|  | **T O P I C R E V I E W**  
---  
Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
**50 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)**  
  
> _Originally posted by Charles Johnson_  
>  I would like you to step up and tell me what about 'his advocacy', not about 'the man', that you find crazy, extreme, or nutty, please.  
>   
> What about it, Jim?  
> 

Just like the plague, CJ, just like the plague.  
  
_Wonder why?_  
I would like you to step up and tell me what about 'his advocacy', not about 'the man', that you find crazy, extreme, or nutty, please.  
  
What about it, Jim?  
  
  
> _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 

Paul thinks that the power to decide should be in the hands of the state and the people.this is the true Constitutional way.  
  
> _Originally posted by skicat_  
>   
> ****Most of the people I know who have expressed dislike or distrust of Congressman Paul's message,when pressed to define why, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what his message really is.**** Usually they are not able to progress past the most often misinterpreted sound bites, such as Jim's insistence that Paul doesn't believe he can win or mixing terms like isolationism for non-intervention in displays of willful ignorance. The good news is that it is very hard to maintain unfounded and flawed opinions in the face of consistent verifiable proof to the contrary. Slowly people seem to be catching on.  
> 

  
Not a big shock, sadly. If you pressed them most couldn't tell you anything about any of the candidates other than what party they're in and what the media feeds them.  
  
Look paulers, herres the thing. Paul was dead in the water before he even got started. There is no way he could ever get elected. And if he somehow did, there would be little he could to get rid of all the things he wants to get of. The least of reasons is that all these other un-constitutional programs employ millions of people. Given our economy now, it would be a disaster. Talk about the great depression. Nobody would even know what that was after the great closing of all of those Governmental Departments.  
  
> _Originally posted by pickenup_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by skicat_  
>   
>  Slowly people seem to be catching on.
> 
>   
> But not quick enough. The media will not let that happen.   
> 

  
To be fair to the media people I believe carrying water for the establishment is part of their mission statement these days.  
  
> _Originally posted by skicat_  
>   
>  Slowly people seem to be catching on.

  
But not quick enough. The media will not let that happen.   
  
Most of the people I know who have expressed dislike or distrust of Congressman Paul's message,when pressed to define why, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what his message really is. Usually they are not able to progress past the most often misinterpreted sound bites, such as Jim's insistence that Paul doesn't believe he can win or mixing terms like isolationism for non-intervention in displays of willful ignorance. The good news is that it is very hard to maintain unfounded and flawed opinions in the face of consistent verifiable proof to the contrary. Slowly people seem to be catching on.  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  I think is is interesting to note that the progressives refer to Paul supporters as their, the progressives, 'useful idiots'!!  
> 

  
It would be interesting if true.  
  
Progressive talk radio focuses much more upon the idiocy of Romney, Santorum and Gingrich; and abject ignorance of their supporters. Even progressives get it right once in a while.  
I think is is interesting to note that the progressives refer to Paul supporters as their, the progressives, 'useful idiots'!!  
Moot topic.  
  
His chances of being elected are as good as Ralph Naders' were.  
  
However, I believe he loves the attention since being in a presidential primary is the only time anyone hears about him.   
If Dr Ron Paul wins the presidency. This country will be back on the right track...  
  
Where the founders intended us to be.  
He could use a Presidential pardon to get around bad laws. President John F. Kennedy used this power to basically nullify the narcotics Act of 1956.  
  
http://people.howstuffworks.com/presidential-pardon7.htm  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 
> 
> If he were elected, God forbid, he would not do that because it would be unconstitutional, and he would not have that authority.   
> **You with deaf ears need to start listing, I am getting tired of educating you all!!**  
> 

Unbelievable.  
  
That aside, there actually is great educational value in what you post, Jim. It just isn't along the lines that you think it to be.  
  
  
  
> _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 

If he were elected, God forbid, he would not do that because it would be unconstitutional, and he would not have that authority.   
You with deaf ears need to start listing, I am getting tired of educating you all!!!  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Please understand I realize he cant just wave a magic wand and change things. He would have to work with congress and the senate. The question is theoretical, what would he try to do?  
> 
> 
>   
> That is exactly my point. He is NOT a leader or he would have motivated those he was worked with in congress for many years and made some of the changes he has been ranting about. He has NO creditability with anyone except the small group of loyal followers, like those here. And that just will not 'cut the mustard'!  
> 

Dr. Paul is a leader on gun issues.  
RON PAUL’S PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT STANDS  
  
As a congressman, Ron Paul has never once voted for any piece of legislation that would infringe on gun owners’ rights or weaken the Second Amendment.  
  
The inalienable right to keep and bear arms is not only essential to a free society, but it is the guardian of every other right.  
  
During his time in Congress, Ron Paul has worked tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans by:  
  
* Introducing legislation to repeal the “Brady Bill” and the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”  
  
* Authoring legislation to end U.S. membership in the anti-gun United Nations to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called “Small Arms Treaty.”  
  
* Writing a bill that would allow pilots and specially trained law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers and help prevent future 9/11-style attacks.  
  
With our gun rights under constant attack from our own government and the anti-gun United Nations, as well as the threat of rising crime due to our country’s economic woes, Congressman Paul believes it has never been more important that our President be 100% committed to defending our God-given right to keep and bear arms.  
  
In Congress, Ron Paul has stood as a champion for law-abiding gun owners, and he will continue protecting your Second Amendment rights as President.  
  
> _Originally posted by Charles Johnson_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by lt496_  
>   
> 
>>
>>> quote:_Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  You need to get your facts straight Jeff. Ron Paul is not the 'Constitution', he is a man, nothing more. And he is sure a long way from our founding fathers!! He has many good ideas, and many good traits, BUT he also has many bad points and traits.  
> In your opinion the good outweigh the bad, in mine the bad outweigh the good.  
> To each his own.  
> 
>> 
>> Jim, I see you studiously backed off you previous '_extremist_ ' and '_nut-job_ ' verbiage. Why is that?  
>   
> _**I would like you to step up and tell me what about '_his advocacy_ ', not about '_the man_ ', that you find crazy, extreme, or nutty, please.**_  
>   
> As I and others have said, over and over and over again, Ron Paul '_the man_ ' is not the focus. Rather, it is the constitutional message he advances and the things related to limited-government and liberty that he advocates, all relating to the Constitution and principles of our founding, that myself and others support, advance and advocate.  
>   
> It really is looking like you are emoting and being disingenuous, rather than thoughtful..  
> 
> 
>   
> Ten days without a response. What a surprise!  
>   
> He is from the "free state" of Winston, maybe it's in the genes.  
> 

  
Any response would be a side step anyway, or off on some other issue.  
  
> _Originally posted by lt496_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  You need to get your facts straight Jeff. Ron Paul is not the 'Constitution', he is a man, nothing more. And he is sure a long way from our founding fathers!! He has many good ideas, and many good traits, BUT he also has many bad points and traits.  
> In your opinion the good outweigh the bad, in mine the bad outweigh the good.  
> To each his own.  
> 
> 
> Jim, I see you studiously backed off you previous '_extremist_ ' and '_nut-job_ ' verbiage. Why is that?  
>   
> _**I would like you to step up and tell me what about '_his advocacy_ ', not about '_the man_ ', that you find crazy, extreme, or nutty, please.**_  
>   
> As I and others have said, over and over and over again, Ron Paul '_the man_ ' is not the focus. Rather, it is the constitutional message he advances and the things related to limited-government and liberty that he advocates, all relating to the Constitution and principles of our founding, that myself and others support, advance and advocate.  
>   
> It really is looking like you are emoting and being disingenuous, rather than thoughtful..  
> 

  
Ten days without a response. What a surprise!  
  
He is from the "free state" of Winston, maybe it's in the genes.  
  
Came back to the thread and still no response. Must not have anything to say. Go figure.  
  
He must agree with everything Ron Paul stands/has stood for for 30 years. Or he's too ashamed to admit he doesn't. Or he doesn't really know what Paul advocates. Or he's to simple to grasp basic concepts or follow a conversation.  
  
I'm thinking simple. Trust me, I've been through Winston County.  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  No Jeff, If you 'saviour in chief' RP get the nomination I would even vote for him to stop our current 'dictator in chief'.  
> Now if RP does not get the nomination will you vote for whom ever does get the nomination or will you vote for Obama through RP???????????  
> Don't go politician on me, answer the question!!  
> 

Jeff,  
Your quote is correct. Paul does not believe he will get elected, so he is simply the 'spoiler' who will get Obama reelected.  
You just said the same thing I did. Why not admit the truth and stop spinning it???????????  
No Jeff, If you 'saviour in chief' RP gets the nomination I would even vote for him to stop our current 'dictator in chief'.  
Now if RP does not get the nomination will you vote for whom ever does get the nomination or will you vote for Obama through RP???????????  
Don't go politician on me, answer the question!!  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by lt496_  
>   
> 
>>
>>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  You need to get your facts straight Jeff. Ron Paul is not the 'Constitution', he is a man, nothing more. And he is sure a long way from our founding fathers!! He has many good ideas, and many good traits, BUT he also has many bad points and traits.  
> In your opinion the good outweigh the bad, in mine the bad outweigh the good.  
> To each his own.  
> 
>> 
>> Jim, I see you studiously backed off you previous '_extremist_ ' and '_nut-job_ ' verbiage. Why is that?  
>   
> I would like you to step up and tell me what about '_his advocacy_ ', not about '_the man_ ', that you find crazy, extreme, or nutty, please.  
>   
> As I and others have said, over and over and over again, Ron Paul '_the man_ ' is not the focus. Rather, it is the constitutional message he advances and the things related to limited-government and liberty that he advocates, all relating to the Constitution and principles of our founding, that myself and others support, advance and advocate.  
>   
> It really is looking like you are emoting and being disingenuous, rather than thoughtful..  
> 
> 
> No I have not. This 'extremist nut job' is what I see as 'bad'!  
> **And when ask if he saw himself in the oval office he said he did not.** He is here to get Obama reelected, nothing more, nothing less!!!  
> Jeff, I have had the misfortune to see first hand what war does to a country and it's people. And if you and others have not seen it first hand just look at Germany, or Europe in general, after WWII. I saw what war did to RVN. RP seem to think we need to wait until the 'war is on our shores' before we get involved. THIS IS CRAZY AND STUPID!!! We MUST fight our battles on others real estate if we want to avoid this damage and casualties on our land. It may sound hard, but life is hard. More reality for you idealists!  
> 

I really do not hold out much hope for you, Jim.   
  
A correction on one of you your posted pieces of MISINFORMATION...Context can truly be your friend when posting things.   
  
Paul was asked this question...

> “When you lay your head on your pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?”

his response... 

> Paul responded simply: “Not really.”

  
  
  
> _Originally posted by lt496_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  You need to get your facts straight Jeff. Ron Paul is not the 'Constitution', he is a man, nothing more. And he is sure a long way from our founding fathers!! He has many good ideas, and many good traits, BUT he also has many bad points and traits.  
> In your opinion the good outweigh the bad, in mine the bad outweigh the good.  
> To each his own.  
> 
> 
> Jim, I see you studiously backed off you previous '_extremist_ ' and '_nut-job_ ' verbiage. Why is that?  
>   
> I would like you to step up and tell me what about '_his advocacy_ ', not about '_the man_ ', that you find crazy, extreme, or nutty, please.  
>   
> As I and others have said, over and over and over again, Ron Paul '_the man_ ' is not the focus. Rather, it is the constitutional message he advances and the things related to limited-government and liberty that he advocates, all relating to the Constitution and principles of our founding, that myself and others support, advance and advocate.  
>   
> It really is looking like you are emoting and being disingenuous, rather than thoughtful..  
> 

No I have not. This 'extremist nut job' is what I see as 'bad'!  
And when ask if he saw himself in the oval office he said he did not. He is here to get Obama reelected, nothing more, nothing less!!!  
Jeff, I have had the misfortune to see first hand what war does to a country and it's people. And if you and others have not seen it first hand just look at Germany, or Europe in general, after WWII. I saw what war did to RVN. RP seem to think we need to wait until the 'war is on our shores' before we get involved. THIS IS CRAZY AND STUPID!!! We MUST fight our battles on others real estate if we want to avoid this damage and casualties on our land. It may sound hard, but life is hard. More reality for you idealists!  
“Hypocrisy in anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised”  
  
Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  You need to get your facts straight Jeff. Ron Paul is not the 'Constitution', he is a man, nothing more. And he is sure a long way from our founding fathers!! He has many good ideas, and many good traits, BUT he also has many bad points and traits.  
> In your opinion the good outweigh the bad, in mine the bad outweigh the good.  
> To each his own.  
> 

Jim, I see you studiously backed off you previous '_extremist_ ' and '_nut-job_ ' verbiage. Why is that?  
  
I would like you to step up and tell me what about '_his advocacy_ ', not about '_the man_ ', that you find crazy, extreme, or nutty, please.  
  
As I and others have said, over and over and over again, Ron Paul '_the man_ ' is not the focus. Rather, it is the constitutional message he advances and the things related to limited-government and liberty that he advocates, all relating to the Constitution and principles of our founding, that myself and others support, advance and advocate.  
  
It really is looking like you are emoting and being disingenuous, rather than thoughtful..  
  
> As I have said numerous times, most are not seeing this election clearly. It is about the appointment of 2 to 4 new Supreme Court Justices plan and simple. We MUST get rid of Obama even if we elect the worst of the GOP candidates. That would be a start, but only a start!

  
According to this Romney's history on the judges he appointed as Gov isn't all that reassuring  
http://www.amycontrada.com/Romney_s_Judiciary.html  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  You need to get your facts straight Jeff. Ron Paul is not the 'Constitution', he is a man, nothing more. And he is sure a long way from our founding fathers!! He has many good ideas, and many good traits, BUT he also has many bad points and traits.  
> In your opinion the good outweigh the bad, in mine the bad outweigh the good.  
> To each his own.  
> 

  
No one has ever suggested Paul is anything but an advocate for Constitutional principles, Jim. Your first three sentences are, well, silly.  
  
I am forced to ask you specifics as to where Paul's stances differ from those fomented by the founders in the Constitution.  
  
  
You need to get your facts straight Jeff. Ron Paul is not the 'Constitution', he is a man, nothing more. And he is sure a long way from our founding fathers!! He has many good ideas, and many good traits, BUT he also has many bad points and traits.  
In your opinion the good outweigh the bad, in mine the bad outweigh the good.  
To each his own.  
Support for and advocacy for the Constitution, as written, and for the founding principles of individual liberty, makes one a '_crazy-talking_ '...got it, Jim.  
  
Advocating for sane Austrian Economics, a non-interventionist foreign policy, constitutionally-limited government, free-markets, sound money and state-sovereignty, is '_extreme_ '...got it, Jim.  
  
Think about the positions you are taking here, Jim.  
  
Unbelievable...  
  
Methinks it is YOU who may be the '_nut-job_ '. This is ME just being a '_realist_ ' and assessing what you write, Jim.  
  
> _Originally posted by buffalobo_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>>
>>>  _Originally posted by buffalobo_  
>   
> 
>>>
>>>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>>>>
>>>>>  _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 
>>>> 
>>>>   
> He couldn't do that if he tried. That would be unconstitutional and he wouldn't want to do anything unconstitutional, now would he?????  
> It will take many elections to take back what we have lost and a 'nut' like Ron Paul will just make things worse than they are now.  
> As I have said numerous times, most are not seeing this election clearly. It is about the appointment of 2 to 4 new Supreme Court Justices plan and simple. We MUST get rid of Obama even if we elect the worst of the GOP candidates. That would be a start, but only a start!  
> 
>>> 
>>>   
> Like one of the lesser turds would appoint judges who would follow, support or protect the constitution.  
>   
> And you claim to be a realist?  
> 
>> 
>> Prove me wrong, if you can!!!!  
> 
> 
>   
> Just look to the past actions of any of the lesser turds. If past actions indicate future actions, any SCOTUS appts made would be no different than the current constitutional traitors we have now.  
>   
> I can't prove you wrong cause you were not right to begin with.  
> 

Prove it, I guess you can't so you make light of it. Which makes me right and you wrong. I win by default. Thanks!  
Give RP three years and he will be in the same boat as BO!!! Many voted against Bush, not for Obama. Well MANY have said they will vote against Obama, regardless of the nominee, and we could have the same results as 08. But this time it could be the 'extremist' from the other side! But he so extreme the voters will vote for the smooth talking liar from the left rather than the crazy talking right winger. Thus we all lose if RP gets the nod!!!!  
  
> _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 

  
He could issue an executive order - just like obummer does!   
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by buffalobo_  
>   
> 
>>
>>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  Forest and trees is correct Jeff!  
> As I have said several times. You can't correct all the wrong doing you have described above in one fail swoop! **RP can't change a thing because he has no creditability with the voters nor the people he works with.** He, and you, are simply asking for to much to quick.  
> I am sorry you can't see this. You are another one who has gotten hung up on ideology and lost touch with reality.  
> Yes, forest and trees Jeff!!  
> 
>> 
>>   
> The OP put forth "**IF** Ron Paul wins the Presidency", if he wins, how does he not have the support of and creditability with, the voters?  
> 
> 
> Obama won, does he have creditability with the voters????  
> Come back to the real world, PLEASE!!!!  
> 

  
Jim, you are kind of ignoring the OP's scenario again, he is implying upon election not three years after as you reply with.   
  
Upon his election a majority of American voters supported BHO and drank his kool-aid willingly. After three years and many misdeeds there are fewer supporters thus less credibility, but still enough to make him the front runner for POTUS.  
  
So after winning a 2 way(third party candidate other than Ron Paul would be pretty much irrelevant)election, Ron Paul would indeed have credibility with the voters(he won, duh) until his deeds as POTUS caused a loss of (as have BHO's) or gain in credibility.  
  
  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by buffalobo_  
>   
> 
>>
>>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>>>
>>>>  _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 
>>> 
>>>   
> He couldn't do that if he tried. That would be unconstitutional and he wouldn't want to do anything unconstitutional, now would he?????  
> It will take many elections to take back what we have lost and a 'nut' like Ron Paul will just make things worse than they are now.  
> As I have said numerous times, most are not seeing this election clearly. It is about the appointment of 2 to 4 new Supreme Court Justices plan and simple. We MUST get rid of Obama even if we elect the worst of the GOP candidates. That would be a start, but only a start!  
> 
>> 
>>   
> Like one of the lesser turds would appoint judges who would follow, support or protect the constitution.  
>   
> And you claim to be a realist?  
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong, if you can!!!!  
> 

  
Just look to the past actions of any of the lesser turds. If past actions indicate future actions, any SCOTUS appts made would be no different than the current constitutional traitors we have now.  
  
I can't prove you wrong cause you were not right to begin with.  
  
> _Originally posted by buffalobo_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  Forest and trees is correct Jeff!  
> As I have said several times. You can't correct all the wrong doing you have described above in one fail swoop! **RP can't change a thing because he has no creditability with the voters nor the people he works with.** He, and you, are simply asking for to much to quick.  
> I am sorry you can't see this. You are another one who has gotten hung up on ideology and lost touch with reality.  
> Yes, forest and trees Jeff!!  
> 
> 
>   
> The OP put forth "**IF** Ron Paul wins the Presidency", if he wins, how does he not have the support of and creditability with, the voters?  
> 

Obama won, does he have creditability with the voters????  
Come back to the real world, PLEASE!!!!  
  
> _Originally posted by buffalobo_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>>
>>>  _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 
>> 
>>   
> He couldn't do that if he tried. That would be unconstitutional and he wouldn't want to do anything unconstitutional, now would he?????  
> It will take many elections to take back what we have lost and a 'nut' like Ron Paul will just make things worse than they are now.  
> As I have said numerous times, most are not seeing this election clearly. It is about the appointment of 2 to 4 new Supreme Court Justices plan and simple. We MUST get rid of Obama even if we elect the worst of the GOP candidates. That would be a start, but only a start!  
> 
> 
>   
> Like one of the lesser turds would appoint judges who would follow, support or protect the constitution.  
>   
> And you claim to be a realist?  
> 

Prove me wrong, if you can!!!!  
Besides what has already been mentioned in this post regarding Paul's effectiveness once in office, I understand the limits regarding legislation already on the books but would he not be able to counter many of the unconstitutional Executive Orders? If he were able to address some of those draconian decrees I would count that also as victory.  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
>  Forest and trees is correct Jeff!  
> As I have said several times. You can't correct all the wrong doing you have described above in one fail swoop! **RP can't change a thing because he has no creditability with the voters nor the people he works with.** He, and you, are simply asking for to much to quick.  
> I am sorry you can't see this. You are another one who has gotten hung up on ideology and lost touch with reality.  
> Yes, forest and trees Jeff!!  
> 

  
The OP put forth "**IF** Ron Paul wins the Presidency", if he wins, how does he not have the support of and creditability with, the voters?  
  
  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 
> 
>   
> He couldn't do that if he tried. That would be unconstitutional and he wouldn't want to do anything unconstitutional, now would he?????  
> It will take many elections to take back what we have lost and a 'nut' like Ron Paul will just make things worse than they are now.  
> As I have said numerous times, most are not seeing this election clearly. It is about the appointment of 2 to 4 new Supreme Court Justices plan and simple. We MUST get rid of Obama even if we elect the worst of the GOP candidates. That would be a start, but only a start!  
> 

  
Like one of the lesser turds would appoint judges who would follow, support or protect the constitution.  
  
And you claim to be a realist?  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 
> 
>   
> He couldn't do that if he tried. That would be unconstitutional and he wouldn't want to do anything unconstitutional, now would he?????  
> It will take many elections to take back what we have lost and a 'nut' like Ron Paul will just make things worse than they are now.  
> As I have said numerous times, most are not seeing this election clearly. It is about the appointment of 2 to 4 new Supreme Court Justices plan and simple. We MUST get rid of Obama even if we elect the worst of the GOP candidates. That would be a start, but only a start!  
> 

It has taken many election cycles to get where were at now. Why believe it will get better by voting left and right? We all know what that has done for freedom.  
Ron Paul is so damn old that IF he won he would never make his first term so I hope he has a damn good vice-president  
Back to the original topic; _IF_ Ronny wins, he will be surrounded by the same old Sodom'n'Gomorrah hypocrites, money-grubbing Country Club politicians and mullets from both sides.  
There's not a damn thing he can do, constitutionally, to change one iota of what's already been passed as law.  
Unles he is willing to hand out Presidential Directives (or whatever they're called) to defund O'bammycare, re-fund Social Security, close the borders, authorize national carry, and make money squirt out his arse; he will be no more than any other slickster with a cult following.  
Most of the things he'd have to do are things he's already said he WON'T DO (protect borders, ensure national safety with solid foreign policy, create solvency for our economy, change the constitution); so what's the difference between Ronny and any other politician that promises a lot during the campaign, and doesn't deliver once he's voted in?  
Y'all get out of the forest; you're scaring the trees!  
Forest and trees is correct Jeff!  
As I have said several times. You can't correct all the wrong doing you have described above in one fail swoop! RP can't change a thing because he has no creditability with the voters nor the people he works with. He, and you, are simply asking for to much to quick.  
I am sorry you can't see this. You are another one who has gotten hung up on ideology and lost touch with reality.  
Yes, forest and trees Jeff!!  
  
> Jeff,  
> A leader MUST motivate people to get anything done. Those of us who are discussing this are self motivated. You nor I need to have anyone 'lead' us. But the VAST majority of people do NEED leadership, and Paul can't provide that no matter how much you agree with his beliefs!

Jim, I know you are sincere in your beliefs, but...  
  
You miss the point I am making.   
  
This is not policing, or the military. It is not corporate culture or another similar type of environment. This is political office, where all are '_elected_ ' and most feel only allegiance to either '_party_ ', or to the '_electorate_ '.  
  
Only those who are in a position within the framework of '_party_ ' have the ability to twist arms, offer favors, or power and influence, or money redirected to pet projects, to influence or '_lead_ ' in such an environment.   
  
That aside, there is no need of '_leadership_ ' to compel those in Congress to fulfill THE most important duty before an elected official, that being, the solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, sworn before God.  
  
Nor is there any '_leadership_ ' that would cause those who willfully violate their Oath, to go against what is clearly their ethic; that ethic which is opposite to the very things that the Oath demands, e.g. supporting and defending the Constitution.  
  
There is no more chance of any type of '_leadership_ ' causing these people to suddenly support the Constitution that there is of any type of '_leadership_ ' causing a man like me, or like Dr. Paul, to go against that Oath to actually support and defend the Constitution and principles of liberty.  
  
You either support and defend the Constitution via your strongly held beliefs and the Oath taken to do so, or you do not because you do not actually hold those beliefs and, rather, you merely mouthed the words because they were required and it is known that there is NO sanction for failing to uphold that Oath, or for actual open and willful violations of it.  
  
Do you get it yet?   
  
Dr. Paul is displaying and using the most important aspect of '_leadership_ ' that he is in a position to use, that being, the power of '_leadership by example_ '.  
  
The truth of all of this is there for all to see, if one but looks and dispassionately assesses. It has been so for decades.   
  
This is why I take the absolute positions that I do. You are not going to '_bring along_ ' those who are committed to big-government collectivism. Period.   
  
We are left with drawing clear lines and standing upon clear positions which are outlined in the Constitution and which are based on the founding principles of liberty.   
  
Drawing '_new_ ' committed people into office is the realistic goal, not foolishly believing that somehow some sort of '_leadership_ ' will bring committed enemies of the Constitution and liberty around to a polar opposite position.  
  
Dr. Paul certainly can and certainly will inspire that to occur if he gains the office of POTUS, via the methodology I laid out in my earlier post in this thread.  
  
Forest and trees, Jim.  
  
*Edit...typos, spelling and structure.  
  
  
> _Originally posted by lt496_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>>
>>>  _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Please understand I realize he cant just wave a magic wand and change things. He would have to work with congress and the senate. The question is theoretical, what would he try to do?  
> 
>> 
>>   
> That is exactly my point. He is NOT a leader or he would have motivated those he was worked with in congress for many years and made some of the changes he has been ranting about. He has NO creditability with anyone except the small group of loyal followers, like those here. And that just will not 'cut the mustard'!  
> 
> 
> Why should anyone have to be 'motivated' to uphold the Oath they took to support the Constitution, whilst opposing legislation against it?  
>   
> Hate to say it, Jim, but that is THE single most ignorant thing I think I have ever read on these forums.  
>   
> He has more credibility, integrity and courage than any man in Congress.   
> 

Jeff,  
A leader MUST motivate people to get anything done. Those of us who are discussing this are self motivated. You nor I need to have anyone 'lead' us. But the VAST majority of people do NEED leadership, and Paul can't provide that no matter how much you agree with his beliefs nor how good of a person you think he is!  
  
> _Originally posted by Jim Rau_  
>   
> 
>
>>  _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Please understand I realize he cant just wave a magic wand and change things. He would have to work with congress and the senate. The question is theoretical, what would he try to do?  
> 
> 
>   
> That is exactly my point. He is NOT a leader or he would have motivated those he was worked with in congress for many years and made some of the changes he has been ranting about. He has NO creditability with anyone except the small group of loyal followers, like those here. And that just will not 'cut the mustard'!  
> 

Why should anyone have to be 'motivated' to uphold the Oath they took to support the Constitution, whilst opposing legislation against it?  
  
Hate to say it, Jim, but that is THE single most ignorant thing I think I have ever read on these forums.  
  
He has more credibility, integrity and courage than any man in Congress.   
  
  
  
> _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Please understand I realize he cant just wave a magic wand and change things. He would have to work with congress and the senate. The question is theoretical, what would he try to do?  
> 

  
That is exactly my point. He is NOT a leader or he would have motivated those he was worked with in congress for many years and made some of the changes he has been ranting about. He has NO creditability with anyone except the small group of loyal followers, like those here. And that just will not 'cut the mustard'!  
the States will decide  
  
> _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Please understand I realize he cant just wave a magic wand and change things. He would have to work with congress and the senate. The question is theoretical, what would he try to do?  
> 

An excellent question and one little examined beyond the normal '_sound bite_ ' view.  
  
By use of the bully-pulpit of the POTUS and the prerogative of the veto pen, he would veto anti-constitutional legislation and via its use and the national stage, he would force the fact that many things were outside the bounds of constitutional federal-authority, squarely onto the radar screen of America.   
  
This would foster a new awareness of what ills that the government routinely does, usually done behind the cover of their own wall of silence and with the assistance of a willing media.   
  
He would be a firm and utterly consistent voice for governing within the limitations of the Constitution and publicly (for a change) and vocally oppose and call such fed-gov actions for what they are.   
  
He would relentlessly beat the drum for an actual reduction of the size and scope of the fed-gov and its plethora of bureaucratic agencies and by doing so, his actions would excite and bring about a whole new crop of liberty-minded legislators/future legislators who would have a long-term positive effect.  
  
He would be the driving force of major reductions in spending and by his ethic and his constitutionalism, he would strip away the faux-cover that both-wings of the party in the fed-gov currently use to '_debate_ ' around the periphery of such issues and, rather, ensure that any such actions were forced into the bright-light of public attention, and even more importantly, a new public understanding.  
  
Having a man with Dr. Paul's individualist/liberty-ethic, one who is a staunch constitutionalist, would be beneficial beyond measure.   
  
He as POTUS, would be a beginning of the restoration of the Republic.  
  
THAT is the value of a man such as Ron Paul. He could not bring about change alone, but his presence and voice and the constant attention it would bring on these most critical areas, would be the well-spring of a resurgence of a free, strong America, once again protecting the liberties of its citizens and freeing them to flower and prosper.  
  
As I see it.  
  
  
Please understand I realize he cant just wave a magic wand and change things. He would have to work with congress and the senate. The question is theoretical, what would he try to do?  
  
> _Originally posted by steve45_  
>   
>  Do you believe he will null and void all gun laws. His stock answer to similar questions is to let each state decide. Would that mean that "assault style weapons" would still be illegal in California? What do you think?  
> 

  
He couldn't do that if he tried. That would be unconstitutional and he wouldn't want to do anything unconstitutional, now would he?????  
It will take many elections to take back what we have lost and a 'nut' like Ron Paul will just make things worse than they are now.  
As I have said numerous times, most are not seeing this election clearly. It is about the appointment of 2 to 4 new Supreme Court Justices plan and simple. We MUST get rid of Obama even if we elect the worst of the GOP candidates. That would be a start, but only a start!  
I just reviewed article II sections 1-4. I don't see the power to repeal enumerated there.