Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 502

Thread: Trump Bans Bump Stocks

  1. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Wonder how ole Justin Raimondo is doing over at anti-war.com. I quit paying attention to him after he threw his support to Trump in the face of everything Trump said he would do during the election and then went on to do it.
    He has cancer.

    https://www.antiwar.com/

    And what Trump was saying during his campaign was that he was planning on defeating ISIS and then toning down our foreign policy, so it makes sense that Justin would have supported him over Hillary.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post

    So one could say sure I am the victim, this forum is the victim and so is Rand. Further how far did your efforts here go to drive supporters from the forum? So perhaps one could say the entire country is the victim for you torpedoing the grassroots to help Rand get elected.
    How far did it go towards driving Trump supporters, a candidate that our own forum regarded as not a liberty candidate, that continued to push for him away? Not near enough.

  4. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    How is it self-defense...?
    I added the question mark, since you didn't. Clearly you don't want to hear the answer, or you wouldn't have made a statement disguised as a question. But here it is anyway.

    You spammed for one candidate on a forum dedicated to another candidate. And, no, prefacing your spam with a disclaimer that this (incessant criticism of "your first choice" notwithstanding) is your "second choice" you're spamming doesn't make the spam any less aggressive. That is an act of aggression, and self-defense is justified.

    Your entire wall of text was built on one arch, and the NAP was the keystone of that arch. And since the NAP doesn't apply, your whole argument is dust and rubble at our feet. And there it is.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-22-2018 at 07:04 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.

  5. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    How far did it go towards driving Trump supporters, a candidate that our own forum regarded as not a liberty candidate, that continued to push for him away? Not near enough.
    This was before there were any Trump supporters here. It was simply people discussing policy and out of 17 candidates running some like myself saying probably Trump would be second choice if no 3rd party option.
    Last edited by kahless; 02-22-2018 at 07:41 PM.

  6. #215
    This could be just start, Jarvanka may push for much more agressive gun control as Trump expresses more willingness to "take the heat" from GOP bases as he stated in last controversial meeting with Congress leaders. Jarvanak may prefer that only cops have guns when they go evict or arrest peoples who are late on their rents.

    Md. lawmaker proposes ‘Jared Kushner Act’ to protect delinquent tenants

  7. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    He has cancer.

    https://www.antiwar.com/

    And what Trump was saying during his campaign was that he was planning on defeating ISIS and then toning down our foreign policy, so it makes sense that Justin would have supported him over Hillary.
    Well, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But, I'm not going to give that site a click. And I know well what Trump said. And what he has done. And I still don't buy in to your false dichotomy between Trump and Hillary. He's a populist. So was Hillary.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    This was before there were any supporters here. It was simply people discussing policy and out of 17 candidates running some like myself saying probably Trump would be second choice if no 3rd party option.
    Well, at least you got the runner up trophy as a liberty supporter. Everyone should get a trophy.

  10. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Well, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But, I'm not going to give that site a click. And I know well what Trump said. And what he has done. And I still don't buy in to your false dichotomy between Trump and Hillary. He's a populist. So was Hillary.
    And he was supporting Trump in the primary, before a single vote was cast (i.e. it was Trump over Rand, not Trump over Hillary).

    Anyway, yea, cancer, which is unfortunate, but I'm done with him politically: same with Woods and Rockwell.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  11. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    I added the question mark, since you didn't. Clearly you don't want to hear the answer, or you wouldn't have made a statement disguised as a question. But here it is anyway.

    You spammed for one candidate on a forum dedicated to another candidate. That is an act of aggression, and self-defense is justified.

    Your entire wall of text was built on one arch, and the NAP was the keystone of that arch. And since the NAP doesn't apply, your whole argument is dust and rubble at our feet. And there it is.
    NAP applies since this was before I posted anything about Trump and I was still working offline to get support for Rand.

  12. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    NAP applies since this was before I posted anything about Trump and I was still working offline to get support for Rand.
    There is no 'before you posted anything about Trump.' Hell, you were already posting threads about Trump in August of 2015.

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    FNC opens 7pm hour with live press conference of Trump bashing Rand Paul for 3 minutes straight.

    - Rand weak on the military at a time we really need a strong president.
    - Rand responsible for not taking care of our vets.
    - Rand hypocrite, comes to me, takes my money and now only bashing me since he is down in the polls.
    - Perry and Graham attacked me and lost all their polling points, same will happen to Rand.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.

  13. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    There is no 'before you posted anything about Trump.' Hell, you were already posting threads about Trump in August of 2015.
    You are pathological liar since your all out assault started this in early July 2015 when I was working grassroots offline.

    As far as the quote you just posted, we always report any mentions of Rand/Ron by the news media and other candidates. We have done that here since 2007 and you know that.

  14. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    You are pathological liar since your all out assault started this in early July 2015 when I was working grassroots offline.
    I notice you haven't posted any links to whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    As far as the quote you just posted, we always report any mentions of Rand/Ron by the news media and other candidates. We have done that here since 2007 and you know that.
    We weren't generally in the habit of saying they're more logical choices for anti-establishment voters.

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianne View Post
    Trump's objective is to get Rand out, for the sake of Hillary and Jeb . And Rand fell right into his trap.
    That could be the end result if he does not make it. If Trump was not in the race the most logical choice for the anti-establishment votes would have went to Rand.
    Who is the pathological liar here, Mr. I Never Start The Personal Insults? Are we accusing everyone else of our own sins yet again, for the umpteenth time in this thread alone?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-22-2018 at 07:51 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.

  15. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Who is the pathological liar here, Mr. I Never Start The Personal Insults? Are we accusing everyone else of our own sins yet again, for the umpteenth time in this thread alone?
    "That could be the end result if <RAND> does not make it."

    You quoted me saying the most logical choice for the anti-establishment votes is Rand Paul. Right and I stand by that.

    If you want to misconstrue that then again that post is dated 8-15-2015. You violated NAP with that all out war around 7-15-2015.

    Where are the insults other than you continuing to spread lies and me calling you out on them?

  16. #224
    Nice to know you stand by the statement that IF Trump were not in the race THEN Rand would be the anti-establishment choice. An interesting statement, coming from someone who was just complaining that (as predicted) Trump has, for all intents and purposes, turned into a clone of Dubya.

    So, is that it? Trump has been in the limelight since the 1980s, but you never heard of him until late July or early August of 2015. And at some point just before that, you were having an unspecified civil conversation with unspecified persons, and I popped up and inflicted an unspecified rudeness upon you. In so doing, I turned three quarters of the forum and half the country against Rand Paul. And while you have not a shred of proof, we should all take your word for it.

    Did I miss any relevant points in this irrefutable argument?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-22-2018 at 08:53 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    So, is that it? Trump has been in the limelight since the 1980s, but you never heard of him until late July or early August of 2015. And at some point just before that, you were having an unspecified civil conversation with unspecified persons, and I popped up and inflicted an unspecified rudeness upon you. In so doing, I turned three quarters of the forum and half the country against Rand Paul. And while you have not a shred of proof, we should all take your word for it.

    Did I miss any relevant points in this irrefutable argument?
    Yeah, I just imagined assuring people it was okay to post here and demonstrated to them by posting their concerns in the Philosophy Forum in early July 2015. After posting here 8 years without issue I would have expected a reasonable response as usual. Then your politician friend who I believe was drunk that Saturday night had a hissy fit about my concerns, went ballistic which was immediately followed by your campaign against me in support of that. This included you changing your forum signature, attacks in rep system and attacks every time I posted. Of course met with 4-5 others in support of your false claims and his.

    People I directed to this forum and forum members that no longer post were appalled by it as well as your behavior that still continues 3 years later. So I do not have to prove $#@! since you are still an $#@!. Many of these threads are gone now anyway.

    Now why would I bring this up, you would think it is ancient history, let it go. Obviously some here cannot let it go since these bull$#@! lies are thrown back in my face every time I post.

    You want to pull out threads that happened after that you consider insults, then you and whatever other $#@! had it coming.
    Last edited by kahless; 02-22-2018 at 08:35 PM.

  19. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    So I do not have to prove $#@! since you are still an $#@!.
    I see. And so I am personally responsible for you spamming the snot out of this forum in favor of Trump.

    Well. When does this fairy tale get to they lived happily ever after?

    Edit: Took you long enough to get around to the neg rep. And back at you.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-22-2018 at 08:44 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.

  20. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    summer 2012 - summer 2015: "Rand's 99% libertarian record isn't good enough, he endorsed Romney after Ron dropped out, purity or bust!!
    Not sure I want to re-visit this train wreck, but I have to set the record straight.

    This is untrue.

    Ron was still actively campaigning, and collecting donations, when Rand endorsed Mittens.

  21. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Not sure I want to re-visit this train wreck, but I have to set the record straight.

    This is untrue.

    Ron was still actively campaigning, and collecting donations, when Rand endorsed Mittens.
    True. But Romney had secured the nomination more than a week before. Ron had lost, and was being encouraged to continue for educational purposes, and in the hope he could wrangle a speaking slot at the convention.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.

  22. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Not sure I want to re-visit this train wreck, but I have to set the record straight.

    This is untrue.

    Ron was still actively campaigning, and collecting donations, when Rand endorsed Mittens.
    And that money is still being spent, and not to elect Ron President. But that's another can of worms.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  23. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    True. But Romney had secured the nomination more than a week before. Ron had lost, and was being encouraged to continue for educational purposes, and in the hope he could wrangle a speaking slot at the convention.
    In hindsight it would have been best for the movement if the campaign had been more clear. Drop out completely or not at all, don't half ass it. But they still wanted delegates for good reason, and contributions for mixed reasons. I think the confusion caused more hurt then help by far overall.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  24. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Not sure I want to re-visit this train wreck, but I have to set the record straight.

    This is untrue.

    Ron was still actively campaigning, and collecting donations, when Rand endorsed Mittens.
    Not exactly- at least according to this:

    Rand Paul endorses Romney
    By ALEXANDER BURNS 06/07/2012 09:47 PM EDT
    File this under signs the Ron Paul campaign is really, truly over: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul threw his support tonight to Mitt Romney.

    The endorsement came in an appearance on "Hannity," a little less than 24 hours after the elder Paul acknowledged in an email that his delegate total is "not enough to win the nomination."
    https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...-romney-125624
    There is no spoon.

  25. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Not sure I want to re-visit this train wreck, but I have to set the record straight.

    This is untrue.

    Ron was still actively campaigning, and collecting donations, when Rand endorsed Mittens.
    And though Rand supporters may have criticized him for it the majotiry that believed and walked with his father never threw him under the bus and supported Trump because of it.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Not exactly- at least according to this:



    https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...-romney-125624
    Well, yeah, what AF said was incomplete, but it was exactly accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    And though Rand supporters may have criticized him for it the majotiry that believed and walked with his father never threw him under the bus and supported Trump because of it.
    The overwhelming majority. They didn't spam the forum with "second choices" until Rand himself dropped out.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-22-2018 at 09:29 PM. Reason: Emphasis added
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.

  28. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Well, yeah, what AF said was incomplete, but it was exactly accurate.



    The overwhelming majority. They didn't spam the forum with "second choices" until Rand himself dropped out.
    They talked about the second choice before Iowa. I never did get to cast my vote in Nevada because Rand's funding dried up. You can't compete with billions of dollars of free TV that Trump got in the primaries. Plus his spammers were funded by John Bolton's political thinktank, they originally worked on Cruz's team and bragged about their strategy to get the Ron Paul vote. Even John Bolton knew the Ron Paul vote would win the general election. That's why Rand said the political accomplishment that he was most proud of was making sure John Bolton wasn't SOS. That was Rand Paul's $#@! you to him.

  29. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Well, yeah, what AF said was incomplete, but it was exactly accurate.

    The overwhelming majority. They didn't spam the forum with "second choices" until Rand himself dropped out.
    wtf do you care if people had Trump as a second choice. Who the $#@! are you to say who is allowed to have second choice. Why did it even matter if Trump was a second choice while Rand was still in, he was still a 2nd choice.

    Like I said in the other thread no doubt any spamming was payback for the behavior of obnoxious $#@!s like yourself over the 2nd choice burn people at the stake Neocon witch hunt.

  30. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    They talked about the second choice before Iowa. I never did get to cast my vote in Nevada because Rand's funding dried up. You can't compete with billions of dollars of free TV that Trump got in the primaries. Plus his spammers were funded by John Bolton's political thinktank, they originally worked on Cruz's team and bragged about their strategy to get the Ron Paul vote. Even John Bolton knew the Ron Paul vote would win the general election. That's why Rand said the political accomplishment that he was most proud of was making sure John Bolton wasn't SOS. That was Rand Paul's $#@! you to him.
    The spammers certainly did, yes. That they did.

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    wtf do you care if people had Trump as a second choice. Who the $#@! are you to say who is allowed to have second choice. Why did it even matter if Trump was a second choice while Rand was still in, he was still a 2nd choice.

    Like I said in the other thread no doubt any spamming was payback for the behavior of obnoxious $#@!s like yourself over the 2nd choice burn people at the stake Neocon witch hunt.
    Ah, but of course. John Bolton's Millions had nothing to do with it. "Second choice" spamming prior to Iowa was all innocent and ineffective, and Bolton never actually got his money's worth. Rand Paul lost simply because acptulsa was, at some unspecified point in history, mean to kahless.

    There couldn't be a shadow of doubt.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-22-2018 at 09:34 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.

  31. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    The spammers certainly did, yes. That they did.

    Ah, but of course. John Bolton's Millions had nothing to do with it. "Second choice" spamming prior to Iowa was all innocent and ineffective, and Bolton never actually got his money's worth. Rand Paul lost simply because acptulsa was, at some unspecified point in history, mean to kahless.

    There couldn't be a shadow of doubt.
    I never inferred that but you rather than assist in helping Rand or sit on the sidelines your actions and the actions of others that followed your lead damaged the grassroots efforts here instead. 3 years on your still a dick every time I post.
    Last edited by kahless; 02-22-2018 at 09:50 PM.

  32. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    I never inferred that but you rather than assist in helping Rand or sit on the sidelines your actions and the actions of others that followed your lead damaged the grassroots efforts here instead. 3 years on your still a dick every time I post.
    Ah, yes. Allowing Bolton's Trump trolls to run rampant over this site clearly would have secured Rand Paul the nomination. It's all so clear.

    Step One: Allow Bolton's Troll Army to spam randpaulforums.com for Trump.

    Step Two: ???

    Step Three: Victory over the Deep State!

    How could I be so foolish?
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.

  33. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Ah, yes. Allowing Bolton's Trump trolls to run rampant over this site clearly would have secured Rand Paul the nomination. It's all so clear.

    Step One: Allow Bolton's Troll Army to spam randpaulforums.com for Trump.

    Step Two: ???

    Step Three: Victory over the Deep State!

    How could I be so foolish?
    wtf does Bolton have to do with anything. You are delusional.

  34. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    They talked about the second choice before Iowa. I never did get to cast my vote in Nevada because Rand's funding dried up. You can't compete with billions of dollars of free TV that Trump got in the primaries. Plus his spammers were funded by John Bolton's political thinktank, they originally worked on Cruz's team and bragged about their strategy to get the Ron Paul vote. Even John Bolton knew the Ron Paul vote would win the general election. That's why Rand said the political accomplishment that he was most proud of was making sure John Bolton wasn't SOS. That was Rand Paul's $#@! you to him.
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    wtf does Bolton have to do with anything. You are delusional.
    Either that, or you can't (or don't) read.

    Haven't you had enough yet? Because you aren't digging your way out if that hole, and you've ceased to be amusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. ATF taking comments on Bump Fire Stocks
    By Intoxiklown in forum Personal Security & Defense
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-17-2018, 07:50 PM
  2. DOJ, ATF Announce Plan to Review Legal Status of Bump-Fire Stocks
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 04:26 PM
  3. Massachusetts Becomes 1st State To Ban Bump Stocks
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-06-2017, 06:07 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-04-2017, 09:51 AM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-09-2017, 07:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •