Conquer Club

back on topic thought ron paul is probalythe best choice for president

i guess one of hte questions id have about ron paul is....if he was elected, how much would he be able to accomplish given that for part of his presidency there would be a democrat controlled congress? It doesnt seem like that lends itself to getting a whole lot accomplished, though i suppose it wouldnt be so bad if you were looking for a break from whatever the status quo was in your mind lately.

the best part about ron pauls policys is that they are all commom sense practicle ideas that would be hard to vote against if you would want to keepyour job . which is what most congressman have on their minds anyway

xtratabasco wrote:myguy


do you have a problem with staying on topic.

if you hate guns so much, go start your anti-Bill of Rights thread

You misunderstand me xtra, I was defending the right to bear arms, not to abolish them. I personally don't own any, but that's only because I am not old enough to purchase one.

Tyr wrote:the best part about ron pauls policys is that they are all commom sense practicle ideas that would be hard to vote against if you would want to keepyour job . which is what most congressman have on their minds anyway

i would argue there are far too many things that he supports, which may seem like common sense to you, but democrats and in some cases republicans wont see as so easy to dictate issues.

but voters will and thats whatt matters

Tyr wrote:but voters will and thats whatt matters

here are some things democratic voters may not like...
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)


here are things republican voters may not like
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)



Although some of these thigns are dated....here are a list of a number of issues that i think will keep ron paul from bases on both sides of the political parties. I dont think enough bases will be able to support him to make him a serious factor once some of things get out.

got tonkaed wrote:

Tyr wrote:but voters will and thats whatt matters

here are some things democratic voters may not like...
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)


here are things republican voters may not like
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)



Although some of these thigns are dated....here are a list of a number of issues that i think will keep ron paul from bases on both sides of the political parties. I dont think enough bases will be able to support him to make him a serious factor once some of things get out.

he didnt vote no.

He voted for the US Constitution.


theres a big difference

muy_thaiguy wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:myguy


do you have a problem with staying on topic.

if you hate guns so much, go start your anti-Bill of Rights thread

You misunderstand me xtra, I was defending the right to bear arms, not to abolish them. I personally don't own any, but that's only because I am not old enough to purchase one.

I meant spurg....


my bad

xtratabasco wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:myguy


do you have a problem with staying on topic.

if you hate guns so much, go start your anti-Bill of Rights thread

You misunderstand me xtra, I was defending the right to bear arms, not to abolish them. I personally don't own any, but that's only because I am not old enough to purchase one.

I meant spurg....


my bad

Gotcha.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
So do steak knives.

But you didn't answer my question.

It is presumable that someone with enough motivation would find a gun and use it, even if they were illegal. But he wouldn't get very far if the people he was attacking also possessed guns.

Like I said - lives would have been saved at VT if someone around was armed.

I recall arguing something similar to this against IzMan (well, actually it wasn't much much of an argument, more of a single post which was never responded too)


Anyway, what kind of person carries a firearm to university? The only ones that bring guns are the ones likely to perform massacres with them. Even if some student or teacher had an entirely innocent reason for bringing a lethal weapon to a place of learning, how much difference would it have made? Unless this hypothetical person was a crack shot, probability rests on them also being shot (assuming, that is, that this person is brave enough to confront the killer) or, even worse, killing someone else with their poorly aimed projectiles.

Now what if everyone had a gun? It would certainly kill off the majority of non-fatal crime. Unfortunatly, it would also increace, hugely, the numbers of lethal gun crime. Everyone would be armed (though many would still not be very proficient) so criminals would be vastly more inclined to shoot first and demand the money later. Instead of most robberies being based on the threat of gun usage, they will become based on the fact of gun usage; criminals will just kick the door down and come in shooting.

Does this sound like something even in the same hemisphere as an ideal solution?

There is a comfortable level of gun saturation; not too many so everyone has one and not too few so only criminals can access them. America is far in excess of this.

got tonkaed wrote:

Tyr wrote:but voters will and thats whatt matters

here are some things democratic voters may not like...
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)


here are things republican voters may not like
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)



Although some of these thigns are dated....here are a list of a number of issues that i think will keep ron paul from bases on both sides of the political parties. I dont think enough bases will be able to support him to make him a serious factor once some of things get out.

you just answered your own question.

The American people are sick and tired of the criminal traitors that are now and have been running things, hence the 11% approval rating for Congress and 18-23% for bush.


Everyone of the things Ron Paul voted for or against supports the US and the Constitution.


That is why he is refreshing!!!


who gives a f*ck if the criminals in this government dont agree with him? and they dont? so what!


I think your brain is wired wrong.

I actually like the guy now. Legalize hemp? Abortion? Bring it on!

xtratabasco wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Tyr wrote:but voters will and thats whatt matters

here are some things democratic voters may not like...
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)


here are things republican voters may not like
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)



Although some of these thigns are dated....here are a list of a number of issues that i think will keep ron paul from bases on both sides of the political parties. I dont think enough bases will be able to support him to make him a serious factor once some of things get out.

you just answered your own question.

The American people are sick and tired of the criminal traitors that are now and have been running things, hence the 11% approval rating for Congress and 18-23% for bush.


Everyone of the things Ron Paul voted for or against supports the US and the Constitution.


That is why he is refreshing!!!


who gives a f*ck if the criminals in this government dont agree with him? and they dont? so what!


I think your brain is wired wrong.

about your first post...im not sure exactly what your arguing, but this is just some of the stuff on his voting record, as far as i know none of its fabricated, since they do the same thing for all candidates. So if theres something he voted for that you dont think he did, hes either changed his stance since then or youve been misinformed.

I dont necesarily disagree with your second post, i just think hes going to lose credibility with a number of bases that he would need to be a serious candidate. Much of the republican party base is not going to vote for someone who wants ot legalize hemp. Likewise much of the democratic party is not going to vote for someone who has some traditionally non democratic base stances in terms of business and other current ones.

Its not that hes not a differnet option, because he is, i just think he is going to have a hard time because people are going to rail against the things they dont like about him, and thats going to be difficult to overcome.

also, i doubt the average american voter is so consitutionalist that this is going to be an effective approach. Yes he is consistent with being a constitutionalist and refreshingly so, but the message that people get doesnt cater to that type of message and it will subesquently hurt him.

Colberttttttt bump!

he can appeal to americas patriotic values though which could give him a huge advantage besides like the post obove mine hes got the colbert bump

well the colbert bump really is a bit of a myth because he was bumping incumbents who typically win a very high percentage of their reelection campaigns.

I do think campaigning family and patrotic values is his best move for the republican base and he should probably campaign under a sensible foreign policy and somewhat anti big business policies for dems.

got tonkaed wrote:

Tyr wrote:but voters will and thats whatt matters

here are some things democratic voters may not like...
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)


here are things republican voters may not like
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
.

I bolded all the reasons I wouldn't vote for him.

jay_a2j wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Tyr wrote:but voters will and thats whatt matters

here are some things democratic voters may not like...
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)


here are things republican voters may not like
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
.

I bolded all the reasons I wouldn't vote for him.

this is a huge reason i think he cant win....he needs to win the republican vote...and i dont want to put words in your mouth jay, but the reasons he bolded are many of the reasons the "value voter" which is a growing part of the republican party wont vote for him.

Well I'll take a step up from Iz Man and respond then

Neutrino wrote:Anyway, what kind of person carries a firearm to university? The only ones that bring guns are the ones likely to perform massacres with them.

That is, unfortunately, the case at the moment. But what if it wasn't? What if there wasn't a taboo against guns in public in suburban areas?

Because that's what it is- a taboo. Let's say I'm in a culinary art class. There's likely to be a butcher's knife right next to me. If I had it in my mind to kill someone, I could just as easily kill the guy right next to me with that as I could with a gun.

If I was playing baseball and I wanted to kill someone, I could pick up an aluminum bat and beat his head to a pulp without him looking. One blow would probably do the trick.

Heck, if I'm driving a car and there's a pedestrian in front of me, all it takes is to press my leg down some and they're history.

ANYTHING can be a lethal weapon. Guns just have a bad rep because when you get down to their purpose they're used exclusively as lethal weapons. But a gun could quite easily stop a culinary student gone mad, or a baseball player who struck out one too many times, or a guy with a crazy bad case of road rage.

Neutrino wrote:Now what if everyone had a gun? It would certainly kill off the majority of non-fatal crime. Unfortunatly, it would also increace, hugely, the numbers of lethal gun crime. Everyone would be armed (though many would still not be very proficient) so criminals would be vastly more inclined to shoot first and demand the money later. Instead of most robberies being based on the threat of gun usage, they will become based on the fact of gun usage; criminals will just kick the door down and come in shooting.

I disagree. Would a criminal really kick the door in at all if he knew that behind that door were 20 armed civilians? It isn't worth robbing a place if you're not going to survive to spend it.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Well I'll take a step up from Iz Man and respond then

Neutrino wrote:Anyway, what kind of person carries a firearm to university? The only ones that bring guns are the ones likely to perform massacres with them.

That is, unfortunately, the case at the moment. But what if it wasn't? What if there wasn't a taboo against guns in public in suburban areas?

Because that's what it is- a taboo. Let's say I'm in a culinary art class. There's likely to be a butcher's knife right next to me. If I had it in my mind to kill someone, I could just as easily kill the guy right next to me with that as I could with a gun.

If I was playing baseball and I wanted to kill someone, I could pick up an aluminum bat and beat his head to a pulp without him looking. One blow would probably do the trick.

Heck, if I'm driving a car and there's a pedestrian in front of me, all it takes is to press my leg down some and they're history.

ANYTHING can be a lethal weapon. Guns just have a bad rep because when you get down to their purpose they're used exclusively as lethal weapons. But a gun could quite easily stop a culinary student gone mad, or a baseball player who struck out one too many times, or a guy with a crazy bad case of road rage.

Neutrino wrote:Now what if everyone had a gun? It would certainly kill off the majority of non-fatal crime. Unfortunatly, it would also increace, hugely, the numbers of lethal gun crime. Everyone would be armed (though many would still not be very proficient) so criminals would be vastly more inclined to shoot first and demand the money later. Instead of most robberies being based on the threat of gun usage, they will become based on the fact of gun usage; criminals will just kick the door down and come in shooting.

I disagree. Would a criminal really kick the door in at all if he knew that behind that door were 20 armed civilians? It isn't worth robbing a place if you're not going to survive to spend it.

Hence why I love it here in Wyoming, alot of people own guns, very little crime.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Well I'll take a step up from Iz Man and respond then

Neutrino wrote:Anyway, what kind of person carries a firearm to university? The only ones that bring guns are the ones likely to perform massacres with them.

That is, unfortunately, the case at the moment. But what if it wasn't? What if there wasn't a taboo against guns in public in suburban areas?

Because that's what it is- a taboo. Let's say I'm in a culinary art class. There's likely to be a butcher's knife right next to me. If I had it in my mind to kill someone, I could just as easily kill the guy right next to me with that as I could with a gun.

If I was playing baseball and I wanted to kill someone, I could pick up an aluminum bat and beat his head to a pulp without him looking. One blow would probably do the trick.

Heck, if I'm driving a car and there's a pedestrian in front of me, all it takes is to press my leg down some and they're history.

ANYTHING can be a lethal weapon. Guns just have a bad rep because when you get down to their purpose they're used exclusively as lethal weapons. But a gun could quite easily stop a culinary student gone mad, or a baseball player who struck out one too many times, or a guy with a crazy bad case of road rage.

Neutrino wrote:Now what if everyone had a gun? It would certainly kill off the majority of non-fatal crime. Unfortunatly, it would also increace, hugely, the numbers of lethal gun crime. Everyone would be armed (though many would still not be very proficient) so criminals would be vastly more inclined to shoot first and demand the money later. Instead of most robberies being based on the threat of gun usage, they will become based on the fact of gun usage; criminals will just kick the door down and come in shooting.

I disagree. Would a criminal really kick the door in at all if he knew that behind that door were 20 armed civilians? It isn't worth robbing a place if you're not going to survive to spend it.

Hence why I love it here in Wyoming, alot of people own guns, very little crime.

or it could be because population density is much lower in wyoming than in other states, therefore putting a lower amount of societal tension and pressure on teh general population which leads to crime....

its sorta like the whole idea that shoe size dictates intelligence.....correlation doesnt dictate casuality.

Oh, and by the way, Wyoming has the 10th highest violent crime rate per capita in the nation, unless the US Census totally just lied to my ass.

Oh, and the way some people are posting, the title of this thread oughta be Thank Ron Paul There's A God. Thanks, I'll be here all week.

spurgistan wrote:Oh, and by the way, Wyoming has the 10th highest violent crime rate per capita in the nation, unless the US Census totally just lied to my ass.

Oh, and the way some people are posting, the title of this thread oughta be Thank Ron Paul There's A God. Thanks, I'll be here all week.

According to population, I guess, but that's because of those damn Techers.