Republicans v. Libertarians, Part 3
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
Frank Haertlein
Moderator
Dennis, you scoundrel ;-)
As you know, facts don't matter!
"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."
You said that but you dammed well know the media is going to spin anything in anyway they like to get the desired outcome of opinions in the American public. What we need to do is support the broad discontent with the electorate with as many issues as are out there. Show people that they have an alternative to the status quo. This to upset the Apple Cart just like gun owners did in 1994 and send the dems, GOP and the media packing! To this day I still visualise Dan Rather saying after the 1994 election upset "WHAT HAPPENED?" Well, he now knows what happened.....his media and politicians pissed off gun owners and that is what gave the GOP control of the house and senate. Now the GOP has forgotten us and I say screw em! Let's give the power to the Libertarians. They ARE pro gun!!!!!!
As you know, facts don't matter!
"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."
You said that but you dammed well know the media is going to spin anything in anyway they like to get the desired outcome of opinions in the American public. What we need to do is support the broad discontent with the electorate with as many issues as are out there. Show people that they have an alternative to the status quo. This to upset the Apple Cart just like gun owners did in 1994 and send the dems, GOP and the media packing! To this day I still visualise Dan Rather saying after the 1994 election upset "WHAT HAPPENED?" Well, he now knows what happened.....his media and politicians pissed off gun owners and that is what gave the GOP control of the house and senate. Now the GOP has forgotten us and I say screw em! Let's give the power to the Libertarians. They ARE pro gun!!!!!!
Dennis,
As you know Im busy right now and quite frankly am getting tired of this, as ipeac said its just a waste of bandwidth. We have months ahead of us until the election. It is doubtful that you will convince me that your party will win a majority in the House of Representatives or Senate, also I dont see how the U.S. Presidency would be within your partys grasp in this election. Im not trying to convince you to vote for the republicans, I am not "married" to a party. I do want to slow the loss of our bill of rights, and have them restored. I dont believe your party is capable of that at this time, and that is jmo. In politics, compromise is often necessary. Could it be any other way between two groups of people, who have differing views, especially those of power. I think not, again jmo.
<<<<<<<
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.>>>>>>>
.......Then I am wrong, I do not care to use the search feature to see if such things were posted prior to lott or bush speaking out, since you have stated you have not said such things prior to their statements, please except my apology.
<<<<<<<<
Listen to your Republican leaders, fubsy. The ones you want to rule you.>>>>>>>
.....I want no ruler, liberformer or otherwise.
<<<<<<
That’s more government control of my guns and my family than I am
willing to vote for. So I can NOT vote Republican.>>>>>
.....I admire a man of principle, after the upcoming election perhaps we can revisit what your principled stand gained.
<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>
......If I remember correctly I asked if he had ran as a republican to get elected, Everyone already knows he's a libertarian. I still think that running with in the mechanism/structure is the quickest way to put libertarians in congress, even if they have to get elected under a different banner, they should still take their "principles" with them. They would not be co-opted into the system as they would have those very same principles to guide their decisions. Imo in this way they could gain experience, and lay the foundation that you want.
--------------------
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).
<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>>
........I believe it is commonly accepted that the votes are primarily pulled from the Republican party. Im also not so concerned with the grand total of were the votes came from, but how many were pulled away in each election, in each district, that can do far more harm. Once again, so it is clear, by all means vote the way you want, be realistic in your expetations of the results.
<<<<<<<If the people who espouse Libertarian policies would vote
Libertarian rather than for the two major parties, Libertarians would win
in a landslide.>>>>>>
Very fatalistic approach, the big if, I asked on the response prior to this one why you thought that with the 2nd amendment so near and dear to gun owners the libertarians could not garner the majority of the gun vote, especially with pro-2nd amendment plank, why do you think that is? Im not sure who posted it but the word "fear" was bandied around with regards to why people would not vote for liberformers in mass---could be, I know I fear what the democrats with the presidency and the congress can do. How can a party who are unable to garner more than 10% of the votes in a national election be a viable alternative. Its beyond my reasoning.
<<<<<<<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.>>>>>
.......Well, if you believe that, ok, then I have to ask again, Why cant you get it done, you have been a party since 1974(?), I think thats right.
<<<<<<< Remember, the
Republicans want to compromise with Democrats. The Libertarians want
to return the government to its governing document - the Constitution.>>>>>>>
........How could I not remember, I hear it constantly on tfl, sounds good, now why dont the american people vote for you?
1. Assuming that libertarians were able to land the presidency, how would they do that, by vetoing any new laws, how could the president legislate or rule against existing laws?---Im sure he could ask the democrats and the remainder of what republicans are in office for help in repealling the laws he though was unconstitutional.(although, I know we both know that the supreme ct rules on constitutionality and the congress legislates, not the president.--wanted to make sure were on the same page).
2. What if, you get control of the house, Now you have something, do you know how many representative's that would take? (I dont, Iam hoping you know), its a bunch. So now youve control, I dont know how much control, say the same as the republicans today, well lets see now you have three parties in congress, one severly weakened republican party and one democratic party, and the libertarins with a small edge. How much legislation do you think will be sucessful? Not only that, but what experience do these folks have, think of all of the issues they will be voting on. Of course once it gets through the house it has to go to the senate, were most bill's will be killed, or sent back to the house to vote on the changes made, then to the prez, of course a democrat could pockett veto, or just veto it outright, and dont forget we now have the line item veto,....gives me shudders just thinking about it. The house initiates legislation, so in order to pass any you will have to have the house. In order for your legislation to get through the Senate uncorrupted, you will need the senate, and last in order for you legislation to become law, the prez has to vote for it. I dont see how your party can win all three, so far you havent even won one state.
<<<<<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.>>>>>>
.....now we are getting somewhere, although Im not sure if you will agree, if the libertarians can win a few seats in congress
that would be a good start, not the sweeping victory though.
<<<<<<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.>>>>>
........I dont see the opportunity you speak of, I see a long hard fight ahead of us, not some grand and glorious victory. I have to much respect for the american people to believe your last statement. I cant speak for everyone, but the people I speak to are fed up about many things, I have to wonder why you cant seem to attract those people. They want a good choice, a change in direction, sounds ideal for ya'll why arent they flocking in droves to your banner? Instead of fear, perhaps they dont see your party as a viable alternative--youve got your work cut out for you.
<<<<<<< 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.
>>>>>>>>>
......would not the same apply to the libertarians, you dont think they might compromise then, even a little maybe.
<<<<<<<- 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 history of the last 30 years or so is any indication, they will continue their incrementalism, and we will continue to lose. they might speed it up a bit, but once were wrapped up in legislation, what then?
<<<<<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.>>>>>
.......I dont think they care, they create public opinion and media feeds it to america, even through the use of polls., I dont see how that will scare them, to them those demands arent outrageous, ours are.
<<<<<<<<- Also, fubsy, it is not the Supreme Court who passes legislation.>>>>>>
........Humor right?, I know they dont pass legislation, they just rule on its constitutionality.
<<<<< 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.>>>>>>
........Yeah, it should be a cake walk, we will just get elected and start dismatling the govt in spite of the opposition.
<<<<<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.>>>>>
.......I enjoy the inspirational works of Patrick Henry, they could certainley write back then. I dont know if it truly applies, I think we can become stronger and grow larger and become more capable. That is part of the reason I cant vote for the libertarians att, I dont think your ready. So I will vote to delay to give not a victory to the republicans but to give the 3rd partys in this country time to grow stronger and build their infrastructure, to get their canidates elected, to further spread the word of what they will do. I dont have a quote for this, but if I can remember correctly, (you texans help me out here), after the defeat of the alamo, was it Sam Houst on who told his troops, (poor paraphrase), that when your tired and grumbling and cant go another step remember those who sacraficed their lives to give you the time you need to learn what you need to defeat santa anna., its something to that effect, so delays and timing have historical precedence as well.
--------------------
<<<<<5) You make a good point about the electoral college, not “We the
people”, who elect our President.>>>>>
........thats one that there is no way around that I know of, not for this election.
<<<<< 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!>>>>>
.............I dont see that as further, I see that as a whole different topic. Thats what partys do, and that is what the libertarians will eventually do as well.
<<<<<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.>>>>
....He made a great speech, I enjoyed it, I believed in what he said, I wonder if we will ever hear from him again.
>>>>> 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.>>>>>
....yep, thats what he said.
<<<<<<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.>>>>>
....... Yep, thats what they say.
--------------------
<<<<<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>>>>>
........been there done that......still not convinced.
<<<<<<A Libertarian president would:
- Rescind the onerous Presidential Executive Orders.>>>>>>
......That the lone libertarian president could do.
<<<<<<- Abolish most of the Department of the Treasury, including the ATF and
the Internal Revenue Service.>>>>>
.......I dont believe this is within the authority of the president, libertarian or not. I think this has to be done by congress.
<<<<<<- Force Congress to overcome Presidential vetoes on power grabs such
as gun control laws and seizing private land for government use.>>>>>
........Now this he can do as vetoing is within his authority, now if the democrats are the majority in congress, against either a smaller republican party and/or a small libertarian contingent is in the congress, they might be able to override his veto's.
--------------------
<<<<<<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.>>>>>>
.........I lived along time within a stones throw of the rio grande, and Ive seen waves of wets coming accross, I think we need stronger enforcement on our borders-----there is a trend ive seen with ya'll positions on some subjects, drugs + borders,
If the law isnt working lets scrap it and the heck with it, we cant stop it.
--------------------
<<<<<<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.>>>>>>
.....I think you have me confused with someone else on this point, Im not necessarily a one issue voter, I try to vote in such a way as to retain my constitutional rights, and that means making some choices that I dont always like.
Dennis,
I consider you almost family, I definitely argue with you like were family,lol...I just dont agree with the complete platform or the proposed outcome of this election cycle. Look at the current reality, your party is on the ballot in only 28 states and has no state governership(or do you?), the reform party was started, In "92", and has elected a govenor, and they are only on the ballot in 20 states. How much money does your party have to run a national election, what is the possible amounts they can raise?, can they achieve enough to possibly compete with bush? In one of the responses you 'splained' the republican history, well and good, did you also happen to run accross documetation on how many parties have come and gone, no more than a footnote in history, how many were co-opted into other parties, how many out of power parties who came to prominence survived?----so far its only been one I think, the republicans, Im not sure on the democrats.
....................its late Im going to sleep, fubsy.
As you know Im busy right now and quite frankly am getting tired of this, as ipeac said its just a waste of bandwidth. We have months ahead of us until the election. It is doubtful that you will convince me that your party will win a majority in the House of Representatives or Senate, also I dont see how the U.S. Presidency would be within your partys grasp in this election. Im not trying to convince you to vote for the republicans, I am not "married" to a party. I do want to slow the loss of our bill of rights, and have them restored. I dont believe your party is capable of that at this time, and that is jmo. In politics, compromise is often necessary. Could it be any other way between two groups of people, who have differing views, especially those of power. I think not, again jmo.
<<<<<<<
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.>>>>>>>
.......Then I am wrong, I do not care to use the search feature to see if such things were posted prior to lott or bush speaking out, since you have stated you have not said such things prior to their statements, please except my apology.
<<<<<<<<
Listen to your Republican leaders, fubsy. The ones you want to rule you.>>>>>>>
.....I want no ruler, liberformer or otherwise.
<<<<<<
That’s more government control of my guns and my family than I am
willing to vote for. So I can NOT vote Republican.>>>>>
.....I admire a man of principle, after the upcoming election perhaps we can revisit what your principled stand gained.
<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>
......If I remember correctly I asked if he had ran as a republican to get elected, Everyone already knows he's a libertarian. I still think that running with in the mechanism/structure is the quickest way to put libertarians in congress, even if they have to get elected under a different banner, they should still take their "principles" with them. They would not be co-opted into the system as they would have those very same principles to guide their decisions. Imo in this way they could gain experience, and lay the foundation that you want.
--------------------
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).
<<<<<<<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.>>>>>>>>
........I believe it is commonly accepted that the votes are primarily pulled from the Republican party. Im also not so concerned with the grand total of were the votes came from, but how many were pulled away in each election, in each district, that can do far more harm. Once again, so it is clear, by all means vote the way you want, be realistic in your expetations of the results.
<<<<<<<If the people who espouse Libertarian policies would vote
Libertarian rather than for the two major parties, Libertarians would win
in a landslide.>>>>>>
Very fatalistic approach, the big if, I asked on the response prior to this one why you thought that with the 2nd amendment so near and dear to gun owners the libertarians could not garner the majority of the gun vote, especially with pro-2nd amendment plank, why do you think that is? Im not sure who posted it but the word "fear" was bandied around with regards to why people would not vote for liberformers in mass---could be, I know I fear what the democrats with the presidency and the congress can do. How can a party who are unable to garner more than 10% of the votes in a national election be a viable alternative. Its beyond my reasoning.
<<<<<<<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.>>>>>
.......Well, if you believe that, ok, then I have to ask again, Why cant you get it done, you have been a party since 1974(?), I think thats right.
<<<<<<< Remember, the
Republicans want to compromise with Democrats. The Libertarians want
to return the government to its governing document - the Constitution.>>>>>>>
........How could I not remember, I hear it constantly on tfl, sounds good, now why dont the american people vote for you?
1. Assuming that libertarians were able to land the presidency, how would they do that, by vetoing any new laws, how could the president legislate or rule against existing laws?---Im sure he could ask the democrats and the remainder of what republicans are in office for help in repealling the laws he though was unconstitutional.(although, I know we both know that the supreme ct rules on constitutionality and the congress legislates, not the president.--wanted to make sure were on the same page).
2. What if, you get control of the house, Now you have something, do you know how many representative's that would take? (I dont, Iam hoping you know), its a bunch. So now youve control, I dont know how much control, say the same as the republicans today, well lets see now you have three parties in congress, one severly weakened republican party and one democratic party, and the libertarins with a small edge. How much legislation do you think will be sucessful? Not only that, but what experience do these folks have, think of all of the issues they will be voting on. Of course once it gets through the house it has to go to the senate, were most bill's will be killed, or sent back to the house to vote on the changes made, then to the prez, of course a democrat could pockett veto, or just veto it outright, and dont forget we now have the line item veto,....gives me shudders just thinking about it. The house initiates legislation, so in order to pass any you will have to have the house. In order for your legislation to get through the Senate uncorrupted, you will need the senate, and last in order for you legislation to become law, the prez has to vote for it. I dont see how your party can win all three, so far you havent even won one state.
<<<<<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.>>>>>>
.....now we are getting somewhere, although Im not sure if you will agree, if the libertarians can win a few seats in congress
that would be a good start, not the sweeping victory though.
<<<<<<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.>>>>>
........I dont see the opportunity you speak of, I see a long hard fight ahead of us, not some grand and glorious victory. I have to much respect for the american people to believe your last statement. I cant speak for everyone, but the people I speak to are fed up about many things, I have to wonder why you cant seem to attract those people. They want a good choice, a change in direction, sounds ideal for ya'll why arent they flocking in droves to your banner? Instead of fear, perhaps they dont see your party as a viable alternative--youve got your work cut out for you.
<<<<<<< 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.
>>>>>>>>>
......would not the same apply to the libertarians, you dont think they might compromise then, even a little maybe.
<<<<<<<- 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 history of the last 30 years or so is any indication, they will continue their incrementalism, and we will continue to lose. they might speed it up a bit, but once were wrapped up in legislation, what then?
<<<<<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.>>>>>
.......I dont think they care, they create public opinion and media feeds it to america, even through the use of polls., I dont see how that will scare them, to them those demands arent outrageous, ours are.
<<<<<<<<- Also, fubsy, it is not the Supreme Court who passes legislation.>>>>>>
........Humor right?, I know they dont pass legislation, they just rule on its constitutionality.
<<<<< 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.>>>>>>
........Yeah, it should be a cake walk, we will just get elected and start dismatling the govt in spite of the opposition.
<<<<<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.>>>>>
.......I enjoy the inspirational works of Patrick Henry, they could certainley write back then. I dont know if it truly applies, I think we can become stronger and grow larger and become more capable. That is part of the reason I cant vote for the libertarians att, I dont think your ready. So I will vote to delay to give not a victory to the republicans but to give the 3rd partys in this country time to grow stronger and build their infrastructure, to get their canidates elected, to further spread the word of what they will do. I dont have a quote for this, but if I can remember correctly, (you texans help me out here), after the defeat of the alamo, was it Sam Houst on who told his troops, (poor paraphrase), that when your tired and grumbling and cant go another step remember those who sacraficed their lives to give you the time you need to learn what you need to defeat santa anna., its something to that effect, so delays and timing have historical precedence as well.
--------------------
<<<<<5) You make a good point about the electoral college, not “We the
people”, who elect our President.>>>>>
........thats one that there is no way around that I know of, not for this election.
<<<<< 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!>>>>>
.............I dont see that as further, I see that as a whole different topic. Thats what partys do, and that is what the libertarians will eventually do as well.
<<<<<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.>>>>
....He made a great speech, I enjoyed it, I believed in what he said, I wonder if we will ever hear from him again.
>>>>> 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.>>>>>
....yep, thats what he said.
<<<<<<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.>>>>>
....... Yep, thats what they say.
--------------------
<<<<<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>>>>>
........been there done that......still not convinced.
<<<<<<A Libertarian president would:
- Rescind the onerous Presidential Executive Orders.>>>>>>
......That the lone libertarian president could do.
<<<<<<- Abolish most of the Department of the Treasury, including the ATF and
the Internal Revenue Service.>>>>>
.......I dont believe this is within the authority of the president, libertarian or not. I think this has to be done by congress.
<<<<<<- Force Congress to overcome Presidential vetoes on power grabs such
as gun control laws and seizing private land for government use.>>>>>
........Now this he can do as vetoing is within his authority, now if the democrats are the majority in congress, against either a smaller republican party and/or a small libertarian contingent is in the congress, they might be able to override his veto's.
--------------------
<<<<<<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.>>>>>>
.........I lived along time within a stones throw of the rio grande, and Ive seen waves of wets coming accross, I think we need stronger enforcement on our borders-----there is a trend ive seen with ya'll positions on some subjects, drugs + borders,
If the law isnt working lets scrap it and the heck with it, we cant stop it.
--------------------
<<<<<<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.>>>>>>
.....I think you have me confused with someone else on this point, Im not necessarily a one issue voter, I try to vote in such a way as to retain my constitutional rights, and that means making some choices that I dont always like.
Dennis,
I consider you almost family, I definitely argue with you like were family,lol...I just dont agree with the complete platform or the proposed outcome of this election cycle. Look at the current reality, your party is on the ballot in only 28 states and has no state governership(or do you?), the reform party was started, In "92", and has elected a govenor, and they are only on the ballot in 20 states. How much money does your party have to run a national election, what is the possible amounts they can raise?, can they achieve enough to possibly compete with bush? In one of the responses you 'splained' the republican history, well and good, did you also happen to run accross documetation on how many parties have come and gone, no more than a footnote in history, how many were co-opted into other parties, how many out of power parties who came to prominence survived?----so far its only been one I think, the republicans, Im not sure on the democrats.
....................its late Im going to sleep, fubsy.