Perry making a presidential run

[Apophis]

I'm sorry Ron Paul is good for a laugh, but if he was in charge 200 years ago we'd still be speaking with a British accent and paying taxes to Kings. He's no President.

He's good for a laugh to most people, because we've lost our way as Americans. Your further comments show your ignorance on the subject and need no further points.

[Apophis]

I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.
Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

I wouldn't be so quick to say he is that gun friendly. And I would pick many others bfore him becuase of this Subject: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

You have to remember why 9/11 was caused in the first place. Due to blowback such as this. Now that Binladen's dead, we've just created a new position for many new terrorists to fill, with an even greater passion and hatred for the US.


How would you feel if say, Russia flew helicopters in American soil to "neutralize" someone who committed big acts of "terrorism" over there?

All the other republicans play off double standards and emotion. Ron Paul has a voting record on par with the constitution, and does not give lip service.

Perry should stay governor of TX. If he wins a spot being the POTUS, we'll have Bush the 3rd. We all saw how well that went in 2008.


PS - something to ponder about to those who think killing UBL really made us "safer"

When we killed Pablo Escobar, did it really stop, or even SLOW the flow of drugs?

[Keith B]

I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.
Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

I wouldn't be so quick to say he is that gun friendly. And I would pick many others bfore him becuase of this Subject: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

You have to remember why 9/11 was caused in the first place. Due to blowback such as this. Now that Binladen's dead, we've just created a new position for many new terrorists to fill, with an even greater passion and hatred for the US.


How would you feel if say, Russia flew helicopters in American soil to "neutralize" someone who committed big acts of "terrorism" over there?

All the other republicans play off double standards and emotion. Ron Paul has a voting record on par with the constitution, and does not give lip service.

Perry should stay governor of TX. If he wins a spot being the POTUS, we'll have Bush the 3rd. We all saw how well that went in 2008.


PS - something to ponder about to those who think killing UBL really made us "safer"

When we killed Pablo Escobar, did it really stop, or even SLOW the flow of drugs?

The elimination of UBL was a very important piece. Anytime you take the leader out of position, the underlings will fight between themselves to try to be the new boss. Additionally there was a VERY big wealth of intell that was collected by getting the media from his computers and thumb drives. And, while any strike at that organization will prompt their saber rattling, if you can dived and separate, then they will not be collectively able to launch a large scale or big hit.

And, 9/11 was not in retaliation against Bush, even though they tried to put that on his head. Al Quida has been in play since the late 80's and pulled off Embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole. So, their terror plots have spanned multiple Presidents.

Mark my word, Paul would be another flopper on anything that they could sway him on, which would be a lot.

[Apophis]

I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.
Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

I wouldn't be so quick to say he is that gun friendly. And I would pick many others bfore him becuase of this Subject: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

You have to remember why 9/11 was caused in the first place. Due to blowback such as this. Now that Binladen's dead, we've just created a new position for many new terrorists to fill, with an even greater passion and hatred for the US.


How would you feel if say, Russia flew helicopters in American soil to "neutralize" someone who committed big acts of "terrorism" over there?

All the other republicans play off double standards and emotion. Ron Paul has a voting record on par with the constitution, and does not give lip service.

Perry should stay governor of TX. If he wins a spot being the POTUS, we'll have Bush the 3rd. We all saw how well that went in 2008.


PS - something to ponder about to those who think killing UBL really made us "safer"

When we killed Pablo Escobar, did it really stop, or even SLOW the flow of drugs?

The elimination of UBL was a very important piece. Anytime you take the leader out of position, the underlings will fight between themselves to try to be the new boss. Additionally there was a VERY big wealth of intell that was collected by getting the media from his computers and thumb drives. And, while any strike at that organization will prompt their saber rattling, if you can dived and separate, then they will not be collectively able to launch a large scale or big hit.

And, 9/11 was not in retaliation against Bush, even though they tried to put that on his head. Al Quida has been in play since the late 80's and pulled off Embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole. So, their terror plots have spanned multiple Presidents.

Mark my word, Paul would be another flopper on anything that they could sway him on, which would be a lot.

I never said 9/11 was retaliation to Bush. 9/11 was caused to our horrible foreign policy we've had in the past century. It's not JUST Bush's fault. It goes back easily multiple presidents on back before him.

I'll keep that in mind, but first why don't you check out Ron Paul's voting record for the past 2-3 decades. You'll see it's much more consistant than any other politician in the US.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.

Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

Nobody with his voting record on guns can be considered pro-gun. You can take your snide comment and this board and the constitution and go elsewhere.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm sorry Ron Paul is good for a laugh, but if he was in charge 200 years ago we'd still be speaking with a British accent and paying taxes to Kings. He's no President.

He's good for a laugh to most people, because we've lost our way as Americans. Your further comments show your ignorance on the subject and need no further points.

Stop the insults now or you're gone.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.
Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

I wouldn't be so quick to say he is that gun friendly. And I would pick many others bfore him becuase of this Subject: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

You have to remember why 9/11 was caused in the first place. Due to blowback such as this. Now that Binladen's dead, we've just created a new position for many new terrorists to fill, with an even greater passion and hatred for the US.


How would you feel if say, Russia flew helicopters in American soil to "neutralize" someone who committed big acts of "terrorism" over there?

All the other republicans play off double standards and emotion. Ron Paul has a voting record on par with the constitution, and does not give lip service.

Perry should stay governor of TX. If he wins a spot being the POTUS, we'll have Bush the 3rd. We all saw how well that went in 2008.


PS - something to ponder about to those who think killing UBL really made us "safer"

When we killed Pablo Escobar, did it really stop, or even SLOW the flow of drugs?

The fact that you would attempt to argue such nonsense shows you will do anything in an attempt to defend Ron Paul. Trying to compare Pablo Escobar to Bin Laden is absurd.

Yes, killing Bin Laden did make us much safer and virtually every security expert around the globe agrees. No one is going to take his place, not by any stretch of the imagination. Some will battle among themselves for a leadership position and someone will eventually become a recognized leader. However, that person will not have the financial resources Bid Laden had, nor will they have his contacts.

His followers have now lost that sense of invincibility of their leader. They now know we can kill anyone we want, regardless they hide and in spite of support from governments hostile to the United States.

You also ignore the treasure trove of intelligence we obtained in the raid. Again, experts around the world agree that the intelligence gained could well destroy Al Qaeda as a force for years to come, if not forever. Arguing otherwise is like claiming the Viet Cong were an effective fighting force after their disastrous defeat in Tet offensive of 1968. They weren't; they were decimated and were never more than annoyance thereafter.

Chas.

[Apophis]

I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.

Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

Nobody with his voting record on guns can be considered pro-gun. You can take your snide comment and this board and the constitution and go elsewhere.

Chas.

voted against the brady act of 1986 for one. You say he's not pro-gun though?


I'm sorry, are my facts ruining the way you want most to think on this board?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.

Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

Nobody with his voting record on guns can be considered pro-gun. You can take your snide comment and this board and the constitution and go elsewhere.

Chas.

voted against the brady act of 1986 for one. You say he's not pro-gun though?


I'm sorry, are my facts ruining the way you want most to think on this board?

You have no facts, just blatant distortions. You point to one pro-gun vote and ignore the rest. I see you are incapable of posting without insults, in spite of being warned. Good-bye. And no, you're not being banned because of your opinions, but your refusal to follow forum rules.

Chas.

[Heartland Patriot]

ETA: I also take exception to him not signing the parking lot bill. Even thought it will still become law, he should be willing to take a stand on something as important as 2A rights. This to me is like voting "present".

I agree, but if he is indeed planning on running, this is simply posturing. It "helps him" in a couple of ways. It shows that he is not opposed to 2A rights, because he had the option to veto it, but he did not, knowing it would become law even without his signature. It also shows to those who are on the fence about guns that he (whether rightfully so or not) is not a "gun nut", because he did not sign the bill. To those who are all in favor of individual rights, it can be seen that by him not signing it, he may disagree with the fact that it is the government telling business owners what they must allow on their private property.

For those that truly understand what being a politician is, it shows that he does indeed support the 2A, knowing full well the bill will still go into law without his signature, but by not signing it, it opens him up to support from a larger segment.

All of that being said, I am most disappointed by the attitude I see here, and hear from so many people, that they would vote for him simply because he is a republican. So many people only look at which party a person represents, and not what a person does or where they stand. With that mindset, nothing will ever change in this country. The ability to vote straight ticket is probably the 2nd worst idea ever instituted in voting, next to the electoral college.

Is it possible that Governor Perry didn't sign the bill due to the fact that he didn't want to anger big businesses which may be headquartered out of state, perhaps in places that are less pro-2A, and would like to keep those businesses on a friendly footing? If there is one thing that I would ascribe to the Governor, its being business-friendly and making sure that they want to come to our state to set up and expand, and fuel our economic engine...maybe it was for other reasons, but this one makes as much sense to me as any other...

[seeker_two]

Nobody with his voting record on guns can be considered pro-gun. You can take your snide comment and this board and the constitution and go elsewhere.

Chas.

Just curious....what anti-gun policies/laws did Paul support?.....and I agree with you on the bin Laden raid....the intel was worth more than actually killing OBL....

Of the current contenders, I'd like to see Bachmann or Cain get it.....and you already know my opinion on Perry......

[Charles L. Cotton]

Nobody with his voting record on guns can be considered pro-gun. You can take your snide comment and this board and the constitution and go elsewhere.

Chas.

Just curious....what anti-gun policies/laws did Paul support?.....and I agree with you on the bin Laden raid....the intel was worth more than actually killing OBL....

Of the current contenders, I'd like to see Bachmann or Cain get it.....and you already know my opinion on Perry......

I don't remember all of them, but I'll call headquarters and see if I can get a list. I remember virtually every time one of our bills, or a bill with our provisions in it, he voted against it. I believe the most recent one was the bill changing the requirements for gun manufacturers to report and pay federal excise taxes every 90 days like every other manufacturer in the country, instead of every two weeks. Another poster mentioned in another thread that he didn't sign the amicus brief in McDonald supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states. I believe he also voted against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but I may be wrong on that. Again, I'll try to get a list of his votes on gun issues.

I don't believe ever voted for a true anti-gun bill, but he rarely supports a pro-gun bill. I take him at his word that he believes the Second Amendment is an individual right, but not supporting incorporation to the states shows his deep-seated and extreme Libertarian views. Most Libertarians I know agree that the Bill of Rights must apply to the states.

Chas.

[mamabearCali]

You know I like Ron Paul. I think he has great points on issues, he certainly makes one think. But I think he would be a poor president. His foreign policy would likely put us all in terrible danger quickly. Sadly we can't just go hide in our own country and pretend that the rest of the world does not exist. That was not wise to do even 1500 years ago (viking raids anyone?).

Right now at this moment I would vote for Bob the Tomato, or Yosemite Sam in place of the president one we have now. So I will likely vote with the elephants (as they have the best shot at unseating the current president). I am mostly just trying to figure out my primary vote if it even matters when it gets to VA. Right now I like Cain, Santorum (spelling?), or Bachman (though I fear what the media would try to do to her). If Perry throws his hat in the ring, I would have to get to know his policies a little more before he got my primary vote. However if he gets the elephant nod, he will get my vote.

[The Annoyed Man]

I never said 9/11 was retaliation to Bush. 9/11 was caused to our horrible foreign policy we've had in the past century. It's not JUST Bush's fault. It goes back easily multiple presidents on back before him.

Starting with Thomas Jefferson, who sent the U.S. Navy and the Marines against the Barbary Pirates at Tripoli?

That dog won't hunt.

[Purplehood]

I saw Governor Perry on TV the other night.

It scared me. He was standing at the podium and grinning at the audience and looked exactly like George HW Bush, who I have absolutely no respect for.

Regardless of his appearance, if the Primaries were held today I would vote for Perry. Romney is a pure-and-simple RINO. I have no idea why people like him call themselves a Republican. I don't know enough about Bachman (to even spell her name with any confidence) at this point in time.

Perry is a politician. But as far as I am concerned he is a known-quantity and one that I can comfortably live with. I hope he runs.