http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/06/06/giuliani-debate-blogging/

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/06/press_release.html

can any of the regulars here tell me what would be the difference between a Giuliani presidency and a Clinton presidency ?

The next election could be easily won by the GOP candidate if A) he clearly opposes amnesty for illegals and/or mass immigration legal or illegal and if he says he will build a fence on the border and B) if he says that US forces will not stay in Iraq forever.

but instead the front runners are flipfloppers on A or overt open-borders nation backstabbing traitors like McCain who, like his buddy Sen.Kennedy, would like the country to be drowned in brown tsunami from Mehico. That p.o.s. would rather go back in a north vietnamese prison than to build a fence on the border ! And they’re all for staying in Iraq forever, something that a majority of americans are against just like they’re against amnesty and open borders.

And you guys are all bashing Ron Paul over his foreign policy ideas but you ignore the biggest problem with the front runners: their stance on illegals and border security. They have the same one that the Democratic Party candidates have but Ron Paul is not only opposed to amnesty but he’s even opposed to birthright citizenship (I even believe Tancredo doesn’t go that far).

What’s the point of having an election if the candidates all have the same opinions on these matters ?

The american nation can survive without Iraq being secure (it didn’t have anything to do with 9/11 to begin with remember ?) or with islamonuts living in Pakistani caves at the other end of the world but it won’t survive a demographic invasion from Mexico or an insane open borders policy that allows every Abdul and Mohammed to enter the US so long as their names aren’t on a FBI file. But you don’t seem to care all that much do you ?