All,
The idea that a bill should NOT have amendments, riders or whatever is
outstanding. I believe that is part of what the line-item veto was intended to
address - but apparently it was the wrong tool for the job.
-------
Fubsy,
Please don’t put me in the position where I must re-post your every sentence
to prove I am addressing the questions you ask me. That should be
unnecessary but to address your complaint I’ll do it one more time.
Fubsy: “Dennis,
If I go back and just keep you to the questions I asked and not the continuing
barrage against the other two political parties which you turn every discussion
around to, Your answers are evasive and provide promises, they have no
substance as a party. Now dont take this as a personal attack because it is
not.......”
Dennis: I find “evasive” a bit acidic for one not intending to offend. If
you re-read my post I believe you will find I addressed your every question.
The “barrage” however is earned and will continue.
- To call the Republicans and Democrats two different political parties is
similar to belaboring the differences between Communists and Socialists - the
differences to the common citizen are few and slight.
- The Libertarians have great “substance” (according to the definition in my
Webster’s). They have little or no track record because Americans continue to
vote for the two-party oligarchy rather than our freedoms.
-------
F: “I have some problems with the libertarians and two of the points
mentioned in the above post are a part of it.”
D: I’m not sure which two points you mean but I’m guessing it’s Hal’s
post so let me try that one, ok?
---------------------------------------
Hal,
LOL! Your “simplistic way” put me in stitches. I agree with your approach
but would add this:
The Democrats show us a hedgerow and tell us it's a primrose path.
The Republicans show us a primrose path
but take us down the Democrat’s
hedgerow!
The Libertarians show us a field and tell us to plant whatever we want to end
up with.
Hal: I have only 2 points of difference with the Libertarian Party. Open
borders and the drug issue. I will be a hard sell on both. Hard, but not
impossible
Dennis: Me too! Both issues affect gun control and related legislation
so let’s address those issues.
I’m opposed to open borders and the legalization of illegal drugs. But,
gradually, my disagreements are becoming smothered by Libertarians’
seemingly effective arguments.
- Saturday evening my cousin phoned me from Connecticut. He served some
35 years with the Coast Guard and the Navy - mostly as a civilian, and mostly
on classified drug interdiction projects. As a youngster his background was
electronics and (although he wouldn’t disclose details) he was involved with
the development and implementation of electronic means of drug interdiction.
On land he served at various R&D centers. He was at sea a lot!
My cousin said realistic estimates of the amount of drugs we are catching and
preventing from entering our country is 12%. Even Navy “big wigs” claim no
more than 15%. So, apparently some 85% of all drug shipments make it into
our country.
My cousin said *some* small shipments of drugs are sent by small boats which
are easily detected and captured - apparently as “sacrificial shipments” intended
to maintain the status quo and to ensure methods are not developed to capture
the big shipments. He maintained he was being factual rather than cynical.
A retired Border Patrolman (a student in my CHL class some months ago)
stated our borders are. “... largely discretionary. Only the law-abiding go
through our checkpoints. ... We miss most of the rest.” He wouldn’t even
estimate how many “illegals” (HIS term!) come to America without even being
detected! When I asked if American authorities catch half of the border
crossers, he laughed and said, “Not even in our dreams!” He also stated
“about 10%” of the illegal drugs coming across the Rio Grande are discovered
and confiscated.
Many big companies and many government officials are getting rich fighting
the Drug War. However, people “in the know” tell me they can buy illegal
drugs, anywhere, anytime. (I have no personal way of knowing....)
Apparently we already have Open Borders.
Apparently we already lost the Drug War.
Do I like that! NO! I am so vehemently opposed to illegal immigration and
illegal drug use that some friends refuse to discuss it with me (even when
they’re on my side!). But many, many Americans apparently disagree with me
- illegal immigration and drug use are rampant.
I do NOT want to legalize drugs! I am terrified that my daughters and future
generations would believe drug use was NOT immoral or dangerous if it were
NOT illegal. However, I must consider the following:
a) My wife and I have been together some 25 years. She is a virtual teetotaler.
My “drug” use, typically beer, sometimes wine, rarely whiskey, (never again,
tequila!) has not induced her to drink at all.
b) My oldest daughter was married to a drug abuser. She did not become a
drug addict. So said both my daughter and her <expletive deleted> former
husband.
c) My middle daughter says she and her cowboy crowd just don’t use dope.
“Most of them can’t handle beer!” she says with a laugh. It’s around, she says,
“It just isn’t cool.”
d) My youngest daughter is in the “city”. She says at least half of the parties
she goes to end up with someone producing illegal drugs. She only goes to
parties with one or more of her group of friends (at least one of which has
transportation) and they immediately leave. “It’s a problem we don’t need to
be mixed up in.”
(Interesting side comment pertaining to “profiling”: She says, “We all look so
young we know we’re a police target - so we ALWAYS have a designated
driver. That stinks but we all take turns so it’s not really so bad.)
e) My daughters and their friends agree they could “score” drugs in any
American city within an hour of arrival there.
f) If the government REALLY wanted to eliminate drug use, they would:
- Reduce the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) to 0.01% (to allow for various
medications) with mandatory one year jail time for the second offense (to allow
for simple mistakes). 0.04% could mean automatic one year in jail.
- At least try to develop some similar methods of evaluating drug use and
punishment.
Understand, I’m NOT advocating such draconian measures. (I’d still be in
prison for the indiscretions of my youth!) I’m only pointing out that something
is fishy when government policies and actions don’t seem to coincide.
Outlawing drug use has resulted in another “Prohibition” style crime wave.
Repeal of Prohibition eliminated a LOT of dangerous problems. And gangsters
had to turn to gambling, prostitution, and *illegal drugs*!
Other TFLers have concluded that illegal drug use is a medical problem. That
might be an argument I could support. I’m not yet totally convinced either,
Hal. I want to learn more about the argument.
I’ve read that most drugs which are now illegal but existed a century ago used
to be over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. Drug use (per capita) was much lower
when the drugs did NOT have the mystique and attraction of being illegal.
Other TFLers have concluded that the Drug War has created criminals out of
honest citizens. That frequently becomes an argument of mere definitions.
The bottom line seems to be that there is a greater percentage of drug users
than a century ago. Avoiding the arguments concerning causes, we all must
agree that the Drug War has resulted in violence, oppressive laws (especially
gun control laws), and dangerous threats to the American Rights of privacy,
private ownership, presumption of innocence, etc.
Using Prohibition as an example, I must assume there is SOME validity to the
argument of legalizing drugs. My opposition to that argument apparently is
merely emotional, unrealistic, and, um, without “substance”.
Therefore, Hal, although I also am a “hard sell”, I am told that my arguments
are no longer as valid as when I was a child. I’m not convinced but I am
wavering.
---------------------------
(back to Fubsy)
Fubsy: You and others keep trying to evade the fact that you have no
political power, you have not as a party been able to create any political
situations were you control anything, is that not right?
Dennis: We haven’t *evaded* anything.
We’ve repeatedly agreed the Libertarians have little or no track record! But
NO track record still is preferable to the Republican record of lies and
compromise. Again, Fubsy, why does Trent Lott, representing the Republican
hierarchy, publicly BRAG that they will work with the Democrats to bring
about more gun control?
The Libertarians have little power because people don’t vote for them in
adequate numbers - but our numbers are growing! Some Libertarian grass
roots efforts have been successful. Both the Democrats and the Republicans
recognize the Libertarian threat to the Democrat/Republican oligarchy.
F: Now I also have problems with the republicans as well and the
difference is that I dont see the libertarians as a means to salvation......they
have wonderful rhetoric and chest pounding.....so do the existing parties, the
difference is they have control of our governmental mechanisims, like it or not
that is a fact.
D: I’m glad you have problems with the Republicans. I’d call that an
awakening.
I can not argue that you should see the Libertarians as a means to salvation.
But I don’t quite understand why you do NOT see the Democrats and
Republicans as a means to tyranny.
Calmly now. Read and listen to the powerful Democrats say that we need
more government, more gun control, gun registration, and (in some cases)
Democrats already are calling for outright gun confiscation. (Ref Sen.
Feinstein, Schumer, et al).
Now, with an open mind, read how Trent Lott publicly advocates finding what
they call reasonable and realistic compromises on Democrats’ fight for gun
control. They mean what they say.
Both major parties want gun control!
And the FACT that those two parties already control our government is what
makes gun control, registration, and confiscation inevitable! I understand, “the
existing parties...have control of our governmental mechanisms, like it or not
that is a fact.” I agree!!! But it is a fact we can change!
If we simply have
the integrity to vote our beliefs, we can vote the tyrants out of office!
F: Do you not agree that when a party has no track record they can
claim anything and there is nothing to evaluate them against?
D: I again agree, Fubsy. But the other two parties are both promising
gun control. I refuse to support gun control. The Libertarians are like us -
they are angry! They are Americans in the Constitutional sense of the term.
Therefore, to avoid CERTAIN tyranny, I will take a chance with my fellow
angry Americans. I consider it an opportunity for freedom.
F: Just out of curiosity, have the republicans done anything you agree
with? How about the democrats?
D: Yes. They adjourned.
(Sorry, I’m just trying to lighten up a bit.)
Seriously, of course there is some good in every party. But the fact that Hitler
created the autobahns does not justify the horrors he perpetrated. By the same
token, I do not have the time, expertise, intent, or TFL bandwidth to critique
all the activities written into the Federal Register. I believe the treachery,
perfidy, and struggle for tyrannical control exhibited by our current
government is a greater threat to our way of life than any good they may have
done.
The current regime is a greater threat to our freedom than if you or I were
elected to the Presidency. (How’s that for a scary thought?
)
Fubsy, I sincerely believe that if we do not vote the current rascals out of
public office, we will lose the keystone amendment. The rest of the Bill of
Rights will mean no more than the Soviet Constitution meant to their common
people. We already have seen so many infringements to our Bill of Rights we
have no moral choice but to replace our current government by the most
peaceful, least injurious method we have available - the ballot box.
F: Remember Im working through this stuff too, so these arent personal
attacks or defenses of a position, Im trying to evaluate a course of action
which can actually do something, not talk about it, how is it to be done...--no
magic wands, what is the mechanism that will be used....Fubsy.
D: Fine, Fubsy. Me too. Intelligent people of integrity don’t always
agree on every issue - even when they both have all the facts! (A luxury
neither of us have when predicting the future.)
No magic wands, Fubsy. What I wish for is an effective crystal ball to show
what the future would bring with either a Republican or a Libertarian as
President.
I agree the Libertarians have no track record to compare to the Republicans’.
But the Republican track record, combined with their promise of more gun
control, proves to my satisfaction that no gun owner has a place in the
Republican Party.
If only (again with the “if only”!), Ron Paul, Bob Smith, Bob Barr, Alan
Keyes, and a few others would create a new party, I bet we both would
support them.
Keep up the struggle, Fubsy. One of us may yet convince the other, but you
have the harder job.
====================================
All,
I’m now supposed to be over on the General Discussion Forum, so I must
restrict my time and comments here. Please continue to discuss whatever
relevant subjects require our examination. That’s how we develop our
opinions and sometimes even change our minds. Remember, Fubsy, I was a
Republican for more than thirty years!
Let’s uncover facts, identify opinions as such, use logic, and keep America free
so we can enjoy whatever aspect of “guns” we happen to like (as well as our
other freedoms).
Thanks for your time. Although I won’t be able to participate to the extent I
have in the past (to many folks’ obvious relief!) I’ll be reading and learning
from y’all - and popping in from time to time.
BCNU