TexasCHLforum.com

I don't have a problem with his having been shot down like the rabid dog that he was, armed or not, arms raised or not, and I'm glad he's dead. But, I HATE that anybody celebrated in the streets over it. He was one man, albeit an important one to Al Qaeda, and killing him did not bring the WOT to a close. There is still a grim task ahead of us; more young Americans are going to die in the effort; and killing OBL was merely a small victory in a long, hard war. We didn't kill Satan. We killed one of his helpers. Those things need to be remembered to keep the whole picture in perspective.

Clarionite, I have to disagree about a preference for trying him in NYC, for the same reason that I don't think any of them should be tried in NYC. IF there was to be a trial, it should have been by a military tribunal (which is where he would get the fairest trial), and it should have been held at Gitmo (which is best equipped to handle the security nightmare of such a trial). Then he should have been hung for crimes against humanity.

mgood wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Does Ron Paul remember who Thomas Jefferson was? THE Thomas Jefferson? The one who certainly understood the Constitution better than Ron Paul does, and who as President of the United States sent the Marines ashore at Tripoli? THAT Thomas Jefferson?

Fighting Muslim terrorism for over two centuries.

I just posted this a couple weeks ago: Victory in Tripoli.

Cool. I didn't see your thread, but I've been using the Jefferson/Tripoli comparison for years now whenever a Ronulan starts going on about the unconstitutionality of foreign interventions. I should add, I've never received a coherent answer to that challenge. The reason is.... there isn't one. You have to make stuff up to counter it.

Does Ron Paul remember who Thomas Jefferson was? THE Thomas Jefferson? The one who certainly understood the Constitution better than Ron Paul does, and who as President of the United States sent the Marines ashore at Tripoli? THAT Thomas Jefferson?

Apparently not.

Based on Ron Paul's utterances, he would lecture Thomas Jefferson—one of the fathers of the Constitution—on the constitutionality of foreign interventions. I'm afraid that Ron Paul's assertions of constitutional proprieties are entirely too convenient. And based on his voting against a bill that would equalize the tax filing burden arbitrarily placed on the firearms and ammunition industries with the burden placed on all other industries, AND based on his non-support of incorporating the 2nd as an individual right—both very well documented positions—he doesn't give a tinker's dang about the Constitution except when it suits him as a tool to lecture others; and he certainly doesn't care enough about your RKBA to stand up and be counted when it counts.

He's not only a tool and an idiot, he's a fraud. Please don't be deluded by him.

Bullwhip wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

gigag04 wrote: He doesn't ever do anything.

Too bad we can't say the same about the rest of congress.

He's funny, odd. Not a good speaker. Sure would be nice if he wasn't the only one in DC who believed in his oath to the Constitution.

His version of the Constitution; for example, his belief that firearms manufacturers should have to pay federal excise taxes to the government every two weeks instead of quarterly like every other manufacturer in the country.

Chas.

Sorry I don't know what that's about. Hint?

Ron Paul voted against the Federal Excise Tax Improvement Act of 2010 (H.R. 5552). Prior to its passage, every manufacturer of guns and ammo had to pay federal excise taxes to the government every two weeks, rather than quarterly as do every other manufacturer in the country. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=37484" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ron Paul signed the amicus brief in Heller, the decision which affirms the 2nd as an individual right, but he would not sign the amicus brief in McDonald. That means that he does not support the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment under the 14th. That is what guarantees 2nd Amendment supremacy within the individual states. Paul is not a steadfast friend to gun owners or the RKBA: viewtopic.php?p=347077#p347077" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In other words, Ron Paul believes you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, but he wants the states to retain the authority to regulate your exercise of that right. Since McDonald was specific to Chicago's complete repression of gun rights, that means that Paul is OK with Chicago's crushing of the RKBA for its residents.

He's a pin-headed fool.

flb_78 wrote:I wouldn't want the Mexican Military to cross our borders without our permission.

They've already done so. LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU.

Rand Paul seems far more rational than his pop. He's been a strong Tea Party candidate. I don't think that most Tea Partiers take Ron Paul seriously.... other than as a general pain.