After all, you are the one who saw fit to make a stupid-ass comment on a 5-month old post.

The link was left off for one reason: so that the gullible morons who gave us this picture could show themselves, and so that we could have some fun with them. I’m sure fun isn’t your strong point, though, since you decided you had to get into the name calling thing.

You get this old battle-ax showing a handful of un-fired bullets in an effort to get herself some unearned pity, then when I call her on the carpet, I’m a “pathetic fuck”. Well, Yahoo has taken their story down for now, but you can see where I got the pic by clicking below.

http://www.moonbatmonitor.blog-city.com/propaganda_bigtime.htm

Now get lost, pathetic fuck.

FUCK OFF.

RWR

Haha, pathetic fuck.

I’ve been a Catholic all my life. I don’t think you’re in much of a position to tell me what Catholicism is.

Also,

If you’re going to argue with me, come at me with facts, not bullshit. I will tell you what Catholicism is, and it’s nothing more than this, and nothing less.

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried.
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost.
I believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the body,
And the life everlasting. Amen.

No propaganda movie is going to change that.

Demonstrate how it’s not about that and we’ll talk.

Furthermore, your position that conservatives don’t have the upper hand wasn’t supported by facts, either.

Come back when you’re not full of shit.

RWR

Oh man. Drop what you’re doing and find two hours for Zeitgeist, The Movie. Catholicism is NOT what you think it is.

It’s not in the bag by a long shot, but we do have the upper hand.

False paradigm. See above.

Wait, briefly: I recommend the movie because it succinctly details what I already knew in 04 from many thousands of hours of research. I have vetted it FULLY before I said “it is true”. It IS true. But you’ll have to decide that for yourself, and it’s going to take some reading. Best of luck.

Be well.

“… Ron Paul voted AGAINST protecting gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits arising from the sale of their product – TWICE. … That’s three out of six. If you want to bring forth arguments as to reasons Paul may have been justified in so voting, so be it. You may even change my mind. Still, until you do, Ron Paul is 3 for 6 on conservative votes on gun control.”

His argument against lawsuit pre-emption is that it is not one of Congress’s Constitutionally enumerated powers to block lawsuits (I believe but am not sure that he used the same reasoning to vote against the waiting period). IMHO you can’t get much more conservative than that.

It is also a perfect example of voting principles *first*. Dr. Paul has shown over and over that he strongly favors gun rights as civil rights (he is one of the few legislators I am aware of who has actually introduced legislation to repeal existing bans, he also regularly introduces legislation to require that all states give ‘full faith and credit’ to CCW permits, the same way they do with driver’s licenses).

Peace.

I’d have to ask the candidate about the waiting period vote, but I assume that he wasn’t willing to vote for any legislation that included a waiting period, even if the waiting period in a particular piece of legislation was shorter than the existing waiting period. If you don’t believe that the federal government has the right to set ANY waiting period, you can’t vote for legislation that includes a 1 day waiting period, and the fact that this is an improvement on a 3 day waiting period doesn’t matter.

I also find the personal attacks on people who disagree with Ron Paul distasteful. I don’t want to defend personal attacks. I think one explanation for the attacks may be that a lot of Ron Paul supporters have not previously been politically active. They are very excited. They sense a change. They want to fight for this. Personal attacks should have no place in political discourse though. I’m sick and tired of people trying to demonize their political opponents.

Other than that, thank you for the article.

For example, was a vote for the Patriot Act a “conservative” vote? Not by any reasonable understanding of the word. When you decide, as you apparently have, that “conservative” and “authoritarian” are synonyms, your analysis is going to be flawed. How about a vote for the Military Commissions Act? A yes vote on that legislation can’t be a “conservative” vote unless you include a reactionary impulse to go back to before the Magna Carta as “conservative”. Since we aren’t going to agree on what the “real” conservative votes are, we aren’t going to agree on which candidate is most conservative.

Fred Thompson’s support of McCain-Feingold during his time in the Senate is in and of itself sufficient proof to me that Thompson is not now and has not ever been a conservative. It’s also proof that he shouldn’t be elected dogcatcher.

If you have any questions about how I defined “conservative”, please take the time to read the article.

Otherwise, you are just as much a nutjob as Ron Paul.

RWR