People who want it ALL NOW!

Status
Not open for further replies.
RMc,

I would never contribute one dime to the RNC, although I've been asked on several occasions. Personally, I would never want to assist, in any way, people like Henry Hyde, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastart, or even John McCain. These people are establishment politicians first, and Republicans, only by convenience. They fail to understand the true nature and goals of the Socialist Democrats.

I have, however, and will continue to support and contribute directly to people such as Bob Barr, Duke Cunningham, Bob Smith, and Ron Paul who work from the inside to support and restore our rights.

You, and others here say that you intend to vote Libertarian, and that is your absolute right to do so. I agree with most of the positions the Libertarians take. Too bad a majority of the American voters do not.

I just want to leave you with one last thought: It's easy for candidates like Harry Browne, or Pat Buchanan to take uncompromising pro-gun positions, because they are not burdened with the possibility that they might actually win the election. The Socialist Democrats don't even have to respond to them. GW Bush, however, does have this burden, and thus; must take positions that will be supported by the majority of voters, regardless of his true feelings on the subject.

This country cannot afford another 4 years dominated by Algore, and the Socialist Democrats, and retain the freedoms we currently enjoy.
 
KAC556, you said: "I have, however, and will continue to support and contribute directly to people such as Bob Barr, Duke Cunningham, Bob Smith, and Ron Paul who work from the inside to support and restore our rights."

And you are aware that Ron Paul chose to work from the inside by running as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988?

You also noted: "I agree with most of the positions the Libertarians take. Too bad a majority of the American voters do not."

I don't think it's clear that a majority of American voters don't agree with Libertarian positions. I think the vast majority don't know the Libertarian position, which is no surprise given the effort that the Republicans and Democrats put into keeping Libertarian views out of the public eye. You yourself admit that you agree with most of the Libertarian positions, and I suspect that a great many more Americans, if they were as informed as you are, would do the same. Voting for Libertarian candidates and drawing more attention to their views is the best way to do this.

Also, you said: "GW Bush...must take positions that will be supported by the majority of voters, regardless of his true feelings on the subject."

So we should vote for Bush because of his pandering to the voters, and not for his support of what he believes? Please explain how that makes him any better than a Democrat.

Finally, you said, "This country cannot afford another 4 years dominated by Algore, and the Socialist Democrats, and retain the freedoms we currently enjoy."

Sadly, it appears the Republican Party as a whole does not want to preserve the freedoms we enjoy, but only to eliminate different ones. That doesn't strike me as a great improvement.
 
After a quick scan of the initial post & just a couple of the replies (sorry, a bit busy these days), I will state most emphatically that personally, I will (for now) settle for a total ban (call it what you will = holding action, etc.) on any further legislation (of ANY new laws, period!) until this country can get a grip.

We have plenty to cover any damned thing that happens currently in every venue.

Any disagreements? Let's hear it now.

Once the holding action is completed (dream on), "we" could then start to educate (dream on) the great unwashed. Then, "we" could start to turn the tide (dream on).

Cynical? You bet.

I want NOW a complete restoration of my (& mine & that includes you, BTW) rights. That a happenin' kinda thing? Nope. So, I'll work within the framework of "the game" as is currently set up & hopefully take it to the next level when possible.

It's not gonna happen by any of us bitchin' in TFL, as wonderful a forum as it is. It'll take each & everyone of us to actually start to take a (very!) active part in our own government. & that means EVERY avenue we have at our disposal - one very small step at a time.

Do we want it or will we only talk about it?
 
David,

You asked: "And you are aware that Ron Paul chose to work from the inside by running as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988?"

Yes, I am aware of that. You, I'm sure are aware that Dr. Paul is and has been a Republican Congressman, and as such has endorsed GW Bush for President, for many of the same reasons I have previously outlined.

You asked: "So we should vote for Bush because of his pandering to the voters, and not for his support of what he believes? Please explain how that makes him any better than a Democrat."

If you carefully re-read any of my previous posts, you will see that I've never presumed to tell anyone who "they" should vote for. I've merely attemped to point out there are no "perfect" candidates running for President, and if enough third party conservative voters choose to take an uncompromising, "all or nothing," position, and vote for a candidate who will not win, it will play into the hands of those who are dedicated to the destruction of our Liberties.

You stated: "Sadly, it appears the Republican Party as a whole does not want to preserve the freedoms we enjoy, but only to eliminate different ones. That doesn't strike me as a great improvement."

I would like to hear you factually substantiate that claim, in terms of actual freedoms that you believe the Republicans wish to "eliminate." I always love to learn something new.




[This message has been edited by KAC556 (edited March 12, 2000).]
 
Well, KAC556, looks like it’s down to you and me.

In response to my question about Ron Paul, the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988, you wrote: “You, I'm sure are aware that Dr. Paul is and has been a Republican Congressman, and as such has endorsed GW Bush for President, for many of the same reasons I have previously outlined.”

I’m aware that Dr. Paul is a Republican congressman, whom you praised in your previous post as one of the Republicans who “work from the inside.” My point remains the same. What you call working from the inside has included seeking office on the Libertarian ticket, so apparently Paul doesn’t share your view that supporting Libertarians aids the Democrats. And by the way, I spent some time on the Web this afternoon unsuccessfully trying to verify your claim that Paul has endorsed Bush for president, which I had not heard before. Nothing on Paul’s web site mentions this, and Paul is conspicuously absent from the lengthy roster of congressional supporters listed on the Bush campaign web site. Can you provide a citation for Paul’s endorsement of Bush?

You also said: "If you carefully re-read any of my previous posts, you will see that I've never presumed to tell anyone who ‘they’ should vote for. I've merely attempted to point out there are no ‘perfect’ candidates running for President, and if enough third party conservative voters choose to take an uncompromising, ‘all or nothing,’ position, and vote for a candidate who will not win, it will play into the hands of those who are dedicated to the destruction of our Liberties.”

I’ve re-read your first post on this thread, where you say those of us who support “any no-chance 3rd party candidate” instead of Bush will be giving the presidency to Gore. I guess the great semanticist Bill Clinton might agree with you that that’s not the same as telling people who to vote for, but I think your intent is pretty clear. You’re urging people to vote for Bush.

Finally, regarding my statement that the Republican Party as a whole does not want to preserve the freedoms we enjoy, but only to eliminate different ones, you wrote: "I would like to hear you factually substantiate that claim, in terms of actual freedoms that you believe the Republicans wish to 'eliminate.' I always love to learn something new.”

Glad to oblige. First and foremost, the so-called “War on Drugs,” which has gradually metamorphosed into a war on all property rights and most civil liberties in this country, is fully a Republican creation. It had its roots in 1981 when Nancy Reagan’s handlers, concerned about her negative image resulting from her collection of contributions for White House china and furnishings, urged her to find a pet social issue upon which to crusade. She chose drugs. The Bush administration picked this ball up and ran with it, declaring a formal “war on [certain] drugs” in the late 1980s. Bush also made the previously ceremonial post of “drug czar” a high-profile job with his appointment of chain-smoking moralist Bill Bennett to the post. Other threads on TFL and in abundant other places on the Web detail some of the civil rights abuses, frame-ups of innocent citizens, and outright murders that are direct results of this war on the citizens of our country. The Clinton administration has certainly not been reluctant to continue this ill-advised war, but the fact remains that in doing so they are using a tool fashioned and implemented by the Republicans, and Republicans (and recently lapsed Republicans like Pat Buchanan) are still among the war’s loudest cheerleaders.

Other posts here on TFL have already drawn the parallel between the war on the drugs and a war on guns, and while the Democrats are the leading enthusiasts of that particular form of oppression, many Republicans don’t lag far behind. For example, KAC556, check a few direct quotes from the web site of your preferred candidate for president, George W. Bush. They tell us that Bush:
-- “Supports banning juveniles from possession of semi-automatic ‘assault’ weapons” (Bush doesn’t describe what those are, nor does he explain why it’s undesirable for juveniles who can legally possess other guns to posses semi-autos.)
-- “Supports increasing the minimum age for possession of a handgun from 18 to 21” (Hey, that’s great. Bush, like Clinton, trusts you 20-year-olds in the Army to possess handguns when you’re in Bosnia. Just don’t expect the same freedom here in your own country.)
-- “Supports banning the importation of foreign made, ‘high-capacity’ ammunition clips. (Wow, now HERE’S a real difference in position between Bush and Clinton. Right.)

Bush’s web site goes on to say: “Governor Bush supports voluntary efforts to equip all handguns with child safety locks. If Congress passed legislation requiring mandatory trigger locks for all new handguns, he would sign it.” Yeah, Bush sure sounds to me like a guy who will take a firm principled stand on behalf of gun rights. Is this an example of the kind of incremental gains we can look forward to under a Bush administration?

Since Bush will clearly be the Republican nominee, let’s look at a few more of his stands on the issues, and see what effect they have on our rights. He’s waffled enough on the abortion issue that I won’t beat him up about that one, but his web site also says that the Texas governor calls for “strict enforcement of anti-dumping and other unfair trade laws.” The protectionist myth of dumping has resulted in a ridiculous labyrinth of laws and a complex bureaucracy with no real accomplishments other than depriving American workers of jobs, reducing the choices available to American consumers, and increasing the costs we pay for goods. For documentation and examples, see “Lost Rights” by James Bovard, pp. 60 ff. Bush wants this to continue.

A check on the matrix of candidate’s positions provided at the MSNBC web site indicates that some of Bush’s other stands are for:
-- mandatory sentencing (Why not concentrate on getting better judges who will keep dangerous criminals in jail but give a defendants a break when circumstances call for it? Isn’t that why there’s a human element in the judiciary process?)
-- full background checks on drug use for all appointees (Can you say “guilty until proven innocent?” I knew you could.)
-- tort reform to make it harder to sue corporations. (We need a less restrictive regulatory environment for corporations, and my guess is that Bush would support that, but we also must retain full rights to sue those corporations when they cause actual damage.)

KAC556, I understand that you support Bush for president, and if you are comfortable with that for whatever reason, that’s fine. I have close friends that I expect will vote for Bush, too. I agree that Bush would be a better president than Gore. But that’s not a good reason not to support a candidate I believe would be far better than either of them. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and we who want our civil rights restored won’t see that happen by saying “Keep taking my rights, just do it more slowly.”
 
This is one of the reasons why incrementalism has worked for the socialists. The good guys on OUR side have incrementally left the principles so strickly opposed to tyrany. We have therefore lost the exercise of our God-given liberties. I agree with your purpose fully. In all honesty, I fail to see any long term changes that have incrementally brought about the restoration of the unimpeded exercise of our liberties. This article brings out some good points of why some are fed up with the extreme compromise exercised by republicans and proRKBA groups.
thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25561
In trying to appeal to the media, liberals, and moderates, they are losing those who they claim to represent. I have nothing against Bush personally, however I must reason that the man who raised him as a child, and influenced his thinking signed into law the biggest gun confiscation package in all of American history up to our present pres. I am not ruling him out as a potential vote just yet, but it is was a sad day when his Dad took office.

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)



[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited March 14, 2000).]
 
I'm not demanding it all now, but I'd really like the republicans to not go any further away from RKBA ( re Pataki and Bush's possible ( repeat: only possible!) agreement with him). I finally swollowed my pride and agreed with the rational idea of getting the lessor (but electable) evil into the White House. Then the news from NY. SIGH!!!

------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
 
Gus, even if you believe as you say, you should DEFINITELY vote for Alan Keyes in the primary, then W. in the general, in order to attempt to pull W. toward the Keyes idealogy. Do you think you'll cause Keyes to win? If your primary hasn't happened yet, by all means vote for the man.
 
And point of fact: Didn't the Congress turn Repub-controlled in November '94, taking office in '95, so that the '94 10-round limit was indeed passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Futo Inu:
Gus, even if you believe as you say, you should DEFINITELY vote for Alan Keyes in the primary, then W. in the general, in order to attempt to pull W. toward the Keyes idealogy.[/quote]
Futo, my friend, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make. When a candidate makes a strong showing, even if he doesn't win, it encourages others to co-opt some of his ideas. Which is why I'm voting Libertarian.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Futo Inu:
Gus, even if you believe as you say, you should DEFINITELY vote for Alan Keyes in the primary, then W. in the general, in order to attempt to pull W. toward the Keyes idealogy. [/quote]

Futo,
That is precisely what I plan on doing. I was just hoping that Alan Keyes would have had a strong enough showing, to be considered as George W's running mate. But than again, being the man of principal he is, he would probably reject such an offer.

This whole thing is tearing me up. Do I vote my conscience, as I always have in the past, or do I compromise, and vote for George W, hoping that his Supreme Court Appointees will change the tide of oppression? Right now, I feel that Constitutionalist Supreme Court Appointees are far more important to the revival of the freedoms of this great nation, than my betraying of my principals. By November, I may feel different.
 
Any vote not for G.W. Bush is a vote for Al Gore. So make a statement. Go ahead. Al is counting on you!

Here's an idea. Instead of throwing the Presidential race, get some third party officials in local and state offices, first. Only then will they be truelly viable candidates.

Erik
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erik:
Here's an idea. Instead of throwing the Presidential race, get some third party officials in local and state offices, first.[/quote]
You mean something like the 276 Libertarians currently holding elected office in state and local government?
 
Erik's point is a good one, and an instance of a larger one that bears repeating.

Everyone on this board decries the creeping, incrementalist destruction of freedom. Each small step, covered with a facade of "reasonableness", works against us. Measures which have no obvious connection to tragic incidents are pushed through like some urgent response to an emergency, when it's obvious to us that all that's being done is harrassing law-abiding people who didn't do anything in the first place. One step at a time.

Everyone here knows this.

Yet some of you think that winning the election in the fall is not worth doing. You think that it won't matter, that since you can't get a referendum passed this June to repeal the laws of 93, 86, 68, and 34 it's not worth your time. Incrementalism is a useless strategy, it seems you believe, despite the massive evidence that it works against US.

With all due respect, that's just indulgence.

If you think all is lost _already_, that what we have now is no better than Britain, Canada, Australia or whereever the hell else, well I can see the point. But there is still ground to fight for, and then fight back from.

There is reason to think better of the long term, too. In the last fifteen years, intellectual interest and support for a right to keep and bear arms has taken off. This is a new development. For a long time, academics if they cared at all about guns cared only to eliminate them. And academics have an impact on policy. Not an immediate one, but one that is important. Consider that gun control in the Clinton administration got its start in left-wing academia in the early seventies, the pacifist movement, etc.

There is a substantial body of legal scholarship which might well impact a Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment early in the next century (begins 1/1/2001, by the way).

The movement to strip people of guns rests on no more intellectual support. It has political momentum now, but not the solid inevitable backing of it being the right thing to do. That's a reason to believe that we might look back in 10 years and remember this a high point for this movement, the crest of a wave, not the beginning of one.

But a lot depends on what happens in November.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top