Libertarian Party v. RNC on RKBA
- Thread starter MacViolinist
- Start date
- Status
Docwithglock
Member
In response to bjengs post (thanks by the way for taking the time to explain who in the world the pic was of):
I would vote for any Libertarian who calls himself a Republican to get elected if I beleived they supported freedom. Not very idealistic of me, but a realistic sacrifice.
I do agree that constitutional conservatism is a good starting point for change. However, our current administration is far from Constitutional. Starting at the local level is great idea for Libertarians, but voting for GWB in hope that it will do anything to restore people's freedoms does not make sense. As much as I'd hate to loose my RKBA, I'd be unable to stomache loosing any more rights under the Bush/ Ashcroft Dictatorship.
There is a difference between stubborn and foolish in politics... stubborn is sticking to your principles, foolish is believing you can change someone else's principles by showing approval of what they do by voting for them again.
LP, GOP, DP, the name of the party should not matter (I realize that to many it does), but reelecting a president, who in the name of Patriotism, rips the principles our country was founded on into pieces. It goes beyond Free Speech, and RKBA... The USA (un)Patriot Act gives power to a tyrrant! Any of us can be arrested and or killed, without a trial, without due process, and without anyone even knowing about it if GWB says so. Getting every terrorist we can should be a big priority of our president, but NOT AT THE COST OF LOOSING FREEDOM! The purpose of the 2nd A is to assure the rest of them. While we focus mainly on keeping the 2nd, this president has done his best to chip away at the rest. Be scared of politicians who mandate we must give up freedom to be safe. I'd like to think we were "the Land of the Free, and The Home of the Brave", not "the land of the safe, and the home of the afraid to stand up against tyrrany"!
as an aside to bjeng's comment "Besides, you were impolite by likening fellow posters to people of low breeding who take stupid pills. I figure that makes you fair game for a little fun." I hope noone's feeeeelings were hurt by this. And you are right, I am fair game for a little fun. Let the official record show that even though I said,
"We all keep hearing the masterplan of voting REP vs DEM, because we can't want Kerry. You are right in saying I don't want Kerry. "We can change the RP from within..." HOW! How do you propose we change the republican party from within? I've asked this before, and all we keep hearing is "ugh...Kerry bad! We change Bush! (then scratch butt and reach for stupid pills)"
Just explain for everyone's benefit how we can change the RP from within. If your willing to bet the farm on being able to change them after the election it would be prudent to have a plan.
Come up with a better way of getting the message across to a politician than not voting for them, and I just may have hope for your plan."
I in no way meant to show dissrespect to stupid people, or to people who scratch their butts. For this I appologize. I was just tired of hearing the same thing over and over again (as I'm sure Fallingblock and you were, bjengs). I'd like you both to know, even though I dissagree with how to go about saving our Nation; when we hang separatley, I'd bet we will all wish that we had hung together.
And again, thankyou for trying to answer my questions.
I would vote for any Libertarian who calls himself a Republican to get elected if I beleived they supported freedom. Not very idealistic of me, but a realistic sacrifice.
I do agree that constitutional conservatism is a good starting point for change. However, our current administration is far from Constitutional. Starting at the local level is great idea for Libertarians, but voting for GWB in hope that it will do anything to restore people's freedoms does not make sense. As much as I'd hate to loose my RKBA, I'd be unable to stomache loosing any more rights under the Bush/ Ashcroft Dictatorship.
There is a difference between stubborn and foolish in politics... stubborn is sticking to your principles, foolish is believing you can change someone else's principles by showing approval of what they do by voting for them again.
LP, GOP, DP, the name of the party should not matter (I realize that to many it does), but reelecting a president, who in the name of Patriotism, rips the principles our country was founded on into pieces. It goes beyond Free Speech, and RKBA... The USA (un)Patriot Act gives power to a tyrrant! Any of us can be arrested and or killed, without a trial, without due process, and without anyone even knowing about it if GWB says so. Getting every terrorist we can should be a big priority of our president, but NOT AT THE COST OF LOOSING FREEDOM! The purpose of the 2nd A is to assure the rest of them. While we focus mainly on keeping the 2nd, this president has done his best to chip away at the rest. Be scared of politicians who mandate we must give up freedom to be safe. I'd like to think we were "the Land of the Free, and The Home of the Brave", not "the land of the safe, and the home of the afraid to stand up against tyrrany"!
as an aside to bjeng's comment "Besides, you were impolite by likening fellow posters to people of low breeding who take stupid pills. I figure that makes you fair game for a little fun." I hope noone's feeeeelings were hurt by this. And you are right, I am fair game for a little fun. Let the official record show that even though I said,
"We all keep hearing the masterplan of voting REP vs DEM, because we can't want Kerry. You are right in saying I don't want Kerry. "We can change the RP from within..." HOW! How do you propose we change the republican party from within? I've asked this before, and all we keep hearing is "ugh...Kerry bad! We change Bush! (then scratch butt and reach for stupid pills)"
Just explain for everyone's benefit how we can change the RP from within. If your willing to bet the farm on being able to change them after the election it would be prudent to have a plan.
Come up with a better way of getting the message across to a politician than not voting for them, and I just may have hope for your plan."
I in no way meant to show dissrespect to stupid people, or to people who scratch their butts. For this I appologize. I was just tired of hearing the same thing over and over again (as I'm sure Fallingblock and you were, bjengs). I'd like you both to know, even though I dissagree with how to go about saving our Nation; when we hang separatley, I'd bet we will all wish that we had hung together.
And again, thankyou for trying to answer my questions.
Docwithglock
Member
The Republican Liberty Caucus is basically a bunch of Libertarians calling themselves Republicans just to get elected. At first glance it may seem like a bad thing but then it is not because the best Republicans ARE Libertarians. If there were more of these guys out there it just might work.
like Cordex said, "Put pro-freedom Repubs worth voting for on the ballot and I'll happily vote for 'em.
Ron Paul hasn't run in my district yet, so ..."
like Cordex said, "Put pro-freedom Repubs worth voting for on the ballot and I'll happily vote for 'em.
Ron Paul hasn't run in my district yet, so ..."
fallingblock
Member
thanks to bjengs.....
"A voter needn't worry if his guy has a shot: the Republican always has a shot. A Constitutional Conservative is probably the least likely candidate to be sleazy, kooky, or otherwise personally unappealing.
"The problem with the Libertarian Party (speaking as a former card-carrying member and volunteer) is the same problem that plagues the Socialist Party and all other 'Parties of Principle:' they do not reflect the behaviors and attitudes of most humans. The socialists reflect nothing so much as insects. The LP are not quite so out-of-touch, but they do demand new ways of thinking - about many issues - for most of their would-be constituency. In truth, their platform is about the same as would be a Constitutional Conservative's, but they also require that the voters suspend their disbelief that they could actually succeed. And, like the socialists, they require that the nation (or at least several million voters) act collectively to establish a new paradigm. This, of course, is fantasy."
************************************************************
For making that explanation for Docwithglock's benefit !
I have this time zone lapse to deal with on these discussions.
As for Docwithglock, I don't think he gets it yet:
************************************************************
"I in no way meant to show dissrespect to stupid people, or to people who scratch their butts. For this I appologize. I was just tired of hearing the same thing over and over again (as I'm sure Fallingblock and you were, bjengs). I'd like you both to know, even though I dissagree with how to go about saving our Nation; when we hang separatley, I'd bet we will all wish that we had hung together."
************************************************************
If you insist on chasing that LP fantasy, we may all hang, but you chose to make it separately
************************************************************
"As much as I'd hate to loose my RKBA, I'd be unable to stomache loosing any more rights under the Bush/ Ashcroft Dictatorship."
************************************************************
Woo-hoo!
You'll love the Kerry alternative, which is what voting LP will deliver.
************************************************************
"There is a difference between stubborn and foolish in politics... stubborn is sticking to your principles, foolish is believing you can change someone else's principles by showing approval of what they do by voting for them again."
************************************************************
Stubborn: voting LP, knowing they will lose, AND bring on an even more undesireable situation.
Foolish: believing that because you want your ideal political party, you can achieve it by destroying an imperfect but reality-based system, and replacing it with a party that will not respond at all to your dreams.
"A voter needn't worry if his guy has a shot: the Republican always has a shot. A Constitutional Conservative is probably the least likely candidate to be sleazy, kooky, or otherwise personally unappealing.
"The problem with the Libertarian Party (speaking as a former card-carrying member and volunteer) is the same problem that plagues the Socialist Party and all other 'Parties of Principle:' they do not reflect the behaviors and attitudes of most humans. The socialists reflect nothing so much as insects. The LP are not quite so out-of-touch, but they do demand new ways of thinking - about many issues - for most of their would-be constituency. In truth, their platform is about the same as would be a Constitutional Conservative's, but they also require that the voters suspend their disbelief that they could actually succeed. And, like the socialists, they require that the nation (or at least several million voters) act collectively to establish a new paradigm. This, of course, is fantasy."
************************************************************
For making that explanation for Docwithglock's benefit
!I have this time zone lapse to deal with on these discussions.
As for Docwithglock, I don't think he gets it yet:
************************************************************
"I in no way meant to show dissrespect to stupid people, or to people who scratch their butts. For this I appologize. I was just tired of hearing the same thing over and over again (as I'm sure Fallingblock and you were, bjengs). I'd like you both to know, even though I dissagree with how to go about saving our Nation; when we hang separatley, I'd bet we will all wish that we had hung together."
************************************************************
If you insist on chasing that LP fantasy, we may all hang, but you chose to make it separately
************************************************************
"As much as I'd hate to loose my RKBA, I'd be unable to stomache loosing any more rights under the Bush/ Ashcroft Dictatorship."
************************************************************
Woo-hoo!
You'll love the Kerry alternative, which is what voting LP will deliver.
************************************************************
"There is a difference between stubborn and foolish in politics... stubborn is sticking to your principles, foolish is believing you can change someone else's principles by showing approval of what they do by voting for them again."
************************************************************
Stubborn: voting LP, knowing they will lose, AND bring on an even more undesireable situation.
Foolish: believing that because you want your ideal political party, you can achieve it by destroying an imperfect but reality-based system, and replacing it with a party that will not respond at all to your dreams.
Docwithglock
Member
Maybe this should be a different post, but it relevant to why the RP is as dangerous to us ultimatley loosing the RKBA as the DP is:
How does everyone feel about the current administration limiting Freedoms and bypassing the BOR and COTUS? How do you feel about the USA (un)Patriot Act? 
How does everyone feel about the current administration limiting Freedoms and bypassing the BOR and COTUS? How do you feel about the USA (un)Patriot Act?
GoRon
Member
Republicans of like mind should start up "Liberty Caucus" type affiliates in every state. This makes the most sense as to how to effect or change the Rep. party from within.
Bush Lock -- Vote LP
Bush Soft Lock -- watch the polls and vote LP if you can
In play -- I see the value of voting for Bush over rabidly anti-gun Kerry
Kerry Soft Lock -- watch the polls and vote LP if you can
Kerry Lock -- Vote LP (you can't help Bush anyway)
I used a simular formula the first Bush Sr. run. I voted Lib. wherever they were listed on the ballot. This was a protest vote against his "New World Order" BS. He was no Reagan! There was no chance of him losing so a vote to the Libertarians served to show what direction I wanted the party to go.
The second time around I held my nose and voted for Bush Sr. It was too close to lodge protest votes.
Bush Lock -- Vote LP
Bush Soft Lock -- watch the polls and vote LP if you can
In play -- I see the value of voting for Bush over rabidly anti-gun Kerry
Kerry Soft Lock -- watch the polls and vote LP if you can
Kerry Lock -- Vote LP (you can't help Bush anyway)
I used a simular formula the first Bush Sr. run. I voted Lib. wherever they were listed on the ballot. This was a protest vote against his "New World Order" BS. He was no Reagan! There was no chance of him losing so a vote to the Libertarians served to show what direction I wanted the party to go.
The second time around I held my nose and voted for Bush Sr. It was too close to lodge protest votes.
Docwithglock
Member
This is a nice plan GoRon, if you can put up with what has happened to our rights in this country. Our rights to free speech, due process, and many others have been put on hold by our current president. The potential for attrocities is mind boggling! GWB can have you GoRon, or you Fallingblock, or me, locked up just because a government official says so. Will more terrorist be caught this way... maybe. But at what cost to Liberty and our Freedom. We as Free Citizens have never been in so much danger from tyranny in our lives as we are today! GWB may be stripping us of our rights for our saftey, but remember absolute power corrupts absolutley. Imagine sitting in a jail cell for the rest of your life, without a trial, without your family knowing where you are, because the president thinks you are a threat!
Get the terrorists without stripping away our liberty!
Starting Liberty Caucuses all over is a good idea if it lead to restoring our rights. Vote for the people who support Liberty! Yes! I just don't think our current administration does. I hope I am wrong.
Get the terrorists without stripping away our liberty!
Starting Liberty Caucuses all over is a good idea if it lead to restoring our rights. Vote for the people who support Liberty! Yes! I just don't think our current administration does. I hope I am wrong.
fix
Member
Stupid Analogy Time
Bush spilled gasoline in the room. That sucks. John Kerry is holding a lit match. Do you let him in the room? Personally I'd rather take the chance that Bush will either:
A) Let the room air out.
B) Spill more gasoline.
To me, it's better to have a clutz with a can of gasoline than a pyromaniac.
Bush spilled gasoline in the room. That sucks. John Kerry is holding a lit match. Do you let him in the room? Personally I'd rather take the chance that Bush will either:
A) Let the room air out.
B) Spill more gasoline.
To me, it's better to have a clutz with a can of gasoline than a pyromaniac.
fallingblock
Member
That's a good question, Docwithglock....
"How does everyone feel about the current administration limiting Freedoms and bypassing the BOR and COTUS? How do you feel about the USA (un)Patriot Act?"
************************************************************
Not an encouraging development, by any means.
Given the circumstances, had the Democrats been in power, it would have been even worse especially with regard to RKBA.
I don't think the "Patriot Act" constitutes a "liberty-friendly" approach to addressing the threats against us, but the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it. They will not correct the error as they believe in the 'authoritarian government' approach even more than the Republicans.
Since we're basically disagreeing about the method of correcting the problem, rather than whether or not there is a problem, my fear would be that siphoning potential votes from Bush to the LP (which cannot win) could result in a Democratic victory. which would exacerbate the problems we face.
***********************************************************"
"The potential for attrocities is mind boggling! GWB can have you GoRon, or you Fallingblock, or me, locked up just because a government official says so."
************************************************************
Yes, but the Democrats are the ones who criminalized the possession of firearms for many U.S. citizens. not voting for Bush in the upcoming election will allow them more power to continue to do so. They will not relinquish any government powers.
We need to focus on the libertarian streak in the Republican Party to change the situation.
The 'vote Libertarian' approach dooms us to an earlier loss of what freedoms remain, without major party clout to resist it.
Anyway, I myself agree with most of the goals of the Libertarian Party.
If voting Libertarian is what your conscience dictates. then that is what you ought to do.
I only hope that not enough folks who would otherwise vote for Bush instead vote Libertarian and allow Kerry the Whitehouse.
"How does everyone feel about the current administration limiting Freedoms and bypassing the BOR and COTUS? How do you feel about the USA (un)Patriot Act?"
************************************************************
Not an encouraging development, by any means.
Given the circumstances, had the Democrats been in power, it would have been even worse especially with regard to RKBA.
I don't think the "Patriot Act" constitutes a "liberty-friendly" approach to addressing the threats against us, but the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it. They will not correct the error as they believe in the 'authoritarian government' approach even more than the Republicans.
Since we're basically disagreeing about the method of correcting the problem, rather than whether or not there is a problem, my fear would be that siphoning potential votes from Bush to the LP (which cannot win) could result in a Democratic victory. which would exacerbate the problems we face.
***********************************************************"
"The potential for attrocities is mind boggling! GWB can have you GoRon, or you Fallingblock, or me, locked up just because a government official says so."
************************************************************
Yes, but the Democrats are the ones who criminalized the possession of firearms for many U.S. citizens. not voting for Bush in the upcoming election will allow them more power to continue to do so. They will not relinquish any government powers.
We need to focus on the libertarian streak in the Republican Party to change the situation.
The 'vote Libertarian' approach dooms us to an earlier loss of what freedoms remain, without major party clout to resist it.
Anyway, I myself agree with most of the goals of the Libertarian Party.
If voting Libertarian is what your conscience dictates. then that is what you ought to do.
I only hope that not enough folks who would otherwise vote for Bush instead vote Libertarian and allow Kerry the Whitehouse.
Jay Kominek
Member
Different groups are doing it. As with all the political parties, it exists as a number of entities on different levels. There is the national party, the state parties, and parties in different counties. Same way the Republicans and Democrats have to work.
There just aren't enough people involved in the party yet for every county in the country to have an effectual LP operating, and there is nothing the national party can do besides promote the party in an abstract sense, nationwide, and hope that people in areas without parties are interested enough to get some more people together and file the paperwork necessary.
Some counties have parties that are working on this. The Libertarian Party of Boulder County had someone running for all of the local positions last general election, and they'll probably do it again this year.
I'm sure they'll stop depriving you of your freedom because you don't recognize them as legitimate.
Right, no teenagers would ever want to receive oral sex or do likes of coke if it weren't for those studly political leaders who are so coooool making it trendy!
As always, this election is somehow more special than previous ones.
Why don't we have some happy thoughts? Imagine (before you feel the compulsion to say it again, yes, it is a matter of imagination for the next few election cycles, at least) a Libertarian winning... The president has total control over the executive branch. He could just tell all the Federal DAs and the BATF to stop prosecuting firearms "crimes" that aren't actually crimes. If your Republican presidents are such big fans of the 2nd amendment, why don't they do that? Hell, right before the end of their term, they could issue a whole bunch of pardons for people sitting in jail because their shotguns were too short. Where would the harm in that be?
The claim is that there is very little difference between what the party as an entity genuinely believes in. There is a vast difference in their traditional voter bases. If the Republicans could start getting more than they get now by making a big deal out of banning public consumption of Cheez Whiz, they'd be all over it in a heartbeat, same with the Democrats. But at the moment, Republicans can get votes from conservative Christian fundamentalists, and the Democrats can get votes from borderline socialists. So they pander to those groups.
Moparmike
Member
Yes, but if you keep chasing that GOP fantasy, we will all be hanging from a rope together. Either way, we are hanging. I choose to go down fighting rather than "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
Suit yourself.
fallingblock
Member
But Moparmike.....
The GOP is a real, nationwide party, with a proven ability to win elections.
None of which may be said for the LP.
I want to get our freedom back AND avoid the rope if possible,
not welcome it with a banzai charge of misdirected 'principle'.
The GOP is a real, nationwide party, with a proven ability to win elections.
None of which may be said for the LP.
I want to get our freedom back AND avoid the rope if possible,
not welcome it with a banzai charge of misdirected 'principle'.
Moparmike
Member
Yes, but with people that more than likely dont have the freedom-minded ideas and beliefs that make me want to vote for them. So I dont. If I dont aprove of their prior actions, I wont make an approving gesture. If I am determined to change their party inside-out, then I will join and become an activist within the party. Until the GOP has candidates worthy of my vote, they will not get my vote. The LP will because it is worthy of my vote.
fallingblock
Member
Uh, Moparmike....I think we agree....
I wrote, a few posts back:
************************************************************
"Anyway, I myself agree with most of the goals of the Libertarian Party.
If voting Libertarian is what your conscience dictates. then that is what you ought to do.
I only hope that not enough folks who would otherwise vote for Bush instead vote Libertarian and allow Kerry the Whitehouse."
************************************************************
You wrote:
************************************************************
"If I dont aprove of their prior actions, I wont make an approving gesture. If I am determined to change their party inside-out, then I will join and become an activist within the party. Until the GOP has candidates worthy of my vote, they will not get my vote. The LP will because it is worthy of my vote."
************************************************************
I'll vote for Bush, and you'll vote for whomever....and let's hope Kerry doesn't win!
I wrote, a few posts back:
************************************************************
"Anyway, I myself agree with most of the goals of the Libertarian Party.
If voting Libertarian is what your conscience dictates. then that is what you ought to do.
I only hope that not enough folks who would otherwise vote for Bush instead vote Libertarian and allow Kerry the Whitehouse."
************************************************************
You wrote:
************************************************************
"If I dont aprove of their prior actions, I wont make an approving gesture. If I am determined to change their party inside-out, then I will join and become an activist within the party. Until the GOP has candidates worthy of my vote, they will not get my vote. The LP will because it is worthy of my vote."
************************************************************
I'll vote for Bush, and you'll vote for whomever....and let's hope Kerry doesn't win!
Moparmike
Member
Finally, we agree.
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
Strategy might depend on how you vie wthe major parties. Voting for GOP might make sense if you consider them to be positions thus:
Green------DFL----------------GOP-----LP
I consider them to be more like this:
Green----DFL-GOP----------------------LP
In short, rather than prefer French King to the English king, or vice versa, I'd rather try for a third option.
Green------DFL----------------GOP-----LP
I consider them to be more like this:
Green----DFL-GOP----------------------LP
In short, rather than prefer French King to the English king, or vice versa, I'd rather try for a third option.
Docwithglock
Member
Fallingblock said, "The GOP is a real, nationwide party, with a proven ability to win elections."
I am Not trying to compare Bush to Hilter, but Hitler prooved he could win several elections before he because a true dictator. Getting elected may technically make someone a winner. However, many with the ability to get elected are real LOOSERS!
When a leader perpetuates and expands their power at the expense of Liberty they are truly on the road to tyrrany!
Sweet dreams Bush supporters...
I am Not trying to compare Bush to Hilter, but Hitler prooved he could win several elections before he because a true dictator. Getting elected may technically make someone a winner. However, many with the ability to get elected are real LOOSERS!
When a leader perpetuates and expands their power at the expense of Liberty they are truly on the road to tyrrany!
Sweet dreams Bush supporters...
MacViolinist
Member
fallingblock,
So is the Democratic Party. How does that legitimize the GOP?
-drew
So is the Democratic Party. How does that legitimize the GOP?
-drew
fallingblock
Member
Uh, Docwithglock.....
"Getting elected may technically make someone a winner. However, many with the ability to get elected are real LOOSERS!
************************************************************
What about those without any chance of election?
Is a "looser" the opposite of a "tighter"?
Macviolinist:
************************************************************
"So is the Democratic Party. How does that legitimize the GOP?"
************************************************************
I believe some of the LP advocates here are suffering from 'conceptual deafness', but for the record, here it is one last time:
The Republican Party has a goodly number of people within the party who support our RKBA. Focusing our effort on increasing that number seems to me to be the best strategy for the retention of RKBA.
The Democrat Party has only a very few pro-RKBA folks AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
To oppose the further loss of RKBA, a party that is electable AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL is required as a minimum first step.
The Republican party is thus electable.
The LP is not.
Greg Bell:
************************************************************
"Because the Democrats aren't even in the running for anyone who considers gun rights an important issue."
************************************************************
I'm glad that it's obvious to most folks....
No doubt we'll read how the LP, for all practical purposes imaginary at the Federal level, is going to replace the Republican Party in our fight for RKBA.
By which time, of course, there will be no RKBA to defend, because voting against the Republicans only results in more power for the Democrats, who want to destroy RKBA with a fervor.:banghead:
I'm gettin' that "dog-chasing-its-tail" feeling from this thread, so y'all please excuse me to catch up writing and phoning congresscritters for the S.1805 showdown.
"Getting elected may technically make someone a winner. However, many with the ability to get elected are real LOOSERS!
************************************************************
What about those without any chance of election?
Is a "looser" the opposite of a "tighter"?
Macviolinist:
************************************************************
"So is the Democratic Party. How does that legitimize the GOP?"
************************************************************
I believe some of the LP advocates here are suffering from 'conceptual deafness', but for the record, here it is one last time:
The Republican Party has a goodly number of people within the party who support our RKBA. Focusing our effort on increasing that number seems to me to be the best strategy for the retention of RKBA.
The Democrat Party has only a very few pro-RKBA folks AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
To oppose the further loss of RKBA, a party that is electable AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL is required as a minimum first step.
The Republican party is thus electable.
The LP is not.
Greg Bell:
************************************************************
"Because the Democrats aren't even in the running for anyone who considers gun rights an important issue."
************************************************************
I'm glad that it's obvious to most folks....
No doubt we'll read how the LP, for all practical purposes imaginary at the Federal level, is going to replace the Republican Party in our fight for RKBA.
By which time, of course, there will be no RKBA to defend, because voting against the Republicans only results in more power for the Democrats, who want to destroy RKBA with a fervor.:banghead:
I'm gettin' that "dog-chasing-its-tail" feeling from this thread, so y'all please excuse me to catch up writing and phoning congresscritters for the S.1805 showdown.
Moparmike
Member
What exactly do you mean BigG? I am afraid your use of sarcasm isnt quite getting your message accross to me.
MacViolinist
Member
FallingBlock,
I didn't ask if the Republican Party was electable, I asked if being electable made it legitimate. I will now add a second question to that. Is the 2nd A. the only issue that you take into consideration when voting? Would you vote for a candidate that was violently against, for example, Freedom of Speech, or Due Process, or Selective rather than Equal Protection under the Law as long as he was willing to support the 2nd A. a little bit more than the "other guy"?
Now let me add a few more questions. What has Congress done since the GOP majority took over that has improved the situation of your individual rights, overall?
What has GWB done to improve the situation of your individual rights since he took office? As far as I know, the answer to both of those is a resounding Nothing.
How long will you keep voting for people that are doing nothing?
How long will you keep on thinking that if "they" only get half of this particular liberty then, no matter how little of it is left, I still have half, and by golly, that's better than none?!!! Mathematically this is true. All the way to 2A=0.0000000001 x it's original value.
Realistically, it's useless.
-drew
I didn't ask if the Republican Party was electable, I asked if being electable made it legitimate. I will now add a second question to that. Is the 2nd A. the only issue that you take into consideration when voting? Would you vote for a candidate that was violently against, for example, Freedom of Speech, or Due Process, or Selective rather than Equal Protection under the Law as long as he was willing to support the 2nd A. a little bit more than the "other guy"?
Now let me add a few more questions. What has Congress done since the GOP majority took over that has improved the situation of your individual rights, overall?
What has GWB done to improve the situation of your individual rights since he took office? As far as I know, the answer to both of those is a resounding Nothing.
How long will you keep voting for people that are doing nothing?
How long will you keep on thinking that if "they" only get half of this particular liberty then, no matter how little of it is left, I still have half, and by golly, that's better than none?!!! Mathematically this is true. All the way to 2A=0.0000000001 x it's original value.
Realistically, it's useless.
-drew
Docwithglock
Member
3/2/04 should be a big lesson?
10 Republicans Voted to extend the AWB!
6 Democrats Voted against it!
(this is for those who seem to only care about voting RP to protect RKBA)
For those who think voting for republicans is better, be aware that more than one out of seven republicans, who voted, voted to extend the AWB!
Reelecting anyone who voted to extend the ban is certainly no friend to the RKBA, or the American people.
10 Republicans Voted to extend the AWB!
6 Democrats Voted against it!
(this is for those who seem to only care about voting RP to protect RKBA)
For those who think voting for republicans is better, be aware that more than one out of seven republicans, who voted, voted to extend the AWB!
Reelecting anyone who voted to extend the ban is certainly no friend to the RKBA, or the American people.
GoRon
Member
Hey Doc,
How do the votes break down in the House version? Not quite the 50/50 split.
How do the votes break down in the House version? Not quite the 50/50 split.
- Status