NRA and Libertarians


PDA






Robert J McElwain
October 19, 2006, 11:36 PM
Many of us, who are NRA members, recently got the latest issue of The Rifleman. In the center, there was the NRA recommendations for the upcoming elections. One fact that was clear is that the NRA will not endorse a Libertarian.

I happen to know that in the State of Kansas, and also in Missouri, there were a number of Libertarians that are NRA members running against either Republicans (RINOs) or Democrats that were totally opposed to all gun rights and, at best, the NRA had no recommendation or recommended the Republican or Democrat.

It seems that, no matter what the party label, if you've got a strong gun rights advocate, you recommend them, unless your agenda is not principles or the Second Amendment but back room politics as usual. I wonder how the Gun Owners of America stands on this.

Does anyone know of any race in the country where the NRA is recommending a Libertarian?

Bob

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA and Libertarians" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wally
October 19, 2006, 11:38 PM
I don't, I was also shocked to see Ron Paul, who votes against most everything as being "unconstitutional", only got a B+.

--wally.

Zundfolge
October 19, 2006, 11:42 PM
The NRA doesn't hate Libertarians.

There are 2 main criteria for getting an endorsement from the NRA.

1) you have to be pro gun (likely have to score an "A")
2) you have to be able (and for that matter likely) to win.

Here in Colorado I noticed that there were several incumbent Democrats that got the NRA's endorsement over their Republican challengers when both had "A" ratings because in any race the incumbent is more likely to win.

Libertarians rarely win elections.

Lone_Gunman
October 19, 2006, 11:55 PM
Zundfolge is correct.

The NRA wants to be able to say "95 percent (or whatever) of our endorsed candidates won". Being able to say that makes them a more powerful lobby in Washington (and more feared by politicians).

real_name
October 19, 2006, 11:57 PM
To reiterate, a vote for a third party is perceived to be a vote wasted in present day US politics.

I look forward to a three or even four party system, but I will not hold my breath.

Standing Wolf
October 20, 2006, 12:05 AM
To reiterate, a vote for a third party is perceived to be a vote wasted in present day US politics.

People are free to perceive whatever they'd like, of course, but a vote for the apparent lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

ilbob
October 20, 2006, 12:10 AM
People are free to perceive whatever they'd like, of course, but a vote for the apparent lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

And letting a worse evil win out over a lesser evil is what?

Autolycus
October 20, 2006, 12:30 AM
I will still vote Libertarian regardless. Guns are not the only issue I feel passionately about.

geekWithA.45
October 20, 2006, 12:44 AM
I had a conversation w/ some well placed NRA folks on this topic.

Previous posters are correct: The NRA will not back candidate unlikely to win.

For good or for ill, the structure of our first through the post, winner takes the district voting system is such that 3rd party candidates simply don't have realistic chances of winning.

Folks need to factor that into their voting strategy.

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 12:53 AM
I find it funny that so many people say a vote for a third party is throwing away your vote...you know, if enough people threw their vote away, I wonder who would win?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you're goal is to pick the winner like politics is a horse race, fair enough. If your goal is change and improvement, picking the winner isn't always the best choice.

Wonder what would happen if a Libertarian managed to get 22% of the vote, even if they lost...what happens next election? There's something to be said for encouragement through making a showing; sometimes you have to take a few licks and get back up to go on and land your punches and win the fight...dodging every hit and going to the ropes every other minute becasue ti's the safe play isn't a winning strategy, it's an avoding a loss strategy.

Green Lantern
October 20, 2006, 12:56 AM
Well....I'm not overly fond of the "open borders" thing.

Then again, all I know about Libertarians is that they support 2A :D:) :cool: and oppose borders... :confused: :what: :scrutiny:

TexasRifleman
October 20, 2006, 01:01 AM
Come on! Whats wrong with the Libertarians?

Uhhhh, they rarely win an election maybe?

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 01:03 AM
A reason to oppose borders is that any control the government can use to keep others out, will ultimately be used to keep us in. Your papers please, comrade.

You want to fight the culture war, hit the businesses that give the illegals incentives to come here in the first place. Employ an illegal, lose your tax ID and business license and pay a huge honkin fine plus tax penalties through an audit from the IRS.

Problem solved; mice don't breed where they can't eat.

geekWithA.45
October 20, 2006, 01:04 AM
I find it funny that so many people say a vote for a third party is throwing away your vote....It's a self-fulfilling prophecy,


Unfortunately, it's more than a self fulfilling prophecy.

Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_Law

real_name
October 20, 2006, 01:06 AM
NineseveN:
In Britain, in the '80s, there was a no hope-no chance third party called the Liberal Democrats. (Ok, ignore the name for a minute.)
The Conservatives are blue in the UK, Labour (sic) is red, the LibDems chose yellow.
Everyone laughed.
Everyone said if you vote for them it's a vote wasted.

Then little by little they improved their share of the House.

Now they are a real party (http://www.libdems.org.uk/), and get votes, and might win next time.

mljdeckard
October 20, 2006, 01:09 AM
I'm with nineseven. I don't think we need to make illegal immigration easier, but if there were no money for them here, they wouldn't come. Enforce existing tax legislation, and the problem goes away.

Green Lantern
October 20, 2006, 01:15 AM
Not that I don't agree with the suggestions of laying the smacketh down on people/businesses that employ illegal aliens...

But my main concern is, how does that help prevent someone from walking from Mexico into Texas with a nuke or something...???

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 01:15 AM
geekWithA.45

What did you think about the counter examples and converse at the bottom?

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 01:18 AM
But my main concern is, how does that help prevent someone from walking from Mexico into Texas with a nuke or something...???

The same thing that's to stop someone from building a nuke here on home field...law enforcement, investigation, prosecution and swift, decided action. Shortcuts aren't the way, arguing for closing us off entirely is akin to arguing that we all need video cameras installed in every square inch of the country, to be sure that no one's building a nuke.

Safety sounds nice, but not when liberty can be jeopardized by it. No one is safe when they're under someone else's control, despite illusions to the contrary.

mljdeckard
October 20, 2006, 01:39 AM
Green Lantern -The biggest benefit would be that if Border Patrol isn't chasing thousands of Mexicans every day, they will have more resources to notice the real threats when they are fewer and farther between. Tracking 10 targets at a time instead of 1000.

Green Lantern
October 20, 2006, 01:40 AM
Hmmm...food for thought.

CZ 75 BD
October 20, 2006, 01:43 AM
At the Gun Rights Policy Conference in 2003, Michael Badnarick asked why NRA doesn't endorse independent candidates. The NRA speaker said "The (I) after your name on the ballot stands for irrelevant."

geekWithA.45
October 20, 2006, 01:47 AM
What did you think about the counter examples and converse at the bottom?

In some of the cases, with the 3 way systems, I considered the two minor parties counterbalancing in opposition to one dominant party to be functionally a single party, albeit operating under different branding. In other cases, I think it's probably a transitional case, where previously dominant parties have fractured, and are still in explorator mode prior to the consolidation phase.

Our own 2 big parties aren't exactly homogenous: they have internal fault lines, and are essentially coalitions in and of themselves.

Being fairly static and entrenched, it will take some major disruption or collapse to disrupt the stability of our system such as to give a third party a chance.

There are some speculative scenarios under which that might happen, but the thing is that since none of those scenarios are imminent, and therefore a matter of abstract theory rather than of practical value for THIS election.

Normally, what happens in American politics is that a party will implode after failing to gain traction for a certain number of cycles, and will undergo internal reorg and realignment, as the internal factions vie for control. It's during these periods that 3rd party planks tend to get assimilated in.

mp510
October 20, 2006, 01:48 AM
When published in American Rifleman, the endorsement sheet mentions that libertarians are, by definition, pro-gun.

xd9fan
October 20, 2006, 02:36 AM
And letting a worse evil win out over a lesser evil is what?


Is currently the Game in American politics......and its not working. Both spend like piss drunk sailors

(I have nothing against piss drunk sailors);)

Combat-wombat
October 20, 2006, 02:48 AM
Well....I'm not overly fond of the "open borders" thing.
I'm pretty sure the LP dropped that from their platform.

Jeff
October 20, 2006, 02:53 AM
And letting a worse evil win out over a lesser evil is what?

That's a passive action. A proactive action would be voting for the lesser of two evils.

real_name
October 20, 2006, 02:55 AM
Immigration

The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#immgr

Panthera Tigris
October 20, 2006, 02:58 AM
Well....I'm not overly fond of the "open borders" thing.

I'm pretty sure the LP dropped that from their platform.


I just visited their official website, www.lp.org.

Nope, open borders is still an issue they are very big on.

I like some of the LP's platform, but there's still alot I don't agree with them on. The Constitution Party is out for me, because I will never for vote for a party that wants to enforce biblical law on people.

My party attitudes probably lie with the Green Party more than any, and I disagree with them on guns.

Jeff
October 20, 2006, 03:16 AM
Please keep in mind the Libertarians' position on open borders is dependent on Libertarian government in whole. Such a government would not maintain the current welfare system that attracts the massive numbers of illegals here in the fist place.

The borders would remain open, but it would only attract those who are willing to contribute something that results in a net gain for the country, since there would be no draining of the general fund.

Why do so many people forget this?

ajax
October 20, 2006, 03:33 AM
real name you coudn't have spelled that out any better than what you did.

ReadyontheRight
October 20, 2006, 03:53 AM
Wonder what would happen if a Libertarian managed to get 22% of the vote

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/hillary.jpg

TJTay89
October 20, 2006, 04:36 AM
There is not any way a LP would get elected for president within the next 12-18 years. So I understand not voting for one to be president. However it is very likely that you could start to see more and more libertarians win in local elections within the next 4-12 years. So maybe starting to look into some local LP members running in your area, wouldn't be a bad thing.

Personally I believe in most of the LP views on things. However when I get to vote (17 now, so I will miss this years), I plan on voting on the person that would do their job the best, no matter the party. I just can't stand people who go to a voting booth and vote straight party line. Right now the only person I know for sure I am voting against in 2008 is Hillary.

Don't Tread On Me
October 20, 2006, 05:28 AM
As for the thread title, it is absurd. The NRA doesn't hate anyone. Libertarians are a joke and a waste of resources because they will never do a SINGLE thing for the RKBA because they'll never hold any significant office. Ron Paul is a libertarian and he understands the reality of the 2-party system that blocks the emergence of a 3rd party. Thus, he is technically a Republican. I too am a libertarian in beliefs, but I'm looking for results, and while people can repeatedly spout the "lesser of two evils" arguments, it sure beats the 100% sure loss and crash and burn of the RKBA by going Libertarian.


I apologize in advance. This is partially a rant, partially an analysis, partially a reminder and some thoughts. Part of improving is to discuss things and challenge ideas.


THR has become amusing.

It was once a pro-gun site. Now, the politics that exist here are defeatist to the cause of the RKBA, due in part to many who believe that a 3rd party solution is the way to go or others who sabotage by smearing the GOP who has served us well.

I will not be happy to remind people when the Democrats win SOLELY because of low conservative/republican/progun turnout, how brilliant it was to engage in all this infighting, and criticism and rejection of the GOP. The Democrats will begin putting gun control bills to floor votes. That's when the Legal and Political forum of THR will become a sea of panic threads and activism threads. "New gun control bill introduced", "House to vote on .50cal ban", "OMG, look at what ABC/CNN/NBC is saying about the pending ban on_______".....I can see it now. We've been spoiled. I guess we need our backs to be against the wall to get some fire under our feet.


You can choose to be proactive today and vote, or be reactive tomorrow when the Democrats win. There will be a lot of whining here about gun control. I think a lot of people are awful selfish and spoiled. It's mighty nice to have $20 17-rd Glock mags. Maybe they don't remember the 1990's anymore.


It saddens me to see the leftwing WIN the propaganda war. Their 6 year media bombardment of anti-GOP, anti-Bush, anti-conservative shrill attacks has taken its toll on the average gun owner it seems. Judging by the style of posts and the ideas and opinions shared, vs. those back in the earlier 2000's...our movement appears demoralized, disgusted, turned off and without direction. This is in part due to the hate-mongers and negative people who have poisoned and flooded the "airwaves" of our internet movement with their incessant nitpicking and dissatisfaction of Bush and the GOP on the RKBA for completely irrational and baseless reasons.


The reality is, that Bush and the GOP have been fantastic for the RKBA and for our agenda. I think anyone who clearly remembers the Clinton days would agree.

The Republican Party is not a 2nd Amendment purist party. No one thinks that, no one expects that. But people argue against the Republican Party as if that's what they promised to be. It just isn't the reality of our world right now. It can be in 30 years from now if we work hard enough, but it isn't now. Walk before Run.

Truth is, many gun owners have given up on Bush and the GOP for reasons not related to guns. Like the border, like Iraq and other issues. I can't speak about that. This is a gun forum, this forum advocates the RKBA, and from this perspective, the Republican Party has been very good. I am strictly interested in preserving the RKBA as best as possible and for as long as possible. I understand that the Republican Party is not ideal, but neither is the world or anything else for that matter. We can fend off guncontrol for years and years until the gun culture grows more and more and becomes more mainstream and accepted. This is a realistic goal.


Many of you are playing into the hands of the gun-grabbers who would LOVE nothing more but to see you become politically-homeless by abandoning a major party in favor of insignificant 3rd party that merely acts as a protest to the system. The gun grabbers hate you, and they hate the NRA because they've been and you've been effective at stopping their agenda to abolish the RKBA. Our complaints of the GOP and NRA are legitimate, but not in context since it isn't rational to be unhappy that just 2 years after the AWB expiration, that we haven't repealed the 1986 machinegun ban or the 1989 import ban. Think about that.


Look at the big picture. The gun-grabbers have nothing to lose. We have everything to lose.


We have the moral highground, we have the truth on our side, we have everything going for us and we can't lose - unless we stay home on election day.


Guys, it amazes me how strong we came out during a presidential election cycle, yet, in a midterm, where people like us, groups like us, movements like us have more weight, more influence and more effect - there is apathy.

This election is looking rough for the Republicans. Even if we were a fully unified and positively charged movement, we might not be able to fend off what is happening, but, but, but, we can sway a few critical close races. This might come down to 1-2 seats. One or two seats is the difference between a left-wing San Fransicko gun-hating extremist being speaker of the house, or a speaker who worked to block the AWB. I'd like to see another 2 years go by with no gun bans ever having a real chance to see the floor. It is worth it to get out and vote and vote for those who will not ban guns!


Nothing is free. You have to keep up the fight. Who has more will? Gunowners or the gun-grabbers?

Sindawe
October 20, 2006, 05:35 AM
Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.Though I am glad to finally see some measure of sense about national and cultural sovereignty out the Libertarian Party, I find this bit foolishness most disturbing. Rather than eliminate immigration quotas, this society needs "a breather" from immigration, and a chance to...well quite frankly...Assimilate :evil: this infusion of new blood we are experiencing. IIRC, this nation has historically restricted immigration for a time after each wave of newcomers. After each such interlude, the stock of the American people has emerged change and invigorated.

In this immigration phase, we have been so accepting of new arrivals and so tolerant of their idiosyncrasies that there has been little to no effective pressure on those who wish to live among us to become part of us. Indeed, rather than teach their children our language and history, we teach our children theirs.

<blink blink> Just what the heck is up with that??? :scrutiny: :mad:

But I'll stop my rant on that topic there...

With the Libertarians having a rather less than impressing display of spinal fortitude on the topic illegal aliens and what to do about the issue, I'm rather at a loss this election year. Firearms are important to me, but the historical friends of the RKBA have been somewhat...disappointing in their respect of the other Constitutionally protected civil liberties. The "loyal opposition" has been anything but of late as well. Greens? BWAHAHHAHHAHAHAHA. I'm more of a Teddy Roosevelt Conservationist (lots of verdant forests full of splendid game to shoot) than a "Tofu worshipping, tree hugging, dirt munching Druid" Constitution Party? Sorry, I ain't Christian, and have no desire to experience a Christian Theocracy. Seems I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Crud, I'm ranting again.

Would that we had a "Get out of my garden and leave me the frell alone!" party.

Nothing is free. You have to keep up the fight. Who has more will? Gunowners or the gun-grabbers?The thing is, this next several election cycles is about more than just firearms. Truthfully, none of the parties look to be any better than any of the others.

Maybe I'm just a disaffected votor. Now where did I put the tin-foil and trench coat? :neener:

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 09:19 AM
The NRA is to Republicans as NOW is to Democrats.

ceetee
October 20, 2006, 09:42 AM
It was once a pro-gun site. Now, the politics that exist here are defeatist to the cause of the RKBA, due in part to many who believe that a 3rd party solution is the way to go or others who sabotage by smearing the GOP who has served us well.

One of the main issues people consider, Tread, is that it seems like the current crop of "Republican" politicians have abandoned the moral values that conservatives cherish (among them, the right to keep and bear arms). These Neo-conservatives appear willing to sell out the very voters that brought them to power at the drop of a hat.

One very valid question to ask is, "Why should I reward a party with my vote, when that party no longer stands for anything? When that party no longer represents my moral values?" (As an ex-Democrat, I've asked myself that question many times.) Realizing that no party is going to represent my own values 100%, I feel that what's best these days is to choose your candidates based on what those candidates profess as their values and beliefs. Then, if the candidate's job performance shows him differently, he's not really the one you voted for, is he? He's just a panderer to get elected.

Yes, voting for Libertarian candidates may be "throwing your vote away"... today. It may also give that movement the gumption to run stronger candidates next time. It may also send a message to the Republicans and Democrats that they had better pay more attention to their constituency, and the needs of the voters, and less to partying with lobbyists and pandering.

BigG
October 20, 2006, 09:44 AM
NRA Hates Libertarians

I would say from observation on these boards Libertarians hate everybody but themselves. I've never read a post where one agreed with another on anything other than things as they are are "wrong." :banghead: I would never support anybody whose only stance on anything is "me, first." That seems to be the lib credo, as far as I can discern it.

RealGun
October 20, 2006, 09:45 AM
It seems that, no matter what the party label, if you've got a strong gun rights advocate, you recommend them,

I believe it is more complicated than that. You don't prevent a leftist majority by channeling votes to a losing candidate.

ozwyn
October 20, 2006, 10:24 AM
Well.. you're probably right. I been thinking about the NRA and the management of the Gun Rights movement...

then I realized there is no Gun Rights movement to speak of in this country.

No, there is a "defend the 2nd amendment" movements and a "lobbyist level pro-gun" agenda, but there is no real Gun Rights movement.

NRA is practically a corporation. They ask for money, and money, and money, and occasionally votes or a letter.

If the right to bear arms is a civil right, and we compare the NRA to civil rights groups who strongly believe in advocating their rights, the NRA falls short.

Maybe its our fault for not noticing and making a fuss, but the NRA is not very good at making a good public fuss over the Gun Rights of the individual. Oh yeah, they are good at lobbying pro-industry laws and protects, but when was the last time the NRA paid for signs and busing to put 1000+ protestors in front of a state capital?

When was the last time they rallied a mere 100,000 of the 70 million gun owners to parade with signs in DC, or at a convention of the political parties?

Hear crickets? i do.

In spite, not because of, the NRA we have manage to fight back for Gun Rights. Concealed carry has expanded to most states (not mine, but hey, hope is not dead) the AWB provisions of the brady bill are dead, and the NRA has secured legal protection for gun manufacturers. (but not the rest of us)

Reading these boards, we always talk about a defensive stance on our civil right to bear arms. Be it responding to attacks by the media, discussing how to reduce the impact of negative events (shootings), or what we might do if we lose our rights.

This approach is fundmentally weak, in my opinion. We need to really think about how to approach this as a pro gun rights movement, which means taking a page from NAACP and NOW in their heydays. People in the streets protesting to be seen and heard, to be recognized as not just the few stereotypes of gun owners (hunters and black rifles, but not the homemaker or the father or the veteran or the minority is typified as gun owners)

I don;t know how to start, but I do know we need to start. Victory is not getting a few individual politicans to vote on a single bill, but to change how Gun Rights are percieved by the media and the political parties. Put enough people on the streets and we force media attention to the cause. We also force the larger political parties to really see we are damn serious.

When both political parties trip over themselves to secure out rights, when the media discovers and then reflects the idea of Gun Rights as mainstream, then we have won something worth a damn.

Until then we are doing little more than defending the rights of Gun manufacturers to sell a product to us, but not our rights as Gun Owners.

That's my rant. Feel free to cut and paste it whever you think it needs to be heard, send it in an email to your gun rights group of choice.

You saw it here first.

Robert J McElwain
October 20, 2006, 10:25 AM
""Lesser of two evils"

All of which explains why "The voters get what they deserve". Whatever happened to voting one's principles?

Bob

Derek Zeanah
October 20, 2006, 10:39 AM
Well said, oz. You should start a new thread. :)

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 10:54 AM
When was the last time they rallied a mere 100,000 of the 70 million gun owners to parade with signs in DC, or at a convention of the political parties?


I was at work that day.....

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
October 20, 2006, 11:20 AM
Don't Tread On Me very eloquently echoes my position exactly. What has happened in 6 years of GOP control?

-AWB expiry
-Talk of CCW reciprocity
-38 states with Will Issue carry laws
-ATF getting slapped down for being heavy handed
-Investigations of Bloomberg's illegal sting operations

The GOP isn't good for gun owners? Give me a freaking break. Some GOP politicians aren't towing the NRA/RKBA/2nd Amendment line perfectly, I know. But they're not robots. Boot 'em out in the primary elections, not the general elections.

Panthera Tigris
October 20, 2006, 11:39 AM
The only issue with this is, there are so many different major problems the country faces now. For some folks, even gun people, there are issues that are more important than just concerning themselves with guns.

If the economy continues to tank to the part where I can't afford to drive across town to get to my meager paying job, I sure as h*ll ain't gonna be able to afford any ammo for my gun, and I'm not going to be able to afford to ever practice with it.

auschip
October 20, 2006, 11:43 AM
If the economy continues to tank to the part where I can't afford to drive across town to get to my meager paying job, I sure as h*ll ain't gonna be able to afford any ammo for my gun, and I'm not going to be able to afford to ever practice with it.

Continues to tank? That assumes it is tanking currently, which I just don't see.

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 11:44 AM
As for the thread title, it is absurd. The NRA doesn't hate anyone. Libertarians are a joke and a waste of resources because they will never do a SINGLE thing for the RKBA because they'll never hold any significant office. Ron Paul is a libertarian and he understands the reality of the 2-party system that blocks the emergence of a 3rd party. Thus, he is technically a Republican. I too am a libertarian in beliefs, but I'm looking for results, and while people can repeatedly spout the "lesser of two evils" arguments, it sure beats the 100% sure loss and crash and burn of the RKBA by going Libertarian.

That’s the equivalent of political welfare. We shouldn’t vote for change, because change would be impossible, and we need immediate gratification, so we cannot take the road less traveled and look to the long term, we must deal with single-serving situational solutions within the powers that be. What is this, a microwave dinner?

It’s thinking like this that has us gun owners suckling at the bone-dry teat of the Republican party. Political and social complacency are largely responsible for the way that the media and politicians have been able to vilify us, we’ve let them destroy our image and our rights because we were too damn lazy to get angry or do anything…or because they weren’t coming after our hunting rifle or our revolvers and shotguns at the time.

So yeah, vote libertarian and maybe the Democrats will win some seats, the majority and even the presidency; I go news for you, its coming anyway. The only reason a party will change is if they lose power and votes. Many of the Liberals stopped ranting about the AWB after many of their peers were voted out of office largely because of that stunt; the only reason the Repubs would pick this issue up and run hard with it is if they lost votes, a whole lot of them. The only way to have both parties take notice that we’re not about to let them get away with divvying up our rights on both sides of the isle and cashing in on the rhetoric is for a third party to make a strong showing. But nah, we’re too simple and short-sighted for that. The Libertarian party doesn’t have to win, they just have to make a showing, but no, if we advocate that route, we get slammed on this very website by self-righteous know-it-alls that advocate the political drive-through approach who are part of the real problem in the first place.



THR has become amusing.

It was once a pro-gun site. Now, the politics that exist here are defeatist to the cause of the RKBA, due in part to many who believe that a 3rd party solution is the way to go or others who sabotage by smearing the GOP who has served us well.

The reality is, that Bush and the GOP have been fantastic for the RKBA and for our agenda. I think anyone who clearly remembers the Clinton days would agree.


There’s your problem, you’re equating “not as bad as Clinton” with “good”…it doesn’t work that way. Comparatively speaking, the GOP has been better, but they’re far from great, far from ideal, far from doing anything other than what they have to do to get by (with a few stand out people in the mix that really do work hard for the RKBA).

The funny thing is, you’re playing right into their hands. The RKBA is not the only issue in town. The GOP has destroyed half of the Bill of Rights in recent years, the Left is salivating over the other half. It’s a huge game of RISK where our freedoms are being used as the map and some folks keep wanting to be cheerleaders for the current hands that hold the dice like they’re going to be a part of the victory party.

Keep blowing on their dice so they get lucky, at least it feels like activity. :rolleyes:

Zundfolge
October 20, 2006, 11:50 AM
Don't Tread on Me gets my vote :D



The NRA didn't invent our current two party system, but they understand how it works and use it to their advantage.

I'd love for more Libertarians to make it to the legislature (and even the Whitehouse) however its just not a realistic goal.


At this point in history, it is more important to stop Democrats than it is to further the cause of the LP. In addition, the best bet we have for furthering libertarian ideals is for people with (R) after their name to take up the cause.

Part of the answer has been sitting in my sigline for the last year or so, but I'll repeat it here: http://www.rlc.org

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 11:59 AM
At this point in history, it is more important to stop Democrats than it is to further the cause of the LP.

Translation: Let's just hang here and tread water instead of swimming to shore.


Gun rights are not the only issue, what good is the RKBA when the govt can illegally tap your phones without a warrant or suspend Habeus Corpus on thier whim in the name of a war on an idea? What, we're all gonna rise up? I'll believe it when I see it.


Democracy is the belief that the common people know what kind of government they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

stoky
October 20, 2006, 12:05 PM
Our complaints of the GOP and NRA are legitimate, but not in context since it isn't rational to be unhappy that just 2 years after the AWB expiration, that we haven't repealed the 1986 machinegun ban or the 1989 import ban. Think about that.

Would those happen to be the bans imposed by a Republican administration, laying the foundation for the AWB?
Bill (high roller) Bennett's GOP flag still waves.
http://www.bennettmornings.com/

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 12:22 PM
Gun rights are not the only issue, what good is the RKBA when the govt can illegally tap your phones without a warrant or suspend Habeus Corpus on thier whim in the name of a war on an idea?

+1. It is all part of a larger picture and people can't focus on just one
object in the scene.

-Talk of CCW reciprocity


...and Castle Doctrine laws....both of which I might note have sometimes been
signed into laws under democrat governors in their respective states.
Another factor are State AGs who are appointed by democrats who
are really not anti-2A in practice. If anything, they are very careful about
that considering they may try to run for higher office in the future.

However, at the Federal level when it comes to chipping away at the 2A
one party uses a sledge hammer and the other uses a wrecking ball.

Zundfolge
October 20, 2006, 12:49 PM
Translation: Let's just hang here and tread water instead of swimming to shore.
The LP isn't capable of winning, let alone starting that swim toward shore.

Thats the big problem with the LP ... they still can't get it through their heads that the Greens have a better chance of landing a candidate in higher office and that by splitting the pro-liberty vote between Republicans and Libertarians we do nothing but put Democrats in office.

The only way we'll see large scale implementation of libertarian ideals is if they are pushed by people with (R) after their name, because we damn sure aren't going to see the DNC support freedom (other than freedom to hate America, offend Christians and to stick it in what/whomever you want).

.38 Special
October 20, 2006, 01:01 PM
The problem with continuing to vote Republican is that your vote supports not only RKBA but also war in Iraq, increased taxes, huge new spending programs, expanding entitlements, and a government that is growing at a rate faster than at any time since WWII.

Which is fine if you support all those things yourself. For those of us who don't, it's a problem.

I was a single issue voter for a long time, and the Repubs got my vote because I agreed with a lot of their stuff (small government, lower taxes, economic conservatism) while the Dems were pretty clearly opposite that. Now it's getting pretty hard to tell the difference between the two, and I'm having a hard time with being a single-issue voter.

So for me it's no longer a choice between the lesser of evils, it's a vote between two almost equal -- and often indistinguishable -- evils. I guess one way to look at it is that, well, as long as I'm voting for evil, I may as well pick the evil that lets me keep my guns.

Another way to look at it is "Hell with this. I'm voting Libertarian."

miko
October 20, 2006, 01:10 PM
I don't, I was also shocked to see Ron Paul, who votes against most everything as being "unconstitutional", only got a B+.

Ron Paul was against the federal legislation that would interfere with states' anti-gun legislation.

While Ron Paul is clearly "pro-gun", he is also pro-state's rights.
He does not believe it is proper to right some wrongs by allowing the central government usurp yet more power.

miko

jlbraun
October 20, 2006, 01:19 PM
I'll just throw this in here: Range voting breaks the two-party stranglehold. Rate candidates 1-10, as many candidates as you like. Highest score wins.

www.rangevoting.org

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 02:33 PM
The LP isn't capable of winning, let alone starting that swim toward shore.

That's the problem, you say we can't get to shore by swimming because it's too far so don't bother trying, I say we can't get to shore because we're not trying. You say the LP isn't capable of winning an election because no one votes for them (obviously), I say if enough people voted for them, they'd win an election. You cannot possibly be saying that even if enough people voted Libertarian they still wouldn't win an election, that's illogical.

They're only incapable of winning because to many people are afraid to swim. That's an issue with the people, not the party.


Thats the big problem with the LP ... they still can't get it through their heads that the Greens have a better chance of landing a candidate in higher office and that by splitting the pro-liberty vote between Republicans and Libertarians we do nothing but put Democrats in office.

So they should just get out of the way then? To hell with their pro-liberty views, right, let's just all vote Republican and get bigger government and the erosion of our rights just as much as we'd get from the big D's, just in different areas. Yeah, that sounds like a great alternative, fear mongering over a doomsday "The Democrats will win the House and the Presidential Election" is a good scare tactic to keep people voting for your party, but it's hardly a solution to the problem that both the GOP and The Democrats stink to high heaven these days.


The only way we'll see large scale implementation of libertarian ideals is if they are pushed by people with (R) after their name, because we damn sure aren't going to see the DNC support freedom (other than freedom to hate America, offend Christians and to stick it in what/whomever you want).


That's a nice thought, but it's not gonna happen. The R's aren't about liberty, they just want a different piece of the People's Pie than the Dems do.

We're given a choice between one side infringing on our liberties and another side doing the same, just in different areas or ways, and your position is that we should try and change one of the parties and vote for them than to abandon them as a whole and vote for the party that actually supports our beliefs?

That's like telling your best friend to marry the chick that won't let him out of the house without her with him, makes him go to the church that she chooses, invades his privacy and snoops through his mail, listens to his phone calls and reads his e-mails just because she says she won't make him get rid of his guns because it's better than the bisexual chick that wants to spend all of his money while she doesn't work, won't let him hunt or hike and would make him get rid of his guns. To me, that's not a choice, that's a suicide pact with an idiot.

Me, I'll stay single as long as I have to in order to find the girl that respects the both of us enough to recognize that we're both free individuals in a partnership and values that as much as or above anything else. Fortunately enough for me, I’ve already found her, and even if she never agrees to marry me, I'd rather spend my time in a fruitless effort towards freedom than a successful endeavor of servitude.


When exercising the right to vote in this country became more about picking a winner than being active in the political process and making our voices heard, we started going downhill faster than any speedometer was capable of calculating, and the Democratic and Republican bookies are cashing in at the track and laughing all the way to the bank while we sit with our programs in hand like imbeciles with empty pockets cheering our horse on long after we’ve run out of money to make a bet.

Zundfolge
October 20, 2006, 02:41 PM
That's a nice thought, but it's not gonna happen. The R's aren't about liberty, they just want a different piece of the People's Pie than the Dems do.
That my friends is the "Big Lie" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie) told by the leftist run MSM (and bought hook, line and sinker by tons of libertarian minded people and the LP) to divide the freedom loving people.

The RLC is fighting to "libertarianize" the GOP ... I believe our efforts to turn the GOP into a more libertarian party are going to bear much more fruit than trying to get members of the LP into office.

The problem with continuing to vote Republican is that your vote supports not only RKBA but also war in Iraq, increased taxes, huge new spending programs, expanding entitlements, and a government that is growing at a rate faster than at any time since WWII.
Its the Democrats that are going to increase taxes, not the Republicans. Democrats will create huge new spending programs, expand entitlements and grow government if they get into power ... I know the DNC ads running right now try to make it look like the GOP have become "tax and spenders" but replacing them with Democrats isn't going to make the situation better.

Pushing the GOP back toward libertarianism is what will actually get libertarian ideals implemented.

Changing the GOP will be easier than changing the entire government (especially if its run by the DNC). And realistically its our only option ... the LP will NEVER get enough votes to win anything significant because despite the fact that libertarianism IS right, most Americans don't want liberty, they want security.

The only way for libertarian ideals to win the day is to ride in on either Trojan Donkey or Trojan Elephant (and the Donkey ain't havin' it ... at least parts of the GOP are open to libertarianism).


Ron Paul has led the way, all we need to do is follow.

ArmedBear
October 20, 2006, 02:44 PM
I recall reading that the NRA says that it likes nearly all Libertarians.

However, NRA is about achieving specific legislative and judicial goals, not playing third-party games.

And +10 Zundfolge

Zundfolge
October 20, 2006, 02:54 PM
When exercising the right to vote in this country became more about picking a winner than being active in the political process and making our voices heard, we started going downhill faster than any speedometer was capable of calculating.

The thing that Libertarians just don't get is if you don't win, nobody (in government) gives a damn about "your voice".

Do you honestly think that if Democrats win because of a bunch of Libertarians that they are going to go "wow, those Libertarians seem to have a lot of support, lets abandon our anti-gun, anti-property rights, large government nanny state agenda in favor of theirs because we'll pick up a few dozen votes (even though it will cost us thousands).

Hell, the GOP (which is half way there when it comes to libertarianism) doesn't pay attention to votes it loses to the LP.

The Libertarian Party is a wonderful dream, but its just a dream.


Now if we could implement jlbraun's Range Voting ... then you'd have a point that about the voices of the losers being heard.

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 03:01 PM
Big lie? The KGB had a term for people that would say such things in the face of what's really going on in the country today, "useful idiots". And no, it doesn't mean that I think you're stupid or that I'm trying to insult you, but you so blindly believe in "the party" that you're ignoring the raging fire in your face.

Let's look at this so-called "Big Lie":


4th Amendment: Wiretaps without warrants, federal intrusion into internet traffic, e-mails, library records and whatever else they deem necessary with not checks and balances on their actions unless they get caught.

5th Amendment: The practical suspension of our coveted Habeas Corpus with no access to an attorney, the right to be tortured, coerced and intimidated into incriminating yourself .

6th Amendment: Being held indefinitely, without having your right to a trial preserved or acknowledged.

7th Amendment: The Right to trial by jury is replaced with a so-called "military tribunal" if the FedGod sees fit.

8th Amendment: Torture, 'nuff said.

Do I need to go on?


Zundy, perhaps we're not gonna find some common ground here, and I don't particularly think you're interested in the discussion so much as professing your beliefs and your party line, so maybe you and I should cut our losses while we're breaking even? Something to consider.

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 03:07 PM
Zundefolge, explain the Democratic line easing up on gun control after so many democrats lost office (via lost votes) based on their support of the AWB. Sure, the hardliners like Boxer or Kennedy didn't ease up, but now we have a number of pro-gun democrats speaking out and getting A ratings from the NRA and the GOA).

Politics is a numbers game, if either side loses enough votes, their priorities shift (easing their stance, hardening their line, or dropping the issue altogether for the time being), to claim otherwise is to fail to see the workings of politics for what they are, popularity contests. Which is why the Libertarians don't even need to win to inflict change into the system, they just need to make enough of a showing to scare the powers that be into really reconsidering their stances.


I presume the Red State Kool-Aid is Cherry flavored...I like Cherry. :)

miko
October 20, 2006, 03:25 PM
I say if enough people voted for them, they'd win an election. You cannot possibly be saying that even if enough people voted Libertarian they still wouldn't win an election, that's illogical.

They're only incapable of winning because to many people are afraid to swim. That's an issue with the people, not the party.

Faulty assumptions. You think that most people in the US are afraid to act for liberty.

I say that most people in the US are not in the least interested in liberty for themsleves and certainly not in allowing liberty to others. That's a fact - plain as day. Realistic people should be preparing their families to ride out the inavitable downfall and rebuild the society, not engage in pointless musings.

If majority of the population were likely to vote libertarian, there would not be any need for libertarians to engage in politics.

miko

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 03:28 PM
I say that most people in the US are not in the least interested in liberty for themsleves and certainly not in allowing liberty to others.

I agree with that point, but that wasn't a can of worms I wanted to open here, I already did it in a 'criminals and guns' type thread. ;)

ilbob
October 20, 2006, 03:44 PM
The LP has already failed to become anything even remotely approaching mainstream. If it wants to be a viable political party it needs to start at a local level. get a few hundred/thousand candidates elected in each state. dog catcher, alderman, school board, state legislators. These are all doable.

Then you pick the candidates that are the best politicians from among this pool and run them for higher office like governor and us house and senate seats. In 20 or 30 years you might have the infrastructure for a serious run at the white house.

IMO, the LP has exhausted itself running mediocre candidates for president, and neglected what they would do if they actually won. With NO LP members in the house or senate, it would be very difficult to govern.

My personal opinion is they would be better off dissolving the party and becoming a force for liberty in the republican party. Ron Paul did this when he returned to the republican party. There is a small but maybe growing group called the republican liberty coalition that is essentially trying this angle. I hope they succeed.

I have but three things against the LP. First is their total inability to come up with anything approaching a coherent abortion plank. They basically just avoid the issue. The problem with this is that there are going to be troublesome issues that crop up from time to time, and you can't just avoid them.

The second thing is their rather odd stance that we should just pull back to our borders and wait for our enemies to attack us here rather than stopping them elsewhere. this tactic has been tried by many countries in the past and every time it has ultimately resulted in defeat.

The last thing is their desire for completely open borders. This is something I just cannot understand at all. The idea that we can bring in hundreds of millions of aliens and not have it negatively impact the country is just ludicrous, both economically and culturally. Bring in those that want to become Americans. The rest can stay where they are.

miko
October 20, 2006, 04:17 PM
If you ask most libertarians (small 'l'), they will tell you that the Libertarian party is mostly a bunch of clowns, misguided individuals or frauds. The political activity of such people in most cases contradicts the libertarian philosophy.


The second thing is their rather odd stance that we should just pull back to our borders and wait for our enemies to attack us here rather than stopping them elsewhere.
That’s not true. A libertarian government would not prevent you from taking your rifle, buying a ticket and going to Iraq or wherever else you deem necessary.


The last thing is their desire for completely open borders. This is something I just cannot understand at all.
Hmm… In libertarian society, the borders of your private property would be sacred and inviolate – against Mexicans or anyone else you have not invited – even the government itself.
It is none of your business to dictate to others who they should be allowed to invite on their private property. If you disagree with that, you are opposed to the very idea of libertarianism, and individual right - not just “but three things”.

miko

Zundfolge
October 20, 2006, 04:44 PM
Let's look at this so-called "Big Lie":


4th Amendment: Wiretaps without warrants, federal intrusion into internet traffic, e-mails, library records and whatever else they deem necessary with not checks and balances on their actions unless they get caught.

5th Amendment: The practical suspension of our coveted Habeas Corpus with no access to an attorney, the right to be tortured, coerced and intimidated into incriminating yourself .

6th Amendment: Being held indefinitely, without having your right to a trial preserved or acknowledged.

7th Amendment: The Right to trial by jury is replaced with a so-called "military tribunal" if the FedGod sees fit.

8th Amendment: Torture, 'nuff said.

Do I need to go on?
Take all that and add a disdain for gun rights, property rights, religious freedom and the free market and you have the Democrats ... if you believe they wouldn't have done everything that Bush has done vis a ve the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, etc then you're the one who's drinking the Koolaid.

Zundefolge, explain the Democratic line easing up on gun control after so many democrats lost office (via lost votes) based on their support of the AWB.
Simple THEY ARE LYING. Democrats never "saw the light" on gun control (if you define seeing the light as realizing that gun control is a bad idea) they just pretended to no longer be rabid supporters of gun control because they know it will just cause people to vote against them. I guarantee you if the Democrats get control of even one body of the legislature they will be back on, full throttle with the gun control.

...the Libertarians don't even need to win to inflict change into the system, they just need to make enough of a showing to scare the powers that be into really reconsidering their stances.
And that is my problem with the LP, they aren't ever going to make enough of a showing. National politics (hell, even local politics) is a blood sport, its WIN or LOSE, no shade of gray in the middle. The only way ANY Libertarian will EVER have a serious impact on the system is when they follow Ron Paul's lead and register as Republicans.

Big lie? The KGB had a term for people that would say such things in the face of what's really going on in the country today, "useful idiots". And no, it doesn't mean that I think you're stupid or that I'm trying to insult you, but you so blindly believe in "the party" that you're ignoring the raging fire in your face.
At the risk of sounding childish; right back at ya!

You seem to be blindliy believing in the LP ... and I would say that the LP and the "Cut and Run Republicans" are the DNC's "useful idiots" in this case.

I don't know what flavor the Libertarian Party Koolaid is, but I bet its spiked with Tequila. :p

ArmedBear
October 20, 2006, 04:59 PM
if you believe they wouldn't have done everything that Bush has done vis a ve the Patriot Act, Wiretapping, etc then you're the one who's drinking the Koolaid.


Actually, they DID that stuff, and furthermore, apparently they passed on wiretap info to campaign contributors who could profit from it. Echelon. Much uglier than listening to people talking to suspected Al Qaeda operatives overseas. Much, much uglier.

Gitmo vs. Waco? I'll take Gitmo in a heartbeat. We actually benefit from what's going on at Gitmo, though frankly I think that most of the guys in there should have been quietly disposed of before they were brought out of Afghanistan and elsewhere.

See, those are real choices, from the real world. Waco, or Gitmo. Nixon's legacy, or Carter's. Reagan's, or Mondale's. Bush or Gore, Bush or Kerry, Goldwater or Johnson. Those were real choices. Jesus wasn't running, Thomas Paine wasn't running; Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Ayn Rand WERE NOT RUNNING.

Voting for the Libertarian candidate, much as I like most of them (the ones that don't support gun control anyway, and there ARE some who do because they are all about legalizing pot, not self-defense), is not a real world choice. The candidate with 45% has no influence whatsoever on what happens during the next term. Do you think the candidate with .45% will?

There's more to politics than ideological purity.

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 05:02 PM
For the record, I vote the candidate, not the platform. I don't blindly believe in anything, I can see each side of the issue and I'll vote Democrat, Republican or whoever depending on who it is and what their voting record happens to be.

You, on the other hand, say things like:

Simple THEY ARE LYING. Democrats never "saw the light" on gun control (if you define seeing the light as realizing that gun control is a bad idea) they just pretended to no longer be rabid supporters of gun control because they know it will just cause people to vote against them. I guarantee you if the Democrats get control of even one body of the legislature they will be back on, full throttle with the gun control.


...which leads me to believe that you're simply ignorant of the number of pro-gun or mostly pro-gun Democrats (no, not those that simply got quiet about it, those that are actually pro-gun that get A ratings from the NRA and the GOA) that are out there. Perhaps you should put down the Republican playbook and actually see how people on both sides of the fence in all levels of government are voting...you'll either ignore it or be surprised...do you like surprises?

I used to be just like you, until I actually took a look around and realized I didn't know what I thought I knew, because the playbook didn't tell me everything, it only told me everything they wanted me to think.

And to be honest, your remarks that the D's are against "religious freedom" and "property rights" shows just how far off the mark the Republicans have you.

Cries about religious freedom coming from a Republican, that's rich...I guess religious freedom means free to follow whatever denomination of Christianity you happen to be and hang Christian-related articles of Dogma in state or federally funded buildings. Oh, and the Jewish stuff of course, can't forget the Jews, they're "the other religion".

Zundfolge
October 20, 2006, 05:09 PM
And to be honest, your remarks that the D's are against "religious freedom" and "property rights" shows just how far off the mark the Republicans have you.

Cries about religious freedom coming from a Republican, that's rich...I guess religious freedom means free to follow whatever denomination of Christianity you happen to be and hang Christian-related articles of Dogma in state or federally funded buildings. Oh, and the Jewish stuff of course, can't forget the Jews, they're "the other religion".
Now you're just spouting DNC talking points.

The Vast majority of Republicans believe in freedom of religion, any religion, whereas much of the DNC (and an alarming number of Libertarians) believe freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion ... in other words, religious people (especially Christians) should be barred from speaking in public lest they make an agnostic uncomfortable ... they believe the official state religion should be atheism. And we should pretend Christianity never existed.

And Democrats are CLEARLY and deeply opposed to property rights ... oh sure you have the right to "own" property (as long as you're really just renting it from the state via confiscatory property taxes) and you can do whatever you want with your property as long as THEY (and the Sierra Club) approve.

...which leads me to believe that you're simply ignorant of the number of pro-gun or mostly pro-gun Democrats
Who will be slienced by their party (and never put in a position where they can effect the battle over gun control) or who will abandon their pro-gun or mostly pro-gun views so they can get in good graces with the party power structure.

Where are all these pro-gun Democrats? What committees are they on? Lots of Democrats start out with pro-gun views and then we see their names on the rolls voting for AWB extensions and .50BMG bans.

No-sir, a pro-gun Democrat will either have to change his tune or the party will end their career.



I doubt we're going to find common ground here because its pretty clear you believe that Republicans are worse for America and the cause of liberty than Democrats (or at least you don't believe the Democrats are any more of a threat)... and anyone who believes that is just to far removed from where I am to find common ground.

I will give you this, if I thought the LP had even a snowball's chance in getting anywhere I'd throw my support behind them 110%

ArmedBear
October 20, 2006, 05:21 PM
And to be honest, your remarks that the D's are against "religious freedom" and "property rights" shows just how far off the mark the Republicans have you.

"Religious freedom" is a matter of perspective. I'm not big on either party, there.

But if you think the Democrats support private property rights, I want to see some evidence. I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Even the "libertarian" Democrat equivalent of the RLC, the DFC, specifically does not support private property rights. http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/

There may be pro-gun Democrats, though Zell Miller won't be in office again. Lieberman just backed down after '94. He's not PRO-gun or anything. Name a pro-gun Democrat with influence. There aren't any from MY state, or many of the other states with electoral votes or big campaign dollars.


I will give you this, if I thought the LP had even a snowball's chance in getting anywhere I'd throw my support behind them 110%

I've thrown my support there 110%, becuse I thought we had a snowball's chance here locally -- so did NPR, BTW -- and we fell flat on our faces. Our candidate, a well-known local figure, got so few votes that I probably knew most of the voters who cast them, at least in passing, in a city of 1.3 million people.

This is not about whether I like the LP. It's about whether I want our government to be more or less palatable IN MY LIFETIME, without me or my family having to die on the barricades for it. Got any kids, NineseveN?

Gordon Fink
October 20, 2006, 05:22 PM
I wonder how well Libertarians might do at the polls if the NRA endorsed one from time to time.

~G. Fink

Zundfolge
October 20, 2006, 05:27 PM
I wonder how well Libertarians might do at the polls if the NRA endorsed one from time to time.
In reality I'd say it wouldn't help them at all (and I don't think an NRA endorsement really does anything for GOP candidates either).

I think an NRA endorsement might help a Democrat get a few votes they wouldn't otherwise get (but it might hurt them too).



But the NRA endorsements really aren't meant to help the candidates ... they are meant to help the NRA. They endorse candidates they think will win and they get to claim they endorsed X number of members of the current congress.

Gordon Fink
October 20, 2006, 05:29 PM
Oh, so the NRA is basically useless? Never mind then.

~G. Fink

ArmedBear
October 20, 2006, 05:32 PM
Correction. There ARE pro-gun Democrats in California, just nowhere near me. The NRA endorses them.

http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?State=CA

WRT NRA-endorsed Libertarians, Gordon, that's a Catch-22.

Where Libertarians might have a chance, say, in the Mountain West, Republicans are generally very libertarian-leaning, so there's the least benefit.

If we're talking about a Libertarian vs. Bilbray and Busby, well, I'd love to see it. But I don't think we have a chance here, from personal experience, and an NRA endorsement might just get enough people to split the vote and hand the election to the "greater evil", from the libertarian and gun-rights perspectives.

It's not an easy, or comfortable, game.:o

ArmedBear
October 20, 2006, 05:35 PM
Oh, so the NRA is basically useless? Never mind then.

Not worthy of your superior, subtle mind, there, Gordon.:p

A radio commercial might influence one to choose Pepsi over Coke at the gas station. However, it probably won't get them to do something they never would, like drink battery acid. That's why lots of money is spent advertising Pepsi and Coke, but none is spent on trying to get people to drink sulfuric acid. That hardly means that advertising is a waste of money.

But surely you knew that.

miko
October 20, 2006, 06:03 PM
A radio commercial might influence one to choose Pepsi over Coke at the gas station. However, it probably won't get them to do something they never would, like drink battery acid.

How about fluoride? Most of us just have to consume that potentially harmfull and certainly usefull by-product of industrial processes because the governments mandate it in our drinking water based on questionable evidence - but many of us do buy fluoridated toothpaste, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

miko

DerringerUser
October 20, 2006, 06:52 PM
The problem with continuing to vote Republican is that your vote supports not only RKBA but also war in Iraq, increased taxes, huge new spending programs, expanding entitlements, and a government that is growing at a rate faster than at any time since WWII.

Which is fine if you support all those things yourself. For those of us who don't, it's a problem.

I was a single issue voter for a long time, and the Repubs got my vote because I agreed with a lot of their stuff (small government, lower taxes, economic conservatism) while the Dems were pretty clearly opposite that. Now it's getting pretty hard to tell the difference between the two, and I'm having a hard time with being a single-issue voter.

So for me it's no longer a choice between the lesser of evils, it's a vote between two almost equal -- and often indistinguishable -- evils. I guess one way to look at it is that, well, as long as I'm voting for evil, I may as well pick the evil that lets me keep my guns.

Another way to look at it is "Hell with this. I'm voting Libertarian."

I agree, although i dont blame the republican party for some of these things. I blame Bush and his administration for suspending Habeus Corpus, Making Geneva conventions optional, going to war for a stupid reason, and other things that have torn this country apart. Republicans are usually smarter than that, so im not blaming them for all of this, as i know many Repubs and Conservatives who dont support Bush.

ArmedBear
October 20, 2006, 07:56 PM
How about fluoride?

Oh, AWESOME!

Only 4 pages, and we've already gotten to Flouride. It must be election season (which is a lot sexier in Japan, I assure you).

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 08:34 PM
The Vast majority of Republicans believe in freedom of religion, any religion, whereas much of the DNC (and an alarming number of Libertarians) believe freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion ... in other words, religious people (especially Christians) should be barred from speaking in public lest they make an agnostic uncomfortable ... they believe the official state religion should be atheism. And we should pretend Christianity never existed.

Ah, but the amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…it does not say ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a specific religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, because it means, any religion, which means no religion. So yes, the First Amendment does encompass freedom from religion.

A portion of the Conservative Republican platform revolves around religious-centric values, abortion, the death penalty etc…there’s a reason someone coined the phrase, “The Religious Right”. Either you’re embarrassed to admit that, or you’re really missing the boat.

I’ve never seen a mainstream Democratic bill that would outlaw the free expression of religion as it relates to private citizens, only in state or federally funded institutions or services. No who’s talking party-line talking points? Come on man, read what you’re posting.

And as minor point of interest, talking about religion in public wouldn’t make an “Agnostic” uncomfortable, we tend to think religious folks are just as odd as Atheists…people pretending to know that which they cannot to the point that they feel they can decide how others should feel is often comical to us, so long as the government isn’t saying that one way or the other.


Who will be slienced by their party (and never put in a position where they can effect the battle over gun control) or who will abandon their pro-gun or mostly pro-gun views so they can get in good graces with the party power structure.

Where are all these pro-gun Democrats? What committees are they on? Lots of Democrats start out with pro-gun views and then we see their names on the rolls voting for AWB extensions and .50BMG bans.

No-sir, a pro-gun Democrat will either have to change his tune or the party will end their career.


I count at least 42 democrats in the PA State house that have A- ratings or better from the NRA.

I count 22 that have a rating of 92 or better from the GOA (2 in the State Senate, the rest in the State House).

In current races here in PA, the only data available last month shows that in the popular elections here in PA this coming November, only one candidate received an A from the NRA and voted favorable to the GOA at least 75% of the time on gun issues, and that was Murtha, a Democrat. New data is out now, though I haven’t had a chance to view it yet.

I’m not going to go through all 50 states for you at both the state and Federal level, I did that earlier this year for my own benefit and the results were not very supportive of your stance here. I can pretty much guarantee that there are hundreds of A-rated democrats from the NRA in politics and at least 150 rated very favorably by the GOA (as their rating are a bit more strict).

In order to get these ratings (which can be flawed), generally a politician has to show a pretty consistent record (at least over the last so many years) that supports that rating. They don’t get it by voting pro-gun only once.

So there goes your talking points. I think it’s best if we just let our discussion go, I can’t really discuss something with someone that ignores data and evidence and is being disingenuous with their summation of the reality of the situation.

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 08:42 PM
Here ya go, this'll make your quest for knowledge a little easier:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=001639B
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004054M


Have fun...and if you really want to get down into the dirty, do a state search for each individual state and the respective gun rights groups. :cool:

ArmedBear
October 20, 2006, 08:43 PM
I count at least 42 democrats in the PA State house that have A- ratings or better from the NRA.


PA is the exception, not the rule. That said, voting for the Democrat when you think that certain Democrat is a good choice is, of course, a good idea IMO.

So yes, the First Amendment does encompass freedom from religion.

Sure. But it depends on what you mean. I am not religious. However, there's nothing in the First Amendment that suggest that my Constitutional rights include being "protected" from having to see/hear/smell anything having to do with religion, any more than a born-again Christian has the right to be insulated from the sight/sound/smell of an atheist.

Juna
October 20, 2006, 08:51 PM
Given what people have been saying about how the two party system goes on until one party majorly screws up, and then a third party has the opportunity to step in--wouldn't now be a good time for Libertarians? Don't get me wrong, I view the Reps as the lesser of the two evils over the Dems, but the Reps have gotten nothing but bad press since W has been in office. I'm not saying I agree with the liberal media; on the contrary, I can't stand the anti crap that gets shoved down our throat in every medium.

But I do think that both the Reps & Dems have lost sight of the Constitution long ago and now are nothing more than large corporations competing for power. How do they get power? By getting a majority vote. How do they get that? They try to say what they think the majority of people will want to hear. It's all a bunch of BS and lies.

So why not the Libertarians now? Amidst the media frenzy over the latest Republican scandals, Libertarians could get numbers up. I'm not saying they could win this election. I don't live in a dream world. But I do agree with whoever said that if enough people "throw away" their vote to Libertarians, it sends a message. Then maybe next time around more people will do the same. I know that people will say the down side is that the Dems would win for sure if we all vote Libertarian, but at the same time it's hard to not vote for someone who you think is what this country needs only to keep someone else out of office. I can see it both ways, though. I'd hate to see an ambulance chaser like Edwards, or worse yet Hilary, in office. Man, this is a tough one.

Thoughts? Just was thinking this stuff as I was reading about the two party system stuff.

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 08:55 PM
ArmedBear, it means that we all have the same protection against the Government passing a law establishing any religion (or any group of religions or religious edicts, decrees, laws or whatever) whatsoever...it has nothing to do with the conduct of private citizens or being offended.

billwiese
October 20, 2006, 09:30 PM
NRA doesn't disrespect Libertarians, it just doesn't find them useful to the cause.

George Will put it best (approximate quote): "The problem with Libertarian candidates is that they all look like high school algebra teachers trying to privatize the sidewalk."

Aside of the practical fears of voters 'throwing away the vote' (which Ron Paul must agree with a bit, as he changed to a Republican), most of the Libertarian candidates I've seen seem to rant & rave a bit too much to be acceptable. You don't see too many sharp suits or shined shoes in this crowd, they're not always clean-shaven, and they scare away some folks with talk of drug legalization. (Sure, the War on Some Drugs is lost, useless, money-wasting, and every DEA agent needs to be in the unemployment line, but it doesn't have to be a prime plank in your platform, it scares soccer mommies.)

Libertarians appear to try to garner mid-level and upper-level offices when what they really need to do is remember Tip O'Neill's mantra, "all politics is local" and get jobs on the school board, city council, harbor commission, etc.

They'll learn a lot about ground politics that way, and the essence of "how to win".

I am sure the NRA would back a libertarian in the right setting. But they're not gonna throw their support to a likely non-winner instead of a winner they can reward/punish in the future.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

johnsonrlp
October 20, 2006, 09:36 PM
It seems to me like some people feel that even though they agree with the LP platform and candidates they would rather vote for GOP candidates or Dems because the Libertarians will never win. I hate to break it to you but if you all keep thinking that you'll definately be right. Well, I suppose 90% percent of the population could feel the same way and the LP will never win. The only way they will get MORE votes is by getting SOME votes. Then more and more. Eventually I think a vast majority will see the light. I refuse to vote any party line or any single issue. I vote for people I agree with. I'm glad I don't have a defeatist attitude.

Juna
October 20, 2006, 09:44 PM
I refuse to vote any party line or any single issue. I vote for people I agree with.

I agree. I vote based on where they stand on the issues that are most important to me. I don't align 100% with any political party. I have a hard time believing anyone truly does agree 100% with any political party on every issue. On key issues, yes, but on every issue... doubtful.

johnster999
October 20, 2006, 09:52 PM
Libertarian candidates do better when they switch over to Republicans.

auschip
October 20, 2006, 10:44 PM
The only way they will get MORE votes is by getting SOME votes. Then more and more. Eventually I think a vast majority will see the light. I refuse to vote any party line or any single issue. I vote for people I agree with. I'm glad I don't have a defeatist attitude.

So how many elections do you think it would be appropriate to lose in your quest for more votes? I like the idea of the Libertarian party, but they don't run electable people. Just how many of you folks ever talked to Badnarik? I wouldn't trust that guy to get lunch, let alone run the country.

jnojr
October 20, 2006, 11:31 PM
Wonder what would happen if a Libertarian managed to get 22% of the vote, even if they lost...what happens next election?

This is exactly why I'm going to vote for Art Olivier for Governor of California. Schwarzenegger is going to win... but what happens if enough people are turned off by his treachery on illegal immigration and his reversal of policy after his poorly-planned 2005 special election backfired on him? What happens if the Libertarian candidate captures a few more percentage points? What happens if more people become aware of the Libertarian party, and join, volunteer, donate, etc?

This country would be a heck of a lot better off with most Democrats and an awful lot of Republicans out of office.

Mayo
October 20, 2006, 11:53 PM
I'm not voting for the Republicans, I'm voting AGAINST the Liberals!:D

Silver Bullet
October 20, 2006, 11:55 PM
So they should just get out of the way then? To hell with their pro-liberty views, right, let's just all vote Republican and get bigger government and the erosion of our rights just as much as we'd get from the big D's, just in different areas.

Why can’t Libertarians infiltrate the Republican Party and leverage off their money, name recognition, and political apparatus ? Isn’t that what the socialists did with the Democrats ?

telomerase
October 21, 2006, 12:02 AM
There are 2 main criteria for getting an endorsement from the NRA.

1) you have to be pro gun (likely have to score an "A")
2) you have to be able (and for that matter likely) to win.

Actually they have been known to forget about rule 1. They gave money to Martin Frost back in the early 1990s, a very anti-gun Democrat. He won that election all right, ironically right as the Republicans started to take over Texas. AFTER the Republicans started to win in that area, then the NRA gave them money.

Lobbyists like to look like they have power even when they don't.

telomerase
October 21, 2006, 12:05 AM
Why can’t Libertarians infiltrate the Republican Party and leverage off their money, name recognition, and political apparatus ? Isn’t that what the socialists did with the Democrats ?

That is what the Socialists did with the Democrats. However, they did it by promising to deliver subsidies to campaign contributors. Libertarians can only promise to reduce the burden on the average taxpayer... so until the average taxpayer starts getting their ideas somewhere other than TV, there's no ecological niche for an anti-corporate-welfare party.

(But you're still right, the rules are set up for two parties. The LP, Constitution, etc. parties waste most of their effort just getting on the ballots. It's easier to get a party on the ballot in Russia.)

Panthera Tigris
October 21, 2006, 12:51 AM
Continues to tank? That assumes it is tanking currently, which I just don't see

Did the place where you worked for over 20 years, and thought you were going to retire from, suddenly shut you down DUE TO THE ECONOMY and kick you out the door, forcing you to take a job making just over minimum wage?


Don't tell me the economy's not tanking. More and more people are losing their jobs. 1,000 more in my city due to supermarkets closing DUE TO THE ECONOMY.

Mayo
October 21, 2006, 01:17 AM
Don't tell me the economy's not tanking. More and more people are losing their jobs. 1,000 more in my city due to supermarkets closing DUE TO THE ECONOMY.

For you personally, maybe. For the nation as a whole, sorry not the case. In fact it is extremely good at the time being. The market has hit an all time high of over 12,000, unemployment is near record lows, gas prices have plummetted, home ownership is at an all time high, and mortgage rates which are near all time lows are going lower.
Just exactly which part of the economy in the nation caused your local supermarkets to close?

Zundfolge
October 21, 2006, 01:29 AM
Why can’t Libertarians infiltrate the Republican Party and leverage off their money, name recognition, and political apparatus ?

http://www.rlc.org


Did the place where you worked for over 20 years, and thought you were going to retire from, suddenly shut you down DUE TO THE ECONOMY and kick you out the door, forcing you to take a job making just over minimum wage?
Businesses (sometimes big ones) close all the time, just because you lost your job doesn't mean the rest of the economy is in the toilet ... there are people who got rich in the depression of the '30s and people who lost it all in the boom of the '80s.

Overall the current economy is one of the strongest in human history.

RealGun
October 21, 2006, 11:00 AM
Why can’t Libertarians infiltrate the Republican Party and leverage off their money, name recognition, and political apparatus ?

First of all, they would need to be little L libertarians. Until the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) gets off this thing about conferencing separately and having a platform that is verbatim LP, they don't get it.

stoky
October 21, 2006, 11:40 AM
Republicans regard humanity as naturally evil and depraved,
thus requiring government control.
Democrats regard humanity as naturally selfish and greedy,
thus requiring government control.
The common thread here would be control.
Republicans have hade control of the legislature since 1994. We now have the highest non military discretionary spending in history, replete with a 148 billion dollar no child's behind left out of a government school brainwashing and a 40 billion dollar war on some drugs. Bush said he would sign an AWB renewal, and if the dems get control of congress he will probably do so.
We have replaced the Constitution with a fallacious right to feel safe.
There is no viable conservative choice in the two party system. Saying the Republicans are a better alternative than the Democrats means that we need a better alternative.

RealGun
October 21, 2006, 11:43 AM
Saying the Republicans are a better alternative than the Democrats means that we need a better alternative.

But you don't have one. It is those who pretend they do that can cause unintended consequences.

auschip
October 21, 2006, 11:59 AM
Did the place where you worked for over 20 years, and thought you were going to retire from, suddenly shut you down DUE TO THE ECONOMY and kick you out the door, forcing you to take a job making just over minimum wage?


Don't tell me the economy's not tanking. More and more people are losing their jobs. 1,000 more in my city due to supermarkets closing DUE TO THE ECONOMY.

No, but the small company I worked for was purchased by a rather large company and we doubled the total number of employees in my area. Unemployment is falling (5.1% in 2005 and the latest figure for September is 4.6% http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm ).

JohnBT
October 21, 2006, 12:12 PM
"So yes, the First Amendment does encompass freedom from religion."

I see you know very little about Mr. Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and why the same thoughts were later included in the First Amendment.

There are numerous web sites devoted to the historical study of the development of Religious Freedom. It has a great deal to do with preventing the government from demanding religious participation, allowing the church to collect taxes, etc.

John

stoky
October 21, 2006, 12:27 PM
But you don't have one. It is those who pretend they do that can cause unintended consequences.
My alternative is to dissociate my vote from the republicrat dempublican liberal conservative delusion and vote for whomever I perceive as being the most pro freedom candidate I can find.
Unintended consequences?
Maybe things have to get worse before they can get better. :evil:

Dravur
October 21, 2006, 12:47 PM
How weird. the NRA puts its votes behind people who can win. What a concept, put your backing behind the candidate that has a shot at winning and holding the demos at bay.

Sorry, but in today's political clime, the libertarian party has absolutely no chance of winning in the national stage. So, why in the world would I cut off my nose to spite my face?

All of you libertarians are right! we should demand the NRA support every libertarian candidate no matter what! that way, we can give the house and senate to the Demos and really watch our gun rights go down the tubes.

In all seriousness, which would you rather have, Chucky Schumer and Diane Feinformetohaveagunbutnotyoustein running things or the republicans where the rights are not eroding. Sometimes, the lesser of two evils is appropriate. Yes we get some Rinos, but we get to keep chairmanships, etc.

and Stoky....Worse before they get better? Do you see anyone repealing the machine gun ban of 1934? What makes you think a magical white horse will come out and get our rights back after they are gone? Has this happened in Great Britain? Where are the waves of conservatives in GB demanding that they get rights back? When have you ever seen a governemnt grant a right back once they have taken it? no thanks, I think I will fight to preserve my rights before I lose them.

oh, and don't talk to people about the economy.... they know they are right, because they know a third cousin twice removed who was downsized and now is out of a job.....So therefore the economy must suck. You cannot confuse these people with facts. We have created 6.6 million new jobs in the last few years, inflation is low and the housing market has boomed, but whew, Fred Murray doesn't have a job! Hmmmmm, maybe Fred should get a skill that someone wants to pay them for. Tis a dynamic economy, work with it and stop waiting for the government cheese.

johnster999
October 21, 2006, 01:51 PM
It should be obvious that should the LP ever gain real political power they'll end up acting just like the current big two parties.

Power corrupts and yes it'll corrupt libertarians too. There is nothing about the LP that will keep it from going just as bad just as fast. Their ideology won't make any difference. All ideology breaks down in the face of political reality.

Derek Zeanah
October 21, 2006, 01:59 PM
Power corrupts and yes it'll corrupt libertarians too. There is nothing about the LP that will keep it from going just as bad just as fast. Their ideology won't make any difference. All ideology breaks down in the face of political reality.Translation: "Bend over and take it. It doesn't matter who gets elected -- Democrat, Republican, Green, Communist, Nazi -- it's all about the power in the end, and ideology has no effect on behavior once in office."

You really believe that?

.38 Special
October 21, 2006, 02:23 PM
You really believe that?
I think it's pretty close to the truth, though perhaps not for the reasons given.

I believe that ideology has little effect on behavior in office because the only people who get elected are people who desire power over other people -- and people who desire power over other people ought not be trusted.

So the essential trouble is not that Libertarians would abuse power once in office, it's that Libertarians are not likely to hold major office because no real Libertarian desires power over his fellow man.

Short version: people who seek power should not have power, and it's kind of hard to elect people who don't want to be elected.

In my opinion, the present sytem is broken largely due to #1) the idea outlined above and #2) the people have indeed discovered they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

Number two may be fixable, at least theoretically. Number one seems to be a permanent part of the human condition and I haven't the slightest idea what to do about it.

johnster999
October 22, 2006, 12:06 AM
Quote: Your argument.

Translation: Whatever my argument is.

SoCalShooter
October 22, 2006, 12:10 AM
NRA wants to back the winning horse, they have tried and true methods and they stick to them, but it would be nice for them to show the Libertarians more support considering that the only way a new party can get started is for people to endorse it people like GOA or people like the NRA. The Libertarian party is significantly better party for gun owners than the republicans or dems atleast in my opinion.

JohnBT
October 22, 2006, 12:40 AM
What can the Libertarian Party do for me? They can't even consistently win local elections and I'm supposed to believe that they'll be capable of running the country? Based on what practical experience?

I went down that path once upon a time and saw the utter disorganization of the LP in the '70s. Sheesh, what a disappointment.

John

Naked
October 22, 2006, 06:25 PM
Watch a Democrat, Republican, and a Libertarian debating gun control and tell me who NRA should support:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp5K5LBqZt0

Murray B
October 23, 2006, 06:57 PM
There is a great danger that an organization engaged in politics will itself become politicized. It is up to NRA members to insure that it remains a national rights association and not some sort of new Republican advocacy group.

Also there is still the problem of their agreeing to "assault weapon" bans. Who are they to make deals with your rights? How aren't these silly little guns included in the Second Amendment? They are obviously rifles that a "militia" would have. Is the NRA advocating for you or to you?

Watch the NRA carefully and let them know loudly when they stray. If you can't fix the organization then the game will be over in a few decades or less. Once these rights are gone I don't imagine they will be given again no matter how nicely people ask. Better to not lose them in the first place.

auschip
October 23, 2006, 07:10 PM
Also there is still the problem of their agreeing to "assault weapon" bans. Who are they to make deals with your rights? How aren't these silly little guns included in the Second Amendment? They are obviously rifles that a "militia" would have. Is the NRA advocating for you or to you?

Are you suggesting that the NRA supports the AWB? Happen to have a citation for that one?

ArmedBear
October 23, 2006, 07:27 PM
The Libertarian party is significantly better party for gun owners than the republicans

Oh yeah.

Like, there's all that bad legislation that didn't pass because the Libertarians in Congress filibustered it, and the good legislation we now have, thanks to the effective leadership of all the Libertarians in Washington.

What would gun owners do if we had to rely on those damned Republicans and a few stray Democrats to look after our interests? We'd be screwed!

BTW I just bet $10,000 on the San Diego Padres to win the World Series this week. I mean, they're not IN the World Series, but they're my favorite team. I'm a Libertarian haha heehee hoohoo. They're coming to take me away. (I really AM a Libertarian, but I question my own sanity for it.)

JohnBT
October 23, 2006, 09:03 PM
So I Googled 'libertarians in washington' and after scrolling through the Washington state listing I came upon this: http://libertarian.meetup.com/283/?gj=sj5

________________________
Libertarian DC
A libertarian meetup.

Note our backup site:
http://groups.yah... group/ LibertarianMeetupDC/
Location: Washington, DC 38.89-77.03 20004US
Founded: Apr 22, 2006
Member Fee: none Rating: No recent ratings
Members: 37
Meetups: 3 so far
________________________


:) Members: 37

:) Meetups: 3 so far

I know, I know, it doesn't prove anything. OTOH, it would be sad if it wasn't so funny.

John

Panthera Tigris
October 25, 2006, 05:49 AM
Actually, in the last month or so I've seen a couple of articles from economists on different news sites like CNN and MSNBC warning that the world economy may be close to collapsing.

Ignore it all you want, and pretend it isn't there, because the "economic signs" our media feeds us don't want us to know, but a collapse is coming.

Don't Tread On Me
October 25, 2006, 06:16 AM
Actually, in the last month or so I've seen a couple of articles from economists on different news sites like CNN and MSNBC warning that the world economy may be close to collapsing.


Of course you saw that, because Bush and the GOP are in control.


Reminds me of the Reagan days...ABC, NBC, and CBS (all we had back then really)...would run those non-stop soup-line stories. They'd complain about the massive defense spending, then cut right to a story about the homeless. I was young, but I was a geek and I watched the news and I remember. Yet, during Clinton, the poor were buying homes, and the future of mankind looked bright and prosperous.

Check this out.

In the 1990's we had a market boom with a market high. Most of the media attributed this directly to Clinton and his god-like genius. DOW highs were seen in articles and headlines that would imply that the wealth is going to trickle down (how hypocritical being they hated Reagan's trickle down economics).


Fast forward to today. Our market is at an all-time high. It isn't being credited to Bush. Many articles have said things like "Market all time high, most Americans left behind" and to that effect. In other words, market is doing great, but it's only for the rich cronies at the top - but that wasn't the case during the Clinton days :rolleyes:



As if the liberal progressives and their mass-media bias isn't enough, we have the libertarians who are the prophets of doom and the saboteurs of the rightwing.


These guys hate everyone because they aren't a real party and will never gain power so they have to accept their "business model" as appealing to those who are disgusted and choose to disengage from the process and criticize from a distance. They aren't remotely serious about being a political party, but rather offer a service for the pissed off and dejected people who feel betrayed by the corrupt system we have.


Many libertarian sites are constantly discussing this massive economic collapse...but it doesn't come. I guess if you say it for 40-50 years, and when or if it happens, then you can claim you were right :rolleyes:


I am suspect of the libertarians, because for being such free-market types, they seem to hate Republicans a whole lot more than Democrats. The vitriol and the viciousness wasn't as high toward the socialists as it is toward the GOP. Makes you wonder how many of these libertarian sites and organizations are funded by the Democratic Party???

Reading many libertarian sites, many of them were former democrats - not former republicans.


That's a great strategy you know. The GOP did it to the Democrats with the Green Party, but the leftists have woken up and they realized that voting Green is like voting for the GOP. Something libertarians obviously don't get.


Another thing to note is that the leftist progressives have not run away from the Democratic Party...they instead worked on reforming it and now they've taken over it. The Democratic Party isn't your grandfather's Democratic Party (not that it makes them any batter back then, but maybe a little). This is the party of Soros, Michael Moore and all the most nasty socialist mini-Hitlers and Bolsheviks.


Some right wingers would say that with these politics, they'll never win. I disagree, if people always voted on principle, that would hold true, but for some reason the American people feel the need (collectively) to change regardless of the situation because they believe that change is good, even if things are going well. At some point along the line, you have to switch gears, regardless of speed, and not care if you destroy the tranny.


Given that, they will eventually elect these leftist scumbags and they might do it this year.


So in the end, the progressives won. They reformed their party and they've waited it out until they got in. Perhaps we should reform the Republican party, then wait till we get in?


In 1994 and all the years after in which we've handed the GOP victory after victory, we elected the Republican part as-is. We never worked to reform it into a more libertarian minded party. Never. Not one bit. Despite this, they've been pretty darn friendly to the RKBA. Compared to their days in the 1980's.


Maybe we can learn something from these neo-Bolsheviks? Because the way I see it, voting for the Republicans now keeps our RKBA intact as is, but it doesn't move us forward, voting for the libertarians gets us more gun control because we're just handing over the election to the stalinists.

BigG
October 25, 2006, 08:07 AM
I just bet $10,000 on the San Diego Padres to win the World Series this week. I mean, they're not IN the World Series, but they're my favorite team. I'm a Libertarian haha heehee hoohoo.

That for me says it all. :neener: :neener: :neener:

Panthera Tigris
October 25, 2006, 09:40 PM
Not even worth replying to.

vmfrantz
October 25, 2006, 09:51 PM
I dont think the nra has anything against libertarians. I think the just through their support behind a candidaite that had a fighting chance of winning. I.E. I vote for libertarian and constitution paty candidtes at times, but out of all the people in my district, I was one of about 4 people last election.

mike

Art Eatman
October 25, 2006, 09:54 PM
Sorry, vmfrantz, but your post wasn't enough to rescue this thread. :)

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA and Libertarians" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!