Why I want Kerry to win

Don't you worry johnbt, them Libertarians are going to vote for a man who couldn't win the post of dogcatcher ina medium sized Mountain time zone city, let alone the Presidency.

"If only they had all of the advantages of the "demicans." Yeah, silly little things like track records of electablilty and broad based popular support, you know, inconsequential things like that. ;)

Perhaps the only category in American politics more mass delusional than the Libertarians are the Greens.
 
I think all politicians ought to be able to demonstrate a skill to be elegible for office. They should have to be able to garden or farm or be fluent in another language. Reading law doesn't count. All U.S. political candidates should know english, and if laws aren't understandable by someone who understands english, there's something wrong.
 
Now, consider that and tell us all, again, all the evil gun control Kerry will do to the RKBA with a REPUBLICAN led Congress.
Click to expand...


We have directly opposing decisions on the Circuit Court level stating what the Second Amendment means, that should eventually force the Supreme Court to take a stand. Three or four Supreme Court justices about to retire.

Aassuming the so-called AWB sunsets, I willing to give the Republicans (Bush) ONE last chance to do the right thing by appointing and confirming pro-Second Amendment justices to the Supreme Court.

With the clearly conflicting Circuit Court opinions defining "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms," the Supreme Court will be finally forced to settle the issue. It is a no brainer that we don't need Kerry nominating justices during what could turn out to be a very crucial time in this country's history....
 
When the Assault Weapons Ban was passed, the democrats had the majority in the Senate and House of Reps. But yet, they only got a pitiful little, easy to work around, sunset in 10 years ban.

They got what they set out to get. Step 1. A ban that altered the face of firearms ownership and production for at least a decade.

Please explain why Klinton and the Democrat led House, and Democrat led Senate did NOT pass all this gun control you are saying they would have.

Because they didn't have time in two years when they had expected eight. As noted above...

Why didn't the democrats do all this evil gun control when they had the chance? The Democrats controlled both legislative branches AND the White House and didn't do what you are saying they would have. Why not????

Do you read, or think? I mean seriously, do you understand that legislation takes time under the best of circumstances and when you are holding your finger up to test the winds of public opinion it takes even longer? The Dems threw a test, the AWB. The result was losing their asses. Had they NOT then it would have been a steamroller of restrictive legislation, one piece after another, for the next six years.

Now, consider that and tell us all, again, all the evil gun control Kerry will do to the RKBA with a REPUBLICAN led Congress.

Read above and if you need a more thorough explanation I'll try to provide you one. We Got Lucky. And I don't really doubt that for the first two years of a Kerry Admin we would continue to be "lucky". But in 2006 the Dems will take the House and Senate if Kerry takes the WH and then it's almost free-for-all-time. A piece of test legislation will go up, like the AWB was, and if the Dems survive it then for the next four years(or twelve if another Dem wins) we lose everything we have. That's how the system works.

The truthful answer is, the Dems couldn't then, with a democrat majority in both bodies of Congress and the White House. And they certainly will not be able to with a republican majority in either body of Congress.

Dems da facts.

Yes, I just supplied them for you. Just a question of time...and leadership. Clinton was no leader. Kerry may be far more leftist and distasteful in a political consideration than Clinton but worse is that he IS a leader. He's also a ZERO rating on gun issues.

"Nothing to offer....but fear itself"

Looks more like misrepresentation on your part.

And no leg to stand on.

But hopefully you'll learn and not remain stuck in your misunderstanding.

Can't you see the contradictions you are putting out there?

No, since there were no contradictions. I see you either don't understand your subject or you have an agenda. if it's a lack of understanding you can be helped. If it's an agenda then not only can nobody help you but nobody really cares.
 
With regard to judicial nominations: Republican scare tactic #2

Chuck Schumer has held up EVERY conservative (anti abortion) nominee Bush has put forth. This fact has been admitted by the Bush\Fox admin and Schumer. There have been less than a twenty nominees held up, which means Bush has only nominated a few conservatives to judicial posts.

Plus, Bush is a political coward; yes coward. He is too inarticulate to defend a decision or position so he has to take the cowards way out. Instead of making a decision based on belief, he makes decisions based on the easiest way out. The Republicans, Rush Limbaugh in particular, like to call his political cowardice "taking the issue away from the democrats", and the Bush\Fox administration like to call it "changing the tone in Washington", in short it is political cowardice in its purest form.

That is what the Republicans get for nominating a man that cannot make a sentence without saying uuuhhh 5 times, or hazing out and getting oratory vapor lock.

So, with the record of Bush avoiding heated political issues, and his record of nominating very few true conservatives, how can we be so stupid to think that Bush will nominate conservatives? His father nominated one of the biggest liberals on the Supreme Court, Souter. And a lot of Bush's other nominations are not a lot different.

Right now, Bush has to nominate people that Kennedy and Schumer will approve, because Bush does not want the media slamming him on his "right wing agenda", so Bush nominates liberal moderates.

A supreme court nomination would be a big media event, so in order to take the easy way out, Bush will only nominate someone that Schumer and Kennedy will allow through.

We almost have a better chance with republicans holding up Kerry nominees for being too liberal, than we do with Schumer holding up Bush nominees.

Too bad for us that Bush is so inarticulate and afraid to spend political capital that all he ever does is avoid a fight.

Also, when Bush first took office, in order to change the tone in Washington, he renominated 130 Klinton nominees that did not get a vote in the Senate. That is 130 extreme liberals that BUSH put on the federal bench. The republican Senate had held these nominees up, but when Bush put renominated them, that got them through.

Thank you president Bush, for securing the judgeships of 130 liberal Klinton appointees. Boy, you really changed the tone with that one in Washington. And of course, the Bush-Bots just didn't seem to mine.

Bush judicial nominations are no better\different than Kerry judicial nominations.

A lot of the Bush-Bots also refuse to recognize that Bush 41 did not name conservatives to the federal judiciary.

Republican scare tactic #2, dispelled.



The mid term election, republican scare tactic #3:

History has shown that the party in the White House has lost seats in Congress every mid term election for the last hundred plus years. The last election was an exception because of republican momentum of the last decade and the perceived threat of terrorism (republican scare tactic #1) that the republicans use so well to their advantage.

With John Kerry in the White House, the republicans will pick up seats in Congress, which is good in the long term. That is an historical fact.

A mid term election with Kerry as president would resemble the slaughter of 1994. A Kerry presidency would have a massive negative effect on America, similar to how Klintons did. Then we could have a strong filibuster proof conservative majority in the Senate. Couple that with a real conservative republican president that will stand up for an issue, and we have the opportunity to change this country for good.

If Kerry wins, it will be by a very close margin. I mean almost a national Florida. The idea that this would sweep in a democrat majority in Congress is silly at best, and just another republican scare tactic. But all the republicans have to offer is fear.

Republican scare tactic #3, dispelled.

Let me also add, that although I am not voting for Bush or Kerry, I AM voting republican in Senate and Congressional races. I imagine that most conservatives feel the same way. So it is not the republican party that is losing conservative support, it is President Bush

I have yet to see anyone accept my earlier request to discuss what Bush would do in a second term, instead of what Kerry might do.

The republicans "have nothing to offer but fear itself".
 
2nd Amendment:

The scare tactics being employed by the Bush-Bots infer that Kerry would be able to do all the evil gun control he wanted in 2 years, but yet, you admit that it cannot be done.

Thanks for making my point.

And no, the democrats were not able to do what they wanted in 1994. What they wanted was much more drastic and killed; what they got was a weakened compromise. The first versions of the AWB were unbelieveablebut did not pass, even with a democrat majority in the House. I know because I watched the debate on C-Span.

Your blind party loyalty is clouding your judgement and thinking.
 
OK. So are you being paid for this or are you merely this loyal of a Dem?

#1 Regardless of whether Bush is a coward or his nominations are confirmed we are not seeing LEFTIST judges nominated AND CONFIRMED, are we? Thus we still have a net GAIN which we would utterly lose with a Kerry presidency.

#2 You have no crystal ball, you do not know the future, you have shown you do not grasp how legislation is conceived and agendas are tested. And you refuse to even touch the concept of message. This indicates a shallow grasp of the mechanics of political machinations.

Your defenses and examples are simplistic to the point of silliness. Not an attack just a suggestion that you need to seriously polish your agenda efforts. You have to cover all the bases, not just bits and pices.
 
Rather than shoot down some of the silly notions stated above, I would like to know if any of you third party supporters can name even one major, pro-gun rights organization that will be backing (endorsing) your candidate?


NRA?
GOA?
SAF?
CCRKBA?
TSRA?

Or even:

SAS?
Liberty Belles?
etc.?

Can't name one? I wonder why? I will submit that the collective mindset of the above organizations have a better grasp on the realities of our situation than you do.


Ladies and gentlemen, the issue we are concerned with here is preserving and restoring our 2nd Amendment rights. Everything else should be a secondary consideration. Like they say, the 2nd Amendment is the first in importance. It is the right that protects all of the rest. Once it is on a safe footing, then you can worry about abortion or anything else your heart desires.

This time around with three or four Supreme Court justice about to retire, and with conflicting opinions on the definition of the 2nd Amendment at the Circuit Court level, "it is the Supreme Court, stupid".....
 
2A, HC et al - Please keep it civil.

This thread seems to be moving toward producing more heat than light. I'll follow up on LawDog's message to close the thread if we can't keep it from becoming hopelessly divisive.
 
With the clearly conflicting Circuit Court opinions defining "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms," the Supreme Court will be finally forced to settle the issue.
Click to expand...

It's already made it to the SCOTUS...and they decided to NOT decide.
 
Badnarik for President in 2004

Some quotes from Mike Badnarik on various issues, mostly taken from the convention debate. Folks might find them useful.

Free trade:

"NAFTA and GATT have about as much to do with free trade as the Patriot Act has to do with liberty."

Marriage:

"If you have a marriage license, what do you have permission to do now that
you did not have permission to do before? Who gave you that permission, and
where did they get the authority to give you that permission in the first
place?"

Censorship:

"I find it very offensive when the government tells me what I can and cannot
watch. [...] Censor yourself."

Military Draft:

"Imagine! People are not volunteering to go to foreign countries and die the
way they used to! Imagine that!"

Health Care:

"Congress doesn’t seem to know anything about the constitution, which is their job. How much less do they know about medicine? "

Foreign Aid:

"People within the United States are free to do anything they want with
their personal funds, but it is immoral to tax Arabs and send that Israel,
or to tax the Jews and to send that to the Arabs."

Energy:

"All you need to know about economics is the law of supply and demand. When the supply of something goes down, the price of it will go up. And as the price of gasoline goes up, the consumer at the pump is going to provide the incentive for finding alternative sources."

Education:

"When the state or federal government controls the education of all of our
children, they have the dangerous and illegitimate monopoly to control and
influence the thought process of our citizens."

Voting for a third party:

"If you were in prison and you had a 50% choice of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair and only a 5% chance of escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is your most likely outcome? If you continue to vote for the Democrats or the Republicans, you are committing political suicide."
 
It's already made it to the SCOTUS...and they decided to NOT decide.
Click to expand...


They decided not to hear THAT particular case and isn't a much of a predictor of future events. And, frankly, with the makeup of the Court as it stands now, I'm glad they didn't. IIRC, the NRA wasn't even involved with it. There will be another case. A better one, one of these days.
 
Voting for a third party:

"If you were in prison and you had a 50% choice of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair and only a 5% chance of escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is your most likely outcome? If you continue to vote for the Democrats or the Republicans, you are committing political suicide."
Click to expand...


Typical strawman argument.
 
Typical strawman argument.
Click to expand...
No it's a valid analogy. First off - it does not meet the requirements of a "strawman argument".

"STRAWMAN: When you use the strawman technique, you present an argument against your thesis, but immediately afterward you show that this argument is weak or flawed. The advantage of this technique is that you demonstrate your awareness of the other side of the argument and show that you are prepared to answer it. The strawman argument first presents an introduction and thesis, then the main opposing argument, a refutation of the opposing argument, and finally a positive argument."
http://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/Synthesis.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Very few will argue that both the Republican AND the Democrat voters have been voting "against the greater of two evils" for decades. Face it there haven't been many options we could really vote FOR. When ever you are voting for the LESSER of two evils...evil is STILL winning, just slower than you imagine that it would otherwise. Looking at our country now the the evidence is that this is indeed a fact not just a theory. Our current landscape of "rights" bears little or no resmblence to that as painted by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance.
 
Boats?
You are saying that the dilemma our country is in is false? As in not real? Which party Dem or Repub is ACTIVELY trying to RESTORE the liberties our forefathers enjoyed? Neither, both are out for the furthering of their own type of rule. I prefer to be a citizen not a subject. But if that's the way you like it..."may your chains rest lightly...."
 
Baradnik is a raving lunatic. I just participated in a discussion of this moron over at THR and the only thing that became clear was that if you disagree with the Libertarians it's because you're just too stupid to understand their enlightened way of thinking. I vote for thread lock here. The libertarian vs republican argument is just too divisive to be even a little bit productive.
 
Fix,

Why vote for thread lock? This was just set as a general conversation on why one person just can't "go with the flow" and why he wanted this to come to a close, one way or the other.

Since the post has gone back to what it was originally intended to go, it has been very eye opening as to how America's future may pan out. It also gives more insight on what the problem is (the two party system) and may (it seems to be heading this way) get a very knowledgable group of people to come up with some sort of workable solution.

Since TFL is made up of peoples from every aspect of life, from the home grown redneck (me) to those who hold great offices, that since we've put out the question of our future, that maybe we could come up with a way to make things work in our favor.

It's just that what we are doing now, including our "savior", the NRA, is doing nothing but maybe winning the small battles but losing the war.

It took a great deal of hardship and sacifice to create a country known as America. I think that great hardship and sacifice is once again needed if we wish to get back that great country which was once named America.

Wayne
 
In this thread USP45usp said:
I think that all future Presidents and pols should have to go through the "Reagan test" and if they don't hold up to the same values and love of America that this man had, then they are disqualified.
Click to expand...
But in this thread he urges the election of someone who is as close to being the antithesis of President Reagan as one can get without being the anti-Christ. I'm afraid I don't get it. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top