Ron Paul in the debate TONIGHT!

[wooderson]

Whether we should have gotten involved with the shah of Iran doesn't matter now. We've got tens of thousands of very bad people who want to saw our heads off, and that needs to be addressed. A good leader is going to have to address that.

There is some truth to the idea here, but the past does matter. Doomed to repeat and all that.

So let's say that terrorism is a fact of life now and there's no undoing a half-century of disastrous regional policy, right? We've got to combat terrorism where it has the potential to threaten American lives, etc.

Then the question has to be: what the hell are we doing in Iraq? Our adventurism there - and saber-rattling with Iran - was just a repetition of the very policy mistakes that you're saying don't matter as well as a statement of defiance to the idea that terrorism was a grievous threat to the American way of life. Our continued presence there is a continuation of these policy mistakes and only foments more anti-American feelings.

You pay attention to the past in the hopes of changing the future.

 

[GTSteve03]

Sigh. That's American politics in a nutshell. We can joke about lying, pandering campaign speech, but the fact is we'll "never forgive" the politician who fails to serve it up, fresh and hot.

Don't forget, Americans also elect movie stars to governor and president.

Who cares what the issues are that the candidates are representing, I want "my guy" to be the best-looking one and the smoothest talker. I mean, he couldn't possibly be a bad guy, right? Look how nice his haircut is.

 

[wooderson]

I voted for the guy "I'd rather have a beer with."

 

[Deanimator]

Rudy is far from perfect, but he's probably the best candidate for the 2A that actually has a chance of WINNING...anything.

That's simply grotesque.

That's like saying that Ted Bundy is a better date than Jeffrey Dahmer because he's not a cannibal. Dead is dead.

Giuliani is a VIRULENT anti-gunner who has frivilously sued the firearms industry. He is if anything even MORE anti-gun than Clinton, and he's got the record to prove it.

He thinks the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply in certain places. Which other Amendments have regional limitations?

The 1st?
The 4th?
The 5th?
The 13th?

Giuliani is our homegrown Putin.

 

[ravnew]

I live thru Giuliani iron fisted rule in NY and if you knew anything about the gun laws in NY you would know he is no friend of the 2A.

 

[kcmarine]

Paul Is The Man!!!

 

[Geister]

Do you expect the Secretary of State to formulate and execute her own policies, independent of her elected boss?

There's a difference between being a Secretary of State and being just a mouthpiece for the President.

She's lousy.

 

[lamazza]

Rudy came across the best in my eyes, but I am nervous about what he will do in the name of "Security".

Rudy looked and acted like a clown and STILL refused to answer any straight questions. As mayor of NYC he wanted to make NYC a safe haven for illegals, he rid the city of guns he made shady no bid deals with city contractors, etc etc.
WHAT is there to like about the man?

 

[Geister]

Yes, as stated before all AWs and semi-auto pistols. Concerning guns, I would have a lot at stake in this election.

And yet you have no problem having Rudy in the White House or even as a VP. Wow, you contradict yourself pretty well.

o imply that I don't own guns or that beause I don't support a nut-job, that I'm anti-liberty is silly.

I've never implied that; I merely asked if you own any firearms. What I am implying is that you want to own guns but you have no clue as to how to defend your gun rights in the politican arena.

The only difference between voting for Hillary and voting for Rudy is the difference between going towards huge gun control and confiscation at 50 m.p.h. compared to 30 m.p.h. You are still going to get there eventually with either candidate.

But last night showed that he can't even engage in a debate with fellow party members. He's done.

This isn't MTV's 'Yo Mamma.' You don't get points for the snazziest comeback. The fact is that Ron Paul spoke the TRUTH last night. Nothing Rudy says can supercede the truth. Only people complaining about Ron Paul today are the ones that never supported him to begin with. What else is new?

Because I bet I could find a couple million New York Republicans who'd beg to differ.

Your New York "Republicans" would run as or vote for Democrats in Texas.

Fred Thompson IS running. Anybody with any observation skills can see that .... Once Fred officially declares, then this primary race will be over.

He ain't running until he officially declares.

 

[Plink]

Well, Plink, I'm just getting tired of all the Paul bashing on this board. Here we have a candidate that is 100% for our gun rights; not 75%, not 85%, not "let's just enforce the laws on the books", but 100% in support of gun rights.

That's exactly how I'm seeing it. I'm seeing a lot of bashing, but very little in the way of suggesting who would be better suited for the job, and why.

We need a return to constitutionality before we can even begin to fix the ills of this country because it's the erosion of our rights and freedoms that are causing a lot of the ills. It would be like rebooting the country and starting over again. Perhaps if some of the socialist types were able to fathom how our country was meant to be, they'd be less inclined to keep trying to push it towards a socialist nanny state.

Paul is strong on a great many fundamentals that this country needs. Sure he avoided the gay marriage and abortion issues. Those are things that the feds need to stay out of in the first place. When we fall into the "I don't believe in it, therefore YOU can't do it" mindset, we're being EXACTLY like the anti gunners and bliss ninnies. There are a lot of things that I don't believe in, but I support the rights of others to engage in them.

 

[Titan6]

There's a difference between being a Secretary of State and being just a mouthpiece for the President.

She's lousy.

That is pretty open ended. Her and Powell both have had a tough go with all the international issues over the last seven years. I think she has been just fine.

 

[SalTx]

I have switched from wanting Fred Thompson to Ron Paul. I think people have misquoted Paul, but I believe he could have been a better speaker last night. And if you couldn't tell that rudy gu?? is a complete jerk for his "grandstanding" on the 911 crap, well, there's nothing that can be said. What few dollars I got will go towards some Ron Paul bumper stickers and buttons. Got nothing to lose anyways, might as well go for what I really want.

 

[STAGE 2]

There is simply NO meaningful difference for me between Giuliani and Clinton. The latter is an incompetent wouldbe tyrant. The former is a competent wouldbe tyrant. What makes you think I want ANY kind of tyrant?

This is the problem with people who are of the "paul or noone" camp. Guilani is by no means the perfect candidate, but he's a politician at the end of the day.

The gun base is huge and Rudy knows it. He knows that an AWB would never get him reelected. Thats a far cry from Hillary/Obama's base who WANTS to ban guns.

There IS a difference and you guys who are painting them as the same is simply dishonest. Dont get me wrong, I don't want either (please run Fred) but should that be the choice, Rudy is the pick. Saying home may just guarantee a permanent AWB.

 

[Geister]

Her and Powell both have had a tough go with all the international issues over the last seven years.

I'm sure there's still someone out there easily found that could do a better job.

I see a lot of Fred Thompson support, but when is he actually, officially going to be in the running?

There IS a difference and you guys who are painting them as the same is simply dishonest. Dont get me wrong, I don't want either (please run Fred) but should that be the choice, Rudy is the pick. Saying home may just guarantee a permanent AWB.

Oh, excuse me for painting someone who wants a lot of gun control (Rudy) and someone who wants total gun control (Hillary) as the same.

Gun control is illlogical, period.

I'm not a part of the "Paul or no one" camp. I'd probably be perfectly happy voting for Huckabee or Thompson if either of them run on the GOP ticket.

But I'm not going to clean my guns while at the same time suggesting that Rudy is a good choice for gun owners. Paul is 100% for guns; Rudy is not. If you are going to pick Rudy over Paul anyway, might as well sell your guns and send the money to the Brady bunch.

 

[Titan6]

This is the problem with people who are of the "paul or noone" camp. Guilani is by no means the perfect candidate, but he's a politician at the end of the day.

The gun base is huge and Rudy knows it. He knows that an AWB would never get him reelected. Thats a far cry from Hillary/Obama's base who WANTS to ban guns.

There IS a difference and you guys who are painting them as the same is simply dishonest. Dont get me wrong, I don't want either (please run Fred) but should that be the choice, Rudy is the pick. Saying home may just guarantee a permanent AWB.

Really? What about Romney? He said in no uncertain terms last night that he supports the AWB. Is he better than Clinton on guns? Especially since we know he means it since he already signed one....

 

[araiford]

I ask again, what is the fundemental difference between Rudy and Hillary?

 

[Titan6]

I ask again, what is the fundemental difference between Rudy and Hillary?

Rudy wants to get rid of all guns, drive the gun makers out of business and make it impossible for anyone to get a gun. He wants anyone who trys to own a gun to go to prison for a long time. Clinton wants to implement the AWB and get rid of all handguns (at least for now).

 

[givo08]

If you are going to pick Rudy over Paul anyway, might as well sell your guns and send the money to the Brady bunch.

This is irrelevant past the primaries though. If Rudy gets the republican nomination, then not going to the polls to vote will almost guarantee hilary or obama becomes the next president. no one likes voting for the "lesser of the two evils," but you also don't want to be stuck with the "worst of the two evils." and there is a clear "worst" imo.

 

[Meathook]

I ask again, what is the fundemental difference between Rudy and Hillary?

There is none. Rudy is a gun grabber and if he runs I will sell my guns, vote for Hillary, quit my job and go on welfare. If you can't beat them join them.

I don't remember the exact quote but why didn't they jump all over Rudy when he made the statement about running NYC being harder than running the US?

If you think running a city of 9 Million is harder than LEADING a country of 300 Million you are not the guy we need in office.

 

[js]

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul reminds me of Jimmy Carter in disguise... and I have no use for either.


So far, I'm not very thrilled about any republican candidate... I'm holding out for Thompson.

 

[Autolycus]

If Fred Thompson runs I will help campaign for anyone who runs against him. The man is anti freedom.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

I ask again, what is the fundemental difference between Rudy and Hillary?

One is bald and from what I understand occasionally enjoys a cigar the old fashioned way.



Thats pretty much it.




Oh BTW - Go Paul.

 

[js]

If Fred Thompson runs I will help campaign for anyone who runs against him. The man is anti freedom.

anti-freedom...? How so?

 

[High Planes Drifter]

anti-freedom...? How so

Im not sure, but I think he supports the Patriot Act. (?)

 

[Titan6]

Im not sure, but I think he supports the Patriot Act. (?)

Only if you call voting for it when in office and lobbying for it to remain fully intact after he left office support.

But the NEOCONs do not care. They like the Patriot Act. It allows them to root out the traitors to the cause and send them to secret prisons. Be a darn shame when Clinton wins and the NEOCONS become the traitors to the cause. I will really hate to see that.