[SkunkApe]

If the Republicans are so good, and the "liberals" so bad, why is that we have a Republican-controlled White House, House, and Senate, and we're still worried about the AWB being renewed?

Not to mention the Patriot Act, the steel tariffs, and the largest defecit in history when the budget was balanced just a few years ago?

You have it. Your guys are in complete control. When will all these wonderful things I've been hearing about happen?

[Moparmike]

No matter what anyone tells you, the POTUS has about as much influence over the budget and economy as you or I do. POTUS submits a budget, the congress doesnt have to do it. So they write their own.

[jsalcedo]

I'm not a Bush fan.

Far from it.

However, I cannot imagine a world where Al Gore was the most powerful man in the world.


I would pick Gary Coleman or That jumping Jack Mary Carey for president before I picked Al Gore for FDA jelly bean inspector.

[SkunkApe]

No matter what anyone tells you, the POTUS has about as much influence over the budget and economy as you or I do. POTUS submits a budget, the congress doesnt have to do it. So they write their own.

Oh, but the House and Senate are in Republican control, as well. And the president does have veto power.

[Darrin]

What does it matter? It's all politics. There are no 'good guys.' Some are just better than others.

[Coronach]

If the Republicans are so good, and the "liberals" so bad, why is that we have a Republican-controlled White House, House, and Senate, and we're still worried about the AWB being renewed?Contrast this with the Dems controlling all three of the above. At least now we can think that it might actually sunset without laughing ruefully while we buy up every last "hi-cap" mag and eeevil black rifle while we still can.Not to mention the Patriot Act, the steel tariffs, and the largest defecit in history when the budget was balanced just a few years ago?First of all, the budget was "balanced" pretty much in name only, with a lot of necessary spending deferred until later. Second of all, all the Executive branch can do is veto and twist arms. Congress passes the budget and, oh look, they were republican then. Hmmm. Third of all, this was before airliners started smacking into buildings, and the (some necessary, some unnecessary) spending circus that this capped off, and the economic ramifications thereof.
You have it. Your guys are in complete control. When will all these wonderful things I've been hearing about happen?A valid question, and I, too, would like to see more of it. However, as is so oft the case in politics, I'm forced to say "well...its better than the alternative."

And before anyone trots out the 3rd Party Option...sure. I'd vote Libertarian. Give me a candidate and scenario that won't put Al Gore or his successor in the white house.

Reality stinks.

Mike

[Standing Wolf]

As well as I've been able to discern, the Republicrats versus the Democans isn't quite the most ferocious contest in the history of politics.

[Don Gwinn]

It's starting early this cycle. . . .

[Mike Irwin]

Because if the Democrats were all around in control, it would be a no frigging brainer that the AWB would be renewed. That's why it's better.

Given the lesser of two evils, I'll take a Republican minion of Satan any day.

[Duncan Idaho]

No more calls please...we have a winner.

[only1asterisk]

Picking between Dem and Rep is like picking between horrible and almost just as bad. By the next election there may be no difference at all! As long as we are voting for "qualified" politicians, we are doomed. We need to vote our neigbors and friends into office, not lawyers that maintain a residence in our state to be eligible for election.

Thats why I love this California recall, too bad it's too late for me to get myself eligible to vote for Gary Coleman. I think that would be the best canidate to humiliate Grey Davis. I love how people are shocked "The let anybody run?" Hell yes, that's what elections are for!


Sharpton/Liberman in 2004!


David

[Mark Tyson]

Well, it works both ways doesn't it? Even with Democrats in control of House, Senate and White House they barely passed the original assault weapons ban, and then only with the sunset provision.

And the reason the two parties are so close to each other is probably because that's what people want. Most Americans are centrists or swing voters who aren't rabidly loyal to one party or the other.

What we have to do is to push BOTH major parties, let 'em know that our right to arms is not to be messed with. Eliminate it from the political discourse entirely. Maybe one day nobody will dream of proposing restrictions on guns the same way nobody would propose a return to segregated schools.

[whoami]

If the Republicans are so good, and the "liberals" so bad, why is that we have a Republican-controlled White House, House, and Senate, and we're still worried about the AWB being renewed?

The whole brouhaha escalating over the AWB sunset to me is actually cause for some hope. If it were a foregone conclusion, such as with a Dem controlled .gov, that it would be renewed, then there wouldn't be the same tone of discussion about it, nor the push. The main thing is, when you get down to it, that no matter what the letter by the reps name, they are ALL ultimately nothing more than politicians. And politcians are masters of the art of 'compromise'. Step one is 'buying' the politician...which we've done with our vote. Step two is working on making sure the politician stays 'bought'....

[Augustwest]

Do you want the express train or the local line to giving up control of your life? That's the decision you make when you vote for an elephant or a donkey at the national level.

Very, very few friends of freedom or limited government on either side.

Lotsa folks here and elsewhere claim that they'd be willing to support a viable third party. No third party will get viable if we sit around and wait for it to appear.

If all I cared about was putting off the erosion of my RKBA, I guess I'd vote Republican in the hope that by the time I die, I might still be allowed to own a slingshot or a peashooter. But freedom ain't just about guns.

[Keith]

The only politician worse than a republican is a democrat! Any politician will sell you out at the drop of a hat.

Keith

[Iain]

Lot of interesting thoughts here, gives me hope for you all :)

Lotsa folks here and elsewhere claim that they'd be willing to support a viable third party. No third party will get viable if we sit around and wait for it to appear.

The Liberal Democrats (the third party in the UK) once calculated that if everyone who supported them actually voted for them instead of voting tactically (to keep a Labour or Conservative person out) then the Lib Dems might well be the second party in this country.

If you want a plurality of options and not just the boring old Dem/Reps divide, you as the voter have to make it happen. Course the downside to this is the possibility of a ''leftist'' party arising in the States ;)

[benewton]

There's the "lesser of two evils" vote, of which I'm guilty.

And doing that is a sin, to a libertarian party, dues paying, member.

Still, a Demo means more taxes, and fewer "rights", quickly, while a Repub means restricted "rights", and higher taxes, but at a slower rate.

Ah, well, since we don't have kids, and, obviously, lack the global view, I'd be interested in just what you parents/grand parents believe that we should do.

Outside of paying for your kid's education, of course, since that's enforced, by force of arms.


I've about had it with voting, since nothing changes in any direction but worse, and so figure I'll follow the Libertarian route in the future.

I'll "lose", as is normal, but at least it won't be my fault.

[Zundfolge]

I've about had it with voting, since nothing changes in any direction but worse, and so figure I'll follow the Libertarian route in the future.

I'll "lose", as is normal, but at least it won't be my fault.

This is the problem with many Libertarians and libertarian minded Republicans (of which I am the latter). We look at our votes in General Elections and whine that we're always loosing.

Yet its in the primaries and more to the point in taking part in the aparatus of the Republican party that will win us victories and get more Ron Paul types sent to Washington.


I for one will probably hold my nose and vote for Bush because the leftist-Democrat alternative (whoever he/she may be) WILL be worse. And voting for the Libertarian candidate (no matter how wonderful they may be) will only take votes away from Bush, thus making it easier for the Dems to win.

There's an old saying that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that one is walking toward , the other is running. Even if this is true, I'd rather have the extra time to build up our defense (both political and otherwise) that we'll be afforded by those Republicans strolling toward , then get behind those running toward it at full speed.


Yeah, politics sucks (but its better then the "vote from the rooftops" alternative)

Uncle Milton said it best ...
"I am a Republican with a capital 'R,' and a libertarian with a small 'l.' I have a party membership as a Republican, not because they have any principles. But because that's the way I am the most useful and have the most influence. My philosophy is clearly libertarian."
-Milton Friedman

[benewton]

Zundfolge:

As I've written, I've done the lesser of the evils vote, R as I remember.

But we still lose, since freedom, for whatever reason, becomes less every day.

So, tell me, is it time yet?

[DRC]

Conservatives (not all Republicans are conservatives) are good and liberals (not Democrats persey but most Democrats tend to be liberals and vote for liberal Democrats) are bad.

As to the AWB, I don't agree with it and think it should sunset and go the way of the Gooney bird but politically it is an "issue" and always will be regardless of who's in office. True conservatives would let it sunset, but then true conservatives would also try to choke government down to its core functions as well and get it out of our lives leaving us to become prosperous, functional and personally responsible.

Take care,

DRC

[MicroBalrog]

Were it up to me, I'd sunset AWB and repeal GCA 1968, the Drug War, NFA-34, switch to a flat tax and use the resulting enormous budget surplus to pay for public education and a social safety net. Ain't that great?:neener:

[Futo Inu]

Thats why, among the active political parties, the Republicans are second to last on the list; democrats being the only worse party. 1994 got us the homeland defense rifle ban, with repubs in control then. Of necessity, the two major parties are no real friend to anyone, and certainly the repubs are no true friend of gun owners, since they're coalitions of groups to get elected and beat the other major party. If I could actually choose what party to put into power, it would rank as follows:

1. Constitution Party
2. Reform Party
3. Libertarian
4. Green
5. Republican
6. Democrats

Best to worst, IMO, balancing all things. The Democrats want to annihilate the second amendment. The repubs want to annilihate the 4th, 5th, 7th and part of the 1st. Both of these two major parties are co-conspirators in annihilating the 10th amendment (the most important amendment behind the first and second, IMO). Repubs go along with most gun control. Libertarians are unrealistic about some things, but at least they're not nazis like most repubs or want to take away guns like most dems. Greeners are a little whacko too, but have some good ideas. The Constitution Party has the best balance. Reform is Perot's party, and has a good balance of ideas. Democrats would rise much higher if they'd stop messing with my guns. Of course, if the greens or reforms were in power, and would therefore actually have to make a DECISION about guns, they might choose the same or worse course of action than the democrats, so then obviously this ranking is imperfect until more information is gleaned. Greeners and reformers aren't going to make their positions known on controversial issues like gun control and abortion which are not the center-pieces of their platforms unless and until they have to, in a major debate or after taking office. Since our messed up system won't even let them debate, let alone get elected, we really don't know, but the order would obviously change if a greener or reformer controlled the agenda, and supported any kind of gun control. In that case, it would be Constitution, Libertarian, Republican, Democrat last (tied with any other party supporting gun control, be it Green or Reform or whathaveyou). LIbertarians DO make their positions known on pretty much all issues, as I understand it, even to their electability detriment. At least they're honest.

MicroBalrog, I think you're onto something. I've said several times that we should take the entire federal LEOA budget, totaling the FBI, DEA, BATFE, Customs, Postal Inspectors, IRS agents, etc., etc. - any and all alphabet soup federal law enforcement outfits, combine them ALL under one roof (the FBI), with the BATFE, etc., being mere subdivisions of enforcement of the FBI, so that that have many-fold efficiencies of scale/organization (notablyl but not limited to, the sharing of information), then, cut the entire sum of those budgets by some 2/3rds, leaving the FBI with all its divisions with 1/3rd of the former total budget, and abolish the war on drugs (and thus of course the DEA "division"), and most of the war on terror (all but domestic security issues). Then, of the other 2/3rds of the money, give 3/4ths of it back to the people with a federal tax cut (thus putting more money in people's pockets so that the states can RAISE taxes a little to help solve their massive budget crises), and take the other 1/4th of the LEOA savings (still a whopping amount) and spend it on drug education (don't take drugs) and drug treatment centers for the public. The end result would be LESS people on drugs, not more, much much less violations of our privacy/4A rights, etc., and no unholy union between the drugs lords and federal LEOAs, as there is today, and more money in our pockets. Hard drugs could still be left technically illegal, but very little to no enforcement directed at same. People could then be educated about drugs, and if they want to ruin their lives with those chemicals (including the most havoc-wreaking drug, alcohol), then more power to them.

[cordex]

Even with Democrats in control of House, Senate and White House they barely passed the original assault weapons ban, and then only with the sunset provision.
True. But the voting was pretty partisan.
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=1994&rollnumber=156

Quick totals:
Republicans: 176
Republican Yeas: 38
Republican Nays: 137

Democrats: 256
Democrat Yeas: 177
Democrat Nays: 77

Independant Yeas: 1

3 didn't vote ... a Republican and two Democrats.

So in the house, 70% of Democrats voted for the AWB. 77% of the Republicans voted against it.

Democrats - as a party - are no friend of gun owners. Republicans are slightly less bad. Not sunshine and bubbles, perhaps, but slightly less bad.

futo,
I have to assume that you've never actually read the Green party's platform to rank them as better than Dems and Repubs.