Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Thats exactly why we the people need to get him elected. Unfortunately "you the people" by yourselves, without the party establishment behind you, have about as much chance of getting Mr. Paul elected as General George Armstrong Custer had of winning the battle at Little Big Horn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, can he and will he pull a Ross Perot and run as an independent? That definitely wouldn't help out the Republicans at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 That definitely wouldn't help out the Republicans at all. I'd wager that it would hurt both of the establishment parties. He draws an awful lot of disgruntled Dems as well as GOPs. For example, who does the anti-war dem vote for in a Hillary v Thompson race? Now compare that to who does the anti-war Dem vote for in a Hillary v. Paul race? I think we all know that answer. This same formula is applicable for many issues and party lines. Who does the pro-life conservative vote for if Paul is in? How about a pro second ammendment? etc, etc. To me, the sheer beauty of Ron Paul's candidacy is the fact that he gets support from all walks of life, all income brackets, all races, and all political affiliations. This absolutely cannot be said of ANY other candidate in the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Unfortunately "you the people" by yourselves, without the party establishment behind you, have about as much chance of getting Mr. Paul elected as General George Armstrong Custer had of winning the battle at Little Big Horn. It's Dr. Paul. Do you know why the NRA doesn't throw their complete support behind him? Because he didn't sign the bill eliminating litigation to gun companies from gun deaths. Not because he didn't agree with the bill, but because he felt it wasn't Congress' constitutional responsibility to get involved in such matters. He receives a b+ mark from the NRA and most other Pro 2nd amendment groups fully support Dr. Paul. It's that cut throat out there. Needs to be changed. Unfortunately we have people that just refuse to vote instead of doing a real protest such as voting for Dr. Paul. What does that prove by not voting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 It's Dr. Paul.Do you know why the NRA doesn't throw their complete support behind him? Because he didn't sign the bill eliminating litigation to gun companies from gun deaths. Not because he didn't agree with the bill, but because he felt it wasn't Congress' constitutional responsibility to get involved in such matters. He receives a b+ mark from the NRA and most other Pro 2nd amendment groups fully support Dr. Paul. It's that cut throat out there. Needs to be changed. Unfortunately we have people that just refuse to vote instead of doing a real protest such as voting for Dr. Paul. What does that prove by not voting? careful! I learned the hard way that they don't like calling him Dr. in the tailgate. (even though thats what he is!) LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 To me, the sheer beauty of Ron Paul's candidacy is the fact that he gets support from all walks of life, all income brackets, all races, and all political affiliations. This absolutely cannot be said of ANY other candidate in the race. You are correct that no other candidate can say that. Unfortunately for some of us that's part of the reason why we could never vote for him. From my point of view he has no actual philosophical foundation that he stands on. His views are all over the map.... Conservative on one, Liberal on another. That's not the sort of person I could ever vote for. If he were to ever actually find a moral and philosophical foundation and carry it out for about 20 years MAYBE I could forgive some of his current/past views and vote for him. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 You are correct that no other candidate can say that. Unfortunately for some of us that's part of the reason why we could never vote for him. From my point of view he has no actual philosophical foundation that he stands on. How about this philosophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Do you know why the NRA doesn't throw their complete support behind him?Because he didn't sign the bill eliminating litigation to gun companies from gun deaths. Not because he didn't agree with the bill, but because he felt it wasn't Congress' constitutional responsibility to get involved in such matters. He receives a b+ mark from the NRA and most other Pro 2nd amendment groups fully support Dr. Paul. It's that cut throat out there. Needs to be changed. Unfortunately we have people that just refuse to vote instead of doing a real protest such as voting for Dr. Paul. What does that prove by not voting? I'm one of those people who often refuse to vote. Show me a candidate who will both talk the talk and walk the walk on my side of the aisle and I'll vote for Him (not her, mind you). Until then, I'm not going to waste my time and money on an imperfect candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 How about this philosophy? Yes, how about that one? How about the fact that I have to believe Dr. Paul has voted for expenditures, policies, programs, and budgets directly contrary to that document. Even after he pledged to uphold the document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 You are correct that no other candidate can say that. Unfortunately for some of us that's part of the reason why we could never vote for him. From my point of view he has no actual philosophical foundation that he stands on. His views are all over the map.... Conservative on one, Liberal on another. That's not the sort of person I could ever vote for. If he were to ever actually find a moral and philosophical foundation and carry it out for about 20 years MAYBE I could forgive some of his current/past views and vote for him. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. I'm sorry Mass, but I normally give you ample lisence in your claims but this is beyond the pale this time. You are nuts and havnt done an iota of in depth research if you feel this is a legitimate claim. How can you make the claim that he has no moral nor philosophical foundation? rediculous claim and should be retracted if you cant bac it up with facts. Ron Paul has the most solid foundation of them all, THE CONSTITUTION. And he has 20 solid years of congressional votes accompanied with statements on his rationale for the votes behind him. Please use intellectual honesty and admit when you havnt done the due dilligence to make claims that you cannot ever corroborate. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Yes, how about that one? How about the fact that I have to believe Dr. Paul has voted for expenditures, policies, programs, and budgets directly contrary to that document. Even after he pledged to uphold the document. please outline the specific votes, and when. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 You are nuts and havnt done an iota of in depth research if you feel this is a legitimate claim. How can you make the claim that he has no moral nor philosophical foundation? rediculous claim and should be retracted if you cant back it up with facts. I don't need to do the research. The NRA has already told me that he isn't 100% on my side, which means he's not on my side at all so far as I'm concerned. Additionally, I have to believe he's voted in favor of a Federal budget during his time in office, which would be totally contrary to that document you love to claim he's all for. Ron Paul has the most solid foundation of them all, THE CONSTITUTION. And he has 20 solid years of congressional votes accompanied with statements on his rationale for the votes behind him. Please use intellectual honesty and admit when you havnt done the due dilligence to make claims that you cannot ever corroborate. Thank you Has he ever voted for a Federal Budget? If so, his Constitutional foundation is made of sand so far as I'm concerned. I don't need to do the research. He's willingly been involved with the demons, scum, and puss that make up the membership of the US Congress. Call it guilt by association if you will, but their stench rubs off on everyone. Even those few who may have some sort of morals or values. please outline the specific votes, and when. Your own fellow supporter mentioned one above. Additionally, I have to believe that at some point Dr. Paul has voted for a Federal budget, at which point ANY question as to his ability to support the Constitution goes out the window in my mind; because we haven't had a Constitutionally legal Federal budget in well over a century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 The Paulestinians get together in their little chat rooms and create a make believe world where they are persecuted and the "true believers". Here's a hint: when you have raised LESS MONEY than Sam Brownback, you are not going to win a Presidential election. I do find it humorous though how much the Paulbots plan out their internet strategy to blogswarm a specific talking point each week. They are definitely motivated. Then again, fanatics are motivated as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I don't need to do the research. The NRA has already told me that he isn't 100% on my side, which means he's not on my side at all so far as I'm concerned. Actually, he fully supports your right to bear arms. Again, the NRA holds it against him for not voting to end legislation aimed at sueing the gun companies for viloent crimes involving guns. He simply felt it wasn't the governments responsiblity to be involved in such matters. Secondly, what bearing does said litigation have on you personally? What do you care if Berretta is sued for making the gun that shot your neighbor? Does it personally affect you? Additionally, I have to believe he's voted in favor of a Federal budget during his time in office, which would be totally contrary to that document you love to claim he's all for. He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress. Has he ever voted for a Federal Budget? If so, his Constitutional foundation is made of sand so far as I'm concerned. I don't need to do the research. He's willingly been involved with the demons, scum, and puss that make up the membership of the US Congress. Call it guilt by association if you will, but their stench rubs off on everyone. Even those few who may have some sort of morals or values. He's never voted for an UNBALANCED Budget. He's got the title Dr. No for a reason. You are showing your ignorance on this subject. Please do a little research and you may be surprised. Your own fellow supporter mentioned one above. Additionally, I have to believe that at some point Dr. Paul has voted for a Federal budget, at which point ANY question as to his ability to support the Constitution goes out the window in my mind; because we haven't had a Constitutionally legal Federal budget in well over a century. He wants to end the Federal Reserve. :doh: The Paulestinians get together in their little chat rooms and create a make believe world where they are persecuted and the "true believers".Here's a hint: when you have raised LESS MONEY than Sam Brownback, you are not going to win a Presidential election. I do find it humorous though how much the Paulbots plan out their internet strategy to blogswarm a specific talking point each week. They are definitely motivated. Then again, fanatics are motivated as well. Why does he lead all Military polls? You seem to be affiliated with the Military. And he has raised more cash in the 3Q then: Brownback Huckabee Tancredo Romney Thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Actually, he fully supports your right to bear arms. Again, the NRA holds it against him for not voting to end legislation aimed at sueing the gun companies for viloent crimes involving guns. He simply felt it wasn't the governments responsiblity to be involved in such matters. Secondly, what bearing does said litigation have on you personally? What do you care if Berretta is sued for making the gun that shot your neighbor? Does it personally affect you? He gets considerably less than an "A" from the NRA BECAUSE he's failed to protect legitimate businesses from being sued when their products are used outside their intended usage. As a gun owner I have a personal attachment to making sure the gun manufacturers in this country continue making their products without unnecessary harassment. Litigation like that was running those companies out of business. He voted against the Patriot Act. HE VOTED WRONG He voted against regulating the Internet. HE VOTED WRONG He voted against the Iraq war. HE VOTED WRONG He's never voted for an UNBALANCED Budget. He's got the title Dr. No for a reason.You are showing your ignorance on this subject. Please do a little research and you may be surprised. Who said anything about an "unbalanced" budget? I know I certainly didn't. What I am talking about are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGAL budgets.... like the one's we've had every year since at least the time of the New Deal and likely much longer than that. You know, the ones that INCLUDE ANY BUDGET ITEMS FOR THINGS BEYOND THE 18 LEGITIMATE POWERS OF THE US GOVERNMENT as noted in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution that Dr. Paul claims to love so much? Want to try that arguement again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 He gets considerably less than an "A" from the NRA BECAUSE he's failed to protect legitimate businesses from being sued when their products are used outside their intended usage.As a gun owner I have a personal attachment to making sure the gun manufacturers in this country continue making their products without unnecessary harassment. Litigation like that was running those companies out of business. He voted against the Patriot Act. HE VOTED WRONG He voted against regulating the Internet. HE VOTED WRONG He voted against the Iraq war. HE VOTED WRONG Who said anything about an "unbalanced" budget? I know I certainly didn't. What I am talking about are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGAL budgets.... like the one's we've had every year since at least the time of the New Deal and likely much longer than that. You know, the ones that INCLUDE ANY BUDGET ITEMS FOR THINGS BEYOND THE 18 LEGITIMATE POWERS OF THE US GOVERNMENT as noted in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution that Dr. Paul claims to love so much? Want to try that arguement again? :laugh: You've contridicted yourself three times in one post. How can you be so strongly for the 18 legitimate powers of the US Government but then say the Patriot Act, Internet Regulations and the war in Iraq are the right choices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 :laugh:You've contridicted yourself three times in one post. How can you be so strongly for the 18 legitimate powers of the US Government but then say the Patriot Act, Internet Regulations and the war in Iraq are the right choices? All three of those items fall under NATIONAL DEFENSE so far as I'm concerned; which IS one of those 18 prescribed powers. Nice to see that at least you were bright enough not to try and deny that Dr. Paul has voted for illegal and unconstitutional legislation. I'll give you some credit for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 All three of those items fall under NATIONAL DEFENSE so far as I'm concerned; which IS one of those 18 prescribed powers.Nice to see that at least you were bright enough not to try and deny that Dr. Paul has voted for illegal and unconstitutional legislation. I'll give you some credit for that. Most deem illegal and unconstitutional legislation to be NATIONAL DEFENSE. So what exactly are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Most deem illegal and unconstitutional legislation to be NATIONAL DEFENSE. So what exactly are you referring to? The illegal and unconstitutional legislation I'm talking about are the Federal Budgets every year. There hasn't been a legal or constitutional Federal Budget since at least the time of the New Deal and probably even earlier than that. Does that clear it up for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 The illegal and unconstitutional legislation I'm talking about are the Federal Budgets every year. There hasn't been a legal or constitutional Federal Budget since at least the time of the New Deal and probably even earlier than that.Does that clear it up for you? Ah... You are referrring to the Federal Reserve and our debt of liabilities which in turn causes us to tax citizens on their income. Also, the amount of federal departments and programs used to facilitate the US. Am I getting closer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Ah...You are referrring to the Federal Reserve and our debt of liabilities which in turn causes us to tax citizens on their income. Also, the amount of federal departments and programs used to facilitate the US. Am I getting closer? Not really. I'm talking about Federal budgets that include even $.01 for unconstitutional programs like... Education, Social Security, Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, and a slew of other programs that do not fall under any of the 18 prescribed powers of the Federal Government. Including any support of foreign governments or even individual US States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Not really. I'm talking about Federal budgets that include even $.01 for unconstitutional programs like... Education, Social Security, Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, and a slew of other programs that do not fall under any of the 18 prescribed powers of the Federal Government. Including any support of foreign governments or even individual US States. I thought so. And really, they all have to do with the Federal Reserve. Dig deep as to why we needed Rooselvelts new deal and you will see. What if I told you that Ron Paul wants to eliminate all of those. Is that something that you might be interested in? Do some homework on this guy. What do you have to lose? Your freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 What if I told you that Ron Paul wants to eliminate all of those. Is that something that you might be interested in? It wouldn't make a difference, even if I thought he could do something about them. He's already made his bed so far as I'm concerned by voting for the budgets including those items and against the legislation to protect gun manufacturers. Politically he's "dead" so far as I'm concerned. Do some homework on this guy. What do you have to lose? Your freedom? I already know enough to know I couldn't and wouldn't vote for him. Not in the primary and not in the general election either. If it makes you feel any better I won't be voting for any of his opponents either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjinhan Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 All three of those items fall under NATIONAL DEFENSE so far as I'm concerned; which IS one of those 18 prescribed powers.Nice to see that at least you were bright enough not to try and deny that Dr. Paul has voted for illegal and unconstitutional legislation. I'll give you some credit for that. Hey MSF.. regarding the vote against the Iraq War... Ron Paul voted against the Bill in Congress because the Bill allowed for Bush to go to war with Iraq without officially declaring war. http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm Ron Paul actually tried to push Congress to declare war on Iraq. MSF if you actually take time to read what Ron Paul's reasoning for voting against the Bill I think you will at least admit you are wrong about this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Speaking on Iraq, Dr. Paul will be at the Boulevard Woodgrill's Filmore room in Clarendon on the 11th of October to speak on the war in Iraq and our foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.