If you don't learn from history...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Savage10FP308-----well put.

FirstFreedom----

First, what you say is correct - the 3rd party voters, if most or all of them would have voted republican in florida instead (big if, but we'll make that assumption, arguendo),
Click to expand...


On the contrary, MOST of the 3rd party voters would normally have voted Democrat not Republican. They still are mad at Nader for costing them the election. IF say 600 would have voted Democratic instead of 3rd party, then Gore would have won the election in 2004. That is where the point is being made---not how much bigger Bush could have or would have won.

Rich---
A Hillary win in '08 would have little chance of resulting in the loss of your Second Amendment rights had the New Wave Conservatives not worked so hard to emasculate tha Bill of Rights these past 5 years. Personally, the specter of "But the Dems will win if you don't vote Republican" is wearing a bit thin.
Click to expand...

Problem is there is a very good possibility that our 2nd Amendment rights could be lost if the Democrats do indeed win the House and Senate and then Hillary wins. A possible reality that must be considered when voting and though it may be thin, it is also true. As for those who continue to say vote 3rd party anyway----your choice, but intellectually I could not in good conscience vote for a party that has no chance and sit by and let the true election be decided by others and just deal with it. IF there ever is a real chance of a 3rd party actually winning, then I agree that would be a viable option---right now it isn't.:(
 
hmm....I'm going to vote for a candidate, not a party

My two choices are for a pro-gun democrat or a pro-gun republican. The democrat supports gay marriage and abortion, the republican wants to keep social security and teach intelligent design in schools. I guess I'm lucky that Bean is a gun owner herself.
 
IF there ever is a real chance of a 3rd party actually winning, then I agree that would be a viable option---right now it isn't.
Click to expand...
By the same token, "IF" there is ever a real chance that the UN will go door to door, confiscating American weapons, "THEN" I agree we should do something about it. :rolleyes:

You're damned if you do and damed if you don't, MoW. You're either proactive today and reactive tomorrow, or you're just reactive tomorrow. ;) What good is the Second after the Neocons have finished gutting the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Tenth?
Rich
 
TheBluesMan said:
I'll vote for George Mays and go home with a clear conscience and not care whether I have to eat pizza or chicken for the next six years.
Click to expand...
MoW said:
Somehow I don't really believe that you will not "care" for the next 6 years--especially if like I said you hate 1 of the foods. Esentially you have simply become a spectator at that point when you "could" have made a difference.
Click to expand...
You left out the last part of my statement.
TheBluesMan said:
They're both equally poisonous.
Click to expand...
I don't hate one of the foods, I hate them both because they're both poisonous. You don't seem to understand that neither the dems nor the repubs have my best interests in mind. Neither of them will benefit me. They're both in the game to expand their power at the expense of my rights.

You seem to see things in either black or white. There are shades of gray that you don't see.

Here's an example: You have a choice of eating chicken that is seasoned with strychnine or eating pizza which is topped with hemlock. Make your choice.

Remember, you can choose to not eat either one - and starve to death... ;)

-Dave
 
Problem is there is a very good possibility that our 2nd Amendment rights could be lost if the Democrats do indeed win the House and Senate and then Hillary wins.
Click to expand...

I'm terribly sorry for not wanting to trade my other rights for the right to keep and bear arms. You need to realize the end result of a system that forces us to trade one for the other. Will you take my hi-cap magazines in exchange for habeas corpus? Can I keep posse comitatus if I give up my flash hider? Is a collapsible stock or a CCW permit worth surrendering the right to a jury trial?
 
Is a collapsible stock or a CCW permit worth surrendering the right to a jury trial?
Click to expand...
To some, it is. Some of the gun owners I know wouldn't be too disturbed at losing their other rights as long as they kept their guns. Some people want an armed revolution. Some people envison themselves heros marching on Washington.

I just don't see what good a gun does someone when a SWAT team is allowed to come into their homes without a warrant and take everything, including those guns. When no one is allowed to publish articles about those types of raids then who cares if we all get CCW when your choices are go to jail without trial or start shooting at the cops trying to arrest you.
 
I don't hate one of the foods, I hate them both because they're both poisonous. You don't seem to understand that neither the dems nor the repubs have my best interests in mind. Neither of them will benefit me. They're both in the game to expand their power at the expense of my rights.

You seem to see things in either black or white. There are shades of gray that you don't see.

Here's an example: You have a choice of eating chicken that is seasoned with strychnine or eating pizza which is topped with hemlock. Make your choice.

Remember, you can choose to not eat either one - and starve to death...
Click to expand...


As I pointed out earlier in my thread--you can't possibly hate both equally? The difference in your equation and mine is DEATH. You said how you would have to live with for 6 years and I pointed out that the choice would be chicken or pizza every day for 1 month. Kind of different options then choosing your type of death don't you think?:rolleyes:
 
Marko Kloos
Staff Lead


Join Date: 01-12-2000
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 4,735
Let me let you in on a little secret, MoW.

I am so disgusted with the Republican record these last six years that I am no longer convinced a continued Republican majority would truly be the "lesser of two evils". Therefore, if I couldn't vote Libertarian, and I was forced to pick between R and D at gunpoint, I'd vote for the Democrat, hoping that a Dem majority in the House (or a Dem President in the White House) would at least galvanize the so-called Conservatives into getting off their complacent asses, stop crapping on the Constitution, and take a stand for freedom for a change. A little bit of the gridlock and government shutdowns we had under Clinton would be the cherry on the icing of that particular cake for me.

Do you still think I'll be "wasting" my vote if I vote Libertarian?
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
A Brief History of the Republican Party

The Republican Party evolved during the 1850's when the issue of slavery forced divisions within the existing Whig and Democratic-Republican parties. Faced with political turmoil, a new party - dedicated to states rights and a restricted role of government in economic and social life - began making history.

Alan Earl Bovay, one of the founders of the Republican Party, believed a new party should be formed to represent the interests of the North and the abolitionists. He decided to call that party "Republican" because it was a simple, yet significant word synonymous with equality. Thomas Jefferson had earlier chosen "Republican" to refer to his party, which gave the name respect borne of historical significance.

Evidence indicates there were several groups across the country that met to discuss the formation of a new party. Thus, the location of the first meeting has been disputed. It is known that Whig Party defectors met privately in February, 1854, in Crawfordsville, Iowa, to call for the creation of a new political party. Some evidence indicates an earlier meeting was held in Exeter, New Hampshire. The first public meeting was held in March of 1854 at a small church in Ripon, Wisconsin, when Alan Bovay rallied anti-slavery forces and adopted resolutions opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

A second meeting was held in a one-story schoolhouse in Ripon on March 20, 1854. Fifty-four citizens, including three women, dissolved their local committees and chose five men to serve as the committee of the new party: Alan Bovay, Jebediah Bowen, Amos Loper, Abram Thomas and Jacob Woodruff. Said Mr. Bovay: "We went into the little meeting Whigs, Free Soldiers, and Democrats. We came out Republicans and ...were the first Republicans in the Union."

In July of the same year, when the meeting hall was too small, the "Anti-Nebraska Convention" met in a grove of oak trees in Jackson, Michigan, to write a national platform and concentrate its efforts to counter the Democrats plan to extend slavery to new territories joining the Union. The new party adopted a platform, nominated candidates for state offices, and produced two anti-slavery resolutions, one of which stated, "Resolved...in view of the necessity of battling against the schemes of an aristocracy, the most revolting and oppressive with which the Earth was ever cursed or man debased, we will cooperate and be known as Republicans."

In 1856, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Freemont" was the slogan of the Republican Party. At its first national convention in Philadelphia, the party nominated John C. Freemont for president (Abraham Lincoln was proposed for vice-president, but Senator William L. Dayton won the nomination). Although the party lost the election to the Democrats, it captured a third of the total vote, boosting its optimism for the 1860 election.

But then the Whigs said, "See, see, we told you, voting for the Republicans is just wasting your vote. Now look, a damned evil Democrat won." And the former Whigs listened. As a result, in the 1860 election, the Democrats won again, and the still-born Republican party is now a little-noted footnote in 19th Century U.S. history.

Oh . . . wait . . . .*

The original poster's discussion is entirely predicated on the utterly repugnant notion that our votes are somehow the property of one of two parties - that good citizenship requires voting for either a D or an R. I reject the premise, sir.

*With apologies to the Tennessee Republican Party: http://www.tngop.org/history.html
 
Today's democrat was the equivolent of yesterdays republican.

I have never been souly in favor of any one party and personally wish the parties would be eliminated . :cool:
 
Rich--
By the same token, "IF" there is ever a real chance that the UN will go door to door, confiscating American weapons, "THEN" I agree we should do something about it.
Click to expand...
1. It would be too late then.
2. While I don't forsee them going door to door to confiscate your weapons, I can see where IF the House + Senate are under Democratic control and say Hillary does get elected, then it is conceivable that they could track down liscensed gun holders and demand they return weapons----the penalty being heavy fines if you fail to comply. You wouldn't have the ability to buy anymore(of course) or the freedom to go and shoot either.

Marko---
Will you take my hi-cap magazines in exchange for habeas corpus?
Click to expand...

Deal---don't see me having any problems with going to jail for doing nothing so I'll take it. Be sure to let me know when the first innocent terrorists you would like to have released. Also, let me know who the person is who gets put away for doing nothing---then I'll be on your side. Mean time, this bill was passed by the House(including Democrats) and the Senate(including Democrats) as well--not a Bush Monarchy. The Democrats tried(sucessfully) to strip him of some power on the war on terroism. This bill was a compromise that still left some power---would have never been introduced without the Democrats action in the first place. You seem to have a paranoia about religion, people telling you how to vote and Habeus Corpus among other things. Unless you have been secretly funding an Al Queda group or something, I don't think you have too much to worry about.:rolleyes: I know I'm not worried and based on reactions yesterday outside of a Pelosi, Kennedy, Clinton etc...nobody else is either.
 
I don't think you have too much to worry about.
Click to expand...
that's right because if you're not doing anything wrong then good ole uncle sam would never harm you :cool: in fact, since we trust our government so much to do the right thing in this case then we certainly don't need these guns, right?
 
Redworm----
hmm....I'm going to vote for a candidate, not a party
Click to expand...

Could be making a big mistake. An elected official is obligated to vote for his/her constituency, not personal beliefs. A President is different in they have more powers, but as far as the House and Senate---no. They will almost always vote party lines vs personal beliefs. If I were an elected official, I could not in good conscience vote against my electors regardless of my personal beliefs. Shouldn't be in office if that is the case IMO. That's why when they ask these individuals running for office are they for or against this---who cares as individuals--they will answer what it takes to get elected. There is a big difference in political philosophy however, such as Democrats anti gun(not all) as a group. Once elected you can rest assured they will go along party lines on voting issues whether they are personally for or against. I'm not saying that is right--just that's how it is.
 
that's right because if you're not doing anything wrong then good ole uncle sam would never harm you in fact, since we trust our government so much to do the right thing in this case then we certainly don't need these guns, right?
Click to expand...

Have you been falsely imprisoned? Have you gotten in trouble for doing nothing--please share. Uh, I don't believe I keep guns to protect me from my government. Criminals and enjoyment---YES----Government----No.:rolleyes:
 
Marko Kloos said:
Let me let you in on a little secret, MoW.

I am so disgusted with the Republican record .............................
Click to expand...
+1
More of the Republican agenda was achieved before they owned the triad. The Republicans holding the House, Senate and White House is like the dog that, after chasing cars for years, finally caught one. Once he caught it he didn't know how to drive it.
 
Could be making a big mistake. An elected official is obligated to vote for his/her constituency, not personal beliefs. A President is different in they have more powers, but as far as the House and Senate---no. They will almost always vote party lines vs personal beliefs. If I were an elected official, I could not in good conscience vote against my electors regardless of my personal beliefs. Shouldn't be in office if that is the case IMO. That's why when they ask these individuals running for office are they for or against this---who cares as individuals--they will answer what it takes to get elected. There is a big difference in political philosophy however, such as Democrats anti gun(not all) as a group. Once elected you can rest assured they will go along party lines on voting issues whether they are personally for or against. I'm not saying that is right--just that's how it is.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to vote for a bible thumping douchebag that wants to ban gay marriage and teach intelligent design just because you think Bean is going to vote the party line despite not having done so in the past.

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_ca...=category&category=Gun+Issues&go.x=10&go.y=10
 
More of the Republican agenda was achieved before they owned the triad. The Republicans holding the House, Senate and White House is like the dog that, after chasing cars for years, finally caught one. Once he caught it he didn't know how to drive it.
Click to expand...

So what does this mean to you? Does this mean that if the Democrats win the House and Senate you will then automatically vote for whomever the Republican cnadidate is or if the Republicans maintain the House and Senate you will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is?
 
I'm not going to vote for a bible thumping douchebag that wants to ban gay marriage and teach intelligent design just because you think Bean is going to vote the party line despite not having done so in the past.
Click to expand...

Who cares what "he wants"---not a Monarchy here. You need to rethink the gay marriage being opposed by bible thumpers mentality. In case you haven't checked the polls lately, 70+% of "AMERICANS" want a ban on gay marriage---can't blame it all on the bible thumpers. Do I want = rights and civil unions? Absolutely. Do I want gay marriage legalized--No. As a matter of fact, every state in the Union that has voted on it has said no. Not going to change my life either way, just what I believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top