Who is best for the gun vote?

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

I just don't get what you guys like about Ron Paul.

 

He is a unidimensional ignoramus.

 

Believe it or not, there are more considerations than one.

 

Thus we have Fred Thompson

 

 

 

Tarzan

Click to expand...

I believe in his lifetime he has been/is a doctor, state senator, economist and constitutionalist. So he is working on at least 4 dimensions there.

There are other issues beyond my right to defend self and family. For instance I believe if one studies the Fed, the IRS, Fiat currencies and our current economic situation and can themselves come to the understanding that the Fed is a private bank that loans money to the US at interest, and that our income taxes do not even cover the interest payments on those loans, that Dr. Paul's vision of eliminating the Fed is most interesting.

We cannot keep printing worthless paper and trying to sell it to the Chineese for worthless poisoned plastics.

The dollar is so low right now many countries are looking at no longer using US dollars as the "gold standard". Once that happens we will no longer be able to finance our own debt.

imported post

No NAU wrote:

The dollar is so low right now many countries are looking at no longer using US dollars as the "gold standard". Once that happens we will no longer be able to finance our own debt.

Click to expand...

We already can't finance our own debt. We create debt by printing money, but we have to print money to pay for that debt. It's a vicious cycle that cannot be broken without getting rid of the Federal Reserve system and changing the way currency is generated and backed.

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

No NAU wrote:

The dollar is so low right now many countries are looking at no longer using US dollars as the "gold standard". Once that happens we will no longer be able to finance our own debt.

Click to expand...

We already can't finance our own debt. We create debt by printing money, but we have to print money to pay for that debt. It's a vicious cycle that cannot be broken without getting rid of the Federal Reserve system and changing the way currency is generated and backed.

Click to expand...

Thank you Cue-Ball. I agree. With that in mind let us consider that all the candidates beside Dr. Paul and Obama (and Obama and his wife are CFR gun grabbers) wish to continue our overseas empire, or that is what they have indicated in debates.

All other candidates besides Dr. Paul, as far as they have indicated, are not looking to break away from our current unsupportable financial model.

The Fed just printed $41 BILLION dollars of its monopoly money to try and stave off disaster. Printing money out of thin air makes the other money already out there worth less, that is "inflation". $41 BILLION that is not real money.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/markets/fed.ap/

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve pumped $41 billion into the U.S. financial system Thursday, one of its largest cash infusions to help companies get through a credit crunch that took a turn for the worse in August.

The action comes one day after Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and all but one of his central bank colleagues voted to slice a key interest rate for the second time in six weeks to protect the economy from the ill effects of collapse in the housing market, aggravated by the credit troubles.

_________________________________
Below are some quotes from a new article by Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. Ron Paul wants to bring our troops home, unlike the other candidates.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2616.shtml

"The macho super patriots who support the Bush regime still haven't caught on that US superpower status rests on the dollar being the reserve currency, not on a military unable to occupy Baghdad. If the dollar were not the world currency, the US would have to earn enough foreign currencies to pay for its 737 oversees bases, an impossibility considering America's $800 billion trade deficit."

"Clearly, America's leader and America's currency are poorly regarded. Is there a solution?

Perhaps the answer lies in those 737 overseas bases. If those bases were brought home and shared among the 50 states, each state would gain 15 new military bases.

Imagine what this would mean: The end of the housing slump. A reduction in the trade deficit. And the end of the war on terror.

Who would dare attack a country with 15 new military bases in every state in addition to the existing ones? Wherever a terrorist turned, he would find himself surrounded by soldiers.

All of the dollars currently spent abroad to support 737 overseas bases would be spent at home. Income for foreigners would become income for Americans, and the trade deficit would shrink.

The impact of the 737 military base payrolls on the US economy would end the housing crisis and bring back the 140,000 highly paid financial services jobs, the loss of which this year has cost the US $42 billion in consumer income. Foreclosures and bankruptcies would plummet."

imported post

Interesting points but lets try to stick to the candidates position on guns and not economics and globalization.

imported post

longwatch wrote:

Interesting points but lets try to stick to the candidates position on guns and not economics and globalization.

Click to expand...

Sorry for getting a little off track, but to a large extent our gun rights are tightly bound to economics and globalization.

Ron Paul wants to get out of the U.N. It's no secret that the U.N. would like the U.S. to pass restrictive firearm laws.

imported post

qednick wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

I'd worry about Paul's unwholesome associations, but it doesn't matter. He's got as much chance of getting the nomination as I do, nevermind winning the general election.

He's the Republican Kucinich, merely a sometimes entertaining distraction.

Click to expand...

You've been watching too much Faux News. Ron Paul is the one. If the MSM gave him as much airtime as the other candidates it would be a landslide.

Also, I'm not sure what "unwholesome associations" you're talking about? It's all the other major candidates that are the members of the C.F.R. If you wanna merge the US with Canada and Mexico then go right ahead and vote for one the C.F.R. puppets.

Click to expand...

That I know of, Fox News has never talked about his ties to Holocaust deniers or the guy who runs the Stormfront website.

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

Ron Paul is not only the best Republican candidate, but he's the only Republican who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning against a Democrat after Bush's last 7 years. Conservatives love him, independents love him, hell even many Democrats love him. What other candidate is willing to give you a 30% raise in your salary and get the IRS off your back?

I think in a Paul vs. Clinton election, Ron Paul would win by a landslide. He's got my vote, regardless of who the Republican party nominates.

Click to expand...

Which other candidate has taken money from the guy who runs the Stormfront website, and who writes a column for a website owned by a company that also owns a holocaust denial site?

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

qednick wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

I'd worry about Paul's unwholesome associations, but it doesn't matter.  He's got as much chance of getting the nomination as I do, nevermind winning the general election.

He's the Republican Kucinich, merely a sometimes entertaining distraction.

Click to expand...

You've been watching too much Faux News. Ron Paul is the one. If the MSM gave him as much airtime as the other candidates it would be a landslide.

Also, I'm not sure what "unwholesome associations" you're talking about? It's all the other major candidates that are the members of the C.F.R. If you wanna merge the US with Canada and Mexico then go right ahead and vote for one the C.F.R. puppets.

Click to expand...

That I know of, Fox News has never talked about his ties to Holocaust deniers or the guy who runs the Stormfront website.

Click to expand...

Would you care to explain what you're talking about? Sources?

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

Cue-Ball wrote:

Ron Paul is not only the best Republican candidate, but he's the only Republican who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning against a Democrat after Bush's last 7 years. Conservatives love him, independents love him, hell even many Democrats love him. What other candidate is willing to give you a 30% raise in your salary and get the IRS off your back?

I think in a Paul vs. Clinton election, Ron Paul would win by a landslide. He's got my vote, regardless of who the Republican party nominates.

Click to expand...

Which other candidate has taken money from the guy who runs the Stormfront website, and who writes a column for a website owned by a company that also owns a holocaust denial site?

Click to expand...

Good lord. Is this the best smear you anti-Ron Paul folks can come up with?

imported post

longwatch wrote:

Unidimensional ignoramus? You'll have to explain that assertion.

Click to expand...

Matthew 7:6


There are so many more points of importance than just one.

Ron Paul and I are sofar apart on so may things that are truly important thatI couldvote for him only if my choice was him or a Hillary, or an Obama, but....

Oh why, why do I even try?

You who see Ron Paul as the only answer, would gladly give the government to traitors and tyrants, rather than see the real truth or the greater good.

"I will vote for no one but Ron Paul"

I like Fred, BUT I will vote for the best of the TWO main party candidates for thejob. Ifa democrat wins it will not be because I voted for a third party candidate or didn't voteand cut off my nose to spite my face.

Why do I wast my breath.

Again, Matthew 7:6


Tarzan

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Unidimensional ignoramus? You'll have to explain that assertion.

Click to expand...

Matthew 7:6


There are so many more points of importance than just one.

Ron Paul and I are sofar apart on so may things that are truly important thatI couldvote for him only if my choice was him or a Hillary, or an Obama, but....

Oh why, why do I even try?

You who see Ron Paul as the only answer, would gladly give the government to traitors and tyrants, rather than see the real truth or the greater good.

"I will vote for no one but Ron Paul"

I like Fred, BUT I will vote for the best of the TWO main party candidates for thejob. Ifa democrat wins it will not be because I voted for a third party candidate or didn't voteand cut off my nose to spite my face.

Why do I wast my breath.

Again, Matthew 7:6


Tarzan

Click to expand...

Perhaps the reason why we still have mostly a two-party system is because people put their vote toward one of the two major parties. Even though they would rather see one of the third party candidates win.

P.S. what does Matthew 7:6 say?

imported post

You who see Ron Paul as the only answer, would gladly give the government to traitors and tyrants, rather than see the real truth or the greater good.

Click to expand...

I think that you and I have vastly different ideas about who is a traitor and a tyrant. As far as I'm concerned, the terms traitor and tyrant apply primarily to the people who are currently in charge, and secondarily to most of the people who are running to replace them (both Democrats and Republicans).

I like Fred, BUT I will vote for the best of the TWO main party candidates for the job. If a democrat wins it will not be because I voted for a third party candidate or didn't vote and cut off my nose to spite my face.

Click to expand...

This type of thinking is exactly why we have the mess we do now. People are constantly voting against the person they don't like, rather than voting for the person who best represents them. This constantly gives us the "lesser of two evils" and forces third parties out of the running.

Not that it really matters since Dr. Paul will end up with the Republican nomination anyway.

imported post

sedjester wrote:

P.S. what does Matthew 7:6 say?

Click to expand...

It says: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Most people interpret this to mean that at some point you quit trying to offer gifts to people (or convert them, through the "gift" of Christianity), as you will eventually get backlash from those people.

Not sure how this applies to Ron Paul's candidacy, but it sure sounds a lot like our current foreign policy.

imported post

Tarzan all I asked was why you thought Paul was an unidimensional ignoramus. If you don't care to back that up that just makes it fancy name calling. You have other reasons not to vote for Paul or to choose Thompson fine but the question is who is best for the gun vote. I would suppose you want your guy to win, well why don't you help him out and state your case.

imported post

Fred thompson is great, I think hes got alot of positive views.


HOWEVER>>>>>KEEP READING>>>>>

Fred thompson doesn't have the chance,or support Ron Paul does. So would you rather support,and do what you can for a man that you KNOW won't make it into office


<<OR>>

Drum up support, and get as many supporters as you can for the man that could actually be in office,and is still a great choice.

OR deal with one of the following:

Barack Obama-anti 2a, graduated from an islamic institution(sp),...etc...

Billary-enough said,lol. How could you honestly trust,or believe anything from a "golddigger". We all know the ONLY reason she is still Mrs Clinton is b/c Pres. Clinton.,...well,was PRESIDENT.

Guliani-also,enough said,lol.



soooo...


Really good candidate,who while not perfect(are you? I'm not jesus,and never met him,so nobody perfect exsists on this planet to my knowledge.) that will provide alot of hope


---or--

Somebody who not only wants to limit rights,but limit weapons ownership. Plow us right into the ground,more so than we are now?

What good is holding unto a hope that will never happen (thompson)? Like I said,I'd vote for the guy if I knew he even had a chance. But I dont believe he does,so





RON PAUL 2008




P.S. To whomever says he is an ignoramous: Do you have a PH.D?Are you a congressmen(formor or present?Have you managed to raise almost 8 million dollars? Have you been on Senate?What accomplishments have you done that make you "better" or "smarter " than Ron Paul? Some claim G. W. Bush is only where he is,because of his father (formor president.) Was Ron Pauls dad a formor president? No? So its likely, no, its TRUE that Ron Paul has earned everybit of the accomplishments he has achieved.

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

You who see Ron Paul as the only answer, would gladly give the government to traitors and tyrants, rather than see the real truth or the greater good.



Tarzan

Click to expand...

Tarzan1888, With all possible personal respect for someone I do not know, IMHO it would be beneficial to review the publicly stated policy of the UN and the CFR on gun control and their record of incremental laws that are slowly ratcheting up the pressure. Then review the current "mainstream" candidates relationships with those two bodies.

Dr. Paul wants to stop the SPP or NAU. The other candidates do not mention the SPP, NAU or UN which means they are either clueless or supporters, most likely supprters as the NAU is a CFR idea. Now part of the SPP agreement is to SUPERCEDE the US Supreme court expanding the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

So if our governing judicial agencies are trumped by a "higher court" what will keep these globalists in the UN and CFR from acheiving their publicly stated goal of disarmament of the US when US law is null and void? It will be against the law to own a gun and there will be foreign police to come take our guns away. Or perhaps Blackwater mercs like in Katrina.

So I see lots of evidence that Dr. Paul rejects the UN and wants us out of it and I see lots of silence on the parts of the other candidates in speaking out against these issues that will eventually attempt to disarm us.

Therefore a vote for anyone other than Ron Paul is a vote for incremental gun control.

imported post

No NAU wrote:

SNIP

Therefore a vote for anyone other than Ron Paul is a vote for incremental gun control.

Click to expand...

Amen. Lets make this happen guys, so that way we can keep OCing,otherwise we can just make this site "usedtoopencaryr.org"

imported post

There are, and always has been, certain "folk" who are opposed to real freedom.

Some want the ability to force others to live according to their own ideals, etc.

Others don't like the idea of having to be repsonsible for their decisions, future, needs, etc.

ALL of them resent freedom lovers. Not quite sure if it's fear or jealousy, but they will do ANYthing to keep both themselves AND others in bondage.

Forget the muslims, Koreans, Russians. Your REAL enemies are all around you. They are Amerikans.

imported post

Ron Paul does attract some moonbats, but that's really because of his status as an outsider. They all project themselves onto the one outsider who looks like he might have a shot. That doesn't mean Paul believes in any of that stuff. He doesn't distance himself or try to asociate himself with any particular groups, as far as I've seen. He just publicly proclaims what he stands for and you either support him or you don't. I've never seen him say or write anything that sounded unreasonable, nor have I ever seen him try to ridicule or insult anyone else, or lose his cool. Even after Guliani attacked him over the foreign policy issue, and he wastaking flak from Hanity, he stayed calm and just spoke his mind. In gotcha interviews with reporters who are obviously baiting him, he just smiles and speaks honestly.

If he has any fault at all, I would say maybe he's too much of akind gentleman tosurvive the campaign. But he's managed to make that work in his favor. You can't help but root for the guy.Hebelieves inOld-School America, where people were free and nice to each other.In addition to all the other pro-freedom positions he has, his position on guns is head and shoulders above any other candidate's. Anda look at his history tells you he means it,he's not just kissing up to get elected.

I've become quite cynical, and my cynical senses tell me Paul is almost too good to be true. How does a guy like this survive in cut-throat politics?The Republican Party has consistently tried totorpedo his re-election bids for his congressional seat, and he ignores them and just wins. Apparently, in addition to all his other positive traits, he also knows how to win against odds.Something to be said for that.

I wish him luck; his greatest trial is yet to come. As his popularity grows, he's going to get more flaming from the media and his own party, and it's going to get nasty, especially if his poll numbers rise.

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

sedjester wrote:

P.S. what does Matthew 7:6 say?

Click to expand...

It says: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Most people interpret this to mean that at some point you quit trying to offer gifts to people (or convert them, through the "gift" of Christianity), as you will eventually get backlash from those people.

Not sure how this applies to Ron Paul's candidacy, but it sure sounds a lot like our current foreign policy.

Click to expand...

I believe it is being applied this way:

The pearls would be his thought and beliefs

We would be the swine; we cannot understand and we will turn around at blast his opinions.

In other words, why waste time trying to explain something to a creature that cannot understand anyway.