Bush's Skeleton Closet : DUHbya Avoids Vietnam

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JCH:
Sorry, but I've got to say that at this point we must do whatever it takes to keep the Democrats out of office. I think that we will be going to H@ll in a hand basket if we take that road again. I realize that this is only my opinion and that is all I'll say about it.

[/quote]

Is there anyone out there who disagrees with this opinion? (Randy - take a deep breath, take a drive, take a valium, WHATEVER!) We need to nip this thing before another 4 years go by. Sure, I agree with a lot of the Libertarian platform, and the Constitution Party, as well. But I'm not planning to win the lottery, and that's about what putting your money on those parties amounts to. Let's try to fix what's broken, not create a new monster...
 
Why does dodging the draft make someone look bad? What the hell is up with that. The draft is as unamerican as communism. In fact, it really is communism. It's saying, go fight or we will punish you. What a bunch of crap, if the country doesn't want to fight a war they shouldn't have to. Why should anyone be criticized for not going and doing something they didn't believe in? That said, people who spit on those guys coming back were total idiots and should have been beaten for their ignorant hatreds.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 
For those who think we ought to go with Buchanan or Brown, consider this:

Brown will lose. Guaranteed.

Buchanan is a psychopath with rather disturbing tendencies towards anti-semitism. As a result, he will lose as well.

Vote third party; elect Al Gore!
 
Rigby: Your "someone who has signed concealed carry laws, upheld the death penalty, stopped anti-gunmaker lawsuits in his state", is, based on the stands he takes in his own web site, more anti-gun than anyone who ever got elected prior to Clinton, and about as anti-gun as Clinton admitted to being before he took office. He supports the "Assault weapons" ban, wants to strip those 18-21 of the right to own handguns, and wants to extend the Brady check/registration to all private gun purchases.

This isn't to say that he isn't, in the context of a race including Al Gore, the lesser of two evils. But that's ALL he is; A lesser EVIL, not quite as much of an ENEMY, someone who will BETRAY his oath of office less... How our standards have slipped, that we're supposed to be enthusiastic about a candidate who's promising to give us more gun control, and defend what's already been enacted against efforts to repeal it!

The best I can say about Bush, and barring his becoming even more anti-gun than he already is, it's enough: Crushing our rights won't be a priority in his administration, the way it would be in Gore's. Sadly, restoring them won't be on the agenda, either.

I take that back; I can think of one other plus for Bush: He's not anti-gun out of personal conviction, but just out of political calculation, just as he was pro-gun in Texas out of political calculation. It MIGHT be posible to persuade him that he did his math wrong, and that being pro-gun was the politically smart thing to do.


------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!



[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited July 06, 2000).]
 
Well I would be willing to bet that things were the same 30 years ago as they are today. The child or close relative of any political figure in an elected office can not serve in combat. I can't find a source on this but I had been told that when I was in the Army. If memory serves, they can't do so because of the POW risk factor. The last thing America needs is to have an American POW in our enemy's hands with some Senator having to change his decisions on military operations due to a conflict of interests.

Please tell me if I'm wrong here, but I know when I joined that I was asked if I had any relatives in an elected office.

If this is true, then this is a dead issue. It sounds like Bush did what he could under the circumstances.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brett Bellmore:
How our standards have slipped, that we're supposed to be enthusiastic about a candidate who's promising to give us more gun control, and defend what's already been enacted against efforts to repeal it!
[/quote]

Brett,

Given that we are already well on the way to a real,live fascist police state in the US, how is voting for Bush going to change that?

You said yourself that you do not believe that he will restore any rights that have been infringed during the latest administration.

No folks, do not fool yourselves.

All you are doing by voting G.W. Bush into the executive office is to further the agenda of those monied interests who put him there in the first place.

Don't take my word at face value:

Listen to what he says.

Watch what he does.

Then ask yourself a question: Would such a person as this, be electable twenty years ago?

Thirty years ago?

Fourty years ago?

Fifty years ago?

No, you know in your hearts that neither one of these scoundrels, Gore or Bush, should be the next Commander-in-Chief of the US.

And yet you are going to vote for plainly unqualified men, to be the chief executive of the USA?

Give me a break. Or at least be honest Gentlemen (and Ladies).

The ONLY reason most of you are going to vote for "DUHbya", is the "Anyone But Gore" principal.

That is not good enough for me in 2000.

A vote for a little less fascism, is still a vote for fascism.

If you wish to change things as they are, you are going to have to take a risk, just as the the Founders did 225 years ago.

Voting a Democrat or even a Republican candidate for President is not going to bring a change back to a constitutional Republic.

There is only one party that promises to do that, the Libertarian Party.

All you are doing here is voting in short term "solution" for a long term-problem, shouldering the burden of American fascism onto younger generations of Americans.

Many of you know that I speak the truth.

Vote Harry Brown for President in 2000!
 
The story is true. I read it in the Houston Chronicle about four months ago. SO WHAT?
Can anyone tell me of anyone who was jumping at the chance to go to Viet Nam except a few captains looking for another punch on their career ticket? I would've done all possible to avoid Viet Nam. There is nothing as sorry as a person who relishes going to war, especially a war as unconstitutional as Viet Nam. I'm glad we had those who answered the call when the call came, but I don't think that you can fault someone who went NG instead of AF or RA. I think the draft should be outlawed, and if a war is really in the best interests of the nation, you will see the recruiting offices swell when men are needed. Not when the govt. wants to piss around in a country with no clear objectives.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Randy Davis:
Brett,

Given that we are already well on the way to a real,live fascist police state in the US, how is voting for Bush going to change that?[/quote]

And how is voting for an avowed loser going to change it? Harry Brown admits that the Libertarian party will likely not elect a President until at least the end of the decade. This country will not survive as we know it waiting 10 years for your Prince Charming to come along.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...he will [not] restore any rights that have been infringed during the latest administration.[/quote]

I can live for another four years like this, if no more rights are taken away; which would surely happen under President Gore.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Would such a person as this, be electable twenty years ago?

Thirty years ago?

Fourty years ago?

Fifty years ago?

No, you know in your hearts that neither one of these scoundrels, Gore or Bush, should be the next Commander-in-Chief of the US.[/quote]

And oh, by the way, while I like the Libertarian philosophies, I've seen no evidence that Brown is any better qualified to be C-in-C.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Give me a break. Or at least be honest Gentlemen (and Ladies).

The ONLY reason most of you are going to vote for "DUHbya", is the "Anyone But Gore" principal.[/quote]

Okay, given that's true. A) The "lesser of two evils" is not always a terrible thing, and B) you would have US believe that you're not "anybody who's Libertarian"?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> That is not good enough for me in 2000.

A vote for a little less fascism, is still a vote for fascism. [/quote]

A vote for a little less reality in 2000 is still a vote for a little less reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Many of you know that I speak the truth. [/quote]

If the truth is, you want four more years of Clinton/Gore, it's your truth, and you're welcome to it. Me, I'll circle the wagons for four years.

------------------
Scott

When A annoys or injures B on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited July 07, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited July 07, 2000).]
 
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill

I just like this quote, Randy; it's got nothing to do with you. Really.

------------------
Scott

When A annoys or injures B on the pretext of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. - H. L. Mencken
 
Just look at Bush's daughters! That's reason enough to vote for him. I want to see them in the news at least once a week!!! ;)

Joel
 
Hey, Randy Davis ... you're really Alan Hampton ... right? Come on now ... right? Jees, you have to be a moron to not understand voting for a non-electable candidate (Brown) is just throwing your vote away. algored is going to look at all the third party votes and change his agenda (or what ever drives his imbecility) ... right? There are plenty of other really Liberterian (or however they spell that) sites who would appreciate your views. What we need is to elect someone who will at least hold the line on the 2nd Amendment and hopefully appoint some conservative SC justices during their reign. My last note on this subject. Hey, mr moderator ... you need to close this thread. It ain't gonna change Davis' mind!
 
Bush bad news.
Gore extremely bad news.

Any politician with enough clout to get elected has already sold his soul to get that clout.
I will vote my conscience at all levels except the presidency. There I must go with Bush just to keep from getting Gored.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
I'm having a bit of a memory block just now, but can any of you tell me how many consecutive days Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln or John Adams spent in uniform?



------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
USP45,

Not only are you having a memory block, but you've got to do something about that sticky trigger finger! :D

Randy,

Who doesn't have skeletons in their closet?

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
I am mad because we don't have any good choices for a President, they are all political hacks or daddy warbucks son's.
It's my opinion they're all sons with an extra expletitive on the end of that.
Our system of electivety is based on politcal hacks nominating their favorite puppet, preferibly a rather shallow and not too bright one. It takes multi million dollars backing to front these party clones. This makes it impossible for an average decent individual that has a modicum of brains to run for this so called public office. It sure the hell is not a public acceptance of said canidate, but of a reluctent tollerance to vote for the best of nothing choice. If you wanted to make any changes to this system you trying to swim back up Niagra Falls doing the back stroke. The American voter don't have any real say so on who gets the nomination. That is all cut and dried by the two party political hacks that are career politicians. And that is why we have lost control of this Nations business, we are in the beginning of a tail spin and looks like we'll be augering in shortly...fasten your seat belts...but it won't do you any good.

That's my two cents, take it or leave it...its a free country...isn't it?

James
 
Shooters! Please ensure that the selctor switch on your keyboard is rotated from AUTO to SEMI. :D

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
We can sit here and talk about what we are going to do about it, and who will should and should not vote for but you need to get out and start campaigning. If you don't want Gore, but you can't agree on who to elect besides him, then at least remember you have a common enemy, and you can work together, not to elect a specific candidate, but to campaign against Gore. Go out, get active, you people have the power to affect the thinking of those around you, but you can't do it without speaking out. How many of you go out and make a point of telling someone your view about guns or politics every once in a while, like maybe 3-4 times a week? Not everyone has the facts enough to vote for a reason. Clinton got elected cause he looked like the happy go lucky good guy type to many fools, because they didn't care to do any research, they just believed he liberal media and that was enough.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 
One thing I can say on this topic, which I think we'll ALL agree on: The time is long past when we can be content with whoever the GOP decides to serve up to us! Primary elections involve far fewer voters than general elections; If gun owners have clout in the latter, we could RULE the former if we exerted ourselves. IF.

Next election, no excuses: WE pick the GOP nominee! And maybe you might want to ask the NRA why we've been leaving the GOP primaries alone up til now... In '96, I had it direct from Metaska, Dole threatened to unleash a gun control flood in the Senate if we opposed him in the primaries. Are they still threatening that? What's the NRA's excuse for not making picks in the primaries?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top