Author Topic: Ron Paul  (Read 8642 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline BUGEYE

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2012, 09:24:55 AM »
Well I suppose if you want to stand on that states rights  stuff, then you probably also have to be in severe disagreement with the Supreme Courts decisions to throw out the conviction of those in New Orleans after Katrina for not turnin in their guns, over turning the  DC gun ban, and the Chicago gun ban, after all those laws were all made on the state and local level....... ::)
can you imagine leaving gun control up to cal, or ill, or mass, or ny, or wash, or DC??
I think RP would actually gut the constitution and turn us into 50 individual countries.
Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     Patrick Henry

Give me liberty, or give me death
                                     bugeye

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2012, 10:07:02 AM »
Well I suppose if you want to stand on that states rights  stuff, then you probably also have to be in severe disagreement with the Supreme Courts decisions to throw out the conviction of those in New Orleans after Katrina for not turnin in their guns, over turning the  DC gun ban, and the Chicago gun ban, after all those laws were all made on the state and local level....... ::)
can you imagine leaving gun control up to cal, or ill, or mass, or ny, or wash, or DC??
I think RP would actually gut the constitution and turn us into 50 individual countries.

You'd rather gut the constitution by giving the Fed a say on Firearms? Because the 2A says they don't have one. And gut the 10th by taking away states rights? Because then if Il, NY, CA and DC control the fed, OK, MT and AZ have no defense. It makes the debate for local solution; means you will have to participate in state elections to solve issues. Constitution didn't give us single state under Federal control.
held fast

Offline nw_hunter

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5172
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2012, 10:10:34 AM »
Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or lovers of liberty.


I wish there was some other way for neocons to learn this than the hard way. EVERY time the Federal Government passes a law, it increases its control over the people, and sets precedent. It is willful ignorance to look at his statement above as anti-gun; its the most pro-gun position voiced in Congress right now. Its a statement against the expansion of Federal powers into the gun issue. Some folks here are thinking checkers ... anti-gunners are thinking chess. Everytime you add even a smidgeon of control to the Fed, all it takes is one election and all those powers you gave the Fed are being used against use.


I don't want to keep flip flopping tyrants until I find the tyrant I agree with. How about no more tyrants at all?


Man, all I hear is fear coming from the GOP ...


It would appear that some are just not capable of understanding TN.I don't want to think they would willfully give our freedoms away by voting for these Socialist Republicans!It's just that they are easily swayed by the Neo-con leaders (Former Liberal Socialists) who have taken over the GOP.Most want, or need someone to do their thinking for them and will go along with the party leaders. You and I both know that if you take a little time to do the research yourself, Ron Paul comes out head and shoulders above any other candidate in the race when it comes to second amendment rights.The others are not even close.
Freedom Of Speech.....Once we lose it, every other freedom will follow.

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4662
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2012, 10:25:51 AM »
What the RP people can't seem to understand is that the manufacture and sale of firearms is "interstate commerce".  No matter what you might think, it is fairly settled law.  Has been for some time.
 
 
Quote
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
 
 
If the citizens of one or more states have the "right" under state law to bring what amounts to frivilous, industry killing tort actions agains the firearms manufacturers, then they are endangering that sector of interstate commerce.  If the citizens of California can sue a Texas gun manufacturer into oblivian, it sort of negates the power of those citizens in Texas, does it not?
 
 
 
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline Ranch13

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Gender: Male
    • Historic Shooting .com
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2012, 10:39:49 AM »
Makes me laugh out loud what some of you think is gutting the constitution, and what is or isn't in states rights... Like Casull said stopping the frivilous lawsuits was more about interstate commerce than the 2nd ammendment.
 Left to your standards it would appear that no matter what state you lived in there'ld have to be a firearms manufacturer in that state before you could buy one, and that would be the only brand you could purchase :o
Left to Ron Pauls stance on stopping those lawsuits there wouldn't be a firearms manufacturer left, and there would be noone willing to sell them if they could get them. Now that's sure as the world a good way to proctect the 2nd ammendment....
In the 1920's "sheeple" was a term coined by the National Socialist Party in Germany to describe people that would not vote for Hitler. In the 1930's they held Hitler as the only one that would bring pride back to Germany and bring the budget and economy back.....

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2012, 11:15:00 AM »
What the RP people can't seem to understand is that the manufacture and sale of firearms is "interstate commerce".  No matter what you might think, it is fairly settled law.  Has been for some time.
 
 
Quote
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
 
 
If the citizens of one or more states have the "right" under state law to bring what amounts to frivilous, industry killing tort actions agains the firearms manufacturers, then they are endangering that sector of interstate commerce.  If the citizens of California can sue a Texas gun manufacturer into oblivian, it sort of negates the power of those citizens in Texas, does it not?


If the language of the legislation was to cover all frivolous lawsuits, not just those against firearms manufacturers, then I would concede your point. It was not; it was specific to firearms. It would set precedent for the Federal government to have a say in the manufacturing, sale and transfer of firearms specifically under the guise of interstate commerce, eventhough the 2A negates that. Do you think that legislation would've passed if it were broadened to include all frivolous lawsuits? The Democrats understood what they were doing, even if the other side didn't.
held fast

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2012, 11:25:54 AM »
Makes me laugh out loud what some of you think is gutting the constitution, and what is or isn't in states rights... Like Casull said stopping the frivilous lawsuits was more about interstate commerce than the 2nd ammendment.
 Left to your standards it would appear that no matter what state you lived in there'ld have to be a firearms manufacturer in that state before you could buy one, and that would be the only brand you could purchase :o
Left to Ron Pauls stance on stopping those lawsuits there wouldn't be a firearms manufacturer left, and there would be noone willing to sell them if they could get them. Now that's sure as the world a good way to proctect the 2nd ammendment....


Actually, I am just simply advocating that the Constitution is sufficient for the issue, and does not need mounds of tort law on top of it. [size=78%]The Constitution has solutions for the scenario you paint, not requiring any additional legislation. States were supposed to be able to manage their own inter state commerce with the assistance of the Fed, the Fed was not supposed to do it for them. So if a citizen in CA had a complaint against a gun manufacturer in TX, he could get his State Government involved, and then they could appeal to the Supreme Court. If TX began to feel that CA was getting out of hand pursuing frivolous lawsuits, they could do as sovereign states have always done, and taken it up in other areas of trade. If CA felt that they were getting disproportionate reprisal, they could take it up with the Supreme Court. Sounds good to me.[/size]

[size=78%]Or we could do it your way, and neuter the states so there is no check and balance against the Fed. Give all the power to the Fed, make sure the language is clear that they are the ultimate authority on each and every aspect of our lives. Then pray to God a good guy gets to be President. Not working for me, how about you guys?[/size]
held fast

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4662
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2012, 12:47:14 PM »
Quote
If the language of the legislation was to cover all frivolous lawsuits, not just those against firearms manufacturers, then I would concede your point.

 
Why would you concede my point if the legislation covered all frivalous law suits?  If the point is valid for all, then it surely is valid for one.  The problem was with suits against firearms manufacturers and thus the legislation was written for that purpose.  Or, are you saying that to meet your requirements, legislation should be drafted as broadly as possible?
 
 
Quote
It would set precedent for the Federal government to have a say in the manufacturing, sale and transfer of firearms specifically under the guise of interstate commerce, eventhough the 2A negates that.

 
I think you are a little late with that argument.  The precedent already exists and was set a long time ago.
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4662
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2012, 12:53:29 PM »
Quote
States were supposed to be able to manage their own inter state commerce with the assistance of the Fed, the Fed was not supposed to do it for them.

 
 
Really?  The Constitution says that the feds are to "regulate" it, not just act as referee when the states needed "assistance".
 
 
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline Doublebass73

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4579
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2012, 12:57:04 PM »
It's quite laughable that you guys are going after Ron Paul for being anti 2nd Amendment when his record on it is flawless. His voting record speaks for itself, never mind the A+ rating from the GOA. The fact that you guys can't comprehend his vote against a bill that expanded the power of the federal government does not make him anti gun.

Clearly you guys have an anti Ron Paul agenda. Proof of that is the fact that none of you have said a word about the terrible records of Gingrich and Romney when it comes to gun control and the 2nd Amendment. You have no problem overlooking that.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

---- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4662
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2012, 01:54:44 PM »
Quote
Clearly you guys have an anti Ron Paul agenda. Proof of that is the fact that none of you have said a word about the terrible records of Gingrich and Romney when it comes to gun control and the 2nd Amendment. You have no problem overlooking that.

 
No, we just hear about Gingrich and Romney from the RP guys ad nauseum.  And, from you same fellows, nothing but 100% cheerleading about RP.  So, if RP has negatives, we have to hear it from each other.
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline Doublebass73

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4579
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2012, 02:47:15 PM »
Quote
Clearly you guys have an anti Ron Paul agenda. Proof of that is the fact that none of you have said a word about the terrible records of Gingrich and Romney when it comes to gun control and the 2nd Amendment. You have no problem overlooking that.

 
No, we just hear about Gingrich and Romney from the RP guys ad nauseum.  And, from you same fellows, nothing but 100% cheerleading about RP.  So, if RP has negatives, we have to hear it from each other.

He may have some negatives in your mind, I have no problem with that. I have no problem debating the merits of his foreign policy or drug policy stances or anything else you disagree with him on. There's nothing wrong with us disagreeing but I have to say that you guys are REALLY stretching it to call his 2nd Amendment record a negative. It just tells me that you guys don't like him and refuse to say anything good about him despite what his record says.

We might be cheerleaders for him, that should tell you something. He has passionate supporters because of his voting record. The fact that there is nobody here cheerleading for Romney and Gingrich speaks volumes. Not one of you guys has complained about Romney's or Gingrich's records on gun control. The only thing good we here about those guys is "anybody but Obama". That attitude is what will continue to perpetuate liberal Republicans in every election.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

---- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4662
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2012, 03:20:34 PM »
Yes, but the all or nothing attitude is what will give us four more years of obama.
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline Gary G

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1463
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2012, 03:30:50 PM »




Bill Walker
"Science Nerd"[size=1.857em]It’s Still a Two-Man Race Between Paul and Romney
Posted on January 23, 2012 at 9:03 am






[/color]
[/size][size=0.857em]
[/size][/color][/font][/size]
[size=1.857em][size=0.857em][/size][/color][/font][/size]
[size=1.857em][size=0.857em] Upload Photos and Videos[/size][/color][/font][/size]Newt Gingrich can’t be President. Not because of his $1.6 million Freddie Mac scandal, or his [/color]fake charity scandal, or his $300,000 ethics fine while Speaker, the arms dealer scandal, or any of his other personal and financial scandals. Newt Gingrich (or Rick Santorum) can’t be President because to be nominated, you need delegates. Those are real people that take time from their lives to go to conventions and represent you. Newt has lots of media coverage, but in the physical world where campaigns actually occur he can’t get 1141 delegates.[/size]It’s hard for us to understand in New Hampshire, but people in many states see politics as a spectator sport. They don’t show up for local or off-year elections, they don’t know who their congressmen are, and they certainly don’t take off time to go to precinct, county, and state conventions as delegates. (And come to think of it, even in New Hampshire Newt couldn’t field a full slate of delegates… until our delegate total was cut in half to penalize us for our early primary). Unless they’re excited about a candidate (Paul supporters) or have some connection to political machines, they experience elections from their couch.

No candidates besides Paul and Romney filed in all the states:
VA - no Gingrich or Santorum - 49 delegatesMO - no Gingrich - 52 delegates, non-binding primaryD.C. - no Santorum - 19 delegatesSo that's 101 lost for Gingrich, and 68 lost for Santorum.Then, even when your campaign stops its Aegean cruise long enough to file, you still have to get people to sign up as delegates. Santorum and Gingrich only have partial slates of delegates in IL, OH, and TN, which together represent 193 delegates. They are missing different numbers of delegates, but these losses push Gingrich down to levels where he would have to have landslides in all the remaining states. Even with campaign contributors like [/color]Ashley Madison, it’s unlikely that all Republican voters will unite behind the guy who polls show can’t beat Obama.

Would South Carolinians have voted for Newt if they knew he couldn’t win? Of course not… people aren’t voting for “Mr. Freddie Mac” as a moral protest candidate. Once again, this careless ignorance goes back to the “spectator sport” attitude… except that most people actually know the rules of the sports they watch. A vote for Newt is at best a vote for a brokered convention. (Maybe that wouldn’t be so bad… surely delegates freed to nominate anyone of their choice would pick
someone polling better against Obama than a disgraced ex-Speaker?)
[/size]
So if they know they can’t win, why are Newt and Rick running? Book sales? Speaking fees? Political appointments to get them to drop out? Pure ego? All of the above? I certainly don’t know. But I do know that people looking for a candidate who can stop “Goldman Sachs” Romney before the convention only have one choice: Ron Paul.
[size=1.857em]
The sole purpose of government is to protect your liberty. The Constitution is not to restrict the people, but to restrict government.  Ron Paul

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone.” — Frederic Bastiat

Offline Gary G

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1463
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2012, 03:33:30 PM »
So there are only two choices:  :D
The sole purpose of government is to protect your liberty. The Constitution is not to restrict the people, but to restrict government.  Ron Paul

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone.” — Frederic Bastiat

Offline Lost Farmboy

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2012, 04:25:21 PM »
  Gary, how true! Romney and Obama both controlled by Goldman Sachs.
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.   John F. Kennedy

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" -Ronald Reagan

“So this is how liberty dies; with thunderous applause.”  Padme Amidala

Offline Lost Farmboy

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2012, 04:29:50 PM »
Yes, but the all or nothing attitude is what will give us four more years of obama.

 
It's not all or nothing. It's not excepting evil. If you are willing to except the lessor of 2 evils you will get evil. Romney is the biggest RINO in the heard. Newt just supports too many of Obama's programs for me to trust him. The pair are just too evil to vote for.
 

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.   John F. Kennedy

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" -Ronald Reagan

“So this is how liberty dies; with thunderous applause.”  Padme Amidala

Offline nw_hunter

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5172
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2012, 04:33:03 PM »
Yes, but the all or nothing attitude is what will give us four more years of obama.




If we get another four more years of Obama, it will be because the GOP has once again chosen to  send a Rino like McCain to challenge him.And even if the challenger won this time, the country would still have a Liberal in the White House. A Liberal Republican instead of a Liberal Democrat!

More and more people apparently are beginning to see that.That's why Paul is doing better this time around.
Freedom Of Speech.....Once we lose it, every other freedom will follow.

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4662
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2012, 05:14:38 PM »
Quote
That's why Paul is doing better this time around.

 
 
Yep, he's averaging about 20%.  Impressive.    ::)
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline Casull

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4662
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2012, 05:16:45 PM »
Quote
It's not all or nothing. It's not excepting evil. If you are willing to except the lessor of 2 evils you will get evil.

 
 
BS!  Neither of them are evil.  I'm sick of hearing that tired cliche.  It's that kind of attitude from the RP people that turns off many.
Aim small, miss small!!!

Offline Lost Farmboy

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2012, 06:04:27 PM »
Quote
It's not all or nothing. It's not excepting evil. If you are willing to except the lessor of 2 evils you will get evil.

 
 
BS!  Neither of them are evil.  I'm sick of hearing that tired cliche.  It's that kind of attitude from the RP people that turns off many.

 
They both support the unconstitutional Obama care mandate. Both have expressed a desire to chip away at the second amendment. Newt has expressed his CFR desire for a global government. GW separately signed away our counties sovereignty when he signed the North American Union treaty with Mexico and Canada. Lou Dobbs reported it on CNN. One of the reasons he was forced out. Obama signed away our sovereignty again when he signed the Copenhagen treaty setting up a global government. I know Newt would sign a treaty ending our sovereignty and I believe Romney would too. Yes, too evil to vote for under any circumstance.
 
 
These people are secretly setting up a world government. John warned us about this in his book of Revelations.
 
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.   John F. Kennedy

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" -Ronald Reagan

“So this is how liberty dies; with thunderous applause.”  Padme Amidala

Offline Lost Farmboy

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2012, 07:12:28 PM »
  The way I see it we can learn from history or suffer the consequences and repeat it. In 1992 we had GHWB and Bill Clinton debating Ross Perot. Bush and Clinton lying about how many jobs they would create with NAFT. Ross, the one crying in the wilderness, that great sucking sound. NAFTA was so successful at creating American jobs that they signed deals with other counties line China.


Now we spent trillions on a war over WMD that didn't exist. Setup a police state that looks at our naked bodies with machines that shower us with cancer causing radiation. Each president chipping away at our constitution, economy and freedom. Both the republicans and demarcates.


Ross war our first chance. Now Ron is our second chance. Do we learn from history or repeat it? Do we choose a RINO with a record of undermining the constitution? Do we reelect the illegal alien? Or do we choose a man with a proven 30 year record of defending the constitution and a plan to cut one trillion dollars from the budget the first year.


This is our last chance. If we Americans pick one of the RINOs or reelect the illegal alien, we deserve the tyrannical police state they will finish soon.
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.   John F. Kennedy

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" -Ronald Reagan

“So this is how liberty dies; with thunderous applause.”  Padme Amidala

Offline Singleshotsam

  • I.T. Professional
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2012, 11:59:27 PM »
Quote
It's not all or nothing. It's not excepting evil. If you are willing to except the lessor of 2 evils you will get evil.

 
 
BS!  Neither of them are evil.  I'm sick of hearing that tired cliche.  It's that kind of attitude from the RP people that turns off many.

LOL!  Gotta love a liberal.
I'm voting 3rd party in this election by writing in Jesus Christ for president.  Sadly even if this were an option most of you would still vote Republican because "It's a two party system."

Offline Lost Farmboy

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2012, 02:27:31 AM »
Quote
It's not all or nothing. It's not excepting evil. If you are willing to except the lessor of 2 evils you will get evil.

 
 
BS!  Neither of them are evil.  I'm sick of hearing that tired cliche.  It's that kind of attitude from the RP people that turns off many.

LOL!  Gotta love a liberal.

  So what's a liberal? Is that the one that normally considers the democrat the greater of two evils?
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.   John F. Kennedy

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" -Ronald Reagan

“So this is how liberty dies; with thunderous applause.”  Padme Amidala

Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2012, 02:47:47 AM »
Quote
So what's a liberal? Is that the one that normally considers the democrat the greater of two evils?

The word liberal and conservative are nothing but word games designed to confuse people.
Republicans call themselves conservative, but many of them are not, Democrats call themselves liberal, most of them are not even close. 
 
The true liberal was THE most conservative, they wanted smaller government, less laws, less intervention on all things.  Dems highjacked the word liberal because progressive socialism sounds awful, reps highjacked the word conservative because what they really are sounds awful, and the patriot act is an example of what republicans can do to your freedoms.
 
Ron Paul is probably the most conservative you will find anywhere these days.  People do not understand what the feds can do.  Our Representative voted no on that bill to nationalize CCW permits because it was tied to the commerce laws and because the feds could get their fingers into state cpl permits....yet....most all gun owners beat him up pretty bad on that.
 
Your state rights is the second to the last line of defense against the fed control...YOU are the last defense if that fails.  You best put something in between you and the feds...I would recommend your whole state if possible. 

Offline Doublebass73

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4579
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2012, 03:03:48 AM »
Quote
It's not all or nothing. It's not excepting evil. If you are willing to except the lessor of 2 evils you will get evil.

 
 
BS!  Neither of them are evil.  I'm sick of hearing that tired cliche.  It's that kind of attitude from the RP people that turns off many.

Gingrich - voted to make the 2nd Amendment null and void in a school zone
Romney - Voted to make semi-automatic rifles illegal in Massachusetts, a clear violation of the 2nd.

If Obama voted for either of these you'd call him evil. You give them a free pass because they have an "R" next to their name.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

---- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Offline DakotaElkSlayer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2012, 05:22:26 PM »
  Got a question for you folks...  Who is against Ron Paul and why?  Obviously, the libertarians love him, as do the liberal college students.  Most people I know who hear his stances on most issues, totally agree with him.  That being said, he isn't getting the backing from the large organizations or BIG money that gets one elected...why?  I sense fear....but why?
 
 
Jim
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

- Albert Einstein

Offline Cuts Crooked

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3325
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2012, 05:46:16 PM »
  Got a question for you folks...  Who is against Ron Paul and why?  Obviously, the libertarians love him, as do the liberal college students.  Most people I know who hear his stances on most issues, totally agree with him.  That being said, he isn't getting the backing from the large organizations or BIG money that gets one elected...why?  I sense fear....but why?
 
 
Jim

Same reason the left hates him, they fear that their gravy train will come to a halt. It's really that simple! RP represents reducing the size of the fed and getting the fed out of areas where they should not be according to the constitution. However the creeping liberalism/socialism of the past several decades has worked! Too many of them are hooked on the gravy!
Smokeless is only a passing fad!

"The liar who charms and disarms and wreaths himself in artifice is too agreeable to be called a demon. So we adopt the word "candidate"." Brooke McEldowney

"When a dog has bitten ten kids I have trouble believing he would make a good childs companion just because he now claims he is a good dog and doesn't bite. How's that for a "parable"?"....ME

Offline Ranch13

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Gender: Male
    • Historic Shooting .com
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #58 on: January 25, 2012, 06:13:51 PM »
I like most of Paul's economic thoughts.
 I detest his broad stroke of legalizing all illegal drugs. I also don't care much for his open borders policy. I don't like his stretching of the truth about his own pork barrel spending. I'm pretty sure his foreign policy would give us suitcase nukes in most US cities before the end of his first year in office. Some of his interpetation of the constitution is debatable. I don't like his trying to portray hisself as a Washington outsider, for cryin out loud he's been in Congress for 24 consective years. 90 percent of his groupies wasn't even born the first time he went into Congress, most of them were still in diapers on this go round. A Washington outsider isn't someone who has accumulated nearly 50 % of his entire life in a seat of the US House of Representatives. I also think his lack of leadership is simply stunning, in those 30 someodd years he has only got 1 out of 600+ bills clear thru the process and signed into law, and that single one was to transfer ownership of a federal building to the local historical society.
 I'm also concerned about his age, sometime this year he'll turn 79, that would make him 83 before his first term was up, provided at his age an anurism,stroke or other malady that hits old folks, never mind how the pressure and strain of the office might accelerate it.
When he doesn't get into the oval office on this attempt, the only  one to try as many times and not get there is Pat Polson.
 But other than that there isn't a thing wrong with the goofy old turd.
In the 1920's "sheeple" was a term coined by the National Socialist Party in Germany to describe people that would not vote for Hitler. In the 1930's they held Hitler as the only one that would bring pride back to Germany and bring the budget and economy back.....

Offline Singleshotsam

  • I.T. Professional
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #59 on: January 26, 2012, 12:57:34 AM »
I guess I was wrong about Ron Paul.  With a third place, distant second place and now fourth place finish, he obviously has the leadership skills, charisma and support that I argued he did not have.  Oh well, I stand humbled.

So your complaining about this discussion going off topic when it started out as a sarcasic opinion to begin with?  ... ... LOL!!!
I'm voting 3rd party in this election by writing in Jesus Christ for president.  Sadly even if this were an option most of you would still vote Republican because "It's a two party system."