Ron Paul won't indorse Mitt - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48
Like Tree52Likes

Ron Paul won't indorse Mitt

This is a discussion on Ron Paul won't indorse Mitt within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by Bohemian I do not believe anybody said they were not voting... Not in this particular thread but ...

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    I do not believe anybody said they were not voting...
    Not in this particular thread but over and over again, supposed Paul supportes have said they won't vote for anyone other than Paul. You know that as well as everyone else in here. Intelectual honesty goes a long way for common understanding.

    The NONE OF THE ABOVE, NEITHER REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT MOVEMENT IS IN HIGH-GEAR!

    3rd party candidates are getting more attention than ever and there is a reason why...
    If you're talking about local elections, okay, but I'd like to see your sources on this for the Congressional and Senatorial elections.

    Romney or Obama is no choice at all, there is so little difference between the two its not even funny...
    The differences between between the 2 are glaring, unless of course you don't want to recognize them. Just the differences in fiscal stance alone stand the 2 far apart.

    Gee vote for Obama because he might ban guns & ammo or vote for Romney because he already has banned guns & ammo... (just for starters in Massachusetts, one illegal bullet gets you one year in jail)
    Please post sources for either. This was the easy search result for Romney. Gun Control & Gun Rights - Myths, Platform, Record, NRA Leaders' Statements about Mitt Romney I'm not even going to waist my time researching Obama's gun stance. He has a policy of not taking direct action on any third rail topic. He gets his minions like the Justice department to do his bidding (Fast and Furious)

    Simply not voting for the Status Quo Establishment of either party does not make someone blind...
    Hmm... where did this come in? Did you read what I actually wrote? Or did you see the frist line and go off into this tirade?

    Important principals may & must remain un-flexible...
    If the principal is really that important, then the one pressing them with be flexible to the extent he can win the uneducated over to understanding the principal. Most, not all, of the Paul supportes in here are as for to the Paul side as the Obama supportes are to the Obama side. No compromise = no win for either side. YOu've heard the fabel about the two men trapped in a cave? One has matches. One has a candle. Neither trust each other because they come from different tribes. Neither was willing to give the other the benefit of the doubt and would not give up what they had so they both died in darkness. Well that's about where the Paul supporters and the rest of the political spectrum are right now. BUt what the Paul supporters need to understand is that unless they are willing to join the fight against the other side, then everyone looses.

    Simply voting for one constitution trampling gun banning politician over another because he is the lesser of two evils is what got us into this mess to begin with...

    Without fundamental liberty we have nothing...

    ON Fundamental Liberty, there is ZERO difference between Gun Ban Romney & Gun Ban Obama...

    Notwithstanding, both their records of creating foreign jobs over American jobs...
    Foreign welfare over that of law-abiding u.s. citizens...
    The Patriot Act...
    The NDAA of 2012...
    The Federal Reserve...
    Opposition to Replacing the tax code in its entirety with something like the "Fair Tax Act"
    Continuance of issuing h1b and other visa's to take jobs from American Citizens...
    Their mutual Support of ccontinuing upside-down spending being the worlds police, big brother and welfare, while 10's of millions of law-abiding u.s. citizens are languishing in unemployment, underemployment and homelessness...
    Yadda, yadda..... evidently you haven't discerned the difference between the actions of a congressman/president and a private business person/governor. Two completely different political animals living in completely different jungles. This is one of the most common mistake made when trying to compare Obama and Romney.

    worried about fiscal disaster you say?

    Think it will be better under Romney? the best we can hope for is the same or likely much worse... because for starters Romney wants to repeal & replace ObamaCare with RomneyCare!
    The stark difference between the two plans is "Romney care" puts the decision making back into the hands of the patient and removes another layer of governmental bureaucracy from the equation. From the stand point of someone that is about to enter the world of Medicare, YES! That does appeal to me.

    Which bring me to another point of the Paul vs the world argument. What is Pauls stance on medical care for the elderly? If you look at the major cross section of Paul supporters, they are fairly far removed form the prospect of collecting Social Security (which I paid for) or needing the coverage or medicaid/medicare (which I paid for). Most are young contenders in this fight for liberty, but you don't consider the impact on the old dog in the fight.

    and both Romney & Obama are too afraid to touch entitlements and stop continued bailouts...
    Only a political animal that wants long term employment worries about entitlement. If you think the existing congress will block the end of their favorite entitlement, I agree with you. From a presidential stand point I think you're mistaken. Will they be forced to do what is best for the party rather than what is best for the nation? The result is in on Obama but the jury is still out on Romney. All you have to base your statement by is his business decisions made in benefit of the shareholders and his record at the state level.

    Romney & Obama are two paths to the same cliff we are headed for, that history has showed us many times always ends badly...

    with Romney we will be headed at that cliff at 55 miles and hour and with Obama 65 miles an hour...
    So much melodrama!

    With somebody like Ron Paul... the upside down spending stops on day one... and law-abiding U.S. Citizens come FIRST...
    This is the single statement that every single Paul supported uses and knows that it is intellectually dishonest or the person making it is ignorant of the actual power the president has. The president has no say in spending other than yea or nay to the budget presented to him. It is Congresses job to set the spending. Paul could veto or not sign the budget but if he did, we would be in the same boat we are right now. No budget since the Democrats took over 2 years before Bush left office. So by this statement you're telling me that Paul is the same or worse that Obama and the democrats?

    I got to go. I'm in the middle of fixing dinner. What we need instead of all of this chest pounding from the Paul supporters is for them to join the fight and work on changing things from within the party.

    Maybe you need to run for local office and work your way up to congress so you can actually make the changes you want.
    Last edited by walt629; 08-29-2012 at 08:00 PM. Reason: misspoke/clarity
    To not stand against injustice is to stand for it.
    Don't confuse my personality and my attitude.
    My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north east Iowa
    Posts
    1,251

    Default

    The caucus system in Iowa has always been a joke. What I understand is that the only ones who decide on the distribution of delegates are the loudest mouths in the party who are able to make bargains with other sleazy people. It was designed to mimic the national conventions of 60 years ago where deals were made in smoke filled back rooms. The votes of the citizens didn't count. Obviously they do not count when the person with the lowest vote totals wins the majority delegates.

    I participated in the Iowa political system for years (central committee, county delegate,and state delegate) and finally realized just how dishonest it is. I decided to again participate in the system and watched the delegates stolen by Paul supporters. The problem is that the votes of people on caucus night do not count. The state needs to go back to a primary system where the wishes of the people are honored. I understand the caucus system and how inherently flawed and dishonest it is.Ron Paul only did well in caucus states because he was able to game the system with his fanatical supporters. The only saving grace for Iowa is that only presidential nominations are subject to this insanely dishonest and undemocratic method..

    I just watched Rand Paul's speech. He believes in many of the same principles as his father, minus the insanity. I would be really thrilled to support him for president if the country survives that long.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walt629 View Post
    ...
    Mitt Romney and Gun Control
    In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.

    And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

    As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

    At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

    “The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

    But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.
    “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”1
    Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”2
    Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”3
    Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
    And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire. In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.
    Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps. But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.


    [1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate. Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at: Mitt Romney for President: context
    [2] “Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban,” July 8, 2004, at: Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban / iBerkshires.com - The Berkshires online guide to events, news and Berkshire County community information.
    [3] Mitt Romney, quoted by Joe Battenfeld in the Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1994.




    GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA

    Top Romney Flip Flops: #3. Gun Control:Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, Romney said he favored strong gun laws and did not “line up with the NRA.” He signed up for “lifetime membership” of the NRA in August 2006 while pondering a presidential run, praising the group for “doing good things” and “supporting the right to bear arms.”
    Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: “Top Ten Flip-Flops” Feb 5, 2008
    Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ban

    I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to--to have guns for their own legal purposes. So we signed that in Massachusetts, and I’d support that at the federal level. It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need new legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. We have laws in place that, if they’re implemented & enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008
    I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes

    We should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I’m a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don’t. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 16, 2007
    Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police

    Q: Are you still for the Brady Bill?A: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time. I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality.
    Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 16, 2007
    Compromise MA gun bills were not gain for gun owner

    During Romney’s term he signed several pieces of firearms regulation. A look at that regulation does not reveal an anti-gun Romney. Those bills are characterized as “net gains” for gun owners in a state where opinioned is weighed against them.During his tenure, Gov. Romney was credited with several improvements to state laws, including protections for shooting clubs, restoration of the Inland Fish and Game Fund, and requirements that all new hunters pass a hunter safety course. He is also credited with relaxing manufacturing testing for some models of pistols.
    In 2004, Gov. Romney signed a firearms reform bill that made permanent the ban on assault weapons as well as clarified and insured other rights and responsibilities for gun owners. It was a hard-fought compromise between interest groups on both sides of the issue. The NRA Gun Owners’ Action League, law enforcement, and Massachusetts gun owners endorsed the bill.
    Source: The Man, His Values, & His Vision, p. 72-73 Aug 31, 2007
    Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban

    Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country. A: Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.
    Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007
    Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill

    The candidate reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress’ crime bill, and the Brady law which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. ‘I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect,’ Romney said. Source: Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald Aug 1, 1994

    Sources:
    Mitt Romney - Gun Owners Of America

    Mitt Romney on Gun Control

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walt629 View Post
    ...
    This is the single statement that every single Paul supported uses and knows that it is intellectually dishonest or the person making it is ignorant of the actual power the president has. The president has no say in spending..
    It is the President whom submits the annual budget to Congress to allocate, earmark what they want to spend etc., and return the rest back to Executive Branch to spend... IF the President approves the amended budget...

    Notwithstanding, while Congress approves & allocates and proposes various spending ... Congress can do ZERO actual spending on their own until the President approves it...

    The Current Congress & the President are violating the Constitution with their continuing resolution b.s.

    There are also quite a few departments under the Executive Branch that could be scaled down or eliminated all together...

    Hence Ron Paul's plan to cut a Trillion Dollars from the budget on day one is doable...

    Romney/Obama want to keep upping the limit on the American Express Card... AKA: So-called debt ceiling...

    I encourage you to open your mind up a bit Walt, and do a little more digging... you are citing Romney Campaign talking points chapter & verse...

    The President can significantly reduce federal spending...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004

    Default

    Bohe, you haven't disappointed my view on Paul supporters. YOu have a lot of information that you're willing to share with the world.

    However the information of the gun stance of Romney hasn't proven anything other than he is a politician that knows how to gain more than he gives. In all of the posted information he was able to gain more benefit for the sportsmen/gun owners of his state than he gave up. The "assault weapon ban was already in effect, was it not? He chose to go with a bill submitted by the Mass Congress that continued the existing ban in order to gain a lot of ground for the people of Mass. Per the article you provided: Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban / iBerkshires.com - The Berkshires online guide to events, news and Berkshire County community information.

    And I wouldn't consider the Huffington Post, the Boston Globe or The NYT to be sources for "Romney talking points." That's where I got the information I posted.

    The World is not black and white. (oh no...now I'm a racist! sarcasm intended) Like I've said all along, Bohe, Ron Paul had a lot to offer the Nation. His followers are a force to be reckoned with but not if they choose to take such a hard stance that they are not willing to participate as part of the group or are shunned by the group because of the hard line they take.

    Unfortunately with Dr. Paul not seeking his return to congress his voice will not be heard. His son shows promiss. Rand has already shown he carries much of his fathers sensibility towards the Constitution but he has also show his ability to work in the system.

    Who knows? Rand Paul for President in 2016?
    Last edited by walt629; 08-29-2012 at 08:47 PM. Reason: clarity
    To not stand against injustice is to stand for it.
    Don't confuse my personality and my attitude.
    My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are.

  6. #36
    mmckee1952 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buckey01 View Post
    Ron Paul did not win any states. He came in third in Iowa but yet got the majority of delegates. Thanks to a screwed up caucus system and the state convention, he stole delegates that were supposed to be proportional according to the way people voted at the local level. His supporters lied and cheated to get to the convention in order to steal the delegates. The system has already been changed to prevent this from happening again. Ron Paul and not Romney gamed the system. Paul is so far out of the main stream that when it comes to foreign affairs he is dangerous. One has to admire his supporters for their loyalty, but fear them for their extreme ignorance and drug induced delusions.

    Ron Paul is just an itch on Romney’s butt and nothing more. His misguided ideas concerning the way our American and military should proceed are the stupidest things I’ve heard in quite awhile.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walt629 View Post
    Bohe, you haven't disappointed my view on Paul supporters. YOu have a lot of information that you're willing to share with the world.

    However the information of the gun stance of Romney hasn't proven anything other than he is a politician that knows how to gain more than he gives. In all of the posted information he was able to gain more benefit for the sportsmen/gun owners of his state than he gave up. The "assault weapon ban was already in effect, was it not? He chose to go with a bill submitted by the Mass Congress that continued the existing ban in order to gain a lot of ground for the people of Mass. Per the article you provided: Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban / iBerkshires.com - The Berkshires online guide to events, news and Berkshire County community information.

    And I wouldn't consider the Huffington Post, the Boston Globe or The NYT to be sources for "Romney talking points." That's where I got the information I posted.

    The World is not black and white. (oh no...now I'm a racist! sarcasm intended) Like I've said all along, Bohe, Ron Paul had a lot to offer the Nation. His followers are a force to be reckoned with but not if they choose to take such a hard stance that they are not willing to participate as part of the group or are shunned by the group because of the hard line they take.

    Unfortunately with Dr. Paul not seeking his return to congress his voice will not be heard. His son shows promiss. Rand has already shown he carries much of his fathers sensibility towards the Constitution but he has also show his ability to work in the system.

    Who knows? Rand Paul for President in 2016?
    By the wildest stretch of the imagination I do not know how any true supporter of the Constitution & Unabridged Second Amendment could discern that signing a PERMANENT Gun Ban into law is an example of a politician that knows how to get more than he gives...

    Nothing is worse & in direct conflict with the Second Amendment than the ban of a complete class of weapon by WE THE PEOPLE...

    The Massachusetts Gun Ban Mitt Romney signed into law as Governor stands today...
    It made a temporary ban PERMANENT...

    Gun control

    During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney had been a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban, and had also said he believed "in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms."[95] On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing ceremony for the new law, "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."[96] The law extended a temporary measure that had been in effect since 1998 and covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10.[96] The same law also modified some other aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.[96]

    Romney's Flip-Flop On Gun Control On Fox News
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2004/08/05/republican-grows-massachusetts?page=3

    Did Mitt Romney flip-flop on gun control?
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-gun-rhetoric/

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mmckee1952 View Post
    Ron Paul is just an itch on Romney’s butt and nothing more. His misguided ideas concerning the way our American and military should proceed are the stupidest things I’ve heard in quite awhile.
    Care to elaborate on specifics?

    Putting America first and not going to war without a Declaration of War from Congress sounds Constitutional and like a good idea to me...

    “I love George Washington. Except for his Foreign Policy.”

    ...it doesn’t take a doctorate in foreign relations to understand that U.S. policy has forged a tangled mess of contradictory alliances and obligations, and created a much more dangerous world. I’ve gradually come to accept that military intervention in foreign affairs typically causes more damage than good and that the whole concept rests on morally dubious grounds. Who am I to point a gun at another man’s head and demand he practice “democracy”?...

    ...I hear this mantra all the time today. “I like that Ron Paul feller, except for his foreign policy.” I’m not even sure many who say that really understand his foreign policy positions. In fact, they line up pretty closely with stated positions of another president revered by most Americans – George Washington...
    “I love George Washington. Except for his Foreign Policy.” – Tenth Amendment Center

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004

    Default

    I knew I saw it somewhere. Here is the article "from the horses mouth" if you will, regarding the truth behind the "gun ban" Romney supposedly signed. The Romney Record, Mitt Romney's Record as Governor of MA

    I doesn't matter what the facts represent, to some compromise is a dirty word. One would think that the Governor of a state is omnipotent and with the wave of a magic wand, is capable of getting whatever he wants. That power doesn't exist. Some would like to think that their candidate has a magic wand and because they say so, will make it so. That power doe not exist. Romney doesn't have it and neither did Paul.
    To not stand against injustice is to stand for it.
    Don't confuse my personality and my attitude.
    My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walt629 View Post
    I knew I saw it somewhere. Here is the article "from the horses mouth" if you will, regarding the truth behind the "gun ban" Romney supposedly signed. The Romney Record, Mitt Romney's Record as Governor of MA

    I doesn't matter what the facts represent, to some compromise is a dirty word. One would think that the Governor of a state is omnipotent and with the wave of a magic wand, is capable of getting whatever he wants. That power doesn't exist. Some would like to think that their candidate has a magic wand and because they say so, will make it so. That power doe not exist. Romney doesn't have it and neither did Paul.
    It is undeniable that as Governor Mitt Romney signed permanent gun & ammo bans into law that stand today...

    There is nothing more in contradiction to the Second Amendment than a GUN & AMMO BAN...

    Mitt Romney FAILS on the Second Amendment... I can't give him a mulligan on trampling the Second Amendment... Without our fundamental liberties we have nothing...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •