Florida Shooters Network

+1,000,000

#14, interesting fact, correct me if i'm wrong, but i read somewhere or heard somwhere that men are raped more often than women, if you include prison populations.

Orlando Paulitician wrote:#14, interesting fact, correct me if i'm wrong, but i read somewhere or heard somwhere that men are raped more often than women, if you include prison populations.

But Americans are largely cool with prison rape, for some reason.

Missed one...

(27) Ron Paul is bat-shit crazy.

#28. I don't want a person who, after 20 years in Congress as part of the Washington culture, has only been able to get one piece of legislation through the House, and that was to bring some pork to his district.

I don't believe in a ll that crap, and I don't believe in Paul either.

Gmountain wrote:#28. I don't want a person who, after 20 years in Congress as part of the Washington culture, has only been able to get one piece of legislation through the House, and that was to bring some pork to his district.

yeah, MORE LAWS is exactly what we need. enough laws on the books to put you in prison for smoking a plant, importing a flower, or has too small a barrel or foregrip on the wrong firearm, and you want more laws that can be used to throw citizens in prison for activities that aren't inherently criminal.

and fyi, he votes AGAINST the pork. but if its going to pass anyway, the least he can do is try to GET BACK some of the confiscated wealth the government took from his constituents, lest you agree with the cartel the government has on violence, and its use of that power to make citizens pay for programs or laws that don't serve to protect the rights of the citizens?

pork barrel spending is something like less than 1% of government spending. the BIGGEST problems of government spending, have to do with medicare, medicaid, social security, and unnecessary DoD spending. those together account for like 60% of government spending, and get bigger every year, despite the fact that D's and R's together bemoan the cutting of government services and defense spending.

you can have reservations about Paul. but being against his serving constituents who are only asking for their money back or his small government policy of passing the least amount of laws every year when hundreds or thousands are passed every year, are not real reservations.

OP, calm down. Some people LIKE the taste of a shit sandwich day after day--deal with it. Anyway, it will probably taste even better when Chef Romney prepares it for them. Right?

Orlando Paulitician wrote:

Gmountain wrote:#28. I don't want a person who, after 20 years in Congress as part of the Washington culture, has only been able to get one piece of legislation through the House, and that was to bring some pork to his district.

yeah, MORE LAWS is exactly what we need. enough laws on the books to put you in prison for smoking a plant, importing a flower, or has too small a barrel or foregrip on the wrong firearm, and you want more laws that can be used to throw citizens in prison for activities that aren't inherently criminal.

20 years and he hasn't been able to get any legislation through repealing or changing the laws. To me, that means he is an ineffective legislator. He might have some good ideas, but if he can't implement anything, then it's not realistic to expect him to succeed as President.

Gmountain wrote:20 years and he hasn't been able to get any legislation through repealing or changing the laws. To me, that means he is an ineffective legislator. He might have some good ideas, but if he can't implement anything, then it's not realistic to expect him to succeed as President.

With that veto pen in his hand he will be able to check and balance the colluding branches of Government.

The difference between being 1 of 435 and being 1 of 1 is so damned obvious that you'd think any FSNer would get it. I guess not.

Let me try decimals for them:

In one, you are 0.23% of ONE half of Legislative Branch of the US government.

In the other, you are 100% of the only part of the Executive Branch that matters.

Got it?

No, I don't get it. He would be absolutely ineffective as President. All he would do is unite Congress and have them override vetos. Congress would run the country uncontrolled. That is not the country I want to live in. Do you want the country to be controlled by Harry Reid and John Boehner?

Gmountain wrote:No, I don't get it. He would be absolutely ineffective as President. All he would do is unite Congress and have them override vetos. Congress would run the country uncontrolled. That is not the country I want to live in. Do you want the country to be controlled by Harry Reid and John Boehner?

No, I want to live in a country where I can freely smoke what you are smoking.

If by "ineffective" you mean few new laws would get passed, sign me up. If, purely hypothetically, a majority of voters put Ron Paul in the office of the President, you really think both Democrats and Republicans would form a united front against the will of these voters? Really? When did you last observe signs of such a spine in Congress? Regardless, I'd f*%! LOVE to see that, because those same voters would shitcan all their sorry asses 2 years down the line, which would be the second best thing that ever happened to the US in my lifetime.

Well, luckily or unluckily, he won't be President, so it's not something we'll have to deal with.

I've never claimed as my principal reason for voting for him a likely expectation he'll occupy the Oval Office. Neither did any sane Goldwater voter in the 1964 GOP primaries. To me, it's that same type of moment all over again--to tell the GOP what you want: people with views more like Ron Raul...or Mitt Romney. Really, does anybody here WANT Romeny and his type? Be honest. Then why the f*%! should we pretend otherwise? (Here's where you are supposed to read the "Obama is so SCARY!" script in response, like a magic incantation to suppress all thought and dissent.)

Decades of failure is enough for me--how about you?

As long as the winner, whoever it is, wins by less than the Paul or any non-main party vote of similar philosophy, a great deal will be accomplished. The "mainstream" politicians will always have to watch their backs: the discipline will be sweet.

Only one thing: Paul and his supporters are badly out of touch with reality and can't make an argument otherwise without bending, warping, twisting the facts.

Just a couple of examples:

(6) I am opposed to bailouts. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported TARP.
Does this mean you want every bank in the USA to close its doors, all credit and business to stop, all accounts frozen until the FDIC examiners can untangle the bankruptcy? You wouldn't even have a place to cash your unemployment checks. TARP was NOT the industry bailouts and stimulus which were pretty much a total waste. It was simply the Feds name for its recent successful campaign to stop a spreading financial panic. This function is the primary reason the Fed was set up in 1910 after the panic of 1907 was barely stopped by J P Morgan..

(17) The Brookings Institution says Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America was an insignificant nibbling around the edges. I favor people who support insignificant nibbling around the edges, as long as they occasionally trick me with a nice speech.
Since you are too young to remember 1994, the Democrats controlled the Senate and almost none of Gingrich's "Contract With America" ever made it into law. And Brookings has always been a Democratic controlled leftist institution. Yours truly had a lot of arguments with its "defence analysts" an amazing number of whom turned very hawkish and pro defence once they left Brookings and no longer received its paychecks.