Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/24/2007 3:36:42 AM EST
H.R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans

HR 1096
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:41:53 AM EST
Liquor store already open?



t

eta: that link is worthless, no text of the bill so no idea what your gripe is.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:43:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 3:44:04 AM EST by Fast_Shadow]

Originally Posted By m193:
H.R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans

HR 1096


He submits a bill that is essentially a dissent of the proposed AWB and he's an "idiot" according to you?

How sad for you. Also, the info on this bill has already been posted at least once.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:46:44 AM EST
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1993 LAW PROVIDING FOR A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF A HANDGUN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM TO BE CONTACTED BY FIREARMS DEALERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM.

Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION.

(a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'; and

(2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes'.

(b) Section 921(a)(4)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'.

(c) Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes'.

(d) Section 921(a)(17)(C) of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,'.

(e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community'.

(f) Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and'.

(h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B)'.

(i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and (b)(3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes' and inserting `lawful purposes'.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005.

(a) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code-

(1) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (z).

(2) Section 924 of such title is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `(f), or (p)' and inserting `or (f)'; and

(B) by striking subsection (p).

(b) Repealer- Section 5 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note; 119 Stat. 2099) is repealed.


No bill is ever copyrighted.

Ron Paul is trying desperately to regain ground lost by his other moonbat positions.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:52:47 AM EST
It's a great bill. Apparently Ron is a bit smarter than you.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:59:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1993 LAW PROVIDING FOR A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF A HANDGUN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM TO BE CONTACTED BY FIREARMS DEALERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM.

Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION.

(a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'; and

(2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes'.

(b) Section 921(a)(4)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'.

(c) Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes'.

(d) Section 921(a)(17)(C) of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,'.

(e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community'.

(f) Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and'.

(h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B)'.

(i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'.

(k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and (b)(3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes' and inserting `lawful purposes'.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005.

(a) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code-

(1) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (z).

(2) Section 924 of such title is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `(f), or (p)' and inserting `or (f)'; and

(B) by striking subsection (p).

(b) Repealer- Section 5 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note; 119 Stat. 2099) is repealed.


No bill is ever copyrighted.

Ron Paul is trying desperately to regain ground lost by his other moonbat positions.


So what's wrong with this??? Someone please show me...

fred
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:04:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:06:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:06:45 AM EST
He has no plan to get it passed. This bill was only a means of showing he isn't lock step with the dems after his siding with Pelosi on the non-binding measure.

And his vote for the non-binding measure is why he is a shill.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:11:02 AM EST
Every one of us needs quit capitulating to the lesser of two evils in the general election. We need to vote for this man in the primary.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:11:28 AM EST
I think several sarcasm-meters are out of whack this morning.

Regardless, RP does have a great stance on the 2nd. Too bad he is such a douche on other important issues.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:19:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 4:59:40 AM EST by qualityhardware]

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
He has no plan to get it passed. This bill was only a means of showing he isn't lock step with the dems after his siding with Pelosi on the non-binding measure.

And his vote for the non-binding measure is why he is a shill.


At least he has the balls to deal with what the true meaning of the 2A is while the rest of the "pragmatists" compromise our birthright to the Attorney General's definition of "sporting purposes" - whatever the hell that means.

Kind of like a rapist telling his victim "I'm just going to slip in a couple of inches instead of the whole thing. I'm a nice guy, really."

Even if it doesn't stand a chance, these are the questions that SHOULD be debated publicly to see who in the .gov truly understands the limits the Constitution places on it.

Enough dancing around the issue.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:24:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
I think several sarcasm-meters are out of whack this morning.

Regardless, RP does have a great stance on the 2nd. Too bad he is such a douche on other important issues.


On what other issues do you object to his stance?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:47:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
I think several sarcasm-meters are out of whack this morning.

...


Thanks. It must be too early for some folks.

He's a Constitutionalist in Republican guise.

Wow. I type Constitutionalist and it comes up with a red underline as an unknown word. It looks like the only part of the Constitution this place recognizes is the Second Amendment...and the First Amendment, when it meets the current need.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:50:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By qualityhardware:
Even if it doesn't stand a chance, these are the questions that SHOULD be debated publicly to see who in the .gov truly understands the limits the Constitution places on it.

Enough dancing around the issue.


Thank you, couldn't agree with you more.

t
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:53:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By m193:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
I think several sarcasm-meters are out of whack this morning.

...


Thanks. It must be too early for some folks.

He's a Constitutionalist in Republican guise.

Wow. I type Constitutionalist and it comes up with a red underline as an unknown word. It looks like the only part of the Constitution this place recognizes is the Second Amendment...and the First Amendment, when it meets the current need.


So...is this also sarcasm?

t
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:57:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By m193:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
I think several sarcasm-meters are out of whack this morning.

...


Thanks. It must be too early for some folks.

He's a Constitutionalist in Republican guise.

Wow. I type Constitutionalist and it comes up with a red underline as an unknown word. It looks like the only part of the Constitution this place recognizes is the Second Amendment...and the First Amendment, when it meets the current need.


Pray tell, what does the 1st Amendment have to do with "this place"?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:01:05 AM EST
Ron Paul introduces a bill to protect the 2nd amendment and some of you are against him?????........Am I on the wrong discussion forum or is this the communist board???...
Those of you who are against the 2nd amendment, would you please remove yourself from this planet.......please????.......
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:12:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 5:12:33 AM EST by Gloftoe]
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:14:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:44:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
From Ron Paul's website:

Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.


Now, I may have missed it (honestly), but are "non binding resolutions" expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution?


They're jealous of the President's Executive Order. I think these resolutions are like farting or belching
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:48:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By m193:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
I think several sarcasm-meters are out of whack this morning.

...


Thanks. It must be too early for some folks.

He's a Constitutionalist in Republican guise.

Wow. I type Constitutionalist and it comes up with a red underline as an unknown word. It looks like the only part of the Constitution this place recognizes is the Second Amendment...and the First Amendment, when it meets the current need.


Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:03:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
From Ron Paul's website:

Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.


Now, I may have missed it (honestly), but are "non binding resolutions" expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution?


Well they are expressing the sense of the Congress (and are known as concurrent resolutions - not requiring the President to sign them, hence, non-binding). I can see how joint resolutions are expressly authorized by the Constitution, as describe in article I.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 8:28:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
From Ron Paul's website:

Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.


Now, I may have missed it (honestly), but are "non binding resolutions" expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution?


Got him me thinks...

Ron Paul the flexible Constitutionalist.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 8:34:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By HIPPO:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
From Ron Paul's website:

Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.


Now, I may have missed it (honestly), but are "non binding resolutions" expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution?


Well they are expressing the sense of the Congress (and are known as concurrent resolutions - not requiring the President to sign them, hence, non-binding). I can see how joint resolutions are expressly authorized by the Constitution, as describe in article I.


I believe Ron Paul in the past has said they were meaningless Congressional measures and therefore not authorized… been quite adamant about it.

Ron Paul the flexible Constitutionalist
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:08:51 AM EST
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist only when it suits him.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:18:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By NME:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist only when it suits him.



name one person in Washington DC who does a better job in follow the constitution.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:29:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
He has no plan to get it passed. This bill was only a means of showing he isn't lock step with the dems after his siding with Pelosi on the non-binding measure.

And his vote for the non-binding measure is why he is a shill.


Wrong. But thanks for playing. Dr. Paul has tried to get this bill passed pretty much since his first term in office.

Dr. Paul wanted a Full Declaration of War against the terror supporting State in the Middle East and Letters of Marque and Reprisal for privateers, like Black Water, to help track down terrorists in places our Government can't get to. He has serious issues with the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act which is why he can't justify the current "police action" in Iraq.

I know most of you aren't familiar with people having things like Principles that they stay consistent to. Dr. Paul isn't anti-war, he's just anti-the way this war is being fought and he has a very good argument for it.

If you'd care to pay attention that is. If that isn't your goal, then feel free to talk out your ass some more...
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:37:36 AM EST
Check out his web site he has some good ideas that in my opinion would put this country back on the right track. That said I do NOT agree with everything he has done or said but when was the last time you found someone that you agreed with 100% if the time? Shoot most of you bitch about the current POTUS and this guy is stronger than him.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:37:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 9:38:06 AM EST by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By JonnySak:

Originally Posted By NME:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist only when it suits him.



name one person in Washington DC who does a better job in follow the constitution.


You were just shown he does not follow the constitution according to his own words and standards.

Ron Paul is a completely ineffectual legislator so he de facto does little other than thump his chest and yap.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:41:13 AM EST
Ron Paul is one of only two politicians that deserve respect. The other being Tancredo.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:42:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By JonnySak:

Originally Posted By NME:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist only when it suits him.



name one person in Washington DC who does a better job in follow the constitution.


You were just shown he does not follow the constitution according to his own wors and standards.

Ron Paul is a completely ineffectual legislator so he de facto does little other than thump his chest and yap.


i'll take that as YOU CAN'T.

Also, no one has shown me that a non-binding resolution is unconstitutional, some people have stated their (unqualified?) opinion, nothing more.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:51:36 AM EST
This isn't a reaction to anything, he introduces this every year. Ron Paul deserves a lot of credit for his 2A stance.

Don't mind me if I cut him some slack on his libertoon foreign policy. It could be worse, he could actually be a Republican.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 11:13:25 AM EST
The only thing I see wrong with that bill is that it's incomplete. I say shove a bill down the .gov's collective throat to repeal ALL gun control, from 1934 on up. I know it will never happen that way, but it's still ok to dream isn't it?

heavy.gif
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 11:51:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By JonnySak:

Also, no one has shown me that a non-binding resolution is unconstitutional, some people have stated their (unqualified?) opinion, nothing more.


Congress can "resolve" whatever it wants to. It just has ZERO effect from a legal standpoint. That's what the whole "non-binding" thing is about.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 11:53:57 AM EST
So why is Paul a douche on other issues again?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:33:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By sav_carguy:
but it's still ok to dream isn't it?


Nope, as you can see it gets the fascists all riled up.



t
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:54:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
He has no plan to get it passed. This bill was only a means of showing he isn't lock step with the dems after his siding with Pelosi on the non-binding measure.

And his vote for the non-binding measure is why he is a shill.


Wrong. But thanks for playing. Dr. Paul has tried to get this bill passed pretty much since his first term in office.

Dr. Paul wanted a Full Declaration of War against the terror supporting State in the Middle East and Letters of Marque and Reprisal for privateers, like Black Water, to help track down terrorists in places our Government can't get to. He has serious issues with the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act which is why he can't justify the current "police action" in Iraq.

I know most of you aren't familiar with people having things like Principles that they stay consistent to. Dr. Paul isn't anti-war, he's just anti-the way this war is being fought and he has a very good argument for it.

If you'd care to pay attention that is. If that isn't your goal, then feel free to talk out your ass some more...


+1 to that... I would also comment that he's a libertarian in republican clothes-not so much a constitutionalist. I would second all previous comments that this guy's principles are head and shoulders above the vast majority of the DC scumbags...

-mb
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:00:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Got him me thinks...

Ron Paul the flexible Constitutionalist.


Wow, not a lot of intelligence in this thread.

So, Einstein, how is Ron Paul voting on a non-binding resolution trampling the Constitution?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:02:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 1:07:35 PM EST by Drakich]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By JonnySak:

Originally Posted By NME:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist only when it suits him.



name one person in Washington DC who does a better job in follow the constitution.


You were just shown he does not follow the constitution according to his own words and standards.


Bzzzzzz. Wrong, try again. You CLAIMED that a non-binding resolution isn't authorized by the Constitution, but have come up with a startling lack of evidence to PROVE your claim. Just because you say the moon is made of cheese doesn't make it so.

Oh, and by the way for all the Constitutional "experts" out there.

Congress is perfectly in it's right to pass a non-binding resolution.

Congress is perfectly in it's right and acting under Constitutional authority to DE-FUND the war if they want.

So yes, Ron Paul is acting perfectly within the Constitution when he votes for these bills. It might not be good policy, YOU might not agree with it, *I* might not agree with it, but saying it's not Constitutional is idiotic.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:11:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 1:17:00 PM EST by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Drakich:

Bzzzzzz. Wrong, try again. You CLAIMED that a non-binding resolution isn't authorized by the Constitution, but have come up with a startling lack of evidence to PROVE your claim. Just because you say the moon is made of cheese doesn't make it so.

Oh, and by the way for all the Constitutional "experts" out there.

Congress is perfectly in it's right to pass a non-binding resolution.

Congress is perfectly in it's right and acting under Constitutional authority to DE-FUND the war if they want.

So yes, Ron Paul is acting perfectly within the Constitution when he votes for these bills. It might not be good policy, YOU might not agree with it, *I* might not agree with it, but saying it's not Constitutional is idiotic.


Not according to Ron Paul from years before...

Ron Paul has for years been on the record saying these were meaningless Congressional measures and therefore not authorized under the Constitution. Look up what he has said in that past it is there.

That is was his position… though I sure it will change again if he decides it should.

I really don’t know why Paul has opposed meaningless Congressional measures in the past… meaningless pretty much sums up his impact in Congress.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:36:08 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:48:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:

Originally Posted By Drakich:
Congress is perfectly in it's right to pass a non-binding resolution.

...

So yes, Ron Paul is acting perfectly within the Constitution when he votes for these bills. It might not be good policy, YOU might not agree with it, *I* might not agree with it, but saying it's not Constitutional is idiotic.


See, here's the thing. I don't see WHERE in the Constitution it is "expressly authorized" to pass non-binding resolutions. I'm genuinely curious here.

Ron Paul is the one that claims he "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." I'm the one that originally pointed that out in the thread, and am still curious WHERE in the Constitution that is located.


It's in the same paragraph that authorizes Congress to wear clothing and breathe air while in session. Nice strawman, too bad it's just
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:56:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:

Originally Posted By m193:
Wow. I type Constitutionalist and it comes up with a red underline as an unknown word. It looks like the only part of the Constitution this place recognizes is the Second Amendment...and the First Amendment, when it meets the current need.


Psst!

"This place" doesn't have a real-time spellchecker that puts a red line under words. That's your browser. And last I checked, the government isn't denying you your right of free speech with that spellchecker.


Ahh? That doesn't happen on other sites. That was a bit sarcastic too. I just meant that the word isn't used much around here, what with all the support of the anti-Constitution environment we have in the current administration.

My point was that everyone here wants free speech and wraps themselves in the Bill of Rights until something is posted about the anti-war movement or something else they don't agree with and then all I see is the protesters should be hanged for treason. Speech can be restricted on a private website.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:01:40 PM EST
It's a lot like declaring a given week, National Philodendron Week or a notice that the Colts won the Super Bowl. I foolishly thought they had better things to do. Who knew?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:13:21 PM EST
Yes, yes. We've heard the schtick: Ron Paul bad. Me no vote for Ron Paul.

To return a bit of sanity I present the following options for 2008







I now return you to your regularly scheduled hating Ron Paul
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:13:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
It's a lot like declaring a given week, National Philodendron Week or a notice that the Colts won the Super Bowl. I foolishly thought they had better things to do. Who knew?


Well that is EXACTLY what old Ron used to say... and that they were an unconstitutional use of money.

But he is a flexible Constitutionalist… so things change.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:16:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Yes, yes. We've heard the schtick: Ron Paul bad. Me no vote for Ron Paul.

To return a bit of sanity I present the following options for 2008

clinton.senate.gov/images/home/topmast/topmast_hillary.jpg

www.lowculture.com/archives/images/edwards_convention_5.jpg

www.sustainability.com/network/images/global_infl/al_gore.jpg

I now return you to your regularly scheduled hating Ron Paul


Those are options you will get voting for Ron Paul, and the options you deserve if you vote for Ron Paul....
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:18:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Yes, yes. We've heard the schtick: Ron Paul bad. Me no vote for Ron Paul.

To return a bit of sanity I present the following options for 2008

clinton.senate.gov/images/home/topmast/topmast_hillary.jpg

www.lowculture.com/archives/images/edwards_convention_5.jpg

www.sustainability.com/network/images/global_infl/al_gore.jpg

I now return you to your regularly scheduled hating Ron Paul


Those are options you will get voting for Ron Paul, and the options you deserve if you vote for Ron Paul....


You got a better idea? Brownback? Delay? Romney? Giuliani?

I know Tancredo is everybody here's wet dream, he's also the most unelectable candidate for POTUS the republicans got. So, fine. Ron Paul sucks massive dick. You got a better idea?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:21:37 PM EST

Ron Paul m193 is such an idiot
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:27:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
It's a lot like declaring a given week, National Philodendron Week or a notice that the Colts won the Super Bowl. I foolishly thought they had better things to do. Who knew?


Well that is EXACTLY what old Ron used to say... and that they were an unconstitutional use of money.

But he is a flexible Constitutionalist… so things change.


Gotta link with Paul saying "a congressman voting on a non-binding resolution is unconstitutional"?

I'd love to see that.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top