Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Is This Who We Need As President?

Watch this video and decide. Personally, i think this RHINO needs to withdraw from the race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zRUl5z1YkU&feature=related
No Need To Run, You Will Only Die Tired
«1

Replies

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    He probably will, when the attacks on his many mistakes reach their peak.

    But consider this. You have two RINOS leading in the polls, going into the Iowa Caucus. Gingrich has his Pelosi moment to live down, and Romney has Romney Care to live down. If the attacks on Gingrich take their toll, in time, Romney probably wins Iowa and he will almost certainly win New Hampshire. That gives him a major 'head of steam' that the conservatives in the race will have a tough time overcoming.

    Perry is subject to blowing his own campaign up at any moment, and Bachman and Santorum, despite being good candidates, with consistent conservative records, are not turning anybody on very much, so far.

    But if Gingrich wins Iowa, and one or more of the conservatives score better than Romney, we still have a race, because the 'artillery' which is leveled at Gingrich will probably take him out, eventually.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    I'm in the "Anybody but Romney" camp, and that includes Gingrich. We've had way too many chameleon candidates who will say anything to get elected, and Romney is just another lying politician. The real test is going to be whether or not we can run some of the career crooks out of Congress anyway, as the prez is just a figurehead anyway. Most of the professional pols lie to get votes; it comes with the territory, but Romney is just too blatant about it.
    Jerry
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    I watched video's, and read articles about statements that Gingrich has said in the past. He praises Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR. In fact, he said in one of his speeches that FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. All of these three presidents were big-government progressives. He will not be getting my vote in the primary. The general would be a different story. I'm not going to risk another 4 years of 0zer0 at the helm.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,043 Senior Member
    I watched video's, and read articles about statements that Gingrich has said in the past. He praises Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR. In fact, he said in one of his speeches that FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. All of these three presidents were big-government progressives.

    You need to read this blog post:
    http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/regardless-of-what-they-told-you-in-school-fdr-sucked/

    Larry Corriea (Author) just absolutely destroys Gingrich and FDR in that diatribe.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    Good article...pretty scary who some people consider to be good presidents.
    :that:
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • deadeyedeadeye Member Posts: 73 Member
    Of all the ones running, i really think if they would give Ron Paul a shot at it, that he would do his best to steer us back on coarse. I think of all the ones that he speaks from his heart and convictions. Cant say that about the rest of them.
    No Need To Run, You Will Only Die Tired
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Do us a favor and TELL US what the video is about. Thanks.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    deadeye wrote: »
    Of all the ones running, i really think if they would give Ron Paul a shot at it, that he would do his best to steer us back on coarse. I think of all the ones that he speaks from his heart and convictions. Cant say that about the rest of them.

    "coarse" is the operative word. I cannot abide his stance on Israel. And asked what he'd do about preventing Iran from making nuclear weapons, he said we should be nicer to them. D'oh!
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member


    I found this article and political cartoon which is of interest regarding Paul's foreign policies. The article uses the term "ostrichism" in describing Paul's policies, that is, his head is the sand. What do you guys think?

    http://dontletitgo.com/2011/06/23/ostrichism/
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    "coarse" is the operative word. I cannot abide his stance on Israel. And asked what he'd do about preventing Iran from making nuclear weapons, he said we should be nicer to them. D'oh!


    Do you really believe Iran has nukes or is it possible that this is the same intelligence that was fed to W about the mythical WMDs? If (and that's a big IF) Iran has nukes, let the Israelis deal with it. Afterall, we gave them nukes and every other piece of modern weaponry.

    Let's see how THAT plays out in the years when Israel is no longer our friend. Just like every other tin pot we've armed in the last 50 years that eventually turned against us. Except we gave them freaking NUKES.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member

    I found this article and political cartoon which is of interest regarding Paul's foreign policies. The article uses the term "ostrichism" in describing Paul's policies, that is, his head is the sand. What do you guys think?

    http://dontletitgo.com/2011/06/23/ostrichism/

    I think people that buy into gov't sponsored fear propaganda were/are responsible for Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Homeland Security, the War on Drugs, TSA, gun control, and a myriad of other programs that cost American lives, money, and RIGHTS.

    Why do you think other countries are a threat? Because your GOVERNMENT tells they are. And you believe every word.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,327 Senior Member
    deadeye wrote: »
    Of all the ones running, i really think if they would give Ron Paul a shot at it, that he would do his best to steer us back on coarse. I think of all the ones that he speaks from his heart and convictions. Cant say that about the rest of them.

    He's probably the closest to somebody I would actually vote FOR, being the generally Libertarian isolationist that I am. Unfortunately, you can't seem to win a popular election unless you're willing to infringe on SOMEBODY'S personal liberties with either religion or bigger government.

    As to foreign policy, trying to play buddy-buddy with too many people is how the whole planet got sucked into World War One. I'm not making a blanket statement of "don't get involved", but I daresay we need to be a lot more businesslike and a lot less emotional about the things that we make our problem. The issue with being a racial/ethnic/religious melting pot is that any foreign action you take will offend SOMEONE in your population. If you can legitimately tell the offended parties that they will have more money or be made safer by the action taken, you will have a much stouter leg to stand on when you tell them to stop thinking of themselves as Hyphenated-Americans when we bomb their second cousin twice removed. If you can't manage that, then you're acting on what makes YOU feel good and not in the nation's interest.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    "Why do you think other countries are a threat? Because your GOVERNMENT tells they are. And you believe every word."

    I think you need to seek help.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    thumbnail.aspx?q=1358518624171&id=799c216a5342f5315ff21a8dd4f05065

    "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil- - - - -'CAUSE I'M THE EVILEST MOFO IN THE VALLEY!"

    Jerry
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    I'm in the "Anybody but Romney" camp, and that includes Gingrich. We've had way too many chameleon candidates who will say anything to get elected, and Romney is just another lying politician. The real test is going to be whether or not we can run some of the career crooks out of Congress anyway, as the prez is just a figurehead anyway. Most of the professional pols lie to get votes; it comes with the territory, but Romney is just too blatant about it.
    Jerry

    :that::agree: Agreed Teach!!!!!!!!!! ^^^^Just goes to prove what I have been knowning and saying all along!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    Unfortunately, you can't seem to win a popular election unless you're willing to infringe on SOMEBODY'S personal liberties with either religion or bigger government.
    My, how times have changed. The Republican Party used to represent small government, isolationism and personal liberty. Not much different than Demonrats now.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Well, Bigslug, I'm not sure how your history books tell you how we (I assume this means the US) got into WWI but the buddy-buddy thing involved our old allies Britain and France.

    If we have to offend someone I'd rather it be some idiotic Islamic bunch who have sworn death to the US and all Jews, that someone else who is constantly being attacked from every direction by sworn enemies. Ron Paul's simplistic isolationist policy notwithstanding, it DOES make a difference whom we make friends with.

    I'd just as soon not get in bed with someone who's sworn to kill me. Hey, if people like Ron Paul had their way in the 30s and 40s, I'd be a lampshade.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Well, Bigslug, I'm not sure how your history books tell you how we (I assume this means the US) got into WWI but the buddy-buddy thing involved our old allies Britain and France.

    If we have to offend someone I'd rather it be some idiotic Islamic bunch who have sworn death to the US and all Jews, that someone else who is constantly being attacked from every direction by sworn enemies. Ron Paul's simplistic isolationist policy notwithstanding, it DOES make a difference whom we make friends with.

    I'd just as soon not get in bed with someone who's sworn to kill me. Hey, if people like Ron Paul had their way in the 30s and 40s, I'd be a lampshade.

    If people like Ron Paul had their way in the 20's and 30's, there would NEVER have been a Hitler. Ron Paul is not an isolationist, that is false rhetoric to scare the weak-minded. He is a non-interventionist, what the founders suggested was the proper role of our federal government.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    If people like Ron Paul had their way in the 20's and 30's, there would NEVER have been a Hitler. Ron Paul is not an isolationist, that is false rhetoric to scare the weak-minded. He is a non-interventionist, what the founders suggested was the proper role of our federal government.
    Perhaps my word isolationist was incorrect.....non-interventionist sounds more likely correct.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    I put Ron Paul in the same category as Obama. Either one is not qualified to be Commander in Chief of this country. Ron Paul still blames the U.S. for 911. I have listened to most of the debates and cannot believe he would be the best candidate to beat Obama.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    Nomadac wrote: »
    I put Ron Paul in the same category as Obama. Either one is not qualified to be Commander in Chief of this country. Ron Paul still blames the U.S. for 911. I have listened to most of the debates and cannot believe he would be the best candidate to beat Obama.

    So does the CIA. They blame our excessive involvement in other countries affairs for most terrorist attacks against us. So you think they are wrong too? If you do, please provide us with your source. The 911 commission also agrees with Ron Paul.

    So share with us your source.

  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    I'm in the "Anybody but Romney" camp, and that includes Gingrich. We've had way too many chameleon candidates who will say anything to get elected, and Romney is just another lying politician. The real test is going to be whether or not we can run some of the career crooks out of Congress anyway, as the prez is just a figurehead anyway. Most of the professional pols lie to get votes; it comes with the territory, but Romney is just too blatant about it.
    Jerry

    +1

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    DoctorWho wrote: »
    "Why do you think other countries are a threat? Because your GOVERNMENT tells you they are. And you believe every word."

    I think you need to seek help.

    Why? Because I don't believe everything the Fed says? Funny how you republicans like to pick and choose what you think is credible.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    If people like Ron Paul had their way in the 20's and 30's, there would NEVER have been a Hitler. Ron Paul is not an isolationist, that is false rhetoric to scare the weak-minded. He is a non-interventionist, what the founders suggested was the proper role of our federal government.
    So does the CIA. They blame our excessive involvement in other countries affairs for most terrorist attacks against us. So you think they are wrong too? If you do, please provide us with your source. The 911 commission also agrees with Ron Paul.

    Good grief, cmmguy. Do you hibernate between elections, so you can pop up with renewed vigor every four years and do your canned Ron Paul commercials? Doesn't Ron Paul have enough foaming-at-the-mouth worshipers on the Internet, without having to send them out to campaign for him on gun forums?

    If we could pick a person for President based strictly on his Constitutional record, I could go with a guy like Ron Paul, with no qualms. But the fact is that there are billions of people in the world who hate our guts and see our freedoms, as guaranteed by our Constitution, as the way to tear us down from within - and they get a lot of help from our own elitist career politicians. It really does not matter if what Paul says is true about everything being our fault. The problems exist, and have to be dealt with, and his 'plan' for doing that is not much different from Obama's, as near as anyone can decipher it.

    There is no one man who fits the bill as a Constitutionalist and geo-politics expert. So, about the best a realistic person can do, when trying to pick the best man to lead the country, is to first pick one that won't weaken it further, and then concentrate on what he wants to do to fix all the things that are broken. Anyone who accepts that simple and practical premise cannot ignore the fact that Ron Paul's ideas on national defense are naive to the point of being dangerous.

    It does not really matter very much whether Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas would have kept us out of every war in the 20th or 21st century. We have to deal with what we have in front of us, and when you take Ron Paul out of his comfort zone (Constitutional matters), and put him on the spot about how to deal with the national defense problems we actually do have, he diverts and puts up straw men, just like any other politician who has been nailed on one of his weaknesses. You are left with a candidate who does not even want to consider what his response would be to an event like 911. He avoids talking about that, and his supporters attack anyone who asks those questions. The simple truth is that he knows he cannot state his true beliefs on the subject, without being dismissed by the majority of voters, even more so than they already have.

    I'm not going to continue this discussion, because we went over all of this extensively, four years ago. You have obviously managed to hold onto your messianic zeal for the liberal/Libertarian nirvana that you expect Ron Paul to deliver, whereas I have just become more cynical.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    For clarity: cmmguy and Big Battery existed at separate times. Unless they're the same poster with dual identities, they're two people.



    I do want to know: how would someone like Ron Paul, a non-interventionist, prevented Hitler?
    I'm just here for snark.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Member Posts: 203 Member
    For clarity: cmmguy and Big Battery existed at separate times. Unless they're the same poster with dual identities, they're two people.
    Same... when the forum switched, it would not allow the re-registration of that user name- they had lots of problems after the switch. I hang out in the other sportsman forum that used to be linked to this one and that is how I used to get to this one. I read the rest of the forum, am an avid gun owner, hunt and have a CCW but generally dont really have much to contribute in those areas, when it comes to guns, most here know way more than I do.

    Most of the topics in this 2A subforum are just news rehashes and the responses are generally fairly predictable so there is nothing to gain there. However the future of our country is at stake and the politics of the presidential election is important. It is worth the effort to speak up if one or two minds can be opened and changed. The rest I cant help.. they are too stuck in believing the lies of the last 50 years that they cant see or recognize the truth... those folks cant be helped.

    I do want to know: how would someone like Ron Paul, a non-interventionist, prevented Hitler?

    Not sure a president like Paul could have stopped Hitler from gaining the support that he received initially but it was the isolation of Germany after WW1 by this country through boycotts and financial demands that allowed Hitler to fool the German population into hating the jews and prepared them for war against the war. This is sort of what we are now doing to Iran... we are pushing them into a corner just like we pushed the Germans into a corner. If we dont learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

    The mouth foamers are the ones that are beating the drums against Iran...
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    So... how do we stop or persuade someone like Hitler, Hirohito, or Ahmagonnagetitwrong that the actions they are undergoing are incorrect without the threat of military force or economic sanctions?
    I'm just here for snark.
  • dbrow6272dbrow6272 New Member Posts: 3 New Member
    NO NO NO NO! We need a PRESIDENT! I do not believe any of the candidates qualify as the "supreme commander" of our country. I cannot recall the last real leader this country had. I can only go with history and it has been many decades since we have had a LEADER. God help us!
    "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." TR
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    With your hitler analogy I don't see him acting much different than FDR did and that strategy worked out ok didn't it?

    Sure...worked out fine...unless you happen to be one of the 6 million innocents who were being murdered while we were waiting around to get involved...to our everlasting shame...Jesus alpha, read a history book...

    Paul would be another Neville Chamberlain as Hitler was making his "last territorial demand in Europe"
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    It has been said that American Exceptionalism and Leadership are two of the most important issues for the 2012 Presidential election.

    Quote:
    "If Ron Paul had his way he would abandon what he asserts is America’s penchant for empire. Under Paul’s foreign policy, the United States would return to a non-interventionist foreign policy where the U.S. would abandon most, if not all, military installations abroad; end our membership in international organizations; keep American military forces on American soil; and proscribe U.S. contact with the world would be over matters concerning trade and not much else. Huntsman is not as radical in cutting most ties within foreign affairs, but he would dramatically reduce America’s military commitments abroad, reduce some involvement in international organizations, and increase focus on diplomacy and trade, particularly in Asia, which is his area of expertise. Huntsman has advocated he would focus much more of his energy on rebuilding the American economy because that will increase the global perception that the United States is a nation to emulate. In turn, this emulation assures, revives, and restores America’s greatness.

    Interventionists, like Governor Romney and Speaker Newt Gingrich as well as the other candidates, favor a much more muscular approach to foreign policy, going so far as to continually invoke President Reagan’s foreign policy mantra of “peace through strength.” These candidates, all favor increasing the defense budget; curtailing foreign aid and some cases cutting it altogether; getting tougher on rogue nations like Syria, North Korea, and Iran through increased sanctions and potential military action; rethinking and potentially reducing involvement with the United Nations; actively promoting democracy abroad; and using whatever means necessary to fight and potentially expand the war on terrorism.[20] According to these Republican presidential candidates, in order to maintain and continually promote the spread of democracy, as well as deal with emerging threats from across the world, the United States must continue and extend its role as a world leader. Interventionist Republican presidential candidates describe exemplarists, like Representative Paul and Governor Huntsman, as naïve “isolationists” who do not understand the modern integrated and interconnected world the United States faces. To abandon our leadership position would undercut U.S. influence and diminish America’s exceptionalist ethos. "

    It is obvious that Obama has no Leadership experience based on this lack of doing anything while in office. I personally believe that our next President should have both experience and a record of leadership to be elected.

    For you Ron Paul believers, maybe you could enlighten us non-believers as to his qualifications of Leadership? As I have not seen anything that would qualify him or confirm his qualifications in this area.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement