Ron Paul

[BUGEYE]

I'm curious as to how RP would enforce the Constitution.
folks are too chicken to use the 2nd  and only rich people can sue concerning the rest.
tell me exactly what he would do about it as prez.

[Ranch13]

Careful there, Ranch13.  The RP people don't like hearing their candidate criticized.  Besides, most of them, including the moderator, have decided to stay off the topic I began this post with (discussion of RP's strong performance thus far) and have insisted on using this as a platform to attack his opponents (candidates and otherwise).

Well that's always the problem isn't it? Get asked why you wouldn't vote for him , give an honest answer, and somehow it gets interpetted as criticizing......

[teamnelson]

We should be critical of all candidates, especially our own. I criticize them all. Ron has the fewest complaints across all issues, but no candidate should be 100%. Criticism has become unPC in the modern english lexicon - all it means is to rationally evaluate. Please, by all means criticize Paul, but do the same to Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, et al.
 
If you are solely voting on the basis of electability, then you are not thinking critically about your candidates. You are just voting in fear of Obama. I have compared all the GOP candidates side-by-side on all the issues, criticizing each one's views with the information readily available on the net. They have been weighed, they have been measured, and Ron Paul is the least wanting of them all ... particularly on the 2A.
 
Ron Paul has an A rating from the NRA, and his voting record is strong. He opposed any legislation enumerating federal powers over gun ownership, sales, manufacturing, transfer or operation. He proposed legislation taking those powers away from municipalities that overstepped their bounds. He has supported the individual right under the 2A, and stated that the militia was not the national guard, but communities and families who had need to cooperate and found self-regulation to be appropriate to their need. He has supported right to carry, noting that requiring a firearm to be locked up unloaded in your home, separate from ammo, is infringement as the 2A is a right to defend one's liberty with arms.
 
Romney is an anti-gun progressive liberal who joined the NRA in 2007 to win Republican votes. If you vote for him because you think he'll beat Obama, you are voting against the 2A. His policies are right in line with Obama.
 
Newt has flip-flopped, making bold statements, but supports legislation that enumerates federal power over firearms. He's only stronger on gun rights in comparison to Romney and Obama, but that's not saying much. While a life time member of the NRA, he is considered by other 2A organizations to be an anti-gunner based on his voting record. He seems to use the issue against others, but his own stance is soft. Don't expect any current or pending 2A infringement legislation to be vetoed by him; his record is to walk the middle.

[Ranch13]

Bacically the republicans have got a pretty sorry lot running. The way the Washington establishment and the elite media opperate it's going to be hard to get really decent folks to run.
The one thing that does make Newt attractive is he's the only one in the field right now that can think fast enough on his feet to take the fight to Obama and score some big hits in a debate,and soundbites on the talking box.Newt has spent the last 10 years with his American Solutions orginization, so he's got a fairly good crossection of what real Americans want from their government.
No matter who runs or gets elected in the presidents office, if the Senate remains under Harry Rieds control, and if the house doesn't gain some more common sense folks that can overrun the inside the beltway boys, and disrupt the good olboy netwok in Congress, this country is most likely on it's last legs.
The real fight is out in the heartland, and appethetic voters not making changes in their Congressional representation. Get those elections headed in the right direction and continue on the path started in 10 and then it won't matter so much who sits in the Oval office.
A constitutional ammendment establishing term limits would stop the nonsense and probably prevent it from ever happening again.

[teamnelson]

ranch13, you've just described why I support RP. When everyone on both sides of the aisle calls him Dr. No, and praise his stubborn consistency, and say things like He's never fit in. GREAT
 
As far as stirring up the vote, more young people are politically active this time around than even 2008, and they love Ron Paul - and hate Obama. Military loves him, veterans love him - he's the numerical victor in every straw poll. He won in a landslide with 51% in the 40 and under demographic in Iowa. That's a huge voter base to leverage. If folks really wanted to wallop Obama, they'd read the weather and see which way the future is going. This is historic - a large and growing politically active under 40 demographic in the US. These are the folks on whose shoulders all the bills will fall. And in their ranks are a million combat veterans who understand cost and sacrifice at a level only the old guard in the GOP can appreciate. An RP win would pump new blood into the GOP, and raise up a new generation of local candidates who are not just conservative, but liberty loving constitutionalists, all over the US. If the GOP fails to leverage that opportunity, they will lose the future.

[Singleshotsam]

TN i do not think i've heard anyone explain their support for Ron Paul as well as you have.  Excellent posts!  Looking at the flip side of the arguments from Cassul and Ranch, I've heard lots of reasons to NOT vote for Ron Paul, but little explaination as to why I should stand behind their candidate, other than "It's the only way to beat Obama."
 
I'm curious to find out who do you guys support and why based on their voting records...

[BUGEYE]

TN i do not think i've heard anyone explain their support for Ron Paul as well as you have.  Excellent posts!  Looking at the flip side of the arguments from Cassul and Ranch, I've heard lots of reasons to NOT vote for Ron Paul, but little explaination as to why I should stand behind their candidate, other than "It's the only way to beat Obama."
 
I'm curious to find out who do you guys support and why based on their voting records...

Matt had a thread that addressed that very thing.  it's still available.

[Ranch13]

Team Nelson, don't fall on that Military and veterans loves Paul line. I know a number of active duty military and veterans, and trust me they don't think much of Paul.
As far as his Dr. No stuff, that's all well and good, but this country won't survive on someone that it's do it my way or hit the hiway..... Prime example is what the young voters gave us in 08.
I'm always wary of poll's and claims of large  and growing followers,,, but lets see what happens where the rubber meets the road, 3rd in Iowa, 2nch in New Hampshire , and a drizzlin dismal 4th in South Carolina, and if the current poll's can be believed , currently running a distant 4th in Florida. Now that last one is telling.Florida has a huge concentration of military and defense dept. types.....I'm also reminded of our own 08 caucuses, and  even Guilliani lasted more rounds of votes than did Paul. My son got on the Paul bandwagon, and he still is, and he was completely baffled, he said "dad when the votes were all counted we got aobut 1/4 of the votes compared to the yard signs we had people offer to put up."
 

[teamnelson]

I'm active duty, been in on and off since 87, been to combat several times. A numerical victor is anyone over 50%, which means that you know some who don't like him just means you know some who don't like him. I know some who don't like him - they like Obama. I work with thousands a day, spanning multiple branches and disciplines and I'll stick with my original statement.
 
Here's where the status quo GOP & Obama has failed our military ...
- No clear exit strategy for Iraq or Afghanistan.
- Declared Iraq done ... what does that mean? What was the definition of done? Did we win? We sure paid a heavy price.
- Engaged Libya w/o Congressional approval. There were troops on the ground, not in numbers but despite Presidential statements to the contrary.
- UBL. We all wanted him dead, but after facing trial like honest upstanding nations with the moral high ground do. Y'know, the one our young people believe they're representing when they take an oath to the Consitution, and stand at attention for our nations color. We send troops to jail for killing detainees ... mixed messages going on.
... and on and on. Every bad foreign policy decision gets paid for by us and our families. We all volunteered to serve our country; when and where is up to congress and the President. We'd like to feel like the good guys at any level, and we'd like that to be much more clearly stated. It'd be nice to have a Congress/WH that was as concerned about being right as we have to be.
- ERB. DOD had a private board up in DC that determined we needed to release thousands of E-6s before retirement. In the Navy that's 3,000. These aren't punitive or performance; these are all retainable workers who are being laid off despite navy instructions (law) that promised them 20 years service, getting retirement. 2700 of them are being cut off shy of 15. 300 of them are over 15 and will be eligible for an early retirement program passed in January just to soften the blow. We lied to them, we broke faith. I've met with every single one of mine who were effected. They're entering a horrible job market at no choice of their own. They've done nothing wrong, and had guarantees of service. They made plans for their families, bought homes, cars. Now they are being dumped.
- Obama plans to slash 500,000 from the military, with GOP support.
 
Meanwhile we all know of the excesses in the white house and in congress.
- RP does not use many of the Congressional benefits he's "entitled" to because he thinks they're wrong.
- RP regularly returns a portion of his annual budget back to the CBO, last year it was $140K I believe.
 
People know that and understand. One guy, with consistent character, doing the right thing every time he has the chance doesn't sound like much of a politician to me. But that's a guy you can trust. My recruiter promised me hope and change; Obama promised me hope and change; the GOP is hoping to make some changes ... I just want someone to deliver.
 

[Gary G]

Why do I support Ron Paul? Because he is the only one opposed to the Washington Oligarchy. (Gingrich, Romney, Obama are all a part of it.) Why do I dislike the Oligarchy? Because they are making me and my family poorer, are exposing me to danger (both economic and foreign), and they are taking away my freedom, all for their own enrichment. Listen to the interview that I today added to "Ron Paul for President 1012" and see what you think.
The real issue is not Obama. It is the people vs. the Oligarchy. The two party ism is there to distract you.


The young people are catching on to it; the old people have their head in the sand.

[Lost Farmboy]

Besides, most of them, including the moderator, have decided to stay off the topic I began this post with (discussion of RP's strong performance thus far) and have insisted on using this as a platform to attack his opponents (candidates and otherwise).

 
Silly me. I looked at the title and thought the thread was about Ron Paul. Sorry for going off topic.

[Casull]

Yep, the topic was RP and his chances of winning (in case you didn't get that), but most of the posts have been about how bad Newt or Mitt are.

[BUGEYE]

If RP wins, some make it sound like all the democrats,gays,illegals,NOW members,unions and other assorted misfits are just gonna go away and all will be rosy.
I don't think RP can take the pressure.
If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him.

Mcwoodduck, Cabin4, y'all ready to turn in your guns? RP will leave it up to your state to enforce the 2nd.

[Gary G]

If RP wins, some make it sound like all the democrats,gays,illegals,NOW members,unions and other assorted misfits are just gonna go away and all will be rosy.
I don't think RP can take the pressure.
If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him.

Mcwoodduck, Cabin4, y'all ready to turn in your guns? RP will leave it up to your state to enforce the 2nd.

I am the error police and it is my job to correct errors:
 Therefore, let it be known that the truth is, under Ron Paul, the second amendment will be stronger than ever. By law, the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights applies to the states. [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights[/size]

[Doublebass73]

Mcwoodduck, Cabin4, y'all ready to turn in your guns? RP will leave it up to your state to enforce the 2nd.

LOL, your comments about Ron Paul's anti gun agenda are completely laughable.

GOA grades:
Ron Paul A+
Newt Gingrich C
Mitt Romney D-

You just admitted you'd vote for Ron Paul if he got the nomination. Why would you vote for someone who would cause you to (as you say) end up turning in your guns?

[BUGEYE]

After last nights debate, I'm getting tired of newt and mitt.  rick seems to me to have won.
ron still reminds me of mortimer snerd.

doublebass73.  he keeps talking of states rights, which is good most of the time.
but RP or you or anyone else can't tell me how the gun owners in the liberal states would be protected.

[Singleshotsam]

TN i do not think i've heard anyone explain their support for Ron Paul as well as you have.  Excellent posts!  Looking at the flip side of the arguments from Cassul and Ranch, I've heard lots of reasons to NOT vote for Ron Paul, but little explaination as to why I should stand behind their candidate, other than "It's the only way to beat Obama."
 
I'm curious to find out who do you guys support and why based on their voting records...

Matt had a thread that addressed that very thing.  it's still available.

Link?

[yellowtail3]

If RP wins, some make it sound like all the democrats,gays,illegals,NOW members,unions and other assorted misfits are just gonna go away and all will be rosy.

No reason to expect those folks to 'go away' -  they're our fellow citizens. Ron Paul knows this, of course - he's a good man.


I'd love to see him get the nomination. He'd  move the debate, and mention unmentionables. He's got my support.

[Casull]

 

   Quote from: BUGEYE on Yesterday at 02:31:48 PM

If RP wins, some make it sound like all the democrats,gays,illegals,NOW members,unions and other assorted misfits are just gonna go away and all will be rosy.

   

No reason to expect those folks to 'go away' -  they're our fellow citizens.

       Since when did illegal aliens become "our fellow citizens"?       

[Doublebass73]

After last nights debate, I'm getting tired of newt and mitt.  rick seems to me to have won.
ron still reminds me of mortimer snerd.

doublebass73.  he keeps talking of states rights, which is good most of the time.
but RP or you or anyone else can't tell me how the gun owners in the liberal states would be protected.

Are states like Illinois and California protected now? Gun owners in liberal states have long been under attack. They are supposed to be protected under the 2nd Amendment but as you know the battle is still being waged. We've made some progress in places like D.C. the battle will most likely continue with more decisions from the supreme court. That is a perfectly Constitutional check and balance. What you're not understanding about Ron Paul and his vote on the gun maker lawsuit bill is that while it had good intentions it gave additional power to the federal government which it turn can be used against gun owners by a not so nice administration down the road. That is a very risky proposition considering the amount of gun grabbing politicians out there. That is why he voted against it. He is not a gun grabber in any way, shape or form. There are other issues I'm sure you disagree with him on but his loyalty to the 2nd is not one of them. He's on the same page as you and I. If he was anti gun in any small way I would not support him, just like I won't support Newt or Mitt. The 2nd is a dealbreaker for me with any politician. If they vote for any type of gun control then they will never get a vote from me.

[BUGEYE]

doublebass73, I understand all that, but if a state like california bans guns, by the time it reaches the supreme court, your guns will have been melted down.  done properly, the supremes would have struck down all restrictive gun laws.  DC and Chicago just passed more laws, so now it has to spend a few more years in court.  gun rights will continue to erode because we sit and twiddle our thumbs and RP can do nothing about it because he refuses to entervene.
he will leave gun rights and the rights of the unborn to the states.  it's a cop-out.

[yellowtail3]

Since when did illegal aliens become "our fellow citizens"?     

Alright, frowny-face, you have a point there... illegals are not our fellow citizens, not yet. They are our fellow man. So... subtract out illegal aliens. The rest stay, whether the wingnuts and xenophobes like it or not.

Ron Paul would be a breath of fresh air. Here's wishing him well.

[Doublebass73]

doublebass73, I understand all that, but if a state like california bans guns, by the time it reaches the supreme court, your guns will have been melted down.  done properly, the supremes would have struck down all restrictive gun laws.  DC and Chicago just passed more laws, so now it has to spend a few more years in court.  gun rights will continue to erode because we sit and twiddle our thumbs and RP can do nothing about it because he refuses to entervene.
he will leave gun rights and the rights of the unborn to the states.  it's a cop-out.

It's not a cop out, it's called following the Constitution.

What you're advocating is that since nobody else follows the Constitution then Ron Paul should also not follow it in order to make things right. Because he's unwilling to do that you don't like him.
The Constitution is a piece of toilet paper if we choose not to follow it to suit our agenda.

[Casull]

It's not a cop out, it's called following the Constitution.

 
 
No, I think the RP people are copping out when it comes to admitting that their guy might not always be correct.  I don't think RP's interpretation of the Constitution is correct on this point.  Again, I think the legislation in question would fall under the Commerce Clause.  And, in any event, RP would seem to think that the SCOTUS could offer protection of the 2nd, but the Congress cannot.  I do not see that distinction in the Constitution. 

[Gary G]

Well, the American Indians want to be free, even if a few old men don't: (Russel Means)


[font='times new roman']http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BuVa7_zz_Y0[/font]

[Cuts Crooked]

 
 
 Again, I think the legislation in question would fall under the Commerce Clause.  And, in any event, RP would seem to think that the SCOTUS could offer protection of the 2nd, but the Congress cannot.  I do not see that distinction in the Constitution.

Sorry, but "Shall Not Be Infringed" trumps the commerce clause. And the SCOTUS has already proven that they can offer protection from a liberal congress......or any other bunch of socialistdemolib law makers.

But some folks will sieze on ANY little thing they can to try to make RP sound like he is just as much a gun grabber as Newt and Romney.....it's a stretch, but they can't cope with real freedom so they strain at gnats while swallowing camels. (come to think about it, that's pretty much what most politicians do daily  )

[Casull]

Sorry, but "Shall Not Be Infringed" trumps the commerce clause.

 
 
Uhh, no.  One part of the Constitution does not "trump" any other part.  BTW, how exactly does legislation designed to protect the firearms industry from unreasonable tort lawsuits "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?

[Casull]

But some folks will sieze on ANY little thing they can to try to make RP sound like he is just as much a gun grabber as Newt and Romney

 
 
No, it's just that some of the RP supporters automatically (without analyzing anything for themselves) believe that RP is always correct in his assertions or opinions.

[Cuts Crooked]

Sorry, but "Shall Not Be Infringed" trumps the commerce clause.

 
 
Uhh, no.  One part of the Constitution does not "trump" any other part.  BTW, how exactly does legislation designed to protect the firearms industry from unreasonable tort lawsuits "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?

Ok, then tell me where it says "Shall not be infringed" in the commerce clause.

[teamnelson]

Sorry, but "Shall Not Be Infringed" trumps the commerce clause.

 
 
 BTW, how exactly does legislation designed to protect the firearms industry from unreasonable tort lawsuits "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?

Easy, it establishes the precedent that Congress can pass legislation amending and defining firearms related issues. It starts the death by a thousand cuts agenda that has been used to attack every other liberty once enjoyed by free Americans. You should read liberal and socialist politicians sometimes; they're very open in their strategies. Listen to NPR, they will as much as lay out the strategy for you ... the legislation you mention here was a nose under the tent legislation that was believed to be palatable enough to get RINOs to buy off on it, and many did. The Democrats admitted it as such. That's enough for me to be against it. RP did the right thing.
 
RP has been in favor of tort reform, which is a commerce issue and appropriate to Congressional review, but that would be for all industries, underwhich the firearms manufacturing industry would fall. Had it been broadened to include all industries, it would not have been effective to the Democratic agenda.