Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 45 of 295

Thread: Gun Owners of America candidate ratings

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default Gun Owners of America candidate ratings

    Just in. Republican candidate ratings:

    Ron Paul A+
    Rick Perry A
    Michelle Bauchmann A
    Rick Santorum B-
    Newt Gingrich C
    Mitt Romney D-
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Where JFK was shot and LBJ was born
    Posts
    4,027

    Default

    They actually took the time to rate Michelle Bachmann/Bauchmann/Bawkman/Oddity? I thought she was just there for people to laugh at...
    Signed,

    Fatherandersonthepaladin
    Purveyor of fine Mosins, Hater of Bubba, and Pantsless Evil Dictator of Eggplants.

  3. #3

    Default

    Santourum was a D- rating by the NRA when he was a Pa. senator ,how do you get a B-. Gun owners hate him in Pa.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arkansas, for now...
    Posts
    3,730

    Default

    The A+ is pretty disengenuous, since Paul thinks it is perefctly fine for the State, whether a city, county or state, to use their tax funded largesse to sue manufacturers in whast is essentially an attempt of restraint of trade.

    OPerry I think got the easy A just because he is from Texas. Romney, no surprise.

    Would be really cool if we actually had a halfway decent candidate to chose from.
    You say Social Darwinism like it's a bad thing?

    "You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it." N.B. Forrest to General Braxton Bragg

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Where JFK was shot and LBJ was born
    Posts
    4,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hairball II View Post
    Would be really cool if we actually had a halfway decent candidate to chose from.
    Good luck with that... People keep sticking to voting either Republican or Democrat, so the interesting candidates from the third parties don't even get a look in.
    Signed,

    Fatherandersonthepaladin
    Purveyor of fine Mosins, Hater of Bubba, and Pantsless Evil Dictator of Eggplants.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    Wonder how Ron Paul got an A+???

    After all he was one of the very few Republicans to vote against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    Oct. 2005 Pres. George W. Bush signs the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which shields Firearm manufacturers from Lawsuits. Republicans control both Senate and House. Major victory for the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers, who have been pushing for the legislation for years. It also marked a tremendous defeat for New York City and the many other cities that have pending lawsuits against the gun industry.

    NRA reduced Paul to a lowly "B" then, and supported the Democrat who ran against him in the next election. I think the NRA still only gives Paul an "A" which is the same rateing John McCain has now.

    Guessing the Paulettes have some pull in the GOA (LOL). Paul definitely does not deserve such a rateing!!

    Maybe Ron Paul attached some Pork to that Bill, and thus had to vote against it????
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Ho humm blundering tum doesn't like the ratings. Still a Santorum man huh? How about his "less than paul" record? Last I recall you were going to write the NRA and GOA with your news. Perhaps you can start your own RKBA organization where you can rate the candidates in your little fantasy land.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    Wonder how Ron Paul got an A+???

    After all he was one of the very few Republicans to vote against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    Oct. 2005 Pres. George W. Bush signs the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which shields Firearm manufacturers from Lawsuits. Republicans control both Senate and House. Major victory for the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers, who have been pushing for the legislation for years. It also marked a tremendous defeat for New York City and the many other cities that have pending lawsuits against the gun industry.

    NRA reduced Paul to a lowly "B" then, and supported the Democrat who ran against him in the next election. I think the NRA still only gives Paul an "A" which is the same rateing John McCain has now.

    Guessing the Paulettes have some pull in the GOA (LOL). Paul definitely does not deserve such a rateing!!

    Maybe Ron Paul attached some Pork to that Bill, and thus had to vote against it????
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    Wonder how Ron Paul got an A+???

    After all he was one of the very few Republicans to vote against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    Oct. 2005 Pres. George W. Bush signs the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which shields Firearm manufacturers from Lawsuits. Republicans control both Senate and House. Major victory for the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers, who have been pushing for the legislation for years. It also marked a tremendous defeat for New York City and the many other cities that have pending lawsuits against the gun industry.

    NRA reduced Paul to a lowly "B" then, and supported the Democrat who ran against him in the next election. I think the NRA still only gives Paul an "A" which is the same rateing John McCain has now.

    Guessing the Paulettes have some pull in the GOA (LOL). Paul definitely does not deserve such a rateing!!

    Maybe Ron Paul attached some Pork to that Bill, and thus had to vote against it????

    If this is all you have on Paul then your argument against him is weaker than a dead field mouse.

    And your old boy Santorum, apparently, is less favored by the NRA according to this gentleman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deutsche Vortrekker View Post
    Santourum was a D- rating by the NRA when he was a Pa. senator ,how do you get a B-. Gun owners hate him in Pa.

    Oh and here is some more good news for Paul, bad news for neo-cons:

    http://thepage.time.com/2011/12/28/b...-her-for-paul/

    Iowa State Sen. Kent Sorenson Endorses Ron Paul for President

    Former Iowa chairman for U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann pivots to Paul camp citing, “Ron Paul has established himself as the clear choice.”

    ANKENY, Iowa – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul was endorsed today by Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola) in a major pivot that promises to give Paul extra momentum in the run-up to the January 3, 2012 Iowa Caucus.
    In making his endorsement Sen. Sorenson is leaving his post as Iowa chairman for U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign here. The resignation and endorsement take effect immediately.
    “Congressman Paul is delighted to accept the endorsement of Senator Kent Sorenson, whose blessing and assistance carry a great deal weight in Iowa. The fact that he doesn’t take this decision lightly tells a great deal about the Senator and Ron Paul. This endorsement is a rare find and we hope it pushes us nearer to our goal of a strong top-three finish at the January caucus,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.
    Kent Sorenson was elected to the Iowa Senate in 2011 and represents District 37 after serving in the Iowa House of Representatives from 2009 to 2011, representing District 74. The senator is a member of several committees including the Judiciary, Natural Resources and Environment, and State Government committees. He is also the ranking member of both the Senate and Joint Oversight Committees and a member of the Advisory Council for Agricultural Education, the Family Development and Self-Sufficiency Council, and the Human Rights Board.
    Senator Sorenson has been leader in the fight in defense of traditional family values, the sanctity of life, and a restoration of Second Amendment rights.
    The full endorsement statement from Senator Sorenson follows.

    Sorenson Statement
    The decision I am making today is one of the most difficult I have made in my life. But given what's at stake for our country, I have decided I must take this action.
    Today, I am switching my support from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul for the 2012 Iowa Caucuses and the presidency of the United States.
    I still maintain an immense amount of respect for Michele. The reasons are many. She’s never betrayed conservatives on issues like taxes, the Right to Life, and the Second Amendment. So over the past few months, I have been saddened at the dismissive way she's been treated among some conservatives especially after winning the Iowa Straw Poll.
    But the fact is, there is a clear top tier in the race for the Republican nomination for President, both here in Iowa and nationally. Ron Paul is easily the most conservative of this group.
    The truth is, it was an excruciatingly difficult decision for me to decide between supporting Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at the beginning of this campaign. Dr. Paul and his supporters were a major help in my successful campaigns for Iowa House and Senate even when I couldn’t count on the support of the Republican establishment here in Iowa.
    Of course, battling the establishment is nothing new for Dr. Paul or for myself. During my time in the General Assembly, I’ve established myself as a leader in the fights for traditional marriage, the Right to Life, and the protection of the Second Amendment – sometimes even against the wishes of my own party.
    Since my election, I’ve learned that doing the right thing isn’t always easy. It’s easy to see why so many legislators “sell out” once elected. The pressure to do so is immense.
    But what America needs now is a President who will not just “go along to get along.” Instead, we must send someone who puts doing what is right above all else to the White House. That candidate is Ron Paul.
    Ron Paul is the only candidate to predict the current mess we find ourselves in economically, and he's the only candidate to offer a true plan to cut spending and balance our budget.
    He's also consistently spoken out against government spending, assaults on individual liberties, and unnecessary trillion-dollar military adventurism for over 30 years. Polls show he is the Republican candidate that can take on and defeat President Obama in November 2012.
    Like all true conservatives, I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul that government is too big, and both parties share in the blame. We agree that it is immoral to print money and pass on mounds of debt to the next generation. We agree that life begins at conception and must be protected. We both believe that the Second Amendment must be defended unwaveringly, and that there are too many wars being fought with no end in sight and no obvious path to a defined victory.
    Of course, as a state legislator, I recognize that Dr. Paul's strong views on the 10th Amendment will enable me to fight for what I believe in right in my own backyard instead of having to constantly wait on one-size-fits-all "solutions" from Washington, D.C.
    With the entire Republican establishment intent on smearing Ron Paul and his dedicated supporters, I understand this decision could impact the way people see me and my entire political career. But this is the right decision, and one in which I proudly stand behind.
    To the truly wonderful people I met on the Bachmann campaign, I look forward to working with them in the future as we further the fights for the Right to Life, traditional marriage, and the restoration of our Second Amendment rights here in Iowa. I personally wish her all the best as she continues to battle in Congress.
    As for conservatives who are rightly concerned with defeating establishment Republicans Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and – even more importantly – Barack Obama in 2012, Ron Paul has established himself as the clear choice.
    If you are as frustrated as I am with what's been done by the ruling class, I urge you to join me in supporting Dr. Paul. We can send the national big government political establishment a message they will never forget by voting for Ron Paul for President in the January 3 Iowa Caucuses.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,553

    Default

    not a chance paul will ever win. He tends to attract immature, naieve, and arrogant people to his side I have noticed.....Every time I think I am starting to like him, he starts talking and reminds me of why I'll never vote for him....

    Because I am a NEOCON! Yeah!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robertmcm View Post
    Last I recall you were going to write the NRA and GOA with your news.
    So I see you have fallen to Mouseboy's level and started making up things.

    Exactly where did I say that? Hint at that? Imply that?

    Never happened, but you Paulettes really dont care about facts.

    I noticed you did not argue with my facts. Because they are facts. The truth and the whole truth.

    Makes you uncomfortible I guess discussing REAL facts.
    Last edited by Tom-M; 12-28-2011 at 10:39 PM.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,492

    Default

    All of this hatred for Dr. Paul; the media, the Republican establishment, the pundits, the people on this forum.

    "He's unelectable!"

    "He's crazy!"

    "He's a kook!"

    "He's nuts!"

    "He's a racist!"

    "He's a homophobe!"

    "He's incompetent!"

    Truly these statements and the people who say them are disingenuous at best. His detractors really don't know anything about him. Rather than present their argument as "I don't agree with Paul on..." they just launch personal, bitter attacks against him.

    Here is one testament to Dr. Paul's character:



    (And this type of thing happened often; Dr Paul would not charge patients or would only asking for a nominal fee)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MauserboyM48 View Post
    If this is all you have on Paul then your argument against him is weaker than a dead field mouse.
    Ohh Mouseboy, you pathetic follower.

    His complete lack of accomplishments. What was the only Bill he has ever got passed? A post office made a landmark - or somthing like that.

    Maybe its his hyprocrasy of being one of the largest pork spenders in history - while always preaching fiscal responsibility.

    Maybe its his complete lack of foreign affairs intelligengence. Yeah lets let Iran have Nukes - it worked out just fine with the Soviet Union.

    His we dont need to build a fence on the border. His we dont need to check citizenship for employment. His "Let States make the decision on who becomes a US citizen". Hello - California will be making ever illegal - legal, and there wont be anything the other states can do.

    His statements that the medical industry should'nt be protected from frivelous lawsuits.

    Maybe its "Legalize all drugs". Sell Heroin at the local 7-Eleven. Sure those of us with children will sleep better at night when he gets this done.

    His legalize prostitution. (Besides drugs - I know the Paulettes are hopeing to finally get some).

    Maybe its his freaky, non questioning followers/groupies. You know the ones that are religious fanatics. The ones that cheered Obama's victory in the last election.

    Maybe you should ask yourselfs WHY so many (the vast majority in fact) of firearm owners on this board, who should be vastly more conservative than the general public, dont like him?

    Maybe its the fact that NO one, including you deluded Paulettes, believe Ron Paul will be the Republican nominee. Everyone thinks he will go Third Party and ASSURE Obama's second term. A disaster for the 2nd Admebdment, and our country.
    Last edited by Tom-M; 12-28-2011 at 10:39 PM.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    [QUOTE=MauserboyM48;1979789]

    "He's unelectable!"

    "He's crazy!"

    "He's a kook!"

    "He's nuts!"

    "He's a racist!"

    "He's a homophobe!"

    "He's incompetent!"

    QUOTE]

    Finally - I actually agree with something Mouseboy has typed. Fits Ron Paul perfectly.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    You Paulettes say we dont argue the facts. Its all personal attacks.

    Well - argue or deny the facts I gave!!!!!
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    His complete lack of accomplishments. What was the only Bill he has ever got passed? A post office made a landmark - or somthing like that.
    Standing up against the Mongol hordes of big government politicians, often being the 1 in "434-1" vote tallies, is more of an accomplishment than anything you can come up with for any of the candidates.
    Fine, you don't think Paul accomplished anything.
    Name the candidate you support and list their legislative/executive accomplishments.
    Maybe its his hyprocrasy of being one of the largest pork spenders in history - while always preaching fiscal responsibility.
    You continue to believe in the red herring of pork spending being the cause of our high debt and deficits. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Earmarks decide how the pie is to be cut. They do not determine the size of the budget. Only 1% of each budget is earmarked. The rest of the money is spent by over-paid, self-righteous, zealous bureaucrats in Washington.

    Congress voted to ban earmarks earlier this year and yet we still had to raise the debt ceiling. Obama is asking for another $1.2 Trillion debt limit increase. If earmarks were the problem then why are we still in debt? Why do we need to continue to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar to finance the activities of the government?

    Maybe its his complete lack of foreign affairs intelligengence. Yeah lets let Iran have Nukes - it worked out just fine with the Soviet Union.
    He doesn't want Iran to become nuclear, he just is not going to start World War III and pre-emptively attack Iran.

    Do you really think Iran would be dumb enough to use a nuclear weapon against us or Israel if they got one? The retaliation levied against them by Israel, the United States, Europe would be enough to throw them back into the times of Darius II. They'd be history.

    How is that we can talk Qaddaffi out of WMD but we can't seem to even consider using diplomacy to try and resolve this dispute with Iran?

    And finally, do you not think that Israel would attack in her national security interests should Iran get the bomb?

    Oh, and if you are so worried about Iran growing more powerful you should not have supported the removal of their strongest adversary; Saddam Hussein. Hussein checked Iranian power; which is why he acted so shady about his WMD programs and refused to let UN inspectors into certain places. If word ever got out that Saddam didn't have WMD, Iran would have likely attacked or taken steps to acquire their own WMD.

    His we dont need to build a fence on the border. His we dont need to check citizenship for employment. His "Let States make the decision on who becomes a US citizen". Hello - California will be making ever illegal - legal, and there wont be anything the other states can do.
    A fence won't stop people from crossing a border. History proves the stupidity of fences.
    Did the Berlin Wall stop East Berliners from coming over to the West?
    Did the Great Wall prevent the Mongols from ravaging China?
    Did the Atlantic Wall prevent the Western Allies from invading Europe?

    Paul's position is that if you cut off the incentives, free medical care, free education, welfare, you will stop the flow of illegals.

    And as for the states granting citizenship, you asserted this in another thread and I asked you to present a source that backs up your claim. You never did so now is the time to present your facts.

    His statements that the medical industry should'nt be protected from frivelous lawsuits.
    Not true. He just doesn't believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to regulate tort laws. That is the duty of the states.

    Maybe its "Legalize all drugs". Sell Heroin at the local 7-Eleven. Sure those of us with children will sleep better at night when he gets this done.
    More hyperbole.
    How long do you think 7-11 would stay in business if it was to start selling heroin OTC?
    They would be boycotted out of existence faster than you can say "Republican Presidential Nominee Ron Paul."

    He would end the federal war on drugs. States would still have the authority to regulate drugs as they see fit.

    The war on drugs is a racist, statist, and failed policy. It has cost the US tax payer billions and has resulted in the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized nation. Communist China would be proud.

    Not to mention that the federal ban on drugs is unconstitutional; if they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, why don't they need an amendment to ban drugs?

    Maybe you should ask yourselfs WHY so many (the vast majority in fact) of firearm owners on this board, who should be vastly more conservative than the general public, dont like him?
    Really? You've polled every single member of gunboards?

    Everyone thinks he will go Third Party and ASSURE Obama's second term. A disaster for the 2nd Admebdment, and our country.
    If he went 3rd party, that would mean Romney would be the nominee, in your scenario.
    How would the 2nd Amendment be HELPED by having two candidates who OPENLY support an Assault Weapons Ban?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    You Paulettes say we dont argue the facts. Its all personal attacks.

    Well - argue or deny the facts I gave!!!!!
    Facts? What you present is more along the lines of distortion and falsehoods.

    Be sure to read every sentence in my reply and to respond to all of the points I made.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    Well lets take one point at a time. I think this will be fun. Lets start with Ron Paul on illegal immigrants.

    http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...stion-1768557/

    "NumbersUSA re-AFFIRMS reasons for giving Ron Paul an "F" failing grade on illegal immigration. Is there any doubt in your mind now that Ron Paul is a RINO?"

    or this:

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...ail&FORM=VIRE5

    Ron Paul position never changes - huh???? Love the below extract.

    "In 1988, while running as the Presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul said, “there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” He was asked about this quote on Meet the Press during his second presidential run."

    http://www.truthistreason.net/ron-pa...al-immigration

    As to Ron Paul's statement that States be given right to grant citizenship to illegals - it was stated it in one of the recent debates. After stating we cant kick out 11 million illegals. Kinda goes with his give more rights to the states philosophy - huh?
    Last edited by Tom-M; 12-29-2011 at 01:10 AM.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    So I see you have fallen to Mouseboy's level and started making up things.

    Exactly where did I say that? Hint at that? Imply that?

    Never happened, but you Paulettes really dont care about facts.

    I noticed you did not argue with my facts. Because they are facts. The truth and the whole truth.

    Makes you uncomfortible I guess discussing REAL facts.
    Actually a continuation of our discussion on the same subject from a while ago. You got flustered and I suggested you write the RKBA organizations with your breaking news or start your own. I see your memory isn't what it used to be (heck maybe it never was any good). See page 1 of the Romney thread.


    Your so called facts have been discussed and rehashed countless times (memory thing again?). Let me just put it easy to you Tom, I believe I will trust the GOA on ratings before I trust you. Sorry.

    Heck I will trust the GOA before I trust the NRA, especially after their support of Ried the last go around.
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    Well lets take one point at a time.
    Ok back to your man Rick's lackluster RKBA ratings by chance? They seem so important for Paul.
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Yeah blundering Tom, after the below response to your blundering, you may wanna take one point at a time. I think MB is embarrassing you if you know it or not. You may wanna take a break for a day or two and come back all freshened up. Don't jump off the cliff on us now. MB replied to your blundering point by point. Are you even capable of the same? Here is his response below, let's see.......

    Quote Originally Posted by MauserboyM48 View Post
    Standing up against the Mongol hordes of big government politicians, often being the 1 in "434-1" vote tallies, is more of an accomplishment than anything you can come up with for any of the candidates.
    Fine, you don't think Paul accomplished anything.
    Name the candidate you support and list their legislative/executive accomplishments.

    You continue to believe in the red herring of pork spending being the cause of our high debt and deficits. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Earmarks decide how the pie is to be cut. They do not determine the size of the budget. Only 1% of each budget is earmarked. The rest of the money is spent by over-paid, self-righteous, zealous bureaucrats in Washington.

    Congress voted to ban earmarks earlier this year and yet we still had to raise the debt ceiling. Obama is asking for another $1.2 Trillion debt limit increase. If earmarks were the problem then why are we still in debt? Why do we need to continue to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar to finance the activities of the government?


    He doesn't want Iran to become nuclear, he just is not going to start World War III and pre-emptively attack Iran.

    Do you really think Iran would be dumb enough to use a nuclear weapon against us or Israel if they got one? The retaliation levied against them by Israel, the United States, Europe would be enough to throw them back into the times of Darius II. They'd be history.

    How is that we can talk Qaddaffi out of WMD but we can't seem to even consider using diplomacy to try and resolve this dispute with Iran?

    And finally, do you not think that Israel would attack in her national security interests should Iran get the bomb?

    Oh, and if you are so worried about Iran growing more powerful you should not have supported the removal of their strongest adversary; Saddam Hussein. Hussein checked Iranian power; which is why he acted so shady about his WMD programs and refused to let UN inspectors into certain places. If word ever got out that Saddam didn't have WMD, Iran would have likely attacked or taken steps to acquire their own WMD.


    A fence won't stop people from crossing a border. History proves the stupidity of fences.
    Did the Berlin Wall stop East Berliners from coming over to the West?
    Did the Great Wall prevent the Mongols from ravaging China?
    Did the Atlantic Wall prevent the Western Allies from invading Europe?

    Paul's position is that if you cut off the incentives, free medical care, free education, welfare, you will stop the flow of illegals.

    And as for the states granting citizenship, you asserted this in another thread and I asked you to present a source that backs up your claim. You never did so now is the time to present your facts.


    Not true. He just doesn't believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to regulate tort laws. That is the duty of the states.


    More hyperbole.
    How long do you think 7-11 would stay in business if it was to start selling heroin OTC?
    They would be boycotted out of existence faster than you can say "Republican Presidential Nominee Ron Paul."

    He would end the federal war on drugs. States would still have the authority to regulate drugs as they see fit.

    The war on drugs is a racist, statist, and failed policy. It has cost the US tax payer billions and has resulted in the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized nation. Communist China would be proud.

    Not to mention that the federal ban on drugs is unconstitutional; if they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, why don't they need an amendment to ban drugs?


    Really? You've polled every single member of gunboards?


    If he went 3rd party, that would mean Romney would be the nominee, in your scenario.
    How would the 2nd Amendment be HELPED by having two candidates who OPENLY support an Assault Weapons Ban?



    Facts? What you present is more along the lines of distortion and falsehoods.

    Be sure to read every sentence in my reply and to respond to all of the points I made.
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Oldsmar, FL (Tampa Bay)
    Posts
    21,770

    Default

    The Gun Owners of America has a pretty miserable record in politics. Its stock in trade seems to be taking credit for everything done by the NRA-ILA, collecting money from the gullible who mistake screeching and preaching to the choir, and spending it on Larry Pratt's direct mail company in Springfield, VA (my home town for 25 years).

    The GOA has an institutional fondness for the most miserable and extreme characters on the right, like Ron Paul. Apparently this is due to the bumbling ignorance of Larry Pratt, its executive director for many years. Pratt's finest moment came when he was bounced as co-chairman of pat Buchanan's 1996 campaign when he gave speeches to neo-nazi meetings, standing in front of a swastika flag.
    I swear by Jupiter Optimus Maximus .... in the army of the consul Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and for 10 miles around it I will not steal anything worth more than a sestertius in any one day.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Say what you will, but the GOA became a great option when the NRA started sending money to Harry Ried.
    Quote Originally Posted by jjk308 View Post
    The Gun Owners of America has a pretty miserable record in politics. Its stock in trade seems to be taking credit for everything done by the NRA-ILA, collecting money from the gullible who mistake screeching and preaching to the choir, and spending it on Larry Pratt's direct mail company in Springfield, VA (my home town for 25 years).

    The GOA has an institutional fondness for the most miserable and extreme characters on the right, like Ron Paul. Apparently this is due to the bumbling ignorance of Larry Pratt, its executive director for many years. Pratt's finest moment came when he was bounced as co-chairman of pat Buchanan's 1996 campaign when he gave speeches to neo-nazi meetings, standing in front of a swastika flag.
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robertmcm View Post
    Actually a continuation of our discussion on the same subject from a while ago. You got flustered and I suggested you write the RKBA organizations with your breaking news or start your own. I see your memory isn't what it used to be (heck maybe it never was any good). See page 1 of the Romney thread.

    .
    If you Paulettes could ever tell the truth, just once, it would boggle me. So your thinking (I guess anything is possible) that you flustered me with a reply(LOL), and your supposedly telling me to write an RKBA organization is the same as:

    "Last I recall you were going to write the NRA and GOA with your news. Perhaps you can start your own RKBA organization where you can rate the candidates in your little fantasy land."

    Exactly where was "I" stateing that I was going to write anyone????????
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/200...-projects.html

    "Ron Paul's personal pork projects

    Guaranteed 100% pork. The media has noted, though many libertarians have ignored, that the allegedly “libertarian” Republican, Ron Paul, has been bringing home the bacon to his district, just like every other vote-seeking politician. The PR hype is that Paul is different. Judge for yourself.

    Paul says he only votes for spending authorized by the US Constitution. But when it comes to using his Congressional position, to request pork for projects in his own district, apparently anything goes. Whether the spending is Constitutionally legitimate, or no,t Paul brings home the bacon.

    According to the Houston Chronicle, Paul:

    ...leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.

    Paul’s arguments for using pork barrel projects in his own district is that, “if they take it, we should ask for it back.” Of course, on that basis, there is little spending which is not justified.

    Paul also argued that these special earmarks, used by Congressman to increase their own popularity at home, don’t add anything to the budget. The funding is already in the budget he says and the budget is not increased to compensate for them. But spending $400 million on pork, as Paul requested, still means the $400 million is spent. And, under the current budget, if it is spent, it contributes to the deficit that will, no doubt, mean higher future taxes. While agencies try to spend their full budget so they can request more the next year. There is some slim chance that funding allocated will not be spent. Earmarking makes sure the funds are spent.

    Even if one were to buy Paul’s argument, shouldn’t the earmarks, at the very least, correspond with Constitutionally permitted spending? Does Paul's dubious claim that the “people” are really spending the money, as opposed to politicians, mean the spending need not be constitutionally justified?

    Certainly, the special interest groups that put in requests for such spending are not “the people”. And the idea that this removes spending authority from politicians is absurd. It means that the special interests have to go to a Congressman, with begging bowl in hand, asking for the handouts. Since the individual politicians is the gateway for such funding it expands his ability to buy votes with taxpayer funds.

    Here is a list of some of the pork that Paul has applied for. It is apparent that much of this has nothing to do with programs permitted, or mandated, by the Constitution. You figure out what clause of the Constitution enumerates the spending in question. I’m not an expert on the workings of Congress but reading through the funding requests I am under the impression that Paul was seeking multiple funding for some of these projects. I don’t know if this is cumulative, but that is the impression I got. Either way asking for it once is bad enough.

    1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”

    2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.

    3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.

    4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”

    5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.

    6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”

    7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.

    8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)

    9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge."



    http://chip91.wordpress.com/2007/08/...pork-projects/


    "Ron Paul’s personal pork projects


    Here is a list of some of the pork that Paul has applied for.

    1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”

    2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.

    3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.

    4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”

    5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.

    6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”

    7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.

    8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)

    9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.

    10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”

    11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”

    12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”

    13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.

    14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.

    15. $5 million for highway spending.

    16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.

    17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.

    18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.

    19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.

    20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.

    21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.

    22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million

    23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million

    24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.

    25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou."


    Or lets listen to Ron Paul, in his own words, on his Pork Spending

    http://www.breitbart.tv/paul-confron...pork-spending/
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/...s-a-total-lie/


    "It’s a total lie.

    Ron Paul has been one of the major leaders in pork spending and waste for years. His critics on this come from all across the political spectrum.

    Let’s start with criticism from The Club For Growth.

    Ron Paul supporters aren’t going to like today’s editorial ($) in the Wall Street Journal. For that matter, neither will the PorkBusters.

    Texas Congressman Ron Paul — libertarian gadfly and current Republican Presidential hopeful — has made a name for himself as a critic of overspending. But it seems even he can’t resist the political allure of earmarks.

    After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.

    When we called Mr. Paul’s office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: “Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked,” the spokesman said. “What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it’s not by accident.”

    Link

    Despite this impressive record, Ron Paul’s history contains some curious indiscretions, including a vote for $232 million for federally mandated election reform (only one of 21 Republicans to vote for it) and a vote against the line-item veto —even after it was modified to pass constitutional muster. Paul’s record on pork was outstanding in 2006, voting for all 19 of Jeff Flake’s anti-pork amendments in 2006, but his record took a stark turn for the worse in 2007, in which Paul received an embarrassing 29% on the Club for Growth’s RePORK Card, voting for only 12 of the 50 anti-pork amendments. A year later, he voted against an amendment that would strip out all earmarks from a spending bill.

    Some of the outrageous pork projects Paul voted to keep include $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association’s Urban Center; $129,000 for the “perfect Christmas tree project;” $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California. In 2007, Ron Paul requested more than sixty earmarks “worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state’s shrimp industry.” Paul’s affection for earmarks was also on display when he voted against a proposal that would “require the Education secretary to submit an explanation to Congress if grants authorized by the bill are not awarded competitively.”

    In defense of his support for earmarks, Rep. Paul took the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” position, arguing that “I don’t think they should take our money in the first place. But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back.” This is a contradiction of Paul’s self-proclaimed “opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.”

    Paul also voted to bail out the Highway Trust Fund to the tune of $8 billion in 2008.

    Link

    Ron Paul may be a fiscal deficit hawk on some issues, but let’s get one thing clear, his latest ad is a lie. He’ll bring home anything that brings home the votes and for this Texas congressman, that includes the pork.

    Ron Paul flies in the face of his own party on this issue. The GOP issued an earmark moratorium, yet Ron Paul was one of four Republicans to request earmarks for the 2011 budget.

    U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year. His largest single request was $19,500,000 for a naval training ship at the Texas Maritime Academy in Galveston, followed by a $18,126,000 to provide maintenance on the Matagorda Ship Channel.

    For Fiscal Year 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork that the former presidential candidate sought to bring home to his district. These requests were made prior to the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks.

    Link

    Ron Paul justifies his pork spending by saying he puts it in the bills but votes against it. What? Yes, he is for it, before he’s against it.

    Also he gives justification for it by saying that the money for his district would get spent elsewhere if it wasn’t claimed. This is simply untrue. I came across this explanation of the process.

    At the beginning of the budget cycle, Congress votes on how much to appropriate to the departments in the Executive Branch (In fact, Constitutionally, this is the ONLY way to do so). These voting members include Ron Paul. Now, when you say it does not increase spending, that only means in the CURRENT budget cycle. What happens, in actuality, is when they reappropriate money originally requested for that department in the Executive Branch, it creates a budget shortfall in said department of the money they have requested legitatately. This causes the requesting department to ask for even more in the next budget cycle, which means it DOES increase spending. So, in other words, specific project money appropriated legitimately to a departmental budget is now reappropriated on a whim for a Congress members wet dream of a project. The Legislative branch is the only branch tasked with spending taxpayer money, and that holds true whether Ron Paul tells you that’s the case or that the Executive Branch is “stealing it”.

    I’ll close this with a video of Ron Paul explaining himself to Tim Russert."
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    An important part, from above, on whether Pork increase spending and the deficit:

    "Also he gives justification for it by saying that the money for his district would get spent elsewhere if it wasn’t claimed. This is simply untrue. I came across this explanation of the process.

    At the beginning of the budget cycle, Congress votes on how much to appropriate to the departments in the Executive Branch (In fact, Constitutionally, this is the ONLY way to do so). These voting members include Ron Paul. Now, when you say it does not increase spending, that only means in the CURRENT budget cycle. What happens, in actuality, is when they reappropriate money originally requested for that department in the Executive Branch, it creates a budget shortfall in said department of the money they have requested legitatately. This causes the requesting department to ask for even more in the next budget cycle, which means it DOES increase spending. So, in other words, specific project money appropriated legitimately to a departmental budget is now reappropriated on a whim for a Congress members wet dream of a project. The Legislative branch is the only branch tasked with spending taxpayer money, and that holds true whether Ron Paul tells you that’s the case or that the Executive Branch is “stealing it”."


    And this little gem:

    U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year. His largest single request was $19,500,000 for a naval training ship at the Texas Maritime Academy in Galveston, followed by a $18,126,000 to provide maintenance on the Matagorda Ship Channel.


    Want more? How about this link to an article called:"The true cost of pork spending"


    http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/200...pork-spending/
    Last edited by Tom-M; 12-29-2011 at 12:12 PM.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    Paolettes claim Ron Paul is never wavering in his stances. He is always consistent in his voteing, and positions.

    How do you explain Ron Paul's voteing on Pork spending?? From above.


    "Paul’s record on pork was outstanding in 2006, voting for all 19 of Jeff Flake’s anti-pork amendments in 2006, but his record took a stark turn for the worse in 2007, in which Paul received an embarrassing 29% on the Club for Growth’s RePORK Card, voting for only 12 of the 50 anti-pork amendments. A year later, he voted against an amendment that would strip out all earmarks from a spending bill. "
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    If you Paulettes could ever tell the truth, just once, it would boggle me. So your thinking (I guess anything is possible) that you flustered me with a reply(LOL), and your supposedly telling me to write an RKBA organization is the same as:

    "Last I recall you were going to write the NRA and GOA with your news. Perhaps you can start your own RKBA organization where you can rate the candidates in your little fantasy land."

    Exactly where was "I" stateing that I was going to write anyone????????
    Continuation of a little discussion we previously had. Like I said, go read the first page of the Romney thread.

    Btw, I am flag to see you have resorted to the copy and paste tactic. You do not blunder as much using that tactic. Still embarrassing that you can't hld your ground with MB though. Funny how you ran away from that one.


    As for Ron Paul, he voted against every unbalanced budget and every tax increase. Good enough for me.


    Your volumes of copy paste are not read by anyone, but if there is money to be earmarked, then my representative better do what he can to get my area's tax dollars back.

    Oh yeah, still waiting on you to respond to santorums lackluster RKBA ratings, copy and paste away, you do not look as foolish that way.
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robertmcm View Post
    Btw, I am flag to see you have resorted to the copy and paste tactic. You do not blunder as much using that tactic. Still embarrassing that you can't hld your ground with MB though. Funny how you ran away from that one.

    .
    And your refute of the posted material is where???? Saying something does'nt make it the truth. I like a little support to go with an arguement, but Paulettes are all about Blind Faith and following their Leader.

    I'm going to enjoy going after every unsupported comeback by Mouseboy. Boy could'nt argue a point for his life.

    By the way - this thread is about Ron Paul. Something I've been dreaming you Paulettes would be dumb enough to start. So stop trying to change the subject. Unless that is your only comeback to the truth?
    Last edited by Tom-M; 12-29-2011 at 02:36 PM.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    "FREE" Peoples Demokratik Republik of Massholechusetts
    Posts
    7,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    How do you explain Ron Paul's voteing on Pork spending??
    "
    Pork spending is good and OK......as long as it comes back to the people who vote for me
    "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."
    Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)
    "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind it between the millstones of inflation and taxation."
    Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924)

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,003

    Default

    The only thing I get out of this is Tom likes pork....




    ..
    **Looking for nice un-refinished late steyr (BNZ45) stock..

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koskenkorva View Post
    Pork spending is good and OK......as long as it comes back to the people who vote for me
    Not much different from a bribe. Only the PMT is made after the fact. Same problem most people see with Public Unions - "one hand washes the other".
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    I'm going to enjoy going after every unsupported comeback by Mouseboy. Boy could'nt argue a point for his life.
    What? You have yet to address the several points I made in my first rebuttal. I'll counter your "king of pork" propaganda later but you still have several points of mine to counter.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    "FREE" Peoples Demokratik Republik of Massholechusetts
    Posts
    7,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MauserboyM48 View Post
    Standing up against the Mongol hordes of big government politicians, often being the 1 in "434-1" vote tallies, is more of an accomplishment than anything you can come up with for any of the candidates.
    do you have a link for that statement ?
    "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."
    Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)
    "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind it between the millstones of inflation and taxation."
    Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924)

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koskenkorva View Post
    do you have a link for that statement ?
    Here is a tally of votes where Paul was either alone or with the company of a few.

    There are many more, some from the 1980s.

    2010:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-651
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-627
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-612
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-553
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-543
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-501
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-429
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-421
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-382
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-333
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-295
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-289
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-184
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-118
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-100
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-96
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-85
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-80
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-15
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-5
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-4


    2009:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-986
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-973
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-972
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-893
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-883
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-880
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-879
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-862
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-854
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-853
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-852
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-843
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-773
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-751
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-745
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-691
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-411
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-294
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-210
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-168
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-121


    2008:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-643
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-641
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-572
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-570
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-568
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-543
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-539
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-430
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-326
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-306
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-251
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-234
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-225
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-220
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-166
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-163
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-162
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-93
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-92
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-34


    2007:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-929
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-894
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-619
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-500
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-303
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-259
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-178
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-159
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-141
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-139
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-121
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-45

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post

    I'm going to enjoy going after every unsupported comeback by Mouseboy. Boy could'nt argue a point for his life.

    By the way - this thread is about Ron Paul. Something I've been dreaming you Paulettes would be dumb enough to start. So stop trying to change the subject. Unless that is your only comeback to the truth?

    Great we are waiting to see if you can handle refuting what MB has said. The only problem is that we are still waiting, and waiting and waiting.........(post 15 if that memory thing got you again)

    Next the thread is about the candidates RKBA ratings, so I am on subject and you are the one changing it, (memory thing, I know) but that is OK because your blunders are entertaining. If you do care to get back on the subject, I am still waiting for the explanation of your lackluster candidate santorum's lackluster RKBA rating. But please do not let it slow you down from replying point by point to Post #15 which is a total embarrassment to you BTW.

    Yeah he's the blunderer, yeah the blunderer, goes around around around.......
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    that's a lot of millions. maybe the money for the cancer center is good, the rest, waste. looks like old ronnie is much like obamma, thinks money grows on trees. he's fixing to fizzle out, people are digging and finding out what is under the surface. a loon.
    " Dude with a pencil is worse than a cat with a machinegun"... Bo Diddley

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Looks like the blunderer's man has gained a vote in Iowa, causing Su's man to attack him for wait......drum roll..... earmarks- gasp! Santorum not only votes for earmarks to his district but others as well, like the bridge to nowhere- oh my. Sounds like Tom is riding with him....

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...medium=twitter

    Then there is him wanting to outlaw the abortion procedure that he and his wife used...
    http://www.politicalruminations.com/...hypocrisy.html

    But wait, Tom is going to explain away the bad RKBA ratings of santorum as soon as he can muster the courage to give a reply to post 15.

    we are lined up Tom, come on dont leave us now....

    yeah hes the blunderer, yeah the blunderer, he goes around around around.............................
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  38. #38
    Clyde's Avatar
    Clyde is offline Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    53,136

    Default

    Actually, the $10 million for the Railroad Causeway to Galveston is likely legit. It (the causeway) crosses Galveston By, and has a bascule bridge where the Intracoastal Waterway (a Federal operation, like most harbor and navigation projects - and been that way from the beginning) passes through it. It is too narrow and has some other navigational difficulties that makes it actually hazardous. That is being replaced with a 310 (instead of 127) foot lift bridge, and from what I have seen the $10 million for causeway bridge repair is related to that moveable bridge that only exists because of the Federal navigation project.
    Absent comrades (sound of breaking glass)

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falm16 View Post
    that's a lot of millions. maybe the money for the cancer center is good, the rest, waste. looks like old ronnie is much like obamma, thinks money grows on trees. he's fixing to fizzle out, people are digging and finding out what is under the surface. a loon.

    Actually Falm, in the news, your big government liberal is the one fizzling out, and it seems to me your man, ole Newt is more like Obama. Let us take a look:
    Newt Gingrich Backs Funds For Abortionhttp://articles.sfgate.com/1995-04-10/news/17801484_1_poor-w…
    Newt Gingrich filmed a commercial with liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi advocating the feds impose regulations to cut back global warming
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154
    02/15/2007 - Newt Gingrich supported a proposal for mandatory carbon cap and trade
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/intervie…
    02/10/2011 - Newt Gingrich wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031365-503544.html
    01/30/2011 - Newt Gingrich lobbied for ethanol subsidies
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870469800457610…
    Newt Gingrich’s Environmental Problem
    http://www.salon.com/2011/05/11/gingrich_environment_america…
    Newt Gingrich co-sponsored the Global Warming Prevention Act which says that “the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions…global warming imperils human health and well-being…and [demands] to reduce world emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20% from 1988 levels by 2000… major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.” - 1998
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.1078:

    Newt Gingrich Supported the Bailouts/TARP
    Newt Gingrich says he would’ve voted for TARP
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJb2NfqwghY
    Newt Gingrich gets back on the couch with Pelosi
    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/28/gingrich-gets-back-on-t…
    Newt Gingrich Supported Federal Health Insurance
    Newt Gingrich supports Obama and Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYHSdRRLb7U
    Newt Gingrich says the government must force people to buy health insurance
    http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/opeds_news?pressrelea…
    Newt Gingrich Was More Supportive Of Individual Mandates Than Mitt Romney
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/newt-gingrich-indiv…
    11/15/2010 - Newt Gingrich defended Romneycare
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1110/Gingrich_defends…
    03/19/2011 - Newt Gingrich has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/6…
    Newt Gingrich said: “All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.”
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870350910457632…
    Newt Gingrich said: “I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care.” MSNBC’s David Gregory: But that is the individual mandate, is it not? “It’s a variation on it.”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267330/gingrich-i-oppos…
    In 2008 Newt Gingrich suggested ‘insurance mandates for people who earn more than $75,000 a year.’ Two years later, he was telling Sean Hannity at Fox News that health insurance mandates were unconstitutional.”
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0327/New…
    Newt Gingrich Supports Amnesty for Illegals Aliens
    Watch the video of Newt Gingrich proposing amnesty in his own voice
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-OKFOhCaDY
    Conservatives are critical of Newt’s amnesty stance
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283932/gingrich-amnesty…
    More criticisms about Newt’s desire for illegals to receive amnesty
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45873.html
    Newt Gingrich voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times:
    1 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-449
    2 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1980-936
    3 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1981-7
    4 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1984-754
    Newt Gingrich voted for a $50 billion tax increase - (House Roll Call Vote 569 - 1984)
    Newt Gingrich was paid by Freddie Mac to lobby Republicans for support
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be…
    More on the Newt Gingrich Freddie Mac lobbyist scandal
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/28108013/How_Freddie_Mac_Splashed_Cas…
    Newt Gingrich’s Charity Paid Money to Gingrich’s Business
    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/06/gingrich-cha…
    Newt Gingrich voted to create the Department of Education
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-468
    Newt Gingrich voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll135.xml
    Newt Gingrich flip-flops on Libya in less than 16 days
    http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/weigel/2011/03/23/n…
    Newt Gingrich supported the World Trade Organization, voted for GATT/WTO
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll507.xml
    Newt Gingrich supported GATT
    http://www.cfaba.org/cf05006.htm
    Newt Gingrich supported WTO
    http://www.nolanchart.com/article368-bill-clinton-and-his-na…
    03/15/2011 - Newt Gingrich says that NAFTA worked ‘because it created jobs in Mexico’
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/15/150658/gingrich…
    Newt Gingrich helped push through federally-funded loan guarantees to communist China
    http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/Newt-Gingrich-Candidate-P….
    “Newt Gingrich was passionately in favor of helping Russia (with US foreign aid), saying it was a “great defining moment” for America and we had to do the right thing. Newt was trying to “out-Russia” me, which I was only too happy to have him do.” - Bill Clinton
    http://www.issues2000.org/My_Life.htm
    In one year (1994-1995) Newt Gingrich voted for nearly $45 billion in foreign aid
    http://www.unelected.org/socialist-of-the-week-newt-gingrich.
    Newt Gingrich was for the United Nations before he was against it
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/11/gingrich_…
    09/16/1996 - Newt Gingrich voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which took away gun rights
    http://www.nationalgunrights.org/the-inconvenient-truth-abou…
    Newt Gingrich has a bad firearms record
    http://gunowners.org/gingrich-mixed-record.htm
    Newt Gingrich worked for the Rockefeller campaign
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/interviews.html
    10/16/2009 - Newt Gingrich endorsed super liberal Dede Scozzafava
    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/16/an-acorn-friendly-big-l…
    05/04/1979 - Newt Gingrich voted for a federal land grab that put tens of millions of acres of land in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-107
    04/02/1987 - Newt Gingrich cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti 1st Amendment legislation)
    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/29/newt-gingrich-co-sponso…
    Newt Gingrich voted to take land away from states and individuals. The “Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,” which Newt Gingrich voted for in support of President Jimmy Carter, was a federal government power grab that put tens of millions of acres of land in the hands of the corrupt cronyism and bureaucracy in Washington.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-107
    Fiscal conservative Steve Forbes’ magazine says that “Newt Gingrich Represents The Worst Qualities Of The GOP Primary Field”
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/16/newt-gingric…
    The Many Flip-Flops of Newt Gingrich
    http://www.tnr.com/slideshow/politics/85743/newt-gingrich-li…
    World Net Daily (WND) - Joe Farah says that “Gingrich is a Liberal”
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=299873
    Democrats Think Newt Gingrich Will Be Easy To Beat
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68414.html
    Jack Abramoff says ‘Newt Gingrich is corrupt’
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/jack-abramoff-n…
    So what is so “conservative” about any of the above? Newt’s stances on these issues line up more with O’Bama’s Progressive Globalist agenda then those of a sovereign small-government conservative. I mean come on now…who is he trying to kid here? Maybe just you and me!
    Wolf in sheep’s clothing…he’s the wolf…don’t be one of the sheep!
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    dang it robbie, do you ever spend time with the kids...... or think anyone reads all that crap you list. home life, man, home life. your kids are missing you. well, maybe not.
    " Dude with a pencil is worse than a cat with a machinegun"... Bo Diddley

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-M View Post
    You Paulettes say we dont argue the facts. Its all personal attacks.

    Well - argue or deny the facts I gave!!!!!
    It's pretty funny that you use abusive language to complain about personal attacks.

    I believe that even if you disagree with someone, you should at least treat them with a modicum of respect.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    occupied Alabama
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falm16 View Post
    dang it robbie, do you ever spend time with the kids...... or think anyone reads all that crap you list. home life, man, home life. your kids are missing you. well, maybe not.
    actually those posts were made in a shooting house with two of the kids. anyway, you ought to read one or two of them......it would do you better than listening to clintons campaign manager on the antigun orielly show
    Last edited by robertmcm; 12-29-2011 at 08:10 PM.
    BamaCarry, American Silencer Association, FNRA-Committee Member, NRA- Life/Benefactor, SAF- Life, GOA-Life, CCRKBA-Life, NRA Golden Eagles, Garand Collectors Association.

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    hhhmmmmm, you must have watched it last nite when morris stated that paul was a ultra ultra far left liberal. and i mean he looked disgusted. i about fell out of my chair. i think i'll stick to fox news over you to get my news, you are way too biased. or brainwashed, you choose.
    " Dude with a pencil is worse than a cat with a machinegun"... Bo Diddley

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Looter View Post
    It's pretty funny that you use abusive language to complain about personal attacks.

    I believe that even if you disagree with someone, you should at least treat them with a modicum of respect.
    Might be your joining the discusion 4 years late. Missed the Obama victory celebration last election. The insults heaped on veterans.

    Or it could be calling everyone that disagrees with them neo-cons, secret Big Government stooges, saying we let Fox News make up our minds, the insults on the NRA, etc.

    Or really the fact that they dont refute anything with facts, but resort to personel attacks.

    I'll treat people the way they treat others and myself. Those you might think I insult are few in number. I hope you will note that nothing even remotely resembling an insult has ever been directed your way.
    Last edited by Tom-M; 12-29-2011 at 09:16 PM.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    5,029

    Default

    All right - lets look at Santorum votes. Much better than Ron Paul's voteing record by the way.)

    The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)
    n 2005, the US Senate voted on S 397 - The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The act sought to protect gun manufacturers, retailers, and suppliers from being sued for crimes or accidents involving the weapons they sold or manufactured. The legislation came to a vote in July of 2005 and passed the Senate with a vote of 65-31. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    The above is the Bill Ron Paul voted against!!!!!! (The reason Ron Paul was given a "B" rateing by the NRA, and the reason the NRA supported his Democratic opponent in the next election.)

    The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2004)
    The Senate attempted to pass Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2004. The bill got very little support, failing in an 8-90 vote. Rick Santorum voted against the the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The Dems had placed a rider on the Bill extending the AWB, and its failure was a good thing.

    Amendment - Cops carrying firearms
    As an amendment to the Lawful Commerce Act, in March of 2004 the Senate voted on an amendment to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. The amendment was agreed to 91-8. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the amendment to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

    Amendment - Background Checks
    In an amendment to the lawful commerce act, the Senate voted to require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms, and for other purposes. The amendment was agreed to 53-46 with most Democrats supporting the amemdment and most Republicans oppossed to it. Rick Santorum voted against the amendment to require background checks at all events.

    Amendment - Assoult Weapons Ban
    In an amendment to the lawful commerce act, the Senate voted on a 10 year extension to the assault weapons ban. The amendment was agreed to in a 52-47 vote. Rick Santorum voted against the 10 year extension of the assault weapons ban.

    Amendment - Child Safety Devices
    An amendment to the lawful commerce act was the to require the provision of a child safety device in connection with the transfer of a handgun and to provide safety standards for child safety devices. The amendment passed 70-27. Rick Santorum voted in favor of the amendment to require child safety devices.

    A small negative for Santorum, but nothing compared to Ron Paul vote above.

    Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act
    The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act was passed in response to an attack on President Reagan in which Secretary Brady was injured. The 1993 law required gun purchasers to pass a background check to ensure that they were not a felon or did not fall into a number of other prohibitive classes. The measure passed the house 238-189. Rick Santorum voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act.
    Last edited by Tom-M; 12-29-2011 at 09:17 PM.
    "Would you die in your sleep like an ailing pet?" - Serenity

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •