Paulbots' opinions requested

[sepe]

It's obvious you haven't been paying attention. It's been made quite clear that any one other than Ron Paul is if fact a worse choice than Obama. Ron Paul Koolaid needed STAT!!!

If one Ron Paul supporter said that, I've missed it. I do know MANY people that feel there is 1 candidate that could be worse (possibly 2) and 1 that would be slightly worse. If the other 2 abandon some of their BS in order to not be worse, they'd be about the same level as crap but pushing different BS policies. I honestly don't see how anyone could want to vote for Romney, Moonbase, or Santorum aka we have rights but they all need to be restricted.

 

[firehawk1]

If one Ron Paul supporter said that, I've missed it. I do know MANY people that feel there is 1 candidate that could be worse (possibly 2) and 1 that would be slightly worse. If the other 2 abandon some of their BS in order to not be worse, they'd be about the same level as crap but pushing different BS policies. I honestly don't see how anyone could want to vote for Romney, Moonbase, or Santorum aka we have rights but they all need to be restricted.

This is simply where you and I disagree. IMO none of the potential nominee's are all that great, but ALL of them are a better choice than Obama.

Again, THAT is my opinion, and that opinion is based on how I feel about an Obama not having to face voters again, and what any of the others would do. We most likely disagree and that's fine, but it's my opinion of the situation and how I intend to deal with it.

 

[sepe]

This is simply where you and I disagree. IMO none of the potential nominee's are all that great, but ALL of them are a better choice than Obama.

Again, THAT is my opinion, and that opinion is based on how I feel about an Obama not having to face voters again, and what any of the others would do. We most likely disagree and that's fine, but it's my opinion of the situation and how I intend to deal with it.

I'm absolutely fine with that. I have no problem at all with your vote if you are educated about the candidates and you can justify your vote. If I remember correctly, I've seen you actually give legitimate reasons for supporting or not supporting (which most haven't).

 

[hondatech2k2]

If RP is not on the ballot I will vote libertarian..... I will absolutely refuse to vote for Obama, or any of the other Republican candidate at that point. I will sit back and shake my head in shame when America burns to the ground as a result.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Again, there are bigger issues than abortion. ...

For the unborn, it's the ONLY issue.

... The well-being of the country is far bigger than one person's personal beliefs.

Abortion isn't about "beliefs." It's about killing the unborn. This is fact ... not "belief." The well-being of this country is inseperable from how we treat our most vulnerable members of society.

 

[Paul]

This is simply where you and I disagree. IMO none of the potential nominee's are all that great, but ALL of them are a better choice than Obama.

Again, THAT is my opinion, and that opinion is based on how I feel about an Obama not having to face voters again, and what any of the others would do. We most likely disagree and that's fine, but it's my opinion of the situation and how I intend to deal with it.

I would agree except for Santorum and Gingrich. I really think they are worse than Obama. Santorum wants to regulate morals and freedoms he doesn't agree with. Remember, he thinks the internet needs to be regulated. Big spender!! Gingrich is a war monger who wants to start WWIII. I swear he wants to invade every other country in the middle east and over throw dictators. Big spender!! Romney I do feel would be better than Obama. But he is a flip flopper who still doesn't like freedom. I feel he wouldn't grow government as much as Gingrich or Santorum...but I don't know for sure.

Everybody knows where Paul stands and I am a Paul supporter. This said if Paul doesn't win the Republican primary, I am voting for Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul >= Gary Johnson > Romney > Obama = Gingrich = Santorum

That is just my thought though

 

[sepe]

Doesn't matter where the largest part of our oil comes from. If just one nation threatened to cut off a few percentage points of our daily intake it would throw our economy into a tailspin. Hell, Iran just cut off Great Britain and France and our gas prices went up by $0.40 overnight. That's because it is not about who buys from whom, but that it is a global market and the true owners of the oil (the commodity traders) will sell the oil to the highest bidder.

It's a global marketplace. You can't control who is willing to pony up the bucks to buy the oil. What's the alternative? Protectionism?

Gas went up $.40 overnight because of speculation and global demand...the reason why it goes up or down all the time. It was simply because of tensions in the Middle East (globally crude has went up). A weak $ is another reason why we've been seeing the $.40 overnight thing. But the post of mine you quoted was because of this one...

I would submit that the economy seems like the biggest issue, but I would paint it with a braoder stroke - security. Economic security and national security. What is the biggest threat to both? The price of gas. Gas prices are rising. Why? Because we don't produce our own oil, even though we can. We therefore have to import oil from people who don't like us. We also have someone that owns a lot of our debt who competes with us on the world's oil market. That drives prices up. We can't simply outbid them, because we don't have the money and we can't **** them off or they'll stop buying our debt. At some point there may well be a flashpoint over oil and our inability to get it.

Seriously...you're going to say we import from people that don't like us (there may be a few countries but they're definitely not where the majority of oil originates) and you say we don't produce. Then you say it doesn't matter who we buy oil from...make up your mind. It is either a security and economic risk or it doesn't matter.

I fully understand a global market (I actually make time to read about global markets daily). Do you not believe we have a sort of protectionism right now? We DO currently restrict trade with other countries. We have trade quotas, there are plenty of subsides and tax incentives, and there are has been a form of protectionism since the 1820s. Blah blah blah...protectionism was totally abandoned in 1973...but wait, protectionist policies are still in place. So what is the alternative? The progressives free trade ideology? Until there aren't any restrictions, I wouldn't agree that we're experiencing full trade...because by definition, we're not.

 

[tr1gg3r]

For the unborn, it's the ONLY issue.



Abortion isn't about "beliefs." It's about killing the unborn. This is fact ... not "belief." The well-being of this country is inseperable from how we treat our most vulnerable members of society.

I agree with you 100%, but I am talking about abortion the issue, not abortion the act. There is a big difference. Honestly, if anyone thinks that this issue is going to be even a blip on the radar, under the six or so candidates we have to choose from, they are gravely mistaken.

 

[Wild Deuce]

I agree with you 100%, but I am talking about abortion the issue, not abortion the act. There is a big difference. Honestly, if anyone thinks that this issue is going to be even a blip on the radar, under the six or so candidates we have to choose from, they are gravely mistaken.

I hear you ... I disagree, but I hear you. I just can't help feeling like I have to give voice to those unborn children. I'm their only vote. That's why Abortion (the act or the issue) is a litmus test for gaining my vote.

 

[tr1gg3r]

I hear you ... I disagree, but I hear you. I just can't help feeling like I have to give voice to those unborn children. I'm their only vote. That's why Abortion (the act or the issue) is a litmus test for gaining my vote.

So you think that Roe v. Wade has a chance to get overturned in the next 4-8 years?

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Murder is a state issue. Therefore abortion (the illegality of it) should be a state issue. Not federal. That is the problem/issue/solution.

 

[Paul]

Murder is a state issue. Therefore abortion (the illegality of it) should be a state issue. Not federal. That is the problem/issue/solution.

This! Federal government tries to control EVERYTHING

 

[Wild Deuce]

So you think that Roe v. Wade has a chance to get overturned in the next 4-8 years?

What I think about the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned is irrelevant to my voting choice. You have to be moving in the right direction before you can even consider the chances of arrival.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

This! Federal government tries to control EVERYTHING

Same thing goes for gun laws. Everybody cheers when the supreme court ruled in the latest gun law case, I however see it as granting them power they shouldnt have.


When they rule "you can defend yourself with a gun because you have that right" And we all cheer. But wait until they rule, "you may only own a single shot 17cal and nothing bigger" People will be wishing we wouldnt have given those states rights up so quickly.

 

[rambone]

Murder is a state issue. Therefore abortion (the illegality of it) should be a state issue. Not federal. That is the problem/issue/solution.

This.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Murder is a state issue. Therefore abortion (the illegality of it) should be a state issue. Not federal. That is the problem/issue/solution.

So states should have the right to do wrong towards certain people? I thought we settled that back in the mid-1800's.

 

[Zoub]

I trust very few human beings even most of them less then my bird dog.

I don't see trust as being an issue. If it was most people would not vote.

 

[tr1gg3r]

What I think about the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned is irrelevant to my voting choice. You have to be moving in the right direction before you can even consider the chances of arrival.

This is exactly what I've been saying.

 

[tr1gg3r]

Murder is a state issue. Therefore abortion (the illegality of it) should be a state issue. Not federal. That is the problem/issue/solution.

Correct. Just as I said in post #94.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

So states should have the right to do wrong towards certain people? I thought we settled that back in the mid-1800's.

You prefer the Feds doing wrong to all? I want government as close to the poeple as possible. State government wrongs are easier to correct than federal, plus you can move to another state. {unless you were a slave in the 1800's, cause of the federal laws, i.e. the fugitive slave acts, prevented states from doing right to people} Where are you going to go to leave the tyranny of the feds? Soon, even the moon will not be safe.

As far as the mid 1800's, and slavery (yes I know this is where your going) the feds did not go to war to end slavery. There is a thread where this is talked about https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_political_discussion/152496-who_was_the_worst_u_s_president-17.html

Might does not make right. Nor does it "settle" an issue. I have read your posts and I know you are a wiser person than that.


To answer the OP question about R.P. I am not qualified to answer since I am not a "paulbot" In fact, I dont think there are very many of those in existance. If however, you post a question for republi-bot's, hanity-bot's or rush-bot's, I think you would have a sufficient pool of participants.