military intervention around the globe, one thing they tend to be in agreement on is that national defense is one of the proper roles of government.

Personally, I'm in favor of a drastic downsizing of the regular military while maintaining or enlarging the reserves and National Guard; I believe this would save money while maintaining our ability to defend ourselves and bringing us more in line with the militia system this country originally had.

The problem with Ron Paul is that he's a hypocrite. He rants about earmarks and pork, and then he brings home just as much as the next guy. Naturally his constituents like him and keep reelecting him. Just don't expect "outsiders" not to call a spade a spade when they see one.

Now I think his son, Senator Rand Paul is a horse of a different feather, and I think he has a very bright future in the party—along with some of the other young lions like Rep. Ryan and others. But Ron Paul? Forget it. All he does is divert votes and money away from the rest of the conservative caucus. He does more harm than good.

What about Herman Cain?

re: Ron Paul, I don't think he would be able to wage a war....look at some of his interviews around the last pres election regarding Afghanistan and the war on terror. He said on Fox the other night he would basically abandon Israel. that's why I only joke about voting for him.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem with Ron Paul is that he's a hypocrite. He rants about earmarks and pork, and then he brings home just as much as the next guy. Naturally his constituents like him and keep reelecting him. Just don't expect "outsiders" not to call a spade a spade when they see one.

I'm not sure about the pork part, but I'm not aware that Rep. Paul has ever been against earmarks. My understanding of his position is that all of the federal government should be directly earmrked by congress, in order to be able to point directly at representatives for wasteful spending.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now I think his son, Senator Rand Paul is a horse of a different feather, and I think he has a very bright future in the party—along with some of the other young lions like Rep. Ryan and others.

I definitely agree that Rand Paul has a bright future and would be a better candidate for national office. I was concerned that he'd abandon some of the principles he ran on, but he has so far exceeded my highest hopes for him once in office.

Mainstream America doesn't care about 2A RKBA, the national debt, the USA's credit rating, tax credits for the rich or the senseless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mainstream America cares about the price of fuel, groceries and employment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, unless the GOP breaks out of the circular firing squad it has chosen to employ, pulls its head out and come up with a candidate and a platform that ALL Americans, of every race, income, creed and religion can support, the next POTUS will be Barack Hussein Obama. Mark my words.

shabot shalom

Munk wrote:I for one would love to see Allen West run.

He said he'd consider VP. Can we get Dave Ramsey to run for President and pick West?

SewTexas wrote:He said on Fox the other night he would basically abandon Israel.

Considering that most of what we've done "for" Israel recently is hold them back and tell them not to counterattack effectively, his attitude might be better described as in favor of "getting out of Israel's way and letting them deal with their problems."

Can we get Dave Ramsey to run for President and pick West?

hmmmmm, I could consider that one.......husband suggests Ramsey for Sec Tres instead....oooooh, Cain/ West

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem with Ron Paul is that he's a hypocrite. He rants about earmarks and pork, and then he brings home just as much as the next guy. Naturally his constituents like him and keep reelecting him. Just don't expect "outsiders" not to call a spade a spade when they see one.

Isn't that akin to disagreeing with the social security, but still expecting to get some of that money back since after all you did pay in even though you disagreed with the system. Seems to be one of the more pragmatic things he does.

texasmusic wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The problem with Ron Paul is that he's a hypocrite. He rants about earmarks and pork, and then he brings home just as much as the next guy. Naturally his constituents like him and keep reelecting him. Just don't expect "outsiders" not to call a spade a spade when they see one.

Isn't that akin to disagreeing with the social security, but still expecting to get some of that money back since after all you did pay in even though you disagreed with the system. Seems to be one of the more pragmatic things he does.

This. Even Ayn Rand admitted that there's nothing wrong with using the benefits system to get back some of what was taken from you under threat of force.

SewTexas wrote:re: Ron Paul, I don't think he would be able to wage a war....look at some of his interviews around the last pres election regarding Afghanistan and the war on terror. He said on Fox the other night he would basically abandon Israel. that's why I only joke about voting for him.

I like his stands on our wars we have declared on nouns. War on drugs, war on terror. A nation in a perpetual state of war has a snowball's chance of having the freedom and liberty on which the USA is founded. We are fighting a few certain groups of people who have a habit of terrorizing people, who are extremely hard to find/identify , while being extremely careful not to kill, offend, or upset the people who are funding and housing them.

I also think if Israel, Turkey, Georgia, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick or Freedonia is having troubles, It's not in our government's job description to get in there and save them. If there is good reason to, it should be considered. We couldn't hang Great Brittan out to dry when Hitler was rampaging across Europe, but then again I don't think we would send them aid for going on 40 years now.

I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.

Sorry for my long winded rant, I just think opposing the conflicts we get involved with currently and being willing to provide for defense are mutually exclusive.

hirundo82 wrote:
Personally, I'm in favor of a drastic downsizing of the regular military while maintaining or enlarging the reserves and National Guard; I believe this would save money while maintaining our ability to defend ourselves and bringing us more in line with the militia system this country originally had.

My personal view on it is simple. Keep funding active duty military and the best tech to get them to anywhere in the globe as needed, asap. Since we have the ability using carrier based fighters, US based bombers like the B2, etc to hit anywhere we need to within 24 hours, we can simply close up shop on most of our foreign bases. If we need to intervene, we do. But I see no reason for us to still be spending millions on stationing troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc. Stop funding overseas bases. Use some of that money to ensure we could do a rapid deployment anywhere as needed on the globe with logistics to match, and quit spending the rest.