RobertNashville

Assault Weapons Ban: Funny you should bring that up. Last February I was at the 2A Freedom Conference in Columbus Ohio which was done in conjunction with the Buckeye Firearms Association's annual meeting/banquet. At the table I was sitting at for the banquet every single person except me had Ron Paul button on. The talk naturally turned to politics and I asked how they liked their current governor, Kasich...they had nothing but good things to say about him. I thought that was odd and I said so...you see, back in 1982 I lived in Columbus and then candidate Kasich was going door to door to try and unseat a very long-time house Democrat; while he was shaking my hand I asked him his stand on gun control laws and the second amendment - he said he would never support or vote for any legislation that would infringe on our second amendment rights. Sounded really good....really good. A year or so later after he had won the election, guess what he voted for? The "Assault Weapons Ban"...when I pointed that out to the RP button wearers it didn't seem to bother them which seemed pretty odd given what the banquet was about. Of course, I can't prove it but I at least suspect that if Kasich were the Republican nominee this year there would be a lot of people who would be just fine voting for him and forget all about his Assault Weapon Ban vote (not to mention the fact that he was willing to lie about to those, like me, when he was seeking our vote). I'd probably vote for him to but I'll never forget or forgive him his lie to me. Romney care: Did you just a day or two ago sort of take me to school on "states rights"? I abhor the whole concept of forcing people to have health insurance if they don't want it but if a state wants to mandate that everyone have health insurance don't they have the right to do so based on the concept of states rights? Taxes: Did he personally propose such himself or did him simply sign the bills/allow them happen? I think knowing would make a difference. I don't believe that Romney on his worst day would increase taxes one one-thousandth as much as Obama...maybe that's a poor reason for being "for" someone but it is...what you classify as "fear" I call it coming to a conclusion based on reason and logic. I guess we just see things differently.

Except that Romney isn't a commie; he's a capitalist. He isn't conservative enough or libertarian enough for you...I get that...but that doesn't make him a commie. The only commie in this race is Obama who proves his communist beliefs by his actions almost every single day. I'm not saying we have to support Romney because he is the Republican nominee, I'm saying we should support Romney because he is the only candidate with a legitimate shot at beating Obama; that fact that he happens to be the Republican nominee is very secondary. I stated in another thread that if someone could show me a candidate who is better than Romney and can truly beat Obama I'd be happy to support him/her; so far no one has shown me anybody who meets the criteria.

Obviously you don't understand. Based on past actions, I suspect that the Ron Paul supporters will be posting stuff like this 20 years from now (that's assuming of course that we don't re-elect Obama and we even have the freedom to post or express our opinion about anything.

Do you find the incessant repetition of those who keep promoting Paul or Johnson offensive or is it just me? While I'm sure I'm far from successful, I try to not make assumptions about people's thoughts and instead, reply to what they do (or in this case, say). I don't know if "people" understand the gravity of the situation or not but I suspect that at least some don't. "if we elect Obama, he'll be so bad we'll get a real conservative on the ticket next time just like what happened with Carter that gave us Ronald Reagan" I head variations of the above statement over and over again last cycle because they were so disappointed that McCain was the nominee and we've ended up with Romney as the Republican candidate now - I don't think the logic would work any better this time than it did last time.

Lester, you must have a lot of time on your hand this afternoon. I don't know how many different ways I can say this but I'm talking about morals...I'm not talking about religion...any religion...not even the religion of atheism. Morals and religion are not interchangeable terms.

I'm sure I'd have less to say about the subject if there were fewer videos posted (almost daily) with the same general subject matter; that being that we should vote for an irrelevant candidate. I think it important that people understand just how dangerous for the country that path is.

I don't care where they come from, only that he has them and that they agree with my own.

This isn't a state's rights discussion nor does it have anything to do with religiosity. I don’t make my decisions about a candidate based only on his fiscal policy - what morals he holds to personally and has demonstrated in his life as well as what moral principles he brings to the office he is seeking is at last as important to me as any other policy/consideration. Society, through government, has both an obligation and and a right to set moral and ethical boundaries and enforce them...to not do so invites anarchy.

I am pretty sure I never said I "didn't like" RP or Johnson or any of several other candidates and I don't recall anyone else saying so either. What people don't like is that so many seem willing to vote for someone who has ZERO chance of winning and expelling the Communist from the White House. If RP or someone like him were the R nominee I'd be voting for him but he isn't so I'm not; doesn't mean I don't like him and/or some or even most of his stands on the issues.

I don't see that putting RP on the platform is going to help Mit so why should he allow him the microphone? RP is almost certainly not going to endorse Mit (even though his son has) and putting him on the stage isn't going to bring the Paulbots to Mit's camp...those who haven't drank the RP koolaid are smart enough to make up their own mind about who to vote for whether RP gets to speak at the convention or not....in other words, I see no positives for Mit and there could well be some potential downfall so he's better off ignoring RP as he really needs to put some speakers on who will fire up/energize those who are watching.

A vote for freedom is never wasted but any vote for anyone other than Romney in this election cycle is not only not a vote for freedom; it's a vote for communism, the antithesis of "freedom".

What we should be appalled at is that the Chief Law Enforcement of the United States of America very likely played a major part in a large, purposeful operation that was designed to break the laws he and his staff are sworn to enforce; an operation that at the very least, facilitated the murder of a U.S. Border Agent.

Just go through Amazon; they are going to start collecting it for TN soon and then you won't have to worry about it.

Wow is right...double Wow.

If you are looking for something that comes pretty complete as is, this is what I carry in both my vehicles: http://www.amazon.co...42366046&sr=1-7 "Adventure Medical" makes many different kinds of kits from fairly inexpensive on up. I also add some QuickClot and/or a Trauma Readiness Pack from OnDutyUSA.com I can't really comment whether these are substantially "better" or not or "better for the money" or not than some other kits or building your own but it's been sufficient for my needs (I've used in the past to help some car accident victims, etc.).

I know charges are unlikely but whether easily visible or not, I always come down on the side of "if my firearm isn't welcome then you aren't welcome to my money"...I'll always go somewhere else unless there is simply no realistic choice and/or there are more important considerations.

Well, aside from the fact that this "news" report if a few months old, so what? The parties can "nominate" anybody they want to nominate following any rules (or not) they chose and "qualified" or not, RP is not going to be the Republican nominee.

No to both questions but I believe it correct to say that in the Bible, there were still were laws. based on moral principles, that God and man expected to be obeyed, punishment meted out when they weren't obeyed and that God wanted virtuous men to govern/lead.

Not pathetic; and maybe not the best way to say it but I would say it's just a recognition of the outcome when a vote is split. The Republican nominee is the only candidate with a realistic opportunity to beat Obama. Unless one was planning on voting for Obama from the start, not voting for the Republican nominee because a person's favorite didn't get the nomination will, at the very lest, help keep Obama in office. We can argue about how 'much" it helps Obama but I see no way around the general conclusion that not voting for Romney will help Obama.

It still is but I'm not talking about Federal vs State responsibilities and rights. I believe that man is a moral creature and for a society to function; most especially a society that seeks to allow and foster personal liberty and freedom; we need both a population and a government that is comprised of a preponderance of people of good morals at all levels of government, Federal, State and Local. To attempt to strip moral/social issues from government, political parties of from considering whether to support a particular candidate for office is, in my opinion, a fools errand and a dangerous one as well.

Maybe I missed it but they don't seem to. The Constitution doesn't regulate a lot of things but that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't or don't need to be regulated. Creating the laws that regulate our society was left to the people, or more specifically, to those sent to represent the people's interests in Congress - when I pick a party to associate with (formally or informally), or a candidate to vote for I want to associate with a party/vote for a candidate that holds to most of the same moral positions I hold to and I don't think that makes me either narrow minded or unusual (and if it does make me narrow minded than I can live with that). I say again, there is a lot more to life than fiscal policy an I'll never vote for someone or associate with a party just because they have a good fiscal policy.

What a lot of libertarians don't seem to (or refuse to) understand is that there is more to life than fiscal policy - those "narrow minded conservative/social conservative issues" are absolutely as important to me and to many other people as fiscal policy or whether/when/where we go to war. Issues like abortion, gay marriage and other social issues are important to many, many people including independents - minimizing or ignoring those issues is one reason why I don't believe the libertarian view will ever be more than a minor part of the political landscape.

Yuup...just yesterday he single-handedly and illegally gutted the welfare reform that required work to receive welfare and I also heard just this morning that of the great sales numbers GM has been reporting; 75% of them have been sales to the government - this communist is daily working to dismantle our free-market economy.

I'm just thankful that it only takes one good head shot to put down a zombie.

One more thing about silver...regardless of the future price; I have to say that there is something very satisfying about holding a beautifully minted U.S. Silver Eagle $1 (one oz of fine silver) coin in your hand. It's a feeling you just can't get from paper money or any of the mostly worthless coins today (quarters, dimes, etc.)...that feeling alone might be worth buying a few of them.