-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Romney on tonight's debate
- Thread starter TOM-P
- Start date
"I support 2nd ammendment rights, but I also support assault weapons bans"
![[slap]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/025.gif "Slap [slap]")
I missed the debate. Why do I get a sinking feeling for the next Presidential term? The front runners from either party aren't that good are they?
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,618
- Likes
- 20,020
What did you expect from him?
He's an anti . . . just not as bad as some other antis!
He's an anti . . . just not as bad as some other antis!
As usual, the problem is that the candidates with any amount of spine/integrity
have very little chance of winning, so we are stuck with the same selection as l
ast time.... presidential elections as of late are like deciding which turd sandwich
is best.... all the choices in the end game are terrible in one way or another. This
will only ever change under our current system when people start refusing to nominate
or elect the a**h***s that the "two party system" has foisted upon the public....
-Mike
Speaking of idiots, did anyone catch this bit of moonbattery from Ron Paul?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/15/224151.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/15/224151.shtml
Speaking of idiots, did anyone catch this bit of moonbattery from Ron Paul?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/15/224151.shtml
Glenn Beck was playing it this morning on his show and ripping Paul up quite a bit.
Ron Paul came off as an idiot. Any minuscule chance he had evaporated last night.
Most of the people this country elects into any govt. office are idiots... would you expect him to get elected if he came off as inteligent?
Too bad too with Ron Paul... he's one of the only real conservatives in the Congress but he's done now.
I don't know who here listens to Jay Severin in the afternoon but he's losing credibility with me the more he talks about Rommney. Guns are my first level of whether I see you a good politician and Rommney fails that one with his " I like the Federal AWB! " crap. Jay will not bring up Mitt's position on this unless pushed and then casually dismisses it by saying that Mitt is a hunter and a member of the NRA. There has been a few times that I wanted to rip the radio out of the dash to silence the noise!
Most of us agree here that our choices for the upcoming race for President are less than sterling picks - even Fred Thompson has his problems too. What is it gonna take to get some good people that want the job that also understand freedom and liberty are part of our country?
Joe R.
I don't know who here listens to Jay Severin in the afternoon but he's losing credibility with me the more he talks about Rommney. Guns are my first level of whether I see you a good politician and Rommney fails that one with his " I like the Federal AWB! " crap. Jay will not bring up Mitt's position on this unless pushed and then casually dismisses it by saying that Mitt is a hunter and a member of the NRA. There has been a few times that I wanted to rip the radio out of the dash to silence the noise!
Most of us agree here that our choices for the upcoming race for President are less than sterling picks - even Fred Thompson has his problems too. What is it gonna take to get some good people that want the job that also understand freedom and liberty are part of our country?
Joe R.
I am afraid that if you are waiting for the perfect candidate who has absolutely no problems - you are going to be waiting for an awfully long time.
This may be where the Liberals have a decided advantage over Conservatives. I think that more of them are willing to accept a flawed candidate as long as he/she agrees with their pet concern.
I noticed this too. When did he become such a Romney rump-swab?
Just for the record, I've attended more baby showers (3) than Mitt has hunting trips (2).
Speaking of idiots, did anyone catch this bit of moonbattery from Ron Paul?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/15/224151.shtml
Please explain how pointing out the obvious - that interfering in other people's countries, manipulating their politics, supporting their enemies, and bombing their countries' - is not likely to induce people to want to attack us?
Let's see - if I go over to my neighbor Ted's house, and while he is at work I tell his wife that he is having an affair (Ted's wife is hot so I am hoping she will dump him), then I give the kid at Ted's son's school (who has been having a long running feud with Ted's son) - $50 to beat up Ted's son - just because I want to cause more trouble. Then to top it off I call the police and complain that Ted is threatening me - so the cops now have a squad car stationed out in front of his house to keep him in line (sort of like the neighborhood UN).
Do I really have the right to complain if Ted jumps me in my driveway one morning as I am getting into my car to go to work and beats the crap out of me?
What part of normal human behavior don't you understand?
If you f*** with people - they tend to want to f*** you back.
The fact that it seems like most people in this country who claim to be "conservative" only see that label as being in support of embracing our Federal govt's quest to piss off as many people around the globe as possible - just goes to show how far we have really fallen as an alleged republic.
If you go and actually do some reading about the true conservative roots of this country you will find that the founding fathers would NOT have supported our govt's quest to spread American influence thruout the world.
Being opposed to constant war and increasing deficit spending (likely to drive the country into bankruptcy) is the true "conservative" position. Most of the people who can't seem to understand Ron Paul's points are only arguing for a strong president with slightly right leaning viewpoint on the world - as opposed to the liberals - who are arguing for a strong president with a left leaning viewpoint on the world.
It's sort of like arguing for Hitler over Stalin - what's the difference? you are screwed either way.
And both of the above mentioned dictators supported gun control by the way - in case you have somehow forgotten that.
J
Jose
calsdad, we were not attacked by muslims because of what we've done to them.
We were attacked because of who and what we are and what we stand for.
We were attacked because of who and what we are and what we stand for.
Correct...we are not Muslims so we must die or convert.
"We are Muslims. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
Really?
- the CIA disagrees with you.
- Osama Bin Laden disagrees with you.
- if what you say is true then why have there been no terrorist attacks in Switzerland? A country with very similar values to ours - but one that has the good sense to mind their own business.
- Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda - disagrees with you.
- the 9-11 commision disagrees with you.
Why do people who argue for this "they attack us for who we are" argument never seem to acknowledge the basic human behavior of fighting back against those who are screwing with you? Unless you are an illiterate or have a highly evolved selective memory you must know that the US has had troops stationed in multiple Mideast countries for years. But yet when 9-11 occurred the very same types of people who typically scream the loudest about how the Muslims want to kill us for who we are - and never seem to have the common sense to realize that maybe people from other countries don't want our troops posted there - were also screaming bloody murder because some NATO countries sent AWACS planes over here - staffed by foreign military personell - and they also screamed bloody murder about Mexican troops coming into this country after Katrina.
Not to mention the fact that I watch the postings of many of you - and the same people who use the bullshit "they hate us for who we are" argument would also go ballistic if somebody did so much as throw a piece of trash on their front lawn.
It appears that the worldview of many of you who agree with our intervention into foreign countries affairs is "don't touch anything of mine - but I should be allowed to screw around with everything of yours".
This is just plain hypocrisy.
Doing some of my morning reading I also find that Pat Buchanan disagrees with you:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan58.html
I can keep going........
Last edited:
Russell Kirk - one of the founders of American conservatism, would also have disagreed with you:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods69.html
and I can keep going ........
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 188
- Likes
- 8
No, no no Calsdad, don't you understand? They hate us for our freedoms.
This is why they hate us a lot less now than before 9/11 because we have lost a bunch of our freedoms.
As we lose more and more of our freedoms, the hate will lessen.
This is why they hate us a lot less now than before 9/11 because we have lost a bunch of our freedoms.
As we lose more and more of our freedoms, the hate will lessen.
Their method is to slowly surround Switzerland, which they are doing. Every other European country is being infested with them. When those are 'assimilated', then the Swiss will be totally isolated and 'squeezed' into assimilation.
BTW, in case you missed it, their religion requires death or assimilation of infidels.
I don't totally disagree with your point on their religion, however if any of you who are so up in arms about what Ron Paul said at the debate the other night had bothered to read what he has written you would find the following:
- Ron Paul is totally in agreement that we must control our borders.
- Ron Paul is totally against birthright citizenship.
- Ron Paul is against govt. deficit spending.
- Ron Paul completely supports our 2nd amendment rights (from what I have read from RP I would say he would go so far as to eliminate the BATF and many of the 20,000 plus gun laws on our books now)
- Ron Paul would eliminate govt. welfare - especially that for persons who are not citizens.
- Ron Paul would make our country completely energy independent and completely stop the foreign aid money that flows from our pockets into the hands of multiple Mideast governments (including Saudi Arabia - where all the 9/11 hijackers came from in case you have forgotten)
- Ron Paul would support arming the pilots on passenger jets (which would have stopped 9/11 before it ever happened)
Let's compare the above to our present (allegedly) Republican adminstration and all of the Democrats shall we:
- Democrats and many Republicans - including George Bush, have not controlled our borders, and in fact recently have agreed to allow the illegals to stay. Hey cool - let's let more terrorists in.
- Neither Republicans or Democrats have said anything about eliminating birthright citizenship. So lets just let them all in an make them citizens, I am sure that will help make us safe.
- Democrats historically, and our recent Republican administration, have spent our country into bankruptcy like drunken sailors and continue to do so. Is there any better way to destroy this country and put it at the mercy of Islamic jihadists and every other enemy that we may have around the world than to make us bankrupt? If you don't believe that our country can be destroyed by this then I suggest you read a little bit about the history of Britain and what has happened to them because of the massive debt they incurred because of fighting WWI and then WWII. I believe recently that the Britain finally paid off the last of their debt to the U.S. from WWII. And then look at Britain now - overrun with muslims.
- If you want to understand the face of Islamic terrorism then go find and read the book "Terror at Beslan". What you will discover is that the govt. cannot protect you when terrorists are in your midst. So what does our govt. do? They constantly take away our firearms - and they send all of our troops overseas and forbid us from organizing into citizens militias - which are the best type of defense against terrorism. Go search on Google for "William Lind Militia" - this has actually been studied and recommended as the best option for our defense here at home - not the bullshit about "killing them over there so they wont kill us here". Oh yeah, they keep letting more in (see my points above)
- I have read multiple stories about how illegal immigrants come into this country - and get on welfare. Back right after 9/11 there were numerous stories about how terrorists coming into this country would live for a while in places like Canada, and European countries - and take advantage of their welfare systems. Why is welfare so important in the fight on terror? Because when you are training for jihad and planning out your attacks - going to a job every day puts a bit of crimp in your plans. Does our present govt. do anything about dismantling the welfare state? No. Both parties just want to get more of it for their own pet interests.
- Does our government do anything about dumping our reliance on foreign oil? NO. If the money that has been spent on the Iraq war so far had been spent on making us energy independent we might actually be there by now. By removing the massive flow of money going into the Mideast you would also be removing the massive flow of money that comes out of Mideast countries to support terrorism. So in effect we are supporting the terrorists in their war against us.
So sure, go fight the freakin war - spend us into bankruptcy, and then let tons of illegal immigrants into the country, with terrorists from Mideast countries hidden among them. Then send all of our troops overseas, continue to send our money to those same countries where the Muslims live and keep pissing off the inhabitants of those countries - so the ranks of radical jihadists continues to grow. Again - do you read any history? Do you know where and why the current crop of Islamo fascists got their start? It was Afghanistan under the Russians where Bin Laden got hatched. The philosophical roots of their movement go back to the turn of the 20th century - but again, those philosophical roots come from people who were under English and French rule. Again - it is because we ( or the English or the French) interfered in their countries that they come after us.
And last but not least - all of you people who argue so loudly about us going to war against Islam are actually the perfect example of what Ron Paul is talking about. You are historically ignorant so you have no idea of what led up to 9/11. Then when it happens you cry bloody murder that we must go after them. This is in fact the same basic argument that Bin Laden and all the other Islamic jihadists are making as to why they want to go after us. Their timeline might be a bit longer - but they argue that Westerners oppressed them from the Crusades onward (when in fact the Crusades were a Christian response to repeated attacks by Muslims).
The Muslims are bringing all of us down to their level - like Ron Paul said - Ronald Reagan himself finally conceded that when he pulled the Marines out of Lebanon because of the irrationality of Mideast politics. And you guys are standing here cheering it on while our country is being led to destruction.
We will never win this war of civilizations if we continue to fight it the way we are now. Keep letting illegals (and terrorists) into the country. Keep sending our money to the terrorists. Keep spending us into bankruptcy. Keep doing away with our Constitutional rights until we get to the point where there is no real difference between living under the dictatorship we have - or a fascist Islamic state. Go ahead - keep doing it. This isn't rocket science - we as a country are doing all of the things that the Founding Fathers warned us against. And they warned us against them because they had seen how it had brought down previous empires and civilizations.
So in the end you have to ask yourself? Which is really the bigger threat to this country? The Islamists - or the people who argue for never-ending warfare (and the required spending)? The Islamists - or the people who argue for the breaking of the balance of power by putting more and more power into the hands of the presidency? The Islamists - or the people who argue that we don't really need Habeus Corpus because it impedes our fight against terrorist? The Islamists - or the people (many so-called conservatives included), who would remove our means of self defense?
