Ron Paul

[Casull]

Yes, TeamNelson, I have heard the RP argument before.  I just don't agree with it.

[nw_hunter]

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.

 
 
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I don't think RP is always correct. Truthfully, I don't think I know of one supporter that agrees 100% with RP.After extensive analysis of Paul and the other candidates, I find him, and his ideas for America overall to be by far the best choice.
 
I'm at odds somewhat with him on the border issue, and a few other things that, IMO are not the most critical thing facing us in the USA. We have seen what the New World Order, and Nation building war people have brought us, and continue to bring with Obama.
 
Those of us that support Paul want to see a real change, and we don't believe you will get it with A Newt , Mitt, Rick type of Neo-con.We believe we have strayed too far from the Constitution, and will only continue to do so with the likes of them.
Ron Paul supporters don't buy the anything is better than approach.The problems facing us as a nation have continued to slide downward with Democrats or Republicans in power. I think that's obvious.Why should we think another insider Republican will change that? Don't bet the farm anyone is better than Obama!I didn't think anyone could be worse than Clinton, and then along came GW. Wow! No one could be worse than this freedom grabbing (Patriot Act), War Monger Neo-con Liberal...................And along came Obama! If the GOP had won that one, we would have had another Liberal gungrabber (John McCain) Instead we got a gun grabbing Liberal named Obama.Why should we expect any thing different with someone like New or Mitt?
 
 

[teamnelson]

Yes, TeamNelson, I have heard the RP argument before.  I just don't agree with it.

I could care less if you agree with RP, or even me. Do you agree with the liberals who supported that legislation for the express purpose of increasing federal oversight and regulation on the firearms industry? Do you agree with what all the Democrats said about that legislation and its enablement of their agenda to move into every aspect of firearms and ammunition manufacturing in the United States? Do you agree with their stated desire to use that legislation as a stepping stone into establish federal regulatory commission to oversee the firearms industry in particular?
 
Remember the FDA was established initially to resolve commerce issues, then expanded into public safety. If you'd like a Federal Regulatory Commission to oversea the manufacturing and distribution of firearms and ammo in the U.S. then by all means, don't support RP. If you'd like to see prices driven up to meet regulatory compliance; environmental and safety standards lifted, etc., don't support RP. If you'd like to see licensing of operators, registration, and minimum training requirements managed by professionals ... all in the name of protecting the industry from frivolous lawsuits. Don't believe me, look at the FDA, look at Health Care, look at every other industry for which Congress has intervened in the last 40 years, initially under the guise of helping the industry ... Nothing is ever as simple as a soundbite.
 
Why did you then ask for an explanation if you were predisposed to reject it? Are you familiar with tautology?

[Lost Farmboy]

Many of us Ron Paul supporters looked at all the candidates. We compared their voting records, speeches and writings. If by their own records we eliminate all enemies of the constitution, all we have left is Ron Paul.


Obama is an enemy of the constitution because it disqualifies him from his job. He also hates the second amendment. His unconstitutional healthcare bill is a assault on health freedom. Obama has done a lot of damage to the constitution, but the worst thing he did was appoint 2 enemies of the constitution to the supreme court.


The gun grabbing Romney RINO is an obvious enemy of the constitution. His chipping away at the second amendment rivals Obama's efforts. Obama borrowed (maybe stolen) his unconstitutional healthcare bill from Romney. He would not only continue Obama's assault on the second amendment. He would appoint enemies of the constitution to the supreme court to help him. We are only one Justice away from declaring the constitution unconstitutional. I fear a president Romney and much as a president Obama.


The gun grabbing Newt is the stealth RINO. His contract with America as speaker was good. If that was all I had to judge him by I would enthusiastically vote for him as I am for Ron Paul.


Newt talks the talk when making a speech to the NRA, but his voting record says something else.
http://myrighttocarry.com/?p=675
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/gun-owners-take-on-newt-gingrich


Newt supported the Oromney care bill. Said he would have invaded Libya without congressional approval like Obama did. He really supported most of Obama's moves.


Where Newt really shines as an enemy of the constitution is his CFR globalist ideas.


In the first place, Newt Gingrich is the personification of the word “globalist.” Gingrich is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Gingrich never saw a globalist agenda-item that he did not enthusiastically support such as: NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, FTAA, the North American Union (by whatever name it’s called at the moment), the NAFTA Superhighway, ad infinitum. Gingrich is as much committed to open borders as is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama. Gingrich is as committed to the advancement of the George Soros-sponsored Agenda 21 “green” initiatives as any person living today.


From http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4437

[BUGEYE]

the Feds and the states have been restricting gun rights for years, then along comes some legislation to restrict the gun grabbers, and because mortimer snerd voted no, it's suddenly the worst thing in the world.  mortimer sometimes has skewed logic.

[Casull]

I could care less if you agree with RP, or even me.

 
 
Well, if that is true, then you didn't need to write the rest of your post, and I need not respond.

[Casull]

Many of us Ron Paul supporters looked at all the candidates. We compared their voting records, speeches and writings. If by their own records we eliminate all enemies of the constitution, all we have left is Ron Paul.

 
 
Sorry to hear that.  You're then clearly SOL, since RP is not going to win the nomination.

[Casull]

 

the Feds and the states have been restricting gun rights for years, then along comes some legislation to restrict the gun grabbers, and because mortimer snerd voted no, it's suddenly the worst thing in the world.  mortimer sometimes has skewed logic.

       +1

[teamnelson]

The UN is currently pressuring the US to conform to an international standard on firearms and ammo ownership, possession, manufacturing and distribution. The 2 failed ATF operations that should've resulted in greater legal consequence to the WH, AG and DOJ, were planned under advisement of current UN policy. The UN has bought the lie that we, the US, are to blame for the proliferation of firearms in the world, and that border violence is simply the fruit of our policies coming back to punish us. The WH/AG/DOJ wanted the 2 ATF programs to prove that to the world to support conformity to international standard. This issue is current, and is a repeating subject in our diplomatic conversations with our "allies" in the global village.
 
Which of the present GOP candidates has the most consistent track record of voicing opposition to conformity/participation inthe UN? And which of them has consistently voted to compromise and participate with UN initiatives?
 
I think that matters myself. It matters to the Democrats, it matters to the MSM, shouldn't it matter to us?

[Lost Farmboy]

Many of us Ron Paul supporters looked at all the candidates. We compared their voting records, speeches and writings. If by their own records we eliminate all enemies of the constitution, all we have left is Ron Paul.

 
 
Sorry to hear that.  You're then clearly SOL, since RP is not going to win the nomination.

 
We are all SOL if one of the RINOs or Obama wins, the American people loose.


Do you give up the game when the cheerleaders from the other side say you can't win?

[Gary G]

Sorry to hear that.  You're then clearly SOL, since RP is not going to win the nomination.

Ron Paul has already won. He has inspired the minds of the young people. They have read his books, they have studied the the Austrian economists, they are familiar with Ludwig von Mises, the life long fighter of socialism, and they are committed to economic and social freedom. If it does not come to fruition now, it will come. Ron already knows this. He has one other motivation, to lessen the coming hyperinflationary depression, or currency collapse, caused by an unpayable debt and the Fed's willingness to create more fiat paper money out of thin air.


Newt is already out. He is not on several state ballots and won't have the delegates. It is between the individual conservative vs the Goldman Sachs man. Watch Paul in Maine and Virginia.

[Lost Farmboy]

  That UN Small Arms Treaty TeamNelson is talking about is no joke.
Look at the statue in front of the UN building. The UN has been planning this from the beginning.






If this is what you want. Vote for Obama or one of the RINOs.


If you want to fight this vote for Ron Paul.


Are you willing to give up your guns, because the presstatutes in the media say he can't win?

[BUGEYE]

After watching the debates, watching the occupiers, looking at voting records, uncovering the lies of each candidate and reading the responses of the folks here, it's apparent that a regime under RP would be about like all the occupy fiascos.  I would hate to see him turn us into 50 separate countries.
here in Ga. and a lot of other states we would be okay. but I care about the people in ALL states and some of those states will severely restrict the rights of its citizens.  my own home state of Illinois, if they know the prez is gonna stay off their backs, they'll go wild. and they have all the money  needed to thwart any challenge from its citizens.
United we stand, divided we fall.  president Ron Paul would divide us to the point of failure as a country.

[Doublebass73]

the Feds and the states have been restricting gun rights for years, then along comes some legislation to restrict the gun grabbers, and because mortimer snerd voted no, it's suddenly the worst thing in the world.  mortimer sometimes has skewed logic.

       +1

You guys must be real proud of yourselves for supporting a law that requires handguns be sold with MANDATORY trigger locks. Sounds real pro-2nd Amendment to me, I can't imagine why Ron Paul wouldn't have voted for it.

[teamnelson]

the Feds and the states have been restricting gun rights for years, then along comes some legislation to restrict the gun grabbers, and because mortimer snerd voted no, it's suddenly the worst thing in the world.  mortimer sometimes has skewed logic.

       +1

You guys must be real proud of yourselves for supporting a law that requires handguns be sold with MANDATORY trigger locks. Sounds real pro-2nd Amendment to me, I can't imagine why Ron Paul wouldn't have voted for it.

A COMMERCE bill designed to protect Gun Manufacturers was actually about Federal Regulation requirements for the manufacture of Firearms ... do tell. The Original Title of the Bill was Child Safety Act of 2005, and included an extension of the Assault Weapon Ban along with mandatory trigger locks - they added the commerce portion to get it to pass, and dropped the AWB extension - it was always just about Trigger Locks. Surely Congress would never us COMMERCE as the means by which they could infringe on the 2A because the two are unrelated, right?  Only a nutjob would vote against expanding federal regulatory powers on Gun manufacturers.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/The_Second_Amendment/
 

[BUGEYE]

RP would leave it up to the states to regulate guns, and regulate the murder of babies.
he, along with obama would kiss up to fidel castro.  which makes him about about on par with the rest of the candidates.
the sad thing here is that people like myself will support the nominee and try to remove obama.
but several RP supporters have vowed not to vote if RP is not nominated.  IMO, that is not only childish, but unamerican.

[Matt]

RP would leave it up to the states to regulate guns, and regulate the murder of babies.
he, along with obama would kiss up to fidel castro.  which makes him about about on par with the rest of the candidates.
the sad thing here is that people like myself will support the nominee and try to remove obama.
but several RP supporters have vowed not to vote if RP is not nominated.  IMO, that is not only childish, but unamerican.

And in my opinion most everything you post is un-American.
There is only one candidate who cares about the people and this country and you folks want to throw him under a bus because he does not want to bankrupt this country in more wars and says Israel can defend herself... Get a freaking clue.


This site and its owners FULLY SUPPORT RON PAUL and if you don't and don't want to be associated with those who do then you can always leave.


Matt

[BUGEYE]

RP would leave it up to the states to regulate guns, and regulate the murder of babies.
he, along with obama would kiss up to fidel castro.  which makes him about about on par with the rest of the candidates.
the sad thing here is that people like myself will support the nominee and try to remove obama.
but several RP supporters have vowed not to vote if RP is not nominated.  IMO, that is not only childish, but unamerican.

And in my opinion most everything you post is un-American.
There is only one candidate who cares about the people and this country and you folks want to throw him under a bus because he does not want to bankrupt this country in more wars and says Israel can defend herself... Get a freaking clue.


This site and its owners FULLY SUPPORT RON PAUL and if you don't and don't want to be associated with those who do then you can always leave.


Matt

well, things like letting california or Illinois or other liberal states decide whether or not to murder babies, or try to become buddies with the likes of fidel castro, then it becomes a matter of forfeiting my soul if I vote in favor of it.  when I meet my maker, he might ask if I did the right thing for his little ones.  Ron Paul will have to say no!!!!!

[Doublebass73]

well, things like letting california or Illinois or other liberal states decide whether or not to murder babies, or try to become buddies with the likes of fidel castro, then it becomes a matter of forfeiting my soul if I vote in favor of it.  when I meet my maker, he might ask if I did the right thing for his little ones.  Ron Paul will have to say no!!!!!

You've mentioned all the negatives about Ron Paul, we get it.

Now tell us who to vote for that wouldn't be forfeiting our soul. Who's the real conservative in this race?

[Matt]

@BUGEYE
More laws don't solve problems on abortion
 Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?

PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.
 Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL , Sep 22, 2011

Efforts to fund abortion ranks among stupidest policies
 One thing I believe for certain is that the federal government should never tax pro-life citizens to pay for abortions. The constant effort by the pro-choice crowd to fund abortion must rank among the stupidest policies ever, even from their viewpoint. All they accomplish is to give valiant motivation for all pro-life forces as well as the antitax supporters of abortion to fight against them.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 6 , Apr 19, 2011

Deregulate the adoption market
 Deregulating the adoption market would also make a margin of difference in reducing abortion. This would make it easier for nonprofit groups to arrange for adoptive parents and for them to compensate the mother enough to absorb the expenses and opportunity costs associated with carrying the child to term. Small changes could make a large difference here.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 8 , Apr 19, 2011

Abortion laws should be a state-level choice
 It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.

source: http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Matt

[BUGEYE]

well, things like letting california or Illinois or other liberal states decide whether or not to murder babies, or try to become buddies with the likes of fidel castro, then it becomes a matter of forfeiting my soul if I vote in favor of it.  when I meet my maker, he might ask if I did the right thing for his little ones.  Ron Paul will have to say no!!!!!

You've mentioned all the negatives about Ron Paul, we get it.

Now tell us who to vote for that wouldn't be forfeiting our soul. Who's the real conservative in this race?

My pick didn't run this time. but I will vote for whoever is the republican nominee so as to get rid of obama.
then the next go-around maybe we can better things.
none of the candidates would do near the damage a second term obama would.

[BUGEYE]

@BUGEYE
More laws don't solve problems on abortion
 Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?

PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.
 Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL , Sep 22, 2011

Efforts to fund abortion ranks among stupidest policies
 One thing I believe for certain is that the federal government should never tax pro-life citizens to pay for abortions. The constant effort by the pro-choice crowd to fund abortion must rank among the stupidest policies ever, even from their viewpoint. All they accomplish is to give valiant motivation for all pro-life forces as well as the antitax supporters of abortion to fight against them.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 6 , Apr 19, 2011

Deregulate the adoption market
 Deregulating the adoption market would also make a margin of difference in reducing abortion. This would make it easier for nonprofit groups to arrange for adoptive parents and for them to compensate the mother enough to absorb the expenses and opportunity costs associated with carrying the child to term. Small changes could make a large difference here.
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 8 , Apr 19, 2011

Abortion laws should be a state-level choice
 It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.

source: http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Matt

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke.
I believe that leaving some things to the states is "doing nothing".
I want a prez that will WORK to end abortion. leaving it up to democrat states is doing nothing.
the democrats can't be accused of doing nothing. their goals are evil, but they are out there doing what they think is right.  give me a prez with a little fire when it comes to doing the "right" thing.

[teamnelson]

bugeye, I am as ardently pro-life as you. I believe Sen Paul's position is the most likely to result in the end of the abortion industry for several reasons:
1. It has the backing of the rule of law. The Constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government, and leave the majority of decision making to be made in the context of the State. Its expressly in the language. The change is the usurpation of power by the executive branch. If you give that office too much power, you will have a tyrant one day.
2. It keeps a liberal congressional majority from imposing the anti-life agenda on the rest of us who do not want it. You keep this on the national table, and the progs will outlaw your ability to protest abortion.
3. It undermines federal $ and participation in the debate, leaving it up to the anti-life movement in each individual state to defend itself. Believe me, they are not as strong as they want us to think
4. I have done the research, without a national anti-life organization, they could not stand for very long. The anti-lifers need this to be a national issue so they can move $ and muscle around and make it seem like they are of a greater majority than they actually are.
5. Roe v. Wade would be open for contest, as the Supreme Court could only discuss it as a matter of interstate commerce.
6. The Pro-Life movement in each individual state has a much greater chance to succeed and outlaw abortion at the state level, than we do against a nationally organized anti-life engine.

If we went back to the constitution tomorrow, there are about a dozen states that would have pro-life legislation passed in session this year, to cut tax payer funding, restore parental rights, and hamstring the industry. You would save millions of lives in the first year alone, just by going back to the constitution. Liberal states would continue at their present pace, but they would slowly lose their ability to operate as they would 1. lose national taxpayer funding through Obamacare, 2. Lose buyer base for baby parts at research facilities. 3. Doctors would risk losing national licensing which would keep some off the fence.

You want to tie this issue to a federal on/off switch, so you can turn it off, understood. The problem is, you left them the switch. It only takes one election and the next tyrant will turn it on. I want to choke the life out of it so its good and gone, and the best way to do that is to take away the anti-life's national platform.

[BUGEYE]

TeamNelson, you pen some good posts.  however the SCOTUS ruled on roe-vs-wade which gave free rein to the abortionists.  I care just as much about that unborn California baby as I do one here in Georgia.
If I sit back and wait for someone else to act, I'm slapping the Lord in the face.
he said, whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.
so-called pro-life people say, I'm against abortion.  but God may ask what we did to stop it. ignorance of his wishes may not be an excuse.
I'm not saying that you are guilty, but since the campaign started, I have seen more hate come to the surface than I thought possible. I guess they put God on the back burner until the election is over.
my wife and I are active in GRTL. both money and time.  I will never stop fighting to stop abortion.
IMO, to do so would forfeit my soul.
RP just seems to me to be a do-nothing person.

[Matt]

@BUGEYE
Let me ask you this:
How many abortions were carried out in each state last year?


How many pro life states are there?


How many of these Pro Life states would ban abortion all together if they had that power?


Of the Pro Abortion states what are the numbers of Pro Abortion vs Pro Life, and how close are the numbers in each state?


Look forward to continuing this discussion once we have some figures.


Matt

[BUGEYE]

Matt, you're baiting. you know that most people can't answer those questions without a lot of research and some of those stats may not be available at all.
I'd be glad to discuss Gods outlook on it and what it may do to my soul if I wait for somebody else to do the work.
Most of my knowledge is with the GRTL.

[Matt]

Baiting?  Really??


State by State Numbers can be found here:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html
Questions 2 and 4 can be answered here:
http://www.surveyusa.com/50state2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm
The answer to question 3 is easy. A fair guess would be that all pro life states would ban abortion if it was an option after all in order to be a pro life state the majority of the voters must be pro life.


Now instead of spending about 10 minutes on Google to get the information you want to claim I was baiting you and yet you have still not answered the question as to who is the best man for the job of those running and you can only say not Paul. You claim to want to end abortion and yet you scream not Paul. You say we are headed in the wrong direction and only one candidate offers a different one and he is RON PAUL. 


If you truly want to see the end of abortion then settling for whom ever gets the nomination is far from proving it.

[Gary G]

For Bugeye's information:
Every year Ron Paul brings up his Sanctity of Life Bill. It would eliminate all abortion. The Dems and Republicans simply will not pass it, but it tells you where Ron Pauls heart is. So, nothing will be done from the Federal Level with Nut and Mitt.


The supreme court has ruled that via the 14th amendment that the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. That includes the second. Now we just need someone in the lead that will push the Constitution. Nut didn't in the past and Romney will do whatever Goldman Sachs tells him just like their other man in Washington, the O.


Now, logic and reasoning would tell most folks that Ron Paul is the best choice for the concerns that you have acknowledged, and maybe the only choice. It seems though, from what you say, that you would desire a dictator. You had better be careful if that is the case.

[Singleshotsam]

I find it hilarious that when put to the test any Ron Paul supporter can answer why they support Ron Paul.  But when a Ron Paul supporter asks a RINO supporter why they support their candidate the answers are mostly "Because Ron Paul can't win the nomination."  or  "Because we have to beat Obama".  They are always passive dodgy answers.  Most of you Mainstream Supporters or "Foxers" if you will, (becase it's obvious that's where you get your news info.)  just repoeat what the talking heads spew to you.
 
I'm really tired of you Foxers going out and bullying and trolling the forums bashing RP supporters when you offer ZERO legitimate reasons to vote for your candidate other than bashing Dr. Paul.

 

[BUGEYE]

Mike Huckabee