Why I want Kerry to win

Fred, in none of my posts, have I said, that I would vote for Kerry. If I did, please use your quote system in which to show that I said that, that it actually came out of my mouth.

I just said, I hope that Kerry wins.

Big difference.

And I still stand by my Reagan quote, that you so readily provided.

Wayne
 
"You know USP, you will be in the fight all alone, just like Tim McVeigh."

There are a 168 graves that show why he was in the fight alone. Tim McVeigh killed those people without remorse and deserved to be on the slab for what he did, and deserved a death a 167 times after that.

No fight for our gun rights is ever worth being associated to that murderer and monster. :barf:
 
I want Bush to win.

Let me 'splain:

1) Bush hasn't done a thing for OR against gun rights so far, except statements on the AWB. *Statements*. He knows damned well the House ain't gonna go for it, so he can say anything he wants.

2) Back when he was governor, he was quite good. He campaigned on a pro-CCW platform, signed a pretty good CCW bill, eagerly signed a reform bill a couple years later.

Has he made mistakes in other areas? Hell yes. "Patriot" for starters. And many of the budget/debt issues are borderline horrifying.

But now let's talk about Kerry.

3) Kerry has a 100% approval rating from the VPC, another from Brady. He's a hard-core gun-grabber, ideologically committed. FAR worse than Clinton, worse than even Gore.

4) Pay attention to this part: right now, Gore's loss has told the Dems that nominating hardcore grabbers is a bad idea.

Which means if Kerry wins, those of us attempting reform in heavy-Dem areas like California will have a HUGE problem: state-level Dems who have national-level ambitions will no longer be "curbed" by thoughts that gun-grabbing will screw them down the road in National-level politics.

If Bush crashes and burns...God help us in California. The brakes come completely off. Arnold alone won't be able to stand against the rising tide of BS.

California is 1/9th of the nation's population. Kerry wins, we're toast.

You want that?

As to Michael: I know him and like him. He was a fellow speaker at Counter-attack '03.

But.

Here's the reality: either Bush or Kerry will be Prez this time next year. Right? It won't be Michael. We all know that, Michael included.

So. I'll be the first to grant, it ain't a pretty set of choices.

But in my opinion, ignoring reality ain't pretty either.
 
Fix
I refer you (and others) to the folowing sites rather than participate in the flame throwing contests.

http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.html
"Highlights and Summary of
The Libertarian Party's Solution to America's Crime Problem"

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP85.HTM
"ABSTRACT
This article subjects the following propositions to systematic tests against the quantitative literature: that violence does not occur between libertarian states; that the more libertarian two states are the less violence there is between them; and that the more libertarian a state is the less it will be involved in foreign and domestic violence. A comprehensive survey of the literature uncovered 67 relevant analyses. An evaluation, scoring, and weighting of these analyses showed that they significantly support the propositions. "
 
Vibe wrote:
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...."
Click to expand...

The falsehood in the Libertarian prison argument is the position that they are a way out of the proposed dilemma. It doesn't work in the argument, and it is certainly proven not to work in reality. So spare me your slavery rhetoric. The Libertarian Party should come up with a motto. I suggest:

The Libertarian Party: Going Nowhere for 30 Years.​
 
originaly posted by fix
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.
Click to expand...

I went and read the discussion you mentioned and observed your "participation" in it. So far this discussion is MUCH less devisive than YOUR "participation" was in that one. Dressing in colonial garb to express a valid point of returning to our original values does not qualify as "raving lunacy".

But I've stated my position and said my piece. You may now chose to rant (alone - that would be REAL rational), or allow the others to discuss (as they will anyway). Neither of us really has THAT much impact here.
 
If there werent up to 3 supreme court justice slots on the line then I wouldnt care as much. I probably would vote indepentdent exceptfor this fact. I dont want 3 young democrats on the supreme court. Otherwise I would almost like to see Kerry elected.
 
This article subjects the following propositions to systematic tests against the quantitative literature: that violence does not occur between libertarian states; that the more libertarian two states are the less violence there is between them; and that the more libertarian a state is the less it will be involved in foreign and domestic violence.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how you plan to convert every nation on earth when you can't even muster 1% of the total of registered voters here in the USA. The Libertarian Presidential Candidate has stated that it is his goal to cost Bush the election in 2004. As far as I am concerned, he might as well join the Kerry campaign. Libertarian's insistence that the rest of us are not truly freedom loving and that we are all just voting for evil because we understand that we can't have everything and settle for the best we can reasonably expect to achieve is insulting, and has effectively alienated many of us. Anyone who does not toe the Libertarian line is summarily rejected, regardless of their reasons. It is for these reasons that the party is doomed to failure. The sooner you all realize this, and get started helping the rest of us to reform the Republican Party from within, the better off we'll all be. Don't say it can't be done, Goldwater, Buckley, and Reagan managed to drastically alter the philosophy of the party in a fairly short period of time. Papa Bush started us back down the road to becoming the Rockefeller party again. Clinton poured water on the fire of Republican reform. Baby Bush is neutral at best. He needs to get the message that we want him to emulate Reagan rather than his father. Helping Baradnik acheive his stated goal of essentially putting Kerry in the Whitehouse is counter productive to all of us. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
 
Percent of 111 million voters who voted in 2000 election that chose Libertarian candidate: 0.36%

Percent of 96 million voter who voted in 1996 election that chose Libertarian candidate: 0.50%

Couldn't find any results for previous elections other than in the history of U.S. Presidential elections the Libertarian party has amassed a total of exactly one electoral vote - which they did not win at the ballot box; but which a delegate handed them anyway during Nixon's 1972 election.

It is no mystery to me why the Republicans chose to play to the center for votes rather than adopt the all-principle, no-compromise stance in order to garner that 0.36%-1% of the electorate.

I think groups like this http://www.rlc.org/ show a lot more promise in changing our government than the traditional Don-Quixote approach has.
 
fix: 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.
Click to expand...
I'll post only this because I do not want to hijack this thread. Fix's portrayal is 100% wrong. No libertarian in the THR thread said or implied anything like this. However, we did attack factual and logical errors. Fix seems to be confusing attacks against arguments with attacks against the person.

Decide for yourself:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=85335
 
Head back over to THR. I hope I clarified with my last post. Key text:

I admit to slinging mud a bit here, mainly because I see Badnarik is a clear example of what the Libertarian Party is becoming and am trying to evoke some emotion to get people to think long and hard about the state of the Libertarian Party. If I had to rank the parties in accordance with my views it would look something like this:

1. Constitution
2. Libertarian
3. Republican

If I ranked them according to the direction they are heading in terms of securing our liberties (realistically, not idealistically) it would be in reverse order. Rather than attempting the impossible, I am trying to bring my views to the Republican Party. If we all did that, we could be part of the solution rather than the problem. The problem being that freedom loving Americans have abandoned the 2 major parties, and thus, have lost influence over them. Personally, I'd like to see the Republican Party infiltrated by folks from the Constitution Party, and the Democratic Party infiltrated by Libertarians. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has (in my opinion) travelled too far down the socialist road to be worth saving, but if some of you Libertarians want to try...I encourage that too. The Republicans are now poised to follow them, due in large part (again, in my opinion) to the exodus of freedom loving Americans from the party, due mainly to the miserable failure that was George Herbert Walker Bush. This exodus has done nothing more than accelerate the shift to the left. In other words, exacerbating the problem. We made a mistake folks. Let's go fix it rather than folding our arms and pouting.
Click to expand...
 
It took 70 years of Federal gun control incrementalism to take us where we are today. Can you imagine if FDR had run on a platform in 1932 encompassing every Federal gun control law signed from then through the AW Ban of 1994?

No way in hell he would have won. Nor would a candidate win today that wanted to immediately repeal every Federal gun law. It'll take years, even decades, of small victories to bring us back to center.

The Republican Party is the way it is because that's the way America votes. Change the way people think, and you'll change the Republican Party , and the Democratic Party, for that matter.

Gun control is the classic joke about the elephant exterminator:

One day a commuter was standing on a subway platform, when he noticed a man standing next to him wearing a gray uniform and a cap that read "Elephant Exterminator". The commuter leaned over the other man and said,"Well, I've never seen any elephants on the subway!"

The other man replied, "Thank you!"

When the AWB sunsets, we need to keep it dead so that the average Joe will see that the streets will in fact NOT be painted in blood. If Kerry wins, the AWB will be renewed, and the pundits will all hail the great success of the new AWB "keeping our streets safe"( where we all know that the passage or expiration of the AWB has as much to do with public safety as the price of tea in China).

And the Republicans will shift to a more pro-gun control platform to stay relevent.
 
Originaly posted by Bartholomew Roberts

I think groups like this http://www.rlc.org/ show a lot more promise in changing our government than the traditional Don-Quixote approach has.
Click to expand...

But is there a RLC candidate running? I didn't see one.

And Don Quixote "tilted" at windmills (imagined threats). Are the ones we are discussing really imaginary?
 
Can you imagine if FDR had run on a platform in 1932 encompassing every Federal gun control law signed from then through the AW Ban of 1994?
Click to expand...


Actually, the original text of the NFA included all handguns, and all semi-auto weapons with mag capacity of 12 rounds and up.
 
originaly posted by MicroBalrog

Actually, the original text of the NFA included all handguns, and all semi-auto weapons with mag capacity of 12 rounds and up.
Click to expand...

But it also had to be slipped through as a TAX bill - as opposed to straight up legislation.
Kind of the same way that the Income Tax Amendment was "ratified". A casual glance will tell you that SEVERAL of the ratification signatures were from people NOT AUTHORIZED to sign it, as the procedures for ratification at the state level had NOT been conducted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top