Somebody please explain Ron Paul's logic to me

[firehawk1]

Personally I see no reason you should not be sold a Firearm. Unless you do not have the Cash that is...

As far as this answer to the question posed, You cannot be serious, can you? If so, THAT is the most absurd, nieve, dangerous statement I have ever read on INGO. Is THAT an example of Libratarian thinking? If it is, I want no part of your world. WoW.... to each his/her own I guess.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Could you have some quotes already. All your doing is throwing out grossly miss representative MSM statements. That would be like saying "I can see Russia from my house"

Besides the absolute most important issue is the federal researve. Without cutting of its head were doomed. Paul is the only one that will touch the FED.

Iran got crippled by the US/Isreal stuxnet virus anyways they won't have a weapon in 4 years. If they got close Isreal would just bomb there plant. Give paul 4 years, then if he has not been assasinated by the bankers you will give him 8.

Favorite troll line.....I agree with most of.........but....bash, bash, bash.

Since when did questioning the logic of a politician's statements become bashing?

You can search the statements just as easily as I did - Google is your friend.

 

[jeremy]

As far as this answer to the question posed, You cannot be serious, can you? If so, THAT is the most absurd, nieve, dangerous statement I have ever read on INGO. Is THAT an example of Libratarian thinking? If it is, I want no part of your world. WoW.... to each his/her own I guess.

Libratarain?! Not me...
Absurd, Naive, or Dangerous statement.
I see that as no worse than someone buying a Corvette and Talking about how fast they are going to drive it. Don't worry you are not the Only Person on here that is terrified of Freedom...

Besides, if the Laws in place now is an Example of Living in Your World. I would like to say I truly dislike it also...

 

[Bill of Rights]

As far as this answer to the question posed, You cannot be serious, can you? If so, THAT is the most absurd, nieve, dangerous statement I have ever read on INGO. Is THAT an example of Libratarian thinking? If it is, I want no part of your world. WoW.... to each his/her own I guess.

Is it the responsibility of the store owner to protect the neighbor? I would say it is not, and that he should (IMHO) sell the gun, but also perhaps notify someone of the buyer's stated intent. The comparison is akin to a bartender being held accountable for the actions of a patron of his bar, which, while it is done today, I do not agree with it. The only person I see as accountable for my actions is me and the only person responsible for your actions is you.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Destro]

from what i've read from Paul, I take away the complete opposite of what is being siad here,

I feel like he is more than ready and willing to invade any country, and go to war with any country, his sticking point is that Congress must declare war. He believes that if Congress declares war, it's his duty to send troops to war as C in C. The part about "not goint to war with any country" comes from the idea that the president cannot declare war.

 

[Destro]

No, "we" are not. The UN and South Korea are still at war with the DPRK. The US never declared war on them. It was a UN police action.

I guess I should have put the "WE" in a different way

 

[Destro]

and an "Armistice" does not end a war, it is a pause in hostilities

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I see no issue with that particular topic either. However, if said cooperation only comes about because of an annual price tag, can the recipient nation really be considered an ally?

We have a long tradition of support for Israel. While the UN granted them the territory, they fought and bled for it through four invasions over the years. While we supported them, looking for a democratic government and ally in the region, the Russians supported the rest of their neighbors - which they would have done whether we had supported Israel or not - to be able to have influence in the OIL RICH Middle East.

We've gotten much more from our support of Israel in terms of intelligence information and technology than we've gotten for all the money we've wasted attempting to keep the MidEast from blowing up again - except perhaps for Egypt where our "bribe" money kept the Egyptians neutral for the past 40 years.

I don't agree with a foreign policy that tries to bribe other nations for their friendship, but we've pissed on Israel a heckuva lot more than they've ever pissed on us.

 

[Rookie]

As far as this answer to the question posed, You cannot be serious, can you? If so, THAT is the most absurd, nieve, dangerous statement I have ever read on INGO. Is THAT an example of Libratarian thinking? If it is, I want no part of your world. WoW.... to each his/her own I guess.

"... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless SOMEONE decides you won't be responsible."

Isn't that how the 2nd amendment reads?

 

[88GT]

Ron Paul: Current Policy Encourages Iran Nukes

Ridiculous. Iran seeks nuclear capability for its own purposes the way every other nation does. It's an effective extortion tool; just look at the Norks. We are merely a convenient excuse and scapegoat for justification.

from what i've read from Paul, I take away the complete opposite of what is being siad here,

I feel like he is more than ready and willing to invade any country, and go to war with any country, his sticking point is that Congress must declare war. He believes that if Congress declares war, it's his duty to send troops to war as C in C. The part about "not goint to war with any country" comes from the idea that the president cannot declare war.

Has Congress ever declared war except at the request of POTUS though? I don't believe so, but don't know for sure.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

from what i've read from Paul, I take away the complete opposite of what is being siad here,

I feel like he is more than ready and willing to invade any country, and go to war with any country, his sticking point is that Congress must declare war. He believes that if Congress declares war, it's his duty to send troops to war as C in C. The part about "not goint to war with any country" comes from the idea that the president cannot declare war.

He is willing to go to war only to defend our country. I don't know why you would think he would "invade" any country -- he woul not do so unless they are a clear threat to our nation. Check that-- he would not ask congress to authorize such an invasion unless they are a clear threat to our nation. He is completely opposed to initiating force, the Constitutionality of it is only part of it. If congress authorizes it, he would follow the constitution of course.

 

[firehawk1]

Libratarain?! Not me...
Absurd, Naive, or Dangerous statement.
I see that as no worse than someone buying a Corvette and Talking about how fast they are going to drive it. Don't worry you are not the Only Person on here that is terrified of Freedom...

VERY poor comparison. Someone talking about how fast they'll drive, and someone making a deadly threat against someone to kill them? Paleeze.

What the hell does freedom have to do with this? You're ok with the "freedom" to threaten to kill someone? Try that next time you're in a court of law. Oh, I forgot a court of law is just the man keeping us down isn't it.

It is people that think this country was founded on anything remotely like that (which it wasn't) that is scary. I can just see Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al saying, heck yeah.... we're good with threatening to kill someone, and selling that person a rifle. Again... Paleeze.

Carry on.

 

[jeremy]

Has Congress ever declared war except at the request of POTUS though? I don't believe so, but don't know for sure.

Not that I can recall either...

Here is a Listing of the Wars, and Conflicts We have attended, Cliff Notes type Version...
Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Destro]

He is willing to go to war only to defend our country. I don't know why you would think he would "invade" any country -- he woul not do so unless they are a clear threat to our nation. Check that-- he would not ask congress to authorize such an invasion unless they are a clear threat to our nation. He is completely opposed to initiating force, the Constitutionality of it is only part of it. If congress authorizes it, he would follow the constitution of course.

so if congress declares war on NK, and the SC sfinds the declaration legal, would it not be treason for him not to go to war?

 

[Destro]

Declaration of War upon Japan - December 8, 1941, Senate 88-0, House 388-1

 

[jeremy]

VERY poor comparison. Someone talking about how fast they'll drive, and someone making a deadly threat against someone to kill them? Paleeze.

Huh...
Both are illegal Activities that could result in Bodily Harm to someone else from an Tool...

What the hell does freedom have to do with this? You're ok with the "freedom" to threaten to kill someone? Try that next time you're in a court of law. Oh, I forgot a court of law is just the man keeping us down isn't it.

It is people that think this country was founded on anything remotely like that (which it wasn't) that is scary. I can just see Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al saying, heck yeah.... we're good with threatening to kill someone, and selling that person a rifle. Again... Paleeze.

Carry on.

Freedom has everything to do with it...

As far as a Court Action is Concerned Last I knew it was not yet a Crime to say I wanted to beat or kill someone. But at the rate Americans are trading Freedom and Liberty for Security it very well could be that way soon enough though...

Actually I think you might find that during the Time of the Founding of this Country most Men would have been Happy to Sell you a Weapon to Kill Your Neighbor. Remember Dueling was an agreeable idea at that time in Our Heritage...

So...
Paleeze right back at you....

 

[Blackhawk2001]

VERY poor comparison. Someone talking about how fast they'll drive, and someone making a deadly threat against someone to kill them? Paleeze.

What the hell does freedom have to do with this? You're ok with the "freedom" to threaten to kill someone? Try that next time you're in a court of law. Oh, I forgot a court of law is just the man keeping us down isn't it.

It is people that think this country was founded on anything remotely like that (which it wasn't) that is scary. I can just see Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al saying, heck yeah.... we're good with threatening to kill someone, and selling that person a rifle. Again... Paleeze.

Carry on.

What part of the concept of personal responsibility do you not understand?
Saying it isn't doing it. The thought isn't the deed (except to God). The word is just an abstract of the thing it represents.

Selling a weapon to someone who says he will use it to kill someone creates a potentially deadly situation. Selling a corvette to someone who brags about how fast he's going to drive it creates another potentially deadly situation. But both situations are "potential" only; they may not happen. And, while you may consider it your responsibility to look out for that unknown potential victim, are you going to extend that sense of responsibility to every potentially deadly situation you may encounter? How far will you go to stop a mother from murdering her unborn baby? Will you stop a bullet for your next door neighbor, or defend the guy down the block from a mugger? How about that homeless guy under the bridge getting beaten to death by the ball bat you sold on E-bay? How ridiculously far do you want to take these examples?

At the end of the day, the responsibility for the harm caused to others belongs to the ones who chose to harm them or whose actions brought harm to them through negligence. Remember the old saw: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

 

[rambone]

so if congress declares war on NK, and the SC sfinds the declaration legal, would it not be treason for him not to go to war?

No. It is one of the checks and balances for making war. Treason has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[theweakerbrother]

This thread seems to prove the point that people are more interested in 4 second sound bytes than actual spelled out reasonable discourse. Bottom line... do your research. If you don't like what you find, don't vote for the guy or gal.

People panic because Dr. Paul's idea(l)s sound so irrational because they're defending the RINO position and not the conservative one. If your gut reaction to a political stance is ruffled ask yourself is it because you're defending the status quo or because its (more dangerously) irrational.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

He simply CAN NOT WIN, due to the media.

The tv talking-heads, and all other "progressives" will shred him -- 1,000 times a day for his lib. beliefs. Then, him being a knock-off of the spawn of Don Knotts and Howdy Doodie won't help him much either. If he gets the nod, I'm voting for him. Then, again, I voted for Ross !!