I just cannot do it anymore.

Status
Not open for further replies.
At worst GWB will be a redo of GHWB meaning very little will be done by the executive (not a bad thing in and of itself) while ALGORE could be the most leftist - GREEN pres ident to date, as the commercial says "YOU MAKE THE CALL"
 
It has been said before, but I'll say it again:

There are realistically two candidates in a Presidential election, the Democrat and the Republican.

Voting for a third party candidate is the same as voting FOR one of these choices.

Examples: A vote for Buchanon is a vote FOR Gore. A vote for Nader is a vote FOR Bush.

So you have to ask yourself, assuming you are conservative, as most of us at TFL are, "Do I support Gore?" Unless the answer is "yes," vote for G.W. Bush.
 
Then where do we draw the line? Oh no, that would be confrontational and we would certainly be the bad guys then. We already are. And for what? Attempting to maintain freedom. Who was it that said "Freedom is not free" (or something to that effect)? But yet we continually give it away. "Just this once".

Do we just continue to vote for the lesser of two evils and hope all this just goes away? Or is giving away bits and pieces of our rights all part of the big plan to get them all back someday?

Is anyone looking past this election? Ok. So what happens next time? Does this mean our country as it was meant to be, is the way of the dinasour? Afterall "Reasonable Gun Control" never really hurt anybody.

Steve
 
Now wait. Yes, Bush thinks he's gotta make a few "common sense gun control noises" and there's even a fair chance he's right. Current polls show him not only ahead of Gore, public perception of his handling of the "gun issue" rates higher than Gore, nationwide.

BUT:

This guy campaigned on pro-CCW (shall-issue), he asked the legislature to send him a bill, and signed it the moment it hit his desk. And *then* he gladly signed a bill a couple years later correcting some mistakes in the first edition.

As Governors go, THAT'S AS GOOD AS IT GETS.

Would "Vermont Carry" have been better? Sure. Was it politically possible in Texas in 1996? NO. It may be possible now or fairly soon though, now that the permitholders have proven beyond doubt they're trustworthy, and that civilian gun carry is a good thing.

But in any case, shall-issue was a necessary first step and has resulted in greater freedom of self defense.

And Bush was a key factor in that, AND after doing so he's leading Gore in the "gun issue"?

I don't see what people are worried about. In fact, those poll results are a cause for serious celebration, at least from the POV of this Californian fighting the sickest CCW system in history. (Y'all have NO CLUE...I damn near fainted this weekend pouring through it all :(.)

OK, Bush isn't perfect, but do y'all want GORE in there?

Gimme a break and stop bellyachin'.

Jim

[This message has been edited by Jim March (edited June 20, 2000).]
 
Well, I've been part of this dance ticket before. Gore is going to mean the end of RKBA. If you want to put pressure on Bush, do it. And, if Coinneach will allow me to post the url for a petition that pressures Bush, it's at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html If you're concerned about Bush and haven't signed it, sign it. I get nothing out of it.

Third party? I know, I know, you'll feel good. Question is, will you have a smile on your face in your gunowner ID mugshot?

Dick
 
I did the petition. Comment for GW: Grow a spine and clone it for DNA distribution amongst your Republican peers. I predict he walks in daddy's shadow with greater damage potential when he gets to the big stage. He is as flexible as a cheap plastic POkemon slinky. He will win. We get time to dig foxholes or practice traverse. He gets assimilated into the powerbase. Jeeze, I never wanted to get this cynical.
 
AND THE JUGGERNAUGHT ROLLS FORWARD a vote for W might keep us out of the trenches for a while longer. A vote for anyone other than Bush is a vote for Gore.
my .02
 
Oh, I signed the petition all right. But I'm not JUST gonna vote for him, I'll walk precincts if necessary. In California, the NRA through the Member's Council system will be assigning volunteers for the campaigns we think will help; in some areas that'll be direct support for Dubya, in others we're concentrating on winning back the Assembly so we don't get gerrymandered into obscurity by all-Dem redistricting. In other words, depending on local conditions I may or may not be directly supporting Bush. Hope that made sense :).

Jim
 
I look at it this way..

No matter who I vote for in the Presidential election, thanks to the electoral college, it won't make one whit of difference. Therefore, I'll vote my conscience (Libertarian).

So far as I remember from my history books, issues that burn bright enough for the Big Two to start actually *gasp* LOSING VOTES to the other parties get picked up. Hey -- look at all the Socialist Party's contributed to our national discourse in the last century. They never put a man in office, but they got some issues on the table, and in the end that's the important part.

And if Gore wins? I have to admit -- in a way, it might even be a blessing for us. With GW, we're almost certainly gonna continue boiling that frog at a slow simmer. If Gore comes in, then the heat goes way up -- enough for the sleeping frog to wake up, I hope.

Besides -- niether of the Big Two has a spine anymore -- you can scarcely tell the difference between them a lot of the time. If we all vote for what we see as the lesser of two evils because "only they have a shot at winning" -- we continue the same system we dislike. The only off this sick Tweedledee and Tweedledum joyride is to go third party till it hurts 'em, I say.
 
How much do WE have to hurt before it starts hurting THEM?

------------------
If you're not a little upset with the way the world is going, you're not paying attention.
 
I know it hurts to vote for someone you really don't want, but it is simple, we either vote for G.W. and get someone who will not spit on the 2nd or get "ALGORE" who, by purpose now, MUST be tougher on gun owners than the past president in order to secure his own legacy.

Lets call this battle a draw, and worry about
what would be worse overall for gun owners G.W. or "ALGORE"

------------------
"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers"
George Mason
Second Amendment lover? www.2ndamdlvr.homestead.com/home.html
Support H.R.347 Citizens Self-Defense act of 1999! Sign petition at: www.petitiononline.com/protect/petition.html
 
I had to finally put that reply letter back into it's envelope.

Anyway, I see your points about the newly appointed Supreme Court Justices. I like that idea. But then we are right back where we are now. Can we be sure that the Supremes will rule in a pro Second fashion? Surely the anti's are not going to stop over that. (Yeah I know, "Stop calling you Shirley")

HankL - the trenches are going to be over run. Just a matter of time.

I still have not heard how we are to be more prepared to vote our conscience for a Second Amendment candidate down the road than right now. How long do we put off the inevitable? Ok so GW buys us some time and we lose just a few more pieces of our firearms freedoms as opposed to algore. When will we be ready?

We won't get backed into a corner and have to defend our selves. They will have slowly taken our defenses away with "Common Sense Gun Control" and we will be unwilling/unable to take a stand against anything.

Sort of reminds me of when my father threw me in the lake and I didn't know how to swim. I am learning again it seems.
 
Kaylee - I apologize up front for what I am about to say. I rarely flame on this or any other board and are reluctant to do so now, but once again the ensanity has pushed me over the edge. It goes like this: I, as a staunch conservative, am sick and tired of being trashed, impuned and deemed not suffiently enlightened by liberals, and an ever growing population of "moderates", middle of the roaders, and other stragglers among the disenchanted. Libertarians seem to essentially aspouse a majority of the conservative agenda, i.e. gun rights, property rights, and an otherwise non-intrusive government. My problem with Libertarians is they appear to be cloudy on the issues of standards, rules of law, and yes the dreaded assertion of judgeing right and wrong READ: The general consensious that people should just be left alone on the premise that they will be accountable for themselves when they become hooked on all drugs now legal or whatever ilk one might be allowed to pursue under this general philosophy. Don`t get me wrong, I do believe in the human spirit, but also understand our shortcomings. In generic terms, this country needs leadership that will allow the good in the human spirit to flourish and set and enforce standards that check what has been experienced as deterimental in society.

In my assertion: There are three philosphies in America today. Liberal, Conservative and in the "middle" is again that group of individuals that wish to be seen as enlightend, non-judgemental, alternative and above the fray thinkers. My experience has been this group almost always leans towards liberalism but just don`t want to be "labeled as such".

People should and do desire freedom, but at the same time sometimes cry for and require direction and structure in their lives. For those of you that are now thinking I`m a religious man (not that there is anything wrong with that), I can assure that I am not. I will assert that I do believe that events in this world are all going according to "plan" regardless of any human intervention. In the mean-time, voting ones consience instead of for a VIABLE candidate that BEST represents your views, is a feel good defeatist mentality. Tree Rat.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tree Rat:
In generic terms, this country needs leadership that will allow the good in the human spirit to flourish and set and enforce standards that check what has been experienced as deterimental in society.[/quote]

And how does this leadership gain the wisdom to determine those standards that the rest of us must follow? The so-called leaders have no special insights into humanity -- they have the same abilities and failings as the rest of us. It's tragic that so many of us yearn for others to set themselves up as our masters -- and doubly tragic that there are those like the Clintonians and their lackeys who are eager to fill this position.

The argument that the president will appoint Supreme Court justices is trotted out every general election as an excuse not to vote for minor-party candidates. To me, that's not a convincing reason why I should vote for a candidate who has specifically promised to work for more gun control laws, just not as many more gun control laws as his opponent.

And for those of you who continue to espouse the tired falsehood that a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for The Evil Al Gore, please explain why Ralph Nader's continuing growth in popularity and media exposure is driving the Gore campaign nuts.

If your conscience can allow you to vote for Bush (or Gore for that matter), then fine. But don't pretend that such a choice makes you wiser or more pragmatic than those of us who find both those choices repugnant.

[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited June 21, 2000).]
 
David - You are correct in that our leaders have no special gift with regard to human character, but since our current system of government requires that the people choose it`s leaders, the debate simply returns to philosophy view. I offer Ronald Reagan as an example of a leader who retruned a sense of confidence in people while not "mastering" anyone. I have questions about some of his leagacy, i.e, Lebanon policy, Iran/Contra etc, but for the most part still hold him as model leadership to yurn for.

Previous showings in general elections and it`s current rudderless course are all that`s needed to know that third party is dead on arrival again this time around. Ralph Nader: Certainly NO Conservative and not even a blip on the radar screen.

Again I say to answer your last quip: If voting for the MOST VIABLE candidate that BEST represents my views is considered arogantly wiser and pragmatic than thou, then I plead guilty. To vote otherwise allows you to always remain on the sidelines and wash your hands of the outcome, as voting for a non-viable candidate essentially means you supported a candidate who can never propose ANYTHING bad OR good, not having been elected.

You would never bet the house on a Royal Flush...hell I`ll give you the straight, so I can`t figure out why anyone would vote third party at this point. It reaks of subversion.
Tree Rat.
 
Gee, how did I know this would happen? :rolleyes:

Tree Rat, I suggest you go back and re-read the Libertarian platform. You'll find nothing logically inconsistent there; merely the recurring theme of "Do what you want, and pay the price."

I believe the issue in this thread was "Why should I vote for a candidate who has promised to erode 2A even further, instead of one who supports 2A 100%?" If we can get back to that topic, fine. If not, I'll lock this down.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tree Rat:
David - You are correct in that our leaders have no special gift with regard to human character, but since our current system of government requires that the people choose it`s leaders, the debate simply returns to philosophy view.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. My view of a leader is someone who, through word and deed, encourages others to pursue excellence, live up to their potential, and accept responsibility for their successes and failures alike. I admit that's rather at odds with your view of a leader's role to "set and enforce standards," as you put it. Fortunately we live in a country where I can vote for the type of leaders I want, and you can vote for the type you want.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You would never bet the house on a Royal Flush...hell I`ll give you the straight, so I can`t figure out why anyone would vote third party at this point. It reaks of subversion.[/quote]

An interesting view. So let me ask: When the Republicans were the "third party," were they also subversives? Or were they simply people who didn't like the machine-produced candidates offered by the two major parties and who decided they could do better?



[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited June 21, 2000).]
 
David - I agree with your view of leader attributes. It fits my example offering of Mr. Reagan quite nicely. Let me clarify my postion on the standards thing: The key is balancing the establishment and existance of laws and standards for society without encroachment of personal liberty and freedom. Leaders are elected with certain mandates to either end with checks and balances in place throughout government. One of those checks and balances is of course term limits and voting. I am not questioning your right to vote for who you may desire, just pointing out the effect it has on the reason we vote in the first place, which is not to protest the choices, but to actually elect leaders making my previous comments about viability relevant again. Yea, maybe subversive might have been a bit to strong. Third party may be viable someday and having said that the Republican party did not attain there current position with today`s third party support. It`s also fair to wonder when Republicans, specifcally conservatives will be viable in the future.
Tell you what, you respond and then I`ll talk about my new Ruger MKII suppressed Pistol. Tree Rat.

Coinneach - Apologize for creating the atmosphere and perception that I`m off topic. I think the banter is relavant to the conversation, but rather think you are a bit irritated about my views on Libertarians.
I`ll go back and read again the platform in case there have been updates ;). "Do what you want and pay the price". Where is there any evidence in today`s society that this is the case? As far as locking down this thread..Do what you have to do Mr. Moderator. Tree Rat.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tree Rat:
Let me clarify my postion on the standards thing: The key is balancing the establishment and existance of laws and standards for society without encroachment of personal liberty and freedom.[/quote]

On this point we can agree, but I think that's quite different from your earlier statement about the role of leaders. The clarification is welcome.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I am not questioning your right to vote for who you may desire, just pointing out the effect it has on the reason we vote in the first place, which is not to protest the choices, but to actually elect leaders making my previous comments about viability relevant again.[/quote]

I generally cast my vote on the basis of whom I want to support, but I have no problem with those who cast their votes as a protest. In fact, I would welcome "none of the above" as a choice in every election.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Tell you what, you respond and then I`ll talk about my new Ruger MKII suppressed Pistol.[/quote]

Now that's a topic I'd love to hear more about. See you over on the handgun forum.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tree Rat:
Coinneach - Apologize for creating the atmosphere and perception that I`m off topic.[/quote]

Perception?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I think the banter is relavant to the conversation, but rather think you are a bit irritated about my views on Libertarians.[/quote]

Well, yeah. As an office-holder in the LP, I tend to get chapped when I hear the same old stuff about how we condone anything and everything, from drug abuse to incest with donkeys. We don't. Rather, we hold the view that the individual is responsible for his own actions and should reap the consequences, negative or positive, thereof. The Republicans and Democrats, quite simply, think you can't be trusted to run your own life. We do. If you prove otherwise, that's your problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Where is there any evidence in today`s society that this is the case?[/quote]

There isn't, which is exactly my point. The major party has destroyed the concept of personal responsibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As far as locking down this thread..Do what you have to do Mr. Moderator.[/quote]

As I'm doing now, Mr. Tree Rat, but not for content. With my rant added in, we're up to 100K. Anyone who feels the need to play Flog The Deceased Equine some more, go for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top