Actually, voting for Badarnik will get exactly where I want to go - home so I can look at myself in the mirror and know I voted for the right person. This "lessor of two" evils is exactly the position that the Demohogs and the Repiglicans want to have. Keep believing it and nothing will ever change.
Bush supports gun rights..........Debate Thread
- Thread starter Scottmkiv
- Start date
- Status
Actually, voting for Badarnik will get exactly where I want to go - home so I can look at myself in the mirror and know I voted for the right person. This "lessor of two" evils is exactly the position that the Demohogs and the Repiglicans want to have. Keep believing it and nothing will ever change.
El Rojo
Member
My apoligies, I incorrectly associated Ross Perot with the libertarian party. Yet my point stands. Is the Republican Party more of a "reform" party now? Did the lesson the third party teach in 1992 last all the way through to the election of 2000? Speaking of risk, this is the risk you are going to have to take. That the lesson you teach in 2004 might last all the way through to 2012 like the lesson of 1992 lasted through till 2000.
Now I will give you that the Democrats learned a lesson in 1994 when they lost control of the House and Senate. Many say it is because of the NRA and gunowners. That lesson still applies today. Lets stay the course though. There is no need to cut off our nose to spite our face. Lets keep this thing heading the correct direction. Kerry's AWBII will not be a good thing, for you. Again, I live in the PRK so it won't hurt me any.
Now I will give you that the Democrats learned a lesson in 1994 when they lost control of the House and Senate. Many say it is because of the NRA and gunowners. That lesson still applies today. Lets stay the course though. There is no need to cut off our nose to spite our face. Lets keep this thing heading the correct direction. Kerry's AWBII will not be a good thing, for you. Again, I live in the PRK so it won't hurt me any.
John Kerry? Interesting revelation.
I think I am going to stick with my earlier hypothesis that the neo-conservative movement is an outgrowth of the Republican assimilation of the Reform Party base.
Do you think Neo-cons are relevant in today's Republican Party? Do you think that they are influencing the direction of the party?
I would answer "yes" to both of those questions, but that's just my perspective.
Gordon Fink
Member
If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would very reluctantly vote for John Kerry. In that case, I’m sure you would prefer me to vote Libertarian.
~G. Fink
Well, I thought I was out of it but this is too funny to let go. Risk is the possibility that something negative may occur. In financial terms, a risk is valid if the positive outcome is superior to the possiblity of the negative event occurring multiplied by the
What positives do you foresee by third party voting? A swing of the Republican party to the right combined with a restoration of rights.
What are the negatives? Election of Kerry, extreme damage to the 2nd A and the other freedoms you cherish.
What is the likelihood of that happening? High. Incredibly high. Bush has, according to some polls, a narrow lead which could easily be lost by heavy 3rd party voting. Kerry has a declared intent to decimate the 2nd A., and most of his platform can be achieved only through heavy exercise of the power to tax, nationalization of large portions of the economy, and abdicating considerable sovereignty to foreign bodies.
As for the goal of causing a swing in the Republican party and thus achieving some "good" even if Kerry wins, the chances are non-existent. How do we know this? Because the evidence establishes it beyond a doubt. The Democratic party did not become more mainstream or pro-gun after 1994. The liberals (the majority of the most culpable members were incumbents who still hold their offices) learned a lesson and largely stayed quiet, working behind the scenes to achieve their goals. The fact that the Democrats haven't "learned their lesson" is established by the fact that the Democratic Presidential candiate is an ardent anti-gun politician voted most liberal in the Congress. Does that tell you anything about how effective "messages" are?
So, let's do the risk/reward calculation.
Potential reward is high. Possibility of achieving complete success is non-existent. Possibility of achieving partial success is effectively non-existent based on existing evidence.
Potential negatives are high. Possibility of complete failure is extremely high. Possibility of high degree of failure is a near certainty. Expenditure of assets and resources to preclude complete failure will be incredibly high, forestalling any efforts to achieve primary goal through other means.
So, given there is little possibilty of achieving a worthwhile goal but a high probability of failure, one would have to thrive on unacceptable risks to consider this an effective strategy. It is the political equivalent of trying to regain our rights by playing a solo game of Russian roulette.
That's interesting. Effectively, the only times he has broken from the President's agenda legislative agenda was to vote against tax cuts and for increased gun control. He voted for the Patriot Act and has promised to restrict it somewhat, not to eliminate it. So, he is further from the Libertarian camp than Bush, yet you still support him.
Buzz - I would have used a different risk reward matrix. Seriously, if Kerry wins, do you really think a good republican congress will roll over and cooperate with him? If this is the case, then we are screwed and it is definitely time to replace our republican reps with people who have spines.
If Bush wins with a Democrat congress, we are hosed because Bush will sign anything that hits his desk. Look at his record. Luckily this will not happen.
The best way to destroy my argument would have been to point out that the next President gets to choose members of the Supreme Court. That right there would be enough to swing me over, except I have personal and financial reasons for not voting for bush.
Lets just hope Bush doesnt apoint Statist thugs who think the Bill of Rights is just some old document.
If Bush wins with a Democrat congress, we are hosed because Bush will sign anything that hits his desk. Look at his record. Luckily this will not happen.
The best way to destroy my argument would have been to point out that the next President gets to choose members of the Supreme Court. That right there would be enough to swing me over, except I have personal and financial reasons for not voting for bush.
Lets just hope Bush doesnt apoint Statist thugs who think the Bill of Rights is just some old document.
Gordon Fink
Member
Buzz, I don’t support Kerry, though I do see him as slightly less dangerous than G. W. Bush. If he weren’t such a coward, he wouldn’t have gone along with so much of the President’s agenda.
As far as the RKBA goes, at least Kerry will attack us from the front, while G. W. Bush and the Republicans will continue to give us the knife in the back.
~G. Fink
As far as the RKBA goes, at least Kerry will attack us from the front, while G. W. Bush and the Republicans will continue to give us the knife in the back.
~G. Fink
RealGun
Member
If I didn't vote Republican or Democrat in the election, I would feel that I was kidding myself about having actually participated. Voting my conscience might have its appeal if there weren't a candidate as potentially dangerous as Kerry. The problem is that there is no third party with a platform that makes sense to me. The candidates that are out there are just warm bodies. The party faithful will vote for them regardless of issues or qualifications.
The Brain Just Engaged...
Let's adjoin - it doesn't matter.
If Kerry/Edwards win, don't worry. They will fall into their habit of non-attendance. The Sequoia will be recommisioned as the presidential yacht and Kerry will be out of the White House cruising around the Med chatting with his High Foreign Officials. Edwards will be ghost-writing for other lawyers his methodology for gaining large wins from big business.
There won't be anything congress can do since no one will be around to sign things. It'll be a caretaker government at the top... whether or not there will be some very wild department regulations will depend on who Kerry hires.
Except for caring about my progeny and what they will face - and what I will face when they realize I didn't warn them forcefully enough - I can now sit back, kick up, pour a bourbon to go with my chocolate cake, and just relish the big gov't programs that are then taking care of me.
Of course, to be "taken care of" I'd probably be asked - ever so nicely - to turn in all my firesticks. Sure glad I off-loaded my SUV.
Well, this has been an enlightening discussion.
Thanks.
.-.-.
-Andy
Let's adjoin - it doesn't matter.
If Kerry/Edwards win, don't worry. They will fall into their habit of non-attendance. The Sequoia will be recommisioned as the presidential yacht and Kerry will be out of the White House cruising around the Med chatting with his High Foreign Officials. Edwards will be ghost-writing for other lawyers his methodology for gaining large wins from big business.
There won't be anything congress can do since no one will be around to sign things. It'll be a caretaker government at the top... whether or not there will be some very wild department regulations will depend on who Kerry hires.
Except for caring about my progeny and what they will face - and what I will face when they realize I didn't warn them forcefully enough - I can now sit back, kick up, pour a bourbon to go with my chocolate cake, and just relish the big gov't programs that are then taking care of me.
Of course, to be "taken care of" I'd probably be asked - ever so nicely - to turn in all my firesticks. Sure glad I off-loaded my SUV.
Well, this has been an enlightening discussion.
Thanks.
.-.-.
-Andy
- Status