tfl member voting for Gore.?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bullet44

New member
Just checking, any TFL people voting for
Gore.? We have one liberal on the 1911
Forum,that "claims" he must vote for Gore
on the issues but he will work within the
Dem. party to change there anti-gun policy.
While I do not think this is possible I
am interested to see if any gun owners on
this board would vote this way.

------------------
 
Ohhh-kay, I'll stick my neck out. I don't like either candidate, and the 3rd party guys don't stand a chance.

I am voting for Gore to maintain balance. Both parties have items on their agenda that I see as excesses. I believe that if you have a Republican majority in Congress, and it looks like we will, you must have a Democrat as President. Each will keep the other from going to extremes.

I know this is a cyncial and pragmatic view, but ideology don't feed the bulldog anymore. Elections in this country are between prostitutes to campaign money, and all you are doing is choosing which pimp gets the most influence. Until we figure out campaign finance reform, we're stuck with this.

If you don't believe Washington is full of prostitutes, read P.J. O'Rourke's "A Parliament of Whores". Hell, just read the "deregulation" bills for banking and telecommunications.
 
thanks David, I was just curious.I also believe in a "balance" however with the
democrat's(i used to vote for them) moving
so far to the left and the republicans moving
to the middle for now I got to go Bush.
Having said that I am concerned with increased population growth much from third
world countries that in 15 years most freedom
we have left will be gone.More people, more
laws, just a fact through out history.
 
Ya, lots of us hold our nose when we vote. Are you sure that you want Gore naming judges? I'm not sure that sixteen years of Gore-Clinton appointment could be called balance.
 
THAT is why no gun owner should vote for Gore.

Gore's issues are lies. He is spending 900 billion MORE than the non-Social Security Surplus. His SS plan could cost future 40% more in taxes and no one gets a tax cut under Gore.

Greenspan said it best ref the tax surplus in Washington:

Best thing is to pay down the debt.
2nd best is tax cuts
last and worst is to spend it.

Gore has spent it. Bush is giving 28% of it back. Bush leaves 72% for SS, Medicare, and paying down the debt.

Universal health-care (Hillary care?)?, Universal kindergarten? Gore taking bribes? Oh, what a great one.

Gheez

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary H:
Ya, lots of us hold our nose when we vote. Are you sure that you want Gore naming judges? I'm not sure that sixteen years of Gore-Clinton appointment could be called balance.[/quote]
 
The President can't just "name" judges; they have to be confirmed by the Senate. Again, BALANCE. Gore can't railroad through ultra-left-wingers, the Senate can't rubber-stamp ultra-right-wingers, so they have to compromise on someone who won't go ballistic in either direction.

The well-designed system of checks and balances will fail if the Legislative and Executive branches are full of the same doctrinaire zealots who sold their integrity to the same special interests in order to get elected. It's a foregone conclusion that Mr. and Ms. Average American are going to get screwed no matter who's in office. You can divide the issues into two categories: those relevant to profit and those that are not. On any issue relevant to profit, government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists and for the lobbyists prevails.

On issues where profit is not a major matter (school prayer, abortion, RKBA, privacy, etc.) the lobbyists lay back and the zealots take over. These are the issues that get all the press while your elected officials quietly pi$$ away your tax dollars and sell the nation to the highest bidder. Everyone's so busy screaming about gays in the boy scouts they never stop to ask why the Archer Daniels Midland Company has been getting billions in subsidies for ethanol reseach for years, and has yet to produce anything useful. We're so concerned over Elian Gonzales that we forget to ask why a telecomm company can change your long distance service without your permission. We march in the streets over RKBA while lumber companies get cheapo leases to deforest public lands.

The special interests love it when we're kept so busy with emotional issues that we ignore the rape of the public purse. Do some cross-checking, see how many business interests donate to both the Republican and Democratic parties. They want to encourage the controversy as a distraction. It's all about money.
 
WOW David Scott,
I have a great admiration for you. At least you had some kehone's! I don't agree with you in the least, but dang- at least you're willing to say it.
Bullet: I don't think population growth and laws are necessarily linked. The age-old excuse, is given to be more people=more laws, but in reality, more people = more people. End of story. Power-hungry politicians are more attracted by a large populous to rule over than a small one. THis is the only correlation. The same basic laws apply to millions or hundreds. The only correlation between population explosion is more people needed to enforce the few laws we actually need. Of course, more people = More tax base to pay for the added enforcers (cops, prosecutors, defense, and prisons). Don't get duped into thinking that more people = more laws.
Just my opinion...
 
people+more people=more crime=more laws=
less freedom. Look at the large cities.
Crime=,more police to stop the crime then
the police become corrupt.
Sorry but believe what you will as our population grows and with education declining
(thanks to liberal public schools) you will
see an increase in laws until freedom as we
know it is gone.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kjm:
WOW David Scott,
I have a great admiration for you. At least you had some kehone's! I don't agree with you in the least, but dang- at least you're willing to say it.[/quote]

Thanks. Now if I can just get people see what's really happening in the Whorehouse On The Potomoac....

What part do you not agree with?
 
"Campaign Finance Reform" as now proposed = putting NRA and GOA out of business! That would be the end of all gun rights within 10-20 years. That's what CFR gets you. What does Gore get you? Judges on the SC who will actually decide the second amendment once and for all, which means the end of all gun rights within 25-50 years, after the laws are eventually passed then upheld. What does George W. get you? Possible indefinite preservation of SOME rights, given a good SC decision, or possible end of all gun rights given marginal SC decision with W. appointees, but over a longer period with a more conservative political climate and this type of decision - say, 50-100 years. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but it's basically fact. Anyone who votes for Gore is either not serious about the second amendment being first among equals, or is ignorant of all the facts.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited September 14, 2000).]
 
Futo - I agree with you, except for the time frame. It won't take 10 years for Gore to remove our gun rights.

David - I admire your B***s, but I hope you rethink the issue before November.

Bush is certainly not the best qualified person in the U.S. to be president, but he appears to be the only choice.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Futo Inu:
Anyone who votes for Gore is either not serious about the second amendment being first among equals, or is ignorant of all the facts.[/quote]

Well, I don't consider myself ignorant, but I do believe that there ARE other issues besides the 2nd Amendment. It's a big issue, sure, but if Clinton could not ban guns in the last 8 years what makes you think Gore will do it, facing a Republican Congress?

As for campaign finance reform, I object to dollar-based influence on legislation even for causes I favor. In principle, the way we finance our politics is wrong, and a gateway to corruption. Besides, with CFR populist organizations like the NRA would actually have more influence, because corporations can deliver dollars but they can't deliver votes. The NRA has thousands of members who vote their agenda. Take away the ability to buy candidates, and the candidates will have to serve the VOTERS, not the checkbooks.

I know that I am in the minority of TFLers on this issue. I kind of expected that. Oh well, it only takes one of you folks to cancel out my vote, and the rest are gravy, right?
 
I'm voting for gore... OH, you mean the so called VP, I thought you meant the stuff they show in movies and video games. I like a good gory, fast action, shoot em up with hi-tech weapons sort of show/game every once in a while. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the post. :D

USP45usp
 
We really need a crook and liar(to replace the last crook and liar) to keep things from becoming too honest and protect us from getting too much freedom?

Good heavens!

ordo
 
I had hoped for better reasoning, here.

Balance? What if the Demos take over Congress as they say they will this November? What if they take over in 2002?

"Until we figure out campaign finance reform, we're stuck with this."

You want campaign finance reform? 53% of DC lobbyists are tax lobbyists. Drope the income tax and that means they have less influence to buy. Have the government stick to the Constitution and they have less influence still.

"The President can't just "name" judges; they have to be confirmed by the Senate."

Tell us how many Supreme Court nominees from liberal presidents have been rejected by the Senate Judiciary committee (GOP or Demo)?

Rick
 
I've read PJ's POW'S and The Trouble with the World. I doubt Mr. O'Rourke agrees on the campaign reform issue because he is this guys buddy: Doug Bandow, CATO Institute ..."Ultimately, the only true campaign reform is to shrink government. As
long as $1.7 trillion in taxpayer wealth is available for plundering in
Washington, interest groups will spend mightily to get their hands on it."
Finance reform as currently framed, and as Futo points out, is an infringement upon free speech. It merely mistreats a symptom and ignores the root cause with even greater ill effect. It is a smokescreen.

ADM would not be the beneficiary of the ethanol fiasco if it wasn't for the insane regulatory power of the EPA and its spawn. Farmers wouldn't have heavy mortgages on corn equipment if they were only growing a product for the "free" market. Bush supports this travesty and it is a shame. I don't think Mr. Earth in the Balance wants less of a centrally controlled economy and its consequences. I think he wants more than you imagine.
I agree that the republicans inexcusably failed to shrink the monster when it was in the grasp.
I don't agree often with the tactics of the NRA, but I have yet to see them ask for taxpayer support. There is a big difference between nosing for a teat from which to suckle and "lobbying" for a natural human right!
 
David,

If you feel your conscience on other issues besides guns requires you to vote against Bush, please consider voting for Nader, who at least opposes open borders and the WTO.

Ledbetter
 
Well, 'wow' is what came to mind for me as well.

I'll only offer that if having a Democrat(ic) President in the form of Clinton, and a Republican Congress has theoretically been 'balanced' regarding the RKBA and other fundamental rights, then I suppose we're really sunk if the Democrats control both.

I'm not nearly as sanguine about our odds if Gore is elected. And, regarding judges, you don't need them to be 'ultra' anything ... with Gore in, we can depend upon a very liberal Supreme Court that will embrace further expansion of the state.

Regards from AZ
 
So it's a question of balance> like ying and yang. Let's see how "balanced" you feel four years from now when the government you supported has you by the ying-yang.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top