It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
samzhere wrote: »
As a matter of principle, I do not watch videos or other links that the poster doesn't at least take time to summarize or explain. So I have zero idea what the video says and won't watch it until you provide YOUR opinions and thoughts on the thing.
Buford wrote: »
You are entertaining Sam.
samzhere wrote: »
I don't know how to take that but you gotta understand, if someone is passionate about something enough to post a new thread, then fer pete's sake, SAY something about it that YOU personally think is worth sharing. And then, also, post a link if you want.
But we don't visit this forum to learn what videos are out there on the net -- otherwise we'd just cruise for popup ads and junk videos. We come here to talk about what OTHERS here think and not what some slick ad thinks.
So when someome ONLY posts a banner or ad or link and doesn't give his own views, it's lazy lazy lazy and if the person says "watch this" my reply is "nope".Instead, say, "Here's why I like Ron Paul (or Romney or whomever), a, b, c." AND there's a video that backs me up. Now I'm okay with that.But don't come here, post a link, then run away run away, expecting us to simply "Duh, must click, man says to, duh" because we're not mind-numbed democrats. We think for ourselves and we want YOU (the people who start threads) to SAY something that YOU think.
bisley wrote: »
Thanks for the spam, but the questions about Ron Paul's foreign policy views on the use of force have still never been answered, and I suspect they never will be. I've been waiting four years for any Ron Paul disciple to do something besides change the subject when this question is asked. It's kind of important, you know.
Big Battery wrote: »
Your interpretation of Paul's views towards the ME are incorrect and I bet that not one of you have ever visited his website to find out what they are but mostly get your indoctrination from Hannity or Limbaugh. Both of which seem rather petrified that Paul might win Iowa that they have to perpetuate lies. Limbaugh has gone so far as to subtly endorse Jeb Bush on Monday... lol. Ron Paul is the ONLY congressman who DEFENDED Israel's right to defend itself when it bombed the Iraqi Nuclear sites... everyone else chastised them.
We cant afford your US world view, it is just that simple. This is not pre-WW2. The Iranians are not the Germans. The Jews are not defenseless(we harm their safety more than we help it.)
Today's headline: US Fed asks banks to keep more cash at hand
Wake up. The unravelling is coming. They fear the coming run on the banks. When this baby rolls over, you wont have enough ammo and guns to protect yourself and there will be no place to hide. And our way of life will be lost forever. The American experiment will never be restored.
Teach wrote: »
His erratic rants in several of the debates put him in the same "raving moonbat" category as Ross Perot, and a lot of us who were of voting age back then remember what his antics caused. Carving away a substantial chunk of the ultra-conservative vote assures that we will end up with a fatal dose of communism, especially in the upcoming election. The circular firing squad the wannabes are creating right now might accomplish that feat anyway.
Hakkonen wrote: »
But the Israelis are just as guilty of perpetuating the conflict as the Arabs are.
How is it that the People's Republic of China, which has more than four times as many people as the United States, can defend itself with a military budget less than one-fifth of ours? Simple: they don't set themselves up as the world's policemen. Neither should we. Interventionism does make us poorer and less safe.
deadeye wrote: »
I believe that Ron Paul is the best of all the GOP candidates by a long shot. If one of the rest of those clowns gets nominated and does get elected we are gonna be screwed if we arent already.
bisley wrote: »
That is simply not true.
That is quickly changing, and as their military and economic capabilities quickly approach the level of ours, you may see them dictating to the world in a way that the USA never has. There will be a world superpower, and if you honestly don't mind that superpower being somebody besides us, you need to brush up on your history.
They don't set themselves up as the world's policemen for two reasons. The first is that they don't give a damn about the world, beyond what they can extract from it to meet their own desires; and second, because they have never had the resources to project power around the world. When they do, the Cold War will be seen to have been child's play, compared to the new one that pits a declining western world with a very robust China.
N320AW wrote: »
I agree. Ron Paul stands for everything this country should have NOT done for many years. The most important being common sense!
The last thing we need in the WH is another politician!
breamfisher wrote: »
He's been elected how many times? How many terms? Looking at his record he's served on and off since 1975, and run for the Presidential nomination 3 times, counting now. So how is he not a politician?
And if he stands for everything we should not have done, why should we elect him?
Temporary Price Reduction
Give a Gift
PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE
Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.