Republicans v. Libertarians (OPTIONAL) #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
All,
If you are offended by our discussion, skip this thread!

It’s not worth your peace of mind or your health to be upset by threads you
easily can skip!

This first post is a summary of all arguments taken from
“Republicans v. Libertarians (OPTIONAL Reading)”
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23676

(Which became too long to continue - hence “Part 2”.)

a) Everyone is free to chime in but please read the arguments in the FIRST part
(so we don’t repeat them here).

b) Let’s keep the discussion on THIS thread rather than mucking up other
folks’ offerings.

c) Let’s stay civil. If we can present facts clearly, we each can evaluate them
and come to different, even opposing positions in a rational, studied manner.

-------
Let’s stay calm and let our facts do the fighting. So, let me list our arguments
as best I understand them at this time. Please add your views or correct any
misunderstanding that I have. As we agree on corrections and additions.
I will re-post them (by editing) to this first post as proponents direct.

By editing this first post,
- We (and others) can keep track of where we stand just by reading the first
post!
- A fair summary will be kept.
- We can even delete our later posts to save bandwidth for Rich. (After all,
he’s the guy paying to support our chat.)

====================================================
We should vote Republican because:
====================================================

1) To split votes between a Republican who has a good chance of winning the
Presidency and a third-party candidate who has NO chance of winning probably
would result in a Democrat President.

2) A Democrat President would:
a) Tax and spend worse than a Republican,
b) Destroy our gun rights quicker than a Republican,
c) Sen. Feinstein and Attorney General Janet Reno already are working on a
FIREARMS REGISTRATION plan. This sets the stage for confiscation of our
firearms. We must vote the Democrats out of office.

3) A third-party President would unite Congress against the Presidency to
the extent that:
a) There would be little or no cooperation between the Congress and a third
Party President.
b) Such conflict would result in deadlocking our federal government and
preventing much useful (as well as less-than-useful) legislation.
c) Such conflict could adversely affect our international relations. (I don’t
know how far you feel this one could go, so please add to this one.)

4) If we (gun owners) abandon the Republican Party, and:
a) If they win, they see us as an impotent fringe group whom they can ignore.
b) If they lose, they see us as turncoats, unreliable supporters, etc.

5) A solid majority of either party will not be as handicapped and forced to
compromise or as prone to compromise.

6) We should be more concerned with the Supreme Court than with the Congress.
Supreme Court openings must be filled by Republicans (with Conservatives) rather
than by Democrats (with Liberals) - so vote Republican for the sake of the Supreme
Court appointments to be made.

7) We should give the Republicans one more chance - four more years.

8) A Republican President would eliminate some of the onerous Presidential
Executive Orders.

9) A Republican might slow down the increasing gun control victories in Congress.

10) Libertarians have no track record in the Presidency. We have no way to tell if they will do what they promise.

11) Libertarians promise the world but won't be able to deliver.

====================================================
We should vote Libertarian because:
====================================================

1) Voting for a Republican is a wasted vote. The Republicans and Democrats are too
similar to differentiate.
a) They both tax and spend too much.
b) They both are destroying our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our way of
life. The only discernible difference is the Democrats are quicker and worse
than the Republicans.
c) If the Democrats have their way, we will lose our gun rights quickly.
d) If the Republicans have their way, we will lose our gun rights by
compromise in a slower manner, which is likely to be more effective than
trying to outlaw gun ownership quickly.
e) The Republocrats are pushing the U.S. into a subservience to the United Nations.
f) The Republocrats are entangling us needless, maybe illegal, maybe immoral
treaties and conflicts.

2) Whether a Republican or Democrat wins the Presidency, we will lose.
a) However, if a third party, such as the Libertarians, win a large number of
voters, this represents “lost” votes to the Republocrats.
b) A party that wins the Presidency by a small margin can NOT claim a
“mandate”.
c) Whoever wins will see the American people are getting wise to the
Republocrat games and getting fed up.
d) A Libertarian President would eliminate guns laws and veto any
firearms registration law. It would be difficult for Congress to
overcome such a veto.

3) If gun owners would wake up and vote Libertarian there might just be a
chance for a third party candidate.

4) A third party candidate would reduce or eliminate many of our obnoxious,
anti-American programs - possibly saving our Republic.

5) A solid Democratic majority means more and more guns laws. The Republicans
HAD a majority and we got more and more gun laws. The difference is only one of
speed and severity - the eventual outcome would be the same with a Democratic or
Republican majority.

6) The Supreme Court is important - they interpret the laws of our land. However,
the President and the Congress are making both laws and directives with the power
of law. The Supreme Court won't even decide whether the Second Amendment
means what it obviously says! The Supreme Court, filled with appointees of the
Republocrats won't even hear cases to restore our freedoms. Therefore, we must
take over the Legislative and Executive Branches first - the Supreme Court later.

7) We have given BOTH the Democrats AND the Republicans MANY chances! Why
would the NEXT four years be different from any of the previous "four years"? We
can only lose more of the Bill of Rights by supporting these liars (Republicans and
Democrats) for another for years.

8) A Libertarian President would eliminate ALL the onerous Presidential Executive
Orders.

9a) Republicans facilitate and VOTE for gun control.
9b) A Libertarian President would veto ALL gun control measures. He would
eliminate gun control directives in the entire Legislative Branch. He would work to
revoke ALL gun control measures and punish violent offenders rather than
"criminalize" decent Americans.

10) Liebertarians have no track record, but the Republican's track record shows
them to be anti-gun "compromisers" with anything the Democrats come up with.
With some 22,000 gun laws on the books, the two major parties have proven to be
the enemies of freedom.

11) Both Libertarians and Republicans are making promises:
11a) Libertarians promise to eliminate gun control laws.
11b) Republicans, specifically Trent Lott, promised, gave his word, that Republicans
would work with Democrats to enact NEW gun laws.

----------------------------------
For additional references, see below:
As my offering against the Republocrats, I refer to the following travesties (possibly
crimes) of our government and related supporters:

Thought Control:
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23596

Executive Orders:
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23588

International, governmental terrorism:
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23599

Gun control agenda:
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23700

Republicans Vote for Gun Control:
http://www.gunowners.org/a051499.html



[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 12, 1999).]
 
Iepeac,
Since the thread in which you replied was closed I copied it to this thread which dennis started a while back.

<<I think we all enjoy spirited debate, or we'd be out doing something productive, instead. As I've said before about TFLers, they can debate without flaming.>>
...definitely agree, not even subtle flames...lol..
<<fubsy, I'm glad we agree that the Republicans are gun controllers.>>
...Now, there ya go again, believing an untruth, I know more believe that all republicans are 100% behind every issue they have any more than every liberformer (my new word for the day, eaiser typing then libertarian/reformer), believes a 100% in their platform----is that what you believe that every liberformer is 100% behind there entire platform?
<< As to the Democrats hanging together so well, they sure didn't right after the '94 elections. I watched a lot of C-Span at that time, and started to notice that the Dems lost a greater percentage of their vote to the Repub side than vice versa, on almost every vote. It seemed to me like they sure got the message sent at the ballot box.
Sadly, we all know what happened to the Republican Revolution, and the Dems were quick to pick up on Republican wishy-washyness (did I just invent a word?).>>
......c-span thats a non biased source,eh?,
people can look at the same event and have differing opinions, I look at the fact the democrats after have been put in a position of losing, ralled and came back, sorta like the position the republicans have been in, they too can come back--if you choose not to believe that, stay on the outside looking in.
<<Supreme Court appointments? Who cares? History shows us that justices tend to be somewhat fickle, and to not turn out quite like the party that appointed them thought they would. I don't imagine we'll see a 2nd amendment case anytime soon, and I have about as much confidence that GWB would appoint someone who actually understands the BoR as I have in him calling for the repeal of all gun control laws going back to 1934. On this I'm sure we'll disagree.>>
.....Of course we will disagree on this, the supreme ct is the best chance we have, how is it that you expect the liberformer canidate to overturn the laws that are unconstitutional--that is not within the authority of the president or even the congress, it is within the jurisdiction of the supreme ct., that laws are found to be unconstitutional. History does show that judges do not always vote the straight party line and that is acceptable to me, I want justices who use strict interpretation of the constitution, I feel I have a better shot of getting that with a republican over a democrat--its like Ive said before--ya'll think there are gurantees, and just because the party you favor talks the talk you want to hear and that dosent mean its going to happen.
<<I haven't seen much "thwarting" of gun control by the Republican congress;>>
....by much do you mean any?, so they at the very least did something right, not nearly enuf in my opinion.
<< in fact, I have seen gun control proposed by Republican members. Let me get this straight, I'm to believe that, even though they've been talking like anti-gunners, even though they've been voting like anti-gunners, I'm to believe that if we reward them with the presidency and the congress the GOP will suddenly show their true colors and begin repealing the gun control legislation they helped to craft and pass?>>
.....I doubt if we will ever have it repealled by anything other than a ruling by the supreme ct. No political party not even the liberformers will be able to do it without going before the supreme ct., In ca, they are after all of those well intentioned citizens who registered, there so called "assault rifles" late, now we know that happened because hci took it to court, do you think they would not avail themselves of the same opportunity at a national level if congress attempted to strike down legislation on gun control?.....
<<And who has a bridge to sell to whom?>>
...I still have that bridge for ya, Ya'll put out false hope and play on peoples disgust and fears telling people what they want to hear---we can fix it all, just elect us and we will strike down all unconstitutional laws, How?, by just being elected.....I wish it was true, but sadly its not, and wont be at this election coming up. In time perhaps, and that perhaps is a long way from a certainity, but why lose more than we have to?....
<<I've never run from the issue that the Dems move faster on gun control. Permit me to pint out that many of my posts say just that. The key word, however, is 'faster'.>>
....Ah, so your admitting that by voting liberformer and when they dont win, we will lose our 2nd amend rights even faster--so in the short term a vote for a liberformer is a vote for a democrat, amazing, thats exactly what I said.
<<Voting Republican is, at best, a short term solution. It's kinda like the boy sticking his finger in the holes in the dike: you're still flooding, just a little slower.>>
....It might be exactly as you say, and the trend is worriesome, but Ill take any delay, any minor victory no matter how small and continue to fight for the whole ball of wax. Our planet wide history is replete with people fighting for delays in order to win, why are you so willing to throw a delay away? The fight wont be won in the next couple of years, although I think with the positive ruling by the supreme ct we could damage the antis campaign in a serious way. Heck, if we've learned anything its that they just regroup and come back, so unless we get a definite ruling from the supreme ct, we will never be able to drive that stake in their heart. We might be passing this fight on to our kids and their kids, lets give em every weapon we can, including ct rulings. That delay could give the liberformers time to build a better apparatus, so they can affect the changes they want.

<<Maybe it's time to run for help.>>
....there is nowhere to run, like most of us here, I fight the illogic and ignorance of my fellow americans daily. I try to show understanding of their positions while explaing mine, invariably some cross over and some shy away. This fight has been here and it continues, lets not throw away a victory because of our anger and frustration at the situation we find ourselves in, remember it didnt happen overnight, if those bas*ards can win by incrementalism, we can shove it down there throat the same way, we just have to constantly regroup and go at em.
...fubsy.

[This message has been edited by fubsy (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
TR and CO.
I must really be doing a poor job at getting my point across. Did I not ask, Dennis of all people, to give me a "VIABLE alternative" something I could put my arms around?? As yet I have heard nothing but rhetoric, you put up a non sensical, specious arguement for a party that has no TEETH, gum this around all you like, say what you will but in the end we will all suffer because we cannot be cohesive and unified. We cannot sound off with one voice that is why we continue to lose ground WE continue to be our own worst enemy. My Point is that come November you will be asked to cast your vote and rather than give yourself ANY chance to correct what has been done, you would toss your vote away in protest. Hell why not vote for the Democrat and be done with it. Lets be realistic shall we? Do you believe that your LP candidate has a 50/50 chance of winning a presidential election? 40/60, 20/80 (win/lose) NO you don't, so where do you go from here? How do you correct a system gone awry? hand it to the Gun Grabber party by being passive aggressive? Or stack the deck as best you can with the most pro gun candidates, and work to better your position by utilizing the existing infrastructure? I WISH that these Republican candidates had the werewithawl that some of your libertarian Party people do but they don't. Stop trying to give me abject lessons in third party politics and start dealing in reality, Got someone Viable?? Effective?? do you even have a decent grass roots effort that can get a candidate on the ballot in all 50 States?? Nothing from Nothing STILL LEAVES NOTHING. You started with Nothing you have Nothing and that is what you can expect...Nothing. Give me SOLUTIONS not rhetoric. I am saying that there is a system in place to correct it yet you are unwilling to utilze it because?? It's too much work? you would be comprimising yourself some how?? What?? And this is correcting the problem how?? You refuse to work with what you have in favor of something that for the moment is unattainable and I am reasonably sure will remain so in the near future. does that sum it up?? I have asked you time and again yet none of the respondents have answered my question...Come November who do I vote for and a vote for that party/candidate assures me what??
As for my Signature TR I stand behind what is written despite your attempt to slant it. When it comes to my rights especially my 2nd ammendment ones you will find I will go the distance, because I refuse to go quietly into that good night!

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree....



------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
--Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
..."The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." --Thomas Jefferson
Take care and God Bless, El Jefe
 
FWIW I totally agree w/El Jeffe.

It's great to dream about the form of government we would all like to have. However the reality is much different. The argument of "but if every gun owner would just stand up and vote libertarian..." ain't gonna work. There are numerous other issues to consider, not every gun owner is a one issue voter nor is every gun owner as strong viewed as the average TFL member.

We all need to remember that.

I would like to see a Libertarian candidate that had a real shot at winning. But I'd also like to win the Lotto. I realize though, that spending my money on lotto tickets carries too much risk of wasting my money for the potential return, in effect it's a waste. Just like voting for a third party candidate.

Get it?



------------------
Dan

Check me out at:
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
 
I think a lot of rhetoric is being wasted before the decision has to be made or positions have even been stated. Take an example-suppose a week before the election things are going as currently anticipated, ie, Al the commie Gore is gonna get thrashed in a way and by an amount that will be forever embarrassing to the Dems. I'da thought that simply having GWB far ahead of AG in the polls before he even declared a candidacy, when he was a state Gov and AG was VP would have been so embarrassing that AG would have withdrawn his name from consideration. But...

If GWB wins, say, 70-30, he's gonna honestly believe that all his positions are supported by a huge majority, and act accordingly (rightly so). If, OTOH, 30% vote for LP or other "losers", so he ends up with 40-30-30, he's gonna get a message that he's got a lot of work to do. And not a single vote for LP or other will have translated into "a vote for AG" or been wasted. Time will tell, but I don't believe there is any hurry in making this decision, much less any reason to argue it 14 months before the election.

FWIW, I voted 3rd party in '92 and '96 and never threw my vote away, IMHO, for the simple reason that between the major candidates I really did not CARE which won, either was totally offensive to me, goring my particular ox in different ways but goring it severely nonetheless. In the future I intend to narrow my focus to simple emphasis on my rights, which I do not believe would have changed my vote then (except for possibly a different "also-ran" getting my vote). I will vote for those who publicly promise to DECREASE restrictions on my freedoms, not those who are promising to increase them over here and decrease them over there, raise or lower taxes, or whatever. You don't make that promise, or wish to make it in private somehow so that "those other dummies think I'm with them" (Jimmy Carter in '76 had all his own campaign workers thinking he stood for every one of their pet issues, though those issues conflicted massively), you don't get my vote. Simple as that.

Even those who so desperately wish to preclude Al Gore's presidency have to see that if his cause is already hopeless there is an opportunity to make a statement to GWB by NOT joining the herd, announcing that he ain't your hero either.
 
You have to learn to walk before you can run.

I checked on the Libertarian Party website to see if there were any libertarians holding office in Ohio. There are five. Two township trustees, one zoning commissioner, one commissioner in the big city of Piqua, and one state school board member. Alert! Two sarcastic sentences to follow: WOW! That’s some great base of power they’ve got. Anyone running for dog catcher? ;) The site doesn’t tell me how many were elected as something else and "converted" in office.

To find out the nationwide results of the last election, check out this site http://www.lp.org/elections/current-results.html
What I see at this site is that Libertarians fill out the bottom (loser) spots in most elections. Also that most of the positions that Libertarians are running for are small potatoes. While this is an honorable place to start, they need to win a few of these small potatoes type races before they will ever be considered a major contender.

My point is that this party doesn’t have the base of power (voters) it needs to win at the national level - yet. I like most of what I see at the website (except for drugs, free trade and open borders) and will definitely consider voting for a Libertarian candidate in a local election. I also don’t know if a presidential election is the best time or place to try and "send a message." I can’t help but think that first we should have a few Libertarian Mayors, Reps, Senators, Governors, etc. Let’s try out a Libertarian Governor first, then we’ll see how the state runs after four years. (and we won’t have to worry about free trade or open borders)

As I am at this point undecided, I appreciate this thread to explore some alternatives to the same old in & out. :)


------------------
"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." - Ramsay Clark

"Rights are liable to be perverted to wrongs when we are incapable of rightly exercising them." - Sarah Josepha Hale
 
Okay, boys and girls, let's start from the beginning.

1) Do we have more gun control now than we did in 1950?

Yes, we have more gun control."

2) Who brought us increased gun control?

The only people in power, the Republicans and Democrats.

3) Have the Democrats AND the Republicans indicated they would pass MORE gun control?

Democrats, yes. Most of them could be poster-children for HCI.

Republicans, yes.
- Sen. Trent Lott promised to find "compromises" with the Democrats for additional "reasonable" gun control measures.

- Gov. Bush stated he supports every single Republican gun control measure.

------------------------

"Yes, but" answers notwithstanding, a vote for a Republican OR a Democrat is a vote FOR gun control.

I won't vote for gun control
You will.
There's the difference.


------------------
Real Americans vote their conscience, not their fears.



[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
Wait Dennis, you forgot #4....

4) What are we going to do about it?

a. Vote Democrat...and hope that they don't find all our guns during their raids.

b. Vote Republican...and hope that we have time to make a few private buys before they "compromise" on gun control again.

c. Vote Libertarian...and have piece of mind that we voted our conscience while the Democrats take our guns.

I'm sorry, I really don't want to come off as a smart a$$, but I'm wondering if it will even matter who you vote for. I don't like any of the three options I've presented for myself.

At this point, I would really like for someone to convince me that I'm wrong about at least one of the above. To quote Captain Kirk, "I don't believe in the no-win situation."

Somebody help.....


------------------
"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." - Ramsay Clark

"Rights are liable to be perverted to wrongs when we are incapable of rightly exercising them." - Sarah Josepha Hale
 
fubsy, here we go again!

<<fubsy, I'm glad we agree that the Republicans are gun controllers.>>
<...Now, there ya go again, believing an untruth> Untruth? Nope, just refering to you being unable to disagree that the Republicans were enacting more gun control, altho a mite slower than the Dems. A prostitute who will only do it for $1,000 is no less a prostitute than one who will do it for $1. It's a matter of degree, not principle.

<I know more believe that all republicans
are 100% behind every issue they have any more than every liberformer (my new word for
the day, eaiser typing then libertarian/reformer), believes a 100% in their platform----is that what you believe that every liberformer is 100% behind there entire platform?>

Do I believe that all Libertarians are 100% behind their platform? No, and if you'll do me the courtesy of carefully reading my posts you'll find that I am not an LP member, and am NOT pushing strictly for a vote for the LP. I, in fact, do not believe anything a politician says unless I can verify it myself. However, to get back to your point, you admit some Republicans have strayed from their platform, so therefore, the Libertarians will do the same, so therefore, we should stick with the known liars instead of taking a chance on the suspected liars. Again, if that makes you feel good, do it. It doesn't work for me.

<c-span thats a non biased source,eh?>
Yes, it is, if you are watching the cameras covering the house and senate, which is what I was referring to. I was not referring to any remarks made editorially or to any opinions expressed in other programming; again, they were my observations of the votes as they occurred. BTW, Brian Lamb, the man who IS C-Span, is a Republican.

<I want justices who use strict interpretation of the constitution, I feel I
have a better shot of getting that with a republican over a democrat--its like Ive said
before--ya'll think there are gurantees, and just because the party you favor talks the talk you want to hear and that dosent mean its going to happen.>

I, too, want justices who understand the constitution, as I posted previously. You believe that a repub gives you a better chance of that, I don't. Many, many libertarians are former Democrats. In fact, the Democrats do a better job, constitutionally, than the Republicans on many civil liberties issues. Republicans generally are better at economic freedom, Democrats are generally better at civil liberties. It just so happens the Libertarians are better at both. I think a Libertarian president would appoint better justices than either major party. Again, I'm sure youll disagree.

<<I haven't seen much "thwarting" of gun control by the Republican congress;>>
<....by much do you mean any?, so they at the very least did something right, not nearly
enuf in my opinion.>
If passing more gun control is doing something right, then yes, they were right as rain. It seems to me that a party which holds the majority in both houses of congress can choose to defeat legislation, but evidently that wouldn't be 'right'.

<Ya'll put out false hope and play on peoples disgust and fears telling people what they want to hear---we can fix it all, just elect us and we will strike down all unconstitutional laws, How?, by just being elected.....I wish it was true, but sadly its not, and wont be at this election coming up. In time perhaps, and that perhaps is a long way from a certainity, but why lose more than we have to?....>

fubsy, again I'm getting the feeling that you're not reading my posts too carefully. I'm the guy who said I didn't think we could still change the system by voting. All I have been saying is I find it pointless, illogical and frustrating in the extreme to find so many folks who admit the republicans are gun controllers, yet still vote for them in the hopes that this time they will see the light.

<<I've never run from the issue that the Dems move faster on gun control. Permit me to
pint out that many of my posts say just that. The key word, however, is 'faster'.>>
<....Ah, so your admitting that by voting liberformer and when they dont win, we will lose our 2nd amend rights even faster--so in the short term a vote for a liberformer is a vote for a democrat, amazing, thats exactly what I said.>
Ah, no, you missed my point entirely. I was referring to the Democrats in office, not to elections. I do not adhere to the notion that "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for the Democrats". A vote for a candidate is, well, a vote for a candidate. If you choose to believe otherwise, fine, but you won't convince me that you're right.

<Ill take any delay, any minor victory no matter how small and continue to fight for the whole ball of wax.>

Fair enough, you fight the delay game, and I'll run and try to wrangle up the calvary. Maybe betweent he two of us we can accomplish something. I just don't know how many more 'strategic victories' (retreats) we can take.

<<Maybe it's time to run for help.>>
....there is nowhere to run,>

I disagree. It's a matter of perspective. If you stand facing a corner, it's difficult to see the door standing wide open behind you.

<like most of us here, I fight the illogic and ignorance of my fellow americans daily. I try to show understanding of their positions while explaing mine, invariably some cross over and some shy away.>

Wow, that does sound a lot like me. You see, we're both fighting for the same thing, we're just using different tactics. Hopefully we'll meet in the winners circle.

------------------
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." Henry St. George Tucker
 
So the Libertarians never count in the big races, huh? Remember the raving liberal US Senator, Wyche Fowler, from Georgia? One term? Lost his reelection? Ask him why. It was thrown into a runoff by the votes siphoned away by the Libertarians. The Republicans and Democrats don't like the Libertarian Party, folks. And they are scared. Check out the ballot access initiatives, find out just how hard the Democrats and Republicans fight to keep ballot access away from the Libertarian Party.

Remember when the Presidential Election Debates were sponsored by the Junior Women's League of Voters? Do you know why they are no longer the sponsor? The reason is that the Junior Women's League of Voters decided that the Libertarian Party had reached the point that it's presidential candidates should be included in the debates. The Republicans and Democrats ran like scalded dogs.

Oh, Andre Marrou was once the only Libertarian member of the Alaska legislature.
What was the result of his holding this office? Only that he singlehandedly orchestrated the repeal of Alaska's income tax. Not the reduction, not the reform...the repeal.
 
Spartacus, I agree that the way ballot initiatives are handled stinks. As any Libertarian knows: Government is force. Politics is jockeying for the keys to the arsenal. The establishment sees the LP as a group who wants in, but promises not to use the goods for their own power over others, so in theirs and the major medias' minds the LP can't be taken seriously. Fair? No. Respectfully, how many Alaskan State Legislators are now members of the LP? Did Andre win exclusively without some Republican endorsement? If he did not, was not the same good done? Personally, I don't care what mascot follows a man of principle (or woman) into the arena.

[This message has been edited by G-Freeman (edited September 02, 1999).]
 
My question is this:

IF I were to support the Republicans, exactly how am I supposed to "work within the system" to turn the party around?

Someone asked Rush that yesterday...all he could do is tell the caller that he was stupid for wanting to support a third party.

But, he didnt answer the question...which is the situation Ive come to find all too often on this topic.

Republicans always tell me "work within the party to change it"...I ask HOW??
I have no real money to contribute, no influential position, etc. In politics money talks, "B.S." walks...and when I talk about REAL reform, thats B.S. to the entrenched members.

So, now what? I really do want to know.
 
<<<fubsy, here we go again!
<<fubsy, I'm glad we agree that the Republicans are gun controllers.>>
<...Now, there ya go again, believing an untruth> Untruth? Nope, just refering to you being unable to disagree that the Republicans were enacting more gun control, altho a mite slower than the Dems. A prostitute who will only do it for $1,000 is no less a prostitute than one who will do it for $1. It's a matter of degree, not principle.>>>
=====Its not a question of being unable to disagree, Ive never stated that the republicans will not pass more gun control--I honestly dont know and neither do you, we might suffer more losses, not what I want but at least ive a shot with them im not pissing in the wind as a liberformer. They are capable of getting elected, and can be changed, your party which ever liberformer party it is have been unable to get elected. Dont believe it, look at the results I posted on the 1998 election to the house and senate, straight off of one of the 3rd party site's. Principle is a wonderful guide, especially when your dealing with people of principle, any other time your hadicaping yourself, especially when your principle allows your enemies a victory. You dont understand that?

<I know more believe that all republicans
are 100% behind every issue they have any more than every liberformer (my new word for
the day, eaiser typing then libertarian/reformer), believes a 100% in their platform----is that what you believe that every liberformer is 100% behind there entire platform?>

<<<<<Do I believe that all Libertarians are 100% behind their platform? No, and if you'll do me the courtesy of carefully reading my posts you'll find that I am not an LP member, and am NOT pushing strictly for a vote for the LP.>>>
====lol....the word i used was liberformer, which refers to the libertarins/reformers as i said in my ealier post, of course you must not have read that. Hey, since your unable to declare a party that suits you, how bout if i use the liberformers so I can have that as a basis for discussion? As you know its harder to defend a static position when your opponent has none......
<<<< I, in fact, do not believe anything a politician says unless I can verify it myself.>>>>
=====Oh, right!, lol...like you run around verifying everything they say--you might though, heck ive got to work for a living. <<<<<However, to get back to your point, you admit some Republicans have strayed from their platform, so therefore, the Libertarians will do the same, so therefore, we should stick with the known liars instead of taking a chance on the suspected liars. Again, if that makes you feel good, do it. It doesn't work for me.>>>>
====Now how did I know you were gonna say that, sounds just like were the argument was with dennis a month ago...lol...its a mute point, your party (liberformers, or whatever), cant get elected, so we dont get to see if there liars or not. Im not necessarily into doing things cause there cool or make me feel good,...lol....well, there is a few things that i do that still make me feel good..lol...I do things to win and not to lose, by all means vote your beliefs, just dont fool yourself into believing that in the year 2000, the liberformers will do anything but help a democrat win. I havent fooled myself that the republicans are the answer, but I know the democrats arent and I know the liberformers arent close to being ready, heck they cant even get to the us senate and house, let alone the presidency. that leaves what?, durn as a political alternative to our situation it leaves the republicans, to appoint the supreme ct judges which you so carelessly dismissed in your other post as unimportant.

<<<<<c-span thats a non biased source,eh?>
Yes, it is, if you are watching the cameras covering the house and senate, which is what I was referring to. I was not referring to any remarks made editorially or to any opinions expressed in other programming; again, they were my observations of the votes as they occurred. BTW, Brian Lamb, the man who IS C-Span, is a Republican.>>>>
=====ok, now i understand, and I know now that the organization must be great its owned by a republican, or is that not what is meant by IS C-span?...or is this a case of "depends what is, is""

<I want justices who use strict interpretation of the constitution, I feel I
have a better shot of getting that with a republican over a democrat--its like Ive said
before--ya'll think there are gurantees, and just because the party you favor talks the talk you want to hear and that dosent mean its going to happen.>

<<<<<I, too, want justices who understand the constitution, as I posted previously. You believe that a repub gives you a better chance of that, I don't.>>>>
====Wait a minute, I thought you said you didnt care about the supreme ct., you want it both ways, either ya care or ya dont care, which is it?
<<<<< Many, many libertarians are former Democrats.>>>>
====People change parties all the time, I started life as a hubert humphrey democrat. <<<<<In fact, the Democrats do a better job, constitutionally, than the Republicans on many civil liberties issues. Republicans generally are better at economic freedom, Democrats are generally better at civil liberties. It just so happens the Libertarians are better at both.>>>>
=====this sounds like the talking head pablum, this group is better at this then the other, I dont buy it. As for the libertarians being better than both, youve been reading there site again right?, When and what have they ever accomplished that allows anyone to have that sort of opinion of their accomplishments?,,on a national level all they've ever been is spoilers.
Ill give it to ya on rhetoric, they talk more than any other party about what they would do if they were elected, of course its easy to talk the talk when your incapable of being elected so that we could see if they could walk the walk.
<<<<< I think a Libertarian president would appoint better justices than either major party. Again, I'm sure youll disagree.>>>>
No, I wont disagree here, neither you nor I know if they would, as you posted in an earlier part of this thread and I agreed to as historically true, justices do not always vote the way of the party that appointed them. Its still rhetoric, its a mute point, you cant even get on the ballot in all 50 states, only 28 states according to the libertaian site and the same site says that the reform party has only 20 states.

<<I haven't seen much "thwarting" of gun control by the Republican congress;>>
<....by much do you mean any?, so they at the very least did something right, not nearly
enuf in my opinion.>
<<<<<If passing more gun control is doing something right, then yes, they were right as rain. It seems to me that a party which holds the majority in both houses of congress can choose to defeat legislation, but evidently that wouldn't be 'right'.>>>>
======Its like Ive repeated countless times, and liberformers just try from a different angle, the problem in the republican party is in the senate, remove that blockage and I think the outcome will be different.

<Ya'll put out false hope and play on peoples disgust and fears telling people what they want to hear---we can fix it all, just elect us and we will strike down all unconstitutional laws, How?, by just being elected.....I wish it was true, but sadly its not, and wont be at this election coming up. In time perhaps, and that perhaps is a long way from a certainity, but why lose more than we have to?....>

<<<<<fubsy, again I'm getting the feeling that you're not reading my posts too carefully. I'm the guy who said I didn't think we could still change the system by voting. All I have been saying is I find it pointless, illogical and frustrating in the extreme to find so many folks who admit the republicans are gun controllers, yet still vote for them in the hopes that this time they will see the light.>>>>>
====well, we are all full of frustration and anger......I have read your posts, I dot agree with you on the course of action needed and heck I dont expect or necessarily want you to agree with me either, vote what you think is right, its what I will do. Ive tried to explain that the republicans are no more a single vote than any other party, there fore they are not all the enemy. I do think they can be changed around, the pro-gun people I know arent voting for them because there gun controllers, there voting for them in the hopes that we can slow down this juggernaught and kill it, unfortunately its not fast food, and wont be accomplished by a single election. We all have a hard long fight ahead of us, we need to use every tool we have to destroy these bas*tards.

<<I've never run from the issue that the Dems move faster on gun control. Permit me to
pint out that many of my posts say just that. The key word, however, is 'faster'.>>
<....Ah, so your admitting that by voting liberformer and when they dont win, we will lose our 2nd amend rights even faster--so in the short term a vote for a liberformer is a vote for a democrat, amazing, thats exactly what I said.>
<<<<<Ah, no, you missed my point entirely. I was referring to the Democrats in office, not to elections. I do not adhere to the notion that "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for the Democrats". A vote for a candidate is, well, a vote for a candidate. If you choose to believe otherwise, fine, but you won't convince me that you're right.>>>>
=====ah, I see now, you dont think that when a democrat wins he wont vote party line and join the democrats in power already---gimme a break. I think a vote for a democratic canidate is a vote for the democratic partys canidate, eh?....Im not going to spend more time with this anyway, afterall we all have our opinions.

<Ill take any delay, any minor victory no matter how small and continue to fight for the whole ball of wax.>

<<<Fair enough, you fight the delay game, and I'll run and try to wrangle up the calvary. Maybe betweent he two of us we can accomplish something. I just don't know how many more 'strategic victories' (retreats) we can take.>>>>
===="the secret of sucess is constancy of purpose, Benjamin Disraeli"----that is excatly what has happened to us, the incrementalism has been enacted with a constancy of purpose, we have to use those tactics as well, we would be best served by learning to use all tactics that are available to us.

<<Maybe it's time to run for help.>>
....there is nowhere to run,>

<<<I disagree. It's a matter of perspective. If you stand facing a corner, it's difficult to see the door standing wide open behind you.>>>>
====Who stands facing the corner? face the situation with your eyes open, you gotta see were that attack is coming from, were going to win this fight. when your in a corner and facing out there is three ways to fight your way out, to the left, to the right, and right through em. You dont like delay, but that is what running is, a tactical retreat., the ability to regroup your strengths and possibly gain an advantage. Ill take it every time.

<like most of us here, I fight the illogic and ignorance of my fellow americans daily. I try to show understanding of their positions while explaing mine, invariably some cross over and some shy away.>

<<<<Wow, that does sound a lot like me. You see, we're both fighting for the same thing, we're just using different tactics. Hopefully we'll meet in the winners circle.>>>>
=====Ive no doubt that most rkba folk are very similar to some extent. You can take it to the bank that if we dont manage to cut each others throat we will win, its gonna most likely be a long hard struggle--but we can and will win.....fubsy.

------------------
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments
 
Fubsy,

I do believe you are doing all this for fun. You write too well to believe what you’re
writing.

“Its not a question of being unable to disagree, Ive never stated that the republicans will
not pass more gun control--I honestly dont know and neither do you...”

Don’t know? Oh, I get it! It’s philosophical!!! It’s like those deep Psych 101 questions:
a) Why do you think the sun will rise tomorrow?
b) If it’s cloudy, did the sun still rise?
c) If they say they will vote for gun control, if they have voted for gun control in the past,
why do you think they will vote for gun control in the future?

Read, Fubsy. Read what they say. The Republicans PROMISE more gun control.
If Bush and Lott are telling the truth, they will pass gun control. If they are merely
“saying what they have to say,” then they are liars, manipulators, elitists and statists who
will pass more gun control.

All,
Vote Democratic, get gun control.
Vote Republican, get gun control.
We’ve been griping and complaining about gun control but we, as gun owners, are too
afraid to take back our government.

ONE IN THREE! That’s all it would take. One of every three gun owners in America
could wipe out gun control in one election. If there are 80 million gun owners, one in
three would give 26,666,666 votes to wipe out gun control.

That many gun owners, deserting the two major parties, would attract others to an
American, rather than Socialist vote. We could win in a landslide.

Even if we didn’t win, the two major parties, losing that number of voters, could no longer
ignore their UNconstitutional and illegal gun control program.

The people who are afraid to take back our government now, are the political descendants
of those who were afraid to defy English rule in the 1700s. Jeez, guys! We could do this
in a bloodless coup! But will we do it?

“Oh, no! It’s not viable.”
It is less viable now than it was in 1996.
It was less viable in 1996 that it was in 1992.
And so on, and so on.

Republicans! Answer me this!

If it is not “viable” now, when will it become viable to be an American again?
If it is not “viable” now, when will it become viable to return our government to
Constitutional Law? They violate pervert the Constitution more and more every year?

If it is not “viable” now, when will it become “viable” to own guns without the obviously
unconstitutional burden government gun control?

If it is not “viable” now, when can we become Americans again?

------------------
Real Americans vote their conscience, not their fears.
 
Dennis, Ipecac, Fubsy, et al,

After reading all the lengthy posts above and on the other thread, I can say that I have almost made up my mind. (Fifteen months in advance of the election? Am I crazy?)

The realization that I have come to is that if I vote for a Liberformer, it doesn't matter whether they win or lose. Just that a message gets sent to the D's & R's that there is a LARGE quantity of p!$$ed off people that vote out there.

So winning the election isn't necessarily the objective, restoring our freedom is. Some of the Martial Arts teach that winning a fight doesn't mean that you have won your objective. You can lose a fight, even die, and if your objective is met, then in fact you have won.

So, even if the election is lost. If a large enough number of voters vote something other than D or R, then one of the two groups will try to reach out and embrace this group. (The Democrats maybe? - Not!)

Is this anywhere near what any of you may see as a viable possibility? And if so, how do we live with the consequences of our votes under a Democrat president who will most assuredly move swiftly to take our guns?


------------------
"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." - Ramsay Clark

"Rights are liable to be perverted to wrongs when we are incapable of rightly exercising them." - Sarah Josepha Hale
 
TheBluesMan, I think we are in the same canoe, still willing to paddle upstream. Some of the most thoughtful, eloquent and passionate writers on this or any forum I've visited are in the group you list in your post. I think we all want to get to the same place. I will still prefer portage around "Pure Principle Falls" to avoid drowning today. On the other hand, I know that not facing my fears will condemn me to a sudden calamity in a crisis. At the risk of stretching this analogy to it's limits, I hope that the end result of the debates are not who supports the "right" party or candidate, but how do we get out of these woods in one piece. Practical applications and strategies, whether political or day to day in the pursuit of freedom are what is really essential to our futures.
 
At last, some *thoughtful* comments.

Personally, my objective is to return our government to Constitutional Law - a
literal interpretation of our governing instrument.

1) The Republicans and Democrats differ somewhat in their rhetoric, but both
take us to increased destruction of the entire Bill of Rights. We KNOW what
they have done. Why would they change if we continue to vote our approval
for the same old thing? They won’t change.

1a) On many TFL threads we have documented their disregard, even
*contempt* for our Bill of Rights. So, we know what they are and what their
agenda is. They are similar to DeVito and Schwarzenegger in the movie
"Twins". The Democrats and Republicans appear to be different, but they're
(politically) blood kin.

1b) Therefore, regardless of the artificial differences raised by individual party
members, it makes little difference whether a Democrat or a Republican wins
the next election.

1c) Consider this fairly. Does anyone really imagine the Republicans will
rescind any current gun laws? How could anyone imagine such a thing? The
best the Republican supporters offer us is:
"We're not as bad". “We will compromise...”
People whom we believe “innocent” should be able to own a gun.

1d) It is time we tell both the Democrat and Republican parties:

“It’s the Second Amendment, stupid!”

-------
2) Am I fighting to send a message *rather* than win? No.

2a) The goal, of course, is victory. Again, gun owners nearly outnumber the
total number of votes cast in recent Presidential elections. If we gun owners
would vote for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, nothing could withstand us.
That surely is better than voting for the lesser of two evils.

2b) Given that some gun owners voted in the past elections, I believe that
30% to 50% of gun owners could win both a Presidential election and sweep
Congress free of usurpers. If we don't do it this time, then (if elections are still
permitted in 2004), next time we could win. But we must grow. We must
convince the habitual followers of the current political machine that we are
“viable”.

2c) But if we do not start to vote against the Democrat Party and their
Republican Auxiliary, we will lose not only our Right to Keep and Bear Arms,
but our Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and our way of life. We will go down
in history as being the generation of those who killed our Republic.

2d) Therefore, although victory is our goal, even if we only increase our
Libertarian following, we will affect the actions of the Democrats and
Republicans more than if we vote for the current machine.

2e) Believing that we must begin somewhere, and believing that waiting to
begin will decrease our chances of success, I choose to be among those brave
souls who say, “Enough!” The time is now. There will be no better time.

-------
3) What if we don’t win? Our vote is wasted! Gore becomes President!

3a) If we don’t win, we get the same gun control agenda - only quicker. The
Democrats have become so incredibly self-righteous and Rights-consuming
that they just might go too far, too quickly, and wake many Americans who
currently vote out of fear, inertia, habit, or whatever.

3b) If there is one thing we all can agree upon, it would be that nearly all
career politicians will do what is necessary to win support so they can get
elected and become powerful and wealthy. Put all that at risk, and some will
forsake gun control to get our votes.

3c) So, in view that we have little to lose, especially if you look at where the
next 8 or 12 years could take us, I don’t consider voting Libertarian a wasted
vote. However, I *do* consider a vote for a Democrat or a Republican to be a
vote for tyranny.

-------
4) The biggest problem we have to overcome is fear.

4a) Why fear “not winning” so much that we are afraid to try? What's really
to lose? A Democrat who wants to take our guns will act very little worse
than a Republican who wants to take our guns. Gun control will come either
way. And those who vote for gun control, whether it is Democratic or
Republican gun control, will bemoan the restrictions that follow.

4b) And for those who verbally abuse the courageous decisions and actions of
our Founding Fathers, note that they waited until tyranny was so oppressive it
required a war to overcome. We are about to make a watershed decision.
Will we vote and act like true Americans and vote for what we know to be
right? Will we vote for the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or will we too
compromise? Will we choose to appease our rulers by pitifully voting for the
lesser of two evils, the lesser of two tyrants, the lesser destroyer of our way of
life?

No me. No longer. Read Patrick Henry’s speech and you’ll see they waited
longer than necessary to throw off the chains of tyranny. But our situation is
different. We have been blessed by Our Founding Fathers who created a
system which ensures we do not need to wait so long. We can vote. We can
vote for what is right.

And that is why I will not, indeed, I *can not* vote for the Republicans or
Democrats. I am bound by my heritage to try to overcome the tyranny of
“bad” and “worse”.

Oh, and to those who insult my honest opinion by berating my writing, so be it.
This is not mere flowery rhetoric. I am giving you as honest a representation
of my beliefs as I know how to present.

Obviously, while I extend to you the invitation to join me in doing what is right
rather than merely “less wrong”, I am aware of, and will defend, your right to
disagree and disapprove.

However, my family and I choose to vote our American heritage. Will you?
 
fubsy, have you ever written speeches for the Republicans? They should definitely hire you for spin control ;).

Anyway, I could post another long reply to you reply to my reply, but we'd just end up going around and around. We'll never see eye to eye on this issue, so why waste bandwidth? You believe a Republican victory will stem the tide against gun control, I don't. We're both prognosticating; only time will tell.

BTW, I haven't so much as looked at the LP website in years. I do not, as much as you want to believe it, simply parrot anyone's views. I do you the courtesy of believing that you come to your own conclusions, as well, so please don't assume that I'm repeating the, "party line". If what I say sounds like them, it's because we agree philosophically.

Anyway, here's hoping we both have helped to make up the minds of the undecided.

------------------
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." Henry St. George Tucker
 
grenadier2,
I didnt realize this was addressed to me.....
<<<<<My question is this:
IF I were to support the Republicans, exactly how am I supposed to "work within the system" to turn the party around?>>>>
.....I would suggest that we replace the members of the congress, especially the senate with conservative republicans, it appears that what we have in those postions now are not conservative enuf. And that would go for any politician.
Now I know at this point the liberformers are saying, whats the difference between replacing the existing republicans with conservative republicans or just replacing the existing congress with liberformers. It is doubtful that any party, from scratch could be elected in such numbers that they could effect majority changes in one national election. The reason this works for the republicans or democrats is that they already have an existing party in power, and dont need to replace as many seats with their people. Now some liberformers in this election and some in the next election and your getting somewhere. Would replacing the less then conservative members of the republican party be easy, no it most likely wont, but neither would be electing a liberformer, and once their what could he do by his self?
<<<<<someone asked Rush that yesterday...all he could do is tell the caller that he was stupid for wanting to support a third party.

But, he didnt answer the question...which is the situation Ive come to find all too often on this topic.>>>>>
......I cant answer what he would say, heck half the time I have to cogitate on it just for me.

<<<<<Republicans always tell me "work within the party to change it"...I ask HOW??
I have no real money to contribute, no influential position, etc. In politics money talks, "B.S." walks...and when I talk about REAL reform, thats B.S. to the entrenched members.>>>>>
......You have a vote, although we also have to contend with the eletorial system. Your right about the money it is what helps elect canidates, and unfortunately bush has the most ever raised. How can I answer that question on reform?---if, as evidenced by your post requesting I answer this, you know as DA MAN...lol...is any indication your attitude probably turned em off....ya know dude...lol.....Most of the long term rkba republicans I know are not satisfied with our choices which includes the liberformers.
they are even more concerned then ever over the waffling that has occured, and reform is what is talked about, they are disgusted over the possibility that the democrats could get re-elected. I dont know who your talking to.
<<<<<<So, now what? I really do want to know.>>>>
....There are no easy solutions to our problems and there are no gurantees no matter who gets elected, even the mighty liberformers who have been unable to get elected to national office. So what do we do, just say the heck with it and protest vote?....which would allow the democrats to appoint a couple of supreme ct appointees.....with the supreme ct on a collison course with two diametrically opposed ruling's? Arguably our best possible chance to have the supreme ct rule on a case since millers just pissed away in a protest vote?.....I would think that the liberformers would be for this, if the court rules against them, they got the 2nd civil war they crave so much.....and look how quick it could be......
 
Ipeac,
I dont qualify as writer of any kind, I, like you and many ive read on tfl, we are passionate in our views. I dont parrot and I dont believe you do either. I have a great respect for the people who put there views and opinions out there and suffer those slings and arrows....of disagreement.
I have enjoyed the back and forth debate and hopefully it has showed the different views and will further strengthen our fight for the heart and soul of our country. We are fighting in different ways to win the same battle, hopefully we wont cancel each other out.
...Perhaps we could go shooting some time...of course there would be no controversy in shooting.... ;).fubsy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top