PDA

View Full Version : Government Cannot Protect Us From Violence - Ron Paul


AnthonyD1978
08-22-2011, 9:01 AM
Think this has a great pro-gun rights tone. Audio here or scroll down past video for transcript. From http://ronpaul.com/ (http://ronpaul.com/) :

JSmbUhAL6so

Government Cannot Protect Us From Violence

by Ron Paul

Recent incidents of violence in Norway and London have made us understandably uncomfortable here at home, as many fear that a worsening economy will lead to violence and unrest in American cities. This is why Congress must view the economy as its first priority and a matter of national security. Unless and until we get our fiscal house in order to foster economic growth, civil society will continue to deteriorate.

The fundamental lesson every American should learn from these incidents is that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. But Norway and England have strict gun control laws, and London in particular has security cameras monitoring nearly all public areas. But laws and spy cameras are useless in the face of lawless mobs or sick mass killers.

Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened these tragedies. We should remember that theft, arson and property damage were not the only criminal acts in London. Innocent bystanders were assaulted and killed as well. In those instances, deadly force used in self-defense would have been fully justified.

Perhaps the only good that could come from these terrible events is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families. This means frankly that we must own and wisely use firearms to deter or prevent criminal assaults on our homes and persons. It is absurd to think police or government agents can protect 310 million Americans around the clock.

Thanks to our media and many government officials, however, Americans have have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a prominent news story, people reflexively demand that government “do something.” This impulse almost always leads to bad laws, more debt and a loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individual responsibility.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras and metal detectors? Do we want to imprison every disturbed or alienated individual who fantasizes about violence? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

Freedom is not defined by safety; freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference – unless they use force or fraud against others. Government cannot create a world without risk, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

trevilli
08-22-2011, 10:05 AM
He's a full on NUTTER! This guy is completely crazy, his followers are like cult members! Etc

He's also going to be the recipient of my vote :cool:

balddragn
08-22-2011, 10:09 AM
Thank you Anthony for posting this.

BoonieGhost
08-22-2011, 10:11 AM
God Bless Ron Paul!!!!

yellowfin
08-22-2011, 10:12 AM
Excellent indeed. I wish we'd have put him in office in '08 instead of having to wait out the current nightmare to hopefully get maybe 50% of this.

LHC30
08-22-2011, 10:13 AM
Always liked that man.

Thanks for the article...

voiceofreason
08-22-2011, 10:19 AM
I was wondering what kind of violence Ron Paul (a feeble, frail old man), could unleash upon us that would require the U.S. gubbimint to rush in and save us!

We have been ardent Ron Paul supporters for years. He's called it on many of the current problems we're having as a nation. He's the only one that's "different" from the current crop of politicians.

Obama's newest "Hopey Changey" speech August 3, 2011:

http://www.thinkfy.com/content/president-obama-i-didnt-say-“change-we-can-believe-tomorrow”

He's the sleazebag that is basically telling us we didn't read the fine print on the Hopey Changey he promised (heard this line from a political commentary show).

How's it working out for our country?

Wherryj
08-22-2011, 10:33 AM
I was wondering what kind of violence Ron Paul (a feeble, frail old man), could unleash upon us that would require the U.S. gubbimint to rush in and save us!

We have been ardent Ron Paul supporters for years. He's called it on many of the current problems we're having as a nation. He's the only one that's "different" from the current crop of politicians.

Obama's newest "Hopey Changey" speech August 3, 2011:

http://www.thinkfy.com/content/president-obama-i-didnt-say-“change-we-can-believe-tomorrow”

He's the sleazebag that is basically telling us we didn't read the fine print on the Hopey Changey he promised (heard this line from a political commentary show).

How's it working out for our country?

Interesting that he's still blaming today's issues on yesterday's President. I suspect that many supporters will buy that hook, line and sinker.

kpezzy
08-22-2011, 10:44 AM
Today's Thomas Jefferson

AnthonyD1978
08-22-2011, 11:02 AM
Today's Thomas Jefferson

Hopefully 2012's Thomas Jefferson :D

FXR
08-22-2011, 11:41 AM
I was wondering what kind of violence Ron Paul (a feeble, frail old man), could unleash upon us that would require the U.S. gubbimint to rush in and save us![...]

I thought the same thing! If a presidential candidate threatens us, is that good cause? Can we file a restraining order? (I'm for Ron Paul but wouldn't mind a RO on Michelle Bachman!)

Wernher von Browning
08-22-2011, 11:49 AM
Interesting that he's still blaming today's issues on yesterday's President. I suspect that many supporters will buy that hook, line and sinker.

And I'm hoping, not nearly enough will buy it.

Remember Reagan's first campaign?
"...it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."

Kicked Jimmuh right in the peanuts.

It might be good if Mr. Paul channels Mr. Reagan.

GrayWolf09
08-22-2011, 11:56 AM
Ha, ha, ha, got to love the dreamers.:)

Let's have a quiz, shall we? Who here believes the owners of the Republican Party will allow Ron Paul to be their nominee for president in 2012?:rolleyes:

I'll give you a hint. How much air time is Ron Paul getting on Fox News compared to say Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann?:p

AnthonyD1978
08-22-2011, 12:21 PM
Ha, ha, ha, got to love the dreamers.:)

Let's have a quiz, shall we? Who here believes the owners of the Republican Party will allow Ron Paul to be their nominee for president in 2012?:rolleyes:

I'll give you a hint. How much air time is Ron Paul getting on Fox News compared to say Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann?:p

So you base your support and eventual vote on how much air time a candidate gets on Fox news?

And people wonder why our government is a joke....

The real is, if he doesn't get the nomination will he run on a different ticket? It has been suggested as a possibility.

cUXBz6AGJFM

Glock22Fan
08-22-2011, 12:48 PM
So you base your support and eventual vote on how much air time a candidate gets on Fox news?

And people wonder why our government is a joke....

The real is, if he doesn't get the nomination will he run on a different ticket? It has been suggested as a possibility.



From GrayWolf's other postings, I don't think he's going to vote Republican at all. He still seems to think that Obama is wonderful.

Suvhater
08-22-2011, 1:45 PM
So you base your support and eventual vote on how much air time a candidate gets on Fox news?

You missed the point completely, he was implying that the mass majority of the american public gets their political information from fox news and the other major media news outlets. Most people don't give a damn about politics until it effects them.

huck
08-22-2011, 2:01 PM
So you base your support and eventual vote on how much air time a candidate gets on Fox news?

And people wonder why our government is a joke....

The real is, if he doesn't get the nomination will he run on a different ticket? It has been suggested as a possibility.



That video is really funny.

nicki
08-22-2011, 2:20 PM
Funny thing is Jon Stewart probably has higher ratings than the talking heads who dissed Ron Paul.

Nicki

AnthonyD1978
08-22-2011, 2:35 PM
You missed the point completely, he was implying that the mass majority of the american public gets their political information from fox news and the other major media news outlets. Most people don't give a damn about politics until it effects them.

No offense, but i think you are the one that missed the point.

The people that posted before him expressed their support for Ron Paul and nothing more. Based on that he called us dreamers to support him. He backed up that statement by referencing the lack of media coverage from Fox News.

I fail to see how I missed his point.

Feel free to watch the news, but don't let media tell you what to think. Much of the "News" should be called "media"....there is a big difference.

Sheeple....

wazdat
08-22-2011, 2:38 PM
I'll say this for him, he's got a lot of the right ideas.

Too bad he won't win the nomination. Even if he did I don't think he'd get enough of the independant vote to kick Obammy out of office.

AnthonyD1978
08-22-2011, 2:38 PM
That video is really funny.

That's because the truth is often funnier than fiction :D

AnthonyD1978
08-22-2011, 2:44 PM
I'll say this for him, he's got a lot of the right ideas.

Too bad he won't win the nomination. Even if he did I don't think he'd get enough of the independant vote to kick Obammy out of office.

If he doesn't get the nomination that will be because the party will ignore the American people. The will ignore Dr. Paul and the American people because he will not be their puppet.

Have a nice day America....

MasterYong
08-22-2011, 2:52 PM
I was just thinking earlier today how uncomfortable it made me that I literally have a man-crush on Ron Paul.

/or maybe I'm just that desperate for a politician that doesn't appear to be actively working to destroy the country I was tricked into thinking existed during my schoolboy years, only to discover that a free America disappeared years before I was ever born. It's seriously breathtaking to hear someone so close to being able to legitimately run for president of this country say the things he does with such sincerity (and a voting record to back it up) that I actually believe him.

john.t.singh
08-22-2011, 3:12 PM
If he doesn't get the nomination that will be because the party will ignore the American people. The will ignore Dr. Paul and the American people because he will not be their puppet.

Have a nice day America....

I consider myself moderate, flip flopping between democrats and repubs depending on who is running. I actually found myself really liking what ron paul has said and his vision, too bad he's going to be passed over by his own party. What bums me out is that he doesn't even look like he will get the VP nod over someone like Bachman...

Personally I rather stick with Obama than Perry/Bachman. I may not agree with a lot of Obama's policies, but Perry/Bachman really make me uncomfortable..... Heck I rather vote Huntsman in than Perry/Bachman....

stix213
08-22-2011, 3:19 PM
Government Cannot Protect Us From Violence by Ron Paul

Why is Ron Paul committing violence in the first place?

mag360
08-22-2011, 3:26 PM
@ john.t.singh as a gun owner you must realize the huge implications of how muc better for rkba that a republican president would be. Think beyond what you may not like about perry or bachmann. You will be getting better judges, atf and doj leaders etc. Cannot make the mistake by voting for Obama.

Wernher von Browning
08-22-2011, 3:31 PM
In the Stewart clip -- nobody commented that all of the talking-head outlets appear to be reading the exact same copy. There's the phrase "top tier of candidates" followed by the exact same order, every time. What, they only have one copywriter between them?

So much for an independent press, informin' de blessed electorate to bring you... the best government advertising dollars can buy.

Wernher von Browning
08-22-2011, 3:32 PM
Why is Ron Paul committing violence in the first place?

"A little violence never hurt nobody."
-- Genghis Khan, humanitarian and social worker community organizer

john.t.singh
08-22-2011, 3:35 PM
@ john.t.singh as a gun owner you must realize the huge implications of how muc better for rkba that a republican president would be. Think beyond what you may not like about perry or bachmann. You will be getting better judges, atf and doj leaders etc. Cannot make the mistake by voting for Obama.

don't get me wrong, i love me my gun rights as much as the next calgun member, I just don't think some of the things Bachman might do to this country would be WAY more detrimental than what a Democrat could possibly do....

GrayWolf09
08-22-2011, 3:44 PM
From GrayWolf's other postings, I don't think he's going to vote Republican at all. He still seems to think that Obama is wonderful.

Alas, the bloom seems to be off the rose. Depending on the Republican candidate, I will probably have to hold my nose and vote for President Obama.;)

So you base your support and eventual vote on how much air time a candidate gets on Fox news?

And people wonder why our government is a joke....

The real is, if he doesn't get the nomination will he run on a different ticket? It has been suggested as a possibility.

cUXBz6AGJFM

You missed my point entirely. The people and organizations who own the Republican Party will not allow Ron Paul to be the presidential nominee. Period -- end of story.

As Mr. Stewart so brilliantly points out evidence of that fact is the amount of air time Fox News gives to Ron Paul.:)

mag360
08-22-2011, 3:50 PM
remember that none of the "crazy" stuff you dislike will even get implemented. Rkba period. Are you an NRA member?

Diabolus
08-22-2011, 5:44 PM
Interesting that he's still blaming today's issues on yesterday's President. I suspect that many supporters will buy that hook, line and sinker.

If it comes with a check you better believe it.

tankarian
08-22-2011, 6:41 PM
Alas, the bloom seems to be off the rose. Depending on the Republican candidate, I will probably have to hold my nose and vote for President Obama.;)



Bah, you won't hold your nose. You will sniff and inhale Obama's irresistible fragrance called Eau De Socialism because that's the stink that really turns you on.
Looks to me like two anti-gun SCOTUS judges named by Barry in his first two years on the job aren't enough for you already. By voting for him again you practically beg for a third anti-gun SCOTUS judge - and with that the overturning of Heller and McDonald which we barely won 5-4.
But I guess that's just collateral damage for you. The Second Amendment of the Constitution can go to hell if it's for the greater cause of sticking it to the rich and achieving social equality, isn't it Gray Wolf?

GrayWolf09
08-22-2011, 9:36 PM
Bah, you won't hold your nose. You will sniff and inhale Obama's irresistible fragrance called Eau De Socialism because that's the stink that really turns you on.
Looks to me like two anti-gun SCOTUS judges named by Barry in his first two years on the job aren't enough for you already. By voting for him again you practically beg for a third anti-gun SCOTUS judge - and with that the overturning of Heller and McDonald which we barely won 5-4.
But I guess that's just collateral damage for you. The Second Amendment of the Constitution can go to hell if it's for the greater cause of sticking it to the rich and achieving social equality, isn't it Gray Wolf?

Oh, if only President Obama was a Socialist instead of a Moderate Democrat. The very thought intoxicates me. We already have socialism for the rich, I just want to extend it to the poor.:p

In terms of rights I find myself caught between a rock and a hard place. Do I give up my First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights in exchange for my Second Amendment rights or vice versa?:confused:

But you have seemingly thread-jacked here. What about Ron Paul? Will the owners of the Republican Party allow him to be nominated for president? I say you will need long johns in hell before that happens. What do you say?:cool:

BTW I believe that Ron Paul is probably the most ethical of all the politicians running for president from either party. He takes a reasonably consistent position and sticks with it even if it is unpopular. I like him bringing the troops home immediately.:)

kcbrown
08-22-2011, 9:45 PM
Oh, if only President Obama was a Socialist instead of a Moderate Democrat. The very thought intoxicates me. We already have socialism for the rich, I just want to extend it to the poor.:p

In terms of rights I find myself caught between a rock and a hard place. Do I give up my First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights in exchange for my Second Amendment rights or vice versa?:confused:


A couple of things.

Firstly, Obama has done nothing to improve any of the rights you speak of. Indeed, he has continued the anti-Fourth amendment policies of his predecessor, particularly with respect to Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act. I've seen no evidence that he has done anything to protect any of the other rights we have. Quite the opposite.

Secondly, the right to keep and bear arms may be the only chance we have of keeping the rest. Even that might not be enough, but the chance of keeping the rest is most assuredly worse without RKBA. Therefore, the Second Amendment has to take priority over the others. And that's coming from someone who believes that the chances of an armed insurrection succeeding are very slim.


If you give up your RKBA, you become a subject, like the people in England. Sorry, but you have to be an idiot to go down that path.


No, as far as I'm concerned, Obama has failed on every level. There isn't a single thing he's gotten right. The only thing he appears to have going for him over his predecessor is that he can actually speak.

chead
08-22-2011, 9:56 PM
I'm not voting for anyone. I would vote for Ron Paul, because he's just crazy enough to shake things up. Except, he also published a racist newsletter and later claimed he had no knowledge of it. As much as I love an underdog, I can't overlook that.

balddragn
08-22-2011, 10:02 PM
Bottom line, Ron Paul is the best man for the job and that's who I'm voting for.

If more people had faith in their own ability to pick a good candidate and voted that way, instead of voting for whoever they think is "electable" we might have avoided a lot of pain over the years.

mag360
08-22-2011, 10:38 PM
I'm not voting for anyone. I would vote for Ron Paul, because he's just crazy enough to shake things up. Except, he also published a racist newsletter and later claimed he had no knowledge of it. As much as I love an underdog, I can't overlook that.

:confused::rolleyes: this is an awfully obtuse mindset. a vote is a terrible thing to waste. so you would rather have obama, than Ron Paul because he published a racist newsletter?

tankarian
08-22-2011, 11:36 PM
Oh, if only President Obama was a Socialist instead of a Moderate Democrat. The very thought intoxicates me. We already have socialism for the rich, I just want to extend it to the poor.:p

You mean socialism for the rich like in Jeffrey Immelt rich? Oh, I am sure all those sweetheart exclusive contracts he got from the Obama regime as well as the fact that his company GE paid $0 (ZERO DOLLARS) for 2010 despite making $5.1 billion profit in the United States in 2010 have nothing to do with the fact that MSNBC (owned by GE) has become Obama's private propaganda network.
Obama giving billions to billionaires? That's unpossible, only Bush did that! Obama is the righteous one who brought hope and change and transparency and all that!
By the way, I forgot to mention...GE also received a $3.2 billion tax credit to apply to future indebtedness. How can anyone not love Obama?

But let's go go to the next point: you want socialism for the poor. Fact is, that was tried in many countries around the world and failed miserably. Nut only failed but also millions got murdered, so let's just try it one more time in America.
It may be a strange concept for you but the poor can work hard and become rich. It's a proven fact that government handouts never made any poor person wealthy. If you know anybody who went from poor to rich while sitting on a government assistance program please let me know.


In terms of rights I find myself caught between a rock and a hard place. Do I give up my First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights in exchange for my Second Amendment rights or vice versa?:confused:


I am confused too. You spend an great amount of time on a gun rights forum yet you doubt the paramount importance of the Second Amendment as a safeguard of all other civil rights.
But maybe it isn't me who is confused after all.

chead
08-23-2011, 12:54 AM
:confused::rolleyes: this is an awfully obtuse mindset. a vote is a terrible thing to waste. so you would rather have obama, than Ron Paul because he published a racist newsletter?

I would feel bad about voting for either of them. There is no politician that represents me, and even ones that being to approach my idealogical requirements have some serious failings. I cannot in good conscious vote for a man who published a race-hate newsletter regardless of what he might do for the Second Amendment.

I think Obama was handed a **** sandwich, but instead of calling it for what it was, he decided to put on a brave face and go along like it was more of the same. If he was a false progressive or was hammered into submission by the process is inconsequential. Our foreign policy was already wrecked, but Obama sure didn't help it any. Same goes for the economy. At best he's a mediocre president who has continued the policies of other mediocre presidents.

mag360
08-23-2011, 1:03 AM
I would feel bad about voting for either of them. There is no politician that represents me, and even ones that being to approach my idealogical requirements have some serious failings. I cannot in good conscious vote for a man who published a race-hate newsletter regardless of what he might do for the Second Amendment.

I think Obama was handed a **** sandwich, but instead of calling it for what it was, he decided to put on a brave face and go along like it was more of the same. If he was a false progressive or was hammered into submission by the process is inconsequential. Our foreign policy was already wrecked, but Obama sure didn't help it any. Same goes for the economy. At best he's a mediocre president who has continued the policies of other mediocre presidents.

ok well feel bad about voting for the candidate that supports the 2A better. I don't care about what Obamma was handed. He could have put this economy into overdrive firing on all 4 cylinders and reduced the deficit and I STILL wouldn't vote for him because of the 2A problems he has. Again, look past the newsletter.

newsletter, rkba? newsletter, rkba? hmm which one do I want to go with?

chead
08-23-2011, 1:11 AM
I have arms, I'm keeping them, and I'm bearing them. Obama hasn't taken my guns yet, and it doesn't look like he plans to. Granted, he is still not a good president, and I don't plan to vote for him, but knocking him on the 2nd isn't quite fair. As far as the economy is concerned, I'm not sure he could have put it "into overdrive", but we're long past due for a readjustment, whatever that might look like. Realigning our trade imbalance rather than exacerbating it would have been a start.

Ron Paul on the other hand, is a legit racist. I appreciate that he wants to pull back our military and reduce the deficit. I imagine I'd have problems with how he'd go about it, but I appreciate it regardless. But I can't abide a president who built his core constituency on race hate. I just can't do it.

Dhena81
08-23-2011, 4:21 AM
Well I guess the NAACP president doesn't think hes a racist maybe you should do some research.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134_NAACP_President_Ron_Paul_Is_Not_A_Raci st.html

jaq
08-23-2011, 4:59 AM
...Ron Paul on the other hand, is a legit racist. I appreciate that he wants to pull back our military and reduce the deficit. I imagine I'd have problems with how he'd go about it, but I appreciate it regardless. But I can't abide a president who built his core constituency on race hate. I just can't do it.

WTF are you talking about?

AngelDecoys
08-23-2011, 5:47 AM
WTF are you talking about?

The 'racist' label if you will is attributed to decades old articles he didn't write on a newsletter he served as editor. It also comes from his stand on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which he says violates individual liberty. In large part on the loss of property rights.

Let's have a quiz, shall we? Who here believes the owners of the Republican Party will allow Ron Paul to be their nominee for president in 2012?

The establishment won't of course. But I was reminded yesterday that Paul started this campaign with Rand's organization. Rand if you recall overcame the establishment in his own race for the senate. Paul is also raising money and doing quite well. According to Gallup, Paul is now all but even with the other top contenders. Makes you think, huh.

The big unknown is whether the significant online support, followers, and others who have read about him, coupled with organized TP groups (yes there are committees in most every city) will translate into actual votes in the primary. If they do, he will be hard to just dismiss this time around.

Presidents can't get much accomplished without Congress going along. I somewhat imagine a lot of vetoes and a very antagonistic relationship with Congress were he to win it. At least in terms of padding bills, slipping in regulations and subsidies, and the crony capitalism. He'd have to build coalitions and that's not overly easy.

The one thing Paul could do that is irrefutable is get us out of the wars. It was recently announced that the US has signed a pact with Afghanistan to be there until 2024. 2024, or another 13 years is just downright insane if for no other reason than the cost. 600,000 soldiers or more relocated back stateside would be a lot of income spent here helping our economy. If for no other reason then pulling us out of a recession sooner, i think looking at Paul becomes rather attractive. :)

ccmc
08-23-2011, 6:12 AM
Interesting that he's still blaming today's issues on yesterday's President. I suspect that many supporters will buy that hook, line and sinker.

He's also blamed the Japan tsunami, the Arab uprisings, the financial crisis in Europe, the Tea Party. But in between those he keeps coming back to blame Bush. He won't say it, but many of his supporters aka sycophants also blame racism. None of this is the mark of a leader. Say what you will about Bush, but I never heard him play the blame game.

yellowfin
08-23-2011, 7:01 AM
Ron Paul on the other hand, is a legit racist. Why is that somehow the worst thing someone can be? For some stupid reason people wave that word around like it's some kind of stink wand you've gotta duck and dodge to avoid its touch of death. It seems to imply that being tagged w/ being a racist is worse than being known to murder someone, beating a spouse, stealing large sums of money, and other crimes of moral turpitude. It's absurd to think that it isn't far from the worst thing someone could be, so why play along with the nonsense?

Wernher von Browning
08-23-2011, 7:03 AM
I think Obama was handed a **** sandwich, but instead of calling it for what it was, he decided to put on a brave face and go along like it was more of the same.

Ummm... No. It was exactly what he ordered, with extra pickles and mayo.

"Brave face..." No. "Waaah!!! It's not my fault!!! I inherited all this from that evil man who was here before me! So vote for me, because a vote for me is a vote against him! Again!"

Anybody ever notice that liberals can never accept responsibility for anything? Ever? It's because... well, they're basically irresponsible.

GrayWolf09
08-23-2011, 7:45 AM
You mean socialism for the rich like in Jeffrey Immelt rich? Oh, I am sure all those sweetheart exclusive contracts he got from the Obama regime as well as the fact that his company GE paid $0 (ZERO DOLLARS) for 2010 despite making $5.1 billion profit in the United States in 2010 have nothing to do with the fact that MSNBC (owned by GE) has become Obama's private propaganda network.
Obama giving billions to billionaires? That's unpossible, only Bush did that! Obama is the righteous one who brought hope and change and transparency and all that!
By the way, I forgot to mention...GE also received a $3.2 billion tax credit to apply to future indebtedness. How can anyone not love Obama?

But let's go go to the next point: you want socialism for the poor. Fact is, that was tried in many countries around the world and failed miserably. Nut only failed but also millions got murdered, so let's just try it one more time in America.
It may be a strange concept for you but the poor can work hard and become rich. It's a proven fact that government handouts never made any poor person wealthy. If you know anybody who went from poor to rich while sitting on a government assistance program please let me know.

I am confused too. You spend an great amount of time on a gun rights forum yet you doubt the paramount importance of the Second Amendment as a safeguard of all other civil rights.
But maybe it isn't me who is confused after all.

Corporations rule America. Is this a surprise to you? What about Cheney and Halliburton? Same coin different sides.;)

In terms of socialism when the rich get in trouble financially, the government steps in and bails them out. Why should the poor not be treated equally?:confused:

I consider all our Constitutional rights important and would love to have a candidate who would respect them all.

When are you going to answer my Ron Paul question? You keep trying to hijack this thread.:)

Anybody ever notice that liberals can never accept responsibility for anything? Ever? It's because... well, they're basically irresponsible.

Ever notice how conservatives are at all times and in all places absolutist? :rolleyes:

AnthonyD1978
08-23-2011, 8:29 AM
Alas, the bloom seems to be off the rose. Depending on the Republican candidate, I will probably have to hold my nose and vote for President Obama.;)



You missed my point entirely. The people and organizations who own the Republican Party will not allow Ron Paul to be the presidential nominee. Period -- end of story.

As Mr. Stewart so brilliantly points out evidence of that fact is the amount of air time Fox News gives to Ron Paul.:)

So we roll over and don't support him? Ok gotcha....

Bruce
08-23-2011, 8:34 AM
"Government Cannot Protect Us From Violence by Ron Paul"

I didn't realize that Ron Paul might become violent. ;):D

AnthonyD1978
08-23-2011, 8:45 AM
In terms of rights I find myself caught between a rock and a hard place. Do I give up my First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights in exchange for my Second Amendment rights or vice versa?:confused:


BTW I believe that Ron Paul is probably the most ethical of all the politicians running for president from either party. He takes a reasonably consistent position and sticks with it even if it is unpopular. I like him bringing the troops home immediately.:)

Why give up any of your rights?!?!

And yet you won't support him and let the (R) party hear your voice?

I can understand not supporting him if you don't like his politics, but to believe he is the most ethical politician running and not support him.... :confused:

stormy_clothing
08-23-2011, 9:02 AM
From GrayWolf's other postings, I don't think he's going to vote Republican at all. He still seems to think that Obama is wonderful.

Better than that ****ing nut job mc cain anyway.

The government could deal with crime by reinstating the death penalty in all murder cases and generally making prison a place you don't want to go.

Also forced worker programs during incarceration to rehabilitate lazy *** people.

My vote is for Paul next year because frankly he is the first serious candidate I have seen in my life - it's like politics is getting dumbed down every election I almost expect an actual marionette to run in 2016.

AnthonyD1978
08-23-2011, 9:04 AM
I'm not voting for anyone. I would vote for Ron Paul, because he's just crazy enough to shake things up. Except, he also published a racist newsletter and later claimed he had no knowledge of it. As much as I love an underdog, I can't overlook that.

It was an editoral news letter. Ron Paul may have published the newsletter, but the staff wrote the articles. He doesn't censor the newsletter if he doesn't agree with the writings.

He has stated for many years that MLK is one of his heroes.

This issue was brought up back in 2008 and not many have re-visited the issue.

RKBlk1Vpeuw

hvengel
08-23-2011, 9:35 AM
snip
In terms of socialism when the rich get in trouble financially, the government steps in and bails them out. Why should the poor not be treated equally?:confused:


Although I agree that the poor and rich should be treated the same by .gov I think you have it wrong. The problem is not that the poor are not getting "bailed out" but rather that the rich are getting "bailed out". The answer is not to make sure that everyone gets the same socialistic treatment (IE. handout from .gov) but to make sure everyone gets equally ignored by .gov. It is completely beyond the enumerated powers of .gov to be bailing out anyone.

AnthonyD1978
08-23-2011, 9:41 AM
The 'racist' label if you will is attributed to decades old articles he didn't write on a newsletter he served as editor. It also comes from his stand on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which he says violates individual liberty. In large part on the loss of property rights.


He wasn't even the editor :D

Maestro Pistolero
08-23-2011, 9:43 AM
The minority community couldn't hope or pray for a better ally in the white house than Ron Paul. To believe that he is a racist is to fall prey to actual racists who would deny them the benefit of a Ron Paul presidency. Don't be so gullible.

mag360
08-23-2011, 11:05 AM
Ron Paul on the other hand, is a legit racist. I appreciate that he wants to pull back our military and reduce the deficit. I imagine I'd have problems with how he'd go about it, but I appreciate it regardless. But I can't abide a president who built his core constituency on race hate. I just can't do it.

LOL I looked into this, you are all whirled up in a fervor over nothing! Ron Paul was not the author of those articles. "built his core constituency on race hate" you are unreal buddy!

scarville
08-23-2011, 11:30 AM
Let's have a quiz, shall we? Who here believes the owners of the Republican Party will allow Ron Paul to be their nominee for president in 2012?
If he did get the nomination and was elected how many think he would live long enough to take the oath of office?