Ron Paul forms presidential exploratory committee - Page 9

SirChaz · August 15th, 2007, 03:11 PM

You guys do understand what conception is don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulli

While I am at it, I would like to hear Paul's justification wanting to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

Because 'gun free zones' don't make anyone safer except lunatic criminals on a shooting spree.

Mulli · August 15th, 2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirChaz

You guys do understand what conception is don't you?

Because 'gun free zones' don't make anyone safer except lunatic criminals on a shooting spree.

Ah, in response to VT? interesting.

Donald · August 15th, 2007, 09:33 PM

Re Gun Free Zones:

Quote:

Ron Paul: More Guns Will Deter Shootings

By: Josh Kraushaar
Apr 17, 2007 03:32 PM EST

Presidential Hopeful Ron Paul
Photo by Robert A. Reeder
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a simple solution to future shooting massacres such as the one that ripped apart Virginia Tech university Monday: more guns.

"People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there," the GOP presidential candidate told Politico reporters Tuesday. "A concealed gun carried by a responsible person -- that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed."

Paul, 71, is the kind of lawmaker, and presidential candidate, gun control advocates love to hate at moments like this. And, based on public opinion polls and reader feedback at Politico.com, he's far from alone.

Echoing the views of many Americans, he sees calls for restriction on guns as an affront to freedom. The libertarian-minded Texan is one of the most outspoken defenders of gun rights in Congress. Since the obstetrician was first elected to Congress in 1976, he has never voted for a bill restricting gun ownership. And he said the tragedy in Blacksburg, Va., could have been prevented if the school allowed students and professors to carry concealed weapons on campus.

Paul, who ran for the Libertarian presidential nomination in 1988, is well known on Capitol Hill for his outspoken, maverick positions. He opposed authorizing federal funding to victims of Hurricane Katrina. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Department of Education. He has called for a return to the gold standard. He argues that tighter gun control laws would have no impact on gun crime.

"It's the lack of access to law-abiding citizens to have guns in many places that increases our crime rate," he said. "We just can't prevent every tragedy of a maniac. So to pretend this happened because of lack of laws would be the wrong thing to assume."

Politico.com is co-host of the Republican presidential debate on May 3rd, and candidates will be answering our readers’ favorite questions.
Click here to submit yours.

Despite his pro-gun rhetoric, Paul also often finds himself voting with Democrats, particularly in the area of civil liberties. He was one of only three Republican lawmakers to vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001. He expressed concern that the Virginia Tech shootings would be exploited to crack down on civil liberties.

"I know there will be a call for, 'Boy, we've got to take hold of every single gun and register the gun.' It's sort of like after 9/11, we had to worry about terrorists, but what we've done is register every American," he said. "With national ID cards, inspection and loss of our liberties, warrantless searches, we've attacked law-abiding citizens. So, no, I don't think we need more gun control for law-abiding citizens."

Paul suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been avoided if the pilots on the hijacked airliners had been armed. "If terrorists knew that every pilot had a gun in the cockpit, they wouldn't have done it," he said. "They would have all been shot and wouldn't have accomplished their mission."

And he is right...in fact not far from VT this happened in 2002.

The part relevant to this discussion:

Quote:

The shooting
On January 16, 2002, 43-year-old Peter Odighizuwa, a Nigerian former student at the Appalachian School of Law, arrived on the campus. While numerous reports stated that Odighizuwa had flunked out of school or had been suspended, Jeremy Davis, former dean and professor of law at the school, later said that Odighizuwa had withdrawn voluntarily due to poor academic performance.

Odighizuwa first discussed his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin, where he reportedly told Rubin to pray for him. Odighizuwa then walked to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell, where he opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun. According to a county coroner, powder burns indicated that both victims were shot at point blank range. Also killed along with the two faculty members was a student, Angela Denise Dales, age 33. Three other people were wounded.

Students subdued the shooter
When Odighizuwa exited the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms and one unarmed student. There are two versions of the events that transpired at that moment, one by Bridges and one by Besen.

According to Bridges, at the first sound of gunfire, fellow students Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to fetch their personally-owned firearms. Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor. Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, N.C., pulled his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevy Tahoe. As Bridges later told the Richmond Times Dispatch, he was prepared to shoot to kill. Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun. Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.

According to Besen, before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people. Besen then charged, got into a scuffle with Odighizuwa, and knocked him to the ground. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled.

Once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

Police reports later noted that two empty eight round magazines designed for Odighizuwa’s handgun were recovered. Most sources (including those quoting Virginia State Police spokesman Mike Stater) state that when Odighizuwa dropped the gun the magazine was empty, although some reports suggested the gun still held three rounds of ammunition

Ryanwb · August 15th, 2007, 09:38 PM

I just can't trust people who have first names for their last name. This has never failed me

SirChaz · August 16th, 2007, 09:17 AM

Up to a certain point abortion should be between patient and doctor only. At some point though it is too late. The real problem question is where is that line drawn and who gets to draw it.
Agree or disagree, the bill in question would return that decision to the states which is consistent with his overall philosophy.

My most important issue right now is the financial future of the country. Run away spending, unfunded obligations, growing debt, and inflation have the potential to make life much much harder for my kids and grand kids.
A close second is the civil rights and police state issues like wiretapping, warrantless searches (national security letters), militarization of the police, habeas corpus, and posse comitatus.
Third is this notion that preemptive war is a reasonable position for the US and that we need to send our troops all over the world to maintain a post cold war superpower dominance.
Our dominance of the world should be based on economics and free trade not militarism and nation building.

If there was any other candidate that talked about these issues with anything approaching the credibility and consistency of Dr. Paul I would consider supporting them but I just don't see it from anyone else.

DevonCardsFan · August 20th, 2007, 03:08 PM

Establishment Media Ignores Ron Paul Straw Poll Success
Press lauds Romney's victory in meaningless Iowa contest, yet barely acknowledges Texas Congressman's sweep of Alabama and New Hampshire

Prison Planet | August 20, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The establishment media has sought to bury and scoff at Ron Paul's dominating success in the Alabama and New Hampshire straw polls, while exalting the meaningless Iowa contest as a bellwether benchmark of national sentiment simply because their stooge Mitt Romney was the winner.

The Texas Congressman completely demolished the opposition in the Alabama straw poll, achieving 216 votes (81%) compared to Romney's 14 and Giuliani's 7.

He also trounced the contest's only southerner, Mike Huckabee, by a clear 210 votes.

The Alabama state primary will play a very prominent role in next year's presidential election because it is expected to be moved forward and become one of the first.

Ron Paul was also victorious in New Hampshire this weekend after garnering 73% of the vote at the Strafford County GOP straw poll.

All the candidates had representatives in New Hampshire and Paul easily beat off Tancredo and Huckabee, who were there in person. A PR attempt on behalf of the Romney campaign to place signs all around the venue got a return of just 26 votes.

The significance of straw polls can be debated back and forth, but what can't be argued is the fact that Mitt Romney received lavish coverage from the media after his success in Iowa - despite the fact that the Iowa straw poll has historically proven to be meaningless - yet Paul's victory in Alamaba and New Hampshire was met with muted dismissal.

"Now, granted, Alan Keyes won the last contested GOP straw poll in 1999, followed by Orrin Hatch, with eventual nominee George W. Bush coming in third," writes Outside the Beltway's James Joyner , "But Pat Robertson won the Iowa straw poll in 1987 and the press still pretends that contest is meaningful. Indeed, the winner in Ames has only gone on to win the nomination once. George H.W. Bush won the poll in 1979 and went on to lose the nomination to Ronald Reagan. Then, Bush lost the poll in 1987 (to Robertson) only to win the nomination. The other George Bush won in Ames in 1999, though, and also won the whole thing. So they're 1 for 4!"
If the race was on a level playing field and the establishment media afforded as much attention to Ron Paul's success as they gave Mitt Romney after the Iowa straw poll, the Texas Congressman's campaign would be given unstoppable momentum, which is why at every turn the press have sought to dismiss, ridicule and ignore the only Constitutional candidate on the roster - Congressman Ron Paul.

abomb · August 20th, 2007, 03:26 PM

Ron Paul is 71?

Djaughe · August 20th, 2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abomb

Ron Paul is 71?

Pfft...Moses was 80 when he led his people out of bondage...then, lived another 40 years.

He don't look that old anyways - here's a pic:

http://www.ronpaulsalon.com/Staff.asp

Djaughe · August 21st, 2007, 04:48 AM

lol...this is funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

Donald · August 21st, 2007, 10:33 AM

Saw that before...it's funny. There are longer clips...Morton Downey Jr. is an assbag and makes Rush Limbaugh look almost sane.

DevonCardsFan · August 28th, 2007, 08:22 PM

Ron Paul: Iran Attack On Within A Year
Presidential candidate says Neo-Cons waiting for right opportunity
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Presidential candidate Ron Paul believes that an attack on Iran is highly likely within a year and that the Bush administration is simply waiting for the right opportunity, or event on which to blame Iran, before launching the assault.

"If I were a betting man I would bet that they will attack Iran before the end of this administration, which means in the next year or so," the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show today.

"The plans have been laid just like the plans were laid to go into Iraq a long time before they did but they had to wait for the right opportunity."

(Article continues below)

"The radical Neo-Cons are still there - they may have been diminished a little bit but they're still very very influential and very very powerful and they have the President's ear so I think they're just laying the plans, waiting for the opportunity," said Paul.

" I don't think the opportunity presents itself right now, I don't think we're gonna wake up tomorrow morning and have it happen unless they can blame the Iranians for something else - of course they're setting the stage for that by declaring that their Guard unit over there is a terrorist organization, so anything now is possible and they'll blame it on the Iranians and and make that excuse."

The Presidential candidate said he had "Talked to some military people and historians who knew the region," and they they told him "it would be the most disastrous thing we could do for our own sake," jeopardizing the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq and trapping them from getting out of the Persian Gulf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rhetoric regarding a potential military attack on Iran has heated again over the past few days, and President Bush himself stoked the flames further today when he warned of the risk of a "nuclear holocaust" if the country was allowed to acquire nuclear capability.

In a speech Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that a diplomatic push by the world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today stated that a U.S. attack on Iran was "impossible" due to U.S. troops being tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also dismissed Sarkozy's warning, calling the French premiere "inexperienced" and labeling his comments as purely "for the consumption of his inner circles."

SirChaz · August 30th, 2007, 08:01 AM

Arizona's primary is open but apparently that doesn't include the Presidential primary which is called the Presidential Preference Election.

If you plan to vote in the primary make sure you are registered in the correct party to do so.

From the link below:
Based on the specific language of the open primary provision of the Arizona Constitution and the statutes that implement it, as well as standard rules of statutory construction, the open primary provision does not extend to presidential preference elections.

Quote:

Voting season is once again upon us. It may seem like we are a year away, but really the first presidential preference election (what you may call a primary) begins in Februrary. The exact date is not set, but suffice it to say, if you want to vote in the primary you better get moving. Now, some of you may have been under the same misconception as I, that Arizona is an open primary state and as long as you are registered to vote, you can vote for any Presidential candidate that you like in the primary. That is and is not true. Yes, Arizona is an open primary state, but no, we do not hold Presidential primaries here.

In Arizona, the Presidential Primary is called the Presidential Preference Election (PPE), and that election has different rules. Oh, yes, it is the exact same thing that you think of when you call it a primary, but this different title gives it a different set of rules.

The state has many reasons for doing this. You can go to http://www.azag.gov/opinions/1999/I99-025.html for a reason given by Janet Napolitano. I personally think it is a little sneaky. I wanted to make it clear to all that our "open primary" laws DO NOT APPLY to the Presidential Primary because that is not what it is called. If you call the county recorder's office asking for information about the Presidential Primary they may give you incorrect information, because what you really mean is the Presidential Preference Election.

So, if you want to vote for, say Ron Paul, who is running as a Republican, you must be registered as a Republican to vote for him. If you show up at the polling place as an Independent or no party preference you will NOT be able to vote in the Republican election. If you show up as a Democrat you will not be able to vote for a Republican. I hope this clears it up. For those of that want to know the deadline to make the switch, the sooner the better. No matter what the deadline is, you want to give yourself plenty of time to get your voter registration card in your hand with the correct party on it. This way, in case an error is made, you will still have time to correct it in time for the election.

For those of that like to see things in writing, the rule is A.R.S. 16-241(A) that gives voters the opportunity to express their preference "for the presidential candidate of the political party indicated as their preference by the record of their registration." (Emphasis added).

conraddobler · September 7th, 2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirChaz

Arizona's primary is open but apparently that doesn't include the Presidential primary which is called the Presidential Preference Election.

If you plan to vote in the primary make sure you are registered in the correct party to do so.

From the link below:
Based on the specific language of the open primary provision of the Arizona Constitution and the statutes that implement it, as well as standard rules of statutory construction, the open primary provision does not extend to presidential preference elections.

Here in Missouri it's never open, you have to be registered in the party to get to vote in the primary, I'm glad I never changed it officially to independent.

I believe 100% that if he ever scores well in one of the early primaries that it's on then, one national debate where people really watch him and he's going to light them up like an Xmas tree.

He's anti abortion so the abandoned religious right is cool with him and the moderates will be fine with him.

He just makes too much sense, if the other candidates have to deal with debating him they'll get their asses handed to them.

DevonCardsFan · September 17th, 2007, 06:01 PM

Ron Paul Utah turnout wows candidate

Sheena McFarland
Salt Lake Tribune
Monday September 17, 2007

More than 1,000 people gathered Saturday at the Union Pacific Depot in Salt Lake City to rally behind U.S. Rep. Ron Paul in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

Paul, an obstetrician from Texas, was impressed with the turnout.
"Wow. If they only knew you existed over in Washington, they'd change things over there," he said as he greeted the cheering crowd.

Paul spoke fervently of his support of smaller government, including the abolition of agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, and of his support for strictly following the Constitution. He also spoke out against the war in Iraq and any pre-emptive military action.

"Because of our careless attitude about foreign policy and how we go to war, we have allowed our government to build an American world empire," he said. "We are not an empire. We're a republic."

(Article continues below)

Paul's stances on such topics are "clearly proven" in his voting record, which has earned him the nickname of "Dr. No" in the House of Representatives, said supporter Ronald Levine Saturday.

"I tell people not to listen to what a candidate says before an election or what he does," he said. "I tell them to look at what he has consistently done for the past 20 years."

That voting record is what drives his grass-roots supporters, said Mark Hudson of Syracuse.

"He is the only candidate who attracts everyone from libertarians to constitutional conservatives to true conservatives," Hudson said.

Paul visited Utah for the free rally and for a $1,000-a-plate brunch that drew fewer than 20 supporters and a $2,000-per-plate dinner. He is the eighth presidential candidate to visit Utah, the fourth Republican. Paul had raised about $13,000 in Utah as of the June 30 filing, according to the Federal Elections Commission.

Though polls show Paul garnering an average of only 2 percent of potential voters, many of his supporters believe the polls don't accurately show how many people support him.

"He's the only candidate I've seen homemade signs for," said Tom Salt, who is studying mechanical engineering at Brigham Young University.
Salt sees many young people supporting Paul.

"We look at his principles and we're too young to be cynical about his chances," Salt said.

The mainstream media has not treated Paul fairly, said Jed Hardman of Springville, and neither have some of the other Republicans in the race, pointing to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney "openly mocking" Paul after debates.

"They're afraid because as soon as such a true conservative emerges, one who is anti-abortion and has conservative views on taxes, they're going to lose," he said.

DevonCardsFan · September 17th, 2007, 06:04 PM

Let the Banning Begin ... Polls Remove Ron Paul

FreeMarketNews.com
Monday September 17, 2007

It has long been the contention of GOP Strawpolls that Ron Paul supporters were "spamming" their poll. They threatened to remove his name, and now they've gone and done it - though exactly when they did it is not clear. Ron Paul supporters only began to mention it recently in any case.

Ironically, the list below does not contain the name of Alan Keyes, either. Whether this is an oversight, or intentional, remains to be seen.

Ron Paul is running at five percent in New Hampshire and garnering plenty of press and debate attention nationwide. Bill O'Reilly just featured him and CNN, as has been reported, also sought to have him on the air. 60 Minutes is reportedly doing a feature on Ron Paul.

With so much attention being paid to one candidate, albeit not a "front-runner" it makes little sense for a major Internet poll to remove his name. The poll itself, rather than Ron Paul, risks a long, slow slide into irrelevancy.

(Article continues below)

Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Fred Thompson

See ... http://www.gopstrawpolls.com

Additionally, www.pajamasmedia.com began banning Ron Paul as early as February of 2007. The site now carries the following note regarding their presidential poll:

Over 130,000 votes have been cast in the weekly PAJAMAS MEDIA PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL. The thirty-fifth week has officially begun.

NEW DEAL: Pajamas Media editors have noted that the number of weekly votes in our poll has diminished drastically from the tens of thousands cast at the outset. For months now, many readers have been complaining to us about the increasing inutility of the poll because of vote-swarming by second tier candidates. Many voters have lost interest and are not participating. Websites that had run our widget were no longer doing so.

Something needed to change.

Therefore, especially since the campaign itself appears to be narrowing its focus to front-running candidates, henceforth the Pajamas Media Poll will be restricted to those first tier candidates listed on the front poll page of the leading online poll aggregator Real Clear Politics. As of now, that is four candidates on the Democratic side and five on the Republican. We will change our lineup on the Sunday after RCP does, if it does.

pajamas media poll:

Fred Thompson 30 46.9%
Rudy Giuliani 21 32.8%
Mitt Romney 8 12.5%
John McCain 4 6.3%
Mike Huckabee 1 1.6%