Ron Paul just ended his campaign

O

Oldphart

New member
Having read through all this I'm struck by an interesting (to me) point: It doesn't make any difference!
We're 18 months from the election and only God can know how things will shake out by then. Couple that with the twin facts that even if everyone on this board and all the other gun boards were to vote en bloc for a single candidate, it wouldn't make a blip on the final vote count, and we must remember that we're all a bunch of opinionated asses who simply will not change our minds to suit one of the other opinionated asses.
In the meantime this provides a fun insight into the (?) minds of people who truly believe that a Democrat win in 2008 will automatically mean the general confiscation of all firearms. Not even Hillary influenced by a powerful drug would believe she could pull that off. She could set things in motion that might result in such a thing at some point in the future but it might not too.
In the meantime, lets all watch our blood pressure, shall we?
 
G

GoSlash27

New member
Oldphart,
Unfortunately, it does make a difference. The media and the Republican party are trying to shape the outcome of the primary now, so that means if we wish to have a voice in the process we must also act now.
 
P

publius42

New member
Even if my position is as you say, vote for A so B doesn't get it, that is no less intelligent, practical or effective than your suggestion of "vote for my guy cause the rest are all the same". Quite the contrary, at least with the former strategy there is a fighting chance of retaining our rights.
Click to expand...

But it is less intelligent and less practical, because in your state, B has already won. The Democratic electoral victory in California is every bit as predictable as the fact that Ron Paul won't be the next President, so there is no reason for someone in your state to feel compelled to vote for the Republican, who will lose anyway.

If the GOP nominates a gun grabber, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by writing in a pro-gun candidate. The electoral votes from your state will go to the Dem either way you vote, but if you write in a pro-gun candidate on your ballot, the message you send might just get received where it counts.
 
O

Oldphart

New member
What I'm trying to do (albeit poorly) is to point out that none of us is likely to change his/her mind based on what we read here. I'm a Paul supporter too and even if someone posted photos of him in bed with Hillary I'd still vote for him. I suspect most of us take a similar stance whether for or against Dr. Paul.
The media will sway some minds away from whatever beliefs they hold now but I think those minds are pretty weak, unlike the more informed people we have here.
 
C

computerguysd

New member
"I'm a Paul supporter too and even if someone posted photos of him in bed with Hillary I'd still vote for him" - Oldphart

I'd sure have to make sure they were "photoshopped" before I could commit to that! - lol :) (Trying to get image of Ron Paul and Hillary out my my mind :barf: ANYBODY and Hillary..:barf::barf:)

That said, I've been leaning toward Fred Thompson even before there was a lot of internet chatter about him entering the race. :cool:
 
O

Oldphart

New member
"That said, I've been leaning toward Fred Thompson even before there was a lot of internet chatter about him entering the race."

Well, I have to admit that Thompson makes a more "Presidential" image than does Paul, but he's an actor. Ron Paul doesn't have the polish of noted camera hogs like Guliani or Romney but he still has the one thing that I don't believe any of the others have. . . . Honesty! In the end that'll be his downfall too because no one wants to hear the truth.
 
C

cynical

New member
after 209 or something posts a few things:

I like this Ron Paul fellow so far

also this being a pro-gun forum im assuming that the 2nd is a right we all hold in high importance. That being said it should be important to vote for those who will work to uphold the 2nd, even though they may have no chance of winning. Sure both parties have done their share of rights stomping, but without the 2nd the others rights cannot be protected.
 
A

applesanity

New member
That being said it should be important to vote for those who will work to uphold the 2nd, even though they may have no chance of winning.
Click to expand...

Because there's a very likely chance that an anti-gun democrat (hell, an anti-gun "republican" for that matter) can take the white house. The luxury of being able to bicker amongst ourselves isn't really available. To Ron Paul or not to Ron Paul? To Thompson, or not to Thompson? To _____ or not to _____? *THEY* would love nothing more than to watch us split the vote. Perot-style; Nader-style. Can't afford a 3rd party candidate this time.
 
M

MrApathy

New member
NeoCon or PeleoCon
Empire or Republic
Destructive Progressivism or Timeless Principles of Liberty

I just got back from the Iowa Forum and Ron Paul Life and Liberty event.

at the Iowa forum I only stayed for Tommy Thompson,Huckabee and Brownback.

the forum was canned and got boring fast. I missed Romney,Hunter and Tancredo.

If the forum wasnt so canned I would of stayed but it got boring fast.
basicly each candidate was asked 6 questions pro fairtax and christian goals.

along the lines of dump the 16th Amendment and give the IRS the pink slip for commodity tax
which the 3 I saw said they would carry out. other stuff was along the lines of christian stuff ie amending the constitution for religious idealogical reasons ie marriage man and women.

kinda wanted to see Hunter and Tacredo but just had to stretch my legs and get out of the large hall that was airconditioned enough to be a meat locker.

will post more later
 
G

GoSlash27

New member
I was there too. Absolutely stunning event! Ron Paul supporters on every street corner in downtown Des Moines, parades, people driving through town handing out water for us...

For those of you who still think this whole Ron Paul thing is just 5 sweaty kids in their parents' basement hacking polls (or a few people on obscure gun forums), let me show you something:

http://www.youtube.com/v/G-V1aTfROn4

That is twice the number of people who showed up to see the rest of the candidates combined! I had seen this documented before up in New Hampshire and New York, but the video is no substitute for actually being there.

There are still many Americans who believe in freedom :cool:
 
R

revjen45

Moderator
When The Republic was formed one of the Founders (can't remember which right now) said America doesn't need to go abroad to look for monsters to destroy. I agree with the post on the first page about how put out we would be to have have foreign troops on our soil. I would have no moral qualms at all doing any injury to that nation using any weapon available. The tapeworms who run things have put our troops in an untenable position. It took a few weeks to beat the Iraqui military, but 4 years later the People still haven't given up. I would hope that Americans show such pluck when we have blue helmets in our streets, setting up roadblocks and snooping through our wives underwear drawers in our own homes. While I abhor the shedding of American blood, one must admit the attack on the Cole was an astounding success. Two semi-illiterate tribesmen in a rubber boat were able to inflict disabling damage on an American man-o'war and kill numerous of her crew, and I understand why they did it. What are we doing in a region where they have been killing each other for over a thousand years and no power has ever successfully imposed their will for an extended length of time? This is having the effect of damaging our military to the point that when the Red Chinese decide to take Taiwan it will be a fait accompli because we are busy elsewhere and our forces are worn down by a protracted guerilla war. If Dr. Paul will keep us out of such nonsense he has my support.
 
R

revjen45

Moderator
In 1969 Steppenwolf brought out an album called Monster. It's available from their website. John Kay must be a prophet, because Monster/America is even more true today then when it was written.
 
J

johnbt

New member
90 to 1 are some steep odds, but you'll make a boatload if you bet enough. JT

BIDEN 25-1
GINGRICH 40-1
McCAIN 8-1
BROWNBACK 25-1
GIULIANI 9-2
OBAMA 5-1
CLARK 40-1
GORE 5-1
PAUL 90-1
CLINTON 7-2
GRAVEL 99-1
RICHARDSON 20-1
DODD 40-1
HAGEL 60-1
ROMNEY 5-1
EDWARDS 10-1
HUCKABEE 30-1
TANCREDO 60-1
FEINGOLD 99-1
HUNTER 60-1
F.THOMPSON 15-1
GILMORE 80-1
KUCINICH 80-1
T.THOMPSON 99-1
 
M

MrApathy

New member
Presidential candidates forum Des Moines,IA
sponsored by
Iowans for Tax Relief & Iowa Christian Alliance

in the hall outside the event was FairTax booth
group that seeks to get rid of the IRS and 16th Amendment to the
constitution of the US for a commodity tax.

Candidate Questions to be Answered

believe the candidates were given the questions ahead of time the
candidates seemed to have notes prepared for responses

each candidate was given 20 minutes to answer the various questions some were given additional time.

questions are as follows.

1. No Tax Increase?
During your term as President, will you veto ANY increase of ANY tax- including indivual income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and excise taxes - and use your veto power to ensure continuation of all the tax relief enacted since January 2001 (for example, vetoing fiscal bills that should but do not, continue this tax relief)" this question applies to any direct or indirect tax increase, such as repealing, limiting, or delaying income tax indexing. This question recognizes that ending any tax relief is an actual tax increase.

2. Spending Control?
During your term as President, will you submit budgets to Congress that will freeze total non-defense discretionary spending for at least the two fiscal years beginning after the 2008 general election and will restrict any increase thereafter to no more than the inflation rate, veto any spending that exceeds this limit , and veto any bill that uses budgetary gimmicks (such as claiming non-emergency spending as emergency spending, or waiving budgetary rules restraining taxes and spending) to evade this limit?

3. Marriage?
Recently a gay-rights questionnaire was sent and returned in which those presidential candidates said the federal government should recognize any same sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships issued by any state.

These candidates also said that federal benefits, rights and privileges, joint income tax, the Family and Medical Leave Act and all other federal laws should be extended to same sex couples.

Will you promise as President to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA), which was passed by Congress, to prohibit any federal recognition of same sex unions:

4. Secure Borders?
To secure our borders, will you build the 700-mile fence call for in the Secure Fence Act, implement an entry-exit system (to be sure that visitors go home on time), and implement an electronic instant employer verification system?

5. Stem Cell Research?
As President, will you veto any taxpayer financing of stem cell research that involves the creation or destruction of human embryos?

6. FAIR TAX?
As president, will you sign the "FairTax" (currently, HR 25/S1025) into law if passed by Congress?

will post more later from the event.
recommend those serious about the election to lookup the event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top