This is a placeholder for now because I have not had ads on this blog for years. In case I ever start up again, this will be the policy in effect:
The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don't think we're getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you're stupid, too. I have had a few ads on this site in the past and may do so again if I think it's worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn't buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don't mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now--you're not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer.
About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents.
Comment House Rules
Keep them on topic. No spam. No threats against anyone except me. Do not feed trolls--I'll take out the trash. Try to keep it clean. I'm the final arbiter. If you don't like the rules, start your own damn blog.
Link Policy
WarOnGuns reciprocates links with liberty-oriented sites promoting the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable individuals. If you have linked to me and don't see your site below, it's probably just because I haven't noticed it yet. Shoot me an email via the "Contact Form" (see above in this sidebar) if you want to fix that.
As a general rule I remove links for blogs that have been inactive for over one year.
It would be very refreshing to have a President who actually cares about the Constitution. Mitt, Newt, and Obama would (or do)wipe their worthless asses with it. I agree with WWW, Newt or Mitt would just be more of the same shit we've been getting for at least the last three administrations.
Mittens and the Newt aren't my Idea of small govt advocates, but I don't like what Ron Paul is selling either. I want my President to guard the boarders and deal with our enemies in the world. I think Ron Paul is nuts.
A career Naval officer, a man whom I greatly respect both for his fidelity to the Constitution and his professional military expertise, thinks differently. My friend is a savvy, educated man, unclemike, and no naive ideologue.
Regardless of what Unclemike and others of that mindset believe - U.S. Taxpayers can no longer fund military bases in something like 170+ countries overseas - this country will be bankrupt soon from acting as arbitrary "defender of the world."
As for defending the borders, that's exactly what RP intends to do. May I suggest checking out Ron Paul's website and read his positions on the issues instead of listing to sound-bytes by Neocon Warmongers? May give folks a different view of RP's intentions.
My position is, I'm pretty tired of the lies tossed about by both mainstream party candidates. At least Ron Paul is consistent, and like him or not, folks know what they're actually getting with him.
"Regardless of what Unclemike and others of that mindset believe - U.S. Taxpayers can no longer fund military bases in something like 170+ countries overseas - this country will be bankrupt soon from acting as arbitrary "defender of the world."
OK, I'll go away, but first: I didn't say I wanted the U.S. to be defender of the world, I think I said something about defending the U.S. against it's enemies: we have been attacked within our borders. And I should have been more sensitive about saying ANYTHING negative about RP. It only invites flames.
No one told you to go away and no one flamed you. The only one doing ad hominem was you, who called a man nuts just on your say so. If you want to have the discussion, have the discussion. If you're going to pick up your ball and go home because people have different viewpoints, that's your choice.
7 comments:
The RINOs want business as usual. All their conservatism hype is lip service.
Dr. Paul IS electable if real supporters of conservatism and Constitutionalism will put their support and votes where their mouths are.
Otherwise all we're going to end up with is the same old $hit.
[W3]
It would be very refreshing to have a President who actually cares about the Constitution. Mitt, Newt, and Obama would (or do)wipe their worthless asses with it.
I agree with WWW, Newt or Mitt would just be more of the same shit we've been getting for at least the last three administrations.
Mittens and the Newt aren't my Idea of small govt advocates, but I don't like what Ron Paul is selling either. I want my President to guard the boarders and deal with our enemies in the world. I think Ron Paul is nuts.
A career Naval officer, a man whom I greatly respect both for his fidelity to the Constitution and his professional military expertise, thinks differently. My friend is a savvy, educated man, unclemike, and no naive ideologue.
Regardless of what Unclemike and others of that mindset believe - U.S. Taxpayers can no longer fund military bases in something like 170+ countries overseas - this country will be bankrupt soon from acting as arbitrary "defender of the world."
As for defending the borders, that's exactly what RP intends to do. May I suggest checking out Ron Paul's website and read his positions on the issues instead of listing to sound-bytes by Neocon Warmongers? May give folks a different view of RP's intentions.
My position is, I'm pretty tired of the lies tossed about by both mainstream party candidates. At least Ron Paul is consistent, and like him or not, folks know what they're actually getting with him.
"Regardless of what Unclemike and others of that mindset believe - U.S. Taxpayers can no longer fund military bases in something like 170+ countries overseas - this country will be bankrupt soon from acting as arbitrary "defender of the world."
OK, I'll go away, but first: I didn't say I wanted the U.S. to be defender of the world, I think I said something about defending the U.S. against it's enemies: we have been attacked within our borders. And I should have been more sensitive about saying ANYTHING negative about RP. It only invites flames.
No one told you to go away and no one flamed you. The only one doing ad hominem was you, who called a man nuts just on your say so. If you want to have the discussion, have the discussion. If you're going to pick up your ball and go home because people have different viewpoints, that's your choice.
Post a Comment