tfl member voting for Gore.?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm voting for Gore ONLY because republicans want to beeak-up and privitize my quasi-affiliated government agency transportation corporation.

------------------
"Are You Gonna Bark All Day Little Doggie, Or Are You Gonna Bite?"
 
Yep, once you get enough people on the take from the govt./are in government run businesses it's all over.

Enjoy my tax money - must be great not having to have skills to compete in private sector/free market.


Battler.
 
It is sad that anyone would vote for Gore. He's the closest thing to the Borg since Hitler. RKBA means more than any job related issue, children issue, or anything else. Without the 2nd, nothing else matters in the end. I would never vote for the Democrats for ANY reason. NONE. There is no excuse for voting Democrat, if you love freedom above all else, as MOST of us seem to. Again, as a firm believer in the 2nd and in freedom in general, there is NO EXCUSE for voting Democrat. I would divorce my wife before I would vote Democrat...my .02.....
 
David said
", but if Clinton could not ban guns in the last 8 years what makes you think Gore will do it"

Maybe you should move out here to kalifornia and talk about clinton and his people {aka Davis, Fienstein,boxer] not banning any guns.
Dave you have to register them all first before you ban them. The government needs to know where they are to gather them up, btw do you watch any world news or read any threads by Bruce or Oatka? It takes time to disarm a country, I guees you will wait until gore does it to say it can be done.

And what makes you think he wont try?

As I heard elsewhere Gore would cut down a tree to stand on the stump to give an environmental speech.

As PJ says the only difference between the dems and repubs destroying the environment is that at least the repulicans will make a buck doing it.
 
After Columbine, Darrell Scott( his daughter Rachel was one of those killed) addressed congress. He said guns were not to blame for what happened. Al Gore called for more gun control, and gave speeches to overshadow Mr. Scott. Al Gore is a piece of $hit. Let me be a bit clearer. I would vote for a POS before I considered Gore.

Dave,
Can you give me any accomplishments Gore has done in the last 7 years? As VP, he is our chief foreign diplomat. His record there speaks for itself.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited September 15, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:
I'm voting for Gore ONLY because republicans want to beeak-up and privitize my quasi-affiliated government agency transportation corporation.

[/quote]

What's wrong with that? Isn't private business what capitalism is all about?



------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

See The Legacy of Gun Control film at: www.cphv.com

Do it for the children...
 
Ye gods, I guess I really do stand alone here. I'm not going to keep repeating what I think so others can keep repeating how they think. Let me just cover the new angles:

In an ideal world I would vote for Harry Browne before Nader. In a practical world, neither has a chance. I thought about voting on principle, even for a lost cause, but this race is too close for that luxury.

California is not the whole nation. It's an example of what happens when you DON'T have balance in government. Hell, 34 states have Shall Issue CCWs, and the reciprocity list grows every day. California is a statistical outlier that makes a lot of noise and gets more attention than it deserves. Ditto New York.

When Darrell Scott (no relation) went before Congress, he said the Columbine massacre happened because we took Jesus out of the schools. I think he's wrong. I think it happened because of incompetent parenting. So don't quote him to me.

Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, is "our chief foreign diplomant". Not the VP.

Those who wish to express their thoughts on Al Gore versus the Borg and Hitler, or propagate conspiracy theories, go for it (1st Amendment). Be advised, though, that it's not a huge step from there to demonizing and personally attacking those who will vote for Gore, including members of TFL by name, and that might draw the attention of the Moderators. This thread is only a day old and I have already received e-mails calling me a traitor, a communist, a homosexual (go figure) and an agent of the Zionist Occupation Government. No problem, my Delete key works just fine.

Those of us who take informed decisions, adopt carefully considered principles and apply them consistently (even when it's to our disadvantage) wind up pi$$ing everybody off sooner or later. I catch a lot of flak over on the Ms. Magazine boards for my advocacy of RKBA, despite the fact that I am politically a lot closer to them than to most TFLers. I generally don't start a topic on an opinion I know will be unwelcome, but when somebody asks (as they did here) I state my case and get some marshmallows (to toast on the flames coming my way).
 
Mr. Blonde, wouldn't we all love to have our jobs and benefits government subsidized, when our employers can't make a profit. It's a real effective system, just ask Mao, Lenin, Castro, ...

I know a little something about Amtrak too (gotcha ?) and if they were cast out on their own and forced to manage it aggressively like a real, dare I say, capitaliost, commercial enterprise, they would turn it around. But the unions have it in a stranglehold, and will twist the life out of the company while lining the union bosses pockets and promising "security" to the members until the bubble bursts. Wake up and smell the catenary !

Selling America's soul for a dental plan.
:rolleyes:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin
 
Frankly David, I've had thoughts about voting for Gore as well. And I must admit that I am still torn.
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>Bush, "most viable" regarding our 2nd Amendment rights. Supreme Court appointments.

<LI>Gore, "most viable" for getting this incremental kaka over with. It's like Chinese water torture. One regulation at a time... drip, drip, drip... JUST POUR THE DAMN BUCKET, ALREADY!!

<LI>Third party on principle.

</UL>
This election is certainly the most troublesome for me.

Though I heard of one other method that has not been mentioned in this thread:

Vote for Bush even if it goes contrary to your principles, and then vote on principle for your congress critters and local electeds.

Still mulling... :(

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

See The Legacy of Gun Control film at: www.cphv.com

Do it for the children...

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited September 15, 2000).]
 
Dave Scott Post:
"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."

How many SC justice nominees have NOT been confirmed. Reagan/Bush got all they wanted except one. Clinton is getting most of his. The Senate is holding out as best they can, but eventually the recess appts have to be acted on. If Gore wins, chance are they will be confirmed in place rather than fight for another 4-8 years OR Bush wins, ALL the recess appts are removed - ALL of them - and more Constitutionalist are appt and confirmed.

Gore is bad for this country right now - in everything.

madison46 (former DLC member and Paul Tsongas supporter)
 
Zionist Occupied Government?

I wish! Israel knows how to run a military at least. I sure wouldn't mind having a galil and body armor in my house.

Any of you e-mailing this man and calling him names, are doing yourselves and the rest of us a disservice. Can you remember when name calling has changed someone's mind?

Settle down yall. I expect better behaviour from TFL.
 
David Scott :

I do not agree with you but I give you credit for standing your ground. People here may not agree with you but they must atleast respect your argument. You make clear points and use facts not feelings. We may not agree but you atleast pose a good argument.

------------------
"Some people spend an entire liftime wondering if they made a difference. Marines don't have that problem."
Semper Fi
 
David Scott; I apologize if i caused you problems with this post, I am very interested in the election because I feel
we are very close (15-20years) to a total
fragmented society due to increased populations from third world countries and
the increasing cultural differences in
our society.
Some may find this article by Walter Williams
interesting.(http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.html)
Please all go vote and encourge all you talk to do so. Again I will vote Bush "there is no other choice really at this time.

[This message has been edited by bullet44 (edited September 15, 2000).]
 
... and it is the substance of that argument that serves to enlighten others who may be reading on just why people hold the opinions they do. There is more meat in discussions with clear and objective parties participating on both sides of an issue than listening to people rant in a room full of their own choir. When people are forced to defend their positions, you learn the good stuff. :)

And to whoever is emailing David with that cr*p: you are vermin. Stand up and fight in the open like men. Will you come forward with your name-calling on the open forum for all to see? I doubt it. Cowards.


- gabe
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>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.[/quote]

I think you are a little misguided on this issue. I am all in favor of everyone(including corporations) being allowed to spend as much as they like on whatever politicians and candidates they like. The problem with the current system is that some organizations can spend more than others and/or are subject to different arbitrary rules on how their money can be spent; i.e. unions vs. corporations vs. individuals.

Money is merely time converted into a readily transportable and exchangeable form. It is more efficient for me to give my time, converted into money, to a candidate than it would be for me to take time off from work and do "things" for the campaign. Why should I be limited arbitrarily on how much of my "time" I give to a politician or candidate?

Likewise, all this talk of "special interests", and "greedy corporations" is so much bunk. I AM a special interest. I belong to the NRA, sure. I also own stock in numerous "greedy" corporations. It is their fiduciary responsibility to me, as a stockholder, to run the company efficiently and maximize profit, and thus maximize my return on investment. I WANT the companies I invest in to be "greedy" in that sense. So, if a piece of pending legislation may affect the coporate (and my) bottom-line, it is the DUTY of that corporation to make its (i.e. the collective stockholders) voice heard by the elected representatives of the corporation and its stockholders.

Al Gore-bachev is making political hay by demonizing companies. The sheeple forget that these companies aren't some sort of Olympian gods unto themselves. The companies are us, as employees, stockholders, and customers.
 
I won't be voting for Gore. Let me clear that up from the getgo. Choosing between Gore and Bush is like choosing between the electric chair and the gas chamber. Both will have the same endgame. Gore will push for a pell mell destruction of the bill of rights and constitution. Bush will hold to a fig leaf of conservatism but will do nothing to correct the downward decline of our government. Bush will hire country club repubs who don't give a whit about the constitution. In my view there is no ultimate difference between Gore and Bush.

In my mind I am voting for time in the election. Time to erect another party (Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc.) to start the repair work. Right now is not the time start a building program. We are faced with a foundation (the constitution) which is slowly sinking into the muck. Let's stop the sinking, level out the foundation, then start with the building program.

this time around I won't be so much voting for Bush as I will be voting against Gore.



------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
Personally, and as a LIFELONG conservative Democrat, I wouldn't vote for Gore if it were a ONE MAN RACE. He is a filthy, lying, criminal Clintonista, pure and simple. Time to clean house. Even if they were reversed in their gun control opinions, I STILL wouldn't vote for the b*stard.

NO MORE WACO'S.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Scott:
This thread is only a day old and I have already received e-mails calling me a traitor, a communist, a homosexual (go figure) and an agent of the Zionist Occupation Government.[/quote]

David -
I'd say I probably disagree (politically, at least) with you on most things. But I admire the fact you're willing to take a stand even if it's unpopular. Too few are willing to do that. Stick by your guns (pun intended) - unless, of course, we're able to sway you. As for those who are responsible for the actions in the above quote, I find you reprehensible and have far more respect for David than I ever could for you.



------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DocH:
I think you are a little misguided on this issue. I am all in favor of everyone(including corporations) being allowed to spend as much as they like on whatever politicians and candidates they like. The problem with the current system is that some organizations can spend more than others and/or are subject to different arbitrary rules on how their money can be spent; i.e. unions vs. corporations vs. individuals. [/quote]

The problem with letting everyone shoot their whole checkbook on politicians is that average individuals, and even popular organizations like the NRA, can't compete dollar for dollar with major industries. Bill Gates could buy the country. As I pointed out, you can trace the "deregulation" (as in screw the consumer) bills for banking and telecomm right back to the campaign contributions. If you don't believe in the influence of special interests then I fear you have overlooked a significant piece of reality.

PS: Don't sweat it, Bullet44. I am used to getting static from people. I'm an atheist, a Libertarian (in principle, not party affiliation), a fiscal conservative and social liberal who supports RKBA. I supported repeal of the motorcycle helmet laws even though I owe my life to one and think anyone who rides without is a fool -- we have the right to be fools so long as we take responsibility for the consequences. I follow no party and no set platform. There is not a single political organization with which I do not disagree on some points.

A few e-mails from people hiding behind anonymous "free mail services" like Hotmail do not make me worry. I'm sure it's coming from a fraction of a percent of people (who may not even be registered TFLers, they may be browse-only troublemakers).

[This message has been edited by David Scott (edited September 15, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top