• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Watch This

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
and listen carefully.....................................


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB181Lm9shs&feature=youtu.be
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
he sounded Presidential...


after Carter we needed a president who spoke for America... and we elected Ronald Reagan...

Reagan was not a perfect candidate coming into the race, nor a perfect president.. the liberals vilified him, they tried to make him out as not suited for the job,... but he became a great President.. while being accused of being far right,.. the facts show he was a good conservative, a moderate leader and a statesman..

Newt may have found that balance..
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
I made it half way through till he started talking about all the "laws" he was going to make by executive order. that was enough for me!

where is the puke icon? if we have the "republican euphoria" he started talking about in the first part of his speech why wouldn't congress just pass real laws?



Ron Paul people- RON PAUL!
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
U.S.Constitution
Article. I.
Section 1.



ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

ALL is a pretty inclusive word- what is left for the president then?


NONE Newt!

anyone still want to vote for him after seeing that video?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lonecowboy said:
U.S.Constitution
Article. I.
Section 1.



ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

ALL is a pretty inclusive word- what is left for the president then?


NONE Newt!

anyone still want to vote for him after seeing that video?

given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..

for as much as I agree with you about the executive orders, I would also question Ron Paul's sanity on dealing with Iran..

Newt has alot of baggage.. but he has been able to get "conservative" issue to the forefront and has a track record of furthering conservative issue.. including welfare reform under a democratic president.. it wasn't perfect but it was a large step in the right direction..

and don't take this as an attack on Paul or personally,, but...

in all the years Ron Paul has been in congress has he actually accomplished anything?..
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Steve said:
Lonecowboy said:
U.S.Constitution
Article. I.
Section 1.



ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

ALL is a pretty inclusive word- what is left for the president then?


NONE Newt!

anyone still want to vote for him after seeing that video?

given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..

for as much as I agree with you about the executive orders, I would also question Ron Paul's sanity on dealing with Iran..

Newt has alot of baggage.. but he has been able to get "conservative" issue to the forefront and has a track record of furthering conservative issue.. including welfare reform under a democratic president.. it wasn't perfect but it was a large step in the right direction..

and don't take this as an attack on Paul or personally,, but...

in all the years Ron Paul has been in congress has he actually accomplished anything?..

following our Constitution must be a far harder job than it seems but Ron Paul seems to be one of the few that does, that in itself is a major accomplishment.

as far as:
given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..

I have to disagree with you, we need men of integrity that will keep their oath to God and our Constitution- I can NOT /will NOT support someone who campaigns on the promise of NOT following our Constitution which is the law of the land!
Do I support Ron Paul "wholeheartedly" no, but he is the best I see out there for adhereing to our Constitution. does that tie his hands in our corrupt system of usurpers- you bet it does. That is why I support Ron Paul all the more for not caving in and going with the status quo but instead standing with integrity on principle- Who else that is running has a record of doing that?
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
29,493
Reaction score
674
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Lonecowboy said:
Steve said:
Lonecowboy said:
U.S.Constitution
Article. I.
Section 1.



ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

ALL is a pretty inclusive word- what is left for the president then?


NONE Newt!

anyone still want to vote for him after seeing that video?

given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..

for as much as I agree with you about the executive orders, I would also question Ron Paul's sanity on dealing with Iran..

Newt has alot of baggage.. but he has been able to get "conservative" issue to the forefront and has a track record of furthering conservative issue.. including welfare reform under a democratic president.. it wasn't perfect but it was a large step in the right direction..

and don't take this as an attack on Paul or personally,, but...

in all the years Ron Paul has been in congress has he actually accomplished anything?..

following our Constitution must be a far harder job than it seems but Ron Paul seems to be one of the few that does, that in itself is a major accomplishment.

as far as:
given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..

I have to disagree with you, we need men of integrity that will keep their oath to God and our Constitution- I can NOT /will NOT support someone who campaigns on the promise of NOT following our Constitution which is the law of the land!
Do I support Ron Paul "wholeheartedly" no, but he is the best I see out there for adhereing to our Constitution. does that tie his hands in our corrupt system of usurpers- you bet it does. That is why I support Ron Paul all the more for not caving in and going with the status quo but instead standing with integrity on principle- Who else that is running has a record of doing that?

This is a tough one because we all know that being right is not always
(hardly ever) popular and being popular is not always right. Not one of
the candidates is perfect, it's my thought we need to keep our eye on
who can beat Obama. Much as I like Ron Paul, I don't think it would be him.
And I too fear how he would deal with Iran. So, until something really
changes, I'm still for Newt.
FWIW
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Faster horses said:
Lonecowboy said:
Steve said:
given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..

for as much as I agree with you about the executive orders, I would also question Ron Paul's sanity on dealing with Iran..

Newt has alot of baggage.. but he has been able to get "conservative" issue to the forefront and has a track record of furthering conservative issue.. including welfare reform under a democratic president.. it wasn't perfect but it was a large step in the right direction..

and don't take this as an attack on Paul or personally,, but...

in all the years Ron Paul has been in congress has he actually accomplished anything?..

following our Constitution must be a far harder job than it seems but Ron Paul seems to be one of the few that does, that in itself is a major accomplishment.

as far as:
given the faults of all the candidates it is hard to rule out any of them... let alone support one wholeheartedly..

I have to disagree with you, we need men of integrity that will keep their oath to God and our Constitution- I can NOT /will NOT support someone who campaigns on the promise of NOT following our Constitution which is the law of the land!
Do I support Ron Paul "wholeheartedly" no, but he is the best I see out there for adhereing to our Constitution. does that tie his hands in our corrupt system of usurpers- you bet it does. That is why I support Ron Paul all the more for not caving in and going with the status quo but instead standing with integrity on principle- Who else that is running has a record of doing that?

This is a tough one because we all know that being right is not always
(hardly ever) popular and being popular is not always right. Not one of
the candidates is perfect, it's my thought we need to keep our eye on
who can beat Obama. Much as I like Ron Paul, I don't think it would be him.
And I too fear how he would deal with Iran. So, until something really
changes, I'm still for Newt.
FWIW

so we trade one usurper for another and think we are getting somewhere?
Both newt( and all RINO's) and obama are statists, the only difference is the speed in which we arrive there. IMO
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



How do we interpret this. I do guess that everyone is reading and taking this a little different. I think we can all agree that obama is not even close
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?
– James Madison
January 19, 1788
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Larrry said:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



How do we interpret this. I do guess that everyone is reading and taking this a little different. I think we can all agree that obama is not even close

that is interpreted as the preamble to our Constitution, and not actually pert of "the supreme law of the land"

but go to ArticleIV section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


also see:

Article I section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
the answer to that is decided by congress Larry-

I will not list all the enumerated powers, just some for this conversation;

Article I section 8 of our Constitution:

The Congress shall have the power to.............
....declare war......and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, to raise and support Armies........... to provide and maintain a Navy;to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...................to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers vested by this Constitution.............
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Larrry said:
Can common defense only be achieved on US soil?

as a last resort.....
if we wait for the fight to land on our soil, millions of innocent American citizens could get caught up in the fight...

but when we force the fight on their soils they pay the price for their aggression toward US...

when you look at the devastating toll war has taken on Afghanistan, or Iraq,.. and while misguided our efforts to nation build have been costly..because the cost of rebuilding a war torn nation is beyond expensive...

thankfully the attacks on our shores have been limited and localized. but even they have been costly.. not only in lives but in time and money to recover..

could you imagine if we waited for the war to touch our shores again...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
As much as i like Ron Paul, this is my sticking point. By my take on him he seems to think the common defense is only achieved on American soil. I tend to disagree with that as congress has also in the past
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
if anything our nation needs a leader...

when I went trough a long list of bills and laws sponsored by Ron Paul many that made sense and that I agreed with.. .. but bill after bill was "referred to committee".. in other words stalled for lack of support on the floor..

while I didn't go through his entire legislative history, I did look at the status of alot of his work.. and as I said.. "stalled" seemed to be the most prominent result..

so yes he may have stood up for his ideals.. but we as a nation need more then a person who has ideals, we need a leader..
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
so Steve the fault doesn't lie with Ron Paul but with the liberal/statist "stallers" in comittees! If this country cannot be saved by a man of integrity then how are men of lesser quality going to do it?
I believe this country will only be saved by God through men of integrity!

Larry- I think you might be misinterpreting Ron Paul on this one, his stance I believe is as our Constitution declares only Congress can declare war- these unconstitutional policing action "wars" declared by a president is what Ron is against. bringing our troops home from these is what he calls for. :shock: This should not be decided by one man. Let Congress do it apointed duty and declare war if war is what is needed.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lone Cowboy said:
so Steve the fault doesn't lie with Ron Paul but with the liberal/statist "stallers" in comittees! If this country cannot be saved by a man of integrity then how are men of lesser quality going to do it?
I believe this country will only be saved by God through men of integrity!

Ron Paul has great ideas.. but can't get his peers in congress on-board..

would he do any better as President or have to resort to no votes on everything as he has done.. sure he could and would shut down our nation.. can our nation handle literately being shut down .. I am not sure it could.

we have gone way past what many consider the point of no return when it comes to over-governance.. a drastic shift back might actually do more harm in not only the short term but the long term as well..

our founding fathers tried to have a government like Paul imagines.. but it didn't work.. so they went back and came up with a federal constitutional republic.. that has worked well so far..

we know "democracy" doesn't work.. but neither does a week federal government..
he Articles of Confederation established the first governmental structure unifying the thirteen states that had fought in the American Revolution. They went into effect on March 1, 1781 and lasted until March 4, 1789 when they were replaced by the US Constitution. Why did the Articles of Confederation only last eight years? In effect why did the Articles of Confederation fail?

The purpose of the Articles of Confederation was to create a confederation of states whereby each state retained "its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right . . . not . . . expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." In other words, every state was as independent as possible with the United States only responsible for the common defense, security of liberties, and the general welfare. To this effect, the Articles were purposely written to keep the national government as weak as possible. However, there were many problems that soon became apparent as the Articles took effect.

Under the Articles of Confederation, states often argued amongst themselves. They also refused to financially support the national government. The national government was powerless to enforce any acts it did pass. Some states began making agreements with foreign governments. Most had their own military. Each state printed its own money. There was no stable economy.

In 1786, Shays' Rebellion occurred in western Massachusetts as a protest to rising debt and economic chaos. However, the national government was unable to gather a combined military force amongst the states to help put down the rebellion.
Gathering of the Philadelphia Convention

As the economic and military weaknesses became apparent, individuals began asking for changes to the Articles that would create a stronger national government. Initially, some states met to deal with their trade and economic problems. As more states became interested in meeting to change the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This became the Constitutional Convention.

Under the Articles, on paper, the Congress had power to regulate foreign affairs, war, and the postal service and to appoint military officers, control Indian affairs, borrow money, determine the value of coin, and issue bills of credit. In reality, however, the Articles gave the Congress no power to enforce its requests to the states for money or troops, and by the end of 1786 governmental effectiveness had broken down.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
more darkness does not beat out darkness-
only light can transform the situation.


Where does Ron Paul advocate a weak federal government?

only a return to the limits of our Constitution! why is that so radical or wrong? it isn't!

newt, romney, etc. all advocate more of the same status quo- just maybe a slower pace that obama and co.

but in the end we arive at the same destination- collectivism/statism/socialism/comunism- anywhere but individual liberty!
 

Latest posts

Top