Guns and Politics in ’08
So, as a mostly single issue type of guy, I’m perusing my options for president. Only three candidates seem to be solidly pro-gun. Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and Bill Richardson (Bill even has a CCW permit).
On Thompson: Unless he gets his shit together soon, he’s not gonna do much.
On Paul: Can’t win but probably the most pro-gun candidate.
On Richardson: He’s kinda like that hot psychotic girl you had a fling with in college. You know, fun to have around sometimes but mostly comes with a lot of baggage.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Richardson isn’t running for President, he is running for VP.
Fred still has an outside shot at being the Presidential candidate, but a better shot at being on the ticket as a VP running mate.
Paul, obviously, isn’t even in the show.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:03 am
From what I have read and heard, Mike Huckabee is solidly pro-gun and has a CCW permit.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:17 am
I think Richardson is more like the hottie idealist chick; you stuff her turkey for a few days but when she opens her mouth what comes out is so stupid she just ruins the mood…
November 27th, 2007 at 11:17 am
and then donkey punch her.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Ron Paul may not win but I think he’s actually on even footing with the other candidates. If he wins NH then he can go on to win in a lot of other states, and things in NH are looking really good, unless you’re looking at the media’s biased polls. Although, even those polls are showing improvement.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Yeah, and Chuck Norris endorses Huckabee.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
God I hope Thompson gets his act together. I’m sick of hearing all the news reports talking only bout Rudy and Mit. If I wanted EITHER of those assholes, I’d have registered as a Democrat.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Matthew Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Ron Paul may not win but I think he’s actually on even footing with the other candidates. If he wins NH then he can go on to win in a lot of other states, and things in NH are looking really good, unless you’re looking at the media’s biased polls. Although, even those polls are showing improvement.
“Polls” aint worth a pound of piss. Didnt the “polls” show Gore winning by a landslide in 2000? The same of Kerry in ’04? The only “poll” that counts is the one on election day.
I believe that these “polls” are just made up by the biased media to influance people on who to vote for. If there’s any “poll” done, and I strongly doubt it, it’s probably of people in the newsroom.
I’m 51 years old and…
(A) I’ve never been “polled”
(B) I’ve never known anyone who’s been “polled”
(C) I’ve never known anyone who knows someone who’s been “polled”
Now if “polls” are done so ofton among the general population it stands to reason that I would’ve experienced at least one of the above in the 33 years since my 18th birthday. My conclusion, they dont happen and therefore the results are bullshit and not to be believed.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Weer’d Beard Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
God I hope Thompson gets his act together. I’m sick of hearing all the news reports talking only bout Rudy and Mit. If I wanted EITHER of those assholes, I’d have registered as a Democrat.
Mitt and Rudy might as well be demos, they’re Republicans in name only. I’ve been covering Presidential elections since the election of ’68 and, with the exception of Ron Paul and Fred Thompson, this is the sorriest pack of “hopefuls” I’ve ever seen!
November 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Doesn’t Bill Richardson support the AWB and its renewal?? That would include at least two of my current weapons. I don’t consider any candidate as being “pro-gun” who wants to deny citizens semi-auto, miltiary style weapons which are the best we can get for self-defense….which is what I understand that Richardson supports…unless someone knows different.
I agree that Ron Paul is by far the most pro-gun and is for ALL the Bill of Rights…so he will gets my support and my vote. He has said he wants to eliminate the BATF and considers all Federal gun laws unconstitutional.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I agree on the topic of polls, in fact maybe we should coin a new phrase, “pollshit” because that’s basically all they are.
I’ve been called by a few pollsters over the years… I usually distort my answers, well, just because it’s all “pollshit” anyway.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“Ron Paul can’t win.”
Any douchebag buying in to this whipped-dog type of mindset is worse than the vilest oppressor, for he is the very reason we are where we are today. The “lesser of two evils” strategy is what slaves do to lessen the blow from their master’s whip.
Be a man and vote for the only candidate who supports ALL your freedoms! This is the candidate we all pine for here in these little forums, and when he finally emerges on the scene AND IS GAINING MOMENTUM all you pathetic worms want to do is protect yourself from Hillary with a vote for a RINO, i.e. “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
How pathetic.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I’d suggest you brush up on your reading there P. Henry. I have no issue at all throwing my vote away. I do it often.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Hmmm… let me make sure I got this right…
Does that mean that I’ll be less of a man if I don’t vote the way that [B]you think I should vote?[/B]
Interesting “logic”… Kinda pathetic…
November 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
“Ron Paul can’t win.”
You got the memo too? Makes no difference to me … the man has my vote even if I have to write him in.
–MuzzleBlast
November 27th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
You are “less of a man” if you continually complain about the status quo and then continually vote for the status quo.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I will certainly “thow my vote away” by voting my conscience for someone who can’t win if Rudy wins the nomination (unless Fred is his running mate, and then it would still be a difficult call).
I heard Rudy speak a couple of weeks ago, and he is no friend of our Constitution.
The Republican party has pretty much left me, so that leaves independent candidates for me, unless the Republican candidate is an “old school” or Reaganite-type of person.
As much as I loathe the Democratic party, I found myself hoping that they would capture the Senate last year after they had (exepectedly) captured the House, because:
a. the Republicans (e.g. Dennis Hastert) didn’t deserve to win, and
b. having the Democrats in charge of the Congress could hasten the re-birth of a conservative Republican party (time will tell on this matter).
November 27th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I’ll vote for the candidate I like the most, regardless of whether or not they have a good chance. I think everyone should do the same. If everyone thinks that a candidate has no chance, then it’ll be true.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I’m supporting Ron Paul (time and money) with the expectation he will win the Republican nomination (like others here have said, can’t complain if you don’t do anything about the problem). If Paul does not win the nomination, I will still write him in. There is not a chance in hell that I will vote for Rudy/Mitt/Hillary/Obama/McCain or any other prospective tyrant.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I have been advancing the Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter ticket. But I think a Fred Thompson/Bill Richardson ticket would also be interesting.
Thompson needs to get in gear. Now.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
P. Henry,
WELL-SAID!!!
I hear these pathetic “conservatives” on radio talkshows saying we gotta vote for whoever can stop Hillary. And then the pathetic “conservtive” politicians will lie down and let the “RINO” sell us out…just like they’re doin’ with the globalist, police-state RINO in the White House NOW!!!
November 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
#9 Thompson/Hunter is my political dream-team idea.
I would have NO problem with Thompson/Richardson
I really like 90% of what Paul talks about. I see him as a tad TOO extream in many of his veiws (remember, the president doesn’t have absolute power…the best bet we could get with paul is gridlock IMHO, as both side of Congress will be reluctant to play ball) also his forign policy I see as just plain dangerous.
Still I take no issue with people supporting him, one thing you can’t call him is “Typical” or “Dishonest”. He’s a good man, but personally, I don’t think he’s the right man
November 27th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Weer’d Beard, I hear you about the president not having (well, not supposed to have) absolute power. And I like that Paul would respect that. He could however have a huge effect on the cabinet-level federal positions and reign in the federal agencies. In this respect I like that he is extreme. We need extreme measures to reign those agencies in, and it only seems extreme because of how out of control they’ve become (over a long time. Just because folks don’t feel that water boiling, doesn’t mean it isn’t).
November 27th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
What the Ronulans don’t seem to ‘get’ is that a vast majority of people don’t even want the level the responsibility inherent in a Libertarian society, and an ever bigger chunk o’ people (reps and dems alike) wouldn’t trust the other side with that responsibility. It’s a sad truth, but it is a truth.
Most people actually like social security. (no matter that it’s a pyramid scheme)
Most people actually like zoning laws. (they like them so much they come up with even MORE restrictive neighborhood covenants)
Most people actually like the FDA doing drug safety studies.
Most people actually like having a parks department.
Most people even think abortion really is murder. (and view a womans ‘choice’ or ‘privacy’ as a smokescreen aimed at avoiding that)
Libertarians are now making the same mistake that Nader has made over and over again: You can’t go from the small time to the big show overnight without the support of a strong national organization. A small, but vocal group of supporters might give you the warm fuzzies and be able to flood a comment section here and there, but it’s not going to take the country by storm.
If Libertarians were as smart as they think they are, they’d concentrate on local & state government roles until they can win a governorship. Then maybe (big maybe) then they can step up to the plate nationally.
That, and Paul’s foreign policy is naive to the point of being stupid.
“Don’t piss in your neighbors yard” might work on Main street, but on the world stage? Get real. Libertarianism is a fine philosophy, but real life and geopolitics just isn’t that simple folks.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Nah. Paul voted against the ban on reckless suits aimed at bankrupting the gun industry. He may be more pro-gun than Guiliani or most of the Democrats, but he’s not the most pro-gun candidate.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Have you considered Huckabee?
He just got the endorsement of the Republican Sportshooters Association.
He was the only candidate in Outdoor Life’s Magazines top 25 influential hunters and fisherman.
NRA rates him a A+
November 28th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Every time I start thinking about voting for Ron Paul, I see what his supporters say and it makes me change my mind. I don’t want a candidate in office that’s beholden to a crowd like that. Go Fred!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I was a man in 1992; I voted for Ross Perot. IOW, I am one of the proud Americans who sentenced the rest of us to Bill Clinton. I won’t be making that mistake again.
Unfortunately, some people refuse to learn from others’ mistakes, and insist on inflicting them upon us again.
A vote for Ron Paul in a primary is a vote for Romney or Giuliani. If Paul runs in the general election, a vote for him will be a vote for a Democrat.
Sigh.