Posted on 01/25/2008 12:59:01 PM PST by CautiouslyHopeful
Yeppers. Being pro-abortion gun-grabbers really ups one's conservative street cred. As Jimmy Traficant would say, "beam me up". It's getting time for my Friday bowl rip and a Jack on the rocks.
That is your decision to make.
My decision is that I will not support a RINO. I also respect my country.
I will fight to keep it from descending into the socialism that my parents fled from.
Isn’t that the truth!
Absolutely spot on BUMP!
Great comments.
The idea that wars end. But this one is like no other.
This is only the beginning.
If they think the enemy will let them keep their 401Ks and checking accounts, they arn’t facing reality.
We will either be killed or wish we were.
The UN mandate was the pretext.
It was not the reason.
And the Iraq war is just a battle in the great war.
There shouldn't BE a waiting period or ANY federal law concerning guns for that matter.
or prohibiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers
Please point out the section of the Constitution which enumerates the role of the government to prohibit lawsuits.
Unless it involves making it a crime to take a minor across State lines for an abortion or harming a fetus in the commission of a crime.
Ain't the federal government's role, broseph.
There is plenty to bust Paul's chops on. These two issues are not them.
But on the balance? He’s more of a Conservative than anyone left running in our party.
Unless you look at his full voting record as done by OnTheIssues or the American Conservative Union that both have him as moderate at best.
This should be good. Out of Rudy, John, Mitt and Mike, which of these stooges, in your opinion, is "more conservative" than Paul?
“Nice try. The bombing of Fort Sumpter should have gone unanswered because it was completely justified”
1. That’a stupid on its face and speaks for itself. I could go into the question of whether a state should be allowed to secede, but whats the point. If you believe that the Union was wrong to preserve the Union and was thus the “aggressor”, then why are you here, and saluting the Star Stripes?
“There would have been no issue with the sinking of “Allied” shipping if Wilson had not decreed that American citizens have the right to sail unmolested through a war zone on combatant vessels carrying ammunition. Remember the British were sinking or seizing any ship that approached Germany - including American Ships!”
2. Oh ok so if Wilson had not demanded the safety of Americans as a citizen of a neutral country the Germans would not have been “mad” at us? That’s what you call leadership? Is that the job of a commander in chief, to allow US citizens to be torpedoed by German U-Boats? WTF are you talking about? What are you smoking?
“Pearl Harbor was the culmination of four decades of colonial ambitions in China by both the US and Japan. If we had minded our own business with regard to China we would never have ended up in a war with Japan.”
3. Ok so we should have just let them destroy 75% of the US Pacific Fleet and almost 3000 sailors in an effort to “call it even”? WTF?
Tell me exactly how you are different from the average anti-war ANSWER member again?
Voting against poison pill bills and expansions of government power beyond Constitutional limits isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You know this. This list of yours has been parsed before.
It is Constitutional Munchhausen by Proxy. He can't stand with incremental improvements, to him, it must always remain sick as so the attention is always on him.
Ping #151 so I don’t have to repeat myself. :->
BTTT
“Great comments...”
I beginning to think that the common threat among all Paulestinians is LSD and PCP.
The idea that this nutter is sane enough to lead a nation is comical. He’s a walking Stephen Colbert parody.
Just listen to him in the debates. He’s a parody of himself.
I support limited government, the second amendment, and am pro-life but I’d be ashamed to admit that I like him as a candidate to my friends.
A man that nutty should not be in these debates, he should be waking with a bag over his head!
There are plenty of issues in which compromise is an admirable thing. When it comes to basic constitutional issues, though, it's not. That sort of thing leads to crap like NCLB and the Medicare Prescription nonsense. Don't you remember all the Bush lackeys going on about how, "if Bush doesn't compromise, the Dems will come up with an even worse plan". A lot of good that compromise did us.
That is an interesting argument because, as the previous poster pointed out in praise that Paul did propose a bill to do just this with the "We the People Act”... which is it Constitutional or not to prohibit federal lawsuits?
Paultards are afraid of acid and angel dust?
I support limited government, the second amendment, and am pro-life
Than you really ought to 86 Rudy from your list of favorites at this point.
So Correct.
also
According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at http://www.opensecrets.org, Ron Paul’s top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul
Wanting smaller government and delivering smaller government are two different things as Ronaldus Magnus found out. That said, a Paul presidency with a bajillion vetos wouldn’t be the end of the Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.