Ron Paul: Government Security Is Just Another Kind Of Violence

StupidOldFart, you call him "an enemy of freedom." Yet he actually wore "freedom's" uniform.

Have you? Originally Posted by bigtex

He advocates eliminating dissent. That is anti-freedom. Just ask Hillary, your candidate for 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0

He advocates eliminating dissent. That is anti-freedom. Just ask Hillary, your candidate for 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0 Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Apparently you have difficulty responding to a direct question. Have you wore the uniform of "freedom?"

That's been asked and answered. Look it up.

That's been asked and answered. Look it up. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Just as I thought. You are one who advocates for freedom but unable to defend it. Meanwhile you are openly critical of those who have.

I believe I have my arms wrapped around the situation now! Thanks!

FYI, BigTurd, I tried to enlist during the VietNam conflict, but a childhood illness caused me to be turned down. I wasn't drafted, I volunteered. If you want to make fun of a childhood illness, go ahead. I expect no less from you.

I have always respected our soldiers, sailors and marines. I have had friends and family member pay the ultimate price for the freedom I am trying to keep and restore. But while I respect any person's service to our country, it doesn't mean their opinions are always right, or that they continue to act in the best interest of the Constitution and freedom.

If a person takes a stand that is against freedom and the Constitution, I will point it out. That includes you, Assup or anyone else.

FYI, BigTurd, I tried to enlist during the VietNam conflict, but a childhood illness caused me to be turned down. I wasn't drafted, I volunteered. If you want to make fun of a childhood illness, go ahead. I expect no less from you.

I have always respected our soldiers, sailors and marines. I have had friends and family member pay the ultimate price for the freedom I am trying to keep and restore. But while I respect any person's service to our country, it doesn't mean their opinions are always right, or that they continue to act in the best interest of the Constitution and freedom.

If a person takes a stand that is against freedom and the Constitution, I will point it out. That includes you, Assup or anyone else. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

no, you wont.

Romney placed a ban on weapons blatantly ignoring the 2nd ammendment, and you ignored the fact until I brought it up ... then what do you do? ...you accepted it as a lesser of two evils ..

Romney passed healthcare laws that virtually shadow the Healthcare Act passed by Obama ... then what do you do? .. rail and rail some more about Obamacare being unconstitutional, and totally overlook Romneys law, because why?

you'll bring things up that suit your agenda (whatever the hell that is on any given day) because youre a hypocrite "just having fun"

Romneycare was NOT unconstitutional. It was a bad idea, but it did not violate the federal Constitution. States can do that. The Federal Government cannot. Try to understand for once. States have different powers than the Feds. Read the 10th Amendment.

And while Romney was not friendly to the 2nd Amendment, he was much less overtly opposed to the Constitution than Obama is. That is why your arguments were specious at best. You supported Obama on every level, no matter how unconstitutional his actions were. You were outraged at Romney's attack on the 2nd Amendment, yet either ignored or supported Obama's attacks on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th Amendments, as well as knowing that Obama was planning an attack at least as hard as Romney's on the 2nd Amendment. Your hypocrisy was more appalling than Romney's.

And I thought Romney would be only marginally better than Obama overall, but not enough to get me to support him. I voted for Gary Johnson, who supports the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. And I will do so again.

So give it up, CBJ7. Your selective outrage simply proves you are a hypocrite, or stupid, or both.

Romneycare was NOT unconstitutional. It was a bad idea, but it did not violate the federal Constitution. States can do that. The Federal Government cannot. Try to understand for once. States have different powers than the Feds. Read the 10th Amendment.

And while Romney was not friendly to the 2nd Amendment, he was much less overtly opposed to the Constitution than Obama is. That is why your arguments were specious at best. You supported Obama on every level, no matter how unconstitutional his actions were. You were outraged at Romney's attack on the 2nd Amendment, yet either ignored or supported Obama's attacks on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th Amendments, as well as knowing that Obama was planning an attack at least as hard as Romney's on the 2nd Amendment. Your hypocrisy was more appalling than Romney's.

And I thought Romney would be only marginally better than Obama overall, but not enough to get me to support him. I voted for Gary Johnson, who supports the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. And I will do so again.


selective outrage ?

one person (willard) actually does, and another person plans (Obie) is your defense ?

youre still wallowing in your own hypocrisy and everyone knows it but you



So give it up, CBJ7. Your selective outrage simply proves you are a hypocrite, or stupid, or both. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

not friendly to the 2nd amendment ... now THATS funny

You're delusional, CBJ7. I hope it's happy, but it's not reality.

You're delusional, CBJ7. I hope it's happy, but it's not reality. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Obama wasnt friendly to the constitution ... say it.

Obama is not friendly to the Constitution. There, I said it. He is shredding the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment.

Happy now? You voted for him. He won.

<<< CBJ7 // COG >>>

Obama is not friendly to the Constitution. There, I said it. He is shredding the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment.

Happy now? You voted for him. He won.

<<< CBJ7 // COG >>> Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

heres what you fail to mention in your defense about WillardCare and your little
"states" vs fed argument

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-care-funding/


now, is shoving 60% of willards healthcare back at the fed for taxpayers to pick up constitutional ?

So? The law itself is Constitutional. But Massachusetts should pay for it themselves. How does that change anything? Your comprehension problem is getting worse all the time. Seek help.

I would not have supported Romneycare if I was in Massachusetts, but not because it was unconstitutional, but because it was a bad idea. And I certainly don't think people from other states should support it.

So? The law itself is Constitutional. But Massachusetts should pay for it themselves. How does that change anything? Your comprehension problem is getting worse all the time. Seek help.

I would not have supported Romneycare if I was in Massachusetts, but not because it was unconstitutional, but because it was a bad idea. And I certainly don't think people from other states should support it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

now, is shoving 60% of willards healthcare back at the fed for taxpayers to pick up constitutional ?

Much federal spending is not supported by the Constitution, including funding Romneycare, but that is a different issue. Romneycare is Constitutional under the federal Constitution, even though its funding probably isn't.

You keep changing the subject, CBJ7. Try to understand a concept for once. I know it will be a new experience for you, but you might like it, and you will sound less stupid.