Most Important Election In History

T

texas gunman

New member
WILLIAM PENN FALLIN
Columnist
Douglas, GA Enterprise
Natchitoches, LA Times

MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN HISTORY

From Key West to Honolulu to Anchorage and throughout the vast reaches of this great land America’s voters will decide next Tuesday (November 2nd) whether this nation continues its 230 years history of “Individualism” or if it will embark on an entirely new course of “Collectivism.” That is the decision to be made and it has never been clearer.

About forty years ago, when announcing his reasons for running for President as an Independent, Alabama Governor George Wallace said, “after all there is not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.” Wallace was right then but that situation has changed.

Today the Democratic Party (D) should be titled (LSD) the Liberal/Socialist/Democratic Party if true descriptions are desirable. It is true that on many social issues there is (at times) very little difference. However, beneath the reckless spending habits of both parties there still resides one huge difference; shall we remain a Representative Republic (of Individualism) or will we change to a Socialist State (of Collectivism), not unlike most of today’s modern Europe and Canada.

The United States of America was built on the work, determination, creativeness and yes, on the investments of individuals. Our history is replete with stories of American individuals who contributed so much to this world in inventions that enhanced the lives of citizens around the planet. And after they made their millions from those inventions, they invested their riches in more companies that provided employment for the masses. No government of this country or anywhere else has ever CREATED a single job --- outside its own payrolls.

Are we to abandon that Individualism and go the Socialist route of France and Germany and virtually all members of the European Union?

For me it is a non-decision. I have lived my entire life fully aware of what and how I believe, due primarily to the tutoring of parents who understood what individual accomplishment meant. I want no part of a collective society, I want no part of Socialized medicine, I want no part of bureaucrats telling me what I can and cannot do or can or cannot think. I believe political correctness (for example) is the most insidious, most destructive movement to hit this country in my lifetime.

However, if collectivism (Socialism) is what attracts you then, by all means, vote for Mr. Kerry.

If, on the other hand, you want to be rewarded in life, according to your own efforts and according to your own ingenuity you should vote for Mr. Bush.

If you believe America should consult (and gain the prior approval of) the United Nations and NATO and the European Union and China, before fighting back, regardless of how egregious an attack is launched against our country, then you should vote for Mr. Kerry.

However, if you want the United States of America to stand on its own feet and decide when to defend itself from attackers who deliberately and with malice, come to murder our citizens (3,016 of them on 9/11) you should vote for Mr. Bush.

If you believe it is alright for lawyers to be able to go into court on ridiculous (sometimes outrageously fallacious) claims and collect hundreds of millions of dollars through the misinformed and misguided sympathies of juries and judges then vote for Mr. Kerry.

If you accept the fact that such lawsuits bring about tremendously higher costs in doctor bills and other medical expenses and even in product costs as well as higher insurance premiums, then you should vote for Mr. Bush.

Reasonable liability settlements are always in order; unconscionable settlements are not in order and only tort reform will stop this destructive practice. We should never forget that many companies have been bankrupted with such lawsuits thereby costing thousands of local jobs across this country through closed factories.

If you believe appointed judges should make our laws then by all means vote for Mr. Kerry.

If on the other hand, you believe our elected officials should make our laws and judges should interpret the Constitutionality of those laws then vote for Mr. Bush.

You should never cast you ballot based on ONE FACTOR. I don’t remember a single time in my 52 years of voting when I agreed with a candidate 100% of the time. What I look for is their commitment to INDIVIDUALISM. If they can convince me of that factor they get my vote.

The choices are clear. Your job is to decide what you want for the future of your country and then to cast your ballot. There is no longer any excuse for being undecided. If you still can’t decide for whom you are going to vote and why, do something good for your country and stay home. A poorly informed vote is worse than no vote at all.

May God save this nation from itself.


TG
 
In a letter to the editor appearing in a local paper, a 75 year old individual came up with the most unique reason to vote for Kerry I've heard to date. He states that he was alive back during WWII and at that time, we changed presidents from FDR to Truman in 1945 and won the war in 1945. Based on this, he has concluded "changing presidents will only speed up the end of this war." He didn't comment on whether it was necessary for Bush to die in office as FDR did. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I think Heinlein really had something with the government in Starship Troopers.
 
No matter who wins this election, Liberty will lose again.

If you can see a discernable difference between where the Democrats will take us and where the Republicans are taking us please let me know.
 
If you can see a discernable difference between where the Democrats will take us and where the Republicans are taking us please let me know.
Click to expand...

I hear you, and I agree with you, for the most part.

The differences between the Bush people and the Kerry people are subtitle and not everyone will be able to see the difference, nor will everyone care to put the effort into discerning those differences...

However, I have yet to hear anyone on any forum make an honest and compelling case for voting for a 3rd party.

How is voting for a 3rd party Presidential candidate going to preserve our freedoms when in the end that vote will result in Kerry being elected?

If a 3rd party candidate should get elected (longest of the long shots) what makes us believe that the political realities of the situations won't make our new President act just like the rest?
 
One MAJOR reason to vote for Bush.....

can be found by looking at some of the people that want to put Kerry in office.

Ben Affleck
Ed Asner
Alec Baldwin
Tom Brokaw
Cher
Bill & Hillary Clinton
Billy Crystal
Leonardo DiCaprio
Jamie Foxx
Al Franken
Whoopi Goldberg
Peter Jennings
Ted Kennedy
Madonna
Michael Moore
Rosie O'Donnell
Dan Rather
Martin Sheen
Barbra Streisand
Robin Williams
 
ahhh yes, the movie stars. Those who got sooo much money for not much work and now feel bad, so they want to give some money to others who don't do any work but want money. Classic democrat. (forgive me, I'm just fed up)

There are definitely exceptions, but in my experience, the poor are poor for a reason and it isn't because they don't get opportunities. I personally have given homeless men jobs (good jobs at that!), places to stay (for free), food, and literally, the clothes from my back. And EVERYTIME, they either stole from me or took off the first time they got paid. I also have been active in an inner-city church for 10 years and though I love them and continue to help them whenever I can, they are simply the laziest, most ungreatful, and most selfish people that I have ever met. I have found their "condition" to be anything but "underpriviledged". And I simply do not want their choice of president to be in office.

I think that our president is a reflection of the poeple that vote for him. If we want our president to be a reflection of "politically correct" liberalist or the un-educated "underpriviledged" urban community... then we are going to get what we deserve. I live in a bad part of town and try to love every man that God created, but I don't necessarily want my president to be like these people that I live around... ones that will rob you blind if they think it will further them or kill you for the $20 bill in your pocket.

But if that man is elected, then our country will have a clear road to travel and we know where it will end.
 
Texas Gunman, did that gentleman tell you how many nuclear weapons should be used also, and on who? To that person who listed those names, i wish that they would tell us how much these people gave to the DEMS and how much $ they gave to charity not a concert or an hour of time. I think affleck said he got back an extra $1.5 mil if he doesn't want it give it to some organsations, the salvation army, the purple heart, meals on wheels, retraining centers for people. Some of the charities might be local to detroit, but the thought is the same, I try not to throw out any of my clothes I outgrow or outfat if you want honesty. I think John Travolta is a bigtime DEM, John give up the 747 and the money quantas paid you to be a spokesman and give it to some people who need it. I agree there is not much differences but until the media starts taking libertarians seriously, pepole are not going to be in control of their lives. At least the Republicans respect the 2nd amendment. We just need to start repealing more gun laws.
 
It is, IF O'Connor retires in the next 4. Rehnquist almost certainly will. It's an important one, boys. Therefore, for better or worse, we'd better get Shrub to win in those swing states (OH, FL, WI, IA, VA, MI, PA, etc.).
 
So, were we all living in a "Liberal/Socialist" country four years ago? Or is Clinton suddenly absolved of any sort of liberal agenda?



I hope to God that the contest between Frankenkerry and the Texas Soufle does not constitute "the Most Important Election in History".


And if you'll all excuse me, I have to go make "the Most Important Dinner Selection in History".

I'll probably have cereal.
 
I believe that it was H.L. Menken who said 'Americans get the government they deserve...and sometimes they get it good and hard'. Let's hope that if Kerry is elected someone remembers to pack the lubricant.
 
I'm not convinced that kerry will be oh so horrible as far as environment/taxes (yes, on this issue, i'm a bit more center than most)/social stuff (standard democrat fare, i don't think he's much worse than anyone else)

I don't even think he will necessarily be horrible for the war on terror. . .

Which is why i voted (absentees are nice) for. . . .

Bush.

Here is why:

I disagree with him on most social issues, including rkba and abortion. In addition i just don't like and trust the guy. There are likeable democrats, and kerry isn't one of them. And lastly, while i think it is in error to say that kerry will botch the war on terror, I worry a little bit about his obsession with being "respected abroad", as well as some other related things. Its not that things necessarily will go wrong. . . .but they certainly may. And one reason i don't think that he will botch iraq (necessarily) is because he basically has the same plan as Bush.
 
grey_pilgrim, it takes some guts to come out as a moderate on a gun forum. It also invites criticism, so here I go.

On taxes: Kerry has said that GW's tax cuts favor the "rich," and he would change the tax laws to benefit "working people." I was once in the Rich category, and hope to be so again soon. But I surely never felt rich. "Working people" is Demo-speak for those who make less than the median income, people who already don't pay any taxes (I'm currently one of them).

As for the war on terrorism, Kerry is either going to conduct it just as Bush has done so far, or Kerry is lying. It just doesn't get more plain than that. Kerry says that he will round up a coalition of "allies." Who? France, Germany, or the Chinese, all of whom obstructed GW, and we now know the reasons why. They still have dirt on their hands, and they don't want a Bush admistration to shine a light on that.

Every election is always billed as the most important in US history. Despite the hype, there have been those that rose to the level. A Kerry victory will send a message to every terrorist, every rogue state, every Saddam-wannabe, that we are indeed a toothless tiger. And no ally will trust our word when we promise protection.

John Kerry is promising peace to those who oppose war for any reason, and war for those who want the citizens of the US protected. It's an untenable campaign stance but, worse, an impossible stance to take if elected. He's going to have to choose one or the other. Care to flip coins?

Your characterization of Kerry and Bush conducting the war on terrorism and Iraq flies in the face of every talking head, pundit, pollster, and the candidates themselves. The press has called Bush "stubborn" for not changing course, while praising Kerry as being "flexible." The media does have it right, but they're applying the glowing praise to the wrong candidate.

Following the war of 1812, President Monroe realized that the US should be buying lands owned by the French, the Spanish, Britain, and other countries to prevent foreign governments from amassing troops within striking distance on our continent.

For better or worse, Northerner or Southerner, Lincoln saw the divide of the US into two separate countries as the end of the US. All opposing views welcome.

Despite opposing views on US intervention in European conflicts (including criticism from Harry Truman), FDR adopted a private "doctrine" aimed at keeping Europe stable in the best interests of the US. FDR knew full well that our interactions with Britain would eventually draw us into the war.

Ike/JFK/Johnson/Nixon recognized the spread of Soviet-style communism into other parts of the world--especially our hemisphere, and the areas of our allies--as a real threat to the safety of the US. Reagan is regarded as the president who brought down the Soviet Empire. You may disagree, but that was the goal for decades.

We are now at a crossroads, just seven days from now. We no longer face a European enemy (except, perhaps, the French who like to hurl slurs and stinky cheese). We no longer face the Brits, or the Japanese, or the former Soviet Union.

With a few exceptions-Rwanda, for example--the world is largely peaceful. The big exception is the Middle East. We can never be secure in the world if we cannot do for the Middle East what we did for Europe and the Far East: establish democratic governments that encourage people of other countries to pursue similar goals.

As long as the people of the Middle East are confined to a Seventh-Century culture of fear, torture, and poverty by the hands of just a few, we'll always have suicide bombers. We just witnessed a 75% turnout by Afghani voters after centuries of brutal tribal rule; would that we would see that level of turnout here in the US (except for Chicago ;) ).

The Left is saying that Iraq isn't worth it. The Iraqis can't govern themselves. Tell that to the people of Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, and other countries we've helped.

And this is where GW comes in. This is his goal. It's at the core of his beliefs. And it is achievable.

This is the most important election in recent history. We're choosing between an incumbent president who has a long-term doctrine designed to keep our country safe from attack, or a challenger whose resume suggests that he's just not willing to take the political risks associated with such an enormous task.

GW has disappointed me on a number of issues. But his duty first and foremost is to protect and defend the US. The decision to go into Iraq held no political benefits for Bush. His advisors assuredly told him that the invasion would worsen the recession. And it did.

That tells me all I need to know about his convictions. Kerry doesn't tell me anything other than it was the Secret Service agent's fault that he fell off his snowboard in Idaho, and called said agent a "son of a b****."
 
looking at some of the people that want to put Kerry in office.
Click to expand...
LOL!
So the "entertainment industry" supports Kerry.
No surprise there. Ages ago these people were called "court jesters and/or "court fools". Look's like the court jesters want a say in who's king.
 
Well, Handy, good point, but I think what you're underestimating is the fact that 3 SCOTUS justices could replaced in the next 4, COMBINED with the fact that the federal jurisprudence on the RKBA has been coming to a head in the legal journals and court cases in the last 14 years - since the 92 SCOTUS case - so the pressure on the SCOTUS to grant cert in an important gun case is going to build likely to overwhelming pressure in the next 10-20 years, almost forcing them to grant cert. If you understand how cert works, the SCOTUS can shirk its responsibility to make decisions for a long time (as they have since 1939 for the most part, in the case of the RKBA), but when you have one or more "circuit splits", they get a lot of pressure to clarify an issue. This is when one of the federal circuit courts of appeals rules one way, and another 180 degrees. There are 13 or 14 federal circuit courts. You have the rogue judges in the 9th circuit proclaiming no individual RKBA, and you have the 5th circuit stating that there's a definite individual RKBA (although it didn't result in an overturned conviction for Mr. Emerson). These disagreements among judges, combined with the fervor of some of the scholarly work (most of which is squarely on the individual rights side), *should* force those slackers in the SCOTUS to take a case and make a gd decision, hopefully in the next 20 years. Since they're appointed for life (essentially - "good behavior"), EVERY SCOTUS member is critical (particularly given the fact that most important decisions are 5-4 vote), and 2 or 3 appointments are for ALL the marbles, as far as preserving the RKBA inviolate for generation upon generation, with a seminal precedent case. So the answer is YES, this election between these two yardbirds, who appear on the surface to not have a hill of beans difference, *could* in fact be for all the marbles, in terms of having or not having a meaningful RKBA, for one and only one reason - justice appointments.
 
The ONLY difference between the two parties is RKBA. If Kerry is elected expect a new improved AWB within weeks. One party is definitely anti, the other indifferent.

And let's not forget the Republican controlled Senate voted 52/47 to add an AWB extension to the junk lawsuit bill. The Senate is already in the anti camp, the house perilously close. Enough pressure on a few congresscritters and we loose.
 
FF,

I'm not sure I want Bush appointing Justices either. Overturning RoeV.Wade and the creation of illegal clinics and contraband day-after pills is not something I'd look forward to. Alcohol was another "unChristian evil" who's abolishment only created crime.

Anyway, laws and Justices share something essential: They must be voted for by Congress, which is Republican controlled. Which makes me wonder if we sometimes aren't better off with a Congress and President of opposite parties. Only the most moderate laws get through, so I don't have to live like either the hippies or Christian Coalition think I should.
 
Handy: "Only the most moderate laws get through..."

Moderate as in McCain/Feingold (which Bush signed), the AW Ban, a ban on "plastic guns" that don't exist, the Brady background check, waiting periods, the FBI NICS database, proposed legislation to close the "gun show loophole," ammo bans courtesy of Ted Kennedy, ammo taxes, and more?

"Moderate"=compromise. You have ten bucks in your pocket, and I have zero. If we "compromise," you'll have five bucks, and I'll have five bucks.
 
Monkeyleg,
Please tell us how the 2001 McCain/Feingold bill wasn't the product of a Rep. Congress and a Rep. President.


The Brady bill might be viewed as extreme in some lights, but it was more than just a gun ban (the LE funding is how it got enough Rep. support), and it was the first gun control law I know of with an expiration date. All in all, one of the more toothless gun control laws passed.

Plastic gun law? I didn't think that passed, despite its far reaching effects. ;) "Please mister, don't take away my imaginary gun."

Really, the most extreme bit of gun control since 1968 was Bush Sr's executive order banning virtually all foreign semiautomatic rifles.


But I do think the so called Patriot Act is an extreme law that might not have been so far reaching if more than one party was involved in ratifying it.


And buddy, if you can look at our two choices for President and tell me there's no compromise in politics, I've got a bridge to sell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top