this video exemplifies Ron Paul's greatness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Fsv7iwZRc
0
-
i dont know about nancy reagan, she started the whole war on drugs, and we still havent won that, but i can only imagine how much is being spent on that. Ron Paul seems like a good guy, but who was it that said he was a whackjob? and if you do think he is nuts, could i get some info on why you think that. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SuburbanNoize
i dont know about nancy reagan, she started the whole war on drugs, and we still havent won that, but i can only imagine how much is being spent on that. Ron Paul seems like a good guy, but who was it that said he was a whackjob? and if you do think he is nuts, could i get some info on why you think that.
definitely wasn't me that said that. besides, the war on drugs is another waste of money that Ron Paul wants to do away with.0 -
What about the actor guy I thought we liked? 0 -
quote:You would think that he voted Yes. Dr. Paul instead voted according to the Constitution, as he always has, and voted "No".
I don't disagree with him in principal, not wanting to spend tax dollars unnecessarily. However, there is no Constitutional bar to spending tax dollars to honor a former president. A Constitutionalist should know that.0 -
for locust fork
http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
pay close attention to the small print at the bottom of the page.0 -
oh 0 -
Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowballs chance in the primary, let alone a national election. Where he is now, is about the only place that he could ever get elected, period. You all go ahead and support the lost cause, thus taking away money and votes from the top tier candidates that can beat Hillary. And then you will be crying when Hillary gets elected and starts outlawing all your play toys. 0 -
I believe the republicans will loose unless they nominate Ron Paul. 0 -
You better forget about Paul and get with Thompson. He has a much better chance, since he's second in the running on the republican side right now, and hasn't even thrown his hat into the ring..Any votes for Paul will only subtract from our chances of getting a republican in office at this point..However..Do as you see fit. It's your country too. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by PC800
Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowballs chance in the primary, let alone a national election. Where he is now, is about the only place that he could ever get elected, period. You all go ahead and support the lost cause, thus taking away money and votes from the top tier candidates that can beat Hillary. And then you will be crying when Hillary gets elected and starts outlawing all your play toys.
This thought process is exactly why we get stuck with one turd after another, regardless of the party. The herd speaks and seems to be well conditioned to the repetative game that has been played on America for many, many years.
I don't necessarily advocate Dr. Paul, but a "lower tier" candidate, or third party candidate is exactly what is desperately needed.
Both party's "top tier" candidates will do basically the same thing if elected. That is, further expand the Fed, further restrict individual liberties, further tighten the hold the Fed has on the populace, increase Fed programs, further the "cradle to grave" mentality, continue to erode the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and on, and on, and on.
Ignorance abounds in this once great nation.[V]0 -
Third party/independent Candidates serve a very important function in our system - they raise issues. Then one or the other main party must show that it is responsive to the stated need that the issue is supposed to address. The Republicans or the Democrats must show they support or are against the issue.
It is exactly how strong the support that the Third Party garners that forces the response from the Rs or the Ds...
So, answer any poll or questionnaire with your true feelings of the issues raised by the "Not a chance" candidates, and watch which "Main Party" agrees with your view, THEN VOTE THE MAIN PARTY.
If you look at the experience level and the other parts of the platform of any "Third Party" candidate closely, you will find either ....nothing, or .....total crazyness.
Remember the "Hand Grenade with a bad haircut"?? Ross Perot? He came closer than any previous third party, and he wasn't even close.
Any vote for a third party canditate will just weaken the main party that is closest to your views.0 -
"exactly why we get stuck with one turd after another"
What do you call a turd with two first names?
Doo Doo, or Ron Paul????
Trinity +++0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by PC800
Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowballs chance in the primary, let alone a national election. Where he is now, is about the only place that he could ever get elected, period. You all go ahead and support the lost cause, thus taking away money and votes from the top tier candidates that can beat Hillary. And then you will be crying when Hillary gets elected and starts outlawing all your play toys.
This thought process is exactly why we get stuck with one turd after another, regardless of the party. The herd speaks and seems to be well conditioned to the repetative game that has been played on America for many, many years.
I don't necessarily advocate Dr. Paul, but a "lower tier" candidate, or third party candidate is exactly what is desperately needed.
Both party's "top tier" candidates will do basically the same thing if elected. That is, further expand the Fed, further restrict individual liberties, further tighten the hold the Fed has on the populace, increase Fed programs, further the "cradle to grave" mentality, continue to erode the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and on, and on, and on.
Ignorance abounds in this once great nation.[V]
The reality is this: there is no way a second or third tier candidate can defeat Hillary in 2008. It will be close just to beat her with a first tier candidate like Fred T. or Guliani. So... you think tactically instead of strategically just to make a point and somehow you actually get Ron Paul or another loser nominated as the Republican candidate, Hillary beats him like a rented mule and becomes President. Then we are stuck with her for at least 4 years, if not for 8. She installs the next 2,3, or 4 justices on the Supreme Court, puts in universal health care, raises taxes through the roof, and outlaws everything semi-automatic. And she is forever in the history books as the first female president. Real smart.0 -
Have you looked at freds voting record?
http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
it's not a long read, then click home if you want to look at the rest of the rep candidates.
do you still think fred is the one?, if so I can live with that, and if he gets the nomination I will vote for him to keep hilary out but I think ron is a much better choise for the sake of the country.0 -
quote:Originally posted by longsantafe
Have you looked at freds voting record?
http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
it's not a long read, then click home if you want to look at the rest of the rep candidates.
do you still think fred is the one?, if so I can live with that, and if he gets the nomination I will vote for him to keep hilary out but I think ron is a much better choise for the sake of the country.
Like I said, Ron is NOT electable in a national election and he won't even make it through the primaries. Just because you wish he would does not make it true. You people have to realize that only 30% of the country calls themselves conservatives. That leaves 70% as ultra-liberal,liberal, and moderate. So we have to play the game and get as many of those moderates to vote with us, so that we can hold off the liberals. And that is just the way it is. If you all want to go and vote for Ron or another lost cause, don't cry about it when Hillary is President.0 -
quote:Originally posted by PC800
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by PC800
Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowballs chance in the primary, let alone a national election. Where he is now, is about the only place that he could ever get elected, period. You all go ahead and support the lost cause, thus taking away money and votes from the top tier candidates that can beat Hillary. And then you will be crying when Hillary gets elected and starts outlawing all your play toys.
This thought process is exactly why we get stuck with one turd after another, regardless of the party. The herd speaks and seems to be well conditioned to the repetative game that has been played on America for many, many years.
I don't necessarily advocate Dr. Paul, but a "lower tier" candidate, or third party candidate is exactly what is desperately needed.
Both party's "top tier" candidates will do basically the same thing if elected. That is, further expand the Fed, further restrict individual liberties, further tighten the hold the Fed has on the populace, increase Fed programs, further the "cradle to grave" mentality, continue to erode the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and on, and on, and on.
Ignorance abounds in this once great nation.[V]
The reality is this: there is no way a second or third tier candidate can defeat Hillary in 2008. It will be close just to beat her with a first tier candidate like Fred T. or Guliani. So... you think tactically instead of strategically just to make a point and somehow you actually get Ron Paul or another loser nominated as the Republican candidate, Hillary beats him like a rented mule and becomes President. Then we are stuck with her for at least 4 years, if not for 8. She installs the next 2,3, or 4 justices on the Supreme Court, puts in universal health care, raises taxes through the roof, and outlaws everything semi-automatic. And she is forever in the history books as the first female president. Real smart.
Strategically is exactly how I am thinking. It may well take a "nightmare scenario" to wake people up to the futility of accepting the crap served up, year after year, by the Republicrats. It is basically the same party at the top level. Talk is different to fool the masses, but the end result is more government, less freedom, more dependency on the Fed, more spending.
If the margin is so razor thin, that Hildabeast can even have a hope of making it, we are already screwed, aren't we? You would SETTLE for "Hillary-light", rather than Hillary. This is exactly what one of the "front-running" Republicrats are, IMHO. That is exactly why we continue to slide downward as a nation, again IMHO.
Vote for the lesser of the two evils and fall for the "Grand Scheme". Hell, its worked pretty well for a whole lot of years.
I think your way sucks, you think my way sucks. I am standing on my principals because , to me, to do otherwise is why we are in the clusterf*ck situation that we are.0 -
quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
"exactly why we get stuck with one turd after another"
What do you call a turd with two first names?
Doo Doo, or Ron Paul????
Trinity +++
If you had bothered to read/comprehend my post, I was commenting on the idea of voting for someone other than the "top tier" candidates, not specific to Ron Paul. It is the CONCEPT I am speaking of, not specifically Dr. Paul.
Personally, from what I have seen so far, I like Mike Huckabee.0 -
huckabe is a strong 2nd amendment candidate, I don't know much more than that about him. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by PC800
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by PC800
Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowballs chance in the primary, let alone a national election. Where he is now, is about the only place that he could ever get elected, period. You all go ahead and support the lost cause, thus taking away money and votes from the top tier candidates that can beat Hillary. And then you will be crying when Hillary gets elected and starts outlawing all your play toys.
This thought process is exactly why we get stuck with one turd after another, regardless of the party. The herd speaks and seems to be well conditioned to the repetative game that has been played on America for many, many years.
I don't necessarily advocate Dr. Paul, but a "lower tier" candidate, or third party candidate is exactly what is desperately needed.
Both party's "top tier" candidates will do basically the same thing if elected. That is, further expand the Fed, further restrict individual liberties, further tighten the hold the Fed has on the populace, increase Fed programs, further the "cradle to grave" mentality, continue to erode the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and on, and on, and on.
Ignorance abounds in this once great nation.[V]
The reality is this: there is no way a second or third tier candidate can defeat Hillary in 2008. It will be close just to beat her with a first tier candidate like Fred T. or Guliani. So... you think tactically instead of strategically just to make a point and somehow you actually get Ron Paul or another loser nominated as the Republican candidate, Hillary beats him like a rented mule and becomes President. Then we are stuck with her for at least 4 years, if not for 8. She installs the next 2,3, or 4 justices on the Supreme Court, puts in universal health care, raises taxes through the roof, and outlaws everything semi-automatic. And she is forever in the history books as the first female president. Real smart.
Strategically is exactly how I am thinking. It may well take a "nightmare scenario" to wake people up to the futility of accepting the crap served up, year after year, by the Republicrats. It is basically the same party at the top level. Talk is different to fool the masses, but the end result is more government, less freedom, more dependency on the Fed, more spending.
If the margin is so razor thin, that Hildabeast can even have a hope of making it, we are already screwed, aren't we? You would SETTLE for "Hillary-light", rather than Hillary. This is exactly what one of the "front-running" Republicrats are, IMHO. That is exactly why we continue to slide downward as a nation, again IMHO.
Vote for the lesser of the two evils and fall for the "Grand Scheme". Hell, its worked pretty well for a whole lot of years.
I think your way sucks, you think my way sucks. I am standing on my principals because , to me, to do otherwise is why we are in the clusterf*ck situation that we are.
Has standing on your principles done any good so far over the past few decades? If so, then why are we not a true conservative country with a true conservative government? Even the great Reagan did dumb things like amnesty. And the Dems were in control for about 40 years before the 1994 Republican take over. Why was that? If this country was truly so conservative back in those days, why did they stay in power for so long? When you now look at things like the CCW movement, abortion being curtailed, basically a 5-4 conservative supreme Court, etc. we are really in the best position we have been in a long time. Now is the time to advance that position by defeating Hillary and thus defeating the liberals. If we can hold onto the Presidency for the next 8 years, we should be able to get 2,3, or even 4 more Supreme Court Justice appointments and solidify a moderate-conservative to truly conservative Supreme Court for the next few generations. Then, taking stare decisis et non quieta movere into consideration, the rulings that that conservative court makes may stand for 50 years.0 -
I voted for bush because he promised fiscal responsibility, and gun rights, come to find out he is a globalist, similar to the fasist democrates, I don't care about gay marige or abortion, if it is a sin god will punish the guilty, if there is no god who the blean are you to say [not you personaly].
Can we just protect our cival rights, protect the border, get the feds off of our backs and persue happieness.
I think we can.
Just level the playing field for all americans.
FREEDOM have you ever tried it!0 -
pc800 did you look at the website?
http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
please do if you haven't
Ron Paul is not perfect by a long shot but he is responsible, constitutional and fair.0 -
quote:Originally posted by PC800
Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowballs chance in the primary, let alone a national election. Where he is now, is about the only place that he could ever get elected, period. You all go ahead and support the lost cause, thus taking away money and votes from the top tier candidates that can beat Hillary. And then you will be crying when Hillary gets elected and starts outlawing all your play toys.
I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. I vote for the candidate who I feel would be best for this country, and the candidate who closely matches my own political views.
I feel sorry for people like you with your "thats a wasted vote" mentality.0 -
Ron Paul may be the greatest man on earth but he has a snowballs chance in hell of being president,,The only thing he is good for is to help the dem's into office,,[V] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by oldgunner
You better forget about Paul and get with Thompson. He has a much better chance, since he's second in the running on the republican side right now, and hasn't even thrown his hat into the ring..Any votes for Paul will only subtract from our chances of getting a republican in office at this point..However..Do as you see fit. It's your country too.
snowballs chance or not, I support Paul, not Thompson. Settling, and voting for someone you're not completely happy with is a wasted vote in my opinion.0 -
quote:Originally posted by HandLoad
Third party/independent Candidates serve a very important function in our system - they raise issues. Then one or the other main party must show that it is responsive to the stated need that the issue is supposed to address. The Republicans or the Democrats must show they support or are against the issue.
It is exactly how strong the support that the Third Party garners that forces the response from the Rs or the Ds...
So, answer any poll or questionnaire with your true feelings of the issues raised by the "Not a chance" candidates, and watch which "Main Party" agrees with your view, THEN VOTE THE MAIN PARTY.
If you look at the experience level and the other parts of the platform of any "Third Party" candidate closely, you will find either ....nothing, or .....total crazyness.
Remember the "Hand Grenade with a bad haircut"?? Ross Perot? He came closer than any previous third party, and he wasn't even close.
Any vote for a third party canditate will just weaken the main party that is closest to your views.
Ron Paul is on the republican ticket, he is not a 3rd party candidate.0 -
quote:Originally posted by PC800
quote:Originally posted by longsantafe
Have you looked at freds voting record?
http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
it's not a long read, then click home if you want to look at the rest of the rep candidates.
do you still think fred is the one?, if so I can live with that, and if he gets the nomination I will vote for him to keep hilary out but I think ron is a much better choise for the sake of the country.
Like I said, Ron is NOT electable in a national election and he won't even make it through the primaries. Just because you wish he would does not make it true. You people have to realize that only 30% of the country calls themselves conservatives. That leaves 70% as ultra-liberal,liberal, and moderate. So we have to play the game and get as many of those moderates to vote with us, so that we can hold off the liberals. And that is just the way it is. If you all want to go and vote for Ron or another lost cause, don't cry about it when Hillary is President.
haha.. I'd probably take ANYONE over Rudy Giuliani.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
"exactly why we get stuck with one turd after another"
What do you call a turd with two first names?
Doo Doo, or Ron Paul????
Trinity +++
If you had bothered to read/comprehend my post, I was commenting on the idea of voting for someone other than the "top tier" candidates, not specific to Ron Paul. It is the CONCEPT I am speaking of, not specifically Dr. Paul.
Personally, from what I have seen so far, I like Mike Huckabee.
well the "concept" that you advocate is pure crap IMO.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ruger270man
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by TrinityScrimshaw
"exactly why we get stuck with one turd after another"
What do you call a turd with two first names?
Doo Doo, or Ron Paul????
Trinity +++
If you had bothered to read/comprehend my post, I was commenting on the idea of voting for someone other than the "top tier" candidates, not specific to Ron Paul. It is the CONCEPT I am speaking of, not specifically Dr. Paul.
Personally, from what I have seen so far, I like Mike Huckabee.
well the "concept" that you advocate is pure crap IMO.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Good Lord! You obviously don't read/comprehend either.
The very point I was making is to NOT vote for the lesser of two evils, e.g. the "top tier" of either party. I was making the point, not advocating specifically for Ron Paul. Get it? That is the "concept".
Geez.[:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by longsantafe
pc800 did you look at the website?
http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
please do if you haven't
Ron Paul is not perfect by a long shot but he is responsible, constitutional and fair.
YES I looked at it. Ron is a loooooooossssssseeeeerrrrrr. Wake up people. After that one debate where he made himself out the fool over why 9/11 happened, no one (except a few on this board) is going to vote for him. And hardly anyone was going to vote for him before that either. He is DONE. You guys have a nice time voting for him and I will listen to you cry for 4 years when Hillary gets sworn in. Hope you really don't like your guns much.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sharpshooter039
Ron Paul may be the greatest man on earth but he has a snowballs chance in hell of being president,,The only thing he is good for is to help the dem's into office,,[V]
CORRECT!!!!!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
41 comments