I don't know about better records. Ron Paul is a pretty strict constitutionalist. You could say to a fault. I've never read anything on him that was anti gun rights even with respect to assault weapons. As for his vote against the PLCAA, I believe that has to do with his not wanting over reaching federal regulations but rather those matters left up to the states. I know that's always been his position. The Pork Barrel earmarks you talk about was nonsense in my opinion. He's by far the least wasteful congressman by far. I seem to recall reading he asked for things his constituents wanted , because they asked him to , then voted against most all of them. He's by far the most fiscally responsible of the bunch.
Paul losing congressional race
- Thread starter STAGE 2
- Start date
- Status
I don't know about better records. Ron Paul is a pretty strict constitutionalist. You could say to a fault. I've never read anything on him that was anti gun rights even with respect to assault weapons. As for his vote against the PLCAA, I believe that has to do with his not wanting over reaching federal regulations but rather those matters left up to the states. I know that's always been his position. The Pork Barrel earmarks you talk about was nonsense in my opinion. He's by far the least wasteful congressman by far. I seem to recall reading he asked for things his constituents wanted , because they asked him to , then voted against most all of them. He's by far the most fiscally responsible of the bunch.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I assume then you are making plans to emigrate to some place freer?
There honestly is no difference between the nay sayers on the Daily Kos and the nay sayers here (and on other Boards).
Thank god for those of us who see the glass as half full as opposed to half empty.
WildallcomesdowntoyourownpersonalityireckonAlaska ™
Hey , you're right. I'm just a new guy so I guess that makes me wrong. When I get 9300 posts will I be right?
I joined up to talk about firearms and legal issues surrounding them today, and happened to see this thread which I must say I found offensive. As the new guy I suppose I should just shut up, huh?
No one is cheering the defeat of a true conservative. Some of us are just hopeful that the reason that we have been talking about will finally sink in. When you place your resources behind someone that can't win you don't get anywhere.
You see, the Paul camp is under the impression that he was/is the ONLY person able to carry the conservative banner. Thats simply not true. Just because we want someone who is conservative doesn't mean they have to be an ancient relic. There isn't any reason why we cant have a conservative version of Obama; young, charismatic, energizing.
Furthermore, your premise assumes that we are happy McCain is the nominee. I'm fairly certian thats not the case. It certianly isn't for me.
No one is asking you to shut up, just that you play nice. Its poor form ANYWHERE to show up and start making critiques when you don't have all the facts.
And just for the record, Paul has a B rating from the NRA, so yes there are other candidates better for the RKBA out there.
BoringAccountant
New member
Lou,
As a new guy, this is hardly the welcome you should be entitled to. But to give you a background of this history of posts, trash talking, etc. regarding Ron Paul and his Presidential campaign would be rather lengthly. Surmise it to say, a lot of people spewed a lot of promises, dished out a lot of negative things to those who did not want to vote for Paul or those who would say he did not stand a chance. Also, on the opposite side of that, there were a select few that barraged the RP supporters with bashing of Ron Paul to the point it was getting very old. With that brief history in mind, this post was started.
Some of the posters here, Bruxley, STAGE2, cool hand luke, and many more got into many circular debates with the RP supporters who just would not concede they were wrong with certain issues. And their classic response was similar to this
Now, this post is not representative of any of the good legal and political debates that go on here concerning firearms, its more of like you said a nanny nanny bo bo told you so post. Sorry you sort of got stuck in the middle of it, but hey, we all have some general common ground when it comes to guns so lets start there.
Welcome to the boards.
As a new guy, this is hardly the welcome you should be entitled to. But to give you a background of this history of posts, trash talking, etc. regarding Ron Paul and his Presidential campaign would be rather lengthly. Surmise it to say, a lot of people spewed a lot of promises, dished out a lot of negative things to those who did not want to vote for Paul or those who would say he did not stand a chance. Also, on the opposite side of that, there were a select few that barraged the RP supporters with bashing of Ron Paul to the point it was getting very old. With that brief history in mind, this post was started.
Some of the posters here, Bruxley, STAGE2, cool hand luke, and many more got into many circular debates with the RP supporters who just would not concede they were wrong with certain issues. And their classic response was similar to this
Now, this post is not representative of any of the good legal and political debates that go on here concerning firearms, its more of like you said a nanny nanny bo bo told you so post. Sorry you sort of got stuck in the middle of it, but hey, we all have some general common ground when it comes to guns so lets start there.
Welcome to the boards.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I don't know, I've only been right 5 times in my entire life a and I can't remember when that was.
You have to take your chances.....hell I've been married 4 times
WildiwillleaveitatthatAlaska ™
By the way, shall I post my favorite email I got from an RP supporter way back when? Maybe it will give you all some insight as to why he frosts my butt so much....although it will be filled with *******s
WA,
But I guess it's okay if you really need to let off steam. Of course, I don't see any allowances for that in the forum rules, but I might have overlooked it.
The problem is that'd make it a troll thread, wouldn't it? Hardly condusive to the level-headed, reasonable discussion you guys claim to have missed so much.
But I guess it's okay if you really need to let off steam. Of course, I don't see any allowances for that in the forum rules, but I might have overlooked it.
You see, its all a matter of perspective. If talking about Paul ad nauseum for months was a viable discussion (and it was according to you and many others) then talking about how he could likely lose his congressional seat is certianly viable.
You can't support one and cry foul for the other.
Er, just so you know, Ron Paul never had a blimp. Some folks who suppported Ron Paul's candidacy have or had one, so you'd need to reference them.
As soon as Dr. Paul decides to end his presidential campaign the full amount of campaign funds collected during it can be used in his congressional campaign.
Dr. Paul's neoconservative opponent is well funded, the Bush regime certainly detests Dr. Paul and has helped his opponents a number of times in the past and probably are this time, so the race may be close, or it may just appear close.
We'll see.
Unregistered
Moderator
Hopefully Paul will change his mind and run as an independent for president. This will suck about 6-10% of the Republican vote away from McCain, and Obama will win in a landslide. This will end the neo-conservative movement in the US.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Keeping the small margins of recent elections in mind, the Republicans may need to win over those Ron Paul supporters if they want their candidate to win in November. Ridiculing them for their convictions and mocking them may not be the best way to go about that.
- Status