It's time to go back to a two-party system

W

Will Beararms

New member
Should we vote on a third party in 2000? Heck no! Should we begin the tedious process of dismantling the chaos we know as the GOP in order to form a new Constitutionally-focused voice of the people? You better believe it.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
I disagree. Even the Term "Party" sounds hostile to me. even if it is Third, Fourth or so one. I dont like them. Especially the twin rep-dems. I see no difference.
You try to vote for the lesser of the two evils - yet your still voting for evil.

You dont elect a PARTY. You elect a PERSON.
When I vote - I vote for the best person for that office.
Some may give me that "your throwing your vote away!" My Dad for one. And there is a point to that. My point is that I am comfortable with myself after I leave the booth. What ever happens after I cast my vote - doesnt matter. I am of the belief it's all a big hoax anyways... At least I voted for who I wanted.

------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
George,

The purpose of voting is not to walk away with a nice warm feeling. One can get that warm feeling by wetting their pants.

The purpose of voting is to elect the person who will govern the way you want. You also need to vote for someone with a chance of winning. In most cases, this leaves you with one of two choices.

As for it all being a big hoax, a President can make great changes in our nation. Lincoln, FDR and Reagan all made huge differences in the direction that our nation was headed. Not all Presidents are capable of such leadership, but it does happen.
 
Cactus, give it up.

You are talking to people who think that whoever wears a suit and tie and belongs to a "party" is secretly conspiring to get you in to a gulag (in a black helicopter, no doubt).

You are talking to people who are colorblind, they only see the black and white of their own uncompromising wishes vs any kind of political reality. No wonder they dont give a hoot about who wins. As long as their "conscience" remains clean.

If these people don't see the difference between Liberal Democrats and Republicans, what else is there to say? Let's hope that there are not enough of them at the voting booths to screw up even this pretty good chance we have to stop Gore & Co.in the year 2,000.

The funny thing to me is that these supposed "paladins" of the RKBA don't have the eyesight to see that if Gore gets elected, in the current anti-gun frenzy, we will lose more of our rights in 4 years than we have in our collective lifetimes. But then, their "conscience" must be a lot more precious......

And the even funnier thing is that they think YOU and I have our heads in the sand - hey, we support the "establishment", we must be goose-stepping to some secretly-broadcasted brainwaves that will too conspire in taking away their rights (no, we don't give a damn about the RKBA, either that or we are just dumb).

Again, cactus, give it up. :)




------------------
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLVM

Constitution-RKBA=a weakened document!
 
Let me be clear on this once more. I am a Republican and I do my best to vote in every election including the one for Dog catcher. I will support GW Bush this year and I hope he chooses J.C. Watts or another conservative worth electing for a running mate. At the same time, I am a long term thinker and we have got to either give the GOP a political enema and bring back leadership or disband it and start something else. A couple of years back we should have not let those Democrats switch over like Night Horse Cambell and Tauzin. Moves like that only water down out platform. Furthermore, Hyde and Lott are dangerous risks to our freedom. Hyde does not care for guns and Lott has the spine of an amoeba. If you don't think those two are'nt willing sell us down the river for political expediency, I have some things for sale. I want even touch on Hatch,Warner or McCain, it might raise the old blood pressure. I am tired of Clinton using us as a punching bag and blaming the media is no excuse. Every time you see a Republican Pundit on TV, they look like they've just finished eating a sack of green persimons. We have a positive message to share and nothing to be ashamed of. I know Gingrich was not perfect, but by golly he had guts and staying power before the old school silenced him.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."


[This message has been edited by Will Beararms (edited October 21, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Will Beararms (edited October 21, 1999).]
 
A warm feeling by wetting your pants. Hilarious! I guess I'll just have to take the word of those with more recent experience.

Rigby,
Cute post! Really funny! You should be on the stage! (There's one leaving shortly!)

------
Seriously, fellas. If you can return the Republican Party to American (i.e. Founding Father) values, then we again might have a two-party system. With sincere best wishes and hopes - Good luck!
 
Catus - Did you not read my post before you replied?
"At least I voted for who I wanted."
I dont vote for warm feeling - I just feel good when I vote for who I WANT - and not for some PARTY that couldnt give a sack of rodent sphincters about me or my political beliefs or needs.

416Rigby - Are you saying I am a conspiracy advocate? Are you trying to be insulting?
Read my post again:
"You dont elect a PARTY. You elect a PERSON. When I vote - I vote for the best person for that office."


You guys really dont get the point - You dont vote against a person - You vote FOR a person. Your type of politics only serves the status quo. You need to vote for some one who will take the office and make it better - not follow a "party" or stand on a "platform."
Thats how the system has become how it is today.

Dont unsult me - and dont slander me. You refered to me in some pretty inflamitory remarks that I take offense to.

If this was the 1800's I would have to call you out for a show down...


------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE


[This message has been edited by George Hill (edited October 22, 1999).]
 
Willbeararms began this thread with this:

"Should we vote on a third party in 2000? Heck no! Should we begin the tedious process of dismantling the chaos we know as the GOP in order to form a new Constitutionally-focused voice of the people? You better believe it."

Therefore THIS thread would seem to be about reforming the Republican Party.

For arguments involving THIRD parties let's keep it on the "Country not ready for a third party" thread.

And drop the insults and innuendo or DC will spank! (And NO, it isn't fun!)
 
To those who would think that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans I would say this. If there is no difference why does the media fight a war on every Republican issue and are all for the Demo. Issues? Why does one party believe in the rights of the unborn and the other believe that mass murder of the unborn is a woman's choice? That states rights are an important issue and the other believes it should all be big government. Why did the republicans vote for impeachment and 100% of the demos vote against it?

A 3 party system doesn't work anywhere as to govern there must be a coalition of two of the parties and when you look at the rest of the world you can see why they don't function! I agree that you should vote for the individual that best represents you way of thinking and for some of us that's pretty tough task I can only say that if you vote for these who are not apposed to your thinking then you will eventually get some that are for your way of thinking. We must vote for those who have a chance to be elected . I realize that Ventura and Buchanin have points that we like to hear but you have a choice vote for someone who will do the least harm or throw your vote away which is a vote for Gore.
 
Again and again.

GUN CONTROL

I am not discussing abortion, election tampering, paving a section of the interstate...

Gun Control is the issue where the only difference between the two major parties is timing.
 
Sorry if I offended anybody... I really just meant to be provocative, and I might have gone a bit too far.

However,let me say that I think this idea of reforming the Republican party is the one that I have been advocating all along as the best one so far at our disposal.

If the Republicans were to get rid of their "moderates" and they were to become the party of the Constitution, would any of you give them another chance?

I have written countless letters to the RNC saying how disillusioned gun-owners are at their watered-down stance on the Constitution and the 2nd in particular. Believe me, I know how "centrist" they have become of late, especially their so called "leadership".

But I see a real advantage in staying with a strong party, whose resources will help voters counter the Media and the Lib-Dems. Perhaps if more of you wrote to the Republican National Committee (I don't have the address at the top of my head, but it is easily found) and voiced your dissent about their current willy-nilly stances on the 2nd, we can make a dent or two.

Of late, I have seen the Republicans get a little more aggressive on a lot of issues (I am talking about the last 2 or 3 months). Could that be a wake-up call? Let's remind them that gun-owners vote and vote in big numbers, and we don't need big brother to tell us what we need to own or not.

------

George,
I really didn't have any intention to slander you , I hope you realize that. I just got a little too over-emphatic about the point I have been trying to make for days - i.e. that WE SHOULD care about who wins in the next election, and especially se should make sure that the Libs lose. If you thought my sarcasm was directed at any of you "ad personam", I apologize from the bottom of my heart - I was just proselitizing and trying to get some reaction.

Same goes for you, Dennis.
You have earned my respect and, as scary as it is for me to even admit it, I am even beginning to agree with you.

-----

Hey, if anybody wants to challenge me to a showdown, we can do so in a "postal-match" showdown. 100 yards, one shot, no 'scopes, whoever gets closer to the bull wins.

------------------
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLVM

Constitution-RKBA=a weakened document!
 
Sorry if I offended anybody... I really just meant to be provocative, and I might have gone a bit too far.

However,let me say that I think this idea of reforming the Republican party is the one that I have been advocating all along as the best one so far at our disposal.

If the Republicans were to get rid of their "moderates" and they were to become the party of the Constitution, would any of you give them another chance?

I have written countless letters to the RNC saying how disillusioned gun-owners are at their watered-down stance on the Constitution and the 2nd in particular. Believe me, I know how "centrist" they have become of late, especially their so called "leadership".

But I see a real advantage in staying with a strong party, whose resources will help voters counter the Media and the Lib-Dems. Perhaps if more of you wrote to the Republican National Committee (I don't have the address at the top of my head, but it is easily found) and voiced your dissent about their current willy-nilly stances on the 2nd, we can make a dent or two.

Of late, I have seen the Republicans get a little more aggressive on a lot of issues (I am talking about the last 2 or 3 months). Could that be a wake-up call? Let's remind them that gun-owners vote and vote in big numbers, and we don't need big brother to tell us what we need to own or not.

------

George,
I really didn't have any intention to slander you , I hope you realize that. I just got a little too over-emphatic about the point I have been trying to make for days - i.e. that WE SHOULD care about who wins in the next election, and especially se should make sure that the Libs lose. If you thought my sarcasm was directed at any of you "ad personam", I apologize from the bottom of my heart - I was just proselitizing and trying to get some reaction.

Same goes for you, Dennis.
You have earned my respect and, as scary as it is for me to even admit it, I am even beginning to agree with you.

-----

Hey, if anybody wants to challenge me to a showdown, we can do so in a "postal-match" showdown. 100 yards, one shot, no 'scopes, whoever gets closer to the bull wins.

------------------
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLVM

Constitution-RKBA=a weakened document!
 
Guns being the only issue... there are a few principled republicans, thankfully. The leadership are squids though and no discernable unity on RKBA is evident amongst the group. Lott was recently quoted, "Sometimes you just have to defend the Constitution." Sometimes?? How about every time for a change? The republicans need a good flushing, yet I will still vote for those who have at least been consistent on this issue. Although a republican, I harbor no party loyalty(the party certainly has none for me) and will vote for almost anyone whom I believe has a better understanding of their oath of office. Those who advocate a third(or multiple partys) aren't threatening our rights, they are only exercising their own. I understand everyones' enthusiasm in getting as far away from the likes of the current administration as possible. But please don't speak of political strategy and try to enlist others under the current republican "genious". They own none. I read this today, "To be sure, taking a principled stand may not yield immediate political results, but ultimately it is only principled stands that yield any political results whatsoever." - Ari Armstrong. If the republican party truly wants to set itself apart it must dare to become principled. I support Keyes. I find it very hard to accept GW as the leader of my party because he has promised more gun control and if elected will promptly become the equal of his predecessor by lying while taking his oath.
 
George,

I did read your post prior to responding. You are correct, you do vote for a person. But that person must be a member of a party to accomplish anything.

Sen. "Foghorn Leghorn" can accomplish nothing by himself. When he combines his vote with 50 other Senators, their agenda is passed. If one person were able to pass everything they wanted, Socialist Congressman Bernie Sanders would have us all living at the Governments grace. As it is, he is just another vote for the Democrats.

The Congress of our great nation, and the entire concept of devided government, was intentially devised as to make the passage of legislation difficult. One person can only make a difference if they can convince a majority of the House and Senate that their idea has merit. Our two party system has come about as a result of the system set down by our founding fathers. I do not presume myself wise enough to think I have a better way.

I'm sorry George, but I don't vote to be "comfortable". I have found that when I have accomplished something worthwhile, it generally requires a degree of discomfort.

You speak of the need to vote for someone who will take the office and make it better. I couldn't agree more, but that is predicated on that person being able to WIN the office in the first place.

Now George, I re-read my first post carefully and could see nowhere that I insulted or slandered you, nor referred to you in inflamitory terms. If you find dis-agreement with your views slandorous or insulting, there's not much I can do about that.
 
I wasn't talking about you Cactus...

And Rigby - No Sir... I should be the one to apologize. Please forgive me for taking offense when no offense was ment. I am a fool.

(Okay guys I know I opened myself up ripe for some good jibes there - don't touch it!)

We are all on the same team... in our own ways.


------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
Remember guys, the Founders had a checks and balance system set up for us originally. We dont have a checks and balance system anymore. All three branches work today against the TAXPAYERS.period. The Senate was set up to be the watchdog for the states against the central regime(sounds better than federal) But the senate today,with the popular election system, is a corrupt whore as recent events have proved. It is no use even describing our judicial system of black robed dictators. The house actually looks good compared the other two branches,but only by degrees. Boys, there is just no checks on any of these branches of govenment today. I wish i knew how we could get these checks and balances back,but it looks pretty bleak to me. I see the problem ,but solutions look hard to find. we taxpayers have been screwed for decades and now the three branches do it openly and flaunt it in our faces. I know what the Founders would do to this mess if they were around today! a constituional convention would be demanded for sure!
 
Will:

I prefer this snippet from The Declaration Of Independence (04 July 1776)...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

The agony that we face is the necessity to alter or abolish what has come to be a destructive form of government. A government which no longer protects our unalienable Rights. If you'd like an example of how a Reform Party elected official will vote on various legislative measures, check out Bob Smith (Reform-NH). You will see that he is a loyal Constitutionalist.

By ignoring the above snippet from the Declaration of Independence, we will undoubtedly write liberty's death warrant.
 
I will vote for the person who most closely holds my views and it helps if he has a half a chance to win!
All I know is, who ever is elected as the next President he will appointing 2-3 Supreme court justices. I know you don't want AlGore to have that responsibility!!!!
Bush is a winner and he he playing the middle (just like Clinton did) to be elected. He will change to the way he really is after election day. Trust him and remember he is our best chance for us getting back the white house.
 
Paul Revere,

Sen. Bob Smith is not, now nor has he ever been, a member of the Reform Party. Until earlier this year, he was a Republican. When it became apparent that his try at the GOP Presidential nomination was going nowhere, he left the GOP to become a candidate for the National Taxpayers Party. He decided against this party and is now listed as an independent. If anyone cares to know how someone from the Reform Party will vote on issues, they will have to look at Jesse Ventura.

Paul, you quote a snippet from the Declaration of Independence but seem to ignore that the Constitution gives us the means to change the way our government is being run. It's to vote! And to vote for a realistic candidate, not some pie in the sky dreamer that has zero chance of winning.

Ivan,

You say that judges are "black robed dictators". Does this include such justices as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and former judge Robert Bork? The judges are only as good as the person appointing them. I have much more trust in potential appointments by Gov. Bush than I do AlGore.

[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited October 25, 1999).]
 
Cactus,

Yes, Bush is more moderate in his gun control advocacy than the Democrats are. But the difference is similar to being shot in the head or gutshot.

And I'm not sure which represents which... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top