PART 3


PDA






Vern Humphrey
February 5, 2007, 03:24 PM
I'm going to get into this debate -- many of us have railed at the original poster, but there are several points we need to make:

1. The election of 2006 was a defeat for us. You can paint it any way you want, but the most liberal anti-gunners now hold the committee chairmanships in Congress. They may bide their time a bit, but be sure they haven't put aside their anti-gun policies.

2. We -- conservatives in general and gun-owners in particular -- don't work to further our policies. How many here are members of their local Democratic or Republican Committees? How many work to raise money for pro-gun candidates? How many are willing to run for office themselves, or serve on the campaigns of those who will?

3. We wrangle too much amongst ourselves -- we want to fight or kick out politicians who are our allies, but not "perfect." We don't pull together to seek and support the best candidates we can get -- even if they aren't "perfect."

4. We need a new strategy at the top level -- and like it or not, that's the NRA. It's a different world politically since last November, and we need to adapt to that world so we don't go down in total defeat.

If you enjoyed reading about "PART 3" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lucky
February 5, 2007, 04:01 PM
If you have two mainstream politicians who are both legitimately harmful to your cause, but one is simply less harmful, why would you not support a third-party candidate? It's like having a choice between Cyanide, arsenic, and coffee.

"Dude, arsenic isn't that bad, do you want to get stuck with cyanide????!!!111 No-one else will ever pick coffee, you're the only one, so be a team player and pick arsenic with the rest of us..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_5Ek5BfDu4

Smurfslayer
February 5, 2007, 04:10 PM
1. The election of 2006 was a defeat for us. You can paint it any way you want, but the most liberal anti-gunners now hold the committee chairmanships in Congress. They may bide their time a bit, but be sure they haven't put aside their anti-gun policies.

As I said in another posting, in a thread far, far away...

William Jefferson Clinton:
The best thing that ever happened to the Republican party.


We specifically did not lose ( that's lose, not loose btw ), we were collateral damage suffered by various advocacy constituencies affected by the unpopular war in Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Bill of Rights is affected this way, but it is the nature of our republic. Think of it kind of like white water rafting, you can be going along fine, next thing you know you're being pummelled by rocks and your boat is bottom up. Once you're in the water, you don't give up, you fight that much harder.

2. We -- conservatives in general and gun-owners in particular -- don't work to further our policies. How many here are members of their local Democratic or Republican Committees? How many work to raise money for pro-gun candidates? How many are willing to run for office themselves, or serve on the campaigns of those who will?

With all due respect, based on some of the responses to OP's somewhat controversial post, we wouldn't be well served by some of the respondents in that thread running for office; me included. Your points are just a few ways that people can contribute but the list is not exclusive. We can easily work within the existing framework by emailing, calling and faxing Congress directly. Those of us local can engage them in person and many of us have. Not as many as I'd like, but more than just me for sure.

3. We wrangle too much amongst ourselves -- we want to fight or kick out politicians who are our allies, but not "perfect." We don't pull together to seek and support the best candidates we can get -- even if they aren't "perfect."

Let's fully discuss 'perfect' as opposed to 'best candidates we can get'. If the best 'pro gun' candidate is Giuliani, I'm writing in Ted Nugent. Absolutely no way I vote for "America's Thug". Nobody can even intelligently argue that Giuliani has done anything but <deleted by Smurfslayer due to questionable content> on the Constitution and the 2A in particular. The other "annointed" front runners haven't shown tremendous respect for us either. The question becomes do we support a candidate in the primary with a lesser chance of prevailing who is best aligned with our position or the one who is not aligned with our position but "polls higher" ? Maybe it's my upbringing but I think it's unethical to vote for someone whom I have a fundamental disagreement with over something as important as 2A. Of course, that is my value which I am entitled to. I am not entitled to enforce it upon anyone else.

4. We need a new strategy at the top level -- and like it or not, that's the NRA. It's a different world politically since last November, and we need to adapt to that world so we don't go down in total defeat.

I disagree wholeheartedly, and rebut this presumption as follows.

NRA-ILA is not, nor can it ever be the end all, be all of 2A support. There is a fundamental disconnect between constitutional rights, and the ILA campaign of "permitted carry". The latter is a state granted privilege for which there are many requirements and it can be revoked on a whim. ILA, while effective, has cast it's broad appeal to the sportsmen crowd, which demographically is the largest contingent of active gun owners. More than a few things get left by the wayside - Open Carry - which ironically is more accurately described as "right to carry" is totally unsupported by ILA. NFA ownership, assistance and legislation just to name 2. ILA has repeatedly been asked to help out with getting the Parks ban repeal and the list goes on. However, their resources are not limitless so we cannot reasonably expect them to be everything to everyone. That is where grassroots and more focused advocacy groups come in to the picture. But for these more focused groups a great deal of legislation would look a lot worse than it came out in law. Say what you will, but ILA is successful in getting candidates elected, getting legislation through - even if it is to the benefit of the industry, and not the members, and getting membership. There is an ebb and flow in politics. NRA-ILA has simply been caught up in that ebb and flow. I am not saying that ILA is not in need of new direction, fresh blood, etc. just that it is not so important that everyone must drop what they are doing to correct it. Once a few other 2A/RKBA advocacy groups gain more recognition and success, it will help correct any issues left with ILA.

As for adapting, many of us have been doing that since before 11/06. If we all focused on the Congressional reciprocity bills for example, do you really think that we would be ignored entirely? But we all do not support the current bills for a variety of reasons. The thing to do is to get idea, support and someone to introduce a bill. Then we need to follow through and put pressure on to pass it. NRA-ILA isn't the only group capable of getting a bill submitted. With enough pressure a Rep or Senator will introduce a bill for you, but it's up to the constituency to keep the heat on.

Vern Humphrey
February 5, 2007, 04:15 PM
If you have two mainstream politicians who are both legitimately harmful to your cause, but one is simply less harmful, why would you not support a third-party candidate? It's like having a choice between Cyanide, arsenic, and coffee.

Because no matter how much you want Coffee, Cyanide or Arsenic will win.

Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils votes for the greater of those two evils.

FeebMaster
February 5, 2007, 04:17 PM
The only thing saving you guys is that the anti-gunners are at least as incompetent as the pro-gunners and generally more ignorant.

Lucky
February 5, 2007, 04:18 PM
It'd be better to be forced to eat cyanide against your will than to voluntarily ingest arsenic. The end result is the same, the time frame is slightly quicker, but at least you stood your ground.

Vern Humphrey
February 5, 2007, 04:19 PM
We specifically did not lose ( that's lose, not loose btw ), we were collateral damage suffered by various advocacy constituencies affected by the unpopular war in Iraq.

That's like saying the bullet that hit us didn't have our name and address engraved on it. But it hit us, just the same.

And if we don't wake up and smell the coffee, we won't have any gun rights in a few years.

Vern Humphrey
February 5, 2007, 04:26 PM
It'd be better to be forced to eat cyanide against your will than to voluntarily ingest arsenic. The end result is the same, the time frame is slightly quicker, but at least you stood your ground.

In Gallic Wars, Ceasar points out that many Gallic tribes had a custom to never quit the battlefield. As a result, when they lost a battle to the more efficient Romans, they stayed around and were butchered. Eventually, they woke up and smelled the coffee and learned to live to fight another day -- but by then their tribes had lost so many men they had no chance.

Suicide is not a winning strategy. Saving as much as you can when the dice go against you is much more intelligent.

Vote for the lesser of two evils, and survive to fight again in the next election.

Lucky
February 5, 2007, 04:31 PM
You definitely make some good points, I'm swayed, but torn.

average_shooter
February 5, 2007, 04:31 PM
Quote:
If you have two mainstream politicians who are both legitimately harmful to your cause, but one is simply less harmful, why would you not support a third-party candidate? It's like having a choice between Cyanide, arsenic, and coffee.
Because no matter how much you want Coffee, Cyanide or Arsenic will win.

Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils votes for the greater of those two evils.

Well then, we're screwed anyway, so why bother fighting at all? You just die tired...

Vern Humphrey
February 5, 2007, 05:01 PM
Well then, we're screwed anyway, so why bother fighting at all? You just die tired...

One of the reasons we're losing is because our opponents understand politics much better than we do. They understand that merely wanting something is not enough -- we must work for what we want.

They also understand this is a long struggle -- and there will be setbacks as well as victories. They understand they cannot win all they want in a single election.

They would never say, "Well then, we're screwed anyway, so why bother fighting at all?" Instead, they would say, "We'll take what we can get. If we lose, we work to minimize our losses, if we win, we capitalize on victory."

Right now, we're in a minimizing our losses mode, and planning the next battle in '08.

average_shooter
February 5, 2007, 05:13 PM
So why not work for a third party candidate? I really don't understand this "lesser of two evils" "throwing away the vote on third parties" thing. The lesser of two evils, or as many evils as you wish to compare, is still evil. Sorry, this just makes me very :cuss: :fire:

All too often I see the argument that third parties never get anywhere. But they can't get anywhere because of all the people who say they can't without giving them a shot. We need to be working for more people like Ron Paul, and a lot of people like him are third party candidates.

Selfdfenz
February 5, 2007, 05:27 PM
Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils votes for the greater of those two evils.

Vern my man.....:confused:
Me thinks perhaps you torture logic...
TC
S-

Vern Humphrey
February 5, 2007, 05:30 PM
So why not work for a third party candidate? I really don't understand this "lesser of two evils" "throwing away the vote on third parties" thing. The lesser of two evils, or as many evils as you wish to compare, is still evil. Sorry, this just makes me very

Because our system of government, with its separation of powers means there can only be two parties. The only time a Third Party has won is when one of the two major parties collapsed (as in the election of 1860.) And, of course, that meant there were still only two parties.

In a parliamentary system, where the majority party selects the head of state (the prime minister), then a small party can have clout -- by combining with other parties to form a majority coalition. In the US, that doesn't work.

Even if a Third Party candidate wins, what can he do? He has no allies in the Congress to help him put his agenda in place -- so you see that where Third party Candidates are elected, they have to join either the Republican or Democrat caucuses -- and automatically become Republicans or Democrats, despite what they call themselves. And they have to pay a price for joining those caucuses -- which is to support the party they have joined.

bogie
February 5, 2007, 05:35 PM
Guys.

You're missing something.

The Democratic Underground wants us to vote 3rd party. It wants the shooting community to work their asses off for 3rd party candidates.

That's all fine and dandy for local elections. Run for mayor, or encourage someone else to. Even try for state elections.

But for national elections, where the winner gets to promote their agenda for national policy, it's generally best to vote AGAINST candidates who you don't wish to have in office. This occasionally requires the holding of one's nose while inside the polling facility, but hey.

Here's how it works:

A major vote will probably hit Congress next year. This year, you've got three candidates for Congresscritter:

Steve 49%
Allen 49%
Mark 1%
Undecided 1%

One of the three is going to be elected. You're Undecided.

Now, Mark's a great guy, would probably be a great congresscritter, but he didn't have any budget for advertising, and his people didn't really get his name out there. He's who you _want_ to vote for, but he has zero chance of getting elected... You vote for him anyway.

So there we have...

Steve 49%
Allen 49%
Mark 2%

And it gets into recount area. There's a chance you won't like the end result.

Steve is a politician. He's 90% going to vote in a way you won't like.

Allen is a politician. He's 10% going to vote in a way you won't like.

They're both slimy. You stay home.

Steve 49%
Allen 49%
Mark 1%

Same result.

But if you vote for Allen, you've got a 90% chance of coming out ahead when he votes.

Steve 49%
Allen 50%
Mark 1%

That's better than NO chance.

The undecided votes are swing votes. And "stolen" votes count double. Work for Allen. Let him know WHY you are working for him. This may increase his voting in your issue's favor to 95%. That's a good thing. And every vote you can "steal" from the other side is a vote less for Steve.

Steve 48%
Allen 51%
Mark 1%

Vern Humphrey
February 5, 2007, 05:41 PM
Vern my man.....
Me thinks perhaps you torture logic...

No, methinks I have worked in our political system long enough to understand how it functions. Read Bogie's post above, he has hit the nail on the head.

HiroProX
February 5, 2007, 05:55 PM
Lucky, I rarely sig statements by other posters, but "cyanide, arsenic, and coffee" is made of 100% pure win.

Biker
February 5, 2007, 06:09 PM
Unfortunately, your argument is based on the assumption that everyone believes that the 2ndA is the most important of all. I no longer believe that. The 1st and 4th are under serious assault and are right up there along with other issues such as border security, IMO.
I don't much care for cyanide or arsenic. Either way, you get dead.

Biker

wizard of oz
February 5, 2007, 06:48 PM
I would say that the best way to protect firearms rights is to exercise them - that means buying or collecting, hunting, using ranges etc. and encouarging others to do the same. Putting money into that part of the economy.

Politically, in my state of NSW (Aust), the shooters party (http://www.shootersparty.org.au/) holds one seat in the upper house.
"It is the only political party in the world with an elected representative in any parliament, with the basic platform of representing and defending shooter interests" A great achievement I think. Of course, no chance of winning a seat in the lower house against either of the major parties.

The US Constitution protects human rights in a way that the Australian constitution does not - so we are largely at the mercy of our legislature here.
With the Second Amendment in place, it seems to me that the US is in a very good situation. The Fifth Amendment "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." should be a great incentive to spend money on firearms also. We were saved to some degree here by the fact that it cost the state a lot to "buy back" :barf: our possessions.

MrDig
February 5, 2007, 06:55 PM
A third party could work if 50% of the voting population voted for it. A good Middle of the Road Candidate could effectively leave only 25% left wing and 25% right wing. I know it's utopian but hey it's the way things should work.
I used this argument in another thread but, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
If we stopped voting Democrat or Republican do you think they would get it?
The problem is not one or the other it is both.

oldfart
February 5, 2007, 07:57 PM
I tried working "within" the system once. The results were inconclusive but if others had done the same thing it might have made a difference.
I was registered as a Democrat (still am, though I vote somewhat to the right of Attilla the Hun.) I managed to get elected to a very minor position in my precinct. Some of the higher precinct Democrats asked me to distribute about sixty pounds of handbills for some of their candidates. I was supposed to hang them on gateposts, doorknobs, whatever. Instead, I took the whole load to a local recycler.
Now, I don't know if my tactic had anything to do with the outcome of the election, but if every other precinct had experienced something similar I think the results would have been obvious.
By the way, I wasn't re-elected. Oh well...:evil:
That is the sort of activism required to make a difference though. When some college kid comes through your neighborhood distributing propaganda think about doing your civic duty and following behind him, cleaning up the neighborhood. Does some candidate for office want to outlaw guns? Pick up all of his campaign signs and toss 'em in a dumpster. Is that illegal? Well, so is infringing on the Second Amendment. By the way, the plastic election signs make great backing for targets.
Instead of saying (begin Girly-man voice) "Oh, we don't want people to think we're law-breakers," (resume normal voice) remember that some of the founders actually killed people they disagreed with. Now, don't go out and kill those anti-gun candidates (that would create a mess) just use your imaginations and kill their campaigns.

Alan Fud
February 5, 2007, 08:22 PM
Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils votes for the greater of those two evils.Truer words have never been spoken!

lamazza
February 5, 2007, 08:59 PM
Vote for the lesser of two evils, and survive to fight again in the next election
There is no more lesser!
McCain
Hillary
Giuliani
Obama


Ron Paul

pick one!

bogie
February 5, 2007, 10:05 PM
Pick a lesser, that has a chance, and let them know, in no uncertain terms, why you are working for and voting for them.

And how you expect them to vote.

Enough people do that, and it makes a difference.

antsi
February 6, 2007, 12:49 AM
------quote-------
It's like having a choice between Cyanide, arsenic, and coffee.
------------------

Except that coffee isn't really a choice. You can vote "coffee" all you want, but what that choice really gets you is cyanide.

thexrayboy
February 6, 2007, 01:02 AM
Our opponents on this issue are winning, at least in part, because they have nothing to lose. We have everything to lose. In a nutshell that is the problem. Every time they propose 2A restrictive legislation and it fails to pass they have lost nothing and we have won nothing. Every time they propose 2A restrictive legislation and it passes they have won something and we have lost something. The times where pro 2A legislation has passed rolling things back to a less restrictive stage are few in comparisons to the restrictive 2A laws. Until we find a means to change this so they are always on the defensive we are destined to eventually lose. They can afford to nickel and dime us to death on this issue. Time is on their side. Pass enough laws and the end result is the same as one huge law banning everything. It's easier to pass little laws that are less noticeable to the average joe and harder for us to roll back all those thousands of little laws. As society grows more and more wussified and nanny state dependent fewer and fewer real self reliant people will exist who are willing to fight the fight against this corruption. I honestly don't know if we can turn the tide in this battle or if we are doomed to fight a long and tiring delaying action. With the current managed media and political establishment we are operating with both hands tied behind our backs at the moment and the antis are looking for more ways to muzzle us.

Prince Yamato
February 6, 2007, 01:18 AM
Vote for the lesser of two evils, and survive to fight again in the next election.

+1

I also like the Gallic Wars reference. Honestly, it's beyond refreshing to hear people finally rebuke this "vote for the third party" garbage. I know from the responses on other threads, so I'll save you guys the trouble:

With that attitude, libertarians will never win. You need to support the third party.

Who will never win. If a pro-gun libertarian wants to win, they need to run as a republican.

Who will not vote for the lesser of two evils votes for the greater of those two evils.

+1 again.

I know people don't like Giuliani, but let's say he's the Republican candidate. Let's say he changes his stance on guns for the election and would continue to do so during office. You'd have a pro-gun president who was only pro-gun for his own political career, but you'd still keep your AWs. I understand what Giuliani was like for NYC. I know why people don't like him, but folks, NO political candidate will embody all the issues dear to you. If you don't wish to compromise, fine, but don't act surprised when a gun ban gets signed under a democratic president.

Vern Humphrey
February 7, 2007, 12:49 PM
Unfortunately, your argument is based on the assumption that everyone believes that the 2ndA is the most important of all. I no longer believe that. The 1st and 4th are under serious assault and are right up there along with other issues such as border security, IMO.

For many years I have been pointing out that the Bill of Rights is a set -- break one article, and you break them all. The techniques used to set aside the 2nd Amendment work very well to set aside the 1st and 4th.

Which is why a vigorous defense of the 2nd would have strengthened the 1st and 4th.

I don't much care for cyanide or arsenic. Either way, you get dead.

Unfortunately, "not caring for" isn't a strategy.

quatin
February 7, 2007, 01:24 PM
If we go along with the plan of always voting for one of the 2 major parties, we will be perpetually stuck in a vote for the lesser of two evils. There are nations in the world that have viable 3rd and even 4th party candidates. However, we somehow got stuck in this cycle of generic voting since the majority of us don't have the time to properly research candidates and be politically active to mold favorable candidates. The few who do go through the laboriuos task of seething through the list should not have to settle for less just because most everyone else didn't do as much work. Some of us can't stand the lesser of two evils and I will say the election process written 200 years ago was written so you can avoid voting for the lesser of two evils by making it possible for any citizen to run for office. It is not acceptable to lose 90% of our rights and it is also not acceptable to lose 10% of our rights. Voting along party lines may be a temporary solution, but it is not a long term one.

Vern Humphrey
February 7, 2007, 03:14 PM
If we go along with the plan of always voting for one of the 2 major parties, we will be perpetually stuck in a vote for the lesser of two evils.

If we go to work, and join the local committees and work our way up in the parties, we will be able to nominate candidates more to our liking. If we just sit on the couch and bitch, we'll never have the candidates we want.

There are nations in the world that have viable 3rd and even 4th party candidates.

Those are Parliamentary systems, and don't have the Separation of Powers that we have. In England, for example, the Parliament selects the Prime Minister -- there's no popular vote for him. So the majority party selects the Prime Minister (and his cabinet.) In such a system a tiny party can join with a larger one to form a majority -- and pick up a few crumbs in return.

In our system, it doesn't work like that.

oldfart
February 8, 2007, 12:42 AM
I suppose most of us have gone into the voting booth and - at least figuratively - held our noses to cast our vote for whichever candidate we thought would screw us least. Well, the ballot didn't show our disgust. It only showed our vote as one resoundingly in favor of candidate "X".
That's what voting for the lesser of two evils amounts to... a vote for the flawed ideals and intentions of that candidate. Exit polls might reflect the agony you endured to cast your vote but exit polls don't count when that "lesser" candidate is sworn into office.
Others can justify their votes for McCain rather than Hillary by whatever strained logic they want. I won't vote for either one of them because neither of them would uphold the principles I hold paramount for a President. When election day rolls around there may be no one on the ballot who I feel properly represents me. If so, I will either not vote or I will write in a candidate I feel would fit my ideals. In any case, I won't be "wasting" my vote by giving it to an enemy. :cuss:

Lucky
February 8, 2007, 03:59 AM
I was thinking, what if you formed a wing of the republican party, that explicitly supported 2A?

gunsmith
February 8, 2007, 04:15 AM
as far as guns go, he would go much further then Clinton ever dreamed of going.

Guilliani will be able to enact far more gun bans then Hillary.

We have to get rid of him at the primary. period.

Hillary would be a great fund raiser for our side, Guilliani will be a very competent
gun grabber who will gain bi partisan support for his gun grabbing.

Him and President Clinton were very buddy buddy in the 90's/gun grabbing heyday

He enacted MORE GUN CONTROL then Bill Clinton did.

Guilliani is far, far, far more dangerous to us then Hillary.

Vern Humphrey
February 8, 2007, 01:07 PM
I suppose most of us have gone into the voting booth and - at least figuratively - held our noses to cast our vote for whichever candidate we thought would screw us least. Well, the ballot didn't show our disgust. It only showed our vote as one resoundingly in favor of candidate "X".
That's what voting for the lesser of two evils amounts to... a vote for the flawed ideals and intentions of that candidate.

Some of us remember the election of '92, when people wouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils and voted for Ross Perot, instead.

Remember what we got out of that election?

And what "message" did we send? "The American people are dumb enough to elect the most radical leftists and anti-gunners."

oldfart
February 8, 2007, 04:17 PM
"Remember what we got out of that election?"

Yeah, I remember that. I also remember how people did and said anything they could to absolve themselves of the blame for it. Then they began running - from principle to percieved safety; from the prospect of making a change to being on the "winning" team; From Freedom to Fascism.
We raise Cain about liberals who want to pull out of Iraq because we've lost a bit over 3000 soldiers there while all the time some of us use the same reasoning to vote for a piece of crap in a suit... 'we got burned once, let's not do it again!!' In fact, we need to go back to doing it again and again until we either get one of ours elected or those who do get the office decide to give us more than lip-service. Where the Sam Hill are our guts? Have we left them under the keyboard?
Ross Perot was still the best candidate in '92. Would he have made a good President? I don't know. Did Bubba? What we need are more candidates like Perot and more voters who want our country to return to greatness. Instead we get a mess of spineless jellyfish - both as candidates and as voters!
:cuss:

Vern Humphrey
February 8, 2007, 04:48 PM
Yeah, I remember that. I also remember how people did and said anything they could to absolve themselves of the blame for it.

You refer, of course, to those who voted for the Third Party candidate and let the greater of two evils win.

oldfart
February 9, 2007, 01:57 PM
Vern, you're no kid and I am - as most will attest - an old fart. We've both been around this world a bit and seen things we'd probably prefer to have missed. As a kid I remember my uncle working for the WPA in the late '30s and I still recall the unease of my adult family when news of Pearl Harbor hit the radio. There was a lot of other crap since then too, stuff that neither of us need to recall, let alone relate.
Like many here, I remember days when guns were sitting in the corner, loaded and ready for use. We kids didn't play around with them because they weren't mysterious, needing exploration. They were just - there.
Roosevelt died and Truman took over with his no-nonsense way of doing things but even he was finally defeated in an election. By that time we were at "peace" with only minor police actions in places like Korea. A succession of similar actions ensued and with each one the recriminations among legislators increased. Each war or police action had to be somebody's fault and no lawmaker wanted to assume the blame so it had to fall on someone else.
Laws were passed... some to make it easier for people to get money from the government so they could get a college education. In time though the government became jealous of anyone having any more power than it. So laws were passed (for the children, of course) to limit the freedoms we had been born with. Now we're shackled with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law, a direct infringement on the First Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to that was the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act and the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban (which, while it has died a well deserved death, is in danger of resusitation.)
While the gun-control laws were passed by Democratic administrations the CFR was passed by a Republican. Some of those Democratic administrations even had Republican-controlled congresses but the bleeding still continued.
I think the time has come to recognise that the difference between Democrat and Republican politicians is so small as to be inconsequential. They both want power that they don't deserve, don't need and shouldn't have. Both sides lie, cheat and steal to stay in office so they can acquire more power. I remember an old lady who, when asked why she voted for JFK, said she liked the way he combed his hair. Trivial? Silly? Perhaps. But in the long run she cast her vote with as much intelligence as those who listen to the candidates and believe what they hear.
I've sat, glued to the tv screen, listening and watching various candidates as they lie about their stances on world and national issues. I've cast my vote and watched the candidate of my choice suddenly find he was "unable" - through no fault of his own, of course - to follow through on his promises. I'm not going to play their game any more. You can if you want, it really won't make a difference anyway.
Bubba was bad but so was his predecessor and so is his successor. They are all lying, scheming politicians that will deny you the basic rights you were born with while assuming powers they aren't meant to have.
If you truly believe that voting for the best candidate ammounts to voting for the worst (Perot v. Clinton) then any arguement I make will not sway you. By the same token, I will continue to vote for the person I want to win. If, by whatever means, the best person isn't even on the ballot I'll write him in.
The weekend is upon us. Have a good one!

Vern Humphrey
February 9, 2007, 02:13 PM
Politics is a good deal like poker. The odds are slim, but a player who knows them can win consistently.

If we always vote, and work in the parties to get our man nominated -- not just for president, but for justice of the peace, mayor, state legislature, Congress and the Senate, we can make a difference.

If we only sit on the couch and complain, we will certainly lose.

If you enjoyed reading about "PART 3" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!