[RealGun]

We need a Ron Paul cult subforum::rolleyes:

There are so many RP threads on L&P it's ridiculous. Few of them have any focus or they discuss exactly the same topic as in more than one other thread. There is even one new one based on the hypothetical of Paul actually being President. :scrutiny:

[Biker]

If you find the Ron Paul threads irritating, don't read them. After all, it takes a physical effort on your part to click that mouse.
Yes?

Biker

[orionengnr]

It may be a fantasy, but it's my fantasy...

Getting someone on the ticket who has actually read and understands the Constitution may be "quaint", may be unique, but is actually a basic job qualification. Too bad most (candidates and voters) don't realize it.

Getting him elected is a whole 'nother thing.

But, "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"...

Let's get started. One step at a time.

[RealGun]

One is right on cue trying to intimidate the comment and the other tries to make this yet another Ron Paul thread.

[Biker]

No intimidation intended at all, just a statement of fact. If you didn't want any replies, why start the thread to begin with? In any case, the original question still stands.

Biker

[RealGun]

Red herring. Address the topic.

[Biker]

The topic has been addressed and a fair question was asked. If you choose not to answer it, that's your choice. In any case, I'm sure that Art will not hesitate to take action if and when he figures it's time to do so.

Remember; to click or not to click...*that* is the question.;)

Biker

[BigG]

I think Realgun has a point. Why be hostile to a guy who wants a little organization? RP would be an interesting candidate but most mainstream voters seem to think he's a crackpot.

[Biker]

No hostility here. I'm just a guy who believes in sayin' what you mean and meaning what you say and if someone's feelings get hurt in the process, that's just not my problem.
In any case, like I said before, if there's a problem, Art is not at all shy about dealing with it in an expediant manner.

Biker:)

[HeedJSU]

I'm not an "RP Flunkie" But I sense no threats nor threatning behavior on bikers part. This is the internet. there are alot of things that I have no interest in (naughty pictures including animals, for instance) I find if I don't type those words into google, or click links involving that term, viola! I don't see anything related to that topic. (I'm batting .1000 so far) If you don't like it, ignore it.

Occam's razor comes into play. Entities need not be multiplied unnecessarily.

Just a thought.

Justin

[budney]

most mainstream voters seem to think he's a crackpot.

Probably true. 51% of the voters want foreign invasions, and 49% want welfare. RP has nothing to offer either of them, except personal responsibility.

--Len.

[Vitamin G]

I think the most important thing here, is to take a good look and ask ourselves, "Would Ron Paul create a special subforum?" I'm thinking not. I'm thinking he'd probably lean toward the personal choice of having the personal freedom and liberty of not reading some threads.


:neener:

WWRPD?

[GTSteve03]

If the Ron Paul threads go, then the FRED THOMPSON, Hillary, Obama, etc. threads need to go also.

Hey, if it's only fair...?

[RealGun]

If the Ron Paul threads go, then the FRED THOMPSON, Hillary, Obama, etc. threads need to go also.

Hey, if it's only fair...?

I would vote for that. Why do we need to discuss candidates who have no prayer of getting the gun vote. After some intitial introduction, is it ever any news that they are anti-gun? Those threads are just a stage for vile or useless comments.

[rbernie]

Why do we need to discuss candidates who have no prayer of getting the gun vote.Wow - who let in the Thought Police?

[Biker]

Who are you to decide what's "vile and useless"? Getting a bit pompous and sanctimonious aren't you? Again, I say to you, don't read it if you don't like it.
Confucious say "He who who wear thong should fear The Wedgie".
Butch up, Nancy, and thicken that skin up a bit.

Good God...

Biker

[HeedJSU]

Point, Biker.
Service.

:neener::neener::neener:

I love this. I need some popcorn.

Justin

[deadin]

The "Ignore List" is your friend.

[Phyphor]

I tend to agree with Biker. If a thread topic obviously doesn't interest me, I'm not going to click on it. Saves me the time of downloading a useless thread, and saves THR the bandwidth. It's all too easy to just hit Page Down and look for more interesting threads.

As far as intimidation goes, how does one intimidate someone else in what is largely a text based medium? Especially when the mods would step in and deal with the offender?

[Fingolfin]

Wow and people accuse the dems of being defeatist.

[cbsbyte]

I don't mind the RP threads, but I believe most of them are redundant. After the first five the rest seem to be a rehash of the first few topics. Maybe a moderator should weed through them and trim the heard.

Its amazing how fast people on this site can lose the focus of the threads subject and turn this topic into a pro/bash RP thread. We where discussing the redundant amount of RP threads.

[WayneConrad]

I think L&P degenerating into pure political discussion dilutes the stated purpose of THR and of L&P. From "Forum Rules":

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.

While one can argue whether or not Ron Paul would be, for the protection of our civil liberties, the best candidate, many of the recent Ron Paul threads do not. They are pure politics, with no civil liberties or firearm tie-in whatsoever.

And L&P:

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.

Again, these recent threads do not inform on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights, or do so in ways so peripheral and tenuous that you'd have to be sitting on SCOTUS to make the connection.

[Correia]

Okay, take it back to L&P. Give me a fricking break.