-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
dross on Ron Paul
- Thread starter dross
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
^This^ As long as Israel exists they will hate the U.S. and the reason they hate the U.S. so much is that we won't step aside and look the other way so they can attempt to carry out their plan for destruction. They have no desire for reconciliation or peace with Israel.
This is one big bone of contention with a lot of people concerning Ron Paul's foreign policy platform when it comes to his views about our current support for Israel.
Paco Bedejo
Master
Check it again. That particular comment was made specifically to point out hypocrisy. What post was I responding to?
And it's not voting for someone different that garners an anti-liberty label. Plenty of people are voting for different candidates and not casting anti- liberty votes.
EDIT: Let me try this again, now that I'm not trying to post and keep dinner from burning at the same time.
The second comment you quoted was in direct response to a Paul supporter grousing about some criticism of Paul/his supporters. My comment was made to point out the hypocrisy of whining about being criticized while doing it to others. THAT particular comment was not a complaint of unfair characterization of someone based on voting choices, but a "pot calling the kettle black" observation.
I have complained in the past about being labeled un-American/fascist/hater of liberty because I have not chosen to throw my unconditional support behind Paul. But therein lies the difference. I'm being labeled for NOT voting for someone. If someone wants to tell me my vote for Newt or Romney isn't a vote for freedom, I understand that. And to a certain extent, I'd have to agree*. But that's not what's being said some of the time. It's very clear that the accusations are being made to anybody and everybody who is NOT supporting Paul. You would have to assume that the alternative candidate of preference were worse than Paul in order for that to be true. And while I know those who support Paul feel that way by default, it doesn't make it true. And it doesn't mean that the alternative is actually going to come from the list of currently running candidates. ALL non-Paul voters are being lumped into the same category as equally bad.
Contrast that with my comment about voting FOR Obama. A known quantity of a man whose every fiber of his being stands for enslavement and tyranny. There is nothing in Obama's repertoire that embraces freedom for the individual; ergo, whatever position/principle one used as a basis to vote for Obama necessarily is a vote FOR tyranny.
Am I splitting hairs? Possibly. I can see it that way.
*For liberty? Is a vote against the current reign of tyranny a vote for freedom? Is freedom only and all or nothing endeavor? I happen to think so. Not saying all non-Paul candidates are votes for freedom in and of themselves, but for the result that they may bring they can be.
Last edited:
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Good, then we agree!
But in seriousness, I haven't noticed a critical attitude towards people not voting for Ron Paul. The discussion generally centers around Ron Paul not being electable, implying that you intend to vote for someone who IS electable. And this further implies that it would be one of the GOP front runners. That is where the criticism comes in. I doubt you would hear the same arguments if you said you were voting for a different candidate because you thought they would be a better choice than Paul.
You didn't address my point at all. If there are true converts to the cause of liberty, that's fabulous. I didn't say that there weren't any. I said I didn't think there were enough who were truly committed to the change because of a liberty-advocating stance to stick with Paul through it all.
You're attributing comments and implications to me that I didn't make.
I can't remember what this commercial was originally for, but it wasn't a ron paul ad. the last line of the original commercial was "now they work for us." I'll try and find the original.
EDIT: Here it is. I don't know why they title it banned, it aired for quite a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYKAbRK_wKA
Sounds like a rather entangling alliance to me...
There are quite a few Americans that are not willing to see the Jews once again subjected to attempted genocide. It may be for religious reasons. It may be for humanitarian reasons. We stood by while millions were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. We do not intend to stand by during a Muslim led Holocaust.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
What makes you think you have the right to force that view upon the Americans who don't agree with it?
Good, then we agree!
But in seriousness, I haven't noticed a critical attitude towards people not voting for Ron Paul. The discussion generally centers around Ron Paul not being electable, implying that you intend to vote for someone who IS electable. And this further implies that it would be one of the GOP front runners. That is where the criticism comes in. I doubt you would hear the same arguments if you said you were voting for a different candidate because you thought they would be a better choice than Paul.
To the bolded: Just about every post from Paco has been dripping with the innuendo. mrjarell too for a while until he stopped posting with regularity in these threads. And some jackwagon a day or two ago said if one didn't vote for Paul, one wasn't a "TRUE AMERICAN." It's likely that you identify with it well enough not to recognize as such, but it's there.
But I do think a candidate that can beat Obama would be a better choice than Paul if it looks like Paul can't get the nomination and/or couldn't beat Obama if he did. My definition of "better" includes different priorities. Why does having different priorities make my "better" less worthy of respect than your "better?"
Long before my voting strategy was made clear, I was being ridiculed and mocked for not giving Paul my unconditional support. Nobody knew who I was voting for because I don't know who I'm voting for. It was enough that I wasn't already committed to Paul.
There are two kinds of voters according to Paul supporters: Paul supporters and everybody else. And if you aren't a Paul supporter, you can't possibly be voting for liberty, you can't possibly be voting for the best candidate, you can't possibly be voting based on "principles" because in their mind, Paul is the ONLY candidate than can move us in the right direction. (Actually, I'm quite sure they believe Paul is going not only going to get us moving in the right direction, but that he's going to take us back to the glory days of federalism as it was meant to be. But that's a different discussion.) It's the old "If you aren't with us, you are against us" meme. It's practically oozing out of every post by Paul supporters when they talk about the other R candidates.
Sounds like a rather entangling alliance to me...
It is. Some think we should have them, some think we shouldn't.
It's a pretty fundamental difference that is tough to overcome from either direction.
Kind of like Coke vs. Pepsi, or 9mm vs. .45 ACP, or CC vs. OC...
Easy, they have the numbers to do so; it has nothing to do with rights.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Well...that's pretty much standard human nature. I think I'm right in my values and therefore yours must be wrong. It's really nothing personal, at least not to me.
I do understand where you're coming from on it. But keep in mind that a lot of people see the GOP frontrunners to be just as dangerous as Obama. That comes down to values as well.
We can still respect each others' values, though. Even when we disagree.
Sometimes I see it that way too and it even gets to the point with all the condescension and vitriol that it's almost comparable to the way hardcore liberal Democrats act.
It's a major turn off even for someone that has a tendency to agree with alot of what Ron Paul stands for but are not quite so confrontational about it.
Last edited:
I might be different than most but I don't feel that my values are more right than yours or the next persons. My big issues with Newt, Cain (even though he is out of the picture now), and several others is that I do see them just as dangerous as Obama. Cain for the simple reason that he doesn't have experience (we're in that situation right now), he lumped all Muslims with the extremists, and he was either trying to be sarcastic during a serious interview or he is just plain ignorant about things a candidate should be up to speed on. Newt, just looking at his past and seeing what he has supported...I wouldn't trust him. Some of the others, most of the time I feel like they've been giving answers that people wanted to hear instead of giving their true opinion. I'm not big on trusting someone that flip-flops. Obama, never should have been elected imo. He didn't have a resume that showed he had a clue how to lead.
My biggest issue with other people supporting any candidate is if they're not concerned with being educated. Barry-O won, in big part, because he was a non-threatening black man that could give a good speech. Far too many people were wrapped up in that and took was MSM gave them. If someone voted for him because they truly believed he meant everything he said and it matched their values, great. My values may be a bit off, yours might, theirs might. Doesn't make mine better than yours or anyone else's.
KG1, many Ron Paul supporters get sick of hearing how the man is a lunatic and a dangerous old kook from the MSM and those that aren't informed (not saying you're uninformed if you're not a RP supporter). Paul supporters get as much crap as they give to Newt, Mitt, or Cain (when he was still running) supporters. It is all apart of the whole game.
As I've mentioned in another thread, I'm not real sure it'll matter too much who gets the nomination. Unless more people start paying more attention to what is going on around them and paying less to reality TV, Barry-O is looking to be the projected winner (based on statistical modeling, even though it is far too early to call it accurate). I'd LOVE to see Ron Paul get the nomination and beat Obama because I feel he is much more trust worthy than the others that have been given to us. There are 2 or 3 that I find just as offensive as Obama. Some I see as taking away attention from the front runners.
Do I think Ron Paul could lead us in a better direction, yeah. Am I naive enough to think that he'll be able to do everything he wants if he gets the nomination and wins? Nope. If he does get the nomination and a win, I do think that it MAY help shape some of the future of politics.
88GT, as far as thinking RP is the only one that can move us in the "right" direction...as far as everything I've heard so far and from doing some research, I haven't seen too much from the other candidates that would make me feel better about the future. If we see things differently, that is fine with me. If you can, please point me in a direction that may make me see things from the other GOP candidates that shows they're overly concerned with liberty. I've went into the debates and plenty of reading (blogs, AP articles, news articles from all various slants) and I'm just not seeing it. If you can point me somewhere, I'll do the reading with an open mind.
Are you serious with this? We don't have the right to prevent the slaughter of a large number of people? Of course we do. You always have the right to prevent someone from initiating force against someone else.
I can hear the argument that we shouldn't do it. To say we have no right, though, indicates someone who is very, very far off track in my view.
I'm with you on this but I'm almost 50/50 on whether we need to take action on how we prevent it. I personally feel that we need to move away from being protector of the world UNLESS there is a serious threat that leads to the slaughter of an entire people or a verified threat that would lead to an all out world war.
