AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Pimpin' for Ron Paul

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bocefish said:
Nordling said:
If you want a return to isolationism, the robber baron era, and all that entails, then please do vote for Ron Paul. Myself, I'll continue to vote for people who worry about real freedom.

:lol:

I wonder why almost half of the states in the US have filed for sovereignty? Could it be the feds are infringing on the rights of individuals and states? :think:

If you want more government, more debt and the feds governing everything concerning sexual rights, religious rights, abortion, firearms, and a number of other issues go ahead and vote to re-elect the worst president in history.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :mrgreen:

BTW, I'm not even voting for Ron Paul. :p
:-D Worst President in history? No, I'm not voting for George Bush, Jr...wouldn't even if he were running. :)

Got any data that shows that the current President wants to take away your guns or religious freedom? Maybe you should stop watching Fox or whatever propaganda mill you get that faulty information from.
 
This is to poker babe's post on which she said we should not be forced to stick needles in our children. Well we are and we are not forced on giving our children vaccinations I myself do not give my child the flu ,bird flu or the swine flu shots,'cause they killed more people than it helped them, but for polio and mumps etc we need to give those to our children to control disease. If we did not give our children these shots our children would either suffer and die and become crippled,which leads to more suffering. That is why the shots for those awful diseases were made.

I have seen what happens to children that to not get the necessary shots and it made me want to cry, I could not bare looking at them.Yes when I was hospitalized in the Er I saw some of those children and my god was it awful.(ps I would have given my son the flu,bird flu and swine flu shot if it did not kill so many people including children). Just my :twocents-02cents: love.
 
Nordling said:
Got any data that shows that the current President wants to take away your guns or religious freedom? Maybe you should stop watching Fox or whatever propaganda mill you get that faulty information from.



Obama spent eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. During his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

Nearly three years into President Obama’s first term in office, Michelle Obama finally said something with which I can agree.

At a recent fundraiser for President Obama’s re-election campaign in Providence, Rhode Island, the first lady told her audience:

“We stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country. You’re here because you know that in just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come … let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices … let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

This was music to the ears of the small, affluent crowd of admirers who cheered and applauded. But to gun owners, Michelle Obama’s remarks should sound like a warning bell, alerting us to the danger ahead should Barack Obama win re-election and get the opportunity to alter the current make-up of the Supreme Court.

When Americans flock to the polls in 13 months, we will not simply decide which direction our country should take over the next four years. Rather, we will decide whether or not our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms will survive over the next several decades.

Currently, the Second Amendment clings to a 5-4 pro-freedom majority on the Supreme Court. Just one vote is all that stands between the America our Founding Fathers established and a radically different America that Barack Obama and his supporters envision.

If you want to read something scary, take another look at the minority opinions in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions that struck down Washington, D.C.’s and Chicago’s unconstitutional gun bans. In the Heller dissent, four justices concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm, nor does it protect our right to defend ourselves, our families, or our property. In McDonald, the same four justices argued that the 5-4 Heller decision should be reversed.


If these four justices had just one more vote on their side, their opinion — that the Second Amendment should not exist in today’s modern society — would be the law of the land today. And assuredly, the anti-gun activist wing of the court knows how close they are to gaining the upper hand. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Harvard Club audience in 2009, she looks forward to the day when a “future, wiser court” overturns 5-4 decisions like Heller.

Praying for the health of five justices is not a sound legal strategy for ensuring that our Second Amendment freedoms survive the relentless legal assault that gun-ban groups are waging in courtrooms across America. We need a president who will nominate sound, originalist nominees to the high court — nominees who will preserve the freedoms our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution.

If President Obama gets the opportunity to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court in his favor, we’re unlikely to see another pro-gun victory at the Court in our lifetime. Even worse, the 5-4 majorities in Heller and McDonald will be in serious jeopardy of being reversed, effectively eliminating the Second Amendment.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/11/miche ... z1hhelgwjZ
 
Bocefish said:
Nordling said:
Got any data that shows that the current President wants to take away your guns or religious freedom? Maybe you should stop watching Fox or whatever propaganda mill you get that faulty information from.



Obama spent eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. During his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

Currently, the Second Amendment clings to a 5-4 pro-freedom majority on the Supreme Court. Just one vote is all that stands between the America our Founding Fathers established and a radically different America that Barack Obama and his supporters envision.

If you want to read something scary, take another look at the minority opinions in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions that struck down Washington, D.C.’s and Chicago’s unconstitutional gun bans. In the Heller dissent, four justices concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm, nor does it protect our right to defend ourselves, our families, or our property. In McDonald, the same four justices argued that the 5-4 Heller decision should be reversed.


If these four justices had just one more vote on their side, their opinion — that the Second Amendment should not exist in today’s modern society — would be the law of the land today. And assuredly, the anti-gun activist wing of the court knows how close they are to gaining the upper hand. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Harvard Club audience in 2009, she looks forward to the day when a “future, wiser court” overturns 5-4 decisions like Heller.

Praying for the health of five justices is not a sound legal strategy for ensuring that our Second Amendment freedoms survive the relentless legal assault that gun-ban groups are waging in courtrooms across America. We need a president who will nominate sound, originalist nominees to the high court — nominees who will preserve the freedoms our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution.

If President Obama gets the opportunity to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court in his favor, we’re unlikely to see another pro-gun victory at the Court in our lifetime. Even worse, the 5-4 majorities in Heller and McDonald will be in serious jeopardy of being reversed, effectively eliminating the Second Amendment.

I have watched the interviews and his speeches and he has never,ever said he was going to take away our guns at all. Right now what he is trying to do is fix George Bush jr's mess up and get every thing back on track.George bush was never a good president he sent us off to a war where there wasn't a war needed, the war was needed in Afghanistan. Obama is also trying to improve education,get jobs opened up for people etc. So far jobs have been opening up not as fast as we would like,but slow is better than doing nothing at all.Did I not mention he is also trying to get us out of the deficit?(his wife is not helping though and I think they should kick her ass out for spending so god damn much,which he is trying to get her to stop). :twocents-02cents:
 
sxycherrypie said:
I have watched the interviews and his speeches and he has never,ever said he was going to take away our guns at all.
Of course he never came out and said it, that would be political suicide. His voting record on the issue speaks volumes though. He would rather appoint another Supreme Court Justice to do his bidding so he won't be to to blame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oy vey
Bocefish said:
sxycherrypie said:
I have watched the interviews and his speeches and he has never,ever said he was going to take away our guns at all.
Of course he never came out and said it, that would be political suicide. His voting record on the issue speaks volumes though. He would rather appoint another Supreme Court Justice to do his bidding so he won't be to to blame.

Well so far I have not seen that with Obama. I believe Obama will make things right. I will not believe Obama will take away our guns until a reliable source says he will.Until then I am going to be re- electing him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marokite
Nordling said:
Oy vey said:
Nordling said:
It wouldn't be wrong if it existed. There simply is NO "war on christmas." Republicans tend to create an issue by claiming democrats and progressives are "warring on Christmas" to create a meme that they are "anti-Christian," which is nonsense. That Ron Paul is in on this crap shows that he is not unique in this regard.

YES THERE IS!!!!!!!!!! Maybe to be more specific, there is a war on Christianity and a battle against Christmas. (as it's most visible manifestation). Every where you look in popular (leftist) culture Christianity is put down and made "the butt of the joke". Hate speech against Christians is accepted and even celebrated. Unlike other groups, Christians aren't protected against being made to feel"disenfranchised", and aren't shown "tolerance". Loaded terms like the leftist media manufactured "Religious Right" is one that is used against many people who simply have faith. To be fair, if there's a religious right shouldn't the "other" side then be called the "Godless Left" ?
Except there isn't. Most people on the "left" ARE Christians in this country. And by the way, Ron Paul's inspiration is Ayn Rand, a rabid atheist. His son Rand's nickname (his real name is Randal) is a nod to Ayn Rand.

Hate speech against Christians? I just don't see it. Sure there are some rabid atheists, but they don't define "the left." Many right wing libertarians are atheists. The left is just too broad to attempt to pigeon hole it in any category...

As Will Rogers (my favorite American humorist) once said, "I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat."

Well, I'm glad you see that Ron Paul is able to separate the message from the messenger and is therefore able to recognize good ideas no matter what their source. Sounds like he may be the "uniter" we've been looking for to replace the "divider" currently in office.

Who cares who Ron Paul's son shares a similar name with. Do names indicate some sort of undue influence to you? How about the name Barack HUSSEIN Obama? Does that "nod" to Islam indicate any strong childhood influences that our president may still be under?

As far as the left being too broad to pigeon hole , I claim the same right to do it that the left does. When the left wants to marginalize someone, they label 'em a Christian. When they want to destroy someone, they label 'em a Right Wing Christian. YES there is a war on Christianity and anything Christian.

I dare say that Will Rogers would not recognize the grotesquely deformed entity that the Democrat Party has become in the 75+ years since his death. The support the Democrat Party's enjoys these days is probably best explained by one of mY favorite quotes "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." George Bernard Shaw
 
sxycherrypie said:
Bocefish said:
sxycherrypie said:
I have watched the interviews and his speeches and he has never,ever said he was going to take away our guns at all.
Of course he never came out and said it, that would be political suicide. His voting record on the issue speaks volumes though. He would rather appoint another Supreme Court Justice to do his bidding so he won't be to to blame.

Well so far I have not seen that with Obama. I believe Obama will make things right. I will not believe Obama will take away our guns until a reliable source says he will.Until then I am going to be re- electing him.

They aren't going to say such things openly & honestly. Anyone ever hear of "Fast and Furious" ? It was a 2010 covert operation conducted by the ATF under the Obama administration. In the operation, the ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell weapons to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels, and ultimately planned to use the incidents of increased gun violence to argue for stricter gun laws.
 
Oy vey said:
Nordling said:
Oy vey said:
Nordling said:
It wouldn't be wrong if it existed. There simply is NO "war on christmas." Republicans tend to create an issue by claiming democrats and progressives are "warring on Christmas" to create a meme that they are "anti-Christian," which is nonsense. That Ron Paul is in on this crap shows that he is not unique in this regard.

YES THERE IS!!!!!!!!!! Maybe to be more specific, there is a war on Christianity and a battle against Christmas. (as it's most visible manifestation). Every where you look in popular (leftist) culture Christianity is put down and made "the butt of the joke". Hate speech against Christians is accepted and even celebrated. Unlike other groups, Christians aren't protected against being made to feel"disenfranchised", and aren't shown "tolerance". Loaded terms like the leftist media manufactured "Religious Right" is one that is used against many people who simply have faith. To be fair, if there's a religious right shouldn't the "other" side then be called the "Godless Left" ?
Except there isn't. Most people on the "left" ARE Christians in this country. And by the way, Ron Paul's inspiration is Ayn Rand, a rabid atheist. His son Rand's nickname (his real name is Randal) is a nod to Ayn Rand.

Hate speech against Christians? I just don't see it. Sure there are some rabid atheists, but they don't define "the left." Many right wing libertarians are atheists. The left is just too broad to attempt to pigeon hole it in any category...

As Will Rogers (my favorite American humorist) once said, "I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat."

Well, I'm glad you see that Ron Paul is able to separate the message from the messenger and is therefore able to recognize good ideas no matter what their source. Sounds like he may be the "uniter" we've been looking for to replace the "divider" currently in office.

Who cares who Ron Paul's son shares a similar name with. Do names indicate some sort of undue influence to you? How about the name Barack HUSSEIN Obama? Does that "nod" to Islam indicate any strong childhood influences that our president may still be under?

As far as the left being too broad to pigeon hole , I claim the same right to do it that the left does. When the left wants to marginalize someone, they label 'em a Christian. When they want to destroy someone, they label 'em a Right Wing Christian. YES there is a war on Christianity and anything Christian.

I dare say that Will Rogers would not recognize the grotesquely deformed entity that the Democrat Party has become in the 75+ years since his death. The support the Democrat Party's enjoys these days is probably best explained by one of mY favorite quotes "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." George Bernard Shaw
Heh. Well, since Will Rogers' death, the Democratic party lost about a third of its members--the southern racist, DIXIECRAT wing, who went on to become Republicans and now control a huge segment of Republicans. So, I'd guess old Will would like his party now even more than when he was alive.

When someone says "right wing" Christian, they are referring to the radical, fundamentalist nutsos--like the Westboro Baptist Church. Or do you want to support those crazies? The fact is, there is a radical wing of the various Christian sects--to ignore this and whine that attacking them is an attack on all Christians is pretty shallow.

As far as robbing Peter to pay Paul, I think you're talking about George W. Bush... who started two wars OFF the books, and that huge sucking of the nation's wealth wasn't made public until the current President.

Anyway, enough politics--this is beyond the scope of this board's purpose.
 
Oy vey said:
sxycherrypie said:
Bocefish said:
sxycherrypie said:
I have watched the interviews and his speeches and he has never,ever said he was going to take away our guns at all.
Of course he never came out and said it, that would be political suicide. His voting record on the issue speaks volumes though. He would rather appoint another Supreme Court Justice to do his bidding so he won't be to to blame.

Well so far I have not seen that with Obama. I believe Obama will make things right. I will not believe Obama will take away our guns until a reliable source says he will.Until then I am going to be re- electing him.

They aren't going to say such things openly & honestly. Anyone ever hear of "Fast and Furious" ? It was a 2010 covert operation conducted by the ATF under the Obama administration. In the operation, the ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell weapons to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels, and ultimately planned to use the incidents of increased gun violence to argue for stricter gun laws.
And where did you read this?
 
Oy vey said:
sxycherrypie said:
Bocefish said:
sxycherrypie said:
I have watched the interviews and his speeches and he has never,ever said he was going to take away our guns at all.
Of course he never came out and said it, that would be political suicide. His voting record on the issue speaks volumes though. He would rather appoint another Supreme Court Justice to do his bidding so he won't be to to blame.

Well so far I have not seen that with Obama. I believe Obama will make things right. I will not believe Obama will take away our guns until a reliable source says he will.Until then I am going to be re- electing him.

They aren't going to say such things openly & honestly. Anyone ever hear of "Fast and Furious" ? It was a 2010 covert operation conducted by the ATF under the Obama administration. In the operation, the ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell weapons to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels, and ultimately planned to use the incidents of increased gun violence to argue for stricter gun laws.
Fast & Furious was a fuckup, plain wrong, but it was part of Project Gunrunner which began in 2006, under GEORGE W. BUSH. Yeah, Eric Holder "should" have stopped it when he first heard about it, but the problem with running a government, just like with running a corporation is, too many things exist on momentum and aren't spotted by the new guys. At any rate, Fast & Furious was a sting operation to attempt to mass arrest people from various cartels but was NEVER intended as a "way to take away our guns." That's silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sxycherrypie
Nordling said:
Oy vey said:
They aren't going to say such things openly & honestly. Anyone ever hear of "Fast and Furious" ? It was a 2010 covert operation conducted by the ATF under the Obama administration. In the operation, the ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell weapons to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels, and ultimately planned to use the incidents of increased gun violence to argue for stricter gun laws.
Fast & Furious was a fuckup, plain wrong, but it was part of Project Gunrunner which began in 2006, under GEORGE W. BUSH. Yeah, Eric Holder "should" have stopped it when he first heard about it, but the problem with running a government, just like with running a corporation is, too many things exist on momentum and aren't spotted by the new guys. At any rate, Fast & Furious was a sting operation to attempt to mass arrest people from various cartels but was NEVER intended as a "way to take away our guns." That's silly.

I did say "ultimately planned to". While this completely misguided plan may have started with some sort of law enforcement goal in mind, the Obama Administration's Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms was quick to spot an opportunity to exploit when things went wrong. After 2 US Federal agents were killed with "Fast & Furious" weapons, the anti gun propaganda value was not overlooked, and an opportunity to advance the liberal anti-gun agenda thru the use of tragedy (even a self made one) was considered. One of the questions under investigation is who knew what and when. It's hard to imagine that ATF underlings undertook such a project without approval from ATF Director B. Todd Jones, the individual the Obama administration brought in to replace ATF Director Kenneth Melson.
 
sxycherrypie said:
Oy vey said:
They aren't going to say such things openly & honestly. Anyone ever hear of "Fast and Furious" ? It was a 2010 covert operation conducted by the ATF under the Obama administration. In the operation, the ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell weapons to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels, and ultimately planned to use the incidents of increased gun violence to argue for stricter gun laws.
And where did you read this?

I heard about this quite some time ago, but I googled it just now and found this rather lengthy article for 'ya. Hope you find it interesting if not persuasive.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... watergate/
 
Oy vey said:
sxycherrypie said:
Oy vey said:
They aren't going to say such things openly & honestly. Anyone ever hear of "Fast and Furious" ? It was a 2010 covert operation conducted by the ATF under the Obama administration. In the operation, the ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell weapons to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels, and ultimately planned to use the incidents of increased gun violence to argue for stricter gun laws.
And where did you read this?

I heard about this quite some time ago, but I googled it just now and found this rather lengthy article for 'ya. Hope you find it interesting if not persuasive.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... watergate/
Please use a more neutral source. Steve Forbes campaigns for Ron Paul. He's also a member of Freedomworks, a Koch brother's political action group. Know who the Koch brothers are? Read up on them...but not in Forbes. :)

There's simply no evidence that the administration has cynically used the tragedy and fuck up in a silly opportunistic way to advance an outcome that they don't even support in the first place.
 
When someone has their mind made up, it's pretty hard to change their way of thinking.
I personally believe that the whole "right-left" is meant to divide and conquer. I look beyond party lines and straight to the politicians' record. you can tell a tree by it fruits.
I also don't think that Obama really runs anything. I believe he's just a puppet. Figure head, scape goat if you will. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Ghandi said "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."
this is the same pattern I've seen with regards to how Ron Paul has been treated by the establishment.
In the 1st election, he was not only ignored, but a media "black out" was attempted.
He was laughed at...
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/149062/january-31-2008/ron-paul-sounds-alarm
Now his character is being attacked.

I think the war on drugs needs to be ended, prostitution should be legalized, the income tax and Federal Reserve should be abolished, and that we need to bring our troops home. These are my beliefs, and I think Paul is the best person to elect to get these things done.
 
I want my president to tell every state that abortion is legal and that gay marriage must be legally recognized. I don't want to depend on the states to get it right. I suppose that means I'm far from libertarian, aye?
 
I don't think any of the politicians actually care about being pro-life or pro-choice. It's just a way to weasel into the hearts of voters. Yelling about babies' rights or womens' rights is bound to get you some supporters. Sadly, since women are still 2nd class citizens in this country, our rights or lack of are fair game in the political circus. Could you imagine if some female candidate climbed up on the podium and blasted Viagra for being against nature? It's all smoke and mirrors and huff and puff. Anyone in politics is there to have power, prestige and pay not to do anything for voters once they slither in. :twocents-02cents:
 
I'm a former constituent of Mitt Romney. After reading his contributions to tonights debate I seriously want him to vomit a fetus, because it'll be the first honest and decent thing ever to come out of his mouth. He was pro gay marriage and pro choice when he campaigned to be Governor here in Massachusetts. It doesn't take something profound to change a douchey politician's belief on anything, just a chance for higher office.

All of the Republicans on stage tonight were for the division between "marriage" and "domestic partnerships" and argued that marriage is a foundational value of the united states? I thought freedom and equal rights for people of all walks of life were the foundational values. Granted, at the time they defined "people of all walks of life" as all white male landowners, but that's just nitpicking right? The understanding of what an ACTUAL human being with a right to vote (another foundational value of the US) has been altered over time to become more inclusive. Why can't the term 'marriage' be altered in the same way? Maybe I'm wrong. What's that quote? "Bring us your tired, your hungry, your poor, unless they're gay or want an abortion, of course."

Does this country need someone like Ron Paul as President? No. The same goes for Romney, Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich, in my opinion. I think we need Jon Huntsman. I don't think its going to happen though, but hopefully Romney (who shouldn't win, but probably will) makes him his Vice President.
 
AmberCutie said:
I want my president to tell every state that abortion is legal and that gay marriage must be legally recognized. I don't want to depend on the states to get it right. I suppose that means I'm far from libertarian, aye?

First off, you are not going to get any President or Presidential candidate to say exactly that. Even our current President would dance around the issue until you couldn't really get what he is saying. No slur on the Prez, that's just how politics works these days.

Second, on those two issues, you may be closer to Libertarianism than you think. I am NOT speaking for Ron Paul, but from what I have read on "Libertarianism" is that on those two issues they feel that it's none of the Federal Government's business to criminalize or ban them. If you walk into a clinic or Doctor's office, you should be able to receive any treatment you want or need, including getting an abortion.

The U.S. Libertarian Party political platform (2010) states: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Same thing for marriage. The Libertarian view is that any two people should be free to get married. Contrast that with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is a United States federal law whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. As of the present day, the Obama administration has stated that while they will enforce DOMA, they will not defend it in court.

This is the position taken from the Libertarian Party of the United States:
Section 1.3 "Personal Relationships:
"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."


In plain English, the views are that both abortion and gay marriage should be up to the individuals, therefore legal.

Again, I'm not speaking for Ron Paul, nor am I endorsing Ron Paul. I'm just trying to shed some light on how "true" Libertarianism views these two issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bocefish
Exactly Schlmoe. You can't talk for Ron Paul because he is not a social libertarian, he's a Ron Paulist. lol Near as I can tell, his ideology is a curious mixture of fundamentalist Christianity mixed with a little Ayn Rand "Objectivism" and whatever else he feels like at the time.

Not wanting to offend him, but I personally feel he's an evil bastard, lol I tend to be a social libertarian and an economic progressive. I believe in fiscal responsibility but also while realizing that we're only as good as the least of us, and therefore we should give a hand up to those on the bottom. I don't believe in confiscating billionaires money, but I do believe that since they get the most FROM our society, their fair share to contribute should be proportionately higher.

And once again, there's no magic when it comes to oppression, oppression by the states, counties, cities or parishes are no better than oppression by the national government. However, only the national government is in a position to enforce our rights across all borders within our nation.
 
Nordling said:
Oy vey said:
sxycherrypie said:
And where did you read this?

I heard about this quite some time ago, but I googled it just now and found this rather lengthy article for 'ya. Hope you find it interesting if not persuasive.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... watergate/
Please use a more neutral source. Steve Forbes campaigns for Ron Paul. He's also a member of Freedomworks, a Koch brother's political action group. Know who the Koch brothers are? Read up on them...but not in Forbes. :)

There's simply no evidence that the administration has cynically used the tragedy and fuck up in a silly opportunistic way to advance an outcome that they don't even support in the first place.

As you should have been able to deduce from my response to sxycherrypie, this article WAS NOT the source for my long held opinions on this issue. Since she seemed to be asking for something to read covering the matter, I looked, last evening, for the most detailed one I could find.

But, since you want a "more neutral" source, how about CBS news?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-5 ... gulations/
You'll probably like them Nordling since they were the ones that tried to disparage George Bush's military record with forged documents, a few years back. So, maybe they're not so neutral after all.

The Koch brothers huh? Do you really think that they're any more dangerous than that Democrat billionaire puppet master, front group funder, and Obama supporter, George Soros ?

And finally, is a government attempt to limit the rights of it's citizens, no matter how it comes into being, really ever just "silly"? Let me try it...Oh that silly Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt, he threw all those Japanese Americans into Internment Camps right here in the good 'ol USA, during World War II. Wasn't that SiLlY? Nope...doesn't work for me.
 
No, I'd assume you'd like CBS since they fired Dan Rather--even though Rather was operating under honest assumptions. BTW, the facts of the story were never debunked, just the source they used for that particular version of it. The whistleblower was a crank, but it was already common knowledge that GWB went AWOL.

You haven't shown anything in that CBS article other than the rants of two Republican radicals, Issa and Grassley...two guys who I wouldn't trust with my old turds. As far as the rights of American citizens, I don't understand why anyone would be against the reporting of multiple purchases of assault rifles. The same people whining about that, have no problem whatsoever with wire taps being conducted without a court order.

Anyway...we're getting way off topic. This thread is about Ron Paul. So this is the last I'll respond to "Fast and Furious." Unless, of course, you can show where Ron Paul was involved. :)
 
Nordling said:
Oy vey said:
Well, I'm glad you see that Ron Paul is able to separate the message from the messenger and is therefore able to recognize good ideas no matter what their source. Sounds like he may be the "uniter" we've been looking for to replace the "divider" currently in office.

Who cares who Ron Paul's son shares a similar name with. Do names indicate some sort of undue influence to you? How about the name Barack HUSSEIN Obama? Does that "nod" to Islam indicate any strong childhood influences that our president may still be under?

As far as the left being too broad to pigeon hole , I claim the same right to do it that the left does. When the left wants to marginalize someone, they label 'em a Christian. When they want to destroy someone, they label 'em a Right Wing Christian. YES there is a war on Christianity and anything Christian.

I dare say that Will Rogers would not recognize the grotesquely deformed entity that the Democrat Party has become in the 75+ years since his death. The support the Democrat Party's enjoys these days is probably best explained by one of mY favorite quotes "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." George Bernard Shaw
Heh. Well, since Will Rogers' death, the Democratic party lost about a third of its members--the southern racist, DIXIECRAT wing, who went on to become Republicans and now control a huge segment of Republicans. So, I'd guess old Will would like his party now even more than when he was alive.

When someone says "right wing" Christian, they are referring to the radical, fundamentalist nutsos--like the Westboro Baptist Church. Or do you want to support those crazies? The fact is, there is a radical wing of the various Christian sects--to ignore this and whine that attacking them is an attack on all Christians is pretty shallow.

As far as robbing Peter to pay Paul, I think you're talking about George W. Bush... who started two wars OFF the books, and that huge sucking of the nation's wealth wasn't made public until the current President.

All the racists left the Democrat Party & became Republicans? ARE YOU AN IDIOT?! The Dixicrats and their "States' Rights Democratic Party" dissolved in 1948, and weren't even a part of the presidential election of 1952. Also, if the Republican Party inherited so many of your racist party members how do you explain the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

The strong support of Republicans was essential to passage. Although Democrats had a large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted FOR the civil rights bill as Democrats did. The final vote FOR the bill included 152 Democrat YES votes and 138 Republican YES votes. Of the NO votes,75%were Democrat. In short, the bill could NOT HAVE PASSED without Republican support. If the Republican Party was the new home all of your racist Democrats chose as their new home, sounds like they made a bad choice.

Obamascoreboard.jpg
 
Nordling said:
No, I'd assume you'd like CBS since they fired Dan Rather--even though Rather was operating under honest assumptions. BTW, the facts of the story were never debunked, just the source they used for that particular version of it. The whistleblower was a crank, but it was already common knowledge that GWB went AWOL.

You haven't shown anything in that CBS article other than the rants of two Republican radicals, Issa and Grassley...two guys who I wouldn't trust with my old turds. As far as the rights of American citizens, I don't understand why anyone would be against the reporting of multiple purchases of assault rifles. The same people whining about that, have no problem whatsoever with wire taps being conducted without a court order.

Anyway...we're getting way off topic. This thread is about Ron Paul. So this is the last I'll respond to "Fast and Furious." Unless, of course, you can show where Ron Paul was involved. :)

Run Nordling R U N...the truth might catch you!!!!!!!!
 
Oy vey said:
sxycherrypie said:
Bocefish said:
sxycherrypie said:
I have watched the interviews and his speeches and he has never,ever said he was going to take away our guns at all.
Of course he never came out and said it, that would be political suicide. His voting record on the issue speaks volumes though. He would rather appoint another Supreme Court Justice to do his bidding so he won't be to to blame.

Well so far I have not seen that with Obama. I believe Obama will make things right. I will not believe Obama will take away our guns until a reliable source says he will.Until then I am going to be re- electing him.

They aren't going to say such things openly & honestly. Anyone ever hear of "Fast and Furious" ? It was a 2010 covert operation conducted by the ATF under the Obama administration. In the operation, the ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell weapons to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels, and ultimately planned to use the incidents of increased gun violence to argue for stricter gun laws.

They were planning to make dealers report when someone bought several long guns at one time. Not really all that big of a deal unless you are paranoid about being on lists. I can not help but wonder if this plan was thought up while they were smoking confiscated pot watching The Fast and the Furious.

7dEmG.jpg
 
But as for Ron Paul, just to play devil's advocate with those that say if he became president ALL of this would happen, I believe it would be the same thing that is going on with Obama- Congress would stonewall and say no to everything while putting on blame on President Paul that nothing is getting done and is all his fault and then the Media and opponents would say all the promises he made were lies it's really quite easy.

Things were a lot simpler in my youth when the worst thing that happened was a President getting a blowjob. How much money did the republicans spend on dragging that through the court process? Hooray fiscal conservatism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: camstory
AmberCutie said:
I want my president to tell every state that abortion is legal and that gay marriage must be legally recognized. I don't want to depend on the states to get it right. I suppose that means I'm far from libertarian, aye?

Be careful what you wish for. If you want the federal government involved in that much of your life, do not even begin to think it will stop there. Constitutionally speaking, only those issues specifically granted to the feds are the feds, all others belong to the states. But that has never stopped them before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oy vey and Bocefish
Status
Not open for further replies.