# ***



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

***


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

FreeIndeed said:


> www.ronpaul2008.com
> - basic info, articles, clips
> 
> 
> ...


Newsflash. Ron Paul dropped out.

Please post some of your thoughts instead of just spamming the forum with links that are simply advertisements.

Thanks

Ryan


----------



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

Forced out was more like it.

Get off your high horse. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it spam or an ad.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

if no one votes for you, you aren't forced out, you lost.

Ron Paul was an interesting candidate, and I liked a LOT of what he said. But he wanted to pull out of Iraq faster than we pushed in. And that is NOT an acceptable situation.

Just because you dont like the will of the Voter doesnt mean you need to get defensive.


----------



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

Very tough to assertain the will of the voters when a presidential candidate is given a media shut-out. Kind of like some would have it on this site, people deciding what can and cannot be heard/seen.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

FreeIndeed said:


> Very tough to assertain the will of the voters when a presidential candidate is given a media shut-out. Kind of like some would have it on this site, people deciding what can and cannot be heard/seen.


I agree, but Ryan's intent was that you have something to say, not just post another link. What did you think of what was said on the link. We do get a lot of spam where someone comes into one of the forms and posts a link. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm more interested in what you have to think than any link. I am more interested in your thoughts, than some blog.


----------



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

OK, Plainsman. Maybe you know R y a n 's intent but I did/do not. He wrote "Newsflash". He might as well have written "Duh" and then called me stupid. Welcome to NodakOutdoors.

I was fortunate someone told me about Ron Paul and some of the links I attempted to post. It really opened my eyes further. For me there are no decent candidates left 'in the race', republican or democrat.

I would have liked to talk to more people via the Hot Topics forum but my post was removed. I think everything Ron Paul stands for politically is a Hot Topic. Especially property rights issues, which the Hot Topics forum is flooded with.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Maybe you know R y a n 's intent but I did/do not.


 I guessed that so thought I would explain.



> For me there are no decent candidates left 'in the race', republican or democrat.


Ya, were going to have to vote for one of the three stooges left in the race. I don't like McCain, but what choice do I have? A liberal republican or a socialist isn't much of a choice.



> I would have liked to talk to more people via the Hot Topics forum but my post was removed. I think everything Ron Paul stands for politically is a Hot Topic.


Perhaps because we have a political form. Was it moved or deleted. I normally just move them to the political form. Sometimes if it is something like the second amendment and doesn't get into specific candidates I will leave it. I'm sure if you talk about landowner rights and not Ron Paul it would stay in Hot Topics.

By the way, welcome to nodakoutdoors.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

more on Dr. Paul and Senator Obama

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index. ... %20Zaleski



> *Obama will pack 'em in at the Alerus*
> Jack Zaleski,
> Published Sunday, March 23, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

I get it now. R y a n, as an Obama backer, is offended by Ron Paul posts. Of course he would be, RP is for freedom and Barack Hussein Obama is anti-freedom, anti-United States.

As far as spam goes, I posted links to articles, R y a n posts the entire article. ??????? Hmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

FreeIndeed said:


> I get it now. R y a n, as an Obama backer, is offended by Ron Paul posts. Of course he would be, RP is for freedom and Barack Hussein Obama is anti-freedom, anti-United States.
> 
> As far as spam goes, I posted links to articles, R y a n posts the entire article. ??????? Hmmmmmmmmm.


LOL welcome to the forum FreeIndeed.

I see you _now_ get my irony. Nice spin on freedom you have. It should be fun debating you in the future my friend.

If you need talking point, or examples of presenting a position on an issue, feel free to review my posting in here as of the last 6 months. I trust you'll find a couple examples.

I thought Ron Paul was a great candidate. I was actually a huge Ron Paul supporter. But I'm sure you've been around here long enough that you remember my stance on him right? Ohhh... I forgot. You've been here for 5 posts now..

His policies, (except his foreign policy folly) represented almost all the ideals I'd like to see in a candidate. You can find previous posts of mine that support him. I was frustrated when he didn't get a fair shake in the debates. But you see... for all his great policy platform stances, he lacked in certain key strategic areas that a president needs.

People loved Ron Paul's ideas, but cringed when they imagined him as a leader of this country. He doesn't have a "presence" or "stature" that we need our presidents to have. Presidents need to have a bearing and regalness to them. They represent our entire country in all matters foreign and domestic. The need to have both a physical bearing of authority, and an inspirational tenor when he speaks.

I listened to Ron Paul speak both during debates, and when he spoke off the cuff at various talk shows. I wanted to understand the man, his personality, and his general grasp and intellect of all the issues that face a president. When listening to him he didn't inspire my devotion. I didn't _*see*_ him as a leader.

I think many other potential supporters of his ideas couldn't get past his lack of presidential bearing. Being a president is much more than simply having an appealing platform.

Your position on Barack is ridiculous, short sighted and quite frankly dishonest. It hurts your credibility in debating any political topic concerning the presidential race when you start out here looking foolish for making such a statement.

Ron Paul was a news topic until he dropped out of the race. Now that he is gone I've moved on to debating those still in the race.

Or so it seems to me....

Ryan


----------



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

I have very few posts but have been reading the posts on here for over a year. Sorry to disappoint you though, I haven't kept a journal of what you have written. :roll:

However, your posts are usually as arrogant as you have been here. You started by calling me a liar, foolish, and stupid. Quite inaccurate and that says a lot about you.

Nice try on the RP sum-up. He received a mainstream media shut-out and still did better than many in several states. But that didn't even get reported. Quite an agenda the embarrassingly anti-american media has. It is obvious. It is why they have embraced equally anti-american Barack Hussein Obama. You can put up a fuss all you want but that won't make it untrue.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

FreeIndeed said:


> I have very few posts but have been reading the posts on here for over a year. Sorry to disappoint you though, I haven't kept a journal of what you have written. :roll:
> 
> However, your posts are usually as arrogant as you have been here. You started by calling me a liar, foolish, and stupid. Quite inaccurate and that says a lot about you.
> 
> Nice try on the RP sum-up. He received a mainstream media shut-out and still did better than many in several states. But that didn't even get reported. Quite an agenda the embarrassingly anti-american media has. It is obvious. It is why they have embraced equally anti-american Barack Hussein Obama. You can put up a fuss all you want but that won't make it untrue.


So you have been lurking here for a year before deciding to create a username and reply to any of these threads?

Sorry that doesn't fly. Based on your current rhetoric, and the fact that you are so strongly opinionated with your first few posts, and your demonstrated passion for Ron Paul, if you _*had*_ been lurking, you would have started posting before now, and more likely when RP was still a viable candidate. Your statement doesn't compare to your posting profile to this point.

In regards to my "assumptions".... I was simply referring to your saying:


FreeIndeed said:


> quote:
> RP is for freedom and Barack Hussein Obama is anti-freedom, anti-United States.


If you insist on making sweeping broad generalizations, then yes you do fit those categories. That is not arrogance. That is simply observing what you wrote and giving you my thoughts on it. Can you tell me what is "quite inaccurate" about my observation of your statement above? hmm?

My "sum up" of RP seems to be supported by a large cross section of the American public. Can all those people be wrong? Or is it only you and other RP supporters are right?

Arrogance indeed...


----------



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

Once again you called me a liar.

Is everybody who reads the posts but doesn't register and post for themselves a "lurker"? Get over yourself.

If you look back you will see, in talking to Plainsman, I wrote "I was fortunate someone told me about Ron Paul". I did not say when I found out about Ron Paul, did I?


----------



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

Plainsman,

One post was moved. One, as far as I know, was deleted.


----------



## goatspeed (Apr 9, 2007)

Gun Owner said:


> if no one votes for you, you aren't forced out, you lost.
> 
> Ron Paul was an interesting candidate, and I liked a LOT of what he said. But he wanted to pull out of Iraq faster than we pushed in. And that is NOT an acceptable situation.
> 
> Just because you dont like the will of the Voter doesnt mean you need to get defensive.


Ron Paul was the only guy addressing some really key issues like future Social Security insolvency and massive tax system changes. I really respected him for that. You had to respect his clear constitutional fundamentalism. We need that these days.

However, Ron Paul somehow missed all of the lessons learned in the first half of the 1900 in terms of foriegn policy. It's not even about Iraq, it's about isolationism. That's one fad that will never become fashionable again.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

I also liked some of what RP stood for, but I could not get past the Isolationism. It didn't work in 1917. It didn't work in 1942. We may get in trouble without it, but I think we get in way too much trouble with it. Wheather we like it or not, whether we think we can afford it or not, we are in a war with terrorism and we cannot afford hiding our heads in the sand at all. If we are going to be a world power, we cannot be isolationists. If we are going to be "Big Brother", then we have to do the job right, or not at all. I suspect we make mistakes in how we handle most things, but I think it is still better to do something than nothing. As for RP being blocked out by Media? I believe he more than made up for that through the internet. If he couldn't get his message out, how did he raise all that money on the internet?


----------



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

Isolationism.........you mean RPs plans to restore our sovereignty?

Something as vague as a 'war on terror' is *designed* to NEVER be over.

Let's see, if Hillary had all the media and Barack was completely shut out, or vice versa, do you think the race between them would be this close?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Since RP dropped out and it seems that Bob Barr is the sweetheart of the libertarians now. Where will he run?He would have to be on at least the top twenty electoral college to win the Presidency and we know he will not carry CA,FL,NY,IL,OH, or even his home state.

He is irrelevant as was his attempt to get the Rep nod for President. In two years the Truthers and Tin Foil hat wearers will still remember his run.

Others like myself will remember him as the person who inspired Gordon Kahl to attempt to take over a county as an independent state in ND and murdered US Marshals and caused a number of families to be torn apart!

To me I will remember his statement regarding the issues surrounding 9/11 and will not forgive him for his slander!

I will also remember him for his statements concerning one of our few true allies in the Middle East!

So listen to his sound bites but know the reason he is not fit to sit in the White House!


----------



## FreeIndeed (Feb 20, 2008)

WHAT?!?!?!?!?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Others like myself will remember him as the person who inspired Gordon Kahl to attempt to take over a county as an independent state in ND and murdered US Marshals and caused a number of families to be torn apart!


Ron Paul would have been a disaster in the White House in my opinion and I'm certainly glad he is no where near accomplishing that, but to tie him to Gordon Kahl's actions in a police roadblock shootout 25 years ago is ridiculous.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> > Others like myself will remember him as the person who inspired Gordon Kahl to attempt to take over a county as an independent state in ND and murdered US Marshals and caused a number of families to be torn apart!
> 
> 
> Ron Paul would have been a disaster in the White House in my opinion and I'm certainly glad he is no where near accomplishing that, but to tie him to Gordon Kahl's actions in a police roadblock shootout 25 years ago is ridiculous.


Instead of calling it ridiculous, check out the trial transcripts of the others who where convicted. Check out the books written about Kahl. Then come back and respond to my post!


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

FreeIndeed, you're right. "War on Terror" is indeed poorly defined, but I really don't want to get into an involved definition, and then try to defend that definition. Let me just give it a loose definition of people who have attacked or threatened the US or soverign US interests.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Instead of calling it ridiculous, check out the trial transcripts of the others who where convicted. Check out the books written about Kahl. Then come back and respond to my post!


Kahl started forming his opinion on the government shortly after WWII, long before Ron Paul was on the scene. Kahl without a doubt was a person with twisted ideas but I know enough about the incident and the guy that I need not your guidance to again say a tie to Ron Paul is ridiculously. Maybe you should talk to former Medina Police Officers Darrell Graf and Steve Schnabel. They were eye wittinesses to the account and have both testified the FBI story is false and fabricated. Does Waco and Ruby Ridge ring a bell? Your tie of the two men together is ridiculous but you are certainly entitled to your opinion just as I am.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

CWO, I will take the words of Doc Martin and others whom Kahl and Martin attempted to sway into forming the independent county. Doc delivered my niece, sewed up more than a couple nasty cuts I had and was a pretty good country doctor. He talked a lot about things with my Dad who told him more than once to stick to medicine because he was confused on the rest!!!!

I knew both of the police officers in Medina though to to the point I would not call them friends. I did have about an hour long talk with Darrel about 8-10 years ago and the subject did come up! I do remember him saying that he did not know as much as he once thought he did about what drove Kahl and his religious ideology until later!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron, I think you have a clear picture of it. I knew Doc Martin myself, and most of the law enforcement people. I also was sort of loaned to another federal agency for a short while. I did aerial photos of the crime scene, and aerial reconnaissance of places that were searched afterwards. Old Gordon was supposed to be a good shot so I used telephoto, shut off engines ten miles away, and glided over target areas at 10,000 feet. No armed stand off for me at 20 yards with two inch revolvers nope, nope, nope.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Plainsman twenty five years later many people tend to have a revisionist history of those events and what led up to them. Someday if your are interested, it would be interesting to compare notes on old Doc and the crew he was running with. I am sure you know some of the same people I did besides those mentioned.

Things I would rather not put in the public form as some of them finally woke up after that day!!!!!


----------

