What do you think? Mike Huckabee? Better than the rest?
http://www.nraila.org/multimedia/mmp...set.aspx?ID=82
Printable View
What do you think? Mike Huckabee? Better than the rest?
http://www.nraila.org/multimedia/mmp...set.aspx?ID=82
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home
Mikes stock has just gone up in my book.
I had no opinion until I saw some of the video clips. After reading his stance about a week ago even though I do not think his tax plan will work I have to throw my support behind him.
There are lots of things to consider and I have to tell ya I did NOT vote for bush in the last election (if you work for the fedgod you would know why at the time).
Compelling, yes. Atleast on that one issue.
I'm still going to vote for Ron Paul though..... I have to now. I put the "Gun Owners 4 Paul" bumper sticker on today. [LOL][Beer]
He is more in line with my Libertarian views than any of the other GOP candidates.
My vote has been for Ron Paul since last summer, and I recently did a political survey and showed me as being closest to Paul as well...
Don't be huckstered.
Fred Thompson is the best GOP candidate that has any hope.
Mike Huckabee is a socialist outside of his so called 2nd Amendment stand. He never passed any pro gun legislation as Gov and most in AR think Clinton was a better gov than MH.
He is big gov, tax and spend.
He is pro-life, but FT got the endorsement from the National Right To Life crowd.
As far as his record goes, he was actually neutral gun wise.
The media like him because he would probably be easy for a dem to beat.
Here is what I think Larry and most will not like it but it is the truth.
Your voting for whom they wish you to vote for they give you two choices and if you dont like it too bad.
[Rant1]
A scumbag... just like any republican/democrat
The 2nd Amendment is one of the few subjects with which I agree with Huckabee. He is no conservative.
I like Thompson.
Fred Thompson all the way for me....much better record and views on 2nd amendment then any other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic..._Fred_Thompson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee
my problem with Huckabee or any other candidate is that they are ALL big government....Fred Thompson is not...never has been, hes all about federalism...leave the states alone to do their thing....I like that personally along wiht his 2nd amendment views.
I think saying that all other GOP candidates are big government is a bit of a stretch.
I doubt that Fred Thompson, or any other GOP candidate believes aside from Paul:
All Federal gun control should be repealed.
Abortion should be left to the states.
Removing the Federal government from marriage
Leaving Iraq
Leave NATO
Leave the UN
Cut taxes
Cut the military budget by 50%
Abolish entitlement programs
etc
Than he shouldnt be GOP, what he says may be nice... but bieng part of one of the evil two doesnt do him any good.
Ron Paul never met a war he liked. Sometimes peace isn't the answer.
We need a bigger military, not a smaller one. We need to recover from Clinton's "peace dividend" reductions.
Ron Paul's conclusion that we were attacked because of our "interventionist" policy is absolute lunacy. To believe that is the cause one would have to be completely ignorant of Islamic history going back over a thousand years. Giuliani did a great job illustrating the flaws in Paul's reasoning in last Saturday's debate. The jihadis have attacked nations that don't have any bases in the Arab world.
Out of the laundry list of things Paul says he will do, he only has control over declaring defeat in Iraq. Every other one of those points is outside the purview of the Executive branch. Most of what he says he wants to do is under the control of Congress, where Paul was completely ineffective as a participant.
Although I can agree with some of Dr. Paul's positions, After seeing and reading some of His comments over the past couple of weeks, I am fully convinced that if He was not a member of the .gov. He would either be on an extended stay at the rubber room hotel wearing one of those long sleave dinner jackets. Or, standing on a street corner somewhere, holding a sign stateing, the end is near.
As far as the rest of them go, Unless Teddy Ronald Roosevelt Regan jumps in, I find it very hard to get excited over a 10 second soundbite proclaiming that They are for the 2A. Without anything in their past to really back it up. They go on photo op's wth shotguns, big deal. Untill I see one of them at one of our shoots with an AR in hand, I am not buying it.
He's only in the GOP for votes, he ran for President as a Libertarian in the 90's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delphi
Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in the 1988 election. He got less than 1% of the vote.
Yup, who would want some nutcase, that actually believes we still have a viable constitution, and has the voting record to prove it, as POTUS. Lock that crazy person up in a rubber room.
Our government has been, and will continue to, shred the constitution, and use it for T-paper. The sheeple must continue with this course of action. Vote accordingly.
EAT
SLEEP
OBEY
DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY
DO NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL
/sarcasm
Ron Paul is a staunch Constitutionalist, so I haven't a clue why people (who often claim they support the Constitution) think he is a nut case.
Unless you guys believe that x should be preserved in the Constitution, buy y and z aren't really necessary anymore. Which is of course, the logic of those we despise so much, being the poli-chickens of the left side of the aisle.
^^^^^^^^^
Yep, it's more what's lacking with the good Doctor that I just can't get past, If, He was a little closer to a few of My ideals, I'd vote for Him.
Hey, I'll impress you with my package!
ATRAIN FOR PRESIDENT!...better than the others, pants down!
Ron Paul has been admittedly gaming the system to have that voting record. He has added about $400MM in earmarks for his constituents. He does this knowing that the legislation will pass. When it comes time to vote, he votes against it, it passes anyway, his constituents get their money, and he gets to claim that he didn't vote for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pickenup
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10...economic_i.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/page/3/
Ron Paul often votes with the Dems to kill issues that are incrementally heading in the right direction. Can you understand how Republicans might have a problem with that?Quote:
MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no. And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district. This is the Houston Chronicle: "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly. "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK. Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district. The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway: $32 million. The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor. The Bayou Navigation Channel. They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.
REP. PAUL: You, you know...
MR. RUSSERT: Why, why would you load up...
REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.
MR. RUSSERT: No, but you put them in the bill.
REP. PAUL: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?
MR. RUSSERT: Well, that's like, that's like saying you voted for it before you voted against it.
REP. PAUL: Nah! Come on, Tim. That has nothing to do with that.
MR. RUSSERT: If, if, if you put it in the bill and get the headlight back home...
REP. PAUL: No, I, I make the request. They're not in the bills.
MR. RUSSERT: ...and then you, then you know it's going to pass Congress and so you, you don't refuse the money.
REP. PAUL: Well, no, of course not. It's like taking a tax credit. If you have a tax credit, I'm against the taxes but I take all my tax credits. I want to get...
MR. RUSSERT: But if you were true...
REP. PAUL: ...the money back for the people.
MR. RUSSERT: If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.
REP. PAUL: No, no, that's not it. They steal our money, that's like saying that people shouldn't take Social Security money.
MR. RUSSERT: For...
REP. PAUL: I don't advocate that.
MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me ask you this...
REP. PAUL: I'm trying to save the system, make the system work.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you this...
REP. PAUL: But no, I think you have it all mixed up. Now, you're confused.
MR. RUSSERT: All right. It's all facts.
REP. PAUL: You're confused.
MR. RUSSERT: This is The Wall Street Journal. You load up the bills with special projects...
REP. PAUL: I--no, no, no. No, you don't.
MR. RUSSERT: You do. You do. You deny that you have, you have...
REP. PAUL: How many of them ever got passed? But the whole point is, we have a right and an...
MR. RUSSERT: They pass. You vote against them, but you take the money.
REP. PAUL: You don't quite understand.
MR. RUSSERT: OK.
REP. PAUL: They take our money from us, and the Congress has the authority to appropriate, not the executive branch. And I'm saying that I represent my people. They have a request, it's like taking a tax credit, and I put it in--the whole process is corrupt so that I vote against everything.
MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me ask you this. But if...
REP. PAUL: I vote against it, so I don't endorse the system.
MR. RUSSERT: But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.
REP. PAUL: I don't take it. That's the system.
MR. RUSSERT: The system.
REP. PAUL: I'm trying to change that system. To turn it around and say I'm supporting this system, I find it...
MR. RUSSERT: Well. Well...
REP. PAUL: ...rather ironic and entertaining.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, when you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the, in the spending bills, then I think you'll be consistent.
Dr. Paul certainly didn't look good in the debate tonight.
Vote for hillary or osama... I mean obama...
That'll change things real quick ;)
Yeah, change them for the worse. Who knows how much damage they'll do or how long it will take to undo it...if it's even possible.
The first contradicts itself. Constitutionalists thinking favors limited government, and the protection of the peoples rights (protection from force and fraud, nothing more nothing less). Testing nuclear weapons in urban areas, for any reason, violates these rights. Therefore someone who believes such a thing is beneficial is not a constitutionalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
The latter has little to do with anything. You vote for a woman because she is a woman, ok...... the gender of the candidate has nothing to do with their beliefs.
Voting for someone because they are a Constitutionalist, is voting like for that person's libertarian beliefs on the way government should be run. Voting for a Constitutionalists because someone is a Constitutionalists is the same as voting for someone who is pro-gun because they are pro-gun.
Same logic, the first is simply more consistent.
Hitlery.[LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by Delphi
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...laryHitler.jpg
It's too bad Duncan Hunter isn't well known enough. I like him the best of all when it come right down to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PVXJ...homevideo.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r82xvlF4Ds&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAs11dcCPSg&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTqNzSRLSjw&feature=user
Where'd you get the sticker?Quote:
Originally Posted by -Wolverine-
I think it was the group Gun Owners for Paul, they called and i said I was supporting him. I can check the address on the sticker tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asha'man
I think that it may change things quickly in the wrong direction, but I dont think it would last too long. Those types of changes just wouldnt be tolerated ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman