If Ron Paul Gets the Nod

Would you support Ron Paul if he gets the nod, regardless of who you now support?

  • Yes

    Votes: 96 72.2%
  • No

    Votes: 21 15.8%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 11 8.3%
  • Would vote Democrat

    Votes: 5 3.8%

  • Total voters
    133
Just ignore Alaska...

Voltaire said "I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it".

So he is entitled to his opinion. I disagree with him completely and would ask him to reread the Constitution and Bill of rights. I say reread because he comes off as a "I know it all" individual who would reply that he has already read it numerous times every day. In fact he appears to be the type that would claim to have read it every day of his life if it would benefit his argument.

To all of you fellow citizens wondering where our basic principles should start...I submit:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Sqfntrxcg8

The Constitution and Bill of Rights written by our founding fathers was based upon this. I swore to uphold this when I served my six years from 90-96'. I am a true blue dyed in the wool conservative...but am against this bullcrap lying and warmongering. I voted wholeheartedly for Bush twice! And I despise Demoncrats!

Fellow Conservatives! Have we forgotten the days of Evil! The days of Billary the cigar connoisseur! Have we forgotten how we hated his nation building and policing of Somalia and Bosnia! Have we forgotten how excited we were about "The Contract With America" in the 90's when we took over Congress on the promise to reduce government, taxes, spending and a slew of other things?

I do not agree with the Demoncrat definition of neocon which they seem to relate to nazi or whatever. I do say we have neocons though. The are NOT true conservatives. They spend at will, expand gov't and do not follow through with our conservative agenda or try to go back to conservative Constitutional values!

Wake up! Taking up a position such as Ron Pauls does NOT equate to liberalism! The DEMONCRATS are only playing the war thing for politcs/power sake. There is a real rational logic behind not SCREWING with other people or countries which we have done since the end of WWII. This is NOT rocket science! If someone F#$@% with you...you want to kick their Butt! Ron Paul is NOT against kicking butt if somebody screws with you. I have seen him in real life and heard him speak about it! He is not a peacenik hippy SOB! However, not even the DEMONCRAT FDR had the crazy idea that he could just attack without being attacked first. The idea of just defensive war! Of course FDR wanted to get into WWII...but our country was not founded on 'preemptive' striking. Do you NOT REALIZE how that can be completely misused!?

Anyhoo...enough of my ranting.

Cheers and good day and I support all of your opinions...just wanted to have my two cents which isn't worth crap due to Federal Reserve inflationary policy :P
 
grymster2007 said:
I won’t be surprised if someone here attacks me as a callous, under-evolved caveman (or worse), but the reality of this world is and always has been, that failure to address one’s own interests will result in others exploiting that failure to advance their own.

....realpolitik'ing. I guess that makes me a caveman too.


Just ignore Alaska...

Oohh... excellent logical retort there.

when I served my six years from 90-96'. I am a true blue dyed in the wool conservative...

appeal to authority

And I despise Demoncrats! [...] Have we forgotten the days of Evil! The days of Billary the cigar connoisseur!

puerile?

and policing of Somalia and Bosnia!

Um... 1,000,000 dead Rwandans (give or take) might take issue with what you just said.

Taking up a position such as Ron Pauls does NOT equate to liberalism!

straw man?

However, not even the DEMONCRAT FDR had the crazy idea that he could just attack without being attacked first. The idea of just defensive war!

Lend-lease policy. If you thought FDR was just sitting back in its wheelchair, twiddling his thumbs before the Pearl Harbor attack....

I support all of your opinions

No you don't. Stop trying to take the high ground.

my two cents which isn't worth crap due to Federal Reserve inflationary policy

Um... thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
 
Clintontj72,

Very well said. I used to proudly wear the title "conservative". Now I prefer "constitutionalist" or "conservative-libertarian".
 
Welcome to TFL. Excellent first post. For the record, ignoring WA's opinion is often the best way to go about things if you disagree with him. Lord knows that nothing will change his mind.:D
 
Clintontj72,

Good first post. It does seem a bit amazing how bad our memory is. It wasn't long ago that we were ranting about Bill's problems and now we are fine with them cause Bush does it.
 
For the record, ignoring WA's opinion is often the best way to go about things if you disagree with him. Lord knows that nothing will change his mind.

Why change when I am right. :)

I say reread because he comes off as a "I know it all" individual who would reply that he has already read it numerous times every day. In fact he appears to be the type that would claim to have read it every day of his life if it would benefit his argument.

Nice first posts..a few non sequitors, a few ad hominems. Next time you write a cert petition, let me know :)

Appeal to nonexistant authority, since they have not ruled on 922 (q) in light of Raich.

The correct answer is that they havent ruled yet. Just to make sure you knw, since I dont know why the first phrase was tossed

I love the way the Paul folks get worked up....sort of like Don wacking away at a windmill.

WildsorrygottorunimbusierthanacongressmanataporkconventionAlaska TM
 
The correct answer is that they havent ruled yet.

Since they have not yet ruled, we can all speculate about what could/should happen if they do.

Is being too near to a school with a gun an act which affects interstate commerce enough to trigger federal regulatory authority, or not?

The correct answer, for real this time, is that 922 (q) is right now the law of the land, so being too near to a school with a gun IS something which affects interstate commerce enough to trigger federal regulatory authority, at least unless/until it is challenged and overturned.
 
So my question is, should we let that abuse of the commerce clause stand, or should that law be challenged?

My initial reaction is that the law should be challenged, but I also think there is a good chance we could lose the challenge. If Justice Thomas is being consistent, he would vote to uphold 922(q) in light of Raich. Scalia might vote to uphold 922(q) as well, since he is big on "jurisdictional elements" and Congress went back and added some of those for him in 1996 when they re-passed the law after the Lopez decision overturned it. But it really doesn't matter what Scalia might do. The decision was 5-4 in Lopez, and even if we assume that Alito and Roberts would vote to overturn, the loss of Thomas' vote would mean we lose.
 
What is wrong with destroying enough of Iran’s infrastructure to accomplish our goals and then get the hell out?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that this would cause many deaths among many innocent people that have no culpability in the situation in the first place?
 
Maybe the fact that this would cause many deaths among many innocent people that have no culpability in the situation in the first place?

No culpability? Are we not responsible for the actions of our government? I think we are and yes; we may have a price to pay for that… or maybe we’re paying it now.

Meanwhile, will our enemies fret over the loss of innocent American lives when they attack us? I think not.

At some point we need to decide what it takes to ensure our very survival and to be successful, that decision cannot include some metric for a tolerable number of civilian casualties incurred by our enemies. The number will be what it will be.

I think this thread may be diverging into something unrecognizable by the OP.
 
Is being too near to a school with a gun an act which affects interstate commerce enough to trigger federal regulatory authority, or not?

Looking at the Commerce Clause and the series of well reasoned cases exploring congress'es powers thereunder, I would say

WildbuticouldbewronganditcouldgotheotherwayAlaska
 
No culpability? Are we not responsible for the actions of our government? I think we are and yes; we may have a price to pay for that… or maybe we’re paying it now.
Well that sounds an awful lot like the rationalization that bin Laden gave for attacking civilians...that we're responsible for the actions of our government.

No, a ten year old Iranian child dying of the flu because we've destroyed the nation's infrastructure is not culpable for the actions of the government he was born into.
At some point we need to decide what it takes to ensure our very survival
How about staying the frak out of everyone else's business?
that decision cannot include some metric for a tolerable number of civilian casualties incurred by our enemies. The number will be what it will be.
:rolleyes: And people wonder why our survival is even at stake. When our own citizens are so callous about the lives of people that don't happen to be Americans the rest of the world looks DOWN on us as warmongering bastards. Attitudes like this only serve to justify those beliefs.
I think this thread may be diverging into something unrecognizable by the OP.
Considering Ron Paul is one of the few candidates smart enough to understand the concept of blowback I think it falls perfectly in line with the topic. :D
 
I'm kind of shocked at the results. Other boards I'm on that have nothing to do with firearms and the consitution seem to garner about the same percentages in RP polls.

It was hanging out on all these gun forums that brought me to the Libertarian light in the first place. I'm surprised to see that 28% on a gun board wouldn't vote for one of the only guys running with a long and proven record of his 2nd Amendment support. I guess bombing Iran into another Iraq is pretty important to some people. :o

I still consider myself primarily a one-issue voter. The 2nd Amendment is the main litmus test for me choosing a candidate. Every other issue is secondary to me. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I agree with RP's stance on most other issues too. :)
 
As a soldier, I'm sworn to the constitution. I can't justifiably see myself voting for anyone else other than Paul. The other candidates act as though the constitution is something they have to work around. If he gets the nod, he won't "defend gun rights;" he will seek to win lost rights back.
 
If he gets the nod, he won't "defend gun rights;" he will seek to win lost rights back.

This comment started me thinking and then googling. He had 10 terms as a legislator yet I can't find one gun right he has gotten restored as a legislator. What makes you think he will be more effective accomplishing something as president that he hasn't been able to accomplish as a legislator? Obviously the legislative branch doesn't support him fully or he would be introducing bills to restore rights and they would be getting passed.
 
Obviously the legislative branch doesn't support him fully or he would be introducing bills to restore rights and they would be getting passed.

In fairness to Congressman Paul, he did introduce a bill to restore Second Amendment rights to visitors to National Parks.
 
Back
Top