Republicans v. Libertarians (OPTIONAL) #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fubsy,
You start out with a good, logical idea: Replace many of the liberal
Republicans with conservative Republicans. But then you break down....

1) By immediately saying, “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....”

1a) You do yourself an injustice, as well as anyone who refuses to buy
the Republican Party line, by doing the “Now I know” bit.
First, you *don’t* know. Many of us have worked for years, even
decades, fighting FOR perceived conservatives within the Republican
Party. Most, now faded into history, were NOT conservative. They were
only saying “whatever it takes” to further their careers. But the
Republican party now has reached the point where a conservative only
stands a chance if and when there is no liberal available.

1b) Consider the RLC. It sounds great! Truly conservative Republicans,
wow! Then you find that they are Libertarians working within what they
consider a “viable” (in power) Party. Even Ron Paul, whom I admire, is
listed as a Republican. Hogwash! He ran for President as a Libertarian!
So, basically, the ONLY conservative Republicans ARE those who are
Libertarians.

1c) And while you keep telling me what I think, you miss a point I keep
trying to make. NO party is invulnerable. Not the Democrats. Not the
Republicans.
-------
2) A little Republican history. Look up the Republican Party in the
encyclopedia. (You’ll find it shortly after “reptiles”.) “Earlier U.S.
political parties had used the designation Republican in one way or
another, but differed from the modern Republican party in political
philosophy and in many other ways.”

2a) Thomas Jefferson and other opponents of the Federalists organized
(1791) a Republican party that under several names retained its identity
and continued its opposition to the Federalist party until after the
election (1824) of John Quincy Adams. At about that time Andrew
Jackson emerged as the leader of the Democratic party (the ancestor of
the present Democratic party) and the opposition, led by John Quincy
Adams and Henry Clay, called itself the Nation-Republican Party. In
1834, the National-Republicans joined with other political elements to
form the Whig Party and from 1854 or 1855 no significant (you would
say “viable”) party called itself Republican.

2b) The Modern Republican Party. At this time, slavery was not a party
issued but cut across party lines. In 1854, Congress passed the
Kansas-Nebraska Act which permitted these two territories to determine
their own stand on slavery. Northerners were enraged! Not morally,
however, they had planned that these areas would be slave-free “family
farms”. The small family farms could not compete with the large (Ivan
would call them “corporate”) slave farms. So the controversy was
economic rather than “moral”.

These Yankees, er, Northerners were so incensed over this economic
issue that they came together with others, some of them anti-slavery
supporters, to form the Republican Party. The slavery issue was used as
a “moral” issue to win support. (Rather like the way the current
Democrats emotionalize the gun control concept.)

2c) The Whigs lost out, replaced by Republicans. I see two points to
note:
- The Democrats and Federalists, who believe in an all-powerful,
ever-larger government *controlling* its subjects, have been around for
a long, long time. They are more powerful in America today than at any
time in our history because they have perverted and taken over the
system designed to protect citizens from their government.
- No political party is forever. The Republicans have been pretty well
absorbed into the Democratic Party. At least to an extent I abhor and
will no longer support out of “party loyalty”, “viability” or whatever.
That’s why, after nearly forty years as a Republican, I can no longer
support them. They have become too “Democratic” (the party).

2d) The Libertarians, new and not yet strong, provide a political party for
republicans (not the party, but for those who believe the government
serves the people instead of enslaving them). Eventually, the
Libertarians or some similar party must replace or at least effectively
oppose the Democrats and their Republican Auxiliary - or the Great
Experiment of a “servant government” will pass into history and we will
join the rest of the world as mere subjects (in this case of an oligarchy)
rather than as citizens of the world’s only free and “viable” republic.

(Excerpts taken from The American Peoples Encycylopedia)

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 04, 1999).]
 
Wow am I sorry that I coined the word "Viable"!! Dennis...After reading your last two posts I must say that you bring up some very salient points and eloquently as well. Much of what you said I do agree with however I cannot see how allowing the Democrats to take power once again, either by action or inaction, Helps our cause at all. I understand the "frog in the pot" analogy, but what makes you think that the lethargic/complacent Gun Owners who have yet to stand up will get off of their duffs at the 11th hour??
We have concentrated on the labels and that may be wherein our problem lies, There are some very pro gun Democrats and some very anti-gun Republicans we should most likely use the terms Conservative/Moderates/Liberals as that would be much more definitive.

-WE can change the system I agree. Those changes can be effected in several ways the way Fubsy and I as well as others have advocated and the way that Dennis, TR, Ipecac, and others have advocated. Ours is a change from within while yours is a change from without. Bottom line we both want to effect change, we want to re-energize our RKBA.

-I am not denouncing the Libertarian Party, I simply stated that as a short run option that will not fix the problem. It is highly Unlikely that enough conservative votes could be siphoned off to make a libertarian Candidate electable however it is possible that those same siphoned off votes could push the Democrats right into power as evidenced in 1992.
The contention of some seems to be that By voting in protest and maintaining their pride, the more aggressive Liberals are pushed into power then some magic claxon will be sounded and those that WERE silent will Stand up and sound off all the while we are being stripped of our weapons! At that point it will achieve what end? (even if we could make the "Silent ones" stand up). Is that even a means to an end other than the total revocation of the Second Amendment as an Individual right....

I take it that some of you believe that a vote for either pary WILL (almost as though it were a guarantee) result in the loss of our RKBA, either quickly or eventually but either way their gone. Regardless of what we do, say, write, e-mail, petition etc. Somehow I just can't say that and make myself believe it. There has to be a happy medium here that we all can get onboard with so that we can face this with a unified front, any suggestions?? (hey I got all the way through that and only used the word "Viable" Once....LOL

------------------
...“ 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




[This message has been edited by El Jefe (edited September 04, 1999).]
 
Additionally I wanted to ask if anyone has read the book "Breakdown" by William H. Johnstone. ( No not the same storyline as the movie by the same name) It is scary how close we are to that very scenario those of you who have read it will understand what I am talking about and why it is pertinent to this thread....I see alot of that book in todays society I only hope we can avert the outcome.....
 
fubsy,

First, honestly, THANK YOU for answering my question, and in an erudite manner :)

Dennis,

I also want to thank you for answering..LOL..it was like seeing the rebuttal after one of the Prez's speeches. ;)

This thread has been great so far. Everyone has had thought-provoking input.
 
Doesn't it seem that power and money corrupts people of any political party?
I think we are a meer breath away from revolution in this country. I am sick of sending emails, writing letters, and making phone calls to politicians who are controlled by money, and influenced by a bias press that could make or break their political careers. A goverment by the people and for the people has been taken over by a government by the politicians and for the politicians and elites, to hell with the rest. They have to dumb down the citizens with the media, but that is not real difficult for them, look at the sheep out there. I don't know what the answer is, except all good men should rise to the occaision, in the near future. I think we will have to show them we mean business, cuase votes, don't seem to matter anylonger to these elites among us. If they were companies they would be hit with anti-trust lawsuits, or be charged with unfair or monopolistic practices. It's a rat race and the rats are winning.

YOUR BROTHER IN ARMS----------CHAINSAW
 
Hello Chainsaw, nice to see your here to, just joined myself, you knew me as hogdogger at HIS. Here's my idea, flame me if you like folks, but I won't change, I'm a little stubborn ask Chainsaw. I'm voting my heart this time, my heart leans towards the man that most wants to repeal gun laws. I'm sick and tired of being demonized for my rights. If the Demos win and decide they want my guns, they can have em only under this circumstance.

When my ammo runs dry from shooting tyrants, my dogs break off their last tooth, The last branch, rock, and heavy object is gone from my reach, the last knife is so dull it won't hit the heart of a gun grabber, my fingers cramp and I can't strangle one more tyrant, or I am dead.

If we showed this type attitude to our elected officials we wouldn't be having this debate. As my football coach used to say, "Step up, or step out" If 80 million gun owners called in and used the above quote, what would you do as a corrupt politician? We've been trained not to speak to harshly, critique government to carefully, step on to many toes. Listen it's time we speak harsh, critique harsh, and smash the hell out of toes. It's time to march the gun debate all the way back to pre 1934 and burn the bridges. If we don't I assure you we will burn realtime bridges in real time conflict, for the country we all love, but the government corruption we all despise. It's 80 million gun owners choice, speak loudly now, or fight a bloody battle later. So what's it gonna be?

------------------
Live Free or Die Trying,

Steve

[This message has been edited by Ruger (edited September 05, 1999).]
 
All,

1. Why have we been losing our Right to Keep and Bear Arms since 1934 or
earlier? The government has passed gun control laws, each more restrictive
than the previous one.

2. Who has been the government? The Democrats and the Republicans.

3. People say, “I cannot see how allowing the Democrats to take power once
again, either by action or inaction, Helps our cause at all.”

- The Democrats are pushing for severe gun controls.
- The Republicans have published their list of lesser gun control measures.
- The Republicans have promised to compromise with the Democrats, so:
- If we are lucky, future gun control will not be as severe as the Democrats’
offerings, but definitely will be more severe than the current Republican
offerings. Either way, more gun control.
- Gun control is unconstitutional. I refuse to support it, so
I CAN not vote for the Democrats OR the Republicans.
- Change from within either major party is impossible so long as they both
keep getting our votes. So we can effect change only by NOT voting for the
Democrats OR the Republicans.

4) People ask, “... what makes you think that the lethargic/complacent Gun
Owners who have yet to stand up will get off of their duffs at the 11th hour??”

4a) Many gun owners remain complacent. One of the reasons for TFL is to
change that. The reason I keep banging my head against the wall of
Republican/Democrat rhetoric is to awaken complacent gun owners and others
who value freedom.

- Eighty million gun owners! Wow! Every time we get a previously
non-voting gun owner to vote for freedom, it will hurt the
Republican/Democrat oligarchy one time.

- Every time we convince a voter to cease their support of the current political
machine and vote for freedom, we hurt the oligarchy TWO times. The gun
grabbing government not only loses a vote, but has a vote cast against them.

- As a TFLer stated: “Gun control is about control - not guns!” We need to
attract gun owners - obviously. But we need to gain the support of all freedom
loving people who want to stop our current government from taking away our
rights to govern our lives as WE see fit rather than following their every edict.

4b) An additional point: My wife is not a gun owner. She isn’t much
interested in shooting. She doesn’t have a CHL and will not carry a gun.
BUT: she is an avid gun rights advocate. When I carry a concealed handgun, it
either is of NO concern to her one way or the other OR she feel much more
comfortable knowing I am armed and (at least to some extent ;)) trained.

There must be many people like her - NON-gun owners who realize our Bill of
Rights is being destroyed and our Constitution ignored. If we can show them
that our gun ownership issue is relevant to restraining our runaway
government, they will stop supporting the two major parties who work in
concert to enslave us.

Some of them will vote with us if we show them a vote for the two major
parties will cause our slide into servitude.

5) EJ notes, “We have concentrated on the labels and that may be wherein our
problem lies, There are some very pro gun Democrats and some very anti-gun
Republicans we should most likely use the terms
Conservative/Moderates/Liberals as that would be much more definitive.”

5a) We are using the correct names. The individuals within the parties who
support our views are out-shouted, out-numbered, and out-voted. Many who
currently do NOT take sides will fall on either side of the freedom issues.
- IF there are a few individual freedom-lovers in both major parties, we must
remove the barriers which prevent them from speaking out and being effective
representatives of our cause.

- Change from within simply is not possible so long as we continue to vote our
agreement with their confiscatory policies! American voters must show they
are fed up with the power-grabbing policies of both major parties.

- Can we do this with public opinion polls? Be serious. Polls are bought to
show approval of the buyer’s beliefs. Clinton approval polls? Bah, humbug!
- The only public opinion poll that counts is votes. We must show with our
votes one of two things:
----- YES! We agree. Take away our Rights and dole some of them back to
us as privileges as YOU see fit.
----- NO! Get out of my school, my workplace, my church, my business, and
my home! And if you even think about taking away our Right to Keep and
Bear Arms we will crucify you with our votes!

- Take away their votes and the major parties must listen to us or pass into
history.

- That’s why a “change from without” must occur for a “change from within”
to have any possible effect.

6) Many people note, “...some of you believe that a vote for either pary WILL
(almost as though it were a guarantee) result in the loss of our RKBA, either
quickly or eventually but either way their gone. Regardless of what we do, say,
write, e-mail, petition etc. Somehow I just can't say that and make myself
believe it. There has to be a happy medium here that we all can get onboard
with so that we can face this with a unified front, any suggestions??”

6a) Those of us who have been in the fight for freedom for decades have
stacks of letters to our representatives in our government. We have spent
untold hundreds of dollars on phone calls. We have files full of e-mail copies
to our leaders. What has been their response? More gun control.

6b) In the past, most Democrats and Republicans at least gave us lip-service.
In public, they would say we need to prosecute the criminals without infringing
upon our Constitutionally-guaranteed Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

- Now, BOTH parties publicly propose gun control measures. More gun
control IS guaranteed! They both promise it! For once, judging by their past,
I must believe them. Therefore, a vote for either major party is a vote for gun
control.

- If you want gun registration and felony charges for those who resist, vote
Democratic.

- If you want EVENTUAL gun registration and felony charges for those who
resist, vote Republican.

- If you want to fight! Vote Libertarian.

“ 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.
 
Ruger, Welcome,Glad your here. I agree that the time to single issue vote is now. We can't seem to change parties from the inside out. They have left us behind. Lets show them, we are the PEOPLE.

YOUR BROTHER IN ARMS---------CHAINSAW
 
One third or 80,000,000 gun owners can decide the result of the general election? Great! Turn out in primary elections is usually a fraction of that in general elections; One third of 80,000,000 gun owners could dictate the outcome of BOTH major party's primaries, giving us a general election whose outcome was pre-determined, because all the major party candidates were pro-gun.

Ok, so why don't we do THAT? It would be easier! Answer: Because most of those 80,000,000 gun owners become politically active only when the threat to their rights is utterly clear and imminent, as it was in '94. Unless the anti-gunners in Congress go berserk, and make an attack on the Second amendment which makes the Brady law and "assault weapons" ban look like a love pat, we have only eight to ten million votes to work with, which is enough to throw close races, as we did in '94, but not enough to execute a hostile takeover of the major parties, or even one of them. We are NOT going to be able to achieve a mass mobilization of gun owners voting for Republicans again, for the simple reason that everyone now knows that that doesn't WORK. We tried it, and wound up with Republicans enacting gun control laws, instead of Democrats.

Now, it's probably true that a major shift by gun owners to the Libertarian party would, in the short term, mean Democratic control of the federal government, and a Republican party shorn of all pretense of being pro-gun. THIS IS NOT ALL BAD. Because the Republicans are not going to go berserk like the Democrats would; They'll just chip away at our rights a bit at a time, eventually destroying them all, without ever provoking us to the degree needed to mobilize and stop them. It's that old parable about the frog; The Republicans have the self control to turn up the heat SLOWLY; The Democrats don't.

Second: We don't have all that much time to do something! There are already so many gun laws on the books, that our numbers are going to be declining over the next couple of decades. WE put up with the hassle of owning guns, because we were gun owners before it was a hassle. The next generation won't. Our numbers will shrink, and at some point, we'll be too week to have any chance of winning at all.

So we have to stage a confrontation as soon as possible, and with as high a degree of mobilization on our part as possible. Which means we need the government to do something so outrageous that every gun owner in the country feels personally attacked. The Republicans won't do something like that, but the Democrats will. A Democratic takeover of the government, and a Republican party which no longer pretends to be pro-gun anymore, will result in that mass mobilization we need for victory, and since the GOP will have openly given up on the Second amendment, that mobilization will elect a Libertarian government. Yes, this is a high risk strategy, which if it fails will result in our losing our rights right now. The alternative is their certain loss further down the road.

But it's not going to happen next year. We Libertarians have to prove ourselves a viable alternative. (And if we can't do that in 2000, despite our massive growth over the last few years, even I will dispair, and I've been in the LP from nearly the beginning.) The GOP has to give up it's pretense of defending the Second amendment, so that it's clear that the only choice for gun owners is the LP. That will take some time yet. And the Democratic memory of what happened to them the last time they went berserk on gun control has to dim a bit. Maybe in 2004.

In the mean time, here's the pragmatic, tactical reason for supporting Libertarians in selected races: The NRA can't defend our position publicly, because it's shut out of most media markets. The Republicans haven't been willing to publicly defend gun ownership for a couple decades, which is one of the reasons we've been losing ground. We need some way to beat the media blockade, and the LP is that way.

As a political party, the Libertarian party can not be legally shut out of the media. We are perfectly willing to express pro-gun views publicly, and unlike the Republicans, we actually BELIEVE in them, so we know what the arguments are. Support us, and we will run pro-gun ads. To put it baldly, we're willing to launder the NRA's advertising money.

So even pro-gunners who believe in the GOP should pick Libertarians in selected races, where there's no Republican candidate, or no GOP candidate who's even pretending to be pro-gun, and support them. Just so that the public can once again hear candidates for public office who are willing to say out loud that gun control is bad, and explain why!
 
Brett,

Your second point acknowledges that gun owners are becoming an
“endangered species” due to our dwindling numbers. It’s a concept I
have pondered but could not clarify, let alone express. Nice job!

As you point out, the longer we wait, the more we have to overcome,
with fewer people and fewer options.

Our federal government exceeds its permissible stated powers more
flagrantly each day. We must return to Constitutional law or give up our
rights as citizens and bear the yoke of mere subjects.

Our cause is just. This election will be a watershed election to determine
the history of our country.

Will we return to the paths of our Founding Fathers or will we join the
“civilized” European world of subservience? The U.N., among others,
await our decision.

The choice, for a short time, remains ours.
 
The above posts have me nearly convinced to vote Libertarian. I have only one problem, but it's a biggie. Big enough to make me think that I might be better off voting Democrat!



I want to vote Libertarian because I believe as they do in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with no restrictions. The problem is that they also want to legalize drugs, promote free trade and completely open the borders; three things with which I greatly disagree.



It has taken me to this point (the bottom of two very long threads) to seriously consider voting for them on an issue with which I already agree(RKBA). How are they going to convince me to vote for them on these other issues with which I disagree.



Simply put: If there are no restrictions on firearm ownership, the borders are open to all, and powerful drugs are freely available, what kind of a country will we be living in in four years? I'll tell you what kind, one in which you will be afraid to walk out your heavily fortified front door to get your morning paper.



Almost makes Republican compromises sound good doesn't it?



Asbestos longjohns on - flame away!



------------------
"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,

Skip the asbestos! It flakes off, gets in your lungs and causes cancer.
Switch to Nomex! It’s lighter, more comfortable and even better at
“flame protection”.

I think I have a new pair around here someplace... :D :D
-------

I tried to find information on open borders on the Libertarian website at
www.lp.org

But the closest I could find was about immigration (see below). The
open borders comment was made before on TFL, by someone, but I
haven’t been able to find it. Can you let me know where you found it?

Here’s a quote from the Libertarian Party on Immigration.

((quote))
At one time, America attracted only those from around the world who
were seeking freedom -- freedom from oppressive governments, freedom
to build a future for their families through hard work. Today, America
attracts too many people who come here only to take advantage of
government welfare benefits.

* Republican politicians want to solve this problem -- created by
government -- by putting another layer of government on top of it. They
want to keep out the productive people along with the free-loaders, they
want to build a wall or a ditch along our borders, and they want to beef
up the military to patrol the borders.

* Democratic politicians don't know what they believe on this issue,
because the polls aren't conclusive yet.

* Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, wants to dismantle the
welfare state -- which will automatically solve our immigration problems.
Once there is no more gravy train, the only people who will want to come
here will be those who want the freedom to work and to build a better life
for their families.

((unquote))

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 05, 1999).]
 
Dennis,
Sorry its taking so long, I wanted to get some shooting in and do a little packing....
I must say that ipeac had it wrong with implying that I was a spin writer, I doff my hat to the master....I did notice a "damming with faint praise" style of remark, the good writer comment and then go on to imply that i must be having fun, not like a libertarian and believing what I say.....that was pretty good...
<<<<Fubsy,
You start out with a good, logical idea: Replace many of the liberal
Republicans with conservative Republicans. But then you break down....
1) By immediately saying, “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....”

1a) You do yourself an injustice, as well as anyone who refuses to buy
the Republican Party line, by doing the “Now I know” bit.
First, you *don’t* know.>>>>
....I know, in the same way you know when you or other liberformers claim what the republicans will do or what the liberformers will do if elected. Most people make that assumption based on past performance or perceived preference---you mean to tell that you have never claimed what a republican will do or what the liberformers will do once elected---you just avoid the how of that last part.

<<<<<many of us have worked for years, even
decades, fighting FOR perceived conservatives within the Republican
Party. Most, now faded into history, were NOT conservative. They were
only saying “whatever it takes” to further their careers. But the
Republican party now has reached the point where a conservative only
stands a chance if and when there is no liberal available.

1b) Consider the RLC. It sounds great! Truly conservative Republicans,
wow! Then you find that they are Libertarians working within what they
consider a “viable” (in power) Party. Even Ron Paul, whom I admire, is
listed as a Republican. Hogwash! He ran for President as a Libertarian!
So, basically, the ONLY conservative Republicans ARE those who are
Libertarians.>>>>>
.........correct me if Im wrong here, but didnt ron paul have to run as a republican to get elected to the position that he now holds? I am not now or have I in the past refered to his presidential bid, to continue in all honesty I didnt even know he had ran for the presidency until your post.

<<<<<1c) And while you keep telling me what I think, you miss a point I keep
trying to make. NO party is invulnerable. Not the Democrats. Not the
Republicans.>>>>>
......Please, Ive said many times vote the way you want I dont care, all I have ever sought to do here is to point out what I consider to be failings of the liberformers, sorta like what you do with the republicans and like you should continue to do so. With regards to party invincibility, were did you ever get the idea that I think there invincibile, far from it, I do think that the democrats suffer a lot less from 3rd parties than rebublicans---on another thread a tfl member posted of a defeat suffered by a liberal democrat by the libertarians by siphoning off votes at the local/state level, sounds like a spoiler to me. As a spoiler, when combined with the reform party on a national level ya'll might be effective enuf to drain votes from the republicans which most likely will elect a democrat who then can appoint those supreme ct judges who than can vote against the chance we have at the supreme ct., and as ya'll like to say,,...Ill be reminding ya of it....if it happens, but heck it could be were discussing nothing of consequence, and those democratic appointees will uphold the 2nd as an individual right not to be infringed. who knows.....
1. you constantly have the mantra of what the liberformers will do-- max vote count for the us house and senate in the 1998 of what 28%---there barely running against the two major parties they have been unable to convince enough americans to vote for them (might be the sheeple comment), and consider this You have the strongest individual rights platform(at least spoken of, not proof that you'll do it), and you cant convince everyone on tfl to join you.....and I would speculate that if the liberformes cant achieve 90% or so on this board how are you going to convince the american people whom you will need in order to win?---the percentage is really irrevalant for what Im trying to say, we the gun owning americans have more at stake for our beloved 2nd amend then any other group, and you cant get all of them, why is that?--please answer that question without the normal, the sheeple just dont see how great we are kinda response...
-------
<<<<<<2) A little Republican history. Look up the Republican Party in the
encyclopedia. (You’ll find it shortly after “reptiles”.) >>>>>
...lol, thats cute..is that an example of smarmey?..lol...sometimes I do get a good laugh out of us...lol...
<<<<“Earlier U.S.
political parties had used the designation Republican in one way or
another, but differed from the modern Republican party in political
philosophy and in many other ways.”

2a) Thomas Jefferson and other opponents of the Federalists organized
(1791) a Republican party that under several names retained its identity
and continued its opposition to the Federalist party until after the
election (1824) of John Quincy Adams. At about that time Andrew
Jackson emerged as the leader of the Democratic party (the ancestor of
the present Democratic party) and the opposition, led by John Quincy
Adams and Henry Clay, called itself the Nation-Republican Party. In
1834, the National-Republicans joined with other political elements to
form the Whig Party and from 1854 or 1855 no significant (you would
say “viable”) party called itself Republican.

2b) The Modern Republican Party. At this time, slavery was not a party
issued but cut across party lines. In 1854, Congress passed the
Kansas-Nebraska Act which permitted these two territories to determine
their own stand on slavery.>>>>
....know a wee bit about it, this debate on this issue was one of the reasons that President Abraham Lincoln was so determined to keep the country together, during the time of these debates (cant remember if he participated or just listened), He was supposedly unaware prior to the debates of the emotional impact these decisions had on the participating individuals and there communties and saw this issue as one which would divde and destroy the union, he came away from those debates vowing not to let it happen no matter what had to be done.

<<<< and Northerners were enraged! Not morally,
however, they had planned that these areas would be slave-free “family
farms”. The small family farms could not compete with the large (Ivan
would call them “corporate”) slave farms. So the controversy was
economic rather than “moral”.

These Yankees, er, Northerners were so incensed over this economic
issue that they came together with others, some of them anti-slavery
supporters, to form the Republican Party. The slavery issue was used as
a “moral” issue to win support. (Rather like the way the current
Democrats emotionalize the gun control concept.)

2c) The Whigs lost out, replaced by Republicans. I see two points to
note:
- The Democrats and Federalists, who believe in an all-powerful,
ever-larger government *controlling* its subjects, have been around for
a long, long time. They are more powerful in America today than at any
time in our history because they have perverted and taken over the
system designed to protect citizens from their government.
- No political party is forever. The Republicans have been pretty well
absorbed into the Democratic Party. At least to an extent I abhor and
will no longer support out of “party loyalty”, “viability” or whatever.
That’s why, after nearly forty years as a Republican, I can no longer
support them. They have become too “Democratic” (the party).>>>>>
.......I believe in change not static situations, as ive said, vote for who you want just dont sell it as the solution, becuase it is doubtful any one thing is the solution to problems we have today. Id have to say that I agree that the republicans are too durn liberal, of course it dosent help when the democrats move to center to get elected and then govern liberally, it kinda confuses ya on who is what....

<<<<<2d) The Libertarians, new and not yet strong, provide a political party for
republicans (not the party, but for those who believe the government
serves the people instead of enslaving them).>>>>>
.....
......Now see I cant disagree that they are an option,locally and eventually nationally....this election is to important to me to throway any chance to secure a victory in the supreme ct., Its a mute point to discuss who the liberformers will elect because I doubt if they will secure enuf popular votes, and on top of that the presidency is elected through electorial votes in which the two parties in power have choosen the electorates in their various states, ya'll didnt even get to appoint them. Now they can vote any way they want, so there is a chance that a liberformer could be elected by the electorate, but there not on the ballot in all 50 states, so I dont think you'll convince the electorates that liberformers are the one. And if the liberformer was elected president, how is he gonna govern with out a supporting party?--please answer that one too.
<<<<<< Eventually, the
Libertarians or some similar party must replace or at least effectively
oppose the Democrats and their Republican Auxiliary - or the Great
Experiment of a “servant government” will pass into history and we will
join the rest of the world as mere subjects (in this case of an oligarchy)
rather than as citizens of the world’s only free and “viable” republic.>>>>>
.....of course that will happen, and its already starting, but its still in its infancy, although it might have a snowball effect eventually.
(Excerpts taken from The American Peoples Encycylopedia)

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 04, 1999).]
 
Jeezuz!
My liberal friends yell at me for being a conservative... My conservative friends yell at me for being liberal - or, WORSE! - LIBERTARIAN!
Truth is, I think liberals and conservatives are equally enemies of freedom. I don't want to spend my time on politics, that's the domain of people I'd not invite into my home. Dirtbags.
I'd like to vote for someone who does not make me want to hold my nose, just once. Ain't much tome left, suckers, I'm 59 and got a bum ticker.
Dubbyah? damn, I don't think so. Gives me cramps in my pinching fingers.
Igor? Get real.
Buchanan? Talks good, but not a chance against the CC troops.
Suggestions? Fact is, gang, none of this batch of wannabe's is worth wringing out for bumwipe.
Damn, I think I was born 100 years too soon - or late...
Rant off, but color me Libertatian, they are at least SAYING the stuff that's important to me!



------------------
The Bill of Rights, and the Golden Rule are enough for civilized behavior. The rest is window dressing. Shoot carefully, swifter...
 
Rich,

Thanks for the suggestion on the Nomex, the chafing was really getting irritating :)



Here's what I found on the LP site: "The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout." It can be found here:
http://www.lp.org/lpn/9806-immigration.html



In fairness to you, witholding welfare from immigrants (and all other Americans) sounds like an idea that would probably help stem the tide of "undesirables" coming into the country. But what little I know of the conditions of the poor in other countries tells me that begging on the streets of America is better than holding down a regular job in some other less fortunate countries.



To try and keep this gun related, I have an idea that will help give all these immigrant Americans something to do...go to work making the guns that we Americans want. :)



Seriously though, the point I am trying to make is that just because one party backs a principle in which we all fervently believe, doesn't mean that it is the right party to vote for across the board. Individuals should take into account the Libertarian stance on all important issues before deciding. I can't find anything firm in regard to their platform on Abortion for instance. And they are for Gay Marriages, Burning the Flag and other things that some folks in this forum may find despicable.



Maybe I'm just not cut out to be a "One Issue" voter???



------------------
"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
 
The bluesman,
Ive enjoyed your posting and I agree with your most recent concerning multiple issues. that is part of the reason I at this point cant vote for them.
It seems to me that the "other issues" are what has slowed the liberformers growth. If you take a stand for liberty, it does to my mind mean that you have to mean liberty for all, even the gay rights part which the church folk wont accept, or the open borders which the majority of americans want closed. the removal of forms of welfare to the illegals has been discussed for years and would be a good start. Another consideration I would like to see is that if you are in this country illegally your children even if born here are not citizens--if your here legally, no problem.
there stand on drugs, concerns me as well....fubsy.
 
Fubsy,
1) When I state the Republicans are backing gun control, you accuse
me of making assumptions. That is not true. I’m quoting the leadership
of the Republican party.

1a) Senator Trent Lott promised to cooperate with the Democrats to
pass “reasonable” gun control legislation. The link for his quote no
longer works so if you call this an assumption I can not defend it.
(Perhaps someone else can find the article.)

1b) Now, about Bush, (quote) “Bush backing gun measures”
(San Antonio Express-News; 8/28/99; Pg 1A)
By Terry Neal and Ben White; Washington Post.

Atlanta -- In a visit to a city still reeling from two highly publicized
murderous rampages, Texas Gov. George W. Bush said Friday he
supported “reasonable” gun control measures like those backed by
Republicans in Congress this year.

The GOP presidential candidate said he supports raising the age for
gun ownership from 18 to 21 and banning certain high-caliber
ammunition clips.

Bush also said he supports closing the loophole allowing unlicensed
dealers to sell guns at gun shows without background checks for
purchasers, provided, he said, new background checks could be
performed instantaneously.

Democrats are insisting on up to three days for an FBI background check.

“I support them all; they all are reasonable measures,” Bush said
during a campaign stop here, adding he is still committed to the idea
“innocent people, law abiding citizens out to be allowed to own a gun.”

Bush was asked about provisions in a Republican bill to be negotiated in
Congress next month and, while he generally supports the GOP
congressional consensus on gun control measures, aides said he hadn’t
been asked about some of the specific provisions.

On Friday, Bush said he believed it’s possible to “have reasonable laws to
keep the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.
That’s why I support instant background checks.”

However, he echoed a common sentiment among Republicans -- not
enough has been done to enforce current laws.

“When we find someone illegally selling a gun, there should be a
consequence,” he said.
(unquote, article continues; bold for stress added by Dennis)

- “Unlicensed gun dealers” already are illegal. It is believed he means
anyone selling a gun. So, if you want to buy a gun from a friend, both of
you must go to an FFL holder and be blessed by the federal government.
Remember, there should be a “consequence” for someone illegally selling
a gun.

There it is, fubsy. I was not making mere claims, “...you or other
liberformers claim what the republicans will do or what the liberformers
will do if elected. Most people make that assumption based on past
performance or perceived preference...”

You are correct when you say I evaluate the parties by what they have
done and what they promise to do. But these are not assumptions. They
are facts and promises.
Listen to your Republican leaders, fubsy. The ones you want to rule you.

A father could no longer give his kid a firearm without federal approval:
First, the kid must be twenty-one to own a firearm.
Second, the father and the kid would have to go to an FFL holder to:
- Get the kid his background check (which, by the way, registers both
the owner and the firearm)
- Get the kid and the gun recorded on the yellow 4473.
That’s more government control of my guns and my family than I am
willing to vote for. So I can NOT vote Republican.

--------------------
2) Yes, Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He ran for President as a Libertarian in
1988. As someone explained elsewhere on TFL, the Republican
Libertarian Caucus supports Libertarians in races where no Republican
candidate is available.
- This lets Republicans take credit for successful Libertarian efforts
without sharing responsibility.
-- If a Libertarian wins support, “Oh, yes, the Republican Ron Paul!”
-- If a Libertarian is criticized, “Oh, well he’s not really a Republican, you
know....”

Learn more at www.rlc.org

--------------------
3) :) My comment, “Look up the Republican Party in the
encyclopedia. (You’ll find it shortly after “reptiles”.)” was meant to be
more slapstick than smarmy. Glad you recognized realized it as humor.
--------------------
4) My comment, “The Libertarians, new and not yet strong, provide a
political party for republicans (not the party, but for those who believe
the government serves the people instead of enslaving them).

You reply, “...I cant disagree that they are an option,locally and
eventually nationally....this election is to important to me to throway any
chance to secure a victory in the supreme ct....”

I understand your point that the Libertarians can “siphon off” only
enough Republican votes to ensure a Democrat victory. But three points
you continue to ignore:

4a) Many Libertarian votes may come from former Republican voters,
but some will come from Democrats, from Independents, and from new
voters. If the people who espouse Libertarian policies would vote
Libertarian rather than for the two major parties, Libertarians would win
in a landslide.

We’ve already shown that one gun owner in three voting Libertarian
would elect Libertarians to Congress and the Presidency. I assure you
that a Libertarian President would nominate as good (or better) people to
the Supreme Court as would the Republicans. Remember, the
Republicans want to compromise with Democrats. The Libertarians want
to return the government to its governing document - the Constitution.

And if the Libertarians made a good enough showing to shake up the two
major parties, many of them would start voting like Americans instead of
Socialists.

We have the opportunity to take back our government. But it involves
personal freedom and personal responsibility - concepts that frighten too
many lovers of the government nanny. So perhaps the Democrats win
the election.

4b) If the Democrats win the election by a scant plurality rather than by
a majority, they will be in power but also in a dangerous position.

- If the Democrats consider a 35% or 45% plurality victory to be a
mandate, they just might go far enough to self-destruct politically.

- If the Democrats realize they do not have the support of most
Americans, they may temper their outrageous demands with a bit of
self-preservation.

- Also, fubsy, it is not the Supreme Court who passes legislation. If we
can bring the Libertarian concepts to the Presidency and the Congress,
the Supreme Court becomes powerless to evaluate laws that don’t exist.

4c) “but not this election” is the cry we gun owner have heard since
1934. If not now, when? Read Patrick Henry’s speech for an indication
of what we are in for if we subordinate our republic to “not this election”
time after time after time.

--------------------
5) You make a good point about the electoral college, not “We the
people”, who elect our President. I would like to take that one step
further. It is the Republicans and Democrats who select for whom we
can vote! They select the “professional/career politician” who best
supports the power of the party - then give this Judas goat to us as a
purported choice. Man, talk about smarmy!

We can NEVER achieve a return to the Constitution by voting for people
selected by the parties violating the Constitution! That’s why Sen. Bob
Smith dropped out of the Republican Party. For 45 minutes on the floor
of Congress, Smith explained how the Republicans have become the “me,
too” party - a mere auxiliary of the Democratic Party. And neither the
Republicans nor the Democrats say what they mean or mean what they
say. The vast majority of the major parties are known and proven liars.
Scandals abound and are pretty much taken for granted as the cost of
doing business while they increase the power of the government over the
people of America.

The Libertarians, on the other hand, want to reduce the size of
government and get them out of our lives. To me that’s a better choice.
It’s a shame that those who vote for the two major parties obviously
disagree.

--------------------
6) You ask, “...if the liberformer was elected president, how is he gonna
govern with out a supporting party?--please answer that one too.” We
have answered that question over and over. We have given you the url
to read it in detail.
www.lp.org

A Libertarian president would:
- Rescind the onerous Presidential Executive Orders.
- Abolish most of the Department of the Treasury, including the ATF and
the Internal Revenue Service.
- Force Congress to overcome Presidential vetoes on power grabs such
as gun control laws and seizing private land for government use.

--------------------
7) Thanks to TheBluesMan for finding the source on the open borders
concept. I read the Libertarian stand on free flow of goods and people
across our borders. I’m on shaky ground here but I offer these
comments.

- I live near San Antonio. The fact is, our borders already are open. The
Border Patrol admits they catch less than half the illegal border crossers.
DEA admits they catch 12%-15% of all imported drugs. The borders are
open right now - we just don’t admit it or cope with it.

- Libertarians believe that if we reduce the welfare racket fewer
free-loaders will enter the country. I am not totally convinced. But the
fact remains, free-loaders are coming here illegally anyway.

--------------------
8) Fubsy, I think you hit the nail on the head when you indicated I am a
one-issue voter and you are not. I believe if the Second Amendment
falls to gun control, the rest of the Bill of Rights will fall to federal
legislation. That is a risk I am not prepared to take. That, apparently, is
where we differ.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 06, 1999).]
 
The points above are well taken, particularly those of Dennis in regard to the Second Amendment falling to gun control being the first domino that will eventually topple the entire Bill of Rights. It is well accepted that the Second is the keystone of the rest of the BOR and perhaps the Constitution itself. Perhaps non-one-issue voters like me should prioritize the issues and vote accordingly.



My personal life would not be affected greatly if gay marriages were legal, borders were open (only have to worry about those Canadians coming across the lake here in Ohio ;)) and drugs were legal. (As long as I've got my gun anyway) But if the RKBA is lost, then many of the freedoms I cherish in my personal life would be affected. Not just the shooting that I enjoy either, once the guns are gone the rest of my personal freedoms would be on their way out also.



Some thought is required on this subject...I wonder if there is a third, fourth or fifth party out there that supports the Second Amendment and has fewer of the "lesser evils" in it's platform? (drugs, open borders, etc.)



Sitting down with a pot of honey in my thinking place...hmm...think, think, think, think, think......



------------------
"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: "If there are no restrictions on firearm ownership, the borders are open to all, and powerful drugs are freely available, what kind of country will we be living in in four years?" Um, the kind we used to live in? Before the war on drugs, the war on guns, and border checkpoints with guys doing body cavity searches?
 
Wow!

Although I have been guilty more than a few times, I am reminded of the warning in the Bible (proverbs) regarding talking alot and not saying much. So here goes. Seriously, this is a short post for me. Right?

If one were to look at others (including 'ole independent Jesse) that sought public office, and then changed their minds (or revealed their true intentions) when they got in office, we would see the obvious trend.

Going down the "rabbit hole" with specious arguments is fun, but it never seems to lead us to a real understanding of human nature in politics. Right?

I have not met every Libertarian, however, on balance, every single one that I have spoken with, in time, does indeed, "promise the moon". They also lead or frequently re-direct the discussion into the "emotion zone". Folks, that's a primary tool of the gun ban people. I, for one, don't like it. It insults me. Yes, the others do it, but still...

The Libertarian party may indeed be the nation's savior, as some of them would have you to believe, but, it's still a theory at this point. Libertarians are human too, and subject to the same flaws and fallacies anybody else is. Claims to the contrary are nonsense.

We have no guarantees with any party at this late date.



------------------
David H. Wright
Bring this man a
goat and a bowl of fruit
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top