sync0s
Well-Known Member
Right. Cherry picking the constitution would be Obama hotlining no fly zone resolutions to bomb a country without the constitutional approval of congress.
The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
txpete77
Well-Known Member
I donated today... rarely have I donated to political candidates. This is the first time I've given to a presidential candidate.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
I would but I lost my damn debit card and fucking wells fargo takes 5 business days. I also don't have netflix anymore because of this :/
txpete77
Well-Known Member
That sounds damned scary, if not outright evil at face value... I'll have to read the bill and see exactly what's in it before I comment any further.
Here's a link to the bill for anyone else who would like to read it.
Edit: Just read it, the bill was introduced in the 111th congress, and died in committee. HR 645 in the current congress deals with retirement savings withdrawls for unemployed individuals. I did not find any other bill in the 112th that looks like a reintroduction of the earlier bill.
The only things that bother me (outside of the constitutionality of the entire bill) are:
Section 2, Subsection B, Item 4:
to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
When congress has wording in a bill like this, they have given DHS a legal free-for-all on the use and purpose of these facilities.
Section 3, Subsections D & E:
Deals with preference to use closed military facilities.
While this in itself is not disturbing, it however gives them the capability to quickly set up detainment camps.
I can believe RP when he says they are getting ready for violence (when the FSA decides to riot), but I don't see a hidden purpose of setting up detainment centers - at least with the evidence currently presented to me (the youtube video and HR 645). It is definitely worth keeping an eye on it (our current president has no problem issuing executive orders for issues that did not make it in congress)
Here's a link to the bill for anyone else who would like to read it.
Edit: Just read it, the bill was introduced in the 111th congress, and died in committee. HR 645 in the current congress deals with retirement savings withdrawls for unemployed individuals. I did not find any other bill in the 112th that looks like a reintroduction of the earlier bill.
The only things that bother me (outside of the constitutionality of the entire bill) are:
Section 2, Subsection B, Item 4:
to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
When congress has wording in a bill like this, they have given DHS a legal free-for-all on the use and purpose of these facilities.
Section 3, Subsections D & E:
Deals with preference to use closed military facilities.
While this in itself is not disturbing, it however gives them the capability to quickly set up detainment camps.
I can believe RP when he says they are getting ready for violence (when the FSA decides to riot), but I don't see a hidden purpose of setting up detainment centers - at least with the evidence currently presented to me (the youtube video and HR 645). It is definitely worth keeping an eye on it (our current president has no problem issuing executive orders for issues that did not make it in congress)
beardo
Well-Known Member
[youtube]UL0ZOutOJyE[/youtube]
Theirs also the U.N. small arms treaty before senate, and a George Soros backed plan to ban private property ownership or to encourage the use and spectrum of eminant domain.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/the-un-gun-grabber/
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=5463
Because you have observed something does not discount the truth.
And no, illegals do not pay into the system. The anchor babies force schools to hire more teachers because of the increased enrollment. In some schools free and assisted lunches are the norm. Two schools in my area have over 90 percent of the students on free or assisted lunches. Anchor babies are poorly equipt coming into the school system and drag down performance. How could they not? The language barrier is very hard to overcome. Can you measure the effect of less educated students?
Illegals pregnancies have far greater unhealthier births percentage wise than non illegals. The jobs illegals take force other legals to end up on govt assistance. Did you factor that into the equation?
I'm all for looking after number one and I don't hate illegals. I dislike the system .
Incorrect. He wants to change how it's interpreted. But then again you haven't got much correct in this thread so far anyway.
How? With what? Rocks?
We used the CIA to overthrow a democratically elected leader in order to promote democracy???? On what planet is that rational????
We bribe other countries with aid and if they don't do what we say, we threaten to cut them off. If a country is real bad we impose embargoes which hurts the people, not the government of that country. I don't see rational.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Sorry........
I'm indifferent on the enforcing the border, for no amnesty and no welfare state, against ending birthright citizenship, and absolutely for the protection and streamlining of lawful immigrants (We should be encouraging more through legal pathways!)ronpaul2012.com said:
exactly. If they didn't come here and receive entitlements there would be less animosity towards illegals. In Texas that means Mexicans. The unintended consequences cause an us vs them mentality and prejudices arise and are reinforced in some people.
dukeanthony
New Member
Nah your just a prejudiced little dick and if you knew better you would know that illegals contribute more than they take in Texas
In a 2006 study, Texas earned more in taxes than it spent on public services to illegal immigrants. State and local governments spent $1.16 billion to provide services, but raised an estimated $1.58 billion in tax revenues. The Texas taxpayer made a $424.7 million profit on its illegal immigrant population in 2006.
Illegal immigrants contribute mostly to state and local through sales and property taxes. A majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local income tax as well. Arizona and Texas' economies and tax policies are similar, suggesting Arizona may also receive net economic and fiscal benefits from illegal immigrants
Economic output of illegal immigrants in Texas was estimated at $17.7 billion in additional gross state product in 2005 alone. Experts estimate Arizona benefits from similar revenue and economic gains from its illegal immigrant population because of similar tax structures and proportionate illegal immigrant populations based on state populations.
Calls for closing the border and deporting all illegal immigrants – which some extreme anti-immigrant groups have called for in Arizona – would have dramatic negative impacts to state economies.
This was on Foxbusiness.com
dukeanthony
New Member
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric/
Arizona’s recently-passed immigration law has drawn heated debate on both sides of the immigration issue, but there has been little focus on what economic impact illegal immigration has on border states – a phenomenon that’s likely larger than many people realize.
Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more of an economic contributor to state and local economies than politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of the population.
The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’ Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent to provide services.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/furl/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric/#ixzz1VgB2rVYI
Putting the law and morality of illegal entry aside, several studies have shown the illegal immigrant population is more of an economic contributor to state and local economies than politicians like to tell an angry electorate. The numbers can be broken down into the fiscal cost (or gain) of illegal immigrants to states, along with the economic contribution of the population.
The most thorough study on the fiscal and economic impact of immigration was done by the non-partisan Texas Comptrollers’ Office in 2006, which showed Texas earned more in taxes and economic output from illegal immigrants than governments spent to provide services.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/furl/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric/#ixzz1VgB2rVYI
hazyintentions
Well-Known Member
So what you are saying is YOU just don't care about illegals if they get taxed.... Wait, doesn't that sound a lot like what the government would want? But how do you tax someone who's not even a citizen. If immigrants want to come into our country they should follow the system set up already, I've known many have went through the proper steps and I respect them; in fact a couple have told me they hate the illegals for disgracing their culture. If they cross the border illegally they ARE breaking the law and ARE responsible for the consequences.
Stop trying to justify illegal immigration with cherry picked half truths and what not. It's just plain ignorant.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Well at least you saved some dough ....
dukeanthony
New Member
Really simple question
If they could come here legally
Doncha think they would?
If they could come here legally
Doncha think they would?
Cali chronic
Well-Known Member
Funny how these news whores always have to "run or Go" when someone is making sense and explaining a buzz word thrown out of context. Then they have to run to something like a cat fish derby as if that is more important then hearing what someone who wants to be representative of your country and our way of life has to say.
Stephen Colbert is a Bible thumping Canadian with his Christian slanted Propaganda. Just listen to the foreigner sometime. BTW
Stephen Colbert is a Bible thumping Canadian with his Christian slanted Propaganda. Just listen to the foreigner sometime. BTW
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Hey now, we have our siggy bet, don't drag ron paul into this
hazyintentions
Well-Known Member
I just addressed this, can't you read?
I've many many immigrants from Mexico who did come here legaaly, they went throu ghthe steps to get their work permits and paid what the government wanted. Something like a small chunk of each paycheck until they paid about 5,000 to the government for their citizenship. Not the most ideal way for it to be done but still realistic.
What's unrealistic is allowing illegals to come here and then siphon off what work and money they can to send back Mexico and defend them for breaking the law!
hey, what was the bet again?Hey now, we have our siggy bet, don't drag ron paul into this