Shanghaied via Texas...

http://keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/trans-texas_corridor

If you read the fine print you can see this is part of the ongoing plan to create a North American Union and in the process squeeze out American workers.

The beat goes on.

Owell, at least there will be some jobs in transportation/warehousing/distribution....

Of Chinese/Indonesian/Vietnamese, etc goods.

Sherm,

Ron Paul, the candidate you insist is only suited for foreign policy, is the only candidate that has been talking about this. When he does, he is labled a "conspiracy theorist" or worse.

We have touched on it in the past. Now you see it is true, perhaps others will too. I just hope they do before it's too late.

You disagree with Paul's postion on shrinking the size of government, lowering taxes, and decreasing entitlement spending. I just want you to think about something. What do you suppose will hurt poor and middle class Americans more? Living within our means or a North American Union? Obviously Paul is the only candidate concerned about this very serious threat to our economy and our sovereignty.

It isn't too late for you to take the steps necessary to vote in the GOP primary in May.

You take the stripey pants, sherm, I'll throw in a tie. Something with a bold, regimental stripe perhaps?

Well Steph you are right I agree with Paul on this too.

But Edwards has also said he would scrap NAFTA and other trade agreements unless they can be seriously re-negotiated.

I will be probably be voting in the Dem primary unless something unforeseen happens.

But I have a feeling I will still have an opportunity to vote for Paul in the fall.

You know it's a funny thing. Lately I've been remembering a post from a few months back in the old forum. I wish I could remember who posted it.

Somebody said words to the effect "Sometimes I think all of Ron Paul supporters are members of this forum"

Does anybody recall what I'm talking about?

shermangeneral wrote:Well Steph you are right I agree with Paul on this too.

But Edwards has also said he would scrap NAFTA and other trade agreements unless they can be seriously re-negotiated.

I will be probably be voting in the Dem primary unless something unforeseen happens.

But I have a feeling I will still have an opportunity to vote for Paul in the fall.

Just out of curiousity, why is Edwards now against NAFTA when he voted for it?

And if you want to vote for Paul, you better do it now because by the fall, he's going to be back delivering babies.

And if you want to vote for Paul, you better do it now because by the fall, he's going to be back delivering babies.

So he'll be defeated in his re-election to Congress bid, eh?

ziggy wrote:

And if you want to vote for Paul, you better do it now because by the fall, he's going to be back delivering babies.

So he'll be defeated in his re-election to Congress bid, eh?

Is he running for Congress? Either Robo or Steph one posted a link on the old forum that said this was it for him. He'd either win the Predidency or he'd go home? Has that changed?

Aaron,

That certainly wasn't me. I don't recall any such thing. To my knowledge Congressman Paul is running simultaneous campaigns. In any case, he is not likely to return to medical practice. He gave that up some years ago. I guess he figured after 30 years of being on call nights, weekends, and holidays was enough and coupled with his service in Congress it wasn't fair to his patients.

http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/waystohelp.html

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

That certainly wasn't me. I don't recall any such thing. To my knowledge Congressman Paul is running simultaneous campaigns. In any case, he is not likely to return to medical practice. He gave that up some years ago. I guess he figured after 30 years of being on call nights, weekends, and holidays was enough and coupled with his service in Congress it wasn't fair to his patients.

Then it must have been Rube.

At any rate, how fair is it to the voters in his district and how do they choose another candidate if he can't fulfill his congressional campaign but he wins the primary?

An incumbant running is one thing. He should have to make a choice BEFORE the Texax primary.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

That certainly wasn't me. I don't recall any such thing. To my knowledge Congressman Paul is running simultaneous campaigns. In any case, he is not likely to return to medical practice. He gave that up some years ago. I guess he figured after 30 years of being on call nights, weekends, and holidays was enough and coupled with his service in Congress it wasn't fair to his patients.

Then it must have been Rube.

At any rate, how fair is it to the voters in his district and how do they choose another candidate if he can't fulfill his congressional campaign but he wins the primary?

An incumbant running is one thing. He should have to make a choice BEFORE the Texax primary.

OIC....so it's acceptable for Clinton, McCain & Obama to run for the White House while clinging to their Senate seats, but Paul isn't entitled to attempt to keep his House seat while doing the same?

As far as what choices he makes, the decision as to whether or not this is fair to his constituents is something they can answer on election day. It simply isn't our business. Just as it wasn't the business of the citizens of Texas District 14 that the citizens of WV chose to return a man to the Senate who is so feeble he needs aides to turn pages when giving a speech and so old his ability to live long enough to serve the full term.

Aaron wrote:An incumbant running is one thing. He should have to make a choice BEFORE the Texax primary.

Why should he have to do that- unless the law of Texas says so?

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

That certainly wasn't me. I don't recall any such thing. To my knowledge Congressman Paul is running simultaneous campaigns. In any case, he is not likely to return to medical practice. He gave that up some years ago. I guess he figured after 30 years of being on call nights, weekends, and holidays was enough and coupled with his service in Congress it wasn't fair to his patients.

Then it must have been Rube.

At any rate, how fair is it to the voters in his district and how do they choose another candidate if he can't fulfill his congressional campaign but he wins the primary?

An incumbant running is one thing. He should have to make a choice BEFORE the Texax primary.

OIC....so it's acceptable for Clinton, McCain & Obama to run for the White House while clinging to their Senate seats, but Paul isn't entitled to attempt to keep his House seat while doing the same?

As far as what choices he makes, the decision as to whether or not this is fair to his constituents is something they can answer on election day. It simply isn't our business. Just as it wasn't the business of the citizens of Texas District 14 that the citizens of WV chose to return a man to the Senate who is so feeble he needs aides to turn pages when giving a speech and so old his ability to live long enough to serve the full term.

Actually no, I don't think it is acceptable. I wouldn't have a problem with them being forced to resign one office in order to run for another. I hardly think it's fair to any of the candidates constitutients that there elected representative is our running around the country and not tending to the business they were elected to do.

So how's the weather up there on your soapbox?

Aaron,

I'm not the one proposing telling people in other states who can and cannot be their elected representatives. That would be you.

btw.......did you ever get my pm about the bingo?

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I'm not the one proposing telling people in other states who can and cannot be their elected representatives. That would be you.

btw.......did you ever get my pm about the bingo?

I expressed what I felt should apply to individuals that serve in the UNITED STATED CONGRESS. State officials running for office should be left up to the individual states.

Yes I did. I'm trying to get a couple of other booster organizations to go in on a 'spring fling' and split the money and that would be one of the main attractions. Thanks.

YVW but I don't see the difference. Why should the people in WV or RI or NM be able to dictate who can represent the people of TX, or NY, or IL? In any event I think the only way to alter that behavior, other than in the voting booth, would be with an amendment to COTUS and I just don't see or hear a whole lot of interest in that.

Stephanie wrote:YVW but I don't see the difference. Why should the people in WV or RI or NM be able to dictate who can represent the people of TX, or NY, or IL? In any event I think the only way to alter that behavior, other than in the voting booth, would be with an amendment to COTUS and I just don't see or hear a whole lot of interest in that.

Because once they go to Washington, while they are representing constituents from their state, it is in doing the business of the United States of America. This years candidates have missed about 17% of the Congressional votes. That's good enough reason for me of why they shouldn’t be trying to do one job and campaigning for another.

Then on top of that, you know they are using their office for as much free stuff as they can get.