Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: OC at rally for Ron Paul in Bellevue

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    I attended an event in Bellevue where supporters of Ron Paul were displaying large banners on an I-405 overpass. There were about 10 people present, one of whom is known as "cueball" on this forum. Itwas definitely kind of cool to find a fellow OCer by happenstance.

    We ended up shedding our concealment garb and displayed a "Ron Paul Revolution"banner for motorists while OCing. Cueball is wearing a blue shirt in this picture, although you can't see him OCing from this angle. I took this picture from the other side of the overpass where another group of people was holding banners for the opposite lanes of traffic.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    534

    Post imported post

    Good job, guys, for doing your bit to support the only true constitutionalist in the presidential race!

    TrueBrit.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Skagit County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    Hahah, that's funny. I saw you guys while driving 405 today. I was driving to a junk yard with my dad, I saw you guys, and asked my dad "who's Ron Paul"? He said "he's a libertarian running for pres". Then we had a bit of a conversation, and I said "well I like libertarians, mainly because they are against gun control." Funny that it was some fellow OCers.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    cut_cutta wrote:
    Hahah, that's funny. I saw you guys while driving 405 today. I was driving to a junk yard with my dad, I saw you guys, and asked my dad "who's Ron Paul"? He said "he's a libertarian running for pres". Then we had a bit of a conversation, and I said "well I like libertarians, mainly because they are against gun control." Funny that it was some fellow OCers.
    More specifically, he's a libertarian running for the GOP presidential nomination. It'd be nice to see him get it, since there's a seious lack of true conservatism in some of the options.

  5. #5
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    Drewesque wrote:
    cut_cutta wrote:
    Hahah, that's funny. I saw you guys while driving 405 today. I was driving to a junk yard with my dad, I saw you guys, and asked my dad "who's Ron Paul"? He said "he's a libertarian running for pres". Then we had a bit of a conversation, and I said "well I like libertarians, mainly because they are against gun control." Funny that it was some fellow OCers.
    More specifically, he's a libertarian running for the GOP presidential nomination. It'd be nice to see him get it, since there's a seious lack of true conservatism in some of the options.
    I'd take it a step further. If Ron Paul doesn't get in, there will be more gun control.

    The two most likely candidates for the 2008 Presidential nomination are Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. One Democrat, one Republican, both are avid supporters of gun control.

    Both want national registration/licensing for handguns and both want the elimination of "assault weapons".

    http://ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_...un_Control.htm

    http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/giuliani.htm
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    Hey, everyone! I must say that I was shocked when I realized who Brent was, and that he was an OCer. It was nice to see another person who not only stands up for their Second Amendment rights, but who also is willing to get involved and try to pull this country out of the funk that we are in. We didn't have a ton of people at the rally, but there were people holding up similar signs all up and down the coast on I-5. It felt good to get out there and flex our second amendment muscles, and we got a lot of honks and waves from people passing below. Perhaps best of all, I was able to discuss political issues at length with others in the group. I actually had a really good conversation about the Second Amendment with one of the other group members who was not informed about OC. Overall, it was a really good experience, and I hope to do it again soon, both to drum up political support for Ron Paul, and to educate like minded citizens on it's legality and benefits.

    As a few of the other people on the thread have said, Ron Paul is probably the best presidential candidate for Second Amendment supporters. I thought it was very interesting that during this morning's republican debate, Rudy Guliani made comments about how, before he was in charge of New York City, people were afraid to roam the streets at night. Perhaps they wouldn't have to be so fearful if Mr. Guliani had allowed them to arm and defend themelves?

    T-RaV mentioned that the most likely presidential race would be between Clinton and Guliani. I'm actually somewhat hopeful that won't be the case. Guliani seems to have a lot of support from the hard core republicans, but he has virtually no support from moderates, and no Democrat would EVER vote for him. I think that Ron Paul is a big contrast to that. He is the only choice for anti-war Republicans, and he's even a candidate that many Democrats would consider voting for. I can say with certainty that most of the Democrats I know would vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton. And I think that most of the Republicans I know would vote for Ron Paul over Rudy Guliani. The war in Iraq has made a lot of people in this country want to vote in a Democrat. I honestly believe that if Guliani gets the Republican nomination, the Republican party can kiss the White House goodbye. If Republicans want to keep the white house, they need a more moderate candidate that can sway independents and more conservative Democrats. I think Ron Paul is the only candidate that fits that description.

  7. #7
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Fred Thompson is also strong on gun rights, without thenutty fringe.
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    Anyone who supports liberty like Ron Paul does is bound to attract supporters from the "nutty fringe". The other side of the coin is that those fringe people are still voters. While Fred Thompson might have a similar stance on gun control, he doesn't have the wide appeal to moderate democrats and independants that Ron Paul does.

    Also keep in mind that a large portion of americans think that anyone who would walk around with a visible gun on their hip is part of your "nutty fringe". So, while there may be such a demographic, don't be so sure which side of it you are on.

  9. #9
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    "Also keep in mind that a large portion of americans think that anyone who would walk around with a visible gun on their hip is part of your "nutty fringe". So, while there may be such a demographic, don't be so sure which side of it you are on."

    I'm more concerned with what MY definition of "nutty fringe is"...

    I don't like that Ron Paul seems to lendhis backingto the "9/11 Truthers" who claim our own government was complicit in that attack. At the very least he seems to be trying to get their support by refusing to distance himself from them.

    More broadly, if your consitutency is extreme, fine- represent them. But pandering by saying one thing in one venue, something else in another, or trying to be all things to all people makes me question your integrity. That's blatant political prostitution in my book.
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    Actually, the media has linked him to the 9/11 truthers. He has not endorsed them or said the things implied by certain media outlets. He has not denounced them, either, but he is hardly the nut some would have you believe. While certainly not perfect, he is the best candidate in the running, in my humble opinion.
    And Thompson is not as strong on gun rights as I would hope. While the man is a viable candidate, and one of the better ones, he is not perfect, nor a sure friend to gun owners. He's often pro-gun, but he has voted anti-gun and anti-freedom a few more times than I would like to see. Far better than McCain, Romney, Giuliani, or any of the Dems, but I'd still like to see Ron Paul.

    http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
    http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Thompson's a good neocon. He has a good TV voice and played an admiral in a Tom Clancy movie, so that means he'll be a great president. What movies or TV shows has Ron Paul starred in?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    One other often unmentioned Republican candidate is Mike Huckabee. He is strongly pro-2A, a nice guy, has experience, and generally a good all-around candidate.

    http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cf...on=Issues.Home

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Speaking of Ron Paul, he was interviewed by Faux News today:

    http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/0...l-on-fox-news/

    He answers a 2nd Amm. question near the end ofthe part 2 video.

  14. #14
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    thebastidge wrote:
    Fred Thompson is also strong on gun rights, without thenutty fringe.
    Yeah, but his recent selection of a jihadi apologist as his campaign manager gives me (and many others) pause...

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Spencer+Abraham%22+%22Fred+T hompson%22

    I sincerely hope he comes to his senses and dumps the guy; but then, appointing him in the first place says something about Fred's true positions on critical matters that simply firing him won't erase.



  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    A very educational video in which Google executive Elliot Schrage gives Ron Paul a thorough workout on a very wide range of topics, including the 2nd Amendment.Ron Paul was very well received by Google employees.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    thebastidge wrote:
    I don't like that Ron Paul seems to lendhis backingto the "9/11 Truthers" who claim our own government was complicit in that attack. At the very least he seems to be trying to get their support by refusing to distance himself from them.
    He's actually not a so-called "truther". His take on the situation is that it was our fault the Muslim murderers attacked us. That we deserved it. Unless he renounces that statement and admits that the *ONLY* people responsible for that heineous attack are the Muslims who perpetrated it, I will never support him. NOTHING the US did could ever justify that cowardly act. Period.

    And yes, he really did say that during the last debate.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    I don't like that Ron Paul seems to lendhis backingto the "9/11 Truthers" who claim our own government was complicit in that attack. At the very least he seems to be trying to get their support by refusing to distance himself from them.

    More broadly, if your consitutency is extreme, fine- represent them. But pandering by saying one thing in one venue, something else in another, or trying to be all things to all people makes me question your integrity. That's blatant political prostitution in my book.

    In contrast, according to one poll, More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

    http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=55

    1/3 of of the public is not an insignificant group of voters -- it is one out of three. Remember, this poll was taken in 2006.Do a search on Google for "911 Truth" and see how many web sites are growing on this topic. Let me share a little secret with you: people who are 911 "Truthers" are buying guns, even they previously swore off ownership of guns.

    Why would people who distrust the government purchase guns? Hmm.....

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    His take on the situation is that it was our fault the Muslim murderers attacked us. That we deserved it.

    Greg, can you provide his exact statement from a transcript?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    His take on the situation is that it was our fault the Muslim murderers attacked us. That we deserved it.

    Greg, can you provide his exact statement from a transcript?
    What Greg is saying is not true. Here is what Ron Paul said, word for word, taken from the Republican debate: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years". After Guliani finished thumping his chest, Ron Paul went on to say “I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reasons they did it. They are already delighted that we’re over there, because Osama bin Laden has said, ‘I am glad that you’re on our sand, because I can target you so much easier'. Ron Paul is NOT saying that we deserved to be attacked. What he IS saying is that our foreign policy was the reason. It's not the American people, it's our foreign policy.

    Osama bin Laden said in his 1996 fatwa (declaration of holy war) that America should be attacked because we "occupied the land of the two Holy places." and that "the occupying American enemy is the principle and the main cause of the situation". The Muslim fundamentalists don't hate us because we have nice houses and our women wear bikinis, they hate us because we have put them under economic sanctions for over ten years, starving thousands. They hate us because we supply Israel, their sworn enemy, with weapons, billions of dollars, and other federal aid. Most of all, they hate us because we have soldiers occupying their holy lands. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan just adds fuel to the fire, and every Iraqi that we kill, torture, or imprison without trial just turns their family members against us.

    Also remember this - We were attacked on September 11th, supposedly by 19 "fundamentalist Islamist terrorists". 15 of the 19 supposed hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The person that we're told is the mastermind, Osama bin Laden, was believed to be in Pakistan. So what do we do? We invade Iraq! That makes no sense at all.

    Also keep in mind that our government put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place. The United States supplied the Ba'ath Party with funds and arms so that they could overthrow the Iraqi government, which they successfully did. Our government was threatened by the Ayatollah Khomeini, and we wanted Iraq/Hussein to take care of the problem, so we gave him the means to attack and remove Khomeini.

    The simple fact is that every time we meddle in the Middle East, we dig ourselves deeper in a hole. We supply countries with money and arms when we think it will suit our interests, then we supply their neighbors and enemies with arms when they get too strong. THAT is why virtually the entire Middle East (except Israel) hates America. Ron Paul is right.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    425

    Post imported post

    thebastidge wrote:
    I'm more concerned with what MY definition of "nutty fringe is"...

    I don't like that Ron Paul seems to lendhis backingto the "9/11 Truthers" who claim our own government was complicit in that attack. At the very least he seems to be trying to get their support by refusing to distance himself from them.
    Dr. Paul has said, point blank, that he does not think that our government was behind the 9/11 attack (see the Fox News <shudder> interview linked above). However, that doesn't stop him from getting support from people (like me) who think that the government, at the very least, had knowledge that the attack was imminent, and that it's quite possible that they were behind it.

    We know from history that governments (including - maybe especially - our own) stage false flag operations against their own people to drum up support for war. There are many examples: the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the USS Liberty incident, the first World Trade Center bombing, the use of biological agents on American citizens, etc. These are all examples of our government (or agencies therein) attacking our own citizens for political ends. Most of these incidents are documented and declassified. If you want a real eye opener, google "Operation Northwoods".

    Did our government orchestrate the 9/11 attacks? I don't know, but it's possible. Did they know about them? I don't know, but there is a LOT of evidence to suggest they did. Has the government used the attack for political gain and to strip us of our constitutional rights? Most definitely.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    His take on the situation is that it was our fault the Muslim murderers attacked us. That we deserved it.

    Greg, can you provide his exact statement from a transcript?
    "They attack us because we’ve been over there."

    Seems as if it's already been provided. That's enough for me.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    Maybe you didn't read the rest of it... Whether or not our foreign policy in the middle east is Ron Paul's personal opinion is irregardless of the fact that it IS one of the sole reasons why Osama bin Laden attacked the United States... by admission of Osama bin Laden himself. It's the friggin' title of his "fatwa".

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834249/posts

    The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
    -Unrequited

  23. #23
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    44Brent wrote:
    His take on the situation is that it was our fault the Muslim murderers attacked us. That we deserved it.

    Greg, can you provide his exact statement from a transcript?
    "They attack us because we’ve been over there."

    Seems as if it's already been provided. That's enough for me.
    Here's a response he put together for Rudy Giuliani. I guess there are a few people that don't understand the concept of "Blow Back"…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6P...er&search=
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    That's wonderful.
    -Unrequited

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    It would be nice if we could keep the tinfoil-hat stuff out of these forums.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •