Bush v. Kerry, One man's thoughts.

A

alan

New member
I don't know what the truth of Senator Kerry's performance in Vietnam is. There seems to be, to use a polite term, a difference of opinion on this matter. I do not know whether Kerry, if elected, would turn out to be another Tax and Spend Democrat. Are the Republicans any better might be a good question. There are a number of questions re Kerry, that I do not have answers for.

As for President Bush, his "born again" business, quite frankly annoys me, as does what seems to be his harping on religion (Faith Based Initiatives). I find his anti abortion position troubling. His economic policies are another question, as are his actions in taking the country into a war, where lack of planning seems to have been the hallmark of things.

Having said what has been said, Kerry The Hunter is not credible, nor does such characterization of the man impress me in the slightest. I'm not a hunter in any case, hunting like golf is something that never really interested me. If it turned out to be a question of hunt or go hungry, I would hunt, otherwise I don't bother with it. While I shoot in competition, essentially I own firearms for one reason, personal protection, ergo my comments on hunting.

Bush earlier stated that he would sign reauthorization of The Assault Weapons Ban, "if it got to his desk". This never sat particularly well with me, for it sounded then, and still does, like double-talk. Kerry has clearly indicated his support for reauthorization or broadening of the Assault Weapons Ban. He has also voted in opposition to gun rights, which in my opinion, are basic civil rights.

While I'm less than happy with George Bush, his father, in some respects, was no bargain either, Kerry is, in simplest terms, anathema, based on his statements and voting record respecting firearms. Any who might criticize my position as being "single issue", overly narrow or just something that they don't like, may have at it. They can vote as they choose. For those who care about gun rights however, a vote for Kerry appears to be the equivalent of that "self inflicted wound."
 
So you're voting for Bush even though he's a traitor who doesn't understand the Constitution?

Gee, that's a great long-term strategy to uphold our rights. :rolleyes:
If you and most of the rest of the Republican apologists keep that up, the RKBA will be the least of our worries.
 
If anyone believes half of what Kerry says and votes for him, they deserve what they will get....

Im sticking with Bush, the lesser of two evils...
 
Tyme:

Please take another look at my post. I thought that I'd made clear the fact that neither Mutt nor Jeff set my heart on fire. Bush certainly has a large share of "warts", some of which I mentioned, though I likely could have come up with a longer list.

Regarding firearms, and I thought that this was certainly clarified, voting for Kerry is, it strikes me, equivalent to shooting oneself, ergo reference to a "self inflicted wound".

You said that Bush doesn't understand The Constitution. You weren't particularly specific re that, though I think I can follow your line of thought, however re Kerry and The Constitution, what do you think his understanding thereof might be? Do you really trust him, and regarding whatever portions of The Constitution you place particular value in, think that they would be safe in his hands, were he elected to the presidency?

In the last analysis, it strikes me that the fact that our political system cannot come up with, considering the office involved, something better than "Mutt and Jeff" strikes me as more than a little sad. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case, so barring some unexpected developments, it looks as if Bush is my choice. My wife tells me that I'm nuts, but she and I disagree on a number of things.
 
Both have demonstrated a complete disregard for the Constitution, and their policies are not so different. That's why I'm voting LP.

The highpoint of Bush's oath-violating term was his signing McCain-Feingold while admitting on the record that it was probably unconstitutional.

Kerry, well, he's only one vote among 100. However, he missed 80% of Senate votes this year through July. He's been careful to attend votes on anti-gun legislation, and his voting record on guns alone indicates that he long ago used the last shred of the constitution as toilet paper.

What is your goal, to survive another four years, or to do your part to make a statement that will change the orientation of political parties, perhaps not this election but maybe after the next 2 or 4?

I'm not arguing about their RKBA policies. In shades of gray, Bush is probably a little better than Kerry, domestically at least. After all, Bush supports things like a junk firearm-lawsuit ban, while Kerry doesn't. Kerry is more likely to push congress for some more firearm or ammunition regulation. But to be honest, I hate Emperor George I's "non-sporting" assault weapon import ban more than I hate the 1994 AWB. Both Bush and Kerry are terrible for the RKBA.

There are innumerable opinions put out by the BATFE that George II could change without Congressional interference, if he wanted to. Obviously, he doesn't. Those opinions comprise some of the most obnoxious aspects of firearm regulation in this country (ignoring occupied territories like CA and NJ, which have terrible State laws). For instance, we have the BATFE's opinion that only Colt AR-15s that were assault weapons after the ban retain their pre-ban status after being configured as a non-AW. We have their crusade to prevent people without storefronts from getting FFLs other than C&Rs.

What has the DoJ done to support the individual right theory of the 2nd amendment? Ashcroft's lip-service provides no support while giving anti-gun advocates something to whine about. U.S. vs Emerson was weak and nebulous. If Ashcroft is serious about the individual rights interpretation, where are the lawsuits? Ashcroft is more than happy to get involved on the wrong side of the California medical marijuana issue, and on the wrong side of the pornography issue. But guns? He won't touch gun cases with a 10-foot, insulated, sand-filled pole.

Bush's administration is all talk when it comes to firearms rights. Sure, it looks like they're letting the AWB expire, but so what? It's a cheap win for the administration because they don't have to do anything. When it comes to anything else, Bush is not on our side. Apathy is sometimes just as bad as malice.
 
I would simply choose not to vote before I would waste a vote.

But I am not really into great useless symbolic acts.

I notice you don't sing the praises of the libertarian candidate....other than he is not GWB or JFK :confused:
 
In my opinion we have just about hit bottom in candidates fit for elective office. I really don't believe anything said by any of the partys candidates. I'm also not a single issue citizen. They may stand great on one but be a total pooch screw on everything else. If ever there was a time and place for None of the Above on the ballot it is now.
 
What is your goal, to survive another four years, or to do your part to make a statement that will change the orientation of political parties, perhaps not this election but maybe after the next 2 or 4?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I favor a strategy where we concede the next 8-16 years to the greater of two evils in hopes that the orientation of the two major parties will change for the positive. From my perspective, it looks like the LP has had 30 years to implement that strategy and we can all see the results of that today.

I think the LP could sell itself much better if it had a clearly stated goal and a rational plan to achieve that goal. From my perspective so far, the strategy seems to be to show up only during Presidential elections and make passionate arguments that voting for the LP might affect the two major parties at some undisclosed future time.

I once went and added up the percentage of the vote received by the LP in every single Presidential election since 1972. If I added the total percentage of the vote they received all into one single number, they still fell far short of what they needed to achieve matching federal funds and barely exceeded what the Green party managed to achieve with Nader in 2000.

Numbers like that make me very skeptical of the idea often promoted that if people who liked Libertarian ideas would just vote Libertarian, the LP would win. I don't see any actual hard evidence to support that contention.

If the LP ever plans to amount to anything in the national elections, they need to start working now for 2008 to convince people that they are not just an also-ran protest vote party. It is too late for 2004.
 
I know one thing in that not voting or voting for another party is a vote for kerry. that in itself should be enough to vote for Bush. Bush ain't perfect but there isn't alternative when one party has kerry , kennedy , hilary , schumer ,feinstein and boxer. those names should scare the hell out of every gun owner out there.
 
My opinion:

If you're in a state thats going to go overwhelmingly one way or the other, go ahead and vote third party. It will give you your clear conscious, and won't really affect the election.

If, however, your in one of the 'battleground' states, as I am, I don;t think a vote for anyone but Bush is really appropriate.
 
Ya' know, I really think one of the LP's major problems is the drug legalization issue (BTW, I happen to agree with their position) - the first thing the average person thinks of when they hear LP is, "Oh yeah - the marijuana party." And, of course, your average LPer launches into a passionate discourse on why it's the right position. But your audience is already lost. The LP needs to expend a lot more effort on private property rights, taxation, and a variety of other issues if they hope to gain a real foot hold. Just MHO...
 
I'll get flamed for this, but so what?
I vote for the candidate that can clearly demonstrate on the most points that he/she is probably (?) honest, . . . or at least more honest than the opponent.
That said:
Kerry-left VietNam under at best, questionable circumstances: became an absolute turncoat to the constitution he had previously sworn to uphold while he was still on active duty. And yes, I am a VietNam vet, . . . 27 months, . . . 3 tours (one tour in IV corps, where Kerry "witnessed" so many attorcities): I never, NEVER, saw, participated in, heard of, read of, passed by, got invited to, etc. ANY of the "atrocities" Kerry testified to before congress. My 27 months experience categorically and emphatically calls him a liar. He categorically votes against guns and for abortion. He would not allow jobs to go overseas, . . . but his wife has sent several factories over there.

Bush-did not serve in VietNam, used the Air National Guard to avoid draft and VietNam. Has publicly stated his opposition to abortion, and has not been involved in any anti-gun legislation that I am aware of. Only jobs I know he sent overseas were the GI's we have out there breaking the backs of the rug head terrorists who have tried through the last 25 years to destroy us.

Seems like a shoo in for Bush to me, . . . but I only have one vote.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
"A vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Kerry."

That is simply wrong, and I'm sick of hearing it. A vote for a 3rd party can have positive long-term political consequences that a vote for Kerry doesn't. Furthermore, a vote for a 3rd party, at worst, is only half as bad as a vote for Kerry. A switch from R to D causes a net change of -1 R / +1 D. A switch from R to Lib. only results in -1 R. The Dems don't get an extra vote. Similarly, not voting at all is only half as bad as a vote for Kerry.

If you're going to spread pro-Republican rhetoric, at least make it factually correct.

Dwight55, Why don't you support the Constitution party?

People voting Republican seem overly concerned about making excuses for Bush. What ever happened to principles and integrity as absolutes?
 
I know one thing in that not voting or voting for another party is a vote for kerry. that in itself should be enough to vote for Bush. Bush ain't perfect but there isn't alternative when one party has kerry , kennedy , hilary , schumer ,feinstein and boxer. those names should scare the hell out of every gun owner out there.
Click to expand...

AMEN!

Voting for a third party is like pissin' in the wind. It's a wasted vote, especially in 2004 which is the current battle, not down the road. :rolleyes:

There's a lot I don't like about Bush but there's NOT one thing I like about Kerry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top