PDA

View Full Version : Anyone disagree with Ron Paul?


SAMoody
11-26-2007, 7:40 PM
(taken from WWW.RONPAUL2008.com)



Dear Gun Owner,

I hope, like me, you're a strong supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

My name is Ron Paul, and I'm the only pro-gun, pro-Constitution candidate running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

The fact is, I believe those of us who support gun rights and the Constitution need to take a stand NOW, before it's too late.

You see, if you listen to many politicians in Washington, the gun control crowd, and their mouthpieces in the "mainstream" media, you'd think the reason for our crime problem is a lack of tough (and un-Constitutional) gun-control legislation.

That, my friend, is NONSENSE.

It's a lie propagated by high-and-mighty politicians who think their job is to look out for "our own good" and who think all the problems of the world would be solved if they just exerted a little more control over our lives.

Their answer?

Force law-abiding American citizens who want to protect themselves through more bureaucratic rigmarole and throw up more "gun free zone" signs.

The result?

CRIMINALS ignore those signs and "regulations" and innocent people -- who are rendered helpless by obeying the law -- pay the price!

I can tell you from my years in Washington that some politicians just can't get it through their heads that you can't create a safe society by disarming the good guys.

If you want a president who will stand up for the United States Constitution, and who will LEAD the fight to restore our Second Amendment rights, then I hope to earn your support.

Many "Republican" opponents and I don't see eye-to-eye on this important Constitutional issue. In fact, some of my opponents' views are more in line with Teddy Kennedy than with our Founding Fathers!

Well, like you, I genuinely treasure our beautiful republic, and I've always had a desire to serve our country.

In the mid-1970s, I decided to "throw my hat in the ring" and run for Congress, because -- quite frankly -- I was disgusted with the disdain politicians from both parties had for our Constitution.

I'm sure you know just as well as I do that it's the Constitution that protects our God-given liberties as Americans. The truth is, those politicians who seem so eager to take a match and burn this treasured document are a grave danger to us all.

As you may have heard, I'm now serving my 10th term as United States congressman from the 14th district of Texas. That experience has taught me many things, but above all, just how valuable and important our freedoms are. I want my children and grandchildren to have even more liberty than I've been blessed with.

But the fact is, if you and I have learned anything from past presidential administrations, and the current liberal Congress, it's that our freedoms are constantly under attack. And unfortunately, we've also learned we can't trust every politician in Washington, D.C. with an "R" next to his or her name to do the right thing.

That's why when any politician goes on attack against our Second Amendment rights, you can be sure that I will boldly stand against them.

As a United States Congressman, I have:

- Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment rights to all Americans, without infringement, that have been stripped away;

- Introduced legislation to repeal the so-called "Gun Free Zone" victim disarmament law of 1990;

- Introduced legislation to repeal the 1993 National "Instant Background Check" gun registration bill;

- Authored legislation to stop taxpayer funds from going to the anti-gun United Nations;

- Opposed all gun control schemes that would register ALL private sales and mandate government "Lock-up Your Safety" devices;

- Introduced legislation to protect American citizens' freedom to carry in our national parks.

- Publicly Opposed legislation just this year that would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from EVER owning a gun.

If nominated to represent the Republican Party in 2008, you can bet I'll continue to be 100% pro-gun and 100% pro-freedom -- unlike some of my opponents whose messages "get tailored" to fit the views of the crowd they're talking to.

But more than that, I will be a leader for our Constitutional rights -- all of them -- especially your gun rights.

That's why I am running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

The fact is, I've never thought that standing up for the Constitution was anything to be ashamed of, but too many of our politicians nowadays care more about their hair than what is right.

Gun control is NOT the answer to our crime problem -- and not one of our Constitutional rights is up for "debate."

Every new restriction creates more bureaucracy that will spend more of our tax dollars and force police to waste time on paperwork instead of patrolling the streets.

Whether you own a gun for personal protection or if you don't own a gun and just believe in the U.S. Constitution -- I hope to earn your support.
That's why I hope you will support me in four important ways:

First, please Sign-up for Email Alerts

Second, I ask you to tell every pro-Second Amendment voter you know about my campaign. The fact is, maybe I'm just not enough of a left-winger for the Katie Couric and her gun-grabbing pals in the mainstream media, but I know the power of your grassroots activism.

You know just as well as I do that this would be a far different country if it wasn't for folks like you who are willing to take action for and stand for what is right. So please spread the word to family, friends, neighbors, church members, and fellow hunters -- and people you know that just plain care about the Constitution. You can use the following text to send out an email to all your contacts.

And third, it's not easy for me to ask, but I ask for your financial support as well. The best ideas in the world can't make a difference unless I can present them to the voters, and the fact is that will take money.

That's why I ask you to make a generous contribution today . Perhaps you could afford a maximum contribution of $2,300 ? Or perhaps $1,000 ? Whatever you can do, $500 , $250 , $100 , $75 , $50 , or $35 will help.

And fourth -- if at all possible -- get out and vote for me in your state's primary or caucus. To do this, you will need to check on your state's voter registration requirements. Some states may require you to change parties to vote in the Republican primary/caucus.

With your support, I pledge to continue fighting for our Second Amendment freedoms.

Yours truly,

Dr. Ron Paul
Republican for President

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) believes ...

Congressman Ron Paul believes that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. It is an individual right that is guaranteed. He believes it is about the citizenry having the ability to restrain tyrannical governments and would be dictators.

He believes the Second Amendment is about self-defense from criminal attack and from governments that break away from the chains of the Constitution.

Congressman Ron Paul opposed the reauthorization of the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto gun ban.

He opposes gun and gun owner registration.

Congressman Ron Paul opposes government permission systems that force law-abiding citizens "prove" their innocence before buying or owning firearms.

He opposes gun purchase rationing schemes, aka so-called "one-gun-a-month" laws.

Congressman Ron Paul opposes legislation to impose so-called gun lock requirements that make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a firearm in your home for self-defense.

POINTMANDDT
11-26-2007, 8:06 PM
I now I'm going to get flamed for this, but I just can't have another Texas Rep in office, learned from my first mistake. Some of what he stands for I agree with, and some I don't.

just4fun63
11-26-2007, 8:07 PM
I just finished reading Dr Paul's web site and have to say I agree with 99 % of what he stands for. I just can't get on the "pull out now" bandwagon, no matter how or why it started I think we need to finish it out. I fully agree with him on the UN and border security. 2nd amendment goes with out saying.

G17GUY
11-26-2007, 8:21 PM
Gotta lov'em
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

SAMoody
11-26-2007, 8:21 PM
Pointman, I am interested to hear what you agree/disagree with concerning RP

Just4fun, It's always about the lesser of two evils when it comes to candidates/polititions.....

Patriot
11-26-2007, 8:23 PM
My name is Ron Paul, and I'm the only pro-gun, pro-Constitution candidate running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States.

Crafty wording. Pro-gun AND pro-constitution. Definitely not the only pro-gun candidate, though probably the strongest pro-constitution candidate.

[...] un-Constitutional) gun-control legislation.

Yes. The Commerce Clause has been perverted beyond reason.

Many "Republican" opponents and I don't see eye-to-eye on this important Constitutional issue. In fact, some of my opponents' views are more in line with Teddy Kennedy than with our Founding Fathers!

Some, not all.

I'm sure you know just as well as I do that it's the Constitution that protects our God-given liberties as Americans. The truth is, those politicians who seem so eager to take a match and burn this treasured document are a grave danger to us all.

Constitutional protections are part of the equation. The other part is vigilance and advocacy.

Gun control is NOT the answer to our crime problem -- and not one of our Constitutional rights is up for "debate."

The pragmatic reality is that every one of our constitutional rights is "up for debate" and must be championed. Dismissive overconfidence in RTKBA fundamentalism won't win the day. Nevertheless, so long as such sentiments don't engender apathy....

Whether you own a gun for personal protection or if you don't own a gun and just believe in the U.S. Constitution -- I hope to earn your support.

Good sentiment, false dichotomy.

Congressman Ron Paul believes that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. It is an individual right that is guaranteed. He believes it is about the citizenry having the ability to restrain tyrannical governments and would be dictators.

OK

He believes the Second Amendment is about self-defense from criminal attack and from governments that break away from the chains of the Constitution.

I don't think it's about SD (though it incidentally helps to preserve access to effective SD weapons). I'm surprised such an ardently pro-constitution candidate didn't invoke the 9th or 10th Amendments.

Congressman Ron Paul opposed the reauthorization of the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto gun ban.

He opposes gun and gun owner registration.

OK

Congressman Ron Paul opposes government permission systems that force law-abiding citizens "prove" their innocence before buying or owning firearms.

Instant background checks for predatory/violent criminals/repeat felons/mentally-incompetent aren't such a bad idea.


Overall a good statement, albeit with some rhetorical maneuvering thrown in.

LECTRIKHED
11-26-2007, 8:55 PM
I just finished reading Dr Paul's web site and have to say I agree with 99 % of what he stands for. I just can't get on the "pull out now" bandwagon, no matter how or why it started I think we need to finish it out. I fully agree with him on the UN and border security. 2nd amendment goes with out saying.

I'm sorry but I really do not believe that there is anyway to "finish it out." Five years has not been enough. Everyday seems farther and farther away from any type of freedom. The truth is that there are no Arab democracies. Not all societies are ready for democracy. Not all societies want democracy. The theory that if everyone had democracy they would be happy and peaceful is wrong. Remember the Palestinians elected Hamas, Lebanese elected Hezbollah, and Iranians elected Ahmadeenijad.

I'm sick of us putting our sons out there saying we are on everyones side. We don't identify an enemy and don't let our troops fight. How can we win. The best case scenario would be a rutheless dictator that oppresses them and scares the hell of Syria and Iran. Ie. Saddam, but we killed him.

Anyways, I support Ron Paul in some areas, but not in others. I feel that he is the best option for this country right now. I don't totally agree in his isolationist views. Maybe 8 years after he gains office we would be in a better position to conduct world affairs with a strong economy, military, and supportive base. America needs liberty right now, not another 8 years of the same power structure. I'm sick of the neo-Consersative Republicans, and the weak willed Democrats.

G17GUY
11-26-2007, 9:16 PM
I'm sorry but I really do not believe that there is anyway to "finish it out." Five years has not been enough. Everyday seems farther and farther away from any type of freedom. The truth is that there are no Arab democracies. Not all societies are ready for democracy. Not all societies want democracy. The theory that if everyone had democracy they would be happy and peaceful is wrong. Remember the Palestinians elected Hamas, Lebanese elected Hezbollah, and Iranians elected Ahmadeenijad.

I'm sick of us putting our sons out there saying we are on everyones side. We don't identify an enemy and don't let our troops fight. How can we win. The best case scenario would be a rutheless dictator that oppresses them and scares the hell of Syria and Iran. Ie. Saddam, but we killed him.

Anyways, I support Ron Paul in some areas, but not in others. I feel that he is the best option for this country right now. I don't totally agree in his isolationist views. Maybe 8 years after he gains office we would be in a better position to conduct world affairs with a strong economy, military, and supportive base. America needs liberty right now, not another 8 years of the same power structure. I'm sick of the neo-Consersative Republicans, and the weak willed Democrats.

I agree, but don't forget Noninterventionism is not isolationism.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul401.html

STAGE 2
11-26-2007, 9:16 PM
Yeah I disagree with him. Or rather I'm waiting to see whether I disagree with him as he hasn't given an explanation as to why he voted against the lawful protection of commerce in arms act.

"Its unconstitutional" isn't what I'm looking for. Its the why.

SAMoody
11-26-2007, 9:32 PM
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005 by a vote of 65-31. On October 20, 2005 it was passed by the House of Representatives 283-144. It was signed into law on October 26, 2005 by President Bush and became Public Law 108-73.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004, after being combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation.

The final bill passed only after an amendment was added which mandated safety locks on handguns and after the assault weapons ban renewal was prevented from being added onto the bill.

G17GUY
11-26-2007, 9:36 PM
"As Paul explained in a 2003 speech, he is unambiguously opposed to lawsuits that demand compensation from the firearms industry for the damage caused by gun crimes. But he concluded that federal pre-emption of such suits cannot be reconciled with the Constitution's limits on congressional power, which leave the writing of tort law to the states."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36021.html+lawful+protection+of+commerce+in+arms+a ct+ron+paul&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us

SAMoody
11-26-2007, 9:51 PM
Ok...This is pobably "cart before the horse" thinking......... Here it goes.........should really get this thing going now............. Who would be his running mate?

radioactivelego
11-26-2007, 11:03 PM
Ron Paul will kill 125,000 people.

Kestryll
11-26-2007, 11:06 PM
Ron Paul will kill 125,000 people.

He must have a pistol grip on his carbine...

eckerph
11-26-2007, 11:36 PM
He must have a pistol grip on his carbine...

and a flash hider.

troyus
11-26-2007, 11:42 PM
Ron Paul is an Assault Weapon.

POINTMANDDT
11-27-2007, 12:47 PM
Pointman, I am interested to hear what you agree/disagree with concerning RP

Just4fun, It's always about the lesser of two evils when it comes to candidates/polititions.....

Sorry....but learned from the "off topic" forum that opinions aren't very often respected,especially when it comes to politics . Also, this whole topic is border line trolling. No offense if that wasn't your intent.

I agree with you about the lesser of two evils thing.

chris
11-27-2007, 12:54 PM
is ron paul a registered AW in california?

he may have to go gripless if he comes here.

N6ATF
11-27-2007, 1:00 PM
Ron Paul is an Assault Weapon.

And he is being carried by the ghosts of the founding fathers.

xrMike
11-27-2007, 1:09 PM
And he is being carried by the ghosts of the founding fathers.Nice image! :D

brando
11-27-2007, 1:27 PM
I like what he says, it's what he doesn't say that concerns me. If he thinks along the same lines as a lot of Christian dominionists, then keep him the hell out of government.

StraightShooter
11-27-2007, 1:33 PM
In my opinion (in other words.. flame all you want... i dont care) Ron Paul would be a good choice for our gun rights but on many other issues I see Him as being too extreme. In the long run getting rid of the IRS, Department of Defense, Board of Education, and all the other governmental departments might be a good idea but in the short run it would probably be too much for our country to handle. Another major possibility is that his views are simply so extreme that none of them would get through congress and therefore noting would get done throughout his term in office. His in not the only pro gun republican. He used some fancy wording there. You guys should look into Mike Huckabee as a candidate because he is very pro gun but seems to have a much more level head on the issues we are facing now.

POINTMANDDT
11-27-2007, 1:40 PM
In my opinion (in other words.. flame all you want... i dont care) Ron Paul would be a good choice for our gun rights but on many other issues I see Him as being too extreme. In the long run getting rid of the IRS, Department of Defense, Board of Education, and all the other governmental departments might be a good idea but in the short run it would probably be too much for our country to handle. Another major possibility is that his views are simply so extreme that none of them would get through congress and therefore noting would get done throughout his term in office. His in not the only pro gun republican. He used some fancy wording there. You guys should look into Mike Huckabee as a candidate because he is very pro gun but seems to have a much more level head on the issues we are facing now.


Thanks for the advice, I will look up some info on Mike Huckabee, any alternative to Ron Paul right now would be great. I agree with a lot of what you said +1

erblo
11-27-2007, 3:28 PM
In my opinion (in other words.. flame all you want... i dont care) Ron Paul would be a good choice for our gun rights but on many other issues I see Him as being too extreme. In the long run getting rid of the IRS, Department of Defense, Board of Education, and all the other governmental departments might be a good idea but in the short run it would probably be too much for our country to handle. Another major possibility is that his views are simply so extreme that none of them would get through congress and therefore noting would get done throughout his term in office. His in not the only pro gun republican. He used some fancy wording there. You guys should look into Mike Huckabee as a candidate because he is very pro gun but seems to have a much more level head on the issues we are facing now.

Good point, that is why Ron Paul wants to phase out those departments in the long run, not in the short run, that would be impossible.

For those that take issue with his stance on the war, you need to consider that we are not just talking about this war, it is future wars as well. Everyone wants to get out of Iraq eventually, you have to think about the future. The question is whether or not you want to get into a pre-emptive war with Iran, then a pre-emptive war with China, then a war with someone else we don't like.

I don't like how the other Republicans emphasize safety as their only concern, even at the expense of our rights. Yes, everyone wants to feel safe, but how do you define it? I find it very easy to imagine a world of perpetual war, financed by foreign lenders who hold the purse strings of our economy.

brando
11-27-2007, 4:09 PM
The thing with Huckabee is he's a bit delusional about simple, scientific matters. If you think sound national science policy is a bad idea, then unplug your computer now and pray for electricity and the internet ;)

troyus
11-27-2007, 4:33 PM
The thing with Huckabee is he's a bit delusional about simple, scientific matters. If you think sound national science policy is a bad idea, then unplug your computer now and pray for electricity and the internet ;)

Yeah.. another dog with different fleas. If cloning ever comes to fruition maybe somebody can dig up Teddy Roosevelt and give it a go.:p

erblo
11-27-2007, 5:22 PM
The thing with Huckabee is he's a bit delusional about simple, scientific matters. If you think sound national science policy is a bad idea, then unplug your computer now and pray for electricity and the internet ;)

+1

I think Huckabee's a kook.

N6ATF
11-27-2007, 6:04 PM
If he wants to abolish the DoD, what will replace it? The country cannot go without a military completely.

Its mission definitely needs to change, however. Right now it's being used more like the Department of War or Team America World Police. Tsunami disaster relief definitely decreases anti-U.S. sentiment in the world, and defending the U.S. against the ongoing Mexican invasion would be approved by almost the entire country.

CitaDeL
11-27-2007, 6:06 PM
Thanks for the advice, I will look up some info on Mike Huckabee, any alternative to Ron Paul right now would be great. I agree with a lot of what you said +1

Here's some information on Mike Huckabee. Granted- its not gun related but...

It seems that he supports in-state tuition and scholarships for illegal aliens. Now, I'm against government programs that want to give away taxpayer money to citizens regardless of whether or not they can demonstrate need. How do you suppose I feel about people who want to give taxpayer money to foreigners that didnt bother to 'sign the guestbook' on the way into our country?


http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg&section=News&storyid=104629

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg&section=News&storyid=108847

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BxJBUswOcQ

Josh3239
11-27-2007, 8:35 PM
I like that Ron Paul is so focused on the constitution and is so pro-gun but I also disagree with his foreign policy and his position on the Iraq war. Also, the fact that he is getting contributions from Neo-Nazis disturbes me, it's more disturbing that keeps those contributions and doesn't return them.

I know we have a lot of people against the war, but I absolutely cannot support a "withdrawal" from Iraq. I believe it would be a big mistake and don't see any good from it. I believe it will only strengthen our enemies.

His foreign policy "irks" me as well. Isolationism, non-interventionalism or w/e you want to call it is not something I understand. Those policies may have been best 300 years ago or so but today they aren't. We are so intertwined with other countries, we have our enemies, we have our allies, we have nations that we trade with, and we have our interests. Does that mean I support installing puppet governments in every country that has said bad things about the USA? Of course not, but I do believe that we cannot just close our eyes to the rest of the world and say, were non-interventionists. This business with Iran is scary and its real, we cannot just wish them away.

I think a candidate similiar to Ron Paul would be very healthy for this country, unfortunetly he is too conservative for my tastes. If Ron Paul would flip his stance on the Iraq war and be a bit more open to the US being a part of the world I would more than likely vote for him.

Anyways that is my $.02

Thunderhawk
11-27-2007, 9:17 PM
he may have to go gripless if he comes here.


I heard he lost his grip a long time ago....:rolleyes:

troyus
11-28-2007, 7:37 AM
I like that Ron Paul is so focused on the constitution and is so pro-gun but I also disagree with his foreign policy and his position on the Iraq war. Also, the fact that he is getting contributions from Neo-Nazis disturbes me, it's more disturbing that keeps those contributions and doesn't return them.

I know we have a lot of people against the war, but I absolutely cannot support a "withdrawal" from Iraq. I believe it would be a big mistake and don't see any good from it. I believe it will only strengthen our enemies.

His foreign policy "irks" me as well. Isolationism, non-interventionalism or w/e you want to call it is not something I understand. Those policies may have been best 300 years ago or so but today they aren't. We are so intertwined with other countries, we have our enemies, we have our allies, we have nations that we trade with, and we have our interests. Does that mean I support installing puppet governments in every country that has said bad things about the USA? Of course not, but I do believe that we cannot just close our eyes to the rest of the world and say, were non-interventionists. This business with Iran is scary and its real, we cannot just wish them away.

I think a candidate similiar to Ron Paul would be very healthy for this country, unfortunetly he is too conservative for my tastes. If Ron Paul would flip his stance on the Iraq war and be a bit more open to the US being a part of the world I would more than likely vote for him.

Anyways that is my $.02

Seems like such an obvious choice, yet it is not available to us!

CitaDeL
11-28-2007, 10:17 AM
I like that Ron Paul is so focused on the constitution and is so pro-gun but I also disagree with his foreign policy and his position on the Iraq war. Also, the fact that he is getting contributions from Neo-Nazis disturbes me, it's more disturbing that keeps those contributions and doesn't return them.

I know we have a lot of people against the war, but I absolutely cannot support a "withdrawal" from Iraq. I believe it would be a big mistake and don't see any good from it. I believe it will only strengthen our enemies.

His foreign policy "irks" me as well. Isolationism, non-interventionalism or w/e you want to call it is not something I understand. Those policies may have been best 300 years ago or so but today they aren't. We are so intertwined with other countries, we have our enemies, we have our allies, we have nations that we trade with, and we have our interests. Does that mean I support installing puppet governments in every country that has said bad things about the USA? Of course not, but I do believe that we cannot just close our eyes to the rest of the world and say, were non-interventionists. This business with Iran is scary and its real, we cannot just wish them away.

I think a candidate similiar to Ron Paul would be very healthy for this country, unfortunetly he is too conservative for my tastes. If Ron Paul would flip his stance on the Iraq war and be a bit more open to the US being a part of the world I would more than likely vote for him.

Anyways that is my $.02

A couple of comments;

First, just because neo-nazis or white supremacist elements support Ron Paul does not mean that he subscribes to their ideology.Could you reasonably say that you would withold support from McCain, Guiliani, or Huckabee if they were recieving funds from The National Coucil of La Raza? If you wouldnt, your words would make you a hypocrit. I'd be inteterested to see sources that demonstrated that 1) neo nazis were supporting Paul and 2) that Paul has any idea where the alleged support came from so he could return it.

Second,all these foreign entanglements take needed resources and effort away from where our country needs it. We have no effective border security, almost all of our goods are made overseas, China has been buying up our debt like a kid in a candy store, and our currency is on the verge of implosion at the mercy of countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Make no mistake, I do not support a wholesale pull out of Iraq either, but I know at some point we will have to leave Iraq with fewer than 30,000 troops on the ground. the recent improvements in security and the cooperation of police forces there have proven that they can do it, and there will come a time when the Iraqis will 'invite us' to leave.

Josh3239
11-28-2007, 2:12 PM
He may or may not subscribe to their idealogy but his failure to distance himself from those people makes me uneasy. I would have a very different opinion of him if he returned the money, which doesn't sound like it would hurt his campaign based on how much money he has made in such little time.

I don't know much about the NCLR, I have heard critisicm that they support and encourage illegal immigration if that is so then I would very likely not support a candidate receiving money from them as it would make me curious what there plans are regarding the illegal immigration issue. That issue is particularly important to me when I cast my vote.

I definetly agree with your second paragraph, while the "foreign entalgements" may take away those resources I believe we still have plenty left to deal with border security and the other issues mentioned. We just need a candidate who will actually go through with it, I don't believe Bush is made any effort to deal with these issues.

ubershinobi
11-28-2007, 2:57 PM
Plenty of resources left to deal with other issues? I believe you mean plenty of debt to leave for younger generations to pay. Our national debt is about 9 trillion dollars --not including entitlement programs which puts our debt to about 50 trillion dollars.

Furthermore, Ron Paul seems to be one of the few candidates who looks like he will actually go through with anything he says, because he is truly disgusted at what we've become. Our economy is headed towards a recession if we do not cut spending, and Ron Paul knows this well.

I believe the current war in Iraq costs about $2 billion dollars a week to sustain, do we really need to spend this amount of money being at war with a country who has no navy, air force, or nuclear weapons? We can use this money back home, to treat veterans or fund alternative energy research.

The only president to ever pay off our national debt was Andrew Jackson, and he was also a man of the people who protected our rights (although what he did to the Indians was horrible and I disagree with). In fact, most of us would not be voting if not for his politics. That's something to think about.

Here is a good video to watch if you would like to learn more about Ron Paul.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2403923911173745161&hl=en

SAMoody
11-28-2007, 7:34 PM
NEVER MIND

Patriot
11-28-2007, 7:47 PM
I'd be inteterested to see sources that demonstrated that 1) neo nazis were supporting Paul and 2) that Paul has any idea where the alleged support came from so he could return it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/
xxxhttp://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/why-we-should-support-ron-388565.htmlxxx




Cut and paste the Stormfront link, we do not want that site hotlinked here.

Liberty1
11-28-2007, 9:39 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/
xxxhttp://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/why-we-should-support-ron-388565.htmlxxx

Cut and paste the Stormfront link, we do not want that site hotlinked here.

A lot if this issue has already been hashed out here : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=75741

But this best sums up my .02 worth: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block89.html

crunchy2k
11-28-2007, 10:37 PM
on Paul is a dinosaur. He takes me back to the fifties,
when grandmas could stop tv shows.

mow
11-29-2007, 7:30 AM
There are very few issues that I disagree with Dr. Paul's position on.

Smokeybehr
11-29-2007, 11:58 AM
I agree with everything that RP says, except his stand on the military and Iraq.

That's why I'm a Fred supporter.

bwiese
11-29-2007, 1:54 PM
I think all Republican candidates are unelectable.

That's only an issue if the Demos don't have high negatives - and they're about equal on that esp w/Hillary, so it's a roughly equal playing field.

It will likely be a lower-turnout election - the middle ground may throw up their hands.

Hopi
11-29-2007, 2:04 PM
That's only an issue if the Demos don't have high negatives - and they're about equal on that esp w/Hillary, so it's a roughly equal playing field.

It will likely be a lower-turnout election - the middle ground may throw up their hands.

Besides the obvious gun issues, what else would keep a person from voting for Obama? Is he just a rabid-socialist-Hillary with a slightly smaller Adam's apple? I'm fairly ignorant with respects to this round of elections and have only heard his sales pitch on the talk-show circuit.

mk19
11-29-2007, 2:06 PM
can't disagree with the man who is all about the constitution. and 2A, the funniest answer was when mccain said something along the lines of i used to own and carry a 45 but i dont own one,,that is laughable sounds like boots coming from basic training and claiming to have a m16. it is pathatic excuse to try and pass yourself as a pro gun candidate.

Josh3239
11-29-2007, 2:49 PM
All the topics that were discussed in this "debate" are not as important. Too much talk about illegal immigration and religion and not much talk about the real problems. Typical GOP questions were asked there.

You don't think an open border where anyone or anything can enter America undetected is important? Or for that matter the illegal immigrants who cut in the lines of people waiting legally to join while they make American dollars and ship it to their family out of the country and that money isn't even taxed while the rest of us are?

Smokeybehr
11-29-2007, 3:25 PM
Besides the obvious gun issues, what else would keep a person from voting for Obama? Is he just a rabid-socialist-Hillary with a slightly smaller Adam's apple? I'm fairly ignorant with respects to this round of elections and have only heard his sales pitch on the talk-show circuit.

Obama lacks any serious political experience, and his statements during the first few months after his announcement show that. He's only been elected to 2 offices: first, the Illinois State House; then the Senate. He only spent one term in the IL House, and is not even through his first term as Senator.

Yes, he's just as rabid a socialist as the Hilldabeast.

Patriot
11-29-2007, 3:29 PM
B v H: Whoever Wins...We Lose :eek:

Colt
11-29-2007, 4:14 PM
[QUOTE=It's always about the lesser of two evils when it comes to candidates/polititions.....[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that for a number of years now, we only get to choose between the evil of two lessers...

bwiese
11-29-2007, 4:24 PM
It is less important than the massive U.S. debt, the decline of the U.S. dollar, terrible health care, the war in Iraq, and more.

Debt is only a small fraction of GNP/net national worth.

Health care is not the gov't's biz except for socialst layabouts looking for freebies.

And a few more dead Arab enemies can't hurt anything. Frankly we need a war every 5-7 years to prove our systems.

AfricanHunter
11-29-2007, 4:37 PM
Obama lacks any serious political experience, and his statements during the first few months after his announcement show that. He's only been elected to 2 offices: first, the Illinois State House; then the Senate. He only spent one term in the IL House, and is not even through his first term as Senator.

Yes, he's just as rabid a socialist as the Hilldabeast.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c12/bulldog563/hillarybeast.jpg

Smokeybehr
11-29-2007, 4:43 PM
It is less important than the massive U.S. debt, the decline of the U.S. dollar, terrible health care, the war in Iraq, and more.

If $20 Billion/year wasn't going south to Mexico untaxed, we wouldn't have "massive debt".

The dollar has been in decline since the 1930's when we went off the Gold Standard. If you're talking about the *only* 4.5% growth rate, then only an idiot would call a reduction in the amount of growth a "recession".

If you think health care is bad here, try Canada. You can get better health care for your dog than you can get for yourself. I personally know of an individual in Canada who was on a list for a replacement hip joint. It took them over 8 months to get to him, and when they did, there were circumstances where they couldn't do the operation, and he had to wait another 6 months.

We were fully justified under the original Cease Fire agreement signed after Desert Storm to go in a wipe the floor with Saddam after he fired off rounds at our patrolling aircraft. Instead, we tried to do it diplomatically, and it didn't work. We gave peace a chance, and it withered and died. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. We went in to stop him from killing any more of his people, and destabilizing the region.

PonchoTA
11-29-2007, 7:59 PM
If $20 Billion/year wasn't going south to Mexico untaxed, we wouldn't have "massive debt".

The dollar has been in decline since the 1930's when we went off the Gold Standard. If you're talking about the *only* 4.5% growth rate, then only an idiot would call a reduction in the amount of growth a "recession".

If you think health care is bad here, try Canada. You can get better health care for your dog than you can get for yourself. I personally know of an individual in Canada who was on a list for a replacement hip joint. It took them over 8 months to get to him, and when they did, there were circumstances where they couldn't do the operation, and he had to wait another 6 months.

We were fully justified under the original Cease Fire agreement signed after Desert Storm to go in a wipe the floor with Saddam after he fired off rounds at our patrolling aircraft. Instead, we tried to do it diplomatically, and it didn't work. We gave peace a chance, and it withered and died. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. We went in to stop him from killing any more of his people, and destabilizing the region.

:iagree

Except: I believe we went off the Gold standard in 1972, one of Nixon's worst decisions which DID lead to one of the worst recessions we've seen, ever.

Also, just to clarify, we gave peace a chance, for 12 frickin years, and 17 UN resolutions, AND several months of "last chances" while we were building up the forces in the area. We hardly "rushed to war" as the left wants us to believe.

If the "anti"s would back up the President and realize that if WE don't didn't do something, then NOBODY would, and the world would be plunged into chaos the likes of which we have never seen, and it would truly be World War III. You can hate the war all you want, you can hate the President, but know this: it's kill or be killed time coming soon. It's an entire ideology and culture that hates us and either we kill the enemy, or they will surely kill us.
There is no compromise, unless you comply with the dhimmi, and Sharia law, or convert.

:(

zefflyn
11-29-2007, 10:57 PM
I like what he says, it's what he doesn't say that concerns me. If he thinks along the same lines as a lot of Christian dominionists, then keep him the hell out of government.

It wouldn't even matter, because he's dedicated to upholding the Constitution. You're used to presidents, congressmen, and senators who ignore the constitution and legislate according to their biases and beliefs, and so you want someone with a belief system similar to your own, so they'll abuse their power in ways you agree with. But when a politician sticks to the constitution, that is not even an issue.

What makes me laugh is how many chime in here saying "Yeah, he's pretty darn constitutional, which I agree with, but a little too constitutional, which I don't agree with. We need some unconstitutional federal power grabs, because they are so darn useful."

So why not get back within the constitutional limits, then pass amendments allowing what is so darn useful? Why not fight to have the agencies you like created legally, instead of fighting for the continued unconstitutional power grabs that afflict our country and freedoms?

Josh3239
11-29-2007, 11:14 PM
If $20 Billion/year wasn't going south to Mexico untaxed, we wouldn't have "massive debt".

The dollar has been in decline since the 1930's when we went off the Gold Standard. If you're talking about the *only* 4.5% growth rate, then only an idiot would call a reduction in the amount of growth a "recession".

If you think health care is bad here, try Canada. You can get better health care for your dog than you can get for yourself. I personally know of an individual in Canada who was on a list for a replacement hip joint. It took them over 8 months to get to him, and when they did, there were circumstances where they couldn't do the operation, and he had to wait another 6 months.

We were fully justified under the original Cease Fire agreement signed after Desert Storm to go in a wipe the floor with Saddam after he fired off rounds at our patrolling aircraft. Instead, we tried to do it diplomatically, and it didn't work. We gave peace a chance, and it withered and died. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. We went in to stop him from killing any more of his people, and destabilizing the region.

Great post! Cleaning up the illegal immigration issue does kill 2 birds with 1 stone. It would greatly help our economy and it would enforce the damn law. As far as health care goes, yes we have people who don't have any. I didn't have any after I left school but I never believed the government owed it to me. All they owe me are my rights and security. And we absolutely did try diplomacy with the Iraqis. They didn't, for years we went through resolutions, threats, etc.

What makes me laugh is how many chime in here saying "Yeah, he's pretty darn constitutional, which I agree with, but a little too constitutional, which I don't agree with.

The fact that he follows the constitution is great. I don't however like how conservative he is. IMO he fails to see that we have enemies who are a threat to us and he has this crazy idea that the moment we pull out of "occupied" nations all that hate towards us will be washed away. He doesn't solve the problem, he addresses it and talks about how it could be avoided. I don't care how it can be avoided when it has already began and damage has been done, how about a solution? Should we cry over the spilled beans or clean them up?

radioactivelego
11-29-2007, 11:25 PM
For those of you who don't believe me, he wants to ban the FDA, which alone saved hundreds of thousands of fatal heart attacks in 2004 by pulling a drug.

And, you know, preventing people from selling arsenic as snake oil.

Seriously how can you even support Ron Paul when he wants to ablosh THE FBI. DEA? Absolutely. IRFDIEORDIEQQ that takes up a billion dollars and returns nothing? Sure thing buddy. DoD? FDIC? DOT? Uuuuuuh.....

bwiese
11-30-2007, 12:08 AM
For those of you who don't believe me, he wants to ban the FDA, which alone saved hundreds of thousands of fatal heart attacks in 2004 by pulling a drug.

It also killed others by removing working drugs.

My late dad was on a diabetes drug called Rezulin in late 90s and doing quite well with it. Some folks were having liver problems but damage could be avoided by frequent testing (and I believe the bulk of them were likely heavy drinkers too).

He and his doctor were quite upset when it was pulled, got on some other drugs that kinda-sorta-but-didn't work as well, and then his aorta had problems. I'm convinced that the stress of all this may have led to a faster decline.

He, my mom and his doctor were in far better control than the friggin' FDA.

How many people are killed by excessive bureacratic delays in new drug approvals?



And, you know, preventing people from selling arsenic as snake oil.


I'm not sure we need to be protected from ourselves.
If people are stupid enoiugh to do it, let 'em.
If people are stupid enough to sign up for a fast indexing negative amortization ARM loan for their mortage, let 'em.



Seriously how can you even support Ron Paul when he wants to ablosh THE FBI. DEA? Absolutely. IRFDIEORDIEQQ that takes up a billion dollars and returns nothing? Sure thing buddy. DoD? FDIC? DOT? Uuuuuuh.....[/QUOTE]

Yes, some of RP's goals are a bit urealistic and will never fly anyway.

But the FBI's stopped being a real crimefighting organization a long time ago.

The DEA basically made Pablo Escobar a billionair much in the same way Treasury made Al Capone one (at least in buying power) back in the 20s.

I'd be glad to lose the DOT BATF OSHA and EEOC however.

But his stance on foreign involvment is lock-yourself-in-the-closet maniac isolationism. North Korea's tried that.

Paratus et Vigilans
11-30-2007, 9:36 AM
RP is like the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich: they both have no chance of being elected, and thus they have the "freedom" to say pretty much anything they want to say, since they will never have to live up to it, or live it down, in the Oval Office.

RP is very firm in what he believes, and I agree with him on sentiment on a lot of the things he says, but as a practical matter, the U.S. cannot simply withdraw from the world stage. It would do much more harm than good at home and abroad. We also can't just give pink slips to 75% of the federal payroll. Limited federal government is what we need, but we can't do it cold turkey, and Congress has to go along with it to make it happen, so we first need to swing the balance in Congress to that way of thinking, and then maybe, in the next 10-20 years, we can see some effective changes. This nation is too big to stop and turn on a dime. Any candidate who cannot see that and admit it in public is either too dishonest or too dumb to elect to office.

IMHO, of course! :)

It is interesting to see the surge for Huckabee. I thought he did well on CNN the other night. Rudy and Romney are busy beating the snot out of each other in a most unattractive way, and neither are making themselves look good by doing it. I really wish Fred would get a little more active. I like him, and think he'd make a good president, but I'm afraid he doesn't have the energy to make it happen.

For now, I guess I'm for ANYBODY BUT HILLARY '08

TheDM
12-01-2007, 2:54 PM
For now, I guess I'm for ANYBODY BUT HILLARY '08

I'm going with Fred too, but I think I have to add Guiliani to my anyone but Hillary list. and Romney too. I don't trust someone who came from a place where hand guns were banned, no matter what they "say". I also didn't care for his mud slinging this early in the races. McCain is too poor a speaker and Romney is just slimy. He acts like an Enron corporate yuck with an MBA as far as I'm concerned, I trust him as far as I can throw my car with one arm, a hangover and if I owned a '53 Buick full of Shriners.

Warning, Lurking mode off....


Only the strong willed should read past this point. I am not a politician, I have no chance at winning, ever. But if I did......


You can always vote for me.

Things I promise as President.

The Constitution will be upheld and the Bill of rights restored, period.

Our borders will be secured under penalty of immediately being quite dead.

If you are here and you are not supposed to be, you will be deported to your originating country.

The prisoners will perform the work that people don't want to, and only the work that people don't want to.

There will be no torture as you can't torture a dead man.

Only a woman can decide if she should have an abortion or not, it's her body, not yours. No person can decide what another person can do with their own body.

All laws protecting people from their own stupidity will be dissolved.

Spanking your children is encouraged.

Owning a firearm and taking a state mandated course on how to kill someone with it will be mandatory.

Doing your Taxes, Check book balancing, Dating, Writing a Resume, buying a house, and how to negotiate with car salesmen, basic car and home repair as well as how to interview for a job will be taught in High School.

If you do not vote two presidential elections in a row, you will no longer be a citizen until you do.

You can marry anything with a Social Security Number. Because marriage as far as the state is concerned is a financial contract of survivorship and taxes with the state, any other precedent is an establishment of religious ideals.

You can do anything you want in your own home providing all participants (if present) are willing.

Every child of age must go through boot camp. Not be in the service, but go through boot camp. People need to learn what it's like to loose their freedom.

The next terrorist attack will result in a small tactical nuclear response.

Government contracts must only buy U.S made products. Not assembled in, not owned by, but actually created in, the USA.

You will be an adult at age 18, period. No 21 or all 21. Not both. There is no way someone can die for his country, pay taxes, vote for who should run the country, dance naked in bar, and not be able to have a beer.

There will be a popular vote, Period.

There will be no war without a Declaration of War, authorized by congress.

The house of representatives will be exactly that, it will be like jury duty. It will not be composed of professional politicians, the Senate will remain lawyers and career politicians to ensure that the populous does not pass anything that violates the constitution, unless that bill is for changing it.

Any change to the constitution will require a 3/4 popular vote.

Rob454
12-01-2007, 8:10 PM
I, but I just can't have another Texas Rep in office, learned from my first mistake. .

Just because he is from Texas doenst mean crap. Thats the wrong way to judge someone. Thats like saying this guy is from Russia or Germany he must be a communist or a nazi. We all make mistakes but punishing a man for simply being from Texas is not the way to make your voting decision IMO.
I dont know enough of all the people running for the office ( Im reading as much as i can to make the right decision for me) but I know i will NEVER vote for the Clintons. I rather shoot myself in the head with a BB gun over and over. I jsut simply do not like that woman. If the right candidate was a woman and right for the job I woudlnt think twice to give her my vote but that woman is like nails scratching on my brain
Rob

Paratus et Vigilans
12-02-2007, 6:13 AM
I'm going with Fred too, but I think I have to add Guiliani to my anyone but Hillary list. and Romney too. I don't trust someone who came from a place where hand guns were banned, no matter what they "say". I also didn't care for his mud slinging this early in the races. McCain is too poor a speaker and Romney is just slimy. He acts like an Enron corporate yuck with an MBA as far as I'm concerned, I trust him as far as I can throw my car with one arm, a hangover and if I owned a '53 Buick full of Shriners.

Warning, Lurking mode off....


Only the strong willed should read past this point. I am not a politician, I have no chance at winning, ever. But if I did......


You can always vote for me.

Things I promise as President.

The Constitution will be upheld and the Bill of rights restored, period.

Our borders will be secured under penalty of immediately being quite dead.

If you are here and you are not supposed to be, you will be deported to your originating country.

The prisoners will perform the work that people don't want to, and only the work that people don't want to.

There will be no torture as you can't torture a dead man.

Only a woman can decide if she should have an abortion or not, it's her body, not yours. No person can decide what another person can do with their own body.

All laws protecting people from their own stupidity will be dissolved.

Spanking your children is encouraged.

Owning a firearm and taking a state mandated course on how to kill someone with it will be mandatory.

Doing your Taxes, Check book balancing, Dating, Writing a Resume, buying a house, and how to negotiate with car salesmen, basic car and home repair as well as how to interview for a job will be taught in High School.

If you do not vote two presidential elections in a row, you will no longer be a citizen until you do.

You can marry anything with a Social Security Number. Because marriage as far as the state is concerned is a financial contract of survivorship and taxes with the state, any other precedent is an establishment of religious ideals.

You can do anything you want in your own home providing all participants (if present) are willing.

Every child of age must go through boot camp. Not be in the service, but go through boot camp. People need to learn what it's like to loose their freedom.

The next terrorist attack will result in a small tactical nuclear response.

Government contracts must only buy U.S made products. Not assembled in, not owned by, but actually created in, the USA.

You will be an adult at age 18, period. No 21 or all 21. Not both. There is no way someone can die for his country, pay taxes, vote for who should run the country, dance naked in bar, and not be able to have a beer.

There will be a popular vote, Period.

There will be no war without a Declaration of War, authorized by congress.

The house of representatives will be exactly that, it will be like jury duty. It will not be composed of professional politicians, the Senate will remain lawyers and career politicians to ensure that the populous does not pass anything that violates the constitution, unless that bill is for changing it.

Any change to the constitution will require a 3/4 popular vote.

Good platform, Bro!

I disagree, however, with losing the Electoral College and going to a straight popular vote for president (that's a two-hour discussion at least - but the basic reason follows) beecause we are a republic and the Electoral College is one means of assuring we remain a republic. Just imagine what California would be like if we had an Electoral College for the governor's election! No Gray Davis, ever! :D