Ron Paul Supporters: Did you vote for Bush?

[Davis]

Not read much on Duncan Hunter, eh? Snowballs' chance, of course, but he is the best candidate. By the way, the security cameras you mention are mostly installed in major cities with very "liberal" governments. In any case, do you seriously think Clinton or Obama would not expand it? Clinton, of course, who was involved with all of those FBI files???

Back to Kerry, who do you think he would have appointed to the Supreme Court? How would we feel about Heller at this moment? The longest term impact a president can have comes from those appointments.

Come now.

Davis

 

[beardenbc]

I voted for Mike Badnarik (Libertarian) in 2004.

 

[ford1342]

As long as this country has this two party system, the country will continue to roll downhill. Elections as far back as I can remember have always been a vote for the lesser of two evils. The simple, sad truth now is that the Democrats will take this country downhill in a Ferrarri, and the Republicans will take us to the same place, but just in a horse and buggy.

If you take the time to do some research on the Federal Reserve, which is actually a cartel of PRIVATE banks, you will see that they are the ones that are in bed with the two party system as it is. There are just as many Republicans as there are Democrats that stand behind this Federal Reserve scheme. These bankers will aggressively fund a candidate that is running against one that is trying to blow the whistle on what the Federal Reserve actually is. The Federal Reserve is the same people that invented the UN, the IRS, and the Council on Foreign Relations. They are the main driving force behind a global economy, which everyday gets us ever closer to a one world government. They are the ones that have conditioned those that would like to take our guns away from us in the name of "public safety", when in fact they would like us disarmed just so they could get richer and have absolute power. These private bankers also have controlling shares in all the major media outlets. This is why the media is so anit-gun. These private bankers have been laying the groundwork for total control of the world population for years. They print money out of thin air, with no collateral to back it. It is just a blind loan to us, with intrest attached. Our Constitution actually gives our own government the authority to print currency, backed by the government itself. Just so happens that when this country had to pay for a war, they needed a "loan" to still be able to support the local currency, so in comes this "Federal Reserve" loan shark system. After wars were over and paid for, a couple of our presidents through history tried to get back to the idea of the government printing and backing its own currency again. These two presidents were Abe Lincoln and JFK. Sure sounds fishy that both of them were assasinated, doesn't it? Government printed money has no intrest attached to its value. When the Federal Reserve prints money, it is just a loan that they get paid back with intrest. They don't even pay income tax on the intrest(profit) they get paid back for "backing" these fake dollars. 3/4 of the amount we pay in income taxes is solely for paying this intrest(profit) to the Federal Reserve on the money they print. Just imagine if 100% of what we paid in income taxes actually ended up where it is supposed to, instead of just 1/4 of it. Imagine the boost to the economy that would be. The national debt would disappear in short order. Imagine how much our income taxes would drop.

There is only one candidate that has even uttered the subject of getting rid of the Federal Reserve. That candidate is Ron Paul. No one here can deny that the media(Federal Reserve propoganda machine) has aggressively avoided giving him any coverage at all, if possible.

Like it or not, AWB 2 will eventually come if we stick with this two party system. If enough people would see the light and get behind Ron Paul, this country might just have a chance of getting back to what our forefathers envisioned for a free country so long ago. I hope Ron Paul has the willingness to spring up as a third party candidate after Super Tuesday. A vote for him is not the lesser of two evils. I beleive Ron Paul would actually get lot more crossover votes from Democrats than the neo-con Republicans could ever dream of with their current agenda. The current mainstream Republican party is more out for its own greed and power and keeping the military industrial complex running than it is for the best intrest of true conservatives that actually make up the majority of its supporters.

 

[Bruxley]

Well Ford, you have the mantra down pat don't ya. The only things you forgot is the 'no more pro-Israel wars' and the Evils of McCain.

That schpeal has worn out Ford. You'll find it weights zip here now. The shark has been jumped already.

 

[Pat H]

Thanks, Ford, excellent information for us all.

And, welcome to TFL.

 

[SteelCore]

ford1342: Good post, and welcome to TFL.

Davis:

Not read much on Duncan Hunter, eh? Snowballs' chance, of course, but he is the best candidate.

I have read about Hunter, and I don't agree that he is (or was) the best. He's great on some issues, but his support of warrantless electronic surveillance is a major negative in my mind. It's all about giving away freedom in the name of "security."

He's also endorsed neocon foreign policy, including the insane idea of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran. The neocons are engaged in a game of global gun control: "We and our allies can have these weapons, but you can't." The idea that Iran is a threat to America is ludicrous. Israel has its own nukes: let them worry about Iran.

By the way, the security cameras you mention are mostly installed in major cities with very "liberal" governments.

Yes -- especially in places like NYC, where Giuliani was mayor. Yet many actually think he's a "conservative." In any case, my position is that the Democrats and the Republicans are both bad on these issues.

In any case, do you seriously think Clinton or Obama would not expand it? Clinton, of course, who was involved with all of those FBI files???

I think they would, though perhaps not as aggressively as one of the neocons.

It really could depend on which candidates have closer ties to the military-industrial complex. Those are the ones who will be most likely to pumping more funding into the development of new technology that will be used first to dominate foreign populations, then eventually to control Americans.

Back to Kerry, who do you think he would have appointed to the Supreme Court? How would we feel about Heller at this moment?

I have no faith whatsoever that the current Supreme Court will acknowledge the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The "conservatives" on the court come closer to "law and order conservatives" than anything else. At best, I expect them to grant us a partial victory. If they see full- or semi-auto weapons as a threat to state power, then they'll probably agree that they can be regulated. No one will be more thrilled than I'll be if I turn out to be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Besides, what about the Bush administration's amicus curiae brief that favors a watered-down interpretation of the 2A? That's an example right there of what we have to continue to look forward to forever if we continue to support the lesser of two evils. Our rights will continue to be whittled away.

On the other hand, what if all gun owners had started voting libertarian back in 1980? Each of us would probably have an M249 in his safe.

 

[Unregistered]

You'll find it weights zip here now.

You might disagree with it (I disagree with some of it also), but it is wrong to say that his argument has no weight around here. In a recent poll, approximately 50% of the people on this forum are voting for Ron Paul. So I suspect it does bear some weight with them. Don't ya think?

 

[Danzig]

Welcome Ford. Many of us do not toe the party line or have any desire to uphold the status quo. Your words do not fall completely on deaf ears.

 

[Bruxley]

Your right Unregistered. I exaggerated and that wasn't intellectually honest of me. I over generalized and that isn't fair. My bad.

Until 2 days ago I was considering Paul but his lack of leadership ability had me apprehensive. It was the discovery of who one would find himself associated with should he become a Paul supporter, and the links to that association that are revealed when their mantra is regurgitated that made associating myself with Paul became completely unpalatable.

Granted many, if not most Paul supporters don't realize who they are associating themselves with or who's message they are regurgitating. Many do however and close ranks when the mantra is noticed. As is evident in any thread Paul is mentioned.

It goes far far far more toward repelling people then propelling Paul. But your right, there ARE Paul supporters that don't know about the association. Those that do and think they aren't obvious are fooling nobody however.

 

[Davis]

Steelcore, I assure you if Kerry had appointed the two justices, we would have very little doubt how this would go. It is true that Ford and Bush 41 appointed two of the most liberal members of the bench and in doing so, did us no favors. But Clinton brought us Ginnsburg.

As to wiretaps, I am no fan of them, but being warrantless they cannot be used against you in court, or have you forgotten that? Even so, how do you propose dealing with terrorists operating without a government?

Davis

 

[Pat H]

It is true that Ford and Bush 41 appointed two of the most liberal members of the bench and in doing so, did us no favors.

Suter is the worst justice on the court, yes, even worse (though not by much) than Ginsburg.

Those justices of which you speak are feckless statists and ought be impeached, but as Thomas Jefferson once lamented, impeachment isn't even a shadow of a threat.

 

[Luke223]

I voted for Bush both times -- and his father too for that matter.