User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:35:48 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
This is a website for fans of firearms, specifically types that are continually on the chopping block for restrictions if not outright ban at the local, state and federal level. There is only one candidate that supports 100% unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment Whether Paul is one you would cast your vote for or not, it amazes me that pure hate for our strongest champion at the Federal level with a perfect 30yr track record to prove it. Does not compute. because firearms are not the only issue on the political scene. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:36:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
This is a website for fans of firearms, specifically types that are continually on the chopping block for restrictions if not outright ban at the local, state and federal level. There is only one candidate that supports 100% unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment Whether Paul is one you would cast your vote for or not, it amazes me that pure hate for our strongest champion at the Federal level with a perfect 30yr track record to prove it. Does not compute. Because firearms are not teh onbly thing we feel is important. Paul goes full retard on too many things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:36:14 AM EDT
[#3]
No He Can't!
That would be a great election tag. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:36:22 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
He wins every poll. Let's see how he does in the Ames poll. I hope he does well - he's a good man, but these polls means little. However, being a support of Mr. Paul for about 10 years, I've noticed a tremendous uptick in his support. Is it even more tremendous than it was in 2008?? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:36:45 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
He wins every poll. Let's see how he does in the Ames poll. I hope he does well - he's a good man, but these polls means little. However, being a support of Mr. Paul for about 10 years, I've noticed a tremendous uptick in his support. Is it even more tremendous than it was in 2008?? Does he have a blimp yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:37:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ron Paul winning an internet poll! That is completely unexpected! He wins almost every poll (FOX included as per the OP). Go head and keep rallying around the RINO's, they'll show their true colors after they've conned you out of your vote with their theatrical appeals to your patriotism and faux conservatism. Some never learn. Yes he does win polls.....but AMAZINGLY...he can't do fuck-all when it's for real in a primary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:38:28 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
and yet he will continue to be irrelevant in the primaries.... internet polls.... how do they work?! Do they use magnets........ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:38:32 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ronbots done fucked up that poll. I really really like about half of what Ron Paul says. His grasp of economics is great. The other half of what he says scares the hell out of me. Last night I heard him say we shouldn't interfere with iran getting nukes. 100% wrong. He is also un-electable. Is it our business what Iran does? Do you think Iran will never get nukes? Do you really think Iran would ever use a nuke on the US and one of it's allies? Before you answer that, what is the US policy on nuclear retaliation? Think real hard before you answer. Is it our business what Iran does? Hell yes it is. Kooky religious assholes shouldn't have nukes. Do you think Iran will never get nukes? iran will have nukes soon. Do you really think Iran would ever use a nuke on the US and one of it's allies? Yes I think they will. Look at the help they gave to the bad guys in Iraq. I bet they would LOVE to one-up 9-11 by setting off a nuke in the USA. What is the US policy on nuclear retaliation? the kenyan would never retaliate. he would be over there bowing. Do you really think the iranians would have a weapon like that just for show? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:38:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: He wins every poll. Let's see how he does in the Ames poll. I hope he does well - he's a good man, but these polls means little. However, being a support of Mr. Paul for about 10 years, I've noticed a tremendous uptick in his support. Oh yes! Joy, rapture..I see it too with weed smokers and anti-war hippies. You are spot on! He has the support of the wackiest Americans..too bad sane people are not biting, then ole crazy would have a chance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:41:50 AM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:43:48 AM EDT
[#11]
And the beat goes on
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:47:00 AM EDT
[#12]
paulbots.... the juggelos of politics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:47:18 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a website for fans of firearms, specifically types that are continually on the chopping block for restrictions if not outright ban at the local, state and federal level. There is only one candidate that supports 100% unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment Whether Paul is one you would cast your vote for or not, it amazes me that pure hate for our strongest champion at the Federal level with a perfect 30yr track record to prove it. Does not compute. because firearms are not the only issue on the political scene. I understand that. The 2nd Amendment issue, for me, is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. If you see a politicians voting record on that issue, I guarantee that will speak volumes on what part of the political spectrum they come from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:47:47 AM EDT
[#14]
GO RON!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:50:08 AM EDT
[#15]
Hey OP.
Why does Paul often, in speeches and debates, lie about the number of military bases the US has overseas? He often says "over 800" or "over 700" or "over 900". Here is a quote from hsi speech at CPAC. So it makes no sense for us to think that we can keep troops in 135 countries, 900 bases and think we can do it forever. And that simply is not true. The real facts are out there. Is he not smart enough to find and learn them, or does he know the truth but intentionaly misrepresent it to try and bolster his faulty arguement. Don't go on about we need to close the bases. We all know the Pualbot line on that so no need to repeat it. Explain to me why Paul, who makes closing our bases a strong plank in his platform, can't seem to understand a basic fact like how many bases he wants to close? Is he a liar, or just ignorant of the facts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:51:12 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a website for fans of firearms, specifically types that are continually on the chopping block for restrictions if not outright ban at the local, state and federal level. There is only one candidate that supports 100% unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment Whether Paul is one you would cast your vote for or not, it amazes me that pure hate for our strongest champion at the Federal level with a perfect 30yr track record to prove it. Does not compute. because firearms are not the only issue on the political scene. I understand that. The 2nd Amendment issue, for me, is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. If you see a politicians voting record on that issue, I guarantee that will speak volumes on what part of the political spectrum they come from. there are more than a few democrats that are very progun yet also pro gay, pro choice and pro obama 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:51:49 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
paulbots.... the juggelos of politics. Nice. With name calling, as opposed to discussing, I dare ask who out of the potential R candidates you believe will screw us least out of our wealth, liberty and squander the least amount of American lives overseas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:52:46 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a website for fans of firearms, specifically types that are continually on the chopping block for restrictions if not outright ban at the local, state and federal level. There is only one candidate that supports 100% unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment Whether Paul is one you would cast your vote for or not, it amazes me that pure hate for our strongest champion at the Federal level with a perfect 30yr track record to prove it. Does not compute. because firearms are not the only issue on the political scene. I understand that. The 2nd Amendment issue, for me, is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. If you see a politicians voting record on that issue, I guarantee that will speak volumes on what part of the political spectrum they come from. there are more than a few democrats that are very progun yet also pro gay, pro choice and pro obama
Harry Reid is fairly pro gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:53:44 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
paulbots.... the juggelos of politics. Nice. With name calling, as opposed to discussing, I dare ask who out of the potential R candidates you believe will screw us least out of our wealth, liberty and squander the least amount of American lives overseas. If you want a discussion on Ron Paul, it appears that Garand_Shooter is more than willing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:53:55 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: paulbots.... the juggelos of politics. That's Juggalo to you mister.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:54:33 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: GO RON! Yes! Please go and don't come back! We are sick of your shananigans and loony behavior, p.s. take those ridiculous old fart shoes with you. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:54:46 AM EDT
[#22]
Everything else aside, history is very clear on what age we want our Presidents.
Paul is simply too old to be elected at this point. Reagan almost had the age issue kill him, Paul would be older his first day in office than Reagan was his last day. That is a huge gap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:55:11 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Ron Paul winning an internet poll! That is completely unexpected! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:57:16 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Hey OP. Why does Paul often, in speeches and debates, lie about the number of military bases the US has overseas? He often says "over 800" or "over 700" or "over 900". Here is a quote from hsi speech at CPAC. So it makes no sense for us to think that we can keep troops in 135 countries, 900 bases and think we can do it forever. And that simply is not true. The real facts are out there. Is he not smart enough to find and learn them, or does he know the truth but intentionaly misrepresent it to try and bolster his faulty arguement. Don't go on about we need to close the bases. We all know the Pualbot line on that so no need to repeat it. Explain to me why Paul, who makes closing our bases a strong plank in his platform, can't seem to understand a basic fact like how many bases he wants to close? Is he a liar, or just ignorant of the facts? Your source for your "facts"? I believe the number to be greater than 900, but it depends on what you count as a "base". If you count antennae array's with a dozen technicians as bases, then the number is well over 1000. If you only count the huge complex's with an armored division, then we only have a couple over seas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:57:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ronbots done fucked up that poll. I really really like about half of what Ron Paul says. His grasp of economics is great. The other half of what he says scares the hell out of me. Last night I heard him say we shouldn't interfere with iran getting nukes. 100% wrong. He is also un-electable. Is it our business what Iran does? Do you think Iran will never get nukes? Do you really think Iran would ever use a nuke on the US and one of it's allies? Before you answer that, what is the US policy on nuclear retaliation? Think real hard before you answer. Dealing with a culture that values death over life and believes that nuclear detonation will bring the 13th Imam back to earth...yes, I believe 100% that Iran would use any Nuke that they had because they believe it is prophetic to the end of the world as we know it and their version of the book of revalation. Maybe you need to do some of that hard thinking yourself... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 11:58:34 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: paulbots.... the juggelos of politics. Nice. With name calling, as opposed to discussing, I dare ask who out of the potential R candidates you believe will screw us least out of our wealth, liberty and squander the least amount of American lives overseas. Discussion is over..he lost, there is nothing left for you to do except quit posting non-sensical polls and adhominem post about what he believes. We don't care..we choose not to vote for him, because of him. We see him, we hear him and there is nothing new to add. It's over bro. Time to pack up your 800 posts in 7 years "most talking about MoRON Paul" and move on to bigger and better things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:04:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Hey OP. Why does Paul often, in speeches and debates, lie about the number of military bases the US has overseas? He often says "over 800" or "over 700" or "over 900". Here is a quote from hsi speech at CPAC. So it makes no sense for us to think that we can keep troops in 135 countries, 900 bases and think we can do it forever. And that simply is not true. The real facts are out there. Is he not smart enough to find and learn them, or does he know the truth but intentionaly misrepresent it to try and bolster his faulty arguement. Don't go on about we need to close the bases. We all know the Pualbot line on that so no need to repeat it. Explain to me why Paul, who makes closing our bases a strong plank in his platform, can't seem to understand a basic fact like how many bases he wants to close? Is he a liar, or just ignorant of the facts? Your source for your "facts"? I believe the number to be greater than 900, but it depends on what you count as a "base". If you count antennae array's with a dozen technicians as bases, then the number is well over 1000. If you only count the huge complex's with an armored division, then we only have a couple over seas. Once you debunk the haters military destruction claims, they will move to earmarks which they don't understand in the first place. If you can get past that they will erroneously call him a troofer. Which he is not. Once you prove he's not a troofer they will attack his shoes. If you can prove his shoes are irrelevant they will go back to the devastation of the military thing. It's a viscious circle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:04:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Everything else aside, history is very clear on what age we want our Presidents. Paul is simply too old to be elected at this point. Reagan almost had the age issue kill him, Paul would be older his first day in office than Reagan was his last day. That is a huge gap. Okay, I get those points. Harry Ried being progun is akin to Romney being progun. Yes, they show up at a range or on a duck hunt prior to election, they may even own a few. Unquestionably they would argue for "sensible gun laws" to protect the "children". I'm talking 100% unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment 4th, 5th ect ect ect. Paul is the only one with 100% voting record and has never wavered in 30yrs. Whether you think he is electable or not is a valid debate, otherwise, arfcom should thank the heavens that we have at least one such politician serving this country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:06:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey OP. Why does Paul often, in speeches and debates, lie about the number of military bases the US has overseas? He often says "over 800" or "over 700" or "over 900". Here is a quote from hsi speech at CPAC. So it makes no sense for us to think that we can keep troops in 135 countries, 900 bases and think we can do it forever. And that simply is not true. The real facts are out there. Is he not smart enough to find and learn them, or does he know the truth but intentionaly misrepresent it to try and bolster his faulty arguement. Don't go on about we need to close the bases. We all know the Pualbot line on that so no need to repeat it. Explain to me why Paul, who makes closing our bases a strong plank in his platform, can't seem to understand a basic fact like how many bases he wants to close? Is he a liar, or just ignorant of the facts? Your source for your "facts"? I believe the number to be greater than 900, but it depends on what you count as a "base". If you count antennae array's with a dozen technicians as bases, then the number is well over 1000. If you only count the huge complex's with an armored division, then we only have a couple over seas. My source is the base structure report the DOD publishes every year. It has, in some years, listed over 900 real estate tracts or leased buildings. That is not, however, 900 bases. Many bases are made up of dozens or more tracts aquired over time, or that have small geographic seperation like a road between them. They are but one base, but would be listed and 5-10-2-30 "sites" in the report. Likewise, it lists small leased facilities, like a 400 square foot office in Canada, likely used by some sort of attache. Is a tiny rented office a "base"? Is the recuruiters office down in the strip mall a "base"? Only in Ron Pauls La-La land. Before it was closed, it also listed the Boy Scout camp for the kids of our forces in gemrany. paul counted the Boy Scout camp as an evil imperialistic base. Paul was citing those numbers then as well. It lists rented docks and warehouses in ports our Navy uses. Is a rented dock a "base." It lists rented hangars at civilian airfields and airfield of other governments. Is a leased hangar a "base"? The real number is between 150-300, depending on where you make the cutoff. But to know that, you would have to do some research and understand the facts. Not just glance a report, without reading it or comprehending it, and start spewing numbers you don't understand. So we have 2 possibilities. One is that Paul is really smart, and he understands the real number. But by misrepresenting the numbers in the report his arguement sounds better, so he takes the dishonest approach. The other is he doesn't understand the report, but just spews the numbers he saw like a simpleton. This would mean that he has a major campaign platform of closing all our bases yet has not done the most basic of research on the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:07:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Well I'm sure his district, that he poured a crap load of pork and earmarks into, while being against pork and earmarks loves the hell outta of him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:09:03 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Well I'm sure his district, that he poured a crap load of pork and earmarks into, while being against pork and earmarks loves the hell outta of him. Moral relativism is OK if you are Ron Paul. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:09:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Well I'm sure his district, that he poured a crap load of pork and earmarks into, while being against pork and earmarks loves the hell outta of him. Sigh...Once again, earmarks are the only way to get money back that should not have been taken from his district in the first place and "Redistributed" on a global scale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:10:48 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well I'm sure his district, that he poured a crap load of pork and earmarks into, while being against pork and earmarks loves the hell outta of him. Sigh...Once again, earmarks are the only way to get money back that should not have been taken from his district in the first place and "Redistributed" on a global scale. If earmarks are acceptable, then why does he vote against them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:11:10 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well I'm sure his district, that he poured a crap load of pork and earmarks into, while being against pork and earmarks loves the hell outta of him. Sigh...Once again, earmarks are the only way to get money back that should not have been taken from his district in the first place and "Redistributed" on a global scale. So he took that money back only for 100% Constituional uses of Federal funds, right? He didn't get the Federal Government into funding anything not found in the Constitution did he? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:15:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Whats really bothering me about the debate is that Fox is really pushing this notion that, somehow, Dumbney is the "front runner".
That fucking clown got his ass handed to him last night and was outclassed by orders of magnitude by Cain and Gingrich. Dumbney is only the front runner in the exact same way Odumbo was the front runner on CNN, MSLSD, etc...by media decree, and not by polls or facts. Its clear to anyone who watched the debate that Romney came in a distant fourth at best...unless youre a RINO cheerleader, which Fox has clearly become in this case. And is it just me, or has Chris Wallace be ome the Katie Couric of Fox? He just irritates me anymore
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:17:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Romney has been ahead in almost every poll, I don't think it's a big conspiracy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:17:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey OP. Why does Paul often, in speeches and debates, lie about the number of military bases the US has overseas? He often says "over 800" or "over 700" or "over 900". Here is a quote from hsi speech at CPAC. So it makes no sense for us to think that we can keep troops in 135 countries, 900 bases and think we can do it forever. And that simply is not true. The real facts are out there. Is he not smart enough to find and learn them, or does he know the truth but intentionaly misrepresent it to try and bolster his faulty arguement. Don't go on about we need to close the bases. We all know the Pualbot line on that so no need to repeat it. Explain to me why Paul, who makes closing our bases a strong plank in his platform, can't seem to understand a basic fact like how many bases he wants to close? Is he a liar, or just ignorant of the facts? Your source for your "facts"? I believe the number to be greater than 900, but it depends on what you count as a "base". If you count antennae array's with a dozen technicians as bases, then the number is well over 1000. If you only count the huge complex's with an armored division, then we only have a couple over seas. My source is the base structure report the DOD publishes every year. It has, in some years, listed over 900 real estate tracts or leased buildings. That is not, however, 900 bases. Many bases are made up of dozens or more tracts aquired over time, or that have small geographic seperation like a road between them. They are but one base, but would be listed and 5-10-2-30 "sites" in the report. Likewise, it lists small leased facilities, like a 400 square foot office in Canada, likely used by some sort of attache. Is a tiny rented office a "base"? Is the recuruiters office down in the strip mall a "base"? Only in Ron Pauls La-La land. Before it was closed, it also listed the Boy Scout camp for the kids of our forces in gemrany. paul counted the Boy Scout camp as an evil imperialistic base. Paul was citing those numbers then as well. It lists rented docks and warehouses in ports our Navy uses. Is a rented dock a "base." It lists rented hangars at civilian airfields and airfield of other governments. Is a leased hangar a "base"? The real number is between 150-300, depending on where you make the cutoff. But to know that, you would have to do some research and understand the facts. Not just glance a report, without reading it or comprehending it, and start spewing numbers you don't understand. So we have 2 possibilities. One is that Paul is really smart, and he understands the real number. But by misrepresenting the numbers in the report his arguement sounds better, so he takes the dishonest approach. The other is he doesn't understand the report, but just spews the numbers he saw like a simpleton. This would mean that he has a major campaign platform of closing all our bases yet has not done the most basic of research on the issue. Thank you for the well thought out, technical and informative reply, I'll look it up and perhaps agree with you; regardless, I'm amazed at the cry babying on here about so-called "Paulbots". It seems that name calling and nonsensical, sophomoric statements by the "Anti-Paulbots" are overwhelmingly more numerous but.... unfortunately not humorous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:18:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well I'm sure his district, that he poured a crap load of pork and earmarks into, while being against pork and earmarks loves the hell outta of him. Sigh...Once again, earmarks are the only way to get money back that should not have been taken from his district in the first place and "Redistributed" on a global scale. If earmarks are acceptable, then why does he vote against them? They are fundamentally wrong. But it's a vehicle to regain a portion of the money that should have never been seized for redistribution in the first place. If you guys are so on board with this, get out your personal checkbooks and send checks to Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Israel, the NAACP, the gay and lesbian task force, the housing bailout, GM, Fannie and Freddie, Greece, Mexico, etc etc. etc. etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:21:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: This is how presidents are elected. The international banks pick their talking head.Whats really bothering me about the debate is that Fox is really pushing this notion that, somehow, Dumbney is the "front runner". That fucking clown got his ass handed to him last night and was outclassed by orders of magnitude by Cain and Gingrich. Dumbney is only the front runner in the exact same way Odumbo was the front runner on CNN, MSLSD, etc...by media decree, and not by polls or facts. Its clear to anyone who watched the debate that Romney came in a distant fourth at best...unless youre a RINO cheerleader, which Fox has clearly become in this case. And is it just me, or has Chris Wallace be ome the Katie Couric of Fox? He just irritates me anymore The media calls him "The frontrunner". The sheeple vote for him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:22:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Romney has been ahead in almost every poll, I don't think it's a big conspiracy I suggest you go review polls taken after the debate, including Fox's own. Romney s NOT the front runner. Not by a long shot, but Fox keeps parroting that same line, taking a play right out of the CNN playbook from 2008. If current conservatives are that stupid to buy into the tag line, or for that matter Dumbney himself, this nation is really over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:22:50 PM EDT
[#41]
SHHHHHH!!
Don't tell anyone but I think the Iranians helped him out the these last couple of polls. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:24:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: This is how presidents are elected. The international banks pick their talking head.Whats really bothering me about the debate is that Fox is really pushing this notion that, somehow, Dumbney is the "front runner". That fucking clown got his ass handed to him last night and was outclassed by orders of magnitude by Cain and Gingrich. Dumbney is only the front runner in the exact same way Odumbo was the front runner on CNN, MSLSD, etc...by media decree, and not by polls or facts. Its clear to anyone who watched the debate that Romney came in a distant fourth at best...unless youre a RINO cheerleader, which Fox has clearly become in this case. And is it just me, or has Chris Wallace be ome the Katie Couric of Fox? He just irritates me anymore The media calls him "The frontrunner". The sheeple vote for him. Dead on the money. Sickening to the core, but it's the truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:27:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Yay!
How many days until Election Day? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:33:35 PM EDT
[#44]
RuPaul won't win a single state in the primaries.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:40:02 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
paulbots.... the juggelos of politics. Nice. With name calling, as opposed to discussing, I dare ask who out of the potential R candidates you believe will screw us least out of our wealth, liberty and squander the least amount of American lives overseas. Discussion is over..he lost, there is nothing left for you to do except quit posting non-sensical polls and adhominem post about what he believes. We don't care..we choose not to vote for him, because of him. We see him, we hear him and there is nothing new to add. It's over bro. Time to pack up your 800 posts in 7 years "most talking about MoRON Paul" and move on to bigger and better things. Yes, 2 jobs, my wife and son do require some of my attention which does diminish my standing in your noble post count worthiness metric. Yes, I have mentioned Ron Paul at least 12 times since 2004. The adults are having a discussion here, was there something else you wanted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:41:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
You don't get out much, do you? 
Has Ron Paul ever lost a poll on the interwebs? 
BigDozer66 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:41:48 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Romney has been ahead in almost every poll, I don't think it's a big conspiracy I suggest you go review polls taken after the debate, including Fox's own. Romney s NOT the front runner. Not by a long shot, but Fox keeps parroting that same line, taking a play right out of the CNN playbook from 2008. If current conservatives are that stupid to buy into the tag line, or for that matter Dumbney himself, this nation is really over. Romney and Perry are the two clear frontrunners, hands down. Who are you saying is the frontrunner? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:41:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Go Ron
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:42:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Just like George BushRonbots done fucked up that poll. Last night I heard him say we shouldn't interfere with iran getting nukes. Except without the lying |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2011 12:43:28 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is how presidents are elected. The international banks pick their talking head.
Whats really bothering me about the debate is that Fox is really pushing this notion that, somehow, Dumbney is the "front runner". That fucking clown got his ass handed to him last night and was outclassed by orders of magnitude by Cain and Gingrich. Dumbney is only the front runner in the exact same way Odumbo was the front runner on CNN, MSLSD, etc...by media decree, and not by polls or facts. Its clear to anyone who watched the debate that Romney came in a distant fourth at best...unless youre a RINO cheerleader, which Fox has clearly become in this case. And is it just me, or has Chris Wallace be ome the Katie Couric of Fox? He just irritates me anymore The media calls him "The frontrunner". The sheeple vote for him. Dead on the money. Sickening to the core, but it's the truth. I noticed this too. Its getting to the point that I can barely watch Fox news anymore, sad, as I used to enjoy the network. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
