You can come back to the GOP anytime you want, Pat.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jones;
You hit upon a key element in our race for president when you said

"and if Pat is allowed to debate, I think that you will see a significant swing in the polls towards him and his ideals."

The key here is IF HE IS ALLOWED TO DEBATE! The media gives voice to the candidates or it can deny that voice or it can demonize you by calling you a natzi. Either way your chances for becoming a viable candidate are doomed. Just like Pat Bucannon's chances are doomed because everyone in the media is calling him a natzi (and he sure as HELL ain't no natzi!). Right now he is getting just enough press coverage to make the American people despise him.

BigG;
You are right when you say that a third party vote gives the reigns of power to the liberals. Yet I, personally, want that to happen. It may be cutting off my nose to spite my face but living in California I have lost almost all of my gun rights. I can't even buy a glock pistol anymore because it is classified as a "saturday night special" by our liberal governor because it does not have a conventional safety. Couple this with the loss of my other gun rights and, you see, I have little left to loose anymore so I don't give a rats behind about the republicans who in partnership with their democratic breatheren here in California enacted these unconstitutional laws. I think we need to loose all our gun rights to wake up the American people. I want more loss of freedoms, I want the dems in power because I know they will accellerate their agenda and ban guns, increase taxes, put homosexuals openly into the military, close more open lands to human access and in short severly restrict a lot of the freedoms you and I take for granted right now. Maybe then we will have a repeat of 1994. All we have now are a bunch of politicians who will do almost anything to make the media happy so they won't report bad on them and therefore potentially ruin their re-election chances. That's why you got a bunch of republicans takeing a "moderate" stand on gun control. As Dennis said, they are still taking your gun rights although possibly a little more slowly.

What needs to happen is a giant shakeup in the American political system. If gun owners could get past their fears and vote "en mass" for a third party it would send shock waves through our system. Until that happens I promise you that little will change no matter which party is in power.

Someone said something like "you ever seen the republicans repeal a gun control law"? The answer is NO and the reason why is because if they did it the media would rip them a new one. They would possibly loose during the next elections as a result. Even though republicans understand that it was disgruntled gun owners that gave them congress in 1994, they still choose to ignore us all the while knowing we have no place else to go and vote.

You see, I want the liberals to win because it will accellerate our loss of rights and quickly bring to a head the gun rights issue. I'm tired of contributing all kinds of money to the republicans, the NRA, GOA and all the other pro gun groups and still suffering masive losses of my gun rights. We lost our battle here in California and I promise you will loose yours too. The media wants it that way. No politician is strong enought to fight against the media so they cater to it for the most part. As I see it, our only chance is a major shake up of the system and that won't happen until gun owners loose almost all their rights, get mad as a result and then finally get over their fear of going third party. Just like what has happened to me.
 
Hate to throw cold water (i.e., reality) on this 2nd amendment rah rah session, but did you catch Bob Smith's recent return to the GOP? Moreover, did you catch his rationale (i.e., that, in his opinion, the third party route just won't cut it from a conservative influence perspective). This from a guy whose heart and head are definitely in the right places. For those of you who don't know Sen. Smith, he is absolutely (without qualification) in support of our 2nd amendment rights. It is quite clear to me that this will likely fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. I'm optomistic, however, that even the blindest of zealots are not beyond the ultimate power of truth and reason. See the attached story from CNS:

Smith Returns To The GOP
By Jim Burns
CNS Senior Staff Writer
01 November, 1999

(CNSNews.com) - In just a little over the three months since he announced on the Senate floor he was leaving the GOP New Hampshire Senator Robert Smith now seems to have changed his mind.

Flanked by Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson, Smith told the media on Monday he is returning to the GOP after a short tour as an independent that included a run for the presidency.

As to why he switched parties again Smith said, "It became obvious that the most effective way for me to have a conservative impact on public policy as a Senator was as a member of the Republican Party."

Smith left the GOP last July after he accused the Republicans during a Senate floor speech of having abandoned its conservative principles as a party.

While giving his speech Smith said he was running for president as an independent. Smtih announced last week he was ending his bid for the presidency and that currently he does not plan to actively support any of the Republican presidential nominees currently running.

During the Capitol Hill press conference Smith acknowledged that some of his Republican Senate colleagues were angry at his leaving the GOP and registering as an Independent. But "No disciplinary action was ever taken against me," Smith said.

Smith is now seeking the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, that became vacant last week with the death of Senator John Chafee, (R-RI). He also said he made his intentions known to Lott about the chairmanship before Chafee's death.

Lott, meanwhile, told reporters on Capitol Hill, he expects to have the chairmanship issue resolved with the next week or 10 days. Lott would not say if he supported Smith for the position.


[This message has been edited by MLT (edited November 02, 1999).]
 
Frank and other major pissed-off 2AMEND friends:

Yes, what you say is true, if everything happened in a vacuum... However, have you heard of the 80/20 rule? Only 20% carry the load, 80% do little other than watch.

Other posters have earlier shown that only about 10 or 20% of colonists supported the Revolutionary War. Yes, I'm talking about the Geo Washingtons, James Madisons, Samuel Adamses, and Ben Franklins of the day. IOW, 80% accepted the status quo or supported the other side! What a surprise that I don't support 3rd party idjits trying to throw the election to the dums. That's while we are still talking about peaceful solutions, but I haven't heard of any m!l!t!a attacking any gum't installations lately... Keep me informed!

------------------
We don't have a chaplain here, but I don't view that as any major problem... You can rest assured that you will not go in that bag until I've said a few appropriate words over you
R. Lee Ermy as Sgt Major Haffner, from The Siege of Firebase Gloria
 
BigG, the Republicans and the Democrats are the status quo now, and all the independents add up to about 10-20% at the ballot box.

You're right, it is like the pre-revolutionary days.

------------------
"In many ways we are treated quite like men." Erich Maria Remarque
 
BigG;
Your 80/20 rule hits the nail on the head. 20% (I don't think those are real numbers but I get the point)are active on issues of concern to that 20% and are, probably, responsive to an agenda outside of how the major media might attempt to influence their thinking. Sometimes I wonder, though, if even the fine people here at TFL aren't unduly influenced by the media spin. I like to think I'm immune to media influence but this arises, no doubt, out of my sincere convictions on a given subject, just like that other 20%. Still, there is that 80% subject to media manipulation that we have to deal with.

That other 80% may not be currently involved with politics at a level that shows real understanding but they ARE going to vote and will probably vote the way the media has manipulated and influenced them to vote. That 80% is what you are fighting and without a national voice (denied to constitutionalists, pro gunners and "nationalists" by the current media) you have little hope to influence that 80%. That 80% might not hold strong convictions to vote a special interest like pro gun rights advocates or constitutionalists might vote. That 80% is comprised of the clueless masses (sheeple)that have been manipulated by media to form an opinion based on what the media wants them to think. The trashing of Bucannon is a prime example. He has not "BEEN ALLOWED" to prosper or perish based on the strenght or weakness of his ideas. The media manipulation of that 80% speaks to the power and influence of that media over American society. Another good example of blind voting might be the mother of a freind of mine. She votes democratic no matter what. She is from the old school and, even though her candidate might be a flaming socialist, if the label "democrat" goes with that candidate she will blindly vote for him/her. No amount of reasonable discussion can disuade her from voting that way. It's people like this that give rise to some people wanting a test of your political knowledge before you are allowed to vote. That'll never happen but some people are so stupid they shouldn't vote.

In the final analysis, it is the media that is the enemy of our freedoms for they pick and choose, promote or cut off, hinder or support the candidates of their choosing by the way they report on them. Can you imagine what might happen were they to give the same coverage to Bucannon that they give to Bush junior? You've seen the coverage of Clinton, I'm sure. And I'm also sure that you are aware of how he is protected by the media. By the same token, imagine what would have happened if it was a republican who did what clinton did. He would have been destroyed just like Newt Gingrich was destroyed or like Livingston was destroyed. The bottom line is you need access to the American public and you wont get it unless you tow the media line.........just like Bush junior is doing by favoring some gun control or like McCain is doing by favoring campaign finance reform (which should really be called the "anti free speach by the people initiative"). I'm convinced we need a candidate who is FOR AMERICA, pro freedom and pro gun. Unfortunatly, that candidate will never rise to prominence if the media has its way. I think it has to come from the grass roots despite little media support and the only way I can see that happen is if a lot of people are pissed off with the status quo and go third party.
 
Well, the trip was all hunting...no finding!

Dennis, Clinton WAS impeached with approximately 95% of Republicans voting for impeachment while I believe only 2 Democrats voted to impeach. He was NOT convicted, however. It take a 2/3 majority in the Senate to be convicted. A majority of Senators voted for conviction. Again, over 90% of Republican Senators voted to convict while not a single Democrat did. Can you explain to me exactly how this is a failure of the Republicans? It seems to me to be a failure of not ENOUGH Republicans in the Senate, not to many.

The gun control laws were passed while the Democrats were in control of the House and Senate, not the GOP. Just because you happen to be in a bank when it is robbed, does that make you implicit in the robbery? Do not condemn ALL Republicans as being liberal or in cahoots with the Democrats because a small (approx. 5%) number of them are. That is a slander upon the great many conservative Senators and Representitives as well as the many conservative Republicans on this list. As for registration and confiscation, I have not heard of a single conservative calling for registration or consfiscation of firearms as you imply.

You are incorrect in saying that the Libertarian Party is conservative. They have many conservative principles, but they also have some liberal principals such as legalization of drugs. If you are a Libertarian, more power to you. I happen to agree with many of their positions and dis-agree with others. But do not confuse libertarian principles with conservative principles.

I find Franks assertion that we should all vote for Pat Buchanon because the "power brokers" don't want him to be absurd. The "power brokers" (and all other right minded individuals for that matter) don't want David Duke to be elected to anything either. Should we vote for him?

I have read what Gov. Bush has said regarding gun control. I have also SEEN what he has done regarding gun control in Texas. Some people seem to feel that a Constitutional right is absolute, that no conditions can be placed upon it. This is simply not true. The right to free speech is conditioned upon the laws dealing with libel, inciting a riot, treason, etc. The right to vote is conditional to age, citizenship, criminal record, etc. The Supreme Court has allowed conditions to be placed upon the Second Amendment as well. We may not like what Gov. Bush has said, but that doesn't make it un-Constitutional.
 
Cactus;
Bucannon is being destroyed, Newt Gingrich was destroyed, Dan Quail was destroyed, Livingston was destroyed and David Duke was destroyed.

I guess Quail, Gingrich, Livingston and Bucannon are all David Dukes. Interesting! That's exactly how the liberal media thinks! If you don't tow their line you are a David Duke, right? That, my friend, is the politics of personal destruction and keeps you from voting the way you would vote without the media spin influence. I dare say you are taken in by simple mistakes like Quails "potatoe" gaff. If you beleive the media line, Quail is the stupidest politician alive for that. Note the attempt to do the same with Bush and the questions about the names of the heads of state of countries were there is strife right now. They tried to make him look stupid and it worked. I'll bet you think the man is stupid, don't you?

Let me ask you this question, what year was the constitution ratified? Quick, you only have ten seconds to answer or you are stupid!
Or better yet, who was undersecretary for defense under Nixon? Quick, you only have ten seconds to respond or YOU ARE STUPID! Can you now see the media influence you are under? Don't fall for their horsecr**. Look at the candidates stands on the issues and make up your own mind. OHHH, but I forgot, the media wont report those things to you. You need to go find them out for yourself.....don't you?

[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 05, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 05, 1999).]
 
Frank,

If you would care to ask a civil question of me, I would be happy to attempt to answer it. However, I will not respond to ad-hominum attacks. Since you have no knowledge of me, please refrain from putting words in my mouth or representing your thoughts as mine.

By the way, it's spelled QUAYLE!
 
Cactus;
No flame intended. I am trying to make a point, not to be un-civil to you. Let us debate.

PS Quayle it is! I guess I'm stupid too:-)

[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 08, 1999).]
 
Maybe Pat Buchanan's presence on the ballot would not be too bad after all! I know what most of you think about polls (and for the most part, I agree). But, did you catch the latest? Here it is. I found it pretty darn interesting. Many predict that if Pat is on the ballot, he would draw as much or more from the Democrats (regarding his trade positions as welll as providing a non-Republican pro-life option) as from the Republicans. At any rate, here is a summary (which admittedly occurred prior to Bush not being able to answer certain fairly basic foreign policy "quizz" questions on national TV):

(CNSNews.com) - A US News & World Report poll released Saturday shows George W Bush would easily defeat either Al Gore or Bill Bradley if the presidential election were held today. According to a poll of 1,000 registered voters, Bush would defeat either Democrat, even in a three-way race with Pat Buchanan, if Buchanan receives the Reform Party nomination. The poll shows Bush with 57 percent of the vote, compared with Gore's 35 percent in a matchup between those two men. In a three-way race, figuring Buchanan into the mix, Bush pulls 54 percent of the vote to Gore's 35 percent and Buchanan's 5 percent. And in a two-way race with Bradley, Bush would get 55 percent of the vote, compared with 37 percent for Bradley. In a three-way race with Bradley and Buchanan, it would be 49 percent for Bush, 36 percent for Bradley, and 7 percent for Buchanan, the poll said. The poll has a margin of error of 3.1 percent and it was conducted October 25-28 - before the publicity surrounding Bush's interview with a Boston TV reporter.
 
Frank,

V.P. Dan Quayle would have been my choice in the primary if he had not left the campaign. I feel that he was the most experienced and capable of the GOP candidates and I agree with his positions on most issues. The facts of the "potatoe" incident are that Quayle was given a slip of paper by a teacher that spelled it that way. He asked the teacher if that was correct as he thought it was spelled "potato" but was told that it was correct. Who was the ignorant one? Has V.P. Quayle been given a bad rap? Of course. Conservatives need to quit whining about being treated unfairly by the media and learn to work around it, it's a fact of life. Pres. Reagan knew how and Gov. Bush has been doing a fairly good job of it so far.

As for Gov. Bush not knowing the names of some two-bit rulers, I could care less. A Presidential candidate has, or should have, more pressing issues on their mind.

I have stated in the past that Buchanan does not deserve the negative names that he is being called. Personally, I like many of his positions while I oppose others. However, Pat should realize that these opinions of him have been out there for some time and he has done nothing to dispell them. Calling William Safire less than honorable and favoring Israel over the U.S. does nothing for his image. Just this weekend during an interview, he insinuated that if he is not allowed to participate in the debates that people may become violent. No, he did not threaten it, but that is a foolish statement. This is not the image of a level headed leader that people have in mind. It just re-inforces the general publics opinion of him as an angry and hatefull person. Pat makes it easy for the media at times.

The Constitution was adopted in 1788. It took a little more than 10 seconds to remember that. As for Nixon's under Secretary of Defence, who cares!
 
Cactus;
Quayle and his "pototoe" gaff have doomed him forever because all that people can think of when they see him is that time when he wrote "potatoe" on the blackboard and how stupid that mede him look.

His stand on the issues are of secondary importance to the sheer, utter stupidity of misspelling that one word, right? This a position the media has promulgated and desires you to hold

That the teacher gave him that word on a peice of paper matters not. The media has effected its desired response from that gullible 80% and that has doomed Quayle's viability as a condidate. It was a concerted effort to destroy him ........by the media.

It is easy to do that with most any potential candidate for president (or any other office). The effect of this type of "tactic" depends on your gullibility.

Bottom line is that it works, has worked and will continue to work. Depends on weather or not the media wants to destroy this or that particular candidate.

In order to curry media favor and get favorable media exposure, you had better hold a majority of opinions deemed necessary by the media.

If you want to doom your chances of political office you need only be in favor of the average American by;

1) Promoting nationalism (another word for patriotism). That is, to be in favor of Mom, hot dogs, baseball, apple pie and the American flag is considered "nationalism". (God? since when is standing up for your country a reason for trashing your candidacy?......Bucannon comes to mind)

2)Be against a pro Israel at all cost position even if it means bankrupting our foreign aid or increasing the likley hood of terrorist attack on our soil or putting us in disfavor with the rest of the civilised world or requiring our militery engagement in countless third world conflicts despite there being no American interests in those positions and the concommitant loss of American lives. Sorry for the rambling but this issue runs deep, real deep, into American politics and I fail to address its full impact here.

3)Advocate American interests over free trade.

4)Hold at least some kind of pro-gun opinion.

5)Be against at least some kind of campaign finance reform (a measure designed to increase media power. It is better called a "deny the average American a voice in government initiative").

6) Be against special rights for homosexuals.

7) Oppose governmental, fiscal restraint (partially why Gingrich was desroyed).

8) Promote "isolationizm" (another word for being in favor of the good life for Americans and being against the equalizing of the economic status of the third world to the economic standards of Americans and, thusly, reducing ourselves to "their" third world status (both economically and politically .......take gun control for example). How would you like to be of the same net worth as a grunt in a cambodian rice field? Internationalism at the expense of the lives of Americans is Un-American.

9) Be against immigration by advocating limits even to the extent that it is based on ecological concerns due to an ever increasing US population.

10) Be against nuclear weapons treaties that are unenforecable even in the face of non-compliance of signator countries. Despite this, the US would remain in compliance with these laws because it is our law and whoah to the group that dare to defy it even when faced with national security concerns. We have thus, in essence, hamstrung ourselves with our own laws despite the realities of the world around us. Can you imagine the media outcry were a politician to violate a nuclear treaty? Other countries are not hampered by their system of laws in this regard and might ignore any nuclear compliance treaty while we are hamstrung!
History has shown that other countries routinely ignore international treaties when it suits their interests so why should we lessen our power for some percieved, illusional benefit of a nuclear test ban treaty?

11) Calling a nuclear weapons missle defense system counterproductive to American security (on the theory that if we hold ourselves open to nuclear missle attack that other countries would not consider attacking us and a whole slew of other, liberal, anti American horsecr**.

This is but a small list of the positions you need to be against to permanently doom your chances for political office. If you want to put yourself in favor with the media and get their support for your political office, all you need to do is be in favor of at least some of these positions. It helps to have a liberal socialist stand and be democratic party connected.

All told and with the bottom line in mind, the media controls the terms of the debate. They have decided for you the course this country must take and if you are in opposition to it, like Bucannon, you will be destroyed and doomed to the junk heap of history.


[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 08, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 09, 1999).]
 
Cactus;Just for your edification I have included the latest attempt to reinfore the stupidity of Bush Junior. As planned, the liberals want to lump Bush in with Dan Quayle and below is a picture that says it all. Notice the little "dangle that comes off of the big "W" as though it's a quail. All designed to get you to think a certain way. ENJOY!!!

PS. This cartoon was in this mornings LA Times. Note my previous posts occured before this date and that they stated Bush would be lumped in with Quayle by the liberal media. Conrad is, hands down, one of the biggest flamming liberals I can think of.

quayle.jpg


[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 09, 1999).]
 
Long load time...time for part 3....or is it 4?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top