WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
Good because he wouldn't give it to any of them............repulicrates or donkephant's
Ron Paul makes good showing on CNN today
- Thread starter Playboypenguin
- Start date
- Status
Good because he wouldn't give it to any of them............repulicrates or donkephant's
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
I would rather be excited about a candidate, Then some of you guys, Well I don't really like him. But I will vote for them just because I don't like the opposition.
RedneckFur
New member
I have a really hard time understanding Ron Pau's detractors. Whats not to like? And how's Hillary, Obama, or McCain any better 
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
Nobody knows, I don't think Mcain , Obama , or Hilliary. Have taken any stand on any issues. Other than Mccain wants to stay in Iraq.
Most Mccain people are voting for him because they don't like Obama or Hilliary. Not because of what he stands for.
I know, right. RP is like the Uber Conservative, but just because he wants to bring the troops home from Iraq, a bunch of people, who in their delusion still believe they are conservative, start to pee all over themselves. "You can't end the Iraq war.... FoxNews says that would be bad."
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
To me. Paul came off as a bit sanctimonous.
McCain arguably has a better record on the second amendment and on fiscal responsibility than does Paul.
For example, McCain has never requested an earmark, and has consistantly opposed the practice. Contrast that with the reams of pages of pork barrel earmark requests Paul turns in every year. And so, who is Paul to pontificate about who is the best selection for POTUS?
And for another example, McCain voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, whereas Paul voted against it. I could never support a candidate as weak on second amendment issues as is Paul.
McCain arguably has a better record on the second amendment and on fiscal responsibility than does Paul.
For example, McCain has never requested an earmark, and has consistantly opposed the practice. Contrast that with the reams of pages of pork barrel earmark requests Paul turns in every year. And so, who is Paul to pontificate about who is the best selection for POTUS?
And for another example, McCain voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, whereas Paul voted against it. I could never support a candidate as weak on second amendment issues as is Paul.
Did McCain offer to support Paul with a Senate version of his 2nd amendment protection act, which repeals all federal gun laws?
Taking that one vote out of context over and over does not make an argument, chl, so I'll ask yet again: have you any other examples of "anti-gun" votes by Ron Paul?
By the way, Paul's earmark record does not go back nearly as far as McCain's "Reform Institute" which is a blatant political shakedown machine. In addition to receiving money from Teresa Heinz Kerry and George Soros, it takes "donations" from cable and satellite companies with important business before McCain's commerce committee, and suddenly their business gets done. Just amazing. The "Reform Institute" also serves the purpose of keeping McCain campaign staff employed between elections.
Taking that one vote out of context over and over does not make an argument, chl, so I'll ask yet again: have you any other examples of "anti-gun" votes by Ron Paul?
By the way, Paul's earmark record does not go back nearly as far as McCain's "Reform Institute" which is a blatant political shakedown machine. In addition to receiving money from Teresa Heinz Kerry and George Soros, it takes "donations" from cable and satellite companies with important business before McCain's commerce committee, and suddenly their business gets done. Just amazing. The "Reform Institute" also serves the purpose of keeping McCain campaign staff employed between elections.
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
This is by Ron Paul
Reject UN Gun Control
The gun control movement in America has lost momentum in recent years, as evidenced by the Democratic party’s conspicuous silence on the issue in the 2000 and 2002 elections. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks only made matters worse for gun control advocates, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
Perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad. Even as support for gun control wanes at home, globalist bureaucrats are working to override national sovereignty and craft international gun laws.
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France! Meanwhile, this past June the UN held a conference with the silly title “Week of Action against Small Arms.”
It’s no surprise that UN bureaucrats, who are predominantly European and third-world socialists, want to impose gun control worldwide. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York.
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
Contrary to UN propaganda, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe, as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. Gun control simply endangers law-abiding people by disarming them.
More importantly, however, gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
More can be found here
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=gun+control
Gun control articals from Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=17
Video on the 2nd amendment
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=952
Reject UN Gun Control
The gun control movement in America has lost momentum in recent years, as evidenced by the Democratic party’s conspicuous silence on the issue in the 2000 and 2002 elections. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks only made matters worse for gun control advocates, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
Perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad. Even as support for gun control wanes at home, globalist bureaucrats are working to override national sovereignty and craft international gun laws.
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France! Meanwhile, this past June the UN held a conference with the silly title “Week of Action against Small Arms.”
It’s no surprise that UN bureaucrats, who are predominantly European and third-world socialists, want to impose gun control worldwide. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York.
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
Contrary to UN propaganda, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe, as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. Gun control simply endangers law-abiding people by disarming them.
More importantly, however, gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
More can be found here
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=gun+control
Gun control articals from Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=17
Video on the 2nd amendment
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=952
toybox99615
New member
Now I get it
only the smart people ( 1 in 5 voters) can understand the value of Ron Paul being in politics.
The rest of us just get to vote.
And we didn't vote for Ron Paul.
only the smart people ( 1 in 5 voters) can understand the value of Ron Paul being in politics.
The rest of us just get to vote.
And we didn't vote for Ron Paul.
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
If anybody want to learn about Ron Paul. His votes ,his stance on the issues.This is the place.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Out of context? Paul voted against the PLCAA, that's all that's important to know if, like me, you spent time and money lobbying for its passage.
So McCain didn't support one of Ron Paul's looney bills, Bills that never have a snowball's chance of passage. That only proves McCain didn't want to waste time on a bill that had zero chance of passage.
It's obvious that Paul only introduces these bills for show. If he was serious about advancing the second amendment rights of Americans, he would have introduced something more practical, something that had a chance of passage, and helped to advance our cause in a step-by-step way.
Paul's introduction of a Bill to eliminate all federal firearms laws only proves that he is nothing but a complete fraud. It's his way of appearing to do something while actually doing nothing at all, and keeps the rubes sending in their contributions to his so-called Presidential campaign.
BTW- McCain is a turd, I do not support him for POTUS. But he is a far better and more sincere candidate than is Paul.
He got high numbers in several primaries and surpassed 20% in 3 states! Weren't you paying attention?
Alaska Caucus (Feb 15th) -- Ron Paul 17%
Maine (Feb 2) -- Ron Paul 19%
Minnesota (Feb 2) -- Ron Paul 16%
Montana (Feb 5) -- Ron Paul 25%
North Dakota Caucus (Feb 5) Ron Paul 21%
Washington (State) (Feb 9) Ron Paul 22%
Pennsylvania (April 22) Ron Paul 16%
http://www.politico.com/politics08/
The Republican party has denigrated Ron Paul at its own peril. It was a stupid move to reject him. The GOP should have embraced him. The GOP has screwed the pooch in so many ways this election cycle, it's as if they are trying to lose the election.
Alaska Caucus (Feb 15th) -- Ron Paul 17%
Maine (Feb 2) -- Ron Paul 19%
Minnesota (Feb 2) -- Ron Paul 16%
Montana (Feb 5) -- Ron Paul 25%
North Dakota Caucus (Feb 5) Ron Paul 21%
Washington (State) (Feb 9) Ron Paul 22%
Pennsylvania (April 22) Ron Paul 16%
http://www.politico.com/politics08/
The Republican party has denigrated Ron Paul at its own peril. It was a stupid move to reject him. The GOP should have embraced him. The GOP has screwed the pooch in so many ways this election cycle, it's as if they are trying to lose the election.
Last edited:
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
Lmfao!!!!
Yeah.... after McCain wrapped up the election. Shocking
If you think 14 delegates is something to whoop and holler about then I don't know what to tell you. The best ideas in the world dont mean squat if you dont ever have a chance to implement them.
Which is why McCain is currently moving out of the margin of error against both the democratic candidates.
Silver Bullet
New member
Wrong again. Every poll I saw on The Firing Line for preferred candidagte showed Ron Paul with about a 33% vote if Fred Thompson was in the poll, and more than 50% if Fred was not in the poll.
I'd say he has quite a bit of support here.
It's May 2nd. The election is 6 months away. Neither party has held its convention yet. Are you really trying to say poll numbers at this stage of the race indicate McCain will win?
Quick question, Stage 2, why do you think McCain did not resign as Senator of Arizona? Do you really think that "he" believes he is going to win?
- Status