Not liking what I see
11 Responses to “Not liking what I see”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 5th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Draft Fred Thompson.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
This is why I want Fred Thompson to run. Huckabee is supposed to be pretty good as well.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Ron Paul is running … I challenge any of the other candidates to try and best his record of respect and adherence to his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States in every vote he has cast. The Sun article blew him off as did AlphaPatriot presumably because he didn’t fit under the “… serious GOP presidential candidates …” classification???? The nerve. Ron Paul is serious as is my support for him.
MuzzleBlast
—————–
April 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Good points, Muzzleblast. A true conservative should actually CONSERVE the Constitution by adhering to its wording. Speaking of which, would Fred Thompson obey “the United States shall protect each of them(the States against invasion” (Article IV, Section 4) or would he continue the treasonous open borders policy of the Bush Adminisration?? His “C” rating as Senator on immigration issues by Americans for Better Immigration doesn’t portend well for stopping the invasion of our nation. He also supported the big bi-partisan attack on the First Amendment, Campaign Finance Reform, which consolidated the big money control with the two party establishment and the major media corporations. taht must have been the “iron triangle” about which its champion, John McCain, spoke.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Duncan Hunter is a serious candidate and has a nearly perfect 2nd ammendment record in his 20+ years in office.
In an interview with “A Keyboard and a .45,” he makes his stance clear.
“Gun control laws directed at law-abiding citizens are not a crime deterrent. In fact, studies show that private ownership of firearms by Americans reduces crime. You and I both know that the one thing criminals prefer more than any other is unarmed victims.”
Duncan Hunter
Solid Logic
April 6th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
These aren’t Republican candidates (except for Thompson), they’re blue-state RINO’s anointed by Democrats in the media. Where are the real candidates, you know, the ones chosen by actual Republicans?
April 7th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Paul is very consistent.
And he always votes to uphold the Constitution, whether it is popular or not.
A rare bird, indeed.
April 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Paul’s a crank, and half of his goofy “constitutional” theories have nothing to do with the Constitution anyway. Particularly classy is his repeated insistence on voting against nonbinding (read: a-constitutional) resolutions in support of the troops. Who invented the idea that if you act like a jerk most of the time you’re a jerk, but if you act like a jerk consistently, you’re “principled?”
April 7th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
He was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, and still is.
Name me another R that is not a gun-grabbing liberal that has done the same.
And he voted as such not because he’s necessarily against the war (although he is) but because Congress did not declare war, as required by the Constitution.
Voting against the war in the Rep party, and especially in Texas, takes some stones, regardless of your opinion of the guy.
And interestingly, he still gets re-elected…
April 8th, 2007 at 11:32 am
He’s got stones, all right – in his head. In case you forgot, Congress did indeed vote to authorize force in Iraq. Paul himself may have voted against the AUMF, but so what? He’s just one Congressman; he doesn’t speak for Congress as a whole. Even if the war itself were constitutionally objectionable, that would be a lousy excuse for voting to diss the troops for doing their jobs.
As to Paul’s facile “consistency” in opposing the war when we (and he) thought Saddam had WMD up the wazoo, color me unimpressed. Knee-jerk ideologues are frequently consistent, and like every stopped clock, occasionally their lame, predictable positions turn out to be correct. There’s nothing particularly admirable about that. Consistency, hobgoblins, etc.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
So are you saying that congress doesn’t need to declare war when we go to war? What other parts of the Constitution do you feel is negotiable?
Which parts of the Constitution do you wish your candidate to pick and choose from? I actually find the concept of following the whole document rather intriguing. I’m not necessarily a Paul fan all the way, but I respect him, and that I cannot say about mccain, gudy, or mitt.