I find it funny that people will be patriotic toward President Bush yet...


PDA






DualBerettas
April 21, 2007, 12:04 AM
make comments toward ron paul who is the only person in Congress with complete understanding of the Constitution and also the only one with PRINCIPLES and has a 100% Constitutional voting record...

If you listen to him talk about the war on any of his radio interviews he will say that he wanted a discussion and a declaration of war by congress as REQUIRED by the Constitution because the founders did not want a 'king' making the decision on their own...(my insert)
Bush has violated the Constitution with the so called 'Patriot Act' go read it before you argue with me that it trashes the 4th Amendment...

Bush has not repealed any gun control nor has he made an effort (as the Republican Party Platform states) to be for smaller, limited government. He certainly has grown the size of government though and is spending more than the democrats some years...

Ron Paul is a politician with principles and that is rare...

Ron Paul will be in the debates on May 3 on MSNBC...Fred Thompson is not on the list
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18153983/
To ask a question during the debate:
http://www.politico.com/debate/askquestion.html

We need this man for our country, he is our last hope for small government!

DB

If you enjoyed reading about "I find it funny that people will be patriotic toward President Bush yet..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
theavocado
April 21, 2007, 12:12 AM
I like Paul too.

A thinking conservative........rare indeed.

Sindawe
April 21, 2007, 12:17 AM
Mr. Bush stands as a Leader that people can get behind and support irrespective of his honoring the oath of office he swore and their understanding of the Constitution.

Dr. Paul does not, so he does not "click" with them that think with their hearts, rather than their brains.

DualBerettas
April 21, 2007, 01:50 AM
power corrupts huh...

executive orders are the same as a dictator making a law on his own..

DB

JohnBT
April 21, 2007, 08:09 AM
"ron paul who is the only person in Congress with complete understanding of the Constitution "

Oh, come on, be serious. The only person? I don't even know if I can spell hyperbole.

John

pcosmar
April 21, 2007, 08:24 AM
Ok, He is the ONE person in the race with any integrity toward the Constitution.
We NEED a change.

jpk1md
April 21, 2007, 08:40 AM
I agree that we should not have entered Iraq when and how we did but we're there now and as a country need to bring it to a reasonable conclusion or risk destabilization of the region and loss of yet more respect and power globally.....withdrawal at this point is a lose-lose scenario.

I don't like Shrub but respect him as POTUS and frankly can't stand the surrender monkey socialist Dem leadership.

RP would be great if he had a snowballs chance but he doesn't.....he would be an interesting VP for Fred Thompson

pcosmar
April 21, 2007, 09:19 AM
Fred is not in the race, Ron Paul is.
I could see Fred Thompson as VP. He is a good actor, and he acts like a conservitive.
Ron Paul has a 30 year voting record, and supports the Constitution.
Ron Paul/Fred, I could go for that.

SIOP
April 21, 2007, 10:16 AM
Not funny or difficult to understand at all.

No REAL conservatives have EVER supported Bush, going way back to before he was elected president. Ergo, Bush supporters are in a totally different political world than are real conservatives and are not likely to be receptive to people like Ron Paul.

MechAg94
April 21, 2007, 11:19 AM
What is a REAL conservative? What do you mean by support?

I voted for him partly because the alternatives really sucked. I get to vote for Ron Paul now since he is my representative.

DualBerettas
April 21, 2007, 11:51 AM
go look at some of the votes where it was everybody in congress to 1.

That '1' is usually Ron Paul and if you read the legislation, he doesn't support it and virtually all of the time it's based on the bill being unconstitutional.

DB

RealGun
April 21, 2007, 11:53 AM
I find it funny that people will be patriotic toward bush yet...
make comments toward ron paul who is the only person in Congress with complete understanding of the Constitution and also the only one with PRINCIPLES and has a 100% Constitutional voting record...

Are the comments about Ron Paul to discredit him or concerning his chances of winning?

It strikes me as odd to pick the least "Republican" of the bunch. Paul is a backdoor libertarian. Just because he is there doesn't mean he should be the model for Republicans who don't care to be libertarians. Only libertarians would feel that way. What you need is more Ron Pauls but not supposing to be compatible with some other political mold. Ron Paul doesn't even try, quick to be the rogue on every question.

I could see a GOP convention in revolt, if Ron Paul made it as far as that. The convention is not obligated to abide by the primary results.

RealGun
April 21, 2007, 11:59 AM
I don't like Shrub but respect him as POTUS - jpk1md

That's pretty funny...declaring respect for him while using a mocking nickname. Don't feel like you have to be trendy or apologetic in supporting your President. Like others have stated, he was the best of the lot, the same as many other Presidents. You do your best to be supportive until another election comes around.

DualBerettas
April 21, 2007, 12:03 PM
republican/libertarian, doesn't matter, He Follows the constitution to the letter and rule of law.

DB

Cesiumsponge
April 21, 2007, 12:38 PM
Ron Paul is my hero and the only politician I've contributed money towards, and the only man I'll vote for in 2008. I will not cast a compromise vote; we've done that for far too long and it's gotten us nowhere.

For anyone that is a fence sitter, his archive of speeches and papers here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

His newest article on the Virginia Tech situation:
http://thenewliberty.com/?p=109

Most of his voting record:
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

GRIZ22
April 21, 2007, 02:51 PM
go look at some of the votes where it was everybody in congress to 1.


This could be a problem for Paul. A president needs some kind of support from Congress. If Paul had a bill in front of him that was passed everybody to one how hard do you think it would be to override his veto?

LkWinnipesaukee
April 21, 2007, 05:11 PM
Read the Patriot Act?

Have YOU read the Patriot Act?:rolleyes:

SoCalShooter
April 21, 2007, 05:30 PM
I like RP, I do not agree with everything that GB has done, but I would take him over AL GORE or JOHN KERRY anyday of the week and I think a lot of people here would also. But as for the THIRD or FOURTH party making a grab at the presidency, I think the American people want a change for sure and he is the way to truly make it. But everyone is stuck in the DEM or REPUB battle.

Cesiumsponge
April 21, 2007, 05:38 PM
I think the American people want a change for sure and he is the way to truly make it. But everyone is stuck in the DEM or REPUB battle.

Ron Paul is running with a Republican tag this time around.

6_gunner
April 21, 2007, 05:44 PM
I like Ron Paul. I disagree with his stance on abortion, because I believe that unborn children should be considered individuals who have rights (not to get off-subject). Other than that I think he's right on. I also believe that he's a person who can be trusted to preserve and respect the Constitution.
I'd definitely vote for him. He's pretty much the only candidate that I'd actually LIKE to see in the white house. All the other ones are just choices between bad and worse.

I personally like president Bush and support the war, but I think he was way off base in creating the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave if he knew Dubya had created another limb for the monster of bureaucracy. :what:

P.S. Is Ron Paul a libertarian-turned-republican? He sure holds a lot of Libertarian beliefs (more power to 'im).

Titan6
April 21, 2007, 06:01 PM
I think you have two very different concepts mixed up here. One can love one's country and disagree with it's laws and even violate them or enforce them poorly. I think Bush loves this country, I think Ron Paul does also. They just love it a little differently is all.

As a patriot myself I support the President Bush as president and support Paul as my choice to be the next president. I don't see any conflict here.

6 gun- You might want to go back and revisit Paul's view on abortion. You may be surprised.

Autolycus
April 21, 2007, 06:06 PM
I think it is because so many people are blood thirsty. We are not even in the right country but yet people are ok with it. And if your not then you do not support the troops.

Here is a funny video that talks about it...

http://www.shoutfile.com/v/gSfSsCpR/Why_People_Believe_Americans_Are_Stupid

While it does not indicate all Americans by far but it is still funny.

Chui
April 21, 2007, 11:55 PM
The ONLY reason Paul "doesn't stand a chance" of winning is because of simple-minded apathy... We sit on our collective asses and allow evil to function "because that's the way the system works." The Founders are rolling in their graves and I'm sure God is losing his patience...

There is always a price to be paid (usually the butcher) for apathy, self-imposed ignorance and evil. To know and not act responsibly or deny responsibility is evil.

We have NO excuses.

JWarren
April 22, 2007, 12:32 AM
We have NO excuses.

Couple of things.

First, you say we have no excuses. However, I want to point out that for the last couple elections we HAD NO CHOICES. I am willing to wax idealist as easily as the next guy, but I am also pragmatic.

I DID vote for Bush-- twice actually. (or maybe none-- I was in FL when I voted for him.) I want to point out that in each of those elections the margins were VERY narrow and Bush barely squeeked in.

Had more persons abandoned the traditional 2 party system and opted for an independent runner, there is a far greater chance in my opinion that the Republicans would have suffered more than the Democrats. In that case, we would have had Gore the first time around and Kerry the next.

Bush isn't my favorite President by any stretch of the imagination, and he is surely not a true conservative in his fiscal or governmental policies. However, he is a better friend to us than either Gore or Kerry would have been.

In each election, people probably voted AGAINST Gore and/or Kerry more than they voted FOR Bush. I know I did.


Second.

The Patriot Act is an abomination. Regardless of the intentions of the act, it has been misused. No law will ever be held to the spirit of that law-- it will always be held to the LETTER of the law. Therefore, it, like other intrusive laws has been misused. RICO is as much an abused and unconstitutional law as the patriot act, and yet we continue to tolerate it.

The country went nuts after 9/11. In a vain attempt for security, we allowed lawmakers to pass a law that infringed on our freedoms. Aren't ALL laws seeking security invasions of freedoms in some way?

I am probably radical when I say that I would prefer to live in a less secure world than one that restricts our freedoms. If we are unwilling to accept the consequences of living in a free state, we are unworthy of the legacy left to us by our founding fathers. Freedom can be painful at times-- Lack of Freedom WILL be suffocating ALL the time.

I, like many, would face an ethical delimma had I known Bush would have sought legislation like the Patriot Act prior to his election. However, I STILL believe that Kerry would have sought even more draconian measures against our freedoms. He would have simply spun it differently.

We voted for what we thought was the best of the two. As sad as it is to say this, we probably DID.


I do see a serious threat to the Republican pary in the future. Currently, our leadership has not been aligned with what I believe is the core of the party. It has proven unable to alter its platforms to reflect the values of those who support it even while alienating those that have been loyal and strong supporters for decades.

Political parties are nothing more than products for sell. They sit down and package a set of values and positions. They HOPE that the mix they include in their package are of the type that will garner enough votes to win. Both of the major parties participate in this activity. As the Republicans play around with their mix, they will gain and lose supporters--but the will lose at a slower rate than they will gain. People are often reluctant to abandon a party they have supported for years-- its kind of like abandoning your favorite sports team or college. Oh, they WILL abandon a party that does not represent them, but it will take time for them to face the reality that the party has abandoned them.

In the case of the Republicans, they are playing with the mix. At the moment, the effects haven't fully materialized. However, as time passes, many alientated supporters WILL finally leave. More than not, they will pass to a third party as opposed to moving to the Democrates.

This is how parties die.

In my opinion, the real winner of the Republican realignments will be the Liberatarians. I speak to SO many people that always tell me "I vote Republican, but my beliefs are more Libertarian." I know this to be true-- I am one of those people.

The Libertarians are really an interesting policial party. They are a party whose ideological membership is largely inside of the republican party. The Libertarians seem to be unable to make any strong gains politically, and yet they could actually be a major player in the political arena if all the shared thier views ACTUALLY VOTED FOR THEM.

In my belief that the republicans benefit more from Liberatarian-minded persons voting outside that party, I believe that the republicans would be most harmed by losing Liberatarian-minded voters. This would surely cost them elections across the US.

That would be all it takes to kill that party. They would go the way of the Wigs. Mind you, I am not hoping for, or advocating the "killing" of the Republican party. I am merely pointing out that they probably do not realize just how critical the near future is for them. Besides, if they did find themselves gutted of Liberatarian-minded voters, they would have only themselves to blame.

And I say all this as a registered Republican.


John

GRB
April 22, 2007, 12:45 AM
I find it funny that people will be patriotic toward bush yet Certainly you must mean people will remain loyal to President Bush as opposed to patriotic. Patritotism is not expressed toward an individual but toward a country and all of its citizens.

All the best,
Glenn B

Geister
April 22, 2007, 12:52 AM
"What is a REAL conservative?"

Not Bush, that's for sure. Only real conservative president that comes to mind is Reagan.

I always found it amusing that Texas A&M on average is devoutly conservative yet for the most part they devoutly support Bush. I don't see how they compliment each other. No offense directed towards you, MechAg.

I hope people start realizing that Republican does not always mean conservative. Sometimes Republican equals Democrat.

I don't have any problems with people having voted Bush but I do find it ridiculous when people think he's in the same spectrum as Reagan.

Titan6
April 22, 2007, 07:57 AM
JWarren- Your post 24 totally nailed it for me. In my mind the Republican Party died on 911. That was when the big shift either began in earnest or was finnally revealed towards facist police state big government.

For years bad fiscal policy, big government policy had kept me skitish of repubs but; they had always tried to stand for individual freedom over collective rights. This is no longer true. Now we are supposed to worship the state and allow it to control every aspect of our lives in the name of safety....

Judge them not by their words but by their actions. When you do that the actions are not really something I can forgive. This coming from a man who has never once voted for anyone other than a repub.

Chui
April 22, 2007, 08:32 AM
Initially quoted by Chui:"The ONLY reason Paul "doesn't stand a chance" of winning is because of simple-minded apathy... We sit on our collective asses and allow evil to function "because that's the way the system works." The Founders are rolling in their graves and I'm sure God is losing his patience...

There is always a price to be paid (usually the butcher) for apathy, self-imposed ignorance and evil. To know and not act responsibly or deny responsibility is evil.

We have NO excuses."

Quoted by JWarren: "I want to point out that for the last couple elections we HAD NO CHOICES. I am willing to wax idealist as easily as the next guy, but I am also pragmatic."

No, sir. Had we been an educated populace Ross Perot could have been president. We would not be facing losing manufacturing and engineering jobs;a non-existent border and a decaying currency. However, Ross Perot was for financially supporting Russia and for gun control.

"Had more persons abandoned the traditional 2 party system and opted for an independent runner, there is a far greater chance in my opinion that the Republicans would have suffered more than the Democrats. In that case, we would have had Gore the first time around and Kerry the next."

No, sir. Had we a truly learned populace Ron Paul could have been president now... When the people are ready the candidates will appear - not the other way around. WE DO IT - NOT THE CANDIDATE(S)! BTW, what is so darned sancrosanct with a "two-party" system? Thomas Jefferson warned us about "party systems"...

"Bush isn't my favorite President by any stretch of the imagination, and he is surely not a true conservative in his fiscal or governmental policies. However, he is a better friend to us than either Gore or Kerry would have been."

If by your own admission that he does not represent Republican [form of gov't ideals] how in God's name could you cast your vote for him? You voted for Evil to lead your nation so you cannot but be to blame for this mess and you cannot feign surprise at any of the Evil perpetrated on this nation.

"In each election, people probably voted AGAINST Gore and/or Kerry more than they voted FOR Bush. I know I did."

And you're okay with this?? Do you suppose we'll ever return to our Constitution and Bill of Rights with this lame approach? Will we ever get Godly laws with such propagation of Evil? I think not. :scrutiny:

YOU MUST AGREE HERE; BY ADMITTEDLY CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS YOUR PATH IS STILL EVIL. This, sir, is NOT what was destined for this nation!! :fire:

WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE DESTROYED THIS NATION BY THINKING JUST THE WAY OUR GOV'T AGENTS HAVE "PROGRAMMMED" OR CONDITIONED US TO THINK - WHICH IS REFLECTED IN YOUR RESPONSE. BUT DON'T THINK I'M PICKING ON YOU, JWARREN, AS MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THINK IN A SIMILAR MANNER. WE WILL LOSE THIS NATION IF WE CONTIUE TO DO AS WE HAVE. DO YOU NOT THINK IT'S TIME FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE??? I'M SURE YOU DO. NOW WHAT ARE WE TO DO WITH THAT DESIRE???

Titan6
April 22, 2007, 09:16 AM
Chui- While I appreciate your rhetoric it is a little over the top. This country was founded on compromises of evils such as; slavery and stealing the land a piece at a time from it's rightful owners.

This country has always been destined to repeat that over and over again as our leaders are democraticly elected to lead this republic.

Lew
April 22, 2007, 09:21 AM
A "real conservative" is someone in favor of low taxes and ergo a small Federal budget.

someone asked...

dzimmerm
April 22, 2007, 09:26 AM
It is my opinion that political programing begins with a childs first training in sports.

Why sports do you ask?

Well, the sports that schools popularize are competitive team sports. Us against them. Even if the them is just a part of the group all the kids belong to.

We are taught to be divided. We are taught to think as a team. We are taught that the team winning is worth individual sacrifice.

The we grew up. Somewhere along the line we were taught that our political system is a representative republic. How much poly sci did we get compared to team sports training? Did government class have pep rallies? Did American History allow kids out of class to celebrate the bill of rights?

We have been brainwashed. Lock stock and what is left of our barrells.

We are a representative republic. The only truely effective way to get peacefull political change is by telling your representatives how you feel about things. Voting is one of those important ways of speaking to the representatives. Letter writing and peacefull protests also are great, but it is the vote that elected officials pay the most attention to.

By brainwashing us into believing we are winning by supporting a team, (republican or democrat), the politicians have made their job easier. They no longer have to pay as much attention to us since we are all supposed to sacrifice for the team.

Well, we are not a team. We need to get out of elementary and high school, mentally speaking, and realize that by giving the representatives garbage information we are getting garbage policies.

So what if the democrats win. If enough of us voted for a third party that truely supports our views then those democrats will realize that they are on an island that is sinking. The republicans might even wake up and smell the salt water rising as well.

We need to behave as rational beings. One sign of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I think that some in the population are waking up to the fact that both the democrats and republicans need a swift kick in the ballot box.

I am all for a 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever number of party system because I want government divided. I want it making less laws. Agreement on legislation should not be based on belonging to the same club. Agreement should be based on rational thought.

Yes, I voted libertarian for president last time. That is because libertarians support my world view. However, I encourage you to vote as you truely believe. Vote constituion party, green party, whatever party fits your views. When you vote how you truely believe then you are giving good data, not garbage data, to whoever does get elected.

If you continue to vote for someone who you consider less evil, then do not ask a diety to help you when you are fully capable of helping yourself, but chose not to.

dzimmerm

JWarren
April 22, 2007, 09:59 AM
Chui,

BUT DON'T THINK I'M PICKING ON YOU, JWARREN

Not at all. I admire your passion and conviction over this subject, and share many of your views. I'll try to address a few of your comments in that light.


Had we been an educated populace Ross Perot could have been president. We would not be facing losing manufacturing and engineering jobs;a non-existent border and a decaying currency. However, Ross Perot was for financially supporting Russia and for gun control.

Perot said a lot of things that I liked, and a lot I didn't. He was his own brand of candidate that had to be evaluated seperately. As you have said, he WAS for gun control, which is a deal-killer for me suggesting that he would not have been an option for me on his own merit.

While I understand what you are getting at, Perot's run for the oval office was in 1992 where many consider him an instrumental figure in splitting the Republican vote and allowing Bill Clinton to defeat George Bush, Sr. We see how that worked out. In 1996, and 2000, people remembered that, and further dissuaded people from veering from the primary political parties.


Had we a truly learned populace Ron Paul could have been president now... When the people are ready the candidates will appear - not the other way around. WE DO IT - NOT THE CANDIDATE(S)! BTW, what is so darned sancrosanct with a "two-party" system? Thomas Jefferson warned us about "party systems"...

Run-of-the-mill politics don't run as simply as you stated here. Ron Paul would most likely be a very good president. The reality is, however, that he HAS NOT gotten his message to the people. He has not raised the money it SADLY takes to make a run at the oval office. Offhand, I would say that Paul would be a great statesman, and is a very poor politician. He has done little that routinely gets his name in the news or his face on TV. He has done little to gain free exposure. It takes that to get very far in politics.


As to the two party system, there is nothing sancrosanct about it. It is just the functional reality we operate under. I frankly don't like it, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing that it exists for all practical purposes at the moment.

If by your own admission that he does not represent Republican [form of gov't ideals] how in God's name could you cast your vote for him? You voted for Evil to lead your nation so you cannot but be to blame for this mess and you cannot feign surprise at any of the Evil perpetrated on this nation.

Whoa here...let's talk about this. I don't actually believe Bush is an EVIL person. I do, however, think he is an ill-advised person and one that has failed to see or understand the dangerous precidents he has set.

I, like others, believed that Bush would turn our to be a "decent" President-- one that may not be stellar, but in no way would be a threat to us. We were CONVINCED that Gore and/or Kerry would be a terrible president and WOULD be a threat to us. Recognizing the example of Perot's split of the Republican vote in 1992, people felt they HAD to hold the party line to provide a good defense against Gore and/or Kerry. Our reward would be the defeat of Gore/Kerry and having a benign, if unspectacular president.

Considering the narrow margins of both of those elections, it is proved that our assessment was correct in needing to hold a pary line to defeat Gore/Kerry. No one could have predicted what could have come post-9/11.


And you're okay with this?? Do you suppose we'll ever return to our Constitution and Bill of Rights with this lame approach? Will we ever get Godly laws with such propagation of Evil? I think not.


Hardly "OK" with it. But I also have so few illusions that I do see how things are working. The reality is, currently, that voting third party gives more advantages to the person you are VOTING against than it benefits the third party candidate that you vote FOR. The reality is that for MANY past elections, the candidates have been so diametrically polarized that it FORCES one to vote AGAINST one candidate as strongly -- or more strongly-- than for another. I don't make up the game, but only a fool would fail to recognize what is going on.

I agree with your assessement that we won't return to the Bill of Rights or Constitution from this approach. That would not happen without a radical solution, in my opinion. I'll not elaborate on that point on a public forum lest the "black helicopters" decide to pay a visit.


YOU MUST AGREE HERE; BY ADMITTEDLY CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS YOUR PATH IS STILL EVIL. This, sir, is NOT what was destined for this nation!!

I believe we will disagree on this point on a couple levels. First, as I have pointed out, people felt that they were voting FOR a benign if not spectacular canditate and voting AGAINST a REAL threat. Most of us do not have the gift of 20/20 Foresight that you seem to possess.

Second, what makes the US more "destined" than any other "great" country? Many nations have grown powerful, then grown complacent, and then died. It is the nature of nations, it seems. I don't know where the US will head, or how long it will take, but I do believe that we are already seeing evidence of the turning point towards decay that has been so frequently witnessed in other great nations and empires.


WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE DESTROYED THIS NATION BY THINKING JUST THE WAY OUR GOV'T AGENTS HAVE "PROGRAMMMED" OR CONDITIONED US TO THINK - WHICH IS REFLECTED IN YOUR RESPONSE.

Some are "programmed," but the blame lies in media more than it lies with the Government "agents." Like us, our opponents have a "vision" of America that doesn't include our ideologies. Creeping incrementalism has sprung to life from this vision. Small compromises has piled upon one another to create a behemoth.


WE WILL LOSE THIS NATION IF WE CONTIUE TO DO AS WE HAVE. DO YOU NOT THINK IT'S TIME FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGE??? I'M SURE YOU DO. NOW WHAT ARE WE TO DO WITH THAT DESIRE???

I do feel that it is time for constructive change. I am not certian, however, that this change will occur through the political arena. There is a lack of equal representation of views through the media, and voices of dissatisfaction with the status-quo are limited. Too much of our nation are comfortable with their life, value security over freedom, and somehow believe the USA is insulated from the chaos of the rest of the world. In a desire to protect thier career path, the house in the suburbs, and the volvo, they are willing to sell essentially everything our forefathers bled and died for.

These are the "values" that are constantly given a platform in the public area. These are the "values" I continually hear from the general population. If this is the American ideal, I'd say we've already lost the nation. We are just getting good seats for round two.


John

Chui
April 22, 2007, 07:19 PM
Thanks for taking the time to understand and an even greater thanks for bothering to respond!

In my opinion it's not Ron Paul's "fault" for not gathering media attention since the media is in the hands of a few elites. It will truly be up to us to spread the good word about our last Statesman. When Ron speaks in Congress he's usually speaking to a camera crew. The Republican members of Congress do not attend. So you cannot blame him.

I voted for Perot and would vote for him again. He was against NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, WTO. We'd have high tech jobs remaining in the US as opposed to manufacturing and engineering jobs being outsourced. He was for no more gun control than was Clinton and recall that George was not going to support our 2A rights if he didn't feel it was necessary to gain the necesary support his war and reelection. Brilliant move on his campaign manager's part. What did we get in return? More debt, weaker dollar, no Posse Commitatus, no habeus corpus, Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Act, no 4th Amendment and no respect for the 10th Amendment, no human rights and violation of Geneva and International Law. Essentially, the foundations of a fascist dictatorship. The democrats growled (sometimes) but acquiesced. They, too, are highly complicit. So when the Dems won Congress - something a dead oppossum could have predicted - "we" were surprised. Well, what have "Nancy and the Bolsheviks" done? Maintain the status quo. They will put that legislation that the GOP put into place and I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that many here will moan and whine when they see it for themselves but they won't have much to stand on as they did not complain much when "their guy" put it into place. The Dem supporters do the same thing so they, too, are in no position to bitch as they cheered Bill...

If we fail it will be Evil in power again. By Evil I mean the actions of the admin/president. Whether he IS evil does not matter; the end result is in defiance of he Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I also harbor a sense that this nation is forgone. A forum like the highroad *should* have droves of members "with their heads in the game" and more up to speed yet I find the majority here little different than the public-at-large except for a very narrow interest in one Amendment. This just won't do.

If we don't CHANGE the status quo we're done. It's that simple. Voting for one party constituent fostered upon us or the other has led us to the doors of Hell. I (and precious few others) KNOW that the status quo will end in economic disaster, enslavement and mushroom clouds; something I sure as Hades don't need to experience.

Titan6
April 22, 2007, 10:39 PM
Gosh, I went outside earlier today and there were no mushroom clouds. There has been a certain element saying the clouds are coming and have been on the way any minute now since 1950.

Since this is a gun forum and all most people are; you know kind of interested in that topic. Don't suffer under the mistaken assumption that because someone understands the need for the second ammendment they share a certain world viewpoint on everything.

There are Pink Pistols and ultra neocons here and everything in between. Not everyone thinks the sky is falling either. Sure this country took a huge step in the wrong direction with the Patriot Act and as a defender of the constitution few people are more pissed off about it than me; but I don't see the world ending any time soon either. But I refuse to vote for anyone who supports the Patriot Act regardless of their view on gun control, and I let them know that also.

You work towards a better tomorrow. You get involved, you take action. You invest time, money, resources...

BTW there still are hightech and manufacturing jobs in this country. I know because I own stock (not much I admit) in a steel mill, a tire manufacturer, A software company, a mining company and others all US HQ'd companies, with tens of thousands of US employees making things for us right here in the USA. And all of them have been doing great lately. As a stockholder when it comes time to vote for management and other issues, I vote to stay American. There are not as many of these type jobs as their used to be but that is more due to the horrid fiscal policy of the federal government these last 27 years than anything. There will be a correction, it will be traumatic, we will survive and move on.

It easy to be negative. Doing the right thing is hard.

Chui
April 22, 2007, 11:29 PM
Get real, Titan6. The world as you (and I) once knew has moved on... The manufacturing base of this country has been gutted by NAFTA, et als. The engineering jobs are now being outsourced and by H1B Visas (i.e., foreign workers who'll work for 2/3rds an American engineer/scientist). You may own stock; fine. Yes, you better believe there "are not as many of these type jobs as there used to be." Our El Presidente has just recently signed a Free Trade Agreement with North Korea. Wonderful...

I'm also not assuming anything. Things are what they are. You may not perceive it as I; you may not wish to perceive it as so. Only you know what and why you believe what you do. The same applies to me and everyone who walks the planet.

No one mentioned the "end of the world"... but our PNAC monsters and their ilk who dictate/decide our foreign policy have a few surprises for "the herd-at-large".

You may wish to closely follow our "missile defense" declarations, their implications in Europe and Russia and how that may relate to our foreign policy in the greater Caucasus and Middle East. You may also wish to follow closely the Russian response(s) and how that may affect our declared goals. in this context I believe my reference to mushroom clouds is quite correct.

Again, we received in the last four (4) four year terms (2 Clinton and 2 Bush):

More debt, weaker dollar, no Posse Commitatus, no habeus corpus, Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Act, weakened 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th and 10th Amendments, bad precedent on human rights and violation of Geneva and International Law, porous borders and an overtaxed military; essentially, the foundations of a fascist dictatorship.

There's little debating the facts as they unfortunately happened while the bulk of the nation is playing partisan politics, you know, "business as usual".

The more I think about this the more I think I'm in late 4th century Rome...

Autolycus
April 23, 2007, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Chui:
Get real, Titan6. The world as you (and I) once knew has moved on... The manufacturing base of this country has been gutted by NAFTA, et als. The engineering jobs are now being outsourced and by H1B Visas (i.e., foreign workers who'll work for 2/3rds an American engineer/scientist). You may own stock; fine. Yes, you better believe there "are not as many of these type jobs as there used to be." Our El Presidente has just recently signed a Free Trade Agreement with North Korea. Wonderful...


Got any links to this North Korea Free trade agreement?

Hannibal61577
April 23, 2007, 12:25 AM
Hey Guys, great site - I'm brand new as you can see. Thought I might be the only conservative who didn't agree 100% with the Republican party. I know guys who will blindly follow or believe anything that GB or any other Republican says and scoff at any Democrat, no matter what they say. I wish these guys would learn to think for themselves. Too many Americans blindly vote, not taking the time to learn what a candidate stands for. They will vote for the Democratic candidate because that's who they always vote for. Same thing with Republicans. I believe that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, not on the extremes.

There were some posts regarding voting for the lesser of two evils. Truer words were never spoken. The first time around, it was easy to vote for Bush. 4 years later - I didn't want to vote at all - there wasn't a decent candidate at all. And until Americans quit blindly voting, you can forget about electing a third party candidate - you're throwing your vote away.

It was stated in one of the posts that it was evil to choose the lesser of two evils. Perhaps it is; however, when will you ever find a candidate whose ideals are 100% in line with your own? If you want that, you better write your name on the ballot and vote for yourself. Serious change is needed, but it's still the best that we've got.

Titan6
April 23, 2007, 07:07 AM
I too would like to know more about this free trade agreement with PRK and also this Missile Defense intiative that will result in a response of Russia and/ or Europe nuking us but not the end of the world. It is shame there are no more engineering jobs left for Americans anymore. There are many people on THR who are now suddenly out of a job this morning.

While not about guns at all these are way too important not to post. Standing by for links....

Autolycus
April 23, 2007, 09:31 AM
Hannibal65177: That is why I vote Libertarian. Vote for the party that has your best interests at heart.

thirty-thirty
April 23, 2007, 09:56 AM
We can forget about getting this country out of the mess we're in by voting. If voting made a difference it would be illegal.
As Josef Stalin once noted "He who votes decides nothing and he who counts the votes decides everything."

I define how conservative someone is by how close their values match those of the Founding Fathers. We have had no conservatives in the White House since Reagan and he was far from perfect.

I have long disliked liberals for their habit of spending astronomical sums of money that wasn't theirs and for trampling the Constitution with glee. By those standards, GWB is the worst crooked liberal since LBJ.

JWarren
April 23, 2007, 11:51 AM
Good assessment, Thirty-thirty.

Think you nailed it.


John

Chui
April 23, 2007, 12:37 PM
Oops. Error. That should read SOUTH Korea.

Titan6
April 23, 2007, 01:37 PM
.30-30 - JWarren

If voting does not matter why are all the anti-gun dems all terrified of the NRA? Why is it that most of the right wing is afraid of the pro-choice crowd? I know many people who are just as single minded when it comes to abortion as people who are single minded about gun rights. Give people an important issue (to them) with a yes/ no answer and they will vote that issue. Give them a complicated choice such as balancing the budget versus tax increases or effective foreign policy and they flounder.

thirty-thirty
April 23, 2007, 02:33 PM
If voting does not matter why are all the anti-gun dems all terrified of the NRA? First of all the democrat politicians believe in the system enough that most of them think the election process is at least 90% legitimate. Second, I really don't think they're terrified of the NRA. Although many democrat voters are pro-gun, very few are members of the neocon-promoting NRA.

coltrane679
April 23, 2007, 04:28 PM
What kind of idiot is "patriotic" towards George Bush--or any other human being? One is patriotic towards their nation, not some friggin' "leader" (a term that may not even apply to Bush in literal terms). If you are looking for some place "patriotic" towards their leader, try North Korea.

JWarren
April 23, 2007, 04:33 PM
Oh, I am not saying voting doesn't mean anything in any way. I am saying that after the vote, there is a VERY small chance any of the harm to our Constitution will be corrected. In one election cycle, the odds that a significant portion of our candidates will be of such a mindset is dismal, and the fight they would face would be enormous.

Often campaign rhetoric is left on the electon booth's floor. A prime example of this is the Freshman class of 1994 and the "Contract with America."


John

Titan6
April 23, 2007, 04:42 PM
Oh, I am not saying voting doesn't mean anything in any way. I am saying that after the vote, there is a VERY small chance any of the harm to our Constitution will be corrected. In one election cycle, the odds that a significant portion of our candidates will be of such a mindset is dismal, and the fight they would face would be enormous.

Often campaign rhetoric is left on the electon booth's floor. A prime example of this is the Freshman class of 1994 and the "Contract with America."

I do not completely disagree. However compared to say 1830 when about 1/3 of the citizens of this country had zero rights we are way ahead with the constitution today. We just happen to heading in the wrong direction with civil rights today, but that will likely change.

Also nearly every portion of the Contract with America got passed in one form or another but I say too much was compromised on. We are a nation of compromisers if nothing else.

thirty-thirty
April 23, 2007, 04:50 PM
compared to say 1830 when about 1/3 of the citizens of this country had zero rights we are way ahead with the constitution todayAre you serious? Colonists had way more freedom before the Revolution than we have today. There were hardly any taxes practically no regulations, rarely any lawsuits, no "political correctness", no gun control (until the days before the revolution), few government agencies micromanaging our lives and few laws on the books.

Titan6
April 23, 2007, 05:08 PM
Are you serious? Colonists had way more freedom before the Revolution than we have today. There were hardly any taxes practically no regulations, rarely any lawsuits, no "political correctness", no gun control (until the days before the revolution), few government agencies micromanaging our lives and few laws on the books.

Yep I am serious. Looking over at my timeline of American History I noticed that the colonial period was already over by 1830 and most of the original colonists were already dead. I also noticed that slavery was in full swing and the original owners of the land were being chased off it as fast as people could hitch their wagons and "claim" the "empty" land that was owned by "no one". Millions of people living as slaves and a badly persecuted race of poor people with no rights at all does not seem like a free society to me.

thirty-thirty
April 23, 2007, 05:23 PM
I also noticed that slavery was in full swing and the original owners of the land were being chased off it as fast as people could hitch their wagons and "claim" the "empty" land that was owned by "no one". Slaves were not citizens. Land stealing was much less prevalent than you think. I would rather live with the freedoms they had back then than the tyranny of massive, invasive, micromanaging government with millions of laws and hundreds of agencies directing and monitoring our every step as
we have today (unless I was a slave of course).
Every Fourth of July I laugh at all the drunken celebration of our non-freedom. Get drunk enough and you'll think you're free.

Correia
April 23, 2007, 05:35 PM
The ONLY reason Paul "doesn't stand a chance" of winning is because of simple-minded apathy

and because 99.99% of the US population outside of gunboards has never heard of him,

and because nobody in the Republican party infrastructure supports him,

and because not a single senator or congressman will back him,

and because not a single governor of any state will back him,

and because my local Girl Scout troop raised more money selling cookies than his campaign has generated,

and because he has zero presence in any sort of media except in a teeny-tiny portion of the internet,

and because he can't seem to manage to get any face time, in any medium whatsoever, so that some of that 99.99% of the voting public might learn who he is,

So, I wouldn't say apathy is the ONLY reason he won't win...


Look, dude, I like Ron Paul. I respect you for your convictions. I've spent a pretty decent portion of my life slamming my head into various walls fighting politicians, so I understand.

But no matter how hard we wish, no matter how hard we hope, Ron Paul isn't going to win the nomination. If you honestly want him to win the election, you better come up with a whole bunch of money, or find some other way to teach another 30,000,000 Americans who the hell he is, because otherwise, yelling at other random people on the internet ain't gonna get your guy elected.

pcosmar
April 23, 2007, 09:02 PM
I believe he has a chance, though an up hill fight. And I do not believe all your points are correct.
GOP Longshot Paul Brings Lean Budgeting to Campaign Fundraising
By Greg Giroux | 3:15 PM; Apr. 20, 2007 | Email This Article

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul was the 1988 presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, which frowns upon bureaucracy and big spending.

So maybe it makes sense that Paul is running a streamlined, low-budget operation for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination — a longshot campaign that is motivated by his opposition to the Iraq war and other congressional and executive actions he says are not expressly authorized by the Constitution.

Paul's first-quarter campaign filing to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) showed that he reported raising $640,000 in the first three months of this year for his presidential bid. His receipts ran well behind most other candidates in the crowded Republican field, but that was not unexpected.

Though his overall record is quite conservative, a Republican as iconoclastic as Paul is not going to win much financial support from establishment GOP figures or political committees, and there really are no marquee names on Paul's list of first-quarter contributors.

But he did receive political contributions from dozens of retirees all over the country. And according to the Campaign Finance Institute, 39 percent of Paul's contributions from individuals came in increments lower than $200.

The following profile of Paul's first-quarter report is the latest in a CQPolitics.com series that analyzes the contributions and spending of all presidential candidates. The Democratic candidates were profiled on Monday and Tuesday.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul

• Receipts, Jan. 1 to March 31: $640,000

• Receipts to date: $640,000

• Expenditures, Jan. 1 to March 31: $115,000

• Expenditures to date: $115,000

• Cash-on-hand, March 31: $525,000

• Debts, March 31: $0

Political action committees (PACs)

Paul did receive a $500 contribution from the campaign committee of Virginia Republican Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. Paul also got a $1,000 contribution from the campaign committee of Bob Smither, who was the 2006 Libertarian Party candidate in Texas' 22nd District: That seat, formerly held by resigned Republican Rep. Tom DeLay (1985-2006), was won in last November's general election by Democrat Nick Lampson.

Notable expenses

Paul's streamlined operation reported $22,800 in salary expenses to three individuals in the first quarter. It also spent $12,600 on printing costs.

Far too many Republicans in recent times have claimed to be fiscally responsible in principle, only to then vote for big spending programs that will leave our grandchildren bankrupt. They claim to believe in the Constitution's limits on government's power, but their actions say something else entirely.

That is why your decision to formally explore running for the Presidency is so important.

Sadly, not many in public life fully understand the Constitution which they have taken oaths to defend, nor do they fully grasp the principles of liberty upon which it is grounded.

That is why I appreciate the fact that you are willing to consider entering the competition of ideas that is a Presidential race.

As Congress's premier defender of the Constitution, you would have the platform necessary to espouse the ideals that are vital to turning America around - and you would be in a position to hold other candidates accountable for talking one way to their supporters at home, and then voting another way in public office.

I look forward to the prospect of you running, and having the platform to raise the issues that too many candidates would prefer to ignore.

Congressman Walter B. Jones
R-North Carolina
Ron Paul is one of the most principled and courageous men I have ever known. He believes in our Constitution and votes that way in Congress, even when he sometimes has to stand almost alone. I have the greatest respect and admiration for Ron Paul, and I believe this nation would be a much better place if we had more people like him in public office throughout our land.

Congressman John Duncan
R-Tennessee

The Ronald Reagan Library announced that Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson are all confirmed to attend the Library’s debate on May 3rd. The debate will take place at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, and will air live on MSNBC from 8:00 to 9:30 pm

Blackfork
April 23, 2007, 10:01 PM
Ron Paul could have been at the founders Constitutional Convention...and fit in. Bush was Governor and is President because he has always had the advantage of being the lesser of two evils.

Bush has grown the government in size and power. He ruined the Republican Party as a home to conservatives and conservative thought. We will be a long time recovering from the evil he has done.

Bush didn't make us any freer. He forged the chains of slavery stronger.

Chui
April 24, 2007, 12:06 AM
What you SHOULD have written:

"If WE honestly want him to win the election, WE had better come up with a some way to teach another 30,000,000 Americans who the hell he is, because otherwise, yelling at other random people on the internet ain't gonna get OUR guy elected."

It's OUR damned nation; we don't need the GOP or governor or mayor to openly back him. It's OUR damned nation is it not? Then why isn't it OUR responsibility to educate others??? I can partially answer this one. Because most people don't wish to think; don't wish to work at anything that will disrupt the NBA, NFL, NHL, NCAA championship series/bowl games. They surmise, "it's always been done that way therefore it's 'the right way'" or "I cannot due anything (for various BS reasons). Surely, it will be difficult, but I find the task invigorating.

The sad thing is my ancestors were chattel property and sub-human pest to be genocided and Mainstream American doesn't seem to give a damn... Isn't it ironic?

History will record that those who had the most to lose did the least.

Autolycus
April 24, 2007, 12:32 AM
Chui: I see you meant to say South Korea instead of North Korea. Got any links to this.

And if he did sign the agreement what is wrong with signing an agreement with our allies to relieve taxes on their companies? Its just capitalism so what is wrong with it?

Chui
April 24, 2007, 04:01 AM
Geesh, Tecumseh. Offer short-term assistance to multi-nationals at the expense of WE THE PEOPLE. You honestly have no issues with this?? Weren't tariffs supposed to pay for our Federal Gov't operating expenses? Didn't you just forfeit a large chunk of your earned assets to the Fed?? Did he ask the manufacturing engineers, production engineers, research & development engineers and their families before doing this? Did he speak with ALL fifty governors?

Also, this nation wasn't founded on capitalism... Yep. That's right. It was founded on a system called THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. Do a google search. You'll be pleasantly surprised - and wonder why you weren't taught this in school.

"Free Trade" is nothing but Globalism/Global Interdependence/Loss of US Sovereignty/UN B.S./NWO-ism and should be wholly dismissed.

Chui
April 24, 2007, 04:17 AM
Thousands Protest U.S., S. Korea FTA
Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:29:06
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=4688&sectionid=3510101

Tens of thousands of Koreans have taken to the streets to protest as the United States and South Korea reach a major free trade agreement that will supposedly boost both countries' exports by billions of dollars and rejuvenate the Korean economy.

The two sides reached an agreement after a marathon final round of talks lasting more than 24 hours.

The trade deal is the biggest for the U.S. since the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 and it's the first with a major Asian economy. It was sealed after 10 months of tough negotiations and just hours before time ran out.

The deal was in doubt till the last minute. The White House late Friday had warned the talks would fail without major progress. Early Saturday, an original deadline was extended by 48 hours and was again extended early Monday.

No details were immediately available of the agreement.

The pact must be submitted to Congress in Washington on Monday if it is to be passed while George Bush still has authority to "fast-track" trade legislation through the Democrat-controlled legislature.

Without his authority to compel a yes-or-no vote without amendments, analysts said the process could drag on for years.

The deal gives South Korea a major boost in the U.S. market over Asian rivals such as Japan, Taiwan and China. The nation rose from post-war poverty to prosperity by protecting key industries, but now faces growing Chinese competition.

South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun has ignored pressure from farmers and other workers who fear for their jobs, as well as activists. Tens of thousands have taken to the streets in large protests since negotiations began.

On Sunday a 56-year-old man set himself alight outside the venue. He was conscious but in critical condition in hospital.

The agreement must also be ratified by Seoul's National Assembly.

Bush also faces a political battle.

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other senior Democrats, in a letter Wednesday to Trade Representative Susan Schwab, complained of "Korea's longstanding iron curtain" excluding US manufactures.

Seoul sold some 800,000 vehicles worth 10.8 billion dollars in the U.S. last year, while U.S. firms exported only some 4,000 vehicles the other way.

Agriculture had been a key obstacle. South Korea insisted rice be excluded from any deal and resisted pressure for quick tariff cuts on other sensitive food items.

The U.S. wanted Korea to open its markets to U.S. beef, both by cutting tariffs and scrapping other barriers.

Before a 2003 import ban imposed over fears of mad cow disease, South Korea was the third largest market for U.S. beef with annual purchases worth 850 million dollars.

Seoul last year agreed to accept U.S. boneless beef but it then rejected three shipments after discovering tiny bone fragments.

Art Eatman
April 24, 2007, 09:52 AM
This has wandered way off the Path of Redemption...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "I find it funny that people will be patriotic toward President Bush yet..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!