Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > president candidates

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-16-2011, 07:45 PM   #21
FAA licensed bugsmasher
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ScottA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Davenport,IA
Posts: 6,679
Liked 2060 Times on 1117 Posts
Likes Given: 744

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiberius10721 View Post
Ask yourselves people why are Shawn hannity ,mark levin,rush limbaugh and fox news attacking this candidate the way they are. I've been paying attention to pollitics for twenty plus years and have never seen a GOP candidate attacked and ignored by his own party this way. This man scares the he'll out of the good ole boys because he is serious about the spending cuts.
Hogwash! It's his foreign policy and the decriminalization of illicit drugs that scares the heck out of people.
__________________

Scott

Quote:
If you're not representing Jesus in a way that makes people want to hang out with you, you're doing it wrong.
Quote:
Those who refuse to participate in politics shall be governed by their inferiors. -Plato
Regent Holdings What you need to know about silver, gold, and the economy.

Join the NRA
ScottA is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 10:18 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 484
Liked 41 Times on 29 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottA View Post
Hogwash! It's his foreign policy and the decriminalization of illicit drugs that scares the heck out of people.
your right legalized drugs do scare the heck out of people. The drug dealing people because it will eliminate their profits and law enforcement such as dea agents because they will have to go out and get real jobs like the rest of us.
Now lets address his foreign policy. Basically he wants us to mind our own business and take care of ourselves. If you go back in history to the Carter years there are many examples of the United States making a mess of things in the Middle East. Let us secure our borders first then worry about what the rest of the world is doing.
__________________
tiberius10721 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 12:26 AM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 700
Liked 248 Times on 142 Posts
Likes Given: 163

Default

I truly disdain that Ron Paul may believe we were the reason we were attacked on September 11 2001. We hear what the news people want us to hear. If he truly believes we provoked those attacks then I hold him accountable for that and it is a hideous mark against him, or any other American for that matter. Those attacks took root before Bush came to office. Carter coddled the thugs and so did Clinton. Does the USS Cole job any memories?

With that being said I think it's wise for our nation to not engage in every conflict that starts. If we truly belong then lets go but lets go full bore with the intentions of letting our great fighting forces win a quick and decisive victory over whatever foe it is. A quick end is a must! We are capable of that if we take the gloves off and it means fewer dead American soldiers.

As far as Ron Paul's foriegn policy goes. I think we should remeber what George Washington told America in his fairwell address to the nation. I quote...

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. "

Would this policy alarm modern day America? Read it all yourself if you care to. Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796

I think the establishment Republicans want Romney. If they can't have him then Newt will do nicely. Any of the others they will tear apart. You just let any of them get close to the top the way Ron Paul has and see what happens. As far as Hannity, Levin or Rush. I listen to them on a regular basis and have for years and they have been dead wrong at times. I can remember the day when Rush scoffed at the idea of a one world order or new world order. Now he embraces it. These people cannot be our only source of input. We have to look back into the past of the candidates and see what they've done, not what they tell us they'll do.

__________________
Jim1611 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 03:39 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1101 Times on 676 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottgoldman View Post
Santorum or Bachman are closest to the constitution by far not Paul because of his foreign policy of isolationism.one of things fed is suppose to do provide safety for us sometimes that means striking first.this idea of hiding within our boarders and everyone will like us is ignorant.peace comes through superior firepower-ccw laws prove that-we will have just as many wars under Paul only difference is they will strike first and will be here
Quote:
Isolationism:
A policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, esp. the political affairs of other countries.
Quote:
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.
If your going to criticize, at least know what your talking about. As for the idea of "striking first" for preventive reasons, why don't you go try that with your CWP and tell us all how it works out in 10 years when you get paroled?

CWP= Self Defense
Non-Interventionist = Self Defense
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun


Last edited by BigByrd47119; 12-17-2011 at 03:42 AM.
BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Candidates and the 2nd amendment? Billy9mm Politics, Religion and Controversy 37 12-15-2011 03:24 AM
GOP Candidates Losing Grip on Reality re: Economy JoinOrDieSaidBenFranklin Politics, Religion and Controversy 111 10-20-2011 08:49 PM
Forget Fantasy Candidates Shihan Politics, Religion and Controversy 9 06-06-2011 01:01 AM
Tea Party candidates Yunus Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 09-22-2010 03:37 AM



Newest Threads