Ron Paul on AZ. shooting. Finally some common sence.

[cutter]

Ron Paul seems to be the only politician that knows that the American people need to protect themselves. Here's a link to his statement.


Ron Paul: Why Government Cannot “Make Us Safe” by Mandating Security | Ron Paul .com

 

[MarcATL]

This is EXACTLY why the Republicans shunned and scoffed and mocked him during the Bush Administration.

As I remember it, the Bush Administration was constantly pushing the meme that government should and can protect its citizens from ALL dangers.

He wasn't buying it. Wasn't buying it then, and is not buying it now.

Funny thing is, the same self-proclaimed Conservatives who shunned and mocked him then, will most likely be hailing and praising him now.

I wonder what has changed.

Hmmmm....what. has. changed?

 

[sangha]

Certainly not the hypocrisy of wingnuts

That's still going strong

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Dr. Paul is a good & decent man. He always speaks with sincerity. He would never try and use this awful tragedy for political gain like so many other shallow politicians have. I always enjoy hearing the good Doctor's thoughts on issues. Thanks.

 

[xotoxi]

Is he actually saying that if everyone carried a concealed weapon, the AZ massacre would not have happened?

First of all, the gunman got off the first shot, so someone (or many people) would have been hit prior to someone pulling out their gun.

Secondly, if several people pulled out their guns in a crowd and started to shoot at the gunman, there would have been Doom-style carnage with all the crossfire.

So, I'm not so sure that his point is valid in this case.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I don't mind Ron Paul. I do think they should be able to put security in place for public political events though, to ban all weapons from being taken in.

With that said OP, common sense isn't so common.

 

[Kat]

This is EXACTLY why the Republicans shunned and scoffed and mocked him during the Bush Administration.

As I remember it, the Bush Administration was constantly pushing the meme that government should and can protect its citizens from ALL dangers.

He wasn't buying it. Wasn't buying it then, and is not buying it now.

Funny thing is, the same self-proclaimed Conservatives who shunned and mocked him then, will most likely be hailing and praising him now.

I wonder what has changed.

Hmmmm....what. has. changed?

You're a paulbot now? Who would have thunk.

 

[sangha]

This is EXACTLY why the Republicans shunned and scoffed and mocked him during the Bush Administration.

As I remember it, the Bush Administration was constantly pushing the meme that government should and can protect its citizens from ALL dangers.

He wasn't buying it. Wasn't buying it then, and is not buying it now.

Funny thing is, the same self-proclaimed Conservatives who shunned and mocked him then, will most likely be hailing and praising him now.

I wonder what has changed.

Hmmmm....what. has. changed?

You're a paulbot now? Who would have thunk.

WIngnuts can't decide if the govt should or should not protect its' citizens from all dangers

But to answer your question "Not you. You never thunk"

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Everyone should be a Paulitician. Give Freedom & Liberty a chance.

 

[Kat]

This is EXACTLY why the Republicans shunned and scoffed and mocked him during the Bush Administration.

As I remember it, the Bush Administration was constantly pushing the meme that government should and can protect its citizens from ALL dangers.

He wasn't buying it. Wasn't buying it then, and is not buying it now.

Funny thing is, the same self-proclaimed Conservatives who shunned and mocked him then, will most likely be hailing and praising him now.

I wonder what has changed.

Hmmmm....what. has. changed?

You're a paulbot now? Who would have thunk.

WIngnuts can't decide if the govt should or should not protect its' citizens from all dangers

But to answer your question "Not you. You never thunk"

Exactly the opposite. I think, and think for myself...make up my own mind. That would be why I am not a sheeple for ANY man.

Paul is an Isolationist...and I certainly am not that.

 

[sangha]

You're a paulbot now? Who would have thunk.

WIngnuts can't decide if the govt should or should not protect its' citizens from all dangers

But to answer your question "Not you. You never thunk"

Exactly the opposite. I think, and think for myself...make up my own mind. That would be why I am not a sheeple for ANY man.

Paul is an Isolationist...and I certainly am not that.

So is that why you dodged the question? Because you can think??

How about answering the question. Should the govt protect it's citizens from all dangers.

You can either badmouth bush*'s claim that it is (and show your hypocrisy) or claim that bush* was right (and prove your hypocrisy)

 

[Missourian]

Ron Paul seems to be the only politician that knows that the American people need to protect themselves. Here's a link to his statement.


Ron Paul: Why Government Cannot “Make Us Safe” by Mandating Security | Ron Paul .com

Here is a recording of Rep. Paul giving the address transcribed in your article.

​

 

[MarcATL]

You're a paulbot now? Who would have thunk.

Kat, I don't want to judge wrongly, but I'm curious...what was the purpose of this post?

But to directly answer it, I do agree with SOME of his views. I find some to be EXTREME and I find some to be on point.

In this case...he's on point.

I've felt that way on this issue during the Bush Administration and I feel that way now.

Safety is a myth. You're only as safe as the safest person or tool or situation or time or...the list goes on. Because with all the safety measures and precautions any individual or group of people can follow, shat happens.

 

[Ravi]

I didn't get past this:

Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials.

I have not seen one person, unless you count that guy Levin who is suing people, call for this...therefore, Ron Paul is a liar.

How sad.

 

[sangha]

You're a paulbot now? Who would have thunk.

Kat, I don't want to judge wrongly, but I'm curious...what was the purpose of this post?

But to directly answer it, I do agree with SOME of his views. I find some to be EXTREME and I find some to be on point.

In this case...he's on point.

The purpose was to avoid commenting on the hypocrisy of the right, while dishonestly trying to misportray you as being a hypocrit (for supporting Paul, which you don't)

She obviously doen't want to talk about the subject. If she did, she would have. She didn't.

 

[Kat]

WIngnuts can't decide if the govt should or should not protect its' citizens from all dangers

But to answer your question "Not you. You never thunk"

Exactly the opposite. I think, and think for myself...make up my own mind. That would be why I am not a sheeple for ANY man.

Paul is an Isolationist...and I certainly am not that.

So is that why you dodged the question? Because you can think??

How about answering the question. Should the govt protect it's citizens from all dangers.

You can either badmouth bush*'s claim that it is (and show your hypocrisy) or claim that bush* was right (and prove your hypocrisy)

How could I dodge the question when there was not a question asked? Duh.

You are as much as much the nasty hypocrite as I have been told. You attacked me instantly. I don't bother with your type. Nasty, nasty.

 

[sangha]

Exactly the opposite. I think, and think for myself...make up my own mind. That would be why I am not a sheeple for ANY man.

Paul is an Isolationist...and I certainly am not that.

So is that why you dodged the question? Because you can think??

How about answering the question. Should the govt protect it's citizens from all dangers.

You can either badmouth bush*'s claim that it is (and show your hypocrisy) or claim that bush* was right (and prove your hypocrisy)

How could I dodge the question when there was not a question asked? Duh.

You are as much as much the nasty hypocrite as I have been told. You attacked me instantly. I don't bother with your type. Nasty, nasty.

Gee, it's only the subject of the post you responded to. I guess there was no question mark, so your "thinking" tells you there was no question. Not even an implied one.

And please, complain about being attacked more often. It's hysterically hypocritical coming after you posted just to attack another poster for agreeing with something Paul said.

You came to this thread to attack. Now you're WHINING about being attacked. I laugh at your POUTRAGE

 

[Kat]

So is that why you dodged the question? Because you can think??

How about answering the question. Should the govt protect it's citizens from all dangers.

You can either badmouth bush*'s claim that it is (and show your hypocrisy) or claim that bush* was right (and prove your hypocrisy)

How could I dodge the question when there was not a question asked? Duh.

You are as much as much the nasty hypocrite as I have been told. You attacked me instantly. I don't bother with your type. Nasty, nasty.

Gee, it's only the subject of the post you responded to. I guess there was no question mark, so your "thinking" tells you there was no question. Not even an implied one.

And please, complain about being attacked more often. It's hysterically hypocritical coming after you posted just to attack another poster for agreeing with something Paul said.

You came to this thread to attack. Now you're WHINING about being attacked. I laugh at your POUTRAGE

If you are referring to Marc....he knows I was teasing.

Get lost. (and nope not teasing there)

 

[sangha]

How could I dodge the question when there was not a question asked? Duh.

You are as much as much the nasty hypocrite as I have been told. You attacked me instantly. I don't bother with your type. Nasty, nasty.

Gee, it's only the subject of the post you responded to. I guess there was no question mark, so your "thinking" tells you there was no question. Not even an implied one.

And please, complain about being attacked more often. It's hysterically hypocritical coming after you posted just to attack another poster for agreeing with something Paul said.

You came to this thread to attack. Now you're WHINING about being attacked. I laugh at your POUTRAGE

If you are referring to Marc....he knows I was teasing.

Get lost. (and nope not teasing there)

Liar. If Marc knew why you posted that, he would not have asked why you posted that.

I'm not going anywhere. Please, do me a favor and WHINE about it some more. I just love the POUTRAGE

 

[Kat]

You're a paulbot now? Who would have thunk.

Kat, I don't want to judge wrongly, but I'm curious...what was the purpose of this post?

But to directly answer it, I do agree with SOME of his views. I find some to be EXTREME and I find some to be on point.

In this case...he's on point.

I've felt that way on this issue during the Bush Administration and I feel that way now.

Safety is a myth. You're only as safe as the safest person or tool or situation or time or...the list goes on. Because with all the safety measures and precautions any individual or group of people can follow, shat happens.

oops, sorry Marc. I assumed you would realize I was teasing. And I was. YOU have my apologies.