Gary Johnson This Is Your Freedom [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson This Is Your Freedom


Ruble Noon
08-19-2012, 19:39
Gary Johnson This Is Your Freedom - YouTube

hogfish
08-19-2012, 20:02
That's a pretty cool commercial, but it doesn't matter because it's gonna be different 'this time'. :eyebrow:

:faint:

jakebrake
08-19-2012, 20:25
best thing about gj? he knows all of his supporters on a first name basis.

hogship
08-19-2012, 20:41
At this point, why would anyone want to vote for someone who will insure Obama's re-election?

I'll bet some of the stimulus funds end up in the Libertarian promotional spots........

ooc

ChuteTheMall
08-19-2012, 20:49
http://i45.tinypic.com/2hg95s6.png

G29Reload
08-19-2012, 22:32
No freedom at all in an unelectable nobody. Just slavery, in fact.

PawDog
08-20-2012, 06:36
Not at all surprising he stole the ad from the old "This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs" ads from the 70's and 80's....

http://youtu.be/3FtNm9CgA6U

Paul7
08-20-2012, 08:02
I like Gary Johnson, he used to be governor of my state, but why would I waste my vote on someone with no chance of being elected?

ChuteTheMall
08-20-2012, 08:45
Your freedom to support Obama and later claim that you didn't vote for him; plausible deniability for the insane.

:tinfoil:


Don't blame me, I voted for Papoon.








http://i46.tinypic.com/28btb8n.jpg

:crazy:

Syclone538
08-20-2012, 09:07
I'm voting for him because I will not vote for more fed gov.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 09:17
At this point, why would anyone want to vote for someone who will insure Obama's re-election?Why not? Why would a libertarian prefer Romney over Obama? If Obama and Romney are equally repulsive in one's eyes, why wouldn't that person vote for whomever he wants, regardless of which of the two mainstream candidates it hurts or helps?

You keep operating on the faulty assumption that a libertarian would prefer a Romney win, and is only hurting himself by voting Libertarian, because it helps Obama. It's hard for you to grasp that many libertarians really really don't care if Romney beats Obama or not. Both are equally hostile to small-government principles.

Romney is simply so unappealing to libertarians that preventing Obama from beating him isn't a consideration at all.

Brucev
08-20-2012, 09:43
There is only one way to vote for change. Vote for Romney. A vote for anyone else is a vote to give the squatter and his gangsta administration four more years to shove their agenda of destruction down the throat of America.

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2012, 09:46
Your freedom to support Obama and later claim that you didn't vote for him; plausible deniability for the insane.

:tinfoil:


Don't blame me, I voted for Papoon.





http://i46.tinypic.com/28btb8n.jpg

:crazy:



I'm more of a Paulsen fan myself.

http://home.comcast.net/~paddymorrissey/Images/WebImages/Pat_Paulsen_for_President.jpg

walt cowan
08-20-2012, 10:12
Gary Johnson This Is Your Freedom - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELWM9VS1PJQ)

:rofl:you just made the "checker pants club members" drop their gin and tonics.:wavey:

humanguerrilla
08-20-2012, 10:28
Johnson and Gallagher 2012

Syclone538
08-20-2012, 10:43
There is only one way to vote for change. Vote for Romney.
...

:rofl:

That's the funniest thing I've read on GT in a long time.

Bullwinkle J Moose
08-20-2012, 10:57
At this point, why would anyone want to vote for someone who will insure Obama's re-election?


Because as long as people would rather vote for a winner, by voting for the one of the two parties that sucks the least, instead of voting their conscience, the best government that we can possibly get will just be the one that sucks just a little bit less than it's full potential.

Why do so many people prostitute their convictions regarding our sorry state of freedom?

JohnnyReb
08-20-2012, 11:11
<----------- Not a bandwagon voter.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 11:33
There is only one way to vote for change. Vote for Romney.Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. A vote for Romney is a vote for keeping things the same, because it is an outright admission that Obama-like policies are acceptable from both major parties. If you accept progressive, big-government policies from both parties, you will get them from both parties, forever. That doesn't constitute "change".

G29Reload
08-20-2012, 11:44
I'm voting for him because I will not vote for more fed gov.

Except you just did.

:rofl:

Chairman Maobama thanks you.:upeyes:

G29Reload
08-20-2012, 11:45
Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. A vote for Romney is a vote for keeping things the same, because it is an outright admission that Obama-like policies are acceptable from both major parties. If you accept progressive, big-government policies from both parties, you will get them from both parties, forever. That doesn't constitute "change".


Parroting the same old lie isn't change either.

Since they're the same, why do you care?

Because you're butthurt over RP fail.

Romney has changed his tune and Paul Ryan is the first step.

Kevin108
08-20-2012, 11:51
You keep operating on the faulty assumption that a libertarian would prefer a Romney win...

Romney is simply so unappealing to libertarians that preventing Obama from beating him isn't a consideration at all.

+1 A great and clear explanation of how it is for Libertarians.

Flying-Dutchman
08-20-2012, 12:09
78 days until the Presidential election.

This election is about voting Obama out and we are too close to blow it on some Ross Perot type spoiler.

Save your protest vote for next time. You can start campaigning immediately after Romney wins. At least with Romney we know there will be another election.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 12:12
Parroting the same old lie isn't change either.

Since they're the same, why do you care?I just told you in the post you quoted. I care because I don't want progressive big-government policies from both parties. Obama and Romney are the same in terms of their big-government policies. Where they differ is that Romney is representing a party that should oppose those things. Therefore he shouldn't win as a representative of that party.

Because you're butthurt over RP fail.You have to make up motives because you can't argue against the ones that are spelled out for you.

Romney has changed his tune and Paul Ryan is the first step.Says Romney. One needs to earn credibility, and he's done absolutely the opposite.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 12:14
78 days until the Presidential election.

This election is about voting Obama out and we are too close to blow it on some Ross Perot type spoiler.If that's what it's about for you, that's fine. But it's not about that for everybody.

Save your protest vote for next time. You can start campaigning immediately after Romney wins. At least with Romney we know there will be another election.No, start now. There will be another election, no matter what, and Obama won't be in the next one. If Romney wins, he will be, along with a progressive big-government Democrat, and your choices will stink even worse in four years than they do today.

G29Reload
08-20-2012, 12:18
Obama and Romney are the same in terms of their big-government policies. .

No, they're not and the definition is becoming clearer by the day. BHO is a clowerd piven marxist thug living the lawless.

Romney is seeking a solution with a tea party favorite. They couldnt me more different.

There in lies your false construct and intellectual dishonesty. Sorry, didnt mean to use "intellectual" in the same sentence with you.

One needs to earn credibility, and he's done absolutely the opposite.

No, he picked up Paul Ryan and gained quite a bit right there, along with some respect from me in helping to define how he's not anything like Obama.

You're parroting yesterday, wrong and completely out of touch, spreading lies like you were a member of the Obama campaign.

Bren
08-20-2012, 12:28
What a great little video...with no substance behind it. The solution to the 2 party system is to stop voting for them?

It's like saying, the solution to drugs is "just say no" - the solution to violence is "everybody stop being mean."

That's the problem I have with Ruble Noon and others here who propose voting third party - the "just vote third" party idea translates into "just let the democrats have control of the government" unless you have some plan for making a third party viable.

When you come up with something better than "just don't vote for (primarily Republicans)" so that your words mean more than "give the government to the Democrats," you will deserve to be listened to. Until then, you don't.

Flying-Dutchman
08-20-2012, 12:34
No, start now. There will be another election, no matter what, and Obama won't be in the next one. If Romney wins, he will be, along with a progressive big-government Democrat, and your choices will stink even worse in four years than they do today.
Build a third party from the ground up with a majority in Congress and the Senate then try for the Presidency.

But come on, 78 days before the election with this out-of-the-blue third party spoiler?

It sounds like a Democrat scam to win an election the only way they can.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 12:43
No, they're not and the definition is becoming clearer by the day. BHO is a clowerd piven marxist thug living the lawless.

Romney is seeking a solution with a tea party favorite. They couldnt me more different.

There in lies your false construct and intellectual dishonesty. Sorry, didnt mean to use "intellectual" in the same sentence with you.Those who think he's different will vote for him, and those who think he's the same will vote against him. We'll see who does what in a couple of months. My prediction is that nobody's buying it, and he'll lose big.

You can't undo years of supporting the same deficit spending, stimulus, bailouts, socialized healthcare and gun control by choosing a token "tea party favorite" (by whose standard?) who doesn't think banks should be allowed to experience the downside of their speculation along with the upside, like the real tea party knuckledraggers believe, and who also thinks slowing the rate of growth of the deficit counts as deficit reduction, unlike the real tea party lunatics who think deficit reduction means reducing the deficit.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 12:51
It sounds like a Democrat scam to win an election the only way they can.You need to give credit where credit is due. The only way the Democrats could win this election is if the Republicans screw the pooch so badly, make so many stupid mistakes, and alienate so many of their own potential voters that they hand the Democrats the election on a silver platter.

There's no way the Democrats can take credit for that.

Lethaltxn
08-20-2012, 13:02
So what will happen if Obama is elected and just serves 4 years but the reps don't "learn their lesson" for the next election?
Also, assume that the whole thing collapses, which is what I believe many of the RP supporters are hoping for. What then?
I'd like a genuine answer because as of yet, at least to me, I haven't seen it addressed.
I'd like to know what you think will happen and how.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 13:23
So what will happen if Obama is elected and just serves 4 years but the reps don't "learn their lesson" for the next election?Then they can lose the next election too. No big deal. Once they become as bad as the Democrats (which has already happened, at least as far as presidential candidates go), it really doesn't matter anymore that their loss means a Democrat win. One can maintain the hope that even the dimmest bulb sees the light eventually, but in the meantime, let the lesson repeat itself for as long as necessary.

Also, assume that the whole thing collapses, which is what I believe many of the RP supporters are hoping for. What then?
I'd like a genuine answer because as of yet, at least to me, I haven't seen it addressed.
I'd like to know what you think will happen and how.What "thing" is that? The economy? If it's going to happen, it will happen no matter who is president. Because of the similarity in the economic policies of both parties, it's only a matter of the timing.

When it does happen, there will be hard times. A lot of financial instruments people own will become relatively worthless. But there won't be universal anarchy. We won't be thrust into a Mad Max world. We will become accustomed to not having the level of luxury we artifically had before. Life will go on. It's actually the middle / upper-middle class that'll feel the most pain, and they're not the people prone to taking to anarchy.

Lethaltxn
08-20-2012, 14:22
Then they can lose the next election too. No big deal. Once they become as bad as the Democrats (which has already happened, at least as far as presidential candidates go), it really doesn't matter anymore that their loss means a Democrat win. One can maintain the hope that even the dimmest bulb sees the light eventually, but in the meantime, let the lesson repeat itself for as long as necessary.

What "thing" is that? The economy? If it's going to happen, it will happen no matter who is president. Because of the similarity in the economic policies of both parties, it's only a matter of the timing.

When it does happen, there will be hard times. A lot of financial instruments people own will become relatively worthless. But there won't be universal anarchy. We won't be thrust into a Mad Max world. We will become accustomed to not having the level of luxury we artifically had before. Life will go on. It's actually the middle / upper-middle class that'll feel the most pain, and they're not the people prone to taking to anarchy.

So there are no incremental steps with your plans? It's all or nothing?

Bren
08-20-2012, 14:37
Build a third party from the ground up with a majority in Congress and the Senate then try for the Presidency.

But come on, 78 days before the election with this out-of-the-blue third party spoiler?

It sounds like a Democrat scam to win an election the only way they can.

Exactly correct. Look at the effort some of them make on GT to convince members they shouldn't go vote Republican in November. It's a grass roots internet disinformation camapign by many.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 15:34
Exactly correct. Look at the effort some of them make on GT to convince members they shouldn't go vote Republican in November. It's a grass roots internet disinformation camapign by many.
:tinfoil:

... or, it's people talking politics on a political issues forum.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 15:46
So there are no incremental steps with your plans? It's all or nothing?I'm not sure that abandoning the Republican party until they show some semblance of honoring their stated platform is an "all or nothing" plan. It's just an obvious choice for somebody who sees absolutely nothing in the Republican's actual platform (as opposed to their stated one) that appeals to him. The only thing they have going to try to get me in the fold is fear-mongering and name-calling, neither of which influence me in the least.

Of course I hope there are enough others out there experiencing the same thing. It's only natural to want enough like-minded people so politicians need to adjust.

Acujeff
08-20-2012, 16:49
Notice that Gundude has highjacked this thread and it's no longer about Gary Johnson.
It's the same highjack all over the GT political threads - avoid Romney, vote third party, and give Obama a 2nd term.

It is understandable that Obama supporters are going to come to gun forums and try to persuade us to avoid supporting and voting for Romney. The liberal mainstream media and politicians are using the same strategy to desperately misrepresent and revise Romney's record in all arenas and distract us from Obama's record and agenda. Expect to see a lot more leading up to the election.

That's the reason you will not see Gundude, and the other trolls, going to progressive and gun-contol forums to encourage them to avoid Obama and vote third party. It's up to individual gun-owners to make sure we're not scammed into giving Obama another term.

Gundude
08-20-2012, 17:00
Notice that Gundude has highjacked this thread and it's no longer about Gary Johnson.
It's the same highjack all over the GT political threads - avoid Romney, vote third party, and give Obama a 2nd term.

It is understandable that Obama supporters are going to come to gun forums and try to persuade us to avoid supporting and voting for Romney. The liberal mainstream media and politicians are using the same strategy to desperately misrepresent and revise Romney's record in all arenas and distract us from Obama's record and agenda. Expect to see a lot more leading up to the election.

That's the reason you will not see Gundude, and the other trolls, going to progressive and gun-contol forums to encourage them to avoid Obama and vote third party. It's up to individual gun-owners to make sure we're not scammed into giving Obama another term.
You got me. All my activity here since 2003 was in preparation of getting Obama re-elected for a second term, so he can finally fundamentally change America. Nobody with that much foresight can be defeated. Resistance is futile. :tinfoil:

smokin762
08-20-2012, 17:17
I want to see a third Party in the WH someday too. I wish it was sooner than later. The Republicans and the Democrats need to know they are not the only game in town and “We the People” are not happy with what we have allowed them to do to this country.

However, I don’t think a third Party stands a chance in the WH until they seriously start getting elected on the State level first. Unfortunately, people do want name recognition. A handful is just not going to do it. :crying:

Ruble Noon
08-20-2012, 17:20
Notice that Gundude has highjacked this thread and it's no longer about Gary Johnson.
It's the same highjack all over the GT political threads - avoid Romney, vote third party, and give Obama a 2nd term.

It is understandable that Obama supporters are going to come to gun forums and try to persuade us to avoid supporting and voting for Romney. The liberal mainstream media and politicians are using the same strategy to desperately misrepresent and revise Romney's record in all arenas and distract us from Obama's record and agenda. Expect to see a lot more leading up to the election.

That's the reason you will not see Gundude, and the other trolls, going to progressive and gun-contol forums to encourage them to avoid Obama and vote third party. It's up to individual gun-owners to make sure we're not scammed into giving Obama another term.

Hey brainiac, Gary Johnson is a third party candidate, duh. :upeyes:

Ruble Noon
08-20-2012, 17:22
You got me. All my activity here since 2003 was in preparation of getting Obama re-elected for a second term, so he can finally fundamentally change America. Nobody with that much foresight can be defeated. Resistance is futile. :tinfoil:

:wow:



:wavey:

GAFinch
08-20-2012, 17:23
Gary Johnson This Is Your Freedom - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELWM9VS1PJQ)

"This is what Democrats and Republicans have done to it."

That hypocrite has been a Republican for his entire political career from 1994 to late 2011, when he abandoned his Republican primary candidacy. He's only been an official Libertarian for four months now.

hogfish
08-20-2012, 17:31
"This is what Democrats and Republicans have done to it."

That hypocrite has been a Republican for his entire political career from 1994 to late 2011, when he abandoned his Republican primary candidacy. He's only been an official Libertarian for four months now.

The Party is what matters. Yep.

Acujeff
08-20-2012, 17:31
Can't trust those Libertarians! Ron Paul has voted for more gun control than Romney.

Ron Paul:

Voted NO on prohibiting frivolous product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999

Ruble Noon
08-20-2012, 17:35
Can't trust those Libertarians! Ron Paul has voted for more gun control than Romney.

Ron Paul:

Voted NO on prohibiting frivolous product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999

Romney banned guns. How many gun bans did Paul sign?

Speaking of hi-jacking threads, this thread is about Johnson not some pro Romney circle jerk.

Acujeff
08-20-2012, 17:47
Romney banned guns. How many gun bans did Paul sign?

Speaking of hi-jacking threads, this thread is about Johnson not some pro Romney circle jerk.

You guys made it about "parties" and Ron Paul is your Libertarian party "gold standard". And the fact is, Ron Paul voted for more gun control than Romney.

Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the permanent 1998 MA AWB into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006. Romney only reduced gun control or signed pro-gun bills into law.

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

OctoberRust
08-20-2012, 20:08
http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/obamney-for-insanity-party-prez-2012.jpg

hogfish
08-20-2012, 20:20
http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/obamney-for-insanity-party-prez-2012.jpg

:crying: + :rofl:

:rofl: + :crying:

Fitting.

JohnnyReb
08-20-2012, 22:38
Can't trust those Libertarians! Ron Paul has voted for more gun control than Romney.

Ron Paul:

Voted NO on prohibiting frivolous product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999

No industry should be shielded from civil process. Thats for the courts to decide, it's not a federal government issue.

Secondly, there should be no waiting periods for guns at all, why vote for a one day waiting period? How is this a federal government issue?

Assualt weapons however, have no place in MA.....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Acujeff
08-20-2012, 23:15
No industry should be shielded from civil process. Thats for the courts to decide, it's not a federal government issue.

Secondly, there should be no waiting periods for guns at all, why vote for a one day waiting period? How is this a federal government issue?

Assualt weapons however, have no place in MA.....


That pretty much defines the Libertarians - gun-owners can expect no Federal recourse or relief if they are in office.

Johnny Reb wants to revise history in order to get us to believe that Romney, as Gov 2002-2006, was responsible for the 1998 MA AW Ban.

Yep, can't trust those Libertarians.

JohnnyReb
08-21-2012, 00:04
That pretty much defines the Libertarians - gun-owners can expect no Federal recourse or relief if they are in office.

Johnny Reb wants to revise history in order to get us to believe that Romney, as Gov 2002-2006, was responsible for the 1998 MA AW Ban.

Yep, can't trust those Libertarians.

Where did I want to revise history? I just quoted Romney.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

GAFinch
08-21-2012, 04:40
No industry should be shielded from civil process. Thats for the courts to decide, it's not a federal government issue.

Secondly, there should be no waiting periods for guns at all, why vote for a one day waiting period? How is this a federal government issue?

Assualt weapons however, have no place in MA.....

Typical. I have yet to see a single Paulite denounce Ron Paul's stance on this. Guys, you don't have to agree with every single one of a candidate's stance on issues to support him. This groupthink is a primary reason most people are turned off by him and, by extension, GJ.

Lethaltxn
08-21-2012, 05:51
Typical. I have yet to see a single Paulite denounce Ron Paul's stance on this. Guys, you don't have to agree with every single one of a candidate's stance on issues to support him. This groupthink is a primary reason most people are turned off by him and, by extension, GJ.

It's also how Obama got in the first time.

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 06:07
Typical. I have yet to see a single Paulite denounce Ron Paul's stance on this. Guys, you don't have to agree with every single one of a candidate's stance on issues to support him. This groupthink is a primary reason most people are turned off by him and, by extension, GJ.


The issue at hand to Ron Paul wasn't about guns. It was about the federal gov't and its limitations by the constitution. He has been asked this question time and time again and has given the same answer. Johnny isn't "defending" him, moreso than just saying what Ron Paul has been saying for years now, when asked this question.

If you feel RP is anti-gun, and this is the only "ammo" you have to back this claim up, that is sad. Ron Paul has gone on record (even when it was unpopular!) saying "the 2nd amendment isn't for hunting" and continuing the quote said something to the extent of the 2nd amendment being there for average citizens to protect ourselves with whatever may come our way.

Of course, you don't care, your mind is already set on voting a closet liberal into office, and don't want to see where the politicians truly stand on issues. Romney and Obama are snakes. They say whatever the people want to hear. Ron Paul, tells us what the constitution has to say, whether we like it or not, which is why so many of you whine and quickly head to the polls and vote for your most popular RINO.

hogfish
08-21-2012, 07:10
The issue at hand to Ron Paul wasn't about guns. It was about the federal gov't and its limitations by the constitution. He has been asked this question time and time again and has given the same answer. Johnny isn't "defending" him, moreso than just saying what Ron Paul has been saying for years now, when asked this question.

If you feel RP is anti-gun, and this is the only "ammo" you have to back this claim up, that is sad. Ron Paul has gone on record (even when it was unpopular!) saying "the 2nd amendment isn't for hunting" and continuing the quote said something to the extent of the 2nd amendment being there for average citizens to protect ourselves with whatever may come our way.

Of course, you don't care, your mind is already set on voting a closet liberal into office, and don't want to see where the politicians truly stand on issues. Romney and Obama are snakes. They say whatever the people want to hear. Ron Paul, tells us what the constitution has to say, whether we like it or not, which is why so many of you whine and quickly head to the polls and vote for your most popular RINO.

Okay...here you go: 'So Ron Paul doesn't want us to hunt?'

:rofl:

:tongueout:

G29Reload
08-21-2012, 11:20
You can't undo years of supporting


He's not undoing anything and what happened before isn't the issue. It's where he is right now, what his policy is right now, what his plan of action is. You can cite irrelevancies till the cows come home, they fit right in with all your dishonest assertions. That doesn't change what is.

We get it. You're butthurt your boy lost because of his suckitude and you want Romney to lose because you prefer Obama.

Those with a brain in their head do see the difference in that Romney is not a Marxist thug, nor a clowerd piven socialist, has actually made a paycheck in the private sector, doesn't have a murky past, isn't into redistribution of income, picked a thoughtful tea party approved candidate who actually can do arithmetic and has presented a real budget.

Now I know Polly want a Ronpaul and you'll squawk that they're the same because thats what you've been programmed to mindlessly repeat in robotic fashion, but you're really beginning to look foolish when nothing of the kind is true and all the evidence shows otherwise. your credibility just goes down the drain the more you and your ilk cling to the lie and the nonsense.

Acujeff
08-21-2012, 11:22
It's more ridiculous for JohnnyReb and the Obama supporters and Libertarians to come on GT and claim Romney is anti-gun because of a statement about the AWB when his entire record shows he only reduced gun control or passed pro-gun bills. Plenty of excuses but the fact remains, Ron Paul voted for more gun control than Romney.

Libertarians don't apply the same standards to their own candidates and gun-owners cannot depend on them for recourse and relief from oppressive gun control.

If they were honest they'd be warning us to vote against Obama and his huge record of anti-RKBA actions. They'd be going to liberal forums to warn them to vote against Obama. But noooo......they come here to highjack threads, falsify facts to trash Romney, distract from Obama's awful record, and try to create conditions so Obama will get a 2nd term.

Let's not get fooled again.

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 11:27
Okay...here you go: 'So Ron Paul doesn't want us to hunt?'

:rofl:

:tongueout:


Nope, Ron Paul wants to confiscate all bolt action and pump guns and give us full autos that fire baby skull seeking bullets :crying::tongueout::supergrin:

JohnnyReb
08-21-2012, 11:35
It's more ridiculous for JohnnyReb and the Obama supporters and Libertarians to come on GT and claim Romney is anti-gun because of a statement about the AWB when his entire record shows he only reduced gun control or passed pro-gun bills. Plenty of excuses but the fact remains, Ron Paul voted for more gun control than Romney.

Libertarians don't apply the same standards to their own candidates and gun-owners cannot depend on them for recourse and relief from oppressive gun control.

If they were honest they'd be warning us to vote against Obama and his huge record of anti-RKBA actions. They'd be going to liberal forums to warn them to vote against Obama. But noooo......they come here to highjack threads, falsify facts to trash Romney, distract from Obama's awful record, and try to create conditions so Obama will get a 2nd term.

Let's not get fooled again.

:rofl:


Ok, whatever you believe.

Please vote for Romney, you deserve him. :wavey:

JohnnyReb
08-21-2012, 11:39
Nope, Ron Paul wants to confiscate all bolt action and pump guns and give us full autos that fire baby skull seeking bullets :crying::tongueout::supergrin:

http://gunowners.org/2012presidential.htm

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 11:42
http://gunowners.org/2012presidential.htm


May have missed my sarcasm in that post. :supergrin:

JohnnyReb
08-21-2012, 11:43
May have missed my sarcasm in that post. :supergrin:


Not at all, I was adding to you point.

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 11:46
Not at all, I was adding to you point.

Fair enough. :wavey:

G29Reload
08-21-2012, 11:56
Please vote for Romney, you deserve him.

Its better than the only alternative

RC-RAMIE
08-21-2012, 12:03
Its better than the only alternative

Gary Johnson will be on all 50 states ballots.

ChuteTheMall
08-21-2012, 12:12
Gary Johnson will be on all 50 states ballots.

Papoon won't, but you can write him in.




http://i48.tinypic.com/2s1p17q.jpg

GAFinch
08-21-2012, 12:48
The issue at hand to Ron Paul wasn't about guns. It was about the federal gov't and its limitations by the constitution. He has been asked this question time and time again and has given the same answer. Johnny isn't "defending" him, moreso than just saying what Ron Paul has been saying for years now, when asked this question.

If you feel RP is anti-gun, and this is the only "ammo" you have to back this claim up, that is sad. Ron Paul has gone on record (even when it was unpopular!) saying "the 2nd amendment isn't for hunting" and continuing the quote said something to the extent of the 2nd amendment being there for average citizens to protect ourselves with whatever may come our way.

Of course, you don't care, your mind is already set on voting a closet liberal into office, and don't want to see where the politicians truly stand on issues. Romney and Obama are snakes. They say whatever the people want to hear. Ron Paul, tells us what the constitution has to say, whether we like it or not, which is why so many of you whine and quickly head to the polls and vote for your most popular RINO.

Listen, us simple Republican folks actually are smart enough to understand Ron Paul's position on the law. We just wholly disagree with it. The law doesn't expand the size of the federal government. It doesn't cost anything to keep on the books. It doesn't alter the balance of power between the .gov and the states. It exists for the sole purpose of keeping progressives from trashing the 2A via judicial activism.

Believe it or not, the Constitution does allow the federal government to create laws. The Founding Fathers were not omniscient demi-gods. They knew issues would come up as the country grew in size and that there needed to be an ability to alter laws, but with checks and balances to slow down changes. Ron Paul is not a prophet or witch doctor. He's a politician who comes up with bad ideas sometimes, just like every other politician (and human) does.

What's the point in Colt being legally allowed to sell military-issue M4's to civilians if Colt is quickly sued out of existence?

Acujeff
08-21-2012, 13:07
Gary Johnson will be on all 50 states ballots.


Notice the Libertarians won't even claim Johnson can win a single state, nevertheless the election. They're trolling to get gun-owners to throw their vote away to reduce votes for Romney. They are not going to gun control forums to reduce the vote for Obama. If Libertarians were actually acting in the best interests of gun-owners, they'd be discouraging liberals from voting for Obama.

The "just vote third party” idea translates into "just let the democrats have control of the government".

Can't trust those Libertarians!

RC-RAMIE
08-21-2012, 13:25
Notice the Libertarians won't even claim Johnson can win a single state, nevertheless the election. They're trolling to get gun-owners to throw their vote away to reduce votes for Romney. They are not going to gun control forums to reduce the vote for Obama. If Libertarians were actually acting in the best interests of gun-owners, they'd be discouraging liberals from voting for Obama.

The "just vote third party” idea translates into "just let the democrats have control of the government".

Can't trust those Libertarians!

If we are pushing Gary Johnson aren't we discouraging voting for Obama and Romney.

Acujeff
08-21-2012, 14:05
If we are pushing Gary Johnson aren't we discouraging voting for Obama and Romney.

Not if you are exclusively targeting Romney supporters.

That's why you can't trust the Libertarians. They are coming to gun forums to discourage votes away from Romney. But every GT'er notices Libertarians are not going to progressive and anti-RKBA forums to discourage votes away from Obama.

Since Ron Paul has voted for more gun control than Romney and Obama has a huge record of anti-RKBA actions, Libertarians should be targeting Obama for defeat. But they are not doing that.

Obama getting a 2nd term is not in the best interest of gun-owners. MOst GTer's already know that and will not let themselves get scammed into diverting their vote.

Gundude
08-21-2012, 14:34
He's not undoing anything and what happened before isn't the issue. It's where he is right now, what his policy is right now, what his plan of action is. You can cite irrelevancies till the cows come home, they fit right in with all your dishonest assertions. That doesn't change what is. Yeah, just like Obama's policy and plan of action is exactly what he said it was in 2008, even though his history suggested he might do things a little more, well, like he's actually done since. :upeyes:

Your wanting to believe in Romney's version of "hope and change" is no different at all than those who wanted to believe Obama's. Rational people see it's all a line, but the hopelessly deluded do not. Politicians do as they've always done, not as they say they'll do.

We get it. You're butthurt your boy lost because of his suckitude and you want Romney to lose because you prefer Obama.I've noticed a disturbing trend of the statists to bring the phrase "butt hurt" into every conversation.

I've also noticed they try to make everything about Ron Paul because that's all they know how to argue against. Post logical points on any topic, and you'll see a statist attacking Ron Paul in response.

ETA: And yes, I do want Romney to lose because I prefer Obama. What gave it away, the thread I started where I stated I want Romney to lose because I prefer Obama and the reasons why? (none of which involved Ron Paul)

RC-RAMIE
08-21-2012, 14:34
Not if you are exclusively targeting Romney supporters.

That's why you can't trust the Libertarians. They are coming to gun forums to discourage votes away from Romney. But every GT'er notices Libertarians are not going to progressive and anti-RKBA forums to discourage votes away from Obama.

Since Ron Paul has voted for more gun control than Romney and Obama has a huge record of anti-RKBA actions, Libertarians should be targeting Obama for defeat. But they are not doing that.

Obama getting a 2nd term is not in the best interest of gun-owners. MOst GTer's already know that and will not let themselves get scammed into diverting their vote.

Well I make sure to try and get all the Obama voters on here to vote for Gary Johnson. I don't have a interest in anti-RKBA or progressive forums since I'm a Libertarian that's why you don't see me there.

Are you on the anti-RKBA or progressive forums looking for Libertarians? We should be targeting Obama and Mitt don't we have to beat both of them to get into office?

OctoberRust
08-21-2012, 14:49
Listen, us simple Republican folks actually are smart enough to understand Ron Paul's position on the law. We just wholly disagree with it. The law doesn't expand the size of the federal government. It doesn't cost anything to keep on the books. It doesn't alter the balance of power between the .gov and the states. It exists for the sole purpose of keeping progressives from trashing the 2A via judicial activism.

Believe it or not, the Constitution does allow the federal government to create laws. The Founding Fathers were not omniscient demi-gods. They knew issues would come up as the country grew in size and that there needed to be an ability to alter laws, but with checks and balances to slow down changes. Ron Paul is not a prophet or witch doctor. He's a politician who comes up with bad ideas sometimes, just like every other politician (and human) does.

What's the point in Colt being legally allowed to sell military-issue M4's to civilians if Colt is quickly sued out of existence?

Doesn't matter. Ron Paul doesn't like giving the fed gov't more power. Some just like to spin it off and say he's anti-gun, which is preposterous.

ChuteTheMall
08-21-2012, 15:24
We should be targeting Obama and Mitt don't we have to beat both of them to get into office?

You also have to beat 99% of the actual voters, and you can't.
:tinfoil:

ChuteTheMall
08-21-2012, 15:26
And yes, I do want Romney to lose because I prefer Obama.

We knew it all along.

jakebrake
08-21-2012, 15:27
We knew it all along.

don't you just love when the truth comes out?

Ruble Noon
08-21-2012, 15:28
Notice the Libertarians won't even claim Johnson can win a single state, nevertheless the election. They're trolling to get gun-owners to throw their vote away to reduce votes for Romney. They are not going to gun control forums to reduce the vote for Obama. If Libertarians were actually acting in the best interests of gun-owners, they'd be discouraging liberals from voting for Obama.

The "just vote third party” idea translates into "just let the democrats have control of the government".

Can't trust those Libertarians!

Hell we're discouraging people from voting for the gun grabber, Romney and the wanna' be gun grabber, Obama.

Gundude
08-21-2012, 15:35
We knew it all along.Regular Sherlock Holmes' you guys are. That I've been saying it ever since Romney became the Republican frontrunner didn't throw you off the trail one bit. Kudos to you.

Acujeff
08-21-2012, 15:44
Doesn't matter. Ron Paul doesn't like giving the fed gov't more power. Some just like to spin it off and say he's anti-gun, which is preposterous.


It's more "preposterous" to misrepresent Romney's record to say he's "anti-gun" or a "gun grabber". This false premise you desparately keep posting means the Libertarians posting here just want Obama to win and cannot be trusted.

GAFinch
08-21-2012, 15:53
Doesn't matter. Ron Paul doesn't like giving the fed gov't more power. Some just like to spin it off and say he's anti-gun, which is preposterous.

It doesn't give the .gov any power, it just takes power away from progressive gun grabbers.

You're right, sort of. Ronnie isn't pro-gun or anti-gun, pro- or anti-abortion, pro- or anti-drugs, pro- or anti-prostitution, etc, etc, etc. He doesn't believe in any issue, as a politician. His one plank platform is to repeal every single federal law and executive order, no matter the consequences. His policy of repeals may result in pro- or anti- policies depending on state laws, but he wouldn't care either way.

Most of us would like this country returned closer to its roots, but unfortunately Marxist ideology has firmly embedded itself in the world and in this country and isn't going to just be wished away. Laws would still have to be in place to counteract it. If you guys traveled back in time to your utopian 1700's, I seriously doubt you'd find the very socially conservative society better than the current so-called "theocratic" Republican party you guys always whine about.

RC-RAMIE
08-21-2012, 15:59
It's more "preposterous" to misrepresent Romney's record to say he's "anti-gun" or a "gun grabber". This false premise you desparately keep posting means the Libertarians posting here just want Obama to win and cannot be trusted.

Ron Paul

voting no on the Protection in Lawful Commerce Act.

Despite being a supporter of the second amendment, Congressman Paul voted against the Protection in Lawful Commerce Act. He explains this vote by noting that establishing such a law in civil liability was outside the bounds of the federal government according to the Constitution. While he supported the intent, he opposed the law.

On waiting period.

In 2003, Congressman Paul introduced legislation to remove the 5 day waiting period to own guns and to remove the "instant" background check at gun shows. He notes that this instant check allows the government to create a database of gun owners.

Mitt Romney

“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

“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

“I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”

“In a move that will help keep the streets and
neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt
Romney today signed into law a permanent assault
weapons ban...”

NMG26
08-21-2012, 16:10
I'm hardly competent to vote. I don't understand Romney or Obama. At least I can understand Johnson.

It is tempting to vote republican over libertarian for the reason of SCOTUS. It is a sad position to be in. I'd prefer Johnson, but definitely see the writing on the wall concerning throwing a vote away.

Maybe Johnson can make the debates?


.

Glock30Eric
08-21-2012, 16:14
I'm hardly competent to vote. I don't understand Romney or Obama. At least I can understand Johnson.

It is tempting to vote republican over libertarian for the reason of SCOTUS. It is a sad position to be in. I'd prefer Johnson, but definitely see the writing on the wall concerning throwing a vote away.

Maybe Johnson can make the debates?


.

If Paul is out, then I'll vote Johnson without a shame. I know the result with voting Johnson, however he REPRESENTS my belief and voice better than Obama and Romney. I'm doing the America's duty to vote someone that REPRESENTS my voice and not playing a politic game.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

The Machinist
08-21-2012, 16:38
Those with a brain in their head do see the difference in that Romney is not a Marxist thug, nor a clowerd piven socialist, has actually made a paycheck in the private sector, doesn't have a murky past, isn't into redistribution of income, picked a thoughtful tea party approved candidate who actually can do arithmetic and has presented a real budget.
LOL! Shilling for unsustainable entitlement programs which will go tens of trillions into the red (http://www.ntu.org/governmentbytes/spending/unfunded-liabilities.html) over the coming decades means he's a failure at arithmetic. And a budget which is nearly identical to Obama's, is not a real budget. Proposing more spending and more debt doesn't make you thoughtful. You're a joke, and so is the big government party you sided with.

ChuteTheMall
08-21-2012, 16:49
Maybe Johnson can make the debates?


.


He has as much right as you or I do to watch the debates on TV.

But he certainly hasn't earned the right to a position on that stage, and neither has Virgil Goode (Constitution) or Dr. Jill Stein (Green) or George Papoon (Surrealist).

Acujeff
08-21-2012, 16:50
Ron Paul

voting no on the Protection in Lawful Commerce Act.

Despite being a supporter of the second amendment, Congressman Paul voted against the Protection in Lawful Commerce Act. He explains this vote by noting that establishing such a law in civil liability was outside the bounds of the federal government according to the Constitution. While he supported the intent, he opposed the law.

On waiting period.

In 2003, Congressman Paul introduced legislation to remove the 5 day waiting period to own guns and to remove the "instant" background check at gun shows. He notes that this instant check allows the government to create a database of gun owners.

Mitt Romney

“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

“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

“I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”

“In a move that will help keep the streets and
neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt
Romney today signed into law a permanent assault
weapons ban...”

So you are asking gun-owners to honestly look at Ron Paul's entire record to evaluate his RKBA position? Even if he made a few votes for more gun control we should accept his record as pro-RKBA?

Then apply the same honest standards to Romney. In spite of a few statements, his entire record shows he only reduced gun control or passed pro-gun bills.

What is known today as the highly restrictive gun control laws in MA were passed in 1998 by the Massachusetts legislature. It included MA’s assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M) that was more restrictive than the 1994 Fed AWB.

Here’s the entire 1998 CHAPTER 180 AN ACT RELATIVE TO GUN CONTROL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

If you actually read the law it is clear that this ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of MA's own permanent AWB.

MA Gun owners wanted to get rid of the ban in 2004, but did not have the votes in the state Legislature (over 85% anti-gun Democrat). When the Fed ban expired in 2004, Gun Owners’ Action League (the MA based pro-2A group) and Romney used the opportunity to amend the MA AWB by including the federal exemptions and a few other improvements that were not in the state law.

Here it is:
CHAPTER 150 AN ACT FURTHER REGULATING CERTAIN WEAPONS
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150

If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB and MA abuses would still be in place today.

Misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect means you are falsifying the facts.

The fact remains, Ron Paul voted for more gun control than Romney. The Libertarians posting here are Obama supporters, falsifying Romney's record as the premise of their arguments, and cannot be trusted.

GAFinch
08-21-2012, 16:50
Paul Ryan has stated before that his budget plan is not meant to be the one and only budget reform, but a first step in the right direction to get society used to the idea of dealing with our massive deficits and debts. Remember, budgetary laws have to be approved by 60% of Congress and by the President.

NMG26
08-21-2012, 17:01
He has as much right as you or I do to watch the debates on TV.

But he certainly hasn't earned the right to a position on that stage, and neither has Virgil Goode (Constitution) or Dr. Jill Stein (Green) or George Papoon (Surrealist).

Correct me if I am wrong.

Johnson is one of three candidates on the ballot in all 50 states.

Seems like he should be heard.






.

ChuteTheMall
08-21-2012, 17:11
Correct me if I am wrong.

Johnson is one of three candidates on the ballot in all 50 states.

Seems like he should be heard.

.

Glad to.

3. INDICATORS OF ELECTORAL SUPPORT

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.


http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process

Not even close.:okie:

NMG26
08-21-2012, 17:22
Glad to.



http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process

Not even close.

Right.

So I would have admitted being wrong.

There are three candidates that are on all 50 state ballots. You did not show me wrong on that.


You are talking about electoral support.......yes?

I don't think that any third party could have electoral support because of the monopoly that the two parties have.

Maybe since the work was done to get on all the ballots then the third party should be in the debates.

Maybe just one third party?

Maybe the best third party?

Just thinking.

Gundude
08-21-2012, 17:56
don't you just love when the truth comes out?Damn, I just remembered Obama is in town again today. Second time in 30 days, he must really love us here in northern NV. I'd better run, maybe I can catch a glimpse of our savior as he wraps up his speech. :wavey:

hogfish
08-21-2012, 18:16
I'm hardly competent to vote. I don't understand Romney or Obama. At least I can understand Johnson.

It is tempting to vote republican over libertarian for the reason of SCOTUS. It is a sad position to be in. I'd prefer Johnson, but definitely see the writing on the wall concerning throwing a vote away.

Maybe Johnson can make the debates?


.

There you go! What can we do to make sure he's included in the debates? Saying we're going to vote for him when answering pole questions might help. If Libertarians did that, even if they were considering voting Republican 'just to prevent Obamma from winning', it might force some government shrinking arguements in the debates...help keep Romney in line.

:wavey:

ChuteTheMall
08-21-2012, 18:20
Maybe since the work was done to get on all the ballots then the third party should be in the debates.

Maybe just one third party?

Maybe the best third party?

Just thinking.

Maybe you don't understand the requirements to qualify to appear in the debates.
I provided the official link, and even quoted the requirement that your candidate failed to meet (by a huge margin).

I really don't see any way to explain this in simpler terms.

Maybe you are not dealing with reality here?:tinfoil:

chickenwing
08-21-2012, 18:21
Not crazy about the ad, I think they can do better.

Not sure it will matter. Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party simply don't have the big backers and the money that comes with that support compared to Mitt or Barry, who have hundreds of millions(some by the same banks) to run ads. Gary would be lucky to come close to Perot numbers.

That said, he still has my vote. I think he would be a better president then Mitt or Barry

If Barry is the end of America, it's because of Keynesian economic policies. Which both Mitt and Barry represent. This does not change with the election of Mitt. Nor does the spending in any drastic measure.

The country is running 1.5 trillion dollar deficits, is 16 trillion in the hole, and 100+ trillion in the hole for future obligations. Balancing the budget by 2040 is a slap in the face. But whatever, throw your vote behind the status qua.



Oh, and that "unless I vote Mitt I am some how a closet Barry supporter, or that my vote for someone instead of against someone is going to destroy America." Guess what, go pound sand. I will not voluntarily give my consent to be governed by a progressive, whatever party.

NMG26
08-21-2012, 18:30
Maybe you don't understand the requirements to qualify to appear in the debates.
I provided the official link, and even quoted the requirement that your candidate failed to meet (by a huge margin).

I really don't see any way to explain this in simpler terms.

Maybe you are not dealing with reality here?:tinfoil:

True enough.

The regulations won't allow it.

Our hands are tied to just the two and there is nothing that can be done because bureaucracy says so.

Chute, I'm not a tin hat guy. Just your average working Joe that has no power in our government. "We the governed" are all in the same boat.