I see several anti-Bush ppl here..


PDA






willp58
January 6, 2004, 12:43 PM
We gun guys tend to be single issue voters, I know I am..
Who, pray tell would make a better president *FOR GUN OWNERS* than Bush??

If you enjoyed reading about "I see several anti-Bush ppl here.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
January 6, 2004, 12:45 PM
James Madison.:D

TallPine
January 6, 2004, 12:47 PM
Lot's of people (Ron Paul for instance) but none of them are running .... :(

Derek Zeanah
January 6, 2004, 12:49 PM
I ain't votin' for a guy who promised to sign the AW renewal when it crosses his desk. Then, there's the USAPATRIOT act, homeland security, and other issues.

I don't just vote for gun rights, I vote for rights in general.

DigitalWarrior
January 6, 2004, 12:50 PM
Someone who would not sign an assault weapons ban. In this case the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

willp58
January 6, 2004, 12:50 PM
Let's clarify this a little:
Who among the present democratic contenders would make a better pro-gun President???

Marko Kloos
January 6, 2004, 12:56 PM
If your only endorsement for a candidate can be summed up as "he'll shaft us less than the other guy," your platform is in trouble.

Let me turn your question on you: if you keep voting for a Republican, just because they take your gun rights away a little slower, what incentive do the Republicans have to be actively pro-gun? All they have to be is a little less anti than the other guys, because "where else are those gun owners going to go?"

The end result is still loss of your freedom.

Thumper
January 6, 2004, 12:58 PM
When you take into consideration Supreme Court openings, "coat tail" electees to Congress, and Bush's stance on CCW, industry lawsuits, and dodging the AWB issue (dodging is his only option, folks: 64% of gun owners support the ban), Bush is clearly the only viable choice for 2nd Amendment supporters.

I wish he didn't support NICS, but he's miles ahead of anyone else electable.

TallPine
January 6, 2004, 01:06 PM
I see several anti-Bush ppl here..
I am not "anti-Bush". I have nothing against the man personally.

But I don't like much of what he has has done, or not done, as president.

Am I supposed to gush hugs and kisses and accolades all over him because the others are so much worse? :rolleyes:

I, for one, am getting sick and tired of this garbage that anyone who disagrees with President Bush is a Bush-hater and anti-American and all that. :fire:

Maybe that's not what you meant, but dissent is not anti-American.

Jim March
January 6, 2004, 01:10 PM
I am not anti-Bush.

I am, however, seriously disheartened that Bush has quite obviously turned anti-ME.

Anti-all-of-us, at this point.

:uhoh:

BigG
January 6, 2004, 01:15 PM
I'm a libertrian and I'm OK; I sleep all night and I work all day. /vacuous imagining

Joe Demko
January 6, 2004, 01:17 PM
Who, pray tell would make a better president *FOR GUN OWNERS* than Bush??

Lots of people, but they're all either unelectable, not running, or dead.

Sorry, I refuse to buy into the "at least he isn't as bad as a Democrat" RKBA rationalization that has so benefitted the Republicans (and turned the NRA into a fund-raising organization for them). I'll believe they're on my side when they start rolling back some of the existing gun laws. Have they done that? No. Instead, we get a promise to renew an existing, and odious, one.

DaveB
January 6, 2004, 01:23 PM
I think that the answer is to stop being a one-issue voter.

db

Justin
January 6, 2004, 01:24 PM
Let's clarify this a little:
Who among the present democratic contenders would make a better pro-gun President???
False dichotomy. I'll be happily registering a vote with the Libertarian party come election time. Bush supports the AWB, PATRIOT Act, suppressing the 1st amendment via campaign finance reform, steel tarrifs, and the biggest expansions of medicare and education pork in recent memory.

Bottom line: From where I stand, there is no functional, major difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They all support the same general ideas, they only make a big stink about splitting legislative hairs.

Thumper
January 6, 2004, 01:33 PM
Instead, we get a promise to renew an existing, and odious, one.

That's a new one on me...where did you see that?

Bush said (though Ari Fleicher) that he would sign a new AWB if it was passed by a Republican House and a Republican Senate (once more for those of you who were denied School House Rock: Congress makes laws). He has since REFUSED to repeat it...despite heavy pressure from the press to do so. That is very important.

Does anyone here know of a legislator MORE in lockstep with Bush than Tom Delay? I have a personal email from him in my inbox assuring me that the new AWB will not pass. A brief search here will show you the entire message.

Joe Demko
January 6, 2004, 01:47 PM
Either the man meant what he said (i.e. he would sign it) or he didn't. If he meant it, he is no friend of the RKBA. If he didn't, he is a liar and not someone I would trust on any matter.

Thumper
January 6, 2004, 01:53 PM
I'm absolutely certain he meant he'd sign it, putting the onus where it belongs: On Congress.

Congress=Legislative Branch

Bill Hook
January 6, 2004, 01:56 PM
How many pols aren't liars?

Name them.

Jonesy9
January 6, 2004, 01:56 PM
good question. It's too bad we have a powerful incumbent and a party that prevents other candidates from even being considered. Democracy loses it's greatest benefits when sole pursuit of power trumps an educated debate.

Bush has proven to be nothing more than a face man for the entreched party elders. It's like a rehash of the first Bush admin. Same faces and players who haven't had an original idea since the Ford administration. Sure, they formed an alliance with the so called Neo-cons and pulled them away from McCain but that's a whole other debate.

I have no doubt that the current leadership of the GOP would toss gun owners and the NRA aside in a heartbeat if it was expedient and they's gain more votes or pick up a new block of voters like hispanics. Bush bactracked on states rights, free trade, buudget deficites, reining in spending etc etc. He has tossed a few bones to the religious right but nothing substantial. I would not be one bit surprised to see gun owners betrayed next.

I was hoping Kerry would have been my man. He's a vet with confirmed combat kills, prosecutor and has foreign policy experience. Then he proved he's just like the rest of the pols and saw a chance to grab some votes by appeasing the anti's. Buh Bye.

Whos' the best now? I'd have to learn more about Leiberman, he appears to be more of a conservative than Bush. Other than that, none of them, from either party really make me feel safe about gun rights.

This election is ripe for a thrid party candidate to steal (not libertarian, more populist sonservative). If there was a principled conservative with the balls to buck the Bush death grip on the GOP and lay out the right platform as a that wasn't completely poll driven they'd have my vote.

bountyhunter
January 6, 2004, 02:02 PM
We gun guys tend to be single issue voters, I know I am..
Who, pray tell would make a better president *FOR GUN OWNERS* than Bush??..

His eagerness to sign the AWB renewal showed his true colors: he is no defender of guns rights or anything else that is not on his personal agenda, he's just a politician trying to minimize the number of people he pisses off to maximize his chances for re-election. Whatever comes out of his mouth on any given day is directed towards that end. He may not be aggressively pushing for increased gun controls, but he is doing exactly nothing to correct the problems that already exist. FWIW, I have yet to see any repub who puts his actions where his mouth is when it comes to actually advocating gun owners rights. They just "rattle the bones" of the gun control issue to get people to charge to the polls and vote republican because voters think that democrats would be worse (which is probably true). But being "slightly less worse" on an issue is a hell of a long way from being an advocate of it.

Joe Demko
January 6, 2004, 02:02 PM
I'm absolutely certain he meant he'd sign it, putting the onus where it belongs: On Congress.

The OP wasn't about congress. It was about POTUS. Bush said he would sign a renewed ban. I don't see how that makes him a friend of RKBA.

How many pols aren't liars?

To paraphrase something my mother used to say "If all the other politicians were child molesters, would that make it okay for Bush to be one too?"

willp58
January 6, 2004, 02:15 PM
We could agree that Bush is not an active defender of gunrights...And yes, he *LIKE ALL THE OTHERS* is a politician..(redundant words)
We can wish for some other progun person...However like my pappy used to say, " Ya wish in one hand and chit in the other -- see which one fills up first"..

Realistically one of the dem candidates in the news at this time will be running against Bush in November...Like it or not...that's the way it's gonna play out!

A vote for Alfred A Newman or some other fringy is a wasted vote -- You might vote for Alfie to "feel good" but the reality is......Wasted vote.

SO after all that - which one of the present contenders would be better than Bush for the honest gunowner????

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 6, 2004, 02:38 PM
Willp58

...and dodging the AWB issue (dodging is his only option, folks: 64% of gun owners support the ban)

Can you provide a citation for this figure? Sounds very high.

As for Bush, Joe Lieberman's views on gun control are not substantially different from Bush's, maybe even a little better when you consider Lieberman pushed for the State bailout of Colt some years ago, something Bush would probably have opposed.

Lieberman would be a "better" choice for gun owners assuming a Republican Congress. With Lieberman as POTUS the Republicans in Congress would be much less likely to pass any more foolish restrictions. Lieberman also supports the lawsuit pre-emption bill as does Bush.

I'll take the centrist Democrat Lieberman over the Liberal Democrat Bush.

Thumper
January 6, 2004, 02:44 PM
Can you provide a citation for this figure? Sounds very high.

Verbal per Alan Gottlieb, the NRA-ILA's statistical guru...Jim March and Lennyjoe can back me up on this...they were there.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 6, 2004, 02:48 PM
Thumper:

Verbal per Alan Gottlieb, the NRA-ILA's statistical guru...Jim March and Lennyjoe can back me up on this...they were there.

Pretty disappointing. You'd expect better from gun owners of any kind.

willp58
January 6, 2004, 02:49 PM
Haven't we seen an unprecedented amount of CCW permits issued in several different states in the past 2 years??

Clearly this is more of a progun administation than anti..

Also have noticed far fewer news headlines regarding shootings..
WHich of course spells better press for us.

I guess my buns still burn thinking about the way heir klintoon and reno went after us...

Thumper
January 6, 2004, 02:52 PM
I can't find any, and I've looked, but does anyone have a written transcript of some of Bush's speeches from when he was running for Governor of Texas?

I saw him twice during that period. His RKBA stance was as solid as if you and I would have written it.

Bush is a hunter and a recreational shooter. For those that say he's a "sporting purposes" kind of guy, you're mistaken: Have a look at his super strong pro CCW stance.

He beat Ann Richards purely on the CCW issue, according to popular thinking. I can't picture Lieberman winning anything based on his "pro" CCW stance.

Those who paint Bush as anti or at best ambivelent haven't been paying attention.

Joe Demko
January 6, 2004, 02:53 PM
Bush had nothing to do with the changes in ccw. Those issues were handled at the state level.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 6, 2004, 02:53 PM
willp58:

Haven't we seen an unprecedented amount of CCW permits issued in several different states in the past 2 years??


Yes that's true, but Bush has had very little to do with it outside of Texas.

The rise of Shall-Issue is due almost entirely to the efforts of local grass-roots organizations, and to a lessor extent, the NRA, GOA, etc...

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 6, 2004, 02:59 PM
Thumper:

Those who paint Bush as anti or at best ambivelent haven't been paying attention.


Well, I noticed that he said he would sign a renewal of the AWB, and I noticed that the Lawsuit pre-emption bill has been languishing in the Senate for quite a while since Bush won't push hard for it.

Bush is a man of good character in my estimation. I take him at his word. If he said he would sign an AWB renewal then I believe him.

willp58
January 6, 2004, 03:02 PM
I'm sure the President, whoever he is can exert pressure on states to "help" certain legislation get passed or defeated..

If Bush gets no credit for the CCW, then who gets the "credit for the stock market plunge of "00??? I've seen quite a few libs blame the economy on him knowing it started down under klintooon's watch..

Also does he get any credit for the very successful Mars landing?

Joe Demko
January 6, 2004, 03:03 PM
Bush is a hunter and a recreational shooter. For those that say he's a "sporting purposes" kind of guy, you're mistaken: Have a look at his super strong pro CCW stance.

Al Gore used to consistently get "A" ratings from the NRA. What Bush did in Texas back then is just ducky. What I'm concerned with is what he is, and isn't, doing in Washington DC now.

DaveB
January 6, 2004, 03:04 PM
Bush is a man of good character in my estimation.

You need to remember to include the appropriate smilies when you write stuff like this. Otherwise people will think you're serious.

db

buzz_knox
January 6, 2004, 03:07 PM
Bush had nothing to do with the changes in ccw. Those issues were handled at the state level.

Uh, you do remember that Bush was governor of Texas, right? That would be state level, correct?

As for Gore, he stopped getting an A rating in 1988 when he broke ties with every value he'd declared for years (pro-2nd, anti-abortion) in order to get the demoncrat presidential nomination.

But of course, the most damning thing Bush has done to show his hatred of the 2nd Amendment is to put Ashcroft in charge, a person who has made the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd as DOJ policy. Evil, evil Bush.

Thumper
January 6, 2004, 03:09 PM
Well, I noticed that he said he would sign a renewal of the AWB

How, Luke? It was an answer to a question put to his press secretary. Have you seen the circumstances? According to some here, you'd think Bush had a policy speech on it. Specifically, he said (through Fleicher) that IF Congress passed it, he would sign it. Some here characterize him as "eager" to sign it. Eager? Even his press secretary refuses to repeat the comment, even when hounded.

Politically, putting it on Congress (I'm just a Bill, I am only a Bill...and I'm sittin' here on Capitol Hill) was the right thing to do.

wenger
January 6, 2004, 03:16 PM
Politics is the art of what's possible. GW said he was not in favor of any new gun legislation. That's the best you're gonna get. Bush is the man for me.

Will he sign the AWB renewal? You bet he will. And so would I if I was him. It's called political expediency.

Don't like it? Vote for Howard. Check out his web site. Anti-gun all the way.

John

Joe Demko
January 6, 2004, 03:17 PM
Uh, you do remember that Bush was governor of Texas, right? That would be state level, correct?

That was a state during his term as governor there. The post to which I was replying reads:

Haven't we seen an unprecedented amount of CCW permits issued in several different states in the past 2 years??

Was Bush, while I wasn't paying attention, serving as the governor of several states as well as POTUS during the last two years?

N3rday
January 6, 2004, 03:25 PM
IMO, Bush is just greedy. He is not the caliber person we need for a president. We knew he lost Florida, but we did nothing...not like Gore would've been a HUGE inprovement anyway...

Cmon, we all knew he was just after oil. He's always been after oil. He's got his head so far up Saudi's rear its not even funny. We need a president that will do something about oil, besides fight wars for it. we need another fuel source already, because we know in 40 some odd years that there will be NONE left.

I didn't really like either of the candidates. I do, however, like Bush less. And that's saying something. We need to clone Jefferson or something, because I am sorely dissapointed with this years candidates as well. Clark sounds cool, but he wants to renew the AW ban...

DRC
January 6, 2004, 03:34 PM
Mr. March,

I do share some of your sentiment regarding GW and some of the things his administration has done, but for the most part I think he's doing well. What I do see is a portrayal of what is being "said" as being what has been "done" however. Case in point the AW ban and GW. GW said he would sign an AW ban if it comes across his desk. Understandable that we fear that he will do this especially after CFR was signed (and I will get to that to tie this altogether in a moment) which is an constitutional violation of our right to free speach.

Here's my thinking and it is all hypothetical but stay with me here. I'm going to pretend that I'm the President for a moment.

AW ban coming my way and asked if I will sign it I would say "You bet I will! Get it to my desk and my John Hancock will go right at the bottom in thick black ink." Huh? What do you think? Sounds pretty bad, but what you wouldn't see or hear about would be me off camera and off the record talking to key people in congress and asking them to make sure that the AW bill never makes it to my desk for signing in the first place. Politically I would be covered because I "said" I would sign it if it crossed my desk, but if it never makes it to my desk...?

Then there's CFR; and this is going to be a big stretch but I hope it holds with either the second term for the Bush administration or the following Conservative administration, which we will get I can assure you. All that has to be done is allow CFR to run until you get a few key points on your agenda done and then have it brought up for review in the Supreme Court...oh, say after one gets ones judges appointed ;) Once CFR is brought to the attention of those that don't wipe their rearends with the constitution it will go the way of the Dinosaur.

Politically it is a win/win situation if it plays out the way I described above:

"I said I would sing it but it never made it to my desk." AW ban.
"I signed it and then the courts deemed it unconstitutional and threw it out. It's not my fault and the court makes their decisions independent of me and I will abide by their decision." CFR

As President I would be covered from every angle on these two issues once it was all said and done. Politics at it's finest but like I said it could all play out the other way and we could all get upset about it legitimately but let's wait to see if these things actually come to pass before we condemn another.

Someone brought up the Patriot Act again and Homeland Security and while I have been slacking on my reading over the holiday season I have still been reading the text of the Patriot Act. So far other than the inclusion of some words and specific definitions the rulings and amendments already existed in the form so many seem to be up in arms about. I'm not sure why some became so disgruntled when it took on the title of the Patriot Act but were completely unaware that these Acts already existed prior to the Patriot Act being brought to the forefront and have for years. The Patriot Act seems (to me thus far but still reading) to merely put all these Acts and Articles in one place. So why was it better when they were all scattered around but still in existance? That's what I'm finding hard to understand.

Again, I agree with your sentiments and think it's high time a Conservative stood up and did what was right to protect the constitutional rights of the American public, but politically it might not be the best way to get things done in this day and time, unfortunately.

Take care all,

DRC

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 6, 2004, 03:47 PM
Thumper:

How, Luke? It was an answer to a question put to his press secretary. Have you seen the circumstances? According to some here, you'd think Bush had a policy speech on it.

If GWB had a problem with Ari Fleischer's statement he would have had a correction issued by now. Bush has let the comment stand, that's good enough for me.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 6, 2004, 03:49 PM
buzz_knox:

Uh, you do remember that Bush was governor of Texas, right? That would be state level, correct?

I was editing my post as you wrote that. Yes I give him credit for Texas CCW if what people are saying about the race aginst Richards is accurate.

As for Ashcroft, I doubt his support for the 2nd had much to do with Bush's selection of him as Attorney General. Seems it was more of a consolation prize after being beaten by Carnahan's ghost.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 6, 2004, 03:51 PM
DaveB:

You need to remember to include the appropriate smilies when you write stuff like this. Otherwise people will think you're serious.


OK then, Relatively good character, compared to Bubba & Hildabeast Kilntoon at the least.

Thumper
January 6, 2004, 03:54 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear...I believe Fleicher said EXACTLY what Bush meant to say.

I would've done the same thing. If you're reasonably certain that it's going to be a non issue ( see awban scoreboard a awban.com), then why put your head on the political chopping block?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 6, 2004, 04:03 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear...I believe Fleicher said EXACTLY what Bush meant to say.

I would've done the same thing. If you're reasonably certain that it's going to be a non issue ( see awban scoreboard a awban.com), then why put your head on the political chopping block?


I get your point now.

I see a little distinction between Bush saying he will sign it if it appears on his desk and other's then saying "Bush supports renewal of the AWB" But not very much distinction.

Bush could have had Fleischer mumble some incoherent nostrum like "The President doesn't want to prejudge the issue and will examine any AWB bill that reaches his desk very closely based on it's effectiveness in reducing crime to date and consistent with the fact that we already have 20,000 gun lawsonthebooksandhow'boutthemTexasRangersand... "

Thumper
January 6, 2004, 04:14 PM
Bush could have had Fleischer mumble some incoherent nostrum like "The President doesn't want to prejudge the issue and will examine any AWB bill that reaches his desk very closely based on it's effectiveness in reducing crime to date and consistent with the fact that we already have 20,000 gun lawsonthebooksandhow'boutthemTexasRangersand... "

I agree, and I wish he would've. I also wish he didn't support NICS. But to pretend that he's not the best electable candidate we have as 2nd Amendment advocates is ridiculous.

Bruce H
January 6, 2004, 05:24 PM
Has anyone really searched all the little nooks and crannys of the patriot act? I'll bet a dollar to a donut that there is language in there that could make the AWB renewal moot. If you can't win going straight ahead try an end run. Political expediency is what has placed us in this mess. How long has it been since a high elected official actually had a position and stayed with it. Opinion poll politics will ruin us as a nation yet.

willp58
January 6, 2004, 05:56 PM
Thank you Thumper!

<<<<But to pretend that he's not the best electable candidate we have as a 2nd Amendment advocate is ridiculous.>>>

And that is what I was getting at this whole time....

Everyone's down on Bush but have you all forgotten what it was like under the "Great White Stainmeister"???
He was constantly after our gun rights -- We couldn't wait till he was outta there!

Moparmike
January 7, 2004, 05:26 AM
Politics is the art of what's possible. GW said he was not in favor of any new gun legislation. That's the best you're gonna get. Bush is the man for me.

Will he sign the AWB renewal? You bet he will. And so would I if I was him. It's called political expediency.

Don't like it? Vote for Howard. Check out his web site. Anti-gun all the way.Is this a joke? Dean is anti gun. Dubbya has promised (through Fliescher) to sign the AWB. Umm, yeah. :scrutiny:

Lets see: I have two options, one candidtate who mentioned useing vaseline when raping my rights, or one that didnt mention it. To think that I should choose the canditate that mentions using vaseline when he/she will be raping my rights is so ludicrious that I cant begin to fathom how anyone even concieved the notion. That will most certainly not be an election I will be a part of.

I take a 3rd option, as would any rational person. Vote for the guy that will stick up for my rights.

clubsoda22
January 7, 2004, 05:54 AM
Does anyone else think that the patriot act will set a bad precident that will make it easier for the government to take our guns in the future, you know "for our own safety"?

WonderNine
January 7, 2004, 06:21 AM
Clark sounds cool, but he wants to renew the AW ban...

Clark is also anti-CCW for us foolish peasants.

Ryder
January 7, 2004, 07:04 AM
A vote for a third party is not a wasted vote. It is one less vote Bush did not earn.

What is Bush doing to repair the damage Klinton did? Nothing! Sooner or later the Dems will pick up right where they left off. Doesn't matter to me one bit if it is sooner or later. Twiddling your thumbs for another 4 years is rediculous.

Tamara
January 7, 2004, 07:43 AM
willp58 said:

A vote for Alfred A Newman or some other fringy is a wasted vote -- You might vote for Alfie to "feel good" but the reality is......Wasted vote.

John Quincy Adams said:

Always vote for a principle, though you vote alone, and you may cherish the sweet reflection that your vote is never lost.

dadman
January 7, 2004, 09:15 AM
Bush plays around with the AWB, while trampling rights with PA1 & 2.
If you must vote, vote third party.
Also, you could vote Dem to get it over with. Stop pretending we're 'free'.
Electoral College makes the real vote for president.

Thumper
January 7, 2004, 09:28 AM
I agree that normally a vote from your absolute heart of hearts is the only conscionable way to go.

Times aren't normal, though, folks. We live in a polarized nation. We have close to a 50/50 electorate. A vote for your conscience is a vote removed from your favorite of the two electable parties.

Please read the voting records of the two parties on the gun issues. '68, '88, '94...there are very few Repubs that vote against us and very few Dems that vote with us. Right down the line. Look it up for yourself.

There are certain aspects of the GOP that I can't stand...but they recognize the need for the "teeth of democracy." That's the bunch that'll get my vote.

Joe Demko
January 7, 2004, 09:36 AM
Absolutely not. I refuse to vote for Bush simply because somebody else might be "worse" on the gun issue. You can hold your nose and vote for him if you wish, but I'm going third party. Whichever Republican or Democrat stooge wins doesn't really make any difference, but I'll be able to live with myself by not having endorsed one of them.

jefmad
January 7, 2004, 10:35 AM
I agree with Golgo, I will vote my concience. In addition is it really the worst thing if there is a Republican Congress and a Democratic President? I like the gridlock of having competing parties in power better than what I have seen from the all Republican power in Washington.

Derek Zeanah
January 7, 2004, 10:52 AM
Conscience here. And I live in Florida, arguably the one state where every vote for the "lesser evil" really matters.

So there. :neener:

Sean Smith
January 7, 2004, 10:54 AM
Alfred A Newman

That's Alfred E. Newman, as in, "What, me worry?"

:neener:

Thumper
January 7, 2004, 10:55 AM
To be honest, Bush is gonna win by a landslide in my state, so I might vote for the Greens. I want em to get matching funds to pull votes from the Democrats.

So back atcha... :neener:

Jonesy9
January 7, 2004, 10:57 AM
good point Jefmad- one party control is a disaster. Gop outspending Dems and prok galor for the boys while running up huge deficiets. The GOP has morphed into everything it once proclaimed to be about fiscally.

TheEgg
January 7, 2004, 11:11 AM
We knew he lost Florida, but we did nothing

Not true -- every independent count resulted in a narrow Bush win.

I am of the "hold my nose and vote Bush" camp. There is much I dislike about Bush and the Republicans, and I agree that there is only a thin difference between them and the Democrats -- BUT there is a difference.

I cannot vote Libertarian, as I do not support much of their platform, and I doubt that they will ever be viable.

We need to push the Republicans as hard as we can to move toward governing from constitutional principles -- but, with the best intentions possible, they cannot move far and remain electable.

As someone above said, we are a divided country -- about half of our voters vote for bread and circuses, and would welcome socialism in all of its glory.:banghead:

So any party that wants to return to constitutional principles must do so in VERY small steps, educating the electorate all the way, or they will simply be crushed by the Socialst/Democratic machine.

Thumper
January 7, 2004, 11:18 AM
The GOP has morphed into everything it once proclaimed to be about fiscally.

That seems to be true, but it's the party of chioce if we want to work within the system to get back there. There are still plenty of effective die hard fiscal conservatives out there...and they're all have an (R) after their names.

BigG
January 7, 2004, 11:24 AM
Whichever Republican or Democrat stooge wins doesn't really make any difference, ... yada yada The candidate is not the stooge. The only stooge is someone who actually believes that crap. Wake up! Unless you are joking, then please include a smiley face! :uhoh:

Diesle
January 7, 2004, 11:41 AM
If it were going to be like a 2 million person synchronized swim, now would be a great time to send a message to the party. A SHORT TERM loss to the left would not be the end of the world to me. It’s the uncertainty in knowing whether or not 'we' could take it back 4 years down the road..... with a more committed right thinking leader. I mean a true fiscal conservative and constitutionalist.... Limited government type.... In know, a Libertarian in a Republican suite....


I’m up in the air still, which isn’t a bad place to be since there is almost a year left to decide.


Diesle

willp58
January 7, 2004, 12:52 PM
Ok Mike good idea --- What is this guy's name????? Remember, obviously he HAS to be a viable candidate..

<<<<I take a 3rd option, as would any rational person. Vote for the guy that will stick up for my rights.>>>>>

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 7, 2004, 02:45 PM
Derek Zeanah:

Conscience here. And I live in Florida, arguably the one state where every vote for the "lesser evil" really matters

I have you beat there. I lived in S.E. Connecticut the when our far-left gun grabbin DemocRat Congressman Sam Gejdenson won our district by 5 votes over the pro RKBA Republican Ed Munster. Most gun owners stayed home of course since it was well known that Munster had no chance. :cuss:

The people awoke the next time around and elected the strong RKBA Republican Robert Simmons.

Bill Hook
January 7, 2004, 03:19 PM
A SHORT TERM loss to the left would not be the end of the world to me.

The AWB/mag-ban was enacted 2 years into Klinton's first term, right?

As another perspective, the demos didn't get universal healthcare through, but DID find time and votes to restrict RKBA.

bountyhunter
January 7, 2004, 06:28 PM
As another perspective, the demos didn't get universal healthcare through, but DID find time and votes to restrict RKBA.

To set the record straight, the Clinton admin failed to get reform on medical care because Bill gave it to Hillary who promptly pissed off the entire congress. They stuffed it up her rear to send that administration a message. IMO, the AWB ban went through because the dems were behind it but also because there were plenty of repubs who also were and they saw this as a way to get it done and be able to blame it on Clinton.

As you can see in Bush's actions, a lot of repubs are definitely in favor of the AWB, they are just stepping lightly and double talking it because they are afraid of pissing off the NRA.

Balog
January 7, 2004, 08:22 PM
I'd say that the riposte to the original mall ninja thread on glocktalk is appropriate here. If plan A is for you to take multiple rounds of .308 in your back, I would come up with a plan B.

Good luck.

fallingblock
January 8, 2004, 02:41 AM
"there are very few Repubs that vote against us and very few Dems that vote with us. Right down the line. Look it up for yourself."
************************************************************

Dubya is the most pro-gun of the electable candidates.:(

Lieberman is of the evil 'ban-the-guns' party:eek:

Bush will get my vote in Florida...again:D

cracked butt
January 8, 2004, 02:54 AM
Have we all gotten gullible and started believing politicians?
We believe Bush's words as gospel truth that he will sign an AWB if it comes to his desk? Some of us have even extended this belief that he would sign any AWB bill regardless of its content?

We start believing that Howard Dean or any of the other clowns running for the democrat nomination has no agenda whatsoever or probably will never flip to the darkside when it comes to banning guns? Remember our old friend Al Gore had the same position before he became VPOTUS.

cracked butt
January 8, 2004, 03:03 AM
As you can see in Bush's actions, a lot of repubs are definitely in favor of the AWB, they are just stepping lightly and double talking it because they are afraid of pissing off the NRA. -Bountyhunter


I think this answers the whole AWB/Bush/congress thing in a nutshell. It sounded more like a line drawn in the sand for to me than a promise when the President said he would sign an AWB into law if it reaches his desk. If such a bill reaches his desk, the Republic control over congress, as weak as it is can kiss its butt g'bye. He does not want the bill to reach his desk- especially before election, it would inflame too many people no matter which action he took. If the Republicans in the house and senate are going to do political horse trading and pass an AWB bill, Bush is going to make sure that they pay dearly for it.
After Bush is reelected to office, he will not sign such a bill- count on it.

clubsoda22
January 8, 2004, 04:42 AM
We believe Bush's words as gospel truth that he will sign an AWB if it comes to his desk?

True, if the last 3 years have shown anything, it's that we can't trust one damn word bush says.

People have to stop voting on one issue.

And if you want to vote only on guns, wait untill they confiscate your guns after the next terrorist attack and tell you it's for your own safety. I guess we deserve it for not firing every lawmaker, regardless of party, who voted for the patriot act.

Having one party controlling the house, senate and presidency is dangerous. Washington works better when nothing gets done. The less they can agree on, the less rights get infringed.

fallingblock
January 8, 2004, 04:54 AM
Not if there are enough of them:D !

Publicola
January 8, 2004, 07:37 AM
Suppose the president says he'll sign a bill re-instating slavery if comngress can repeal the 13th amendment & then pass it.
Now supposse that he immedietely went behind the scenes to quietly discourage congress from taking any action.

Would he be a good president or a bad one?

That's for y'all to decide. Personally I don't care for people who don't respect thier word, nor do I care for people who attempt to violate my Rights, whether it was to fufill an oath or for any other reason.

Speaking of oaths, didn't Bush (as every president before him) swear an oath to uphold & defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign & domestic?

But let me stress something else; Bush is responsible for the actions of his AG. If Bush disapproves of Ashcroft's actions then Bush can either order him to remedy the situation or replace him. The buck stops with Bush.

With that in mind, here's why Bush wouldn't get my vote even if he had remained silent on the AWB;

Ashcrogt has stated that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual Right to Arms, subject to reasonable government restriction. Under that policy he's been pursuing several Bush approved programs: Project Exile/Safestreets/Neighborhoods. These are designed to vigorously enforce all federal firearms laws.

Lest ye forget, ALL federal firearms laws are unconstitutional. whether it be for a felon possessing a weapon, or a man making a silencer so he won't go deaf from target practice, a person who puts a post-ban "assault weapon" in a pre-ban folding stock, or the guy busted for carrying a .44 in bear country that wanders inadvertently into a national park.

So regardless of the justifications for Bush supporting the renewal of the AWB, Bush is no friend to the people as evidenced by his vigorous efforts to persecute those who exercise their Rights.

Another thing - after September the 11th what hapened? People could no longer carry finger nail clippers on planes. Someone care to point out where the 2nd amendment has an exception for those traveling in fedewrally regulated conveyences? Fact is if Bush hadn't stood idly by & allowed an unconstitutional law disarm airline passengers, there's a good chance two buildings in NYC would still be there, along with 3,000 people.

So Bush has enforced laws that infringe upon our Rights, even after said victim disarmament allowed a handful of murderers with knives to take out 2 buildings & 3,000 people.

& Bush is a gun owners friend????

BTW, Bush signed a CCW bill into law in Texas. & the point? How is that a positive for gun owners? The CCW bill requires a Texan to grovel & beg the state, after paying a hefty fee, in order to exercise a natural, inherent Right that's guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Well, that's not completely true. A Right is something that is exercised without having to grovel for permission. What Bush did is turn what should have been respected as a Right into a privilege that the poorest Texans could not afford.

Not to mention Bush asked SCOTUS to not hear two 2nd amendment court cases; one was Haney, which involved a challenge to the NFA of '34, the other was Emerson, which challenged the Lautenburg amendment.

If Bush turned around & withdrew his support of the AWB, stopped enforcing all federal gun laws, put as much pressure as possible on congress &/or the courts to repeal all federal gun control laws, & urged states to pass Vermont based carry laws, then he'd be a friend of the gun owners of this country.

As it stands now Bush is a friend of those who want "reasonable restrictions" on firearms.

As to the talk of an electable candidate - Will it really matter when your Rights are negated if it's done by someone who professes you don't have any, or if it's done by someone who claims you have them, but they're subject to the government's whims? I see no difference between the two.
Neither do I see that voting for someone who has a chance at winning is the proper way to go about things.

We've been misled that one of two parties will win for a long time. It's because of that we're in the situation we are now. We can either start throwing our weight behind candidates who we would be ashamed of if they did win, or we could try to tell our grandchildren that we voted for the lesser of two evils.

The only way to effectively change things is to throw as much voter weight as possible behind a third party. For the sake of discussion let's say the Libertarian Party (although the Constitution Party looks like they have some good ideas as well). we all vote for the Libertarians. two things will happen; Republicans may lose as most Libertarain votes will be disgruntled republicans. The other thing is that the Republican Party might understand the message; sell us out we'll boot you to the curb.

In the short term (4-12 years) this will cause Democrats to win office. In the long term it will steer the Republican Party back towards the right, or it will replace the Republican Party with the Libertarian Party as the other viable choice.

I guess what you should ask yourself is are you willing to make a short term sacrifice for a long term goal, or are you willing to give up the long term goal for some short term comfort?

But let me be clear on this: the AWB has enough votes in the House & Senate to pass. The only reason it hasn't has been because it hasn't came up for a vote. DeLay swears this won't happen (then again he said there wasn't enough votes), but Hastert is the Speaker of the House & he decides what gets voted on & what doesn't.Hastert has said it's still possible that the AWB renewal could come up for a vote. (http://publicola.blogspot.com/2003_05_11_publicola_archive.html#94444153)

So don't think we're out of the woods on this yet. & don't think Bush will not actively push it. If he's enforcing it now & promises to sign it later, damn skippy he'll use his political push to renew as a bargaining chip for something he wants. (http://publicola.blogspot.com/2003_05_25_publicola_archive.html#95021573)

One last thing, the AWB passed because the Repubs, at the direction of the NRA, let is pass so they could move on & pass the Brady Bill, which both the NRA & the republicans wanted to pass. (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/turkey.htm)

So don't think that Bush is an exception. A lot of Republicans support gun control, they're just better about the PR than the Democrats are. & don't be fooled into thinking that it's either Bush or a democrat to be named later. That's looking at the short term (the presidency) & not looking at the long term (forcing the Republican Party to change or be swept aside).

Tamara
January 8, 2004, 07:49 AM
Forget the AWB, the spineless bureacrat already earned my undying contempt by signing the Campaign Finance Reform act, while acknowledging that it was unconstitutional!

If he ain't got the stones to veto unconstitutional legislation, he ain't doing his job right, period.

Orthonym
January 8, 2004, 08:22 AM
Even so, I have a bad taste in my mouth about it. I voted for him because I thought he was the smaller curculio (lesser of two weevils),but I've since come to the conclusion that all weevils are bad.

Billmanweh
January 8, 2004, 08:33 AM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030514-5.html#8

Q Ari, a new subject. The House Republicans have apparently broken with the President over the issue of the assault weapons ban. Is reauthorizing assault weapons ban a priority enough for the President to do some of his own arm-twisting to try and get the House to allow a vote?

MR. FLEISCHER Well, I think the President's position is clear and the President supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons
ban. We are working right now with the Congress on the issues that are on their plate, that they're focusing on right now, and then Congress, of course, is going to leave for the Memorial Day recess. I mentioned the AIDS initiative and the tax cut, the growth initiative that are pending on the floor this week. The President doesn't set the congressional calendar or schedule. We'll continue to work with the Congress, and they know the President's position.

Q Does the President believe that the bill -- excuse me, the law that's on the books right now has taken steps to alleviate crimes?

MR. FLEISCHER Well, there's a study underway to determine that, and the study is still pending. The President said in the 2000 campaign that he supported the assault weapons ban because he thought it was reasonable. He stated then that he would support the reauthorization of it, and he states that again today.

Billmanweh
January 8, 2004, 08:38 AM
one more...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030430-10.html#m

Q Another thing, on another subject. The NRA, Charleton Heston has left. Many are wondering about a statement that was said that the assault weapons ban will not continue once it expires. The administration has said something different. How is this meshing with a group that is friend to the Bush administration?

MR. FLEISCHER I think the administration is already on record about the assault weapon ban. The President has said that he supports the current assault weapons ban, and he would support the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban.

Q So the NRA is just out in left field then?

MR. FLEISCHER The President approaches every issue on the merits of the issue. Sometimes he agrees with different people on different issues, but I think when it comes to virtually all the issues that have been presented, the President has strong agreement with the National Rifle Association. The President's position on the current assault weapons ban is known.

Moparmike
January 8, 2004, 09:39 AM
Damned good post Publicola.

My first Presidential election, and I will be voting my principles. But we all are throwing away our votes because of that damned archaic Electoral College.:banghead: :cuss:

seeker_two
January 8, 2004, 11:09 AM
So far, the only reasons I've heard to support Bush have been....

1. He's done a good job with the War on Terrorism (granted, but can you say that any of the other '00 Republican primary candidates wouldn't have done as well?)

2. Even though he says he'll sign an AWB, he probably won't. (...which would make him a liar. Why would we trust someone who lies? :scrutiny: )

3. He's a lot better than any of the Democrat candidates running. (Maybe. But he's helped pass a lot of bills that the Democrats supported--CFR, education spending, illegal alien amnesty, etc. Kinda like saying that Hitler is OK because he didn't kill as many Jews as Stalin... :banghead: )

For those who disagree w/ Bush's positions but are voting for him anyway: If he has your votes no matter what, what motivation does Bush have to change? :scrutiny:

For those who plan to skip voting: Why do you think that will help send a message other than the American public is apathetic & more interested in "American Idol" than American elections? :scrutiny:

For those who want to send the Republicans a message: Check out my sig line... :cool:

Denver
January 8, 2004, 11:17 AM
Libertarian! Libertarian! Libertarian!

No matter which way things go, I'm stashing ammo and spare parts right now!

Selfdfenz
January 8, 2004, 11:43 AM
A long but great thread.

If W is creating this much upset and descention with a group of individuals that would typically be considered at the heart of his voting base, it should give one pause. Many here that voted for him last time will do otherwise this go-round.

What should be scarier still for Rove and Bush, if they cared to consider it, is that there are other groups and individual voters out there that have a different "main issue". Be it the size of government, immigration, spending or the intrusiveness of government , in so many ways this president has upset, disappointed and alienated many of them too. Again, these individuals might have been considered strongly part of his core of supporters.

If any of you follow M. Savage he was pondering this trend on his radio show last night and many callers were of the mindset not to support this president in the next election for a lot of the reasons listed in this tread.
I was amazed how similiar the emotions expressed by many of the callers were to those expressed here.

It may not make too much difference if W is the lesser of the two evils from a 2A POV. I think he has lost just enough support to loose the election.

S-

fix
January 8, 2004, 11:58 AM
I listened to Savage last night and he brought up a lot of good points. I think that there is a real possibility that GW could be a one termer like his old man. He has turned his back on the people who put him in office. He seems content to use the "where ya gonna go?" defense. Lemme tell ya, I'm gonna go home...that's where. No vote for Bush if this continues. I could not, in good conscience, vote for any of the democrats. But, I would harbor no guilt at all for just holding my vote.

Hmmm...

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-campaign2002/1049494/posts

oldfart
January 8, 2004, 12:25 PM
I voted for Bush but I won't do it again.

Vin Suprynowicz wrote a book that told a story about the 1932 election. He pointed out the huge difference between the Socialist Party platform and that of the winning Democrats. He then went on to list all the planks from thae Socialists that were enacted into law by the Democrats.

Bush has done much the same. Only this time, the Republicans have stolen the Democrats thunder. My vote might as well have been for Gore. Granted, Gore wouldn't have prosecuted the war as well as Bush, but we'd still have some form of CFR, the Patriot Act, Patriot II, and an impending renewal of the AWB.

Is it time yet?

fix
January 8, 2004, 12:29 PM
IMO we now have two groups of conservatives. Those who fully realize that we made a mistake and those who are in denial. We should have nominated Alan Keyes but instead we chose the more electable candidate and made a horrible mistake. Had Gore won, we would have gridlock and gridlock is looking mighty good right now.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 8, 2004, 02:00 PM
fix:

IMO we now have two groups of conservatives. Those who fully realize that we made a mistake and those who are in denial. We should have nominated Alan Keyes but instead we chose the more electable candidate and made a horrible mistake. Had Gore won, we would have gridlock and gridlock is looking mighty good right now.


In Bush's agenda it is kind of amazing to see how the far-left Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party has returned zombie-like from the grave that Goldwater and Reagan were supposed to have put it in.

What conservative can put thick-headed leftists like Bush I and II out of the Republican Party for good? Congressman Dana Rorabacher (R-CA) seems to be one of the few making any sense and speaking the truth about Bush II's liberal B.S.

seeker_two
January 8, 2004, 02:24 PM
Well, the GOP's chief apologist, Rush Limbaugh, is spinning this like an ADHD ballerina...

Read this... (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010704/content/across_the_fruited_plain.guest.html)

He's praising Bush for taking a "leadership position" and taking another issue from the Democrats. He's also saying that Bush isn't in danger of losing his base....:rolleyes:

Wonder if anyone will ask him about this on January 2005? :banghead:

fix
January 8, 2004, 02:27 PM
Almost all of the conservative radio hosts are doing the same. I listened to the Martha Zoller (local to GA) show on the way into work this morning and she was catching hell for her apologist attitude. Hopefully the message got through.

longeyes
January 8, 2004, 02:47 PM
At the risk of sounding like the Tinfoil Man I will suggest that the reason the "old conservatives" never died is that they have been running America, from behind the arras, all along. Now and then a "proxy" appears (Carter, Clinton), but they usually turn out to be backed by Old Connections and Old Money. Folks, the State Dept. is a branch of the Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Clubs, and this Election is practically an all-Yale, mostly Skull & Bones affair. If they are not in active cahoots, they think alike and were raised alike. Dean and Bush could be brothers, and I'm beginning to think they share the same elitist lunacy.

JitsuGuy
January 8, 2004, 02:53 PM
Longeyes is correct. Unfortunately, the starter of this thread asked who would be better then Bush... Well, my answer is someone, anyone who isn't associated with these Elitists pigs that want to ruin us.

J

griz
January 8, 2004, 03:56 PM
I'm a two issue voter. RKBA is second only to a smaller government. When the Republicans had the Contract With America 10 years ago I believed they were headed toward a smaller gov. If you believe that now your eyes are closed.

So I'll probably be "wasting" my vote by sticking to my principles and voting Libertarian. I live in a largely Republican state so it probably won't matter. But if my vote results in gridlock, well that's probably better than a runaway government.

cracked butt
January 8, 2004, 05:14 PM
BTW, Bush signed a CCW bill into law in Texas. & the point? How is that a positive for gun owners? The CCW bill requires a Texan to grovel & beg the state, after paying a hefty fee, in order to exercise a natural, inherent Right that's guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Well, that's not completely true. A Right is something that is exercised without having to grovel for permission. What Bush did is turn what should have been respected as a Right into a privilege that the poorest Texans could not afford.

At least in Texas there is the possibility of a citizen getting a CCW permit. In my state where we have a fricken loser for a governor, the whole idea that a person could carry a defense weapon got vetoed. Would you prefer that we had Jim Doyle as the president of the United States? How about Al Gore?

There's a whole lot of bitching about the president, yet noone here is stepping up with a solution to the perceived problems or for that matter is running for president themselves.:rolleyes:

Tamara
January 8, 2004, 11:43 PM
There's a whole lot of bitching about the president, yet noone here is stepping up with a solution to the perceived problems or for that matter is running for president themselves.:rolleyes:

Let me guess, that's from the new Campaign Finance Reform Act, right? "Sec. 135.2: Voters may only express dissatisfaction with incumbents if they can present viable alternatives or are listed on the ballot themselves."

That loud buzzing sound you hear is the bones of Jefferson hitting 30,000 RPM. :uhoh:

TamThompson
January 8, 2004, 11:51 PM
Willp38,
To answer your original post, single issue voting is NOT a good thing. It's very narrow-minded and overly-simplistic. Don't you care about the economy, the war, the terrorism, the budget, and other issues? There *are* other issues, you know.

In fact, the issue that most directly affects the average Americans day-to-day life is not gun ownership, but their employment. I.E., whether or not their company decides to sell out the workers and ship tens of thousands of jobs overseas. Bush and company are doing an absolutely rotten job of protecting American employees. They're on the side of large corporations.

If you do, in fact, work for a company, think about what it would be like to lose your job and can't afford more guns and ammo. Not a pretty picture, huh?

aikidoka-mks
January 9, 2004, 12:27 AM
Well Bush has me a bit perplexed. Im not going to throw away a vote on someone unelectable though and Bush is also pro-life which is a very important issue for me.

As far as understanding/defending the constitution - as written - I like Alan Keyes. I wonder how he would have handled 9-11 and the war on terror though and what kind of cabinet he would have assembeled.

Mark

Diesle
January 9, 2004, 12:53 AM
That loud buzzing sound you hear is the bones of Jefferson hitting 30,000 RPM.

Good stuff! :D


Diesle

cracked butt
January 9, 2004, 09:03 AM
Tamara,
Do you think that the campaign finance reform act, a darling cause of the media would not have passed if someone else were president? The only candidate in the last election that would probably opposed such nonsense was Buchanan. As long asa the Supreme and Federal courts are stacked with liberal activist judges, don't expect the law of the land to change.

Tamara
January 9, 2004, 09:10 AM
Do you think that the campaign finance reform act, a darling cause of the media would not have passed if someone else were president?

What does that have to do with the price of caffeinated beverages in the Orient?

"Just because all the other kids would've signed an unconstitutional bill into law, little Georgie, that doesn't make it okay for you to sign one." :uhoh:

aikidoka-mks
January 9, 2004, 09:14 AM
I may support Bush - in a somewhat dismayed fashion right now - but the best that can be said about campaign finance reform is that it was a huge political miscalculation. Assuming the Supremes would overturn it was actually a very shaky assumption to make. I think Keyes would also have rejected such a law.

Mark

Lone_Gunman
January 9, 2004, 12:02 PM
Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform law because he thought the Supreme Court would overturn it. He played political "Chicken" with the First Amendment, and lost.

Bush says he will sign the AWB renewal because he doesn't think Congress will send a bill to him. Again he plays chicken with our rights, this time the Second Amendment.

One question for Bush supporters to ponder is this: If Bush thought the Campaign Finance Reform Bill was unconstitutional (he is on record saying he thought it was), then how can he sign it into law, while still claiming to have an oath to preserve the Constitution???

jfh
January 9, 2004, 12:20 PM
but I think it can be argued that the place to play out the constitutionality of a bill is in the judicial branch--.e.g., sign it into law and let the appeals begin.

A real problem for us gunnies really rests in the kind of analytical models we've learned as a product of American thought (Western Civ, etc., etc.) Most of us do not have a model that integrates relativism and absolutism, except in the political arena.

For example, I do not believe the 2ndA is relative--i.e., I believe that the historical record shows that it is 1) an individual right, and 2) that it is a priori as written into the BOR.

However, I do believe that Governments have a right to regulate--e.g., the 'weapons of war' scenario. The integration of the two is left to politics. But, I readily admit that the regulation right puts me into the quandry of the slippery slope problems. However, since the purpose of regulation ought to be generally to preserve minority rights (and not necessarily expand them) of the populace, then the GC efforts should be pulled back to about pre 1935, and the AWB is unconstitutional based on the a priori argument.

So, back to the topic at hand: While GWB doesn't operate the way my argument above would indicate he should, it is clear the Democrats are far worse, as a national party, for expansion of governmental control, and will remain that way far into the future. Their strategy of gathering up various invented minority groups and catering to them makes them highly dependent on their icons.

Given the GC icons they have (SCUBA Ted, the Travelling Cripple Show, etc.), they are lost to change for at least another twenty years, or until the Gen X/Y people become more politically dominant. The presence of the Baby Boomer's generation (of whom I am almost a part--just a year too old, as it were) as the dominant age group (the leadership) means that it rests in a 60s political action model, and that is one not very amenable to change.

And what is Dean if not an A-type boomer with political leadership abilities?

longeyes
January 9, 2004, 12:27 PM
"One question for Bush supporters to ponder is this: If Bush thought the Campaign
Finance Reform Bill was unconstitutional (he is on record saying he thought it
was), then how can he sign it into law, while still claiming to have an oath to
preserve the Constitution???"

The answer to this question is simple: Bush is not a President in the ordinary sense to which we have become accustomed; he is really a national corporate CEO who rarely consults his "mission statement" because, in his heart, he believes it's more PR than bottom-line reality. This is the new wave of Presidenting, my fellow American shoppers.

Malone LaVeigh
January 9, 2004, 01:40 PM
Appologies to whoever I'm paraphrasing here:

Are gun owners not also Americans? If our economy is destroyed by chronic deficit spending, do we not want for food and shelter as much as others? If our children are sent off to fight unnecessary wars do they not bleed red? If our civil liberties are taken away by government intrusions into our private lives do we not suffer as much? Do we breathe a different air if industry is allowed to pollute at will? Have we less need for clean water than other Americans?

I won't be voting for Bush in any circumstance. What I will do is still undecided.

Tamara
January 9, 2004, 11:30 PM
but I think it can be argued that the place to play out the constitutionality of a bill is in the judicial branch--.e.g., sign it into law and let the appeals begin.

Gosh, why does the President have that spiffy "veto" thing, then? I seem to recall that Reagan used it a lot. Not as much as Coolidge, but more than most of the spineless windsocks that have occupied the office since then...

willp58
January 9, 2004, 11:45 PM
TAM WROTE:
<<<Willp38,
To answer your original post, single issue voting is NOT a good thing. It's very narrow-minded and overly-simplistic. Don't you care about the economy, the war, the terrorism, the budget, and other issues? There *are* other issues, you know.>>>>

I certainly DO care about other issues, however realistically, the economy was going downhill BEFORE Bush took office..The economy is cyclic..This is a fact and I really believe that no matter who is in office - it will remain cyclic.

I would really love to know what the outcome of 9/11 would have been if someone other that Bush was in the White House...
Would he have "turned the other cheek"?? Would he have gone after them like Bush did?? I think we underestimated the Iraqis. Now we are in over our heads and it's going to take some fancy footwork to get us out of there and still save face.
The burning question is: Would Gore (or whoever) have handled it any better????

The budget is of course tied into the war. Until this damn thing is over, we are going to spend bigtime.

I notice one poster here thinks it is no big deal that Texas got a CCW..Well how about if they go back to NO CARRY??? Would that be better??
Yes they have to endure some background checks --but at least they CAN get one.

My original question still stands:
Who of the candidates that actually stand a chance of winning is a better gun President than Bush???
These would include Dean, Kerry and Clark... Again, REALISTICALLY it will be one of these men...

longeyes
January 10, 2004, 12:36 AM
"Who of the candidates that actually stand a chance of winning is a better gun
President than Bush???"

Our gun rights do not depend on which President we elect. And certainly not on one who doesn't appear to care that much about the Constitution.

Balog
January 10, 2004, 12:37 AM
Voting is not like gambling on hockey. The object is not to figure out who the winner will be and bet on them. If I have to choose between supporting Stalin to depose Hitler, or fighting both; I would choose the latter.


How can you possibly support a President who violates his oath of office by passing a law he admits is unConstitutional?

Tamara
January 10, 2004, 12:48 AM
Who of the candidates that actually stand a chance of winning is a better gun President than Bush???
These would include Dean, Kerry and Clark... Again, REALISTICALLY it will be one of these men...

Which ice cream flavor would you prefer: possum kidney or roadkill chunk? No fair casting a vote for chocolate fudge, you have to pick between the two I specified...

willp58
January 10, 2004, 09:17 AM
Tamara wrote:

<<<<Which ice cream flavor would you prefer: possum kidney or roadkill chunk? No fair casting a vote for chocolate fudge, you have to pick between the two I specified...>>>>


Ok I'll vote for chocolate fudge *IF I HAVE A CHANCE OF GETTING IT...

If it's not even on the menu AT ALL....Then why would I ax for it????

The waitress would roll her eyes and gesture at the door.

Tamara
January 10, 2004, 09:21 AM
Y'know, then I'm just not going to order any damn ice cream. They're just going to force-feed me whichever one they want, and I want to make sure they know that it was against my wishes.

jfh
January 10, 2004, 11:09 AM
re GWB's non-veto record:

The implicit argument I was making here is the 'tools' metaphor we all use regarding firearms.

IOW, a politician (in a certain office at a certain point in time, etc.) has a number of tools at his disposal. Insofar as bill passage is concerned, GWB can do at three things--he can approve/sign the bill into law; he can disapprove/veto the bill, and he can sit on it and let it become law without his signature.

Using a tool a certain way may or may not have a strategic function--here, a decision to let the courts rule on the constitutionality of the law could be deliberate decision.

Personally, I don't particularly care for this strategic approach, but I can see it...and, as your post seems to imply, that action does not reinforce our perception of his action being doctrinaire or correct for his seeming ideological stance.

It is clear to me that GWB is no more 'conservative' with regards to firearms regulation, and that in the standard nomenclature, he is at best moderate. However, contrast that with the Democratic National Party platform / statements on gun control, and the slavish adherence to it by all democratic candidates: GWB's ties to 'conservatism' and his pro-gun voter base, and it is clear that he is a far better choice than ANY democrat.

Art Eatman
January 10, 2004, 11:34 AM
Since short-term memory seems to be a national problem, let me remind the impaired that there was a poll taken after the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. Over half the respondents said they'd not object to some reductions in freedoms in order to have more security.

Fast forward to 9/11, a far more severe event than that in Olympic Park.

The Patriot Act was passed by one of the highest margins in Congressional history. It was a truly bi-partisan effort, for good or ill insofar as potential for abuse of civil liberties. We've commented at length about ensuing laws and regulations--and, they too have been bi-partisan.

Now, Bush made a pro-AWB comment that was practically a throwaway line; I'd suspect merely to defuse the gun-grabbers and their sycophants in the media. I've heard no comments about any administration pressure on the House to renew the ban.

To suggest voting for a Democrat for President, and thus a probable return to the anti-gun activism of the recent two administrations under Clinton, strikes me as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Art

longeyes
January 10, 2004, 12:09 PM
Gun policies are pulled in the wake of other social and political policies. From my perspective Bush's policies will lead inevitably to a crackdown on gun rights. Perhaps his desire to disarm us is less than the Democrat alternatives but that doesn't make him any less dangerous to our civil liberties, and the fact that he is a Republican, with Republican support in Congress, gives him power that a more restrained Executive would not have. Globalization and open borders conduce not to "free markets" but to swelling populations and an overburdening of social services and the usual pressures for "equity," with the predictable impact on the taxpayer. We are going the way, slowly but surely, of Brazil, and I think most of us here are aware what President Lula recently enacted, in the interest of reducing "disequity."

jfh
January 10, 2004, 12:17 PM
Your succinct summary of some of the factors at work here is really, really good.

I cruise this forum and the general discussion one three or four times a day--since I've joined, I've been really curious to understand all the elements that make up this gunny community. Overall, THR is the best gun forum I've seen.

There certainly does seem to be three contingentcies--one, a large one, is the Libertarian / ideologically-driven group. They've provided for me a good insight into some of that particular political stance. The second is simply the gunny enthusiast group, of no particular bent. The third, of course, seems to me to be the 'liberal' group--gunnies who are / have been historically driven by Democratic Party values.

Those liberals are the ones I worry about, as much as I share some of those values. They seem to forget that the Democrat Party fundamentally changed in the last twenty-five years--i.e., after the sixtie's 'Activist' model blended with the party's need to invent more minority groups to expand their voter base led to the federal Democrat's vote-buying with new entitlements. Then throw in sick Willy's victimology promotion--and look what you have.

I submit that ANY one here--i.e., a gunny--seriously considering a democrat vote this fall is probably driven more by emotion--by their 'hatred' of Bush--than by any rational view of their 'preferred' probable candidate and his political position on firearms.

longeyes
January 10, 2004, 12:54 PM
"I submit that ANY one here--i.e., a gunny--seriously considering a democrat vote this fall is probably driven more by emotion--by their 'hatred' of Bush--than by any rational view of their 'preferred' probable candidate and his political position on firearms."

I am not planning to vote for any Democrat presidential candidate but to equate vote for Bush with a vote for "reason" strikes me as an intellectual leap not quite up to Bob Beamon's. Perhaps we are all just venting our frustrations out loud as we are compelled to recognize that Bush's agenda is comprised of one tablespoon of "compassion" sprinkled over a large stew of expediency.

jfh
January 10, 2004, 01:18 PM
I don't think that a vote for Bush is necessarily a vote for reason--quite frankly, I distrust him. I see a vote for him as merely a pragmatic one.

The point that I'm trying to make is, that to the extent one is a (nominal) single-issue / pro-gun voter, then to consider voting Democratic in the following election is simply not rational, and that there are probably other non-rational explanations for considering such a vote.

For my rationalizations for a bush vote--they really are based on incrementalism: We got into this mess one step at a time (although arguably the 'little steps' Foley made to get the AWB vote passed have been penalized), and we'll get out of it one step at a time. If the electorate will seriously consider more conservative presidencies (at least on firearms), then we'll gain some more. So, with the general public liberal/political division being nominally equal, I consider a non-Bush vote for someone more pro-gun as simply taking votes away from a probable winner and making the liklihood of an anti-gun Democrat just that much more likely.

And, I consider myself to largely be a single-issue vote--i.e., pro/anti gun--and will therefore vote for Bush given his record to date.

Joe Demko
January 10, 2004, 04:03 PM
Pragmatism is one word for it. I don't care to be pragmatic any more. I'm concerned with keeping my self-respect. Doing the wrong thing for pragmatic reasons is still doing the wrong thing.

Malone LaVeigh
January 10, 2004, 07:55 PM
I submit that ANY one here--i.e., a gunny--seriously considering a democrat vote this fall is probably driven more by emotion--by their 'hatred' of Bush--than by any rational view of their 'preferred' probable candidate and his political position on firearms.There you go with the single issue again. I happen to agree with the 'Rats on more issues than the Repugs. I'm in the majority on that, BTW. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for them, but I'm damn sure not going to vote Repug.

nemesis
January 10, 2004, 10:07 PM
Who, pray tell would make a better president *FOR GUN OWNERS* than Bush??

It's going to be tough to choose between George W. Bush and Vicente Fox. Both of them represent the best interests of Mexico.

Tamara
January 10, 2004, 10:27 PM
It is clear to me that GWB is no more 'conservative' with regards to firearms regulation, and that in the standard nomenclature, he is at best moderate. However, contrast that with the Democratic National Party platform / statements on gun control, and the slavish adherence to it by all democratic candidates: GWB's ties to 'conservatism' and his pro-gun voter base, and it is clear that he is a far better choice than ANY democrat.

So, you prefer possum kidney to roadkill chunk? Waitress! Can we get a possum kidney sundae over here!

Me, I'm not going to order any ice cream. If they want to set a bowl down in front of me, I'll do my best to ignore it. If they want me to eat it, they'd better get the restraints and the tube handy... :uhoh:

fallingblock
January 10, 2004, 11:04 PM
"I happen to agree with the 'Rats on more issues than the Repugs. I'm in the majority on that, BTW....."
************************************************************

It's the opposite for me (don't agree with much of what the "Rats say, and even less of what they do!:eek: ).

And a 'majority' empowered Hitler, among other examples of the folly of pure democracy.:scrutiny:


Art:

You said it far better than I could!

Why anyone interested in the survival of the Second Amendment would vote for ANY democ-rat candidate given the democ-rat party's well-demonstrated antipathy to firearms freedom is a mystery.:what:

jfh
January 10, 2004, 11:31 PM
If I'm following your analogy correctly, then it must be pointed out that you've already been eating that roadkill chuck ice cream sundae....

and I think the trick to getting that junk off the menu requires NOT voting for democrats on a Federal Level.

JitsuGuy
January 11, 2004, 01:18 AM
It doesn't matter who's in office. The same thing would be happening... Our Presidents anymore are just puppets to corporations and the globalists at the top of the food chain... The Rockefellers and Rothchilds come to mind.

J

carpettbaggerr
January 12, 2004, 12:48 AM
Let's remember, Bush Sr. was turned out of office, largely because he went back on his "No New Taxes" pledge. We got Bill Clinton. We got the AWB in 1994 passed by the smallest of margins. We got the Brady Act. Lucky for us, the Republicans included the 10 year sunset provision in the AWB, so we'll be rid of it this fall. Vote out Bush this time, and who knows what we'll get. A permanent ban on "Assault Weapons" ?

Perhaps Hillary Clinton will force some Wheelgun Confiscation Crunch on you, Tamara. Or some Sniper Rifle Suprise. Do you think she'll care she's force feeding you? Wouldn't you rather have a different flavor? And a better waitress? Art's right, if you cut off your nose, you'll really regret it later.


Especially when you sneeze.

Tamara
January 12, 2004, 08:58 AM
We got the Brady Act.

Legislation originally pressed for by Bush, Sr. and supported by Reagan.

Lucky for us, the Republicans included the 10 year sunset provision in the AWB

If they were our buddies, they wouldn't have put in a "sunset clause", they'd have not voted for it in the first place! :rolleyes:

A permanent ban on "Assault Weapons" ?

Kinda like the one George the First handed us in 1989? You know, the one that ended importation of AK's and HK-91's and left us with MAK-90's and thumbhole-stocked Daewoos?

Wouldn't you rather have a different flavor? And a better waitress?

Damn skippy. That's why I'm ordering chocolate. You can keep debating the merits of Possum Kidney versus Roadkill Crunch.

All my life I've watched gun laws get crappier and crappier. The only piece of good gun legislation I've seen passed was FOPA '86, and even that got turned into a mixed blessing at the last minute. Every law was passed either with the acquiescence or outright assistance of the GOP. The GOP has both houses of Congress and the Presidency right now. Since they're our good gun-lovin' buddies when in the hell are they planning on actually doing something?

Screw them. I'm sick of being lied to. Sick of them peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. Sick of them snickering behind their hands at what a bunch of rubes me and my gun owner buddies are for voting for them no matter what. Screw them. They'll have to win this one without my vote.

carpettbaggerr
January 12, 2004, 01:11 PM
Well, look out if they don't win this one without your vote. Just wait for the constant lawsuits by liberal cities and states. Hope they don't put too many manufacturers out of business. Hope they allow us to keep our grandfathered 10 round magazines. Or maybe they'll drop the capacity to 5 rounds? Maybe ban the importation of firearms entirely? Or give OSHA the authority to institute California style safety testing on the federal level?

Yeah, the Republikans aren't our buddies, go ahead and vote for the Democrats. No problem. The gun laws won't get that bad.

Joe Demko
January 12, 2004, 01:31 PM
Still haven't heard how the Republicans or George W. Bush have done anything to make life better for gun owners. Which executive orders did he rescind? Which laws did they repeal? Oh that's right...NONE.
So the system works this way: The Democrats pass anti-gun legislation, we get all pissed off and elect Republicans in their place. The Republicans then allow the anti-gun laws to remain in place because they are "pro-2A?" In the fullness of time, Democrats eventually are elected again, pass more legislation and the cycle continues. Nope, the Republicans are part of the problem, not the solution to it.
I'll start buying into the idea that the Republicans are on my side when I start seeing some existing legislation and executive orders rolled back. Until that time, it strikes me the Republicans and Democrats are both on the same side and it ain't mine.

longeyes
January 12, 2004, 02:01 PM
The Republicans have to do more than play possum on gun control. They need to be pro-active in removing current restrictive legislation, just as they should be pro-active in reducing the size of government. That they aren't points to a serious flaw in their party identity. They are not the answer. I'm beginning to see both major parties as just different varieties of cancer--which one do you want to kill you?

Sean Smith
January 12, 2004, 02:45 PM
And a 'majority' elected Hitler, among other examples of the folly of pure democracy.

Not really. The Nazis were a minority party when Hitler got appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg in 1933 with a conservative/Nazis coalition government. Hitler immediately called for new elections in the Reichstag, and even with the weight of the government on his side the Nazis couldn't get an outright majority.... they went up to 44% in the polls.

The Nazis didn't "win" any elections outright until most of the Reichstag committed suicide by voting for the Enabling Act and gave Hitler the power to make laws without approval of the President OR the Reichstag, at which point he just gradually outlawed all the opposition parties.

willp58
January 12, 2004, 05:37 PM
Longeyes wrote:
<<<I'm beginning to see both major parties as just different varieties of cancer--which one do you want to kill you?>>>>

Well do you want to die fast or slow?

Everyone can say what they want however I firmly believe that this is the way it works:

If the Dems were *Always* in the majority ---our guns would be GONE NOW....

The republicans slow it up...In Bush's 3+ years , the gun grabbing has settled down to almost nothing...

I know that's not the best scenario for us gun people but I belive it's the best we can hope for....
I didn't say I liked it ....I said *REALISTICALLY* it's the best we can hope for..

If anyone thinks for ONE minute there is going to be repealing of gun laws in this day and age, well you are sadly disallusioned..

WHY DO I SAY THIS???

In the majority of districts, there are many people that do not like guns, do not understand them, are afraid of them.....These people are vocal...The politician in that district wants to be reelected...

ERGO:

He votes his constituancy....Folks, that's the way it works

Many pols are now Republicans ---that *could* mean that the pro gun ppl have voted them in.....So what does that mean??? It means they are "savvy" enough to NOT enact any new anti-gun legislation...At the same time they are "savvy" enough to ride the fence and not repeal any existing gun laws...

WHY???

Because the frikkin libs would scream bloody murder and thereby "threaten" this candidate's chance for reelection and a fat paycheck..

These ppl are really NOONE'S friend -- they are Politicians first! And friends second...

It comes down to how fast you want to see you guns disappear.....

Vote Heir Klintoooon and friends and they will go damn fast..

Vote for almost any Republican and they will go Much slower...

We cry all we want about it, threaten to vote for some no-name -- folks IT DON'T MATTER...Either Bush, Dean, Clark or Kerry is going to be the next president ....

Be realistic--- leave Alice be--

Lone_Gunman
January 12, 2004, 07:54 PM
--

Lone_Gunman
January 12, 2004, 07:54 PM
willp58,

If your theory is correct, and it is just a matter of whether our rights go slowly or rapidly, then I would contend we should all want them to go rapidly!

At some point, when enough rights are limited, a reorganization of government will occur in this country similar to that of 1776, with a new affirmation of our rights.

Why would I want my children, and not me, to have to deal with this inevitability?

ARperson
January 12, 2004, 08:55 PM
Regarding this "archaic" electoral college thing. Better becareful what you wish for if your wish is to eliminate it. It would only result in about 5 of our largest cities--New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, to name a few--in determining the President each and every election cycle.

It's not perfect, but it does keep things in perspective. In fact, IF the colleges were required to vote according to the majority of their state, then the electoral college is a great idea. Without it, only 2-3 states would be needed to win. Its purpose is to limit the impact one state has on the result of the Presidential election by keeping its contribution to the total votes relative. They do this using the population of each state. Example: California is about 20% of the U.S. population and California has about 20% of the total electoral votes.

Of course, that was a big "if" and I know it's not the case. But without it...talk about your vote being wasted. :uhoh:

The EC isn't perfect. But it's a better system than purely popular vote. Read up on the FF's opinions on the "common" man and voting.

But back to the original post topic: Bush has abandoned all conservative values. To recap:

Education bill. Teddy Kennedy must be beaming.

Patriot Acts 1 and 2. Can we stomp on our rights any more? (See below.)

Campaign Finance. The answer, apparently is 'yes, we can erode even more of our rights and liberties.'

AWB. No matter how you slice it, the man said he supports the ban. And that's pro-2 amendment how?

Immigration. "Oh sure, just walk across that river, folks. Don't worry about the laws that say you can't. I'm going to give you a job and citizenship eventually. You'll understand I can't give it to you right away. Might wake up the sleeping sheeple. Don't want them catchin' on. And don't forget to bring all yer relatives. Remember: vote for Bush!"

Aside from the war on terror (and even then I'm not sure I like the manner he's gone about fighting this war, but at least he's fighting it), what has this man done to support the Constitution, protects our rights and liberties, etc. A better question is how has this man not behaved like a Democrat/liberal. At least by asking this one, you can keep your answer to just one sentence.

Oh, just imagine if all you people who didn't want to vote for Bush but felt there was no other choice because it was either he or the Dem actually voted for a 3rd party? What if it was the same 3rd party? You think 3rd party voters hurt the cause by taking votes away from "the man." Have you ever stopped to think that you hurt the cause by continuing to support a system and a person who is anti-thetical to your "cause's" way of life? Prolonging the inevitable has never been a good thing if in the meantime you live a lie.

Live free or die trying.

There is no middle ground.

Moparmike
January 12, 2004, 09:07 PM
I cant really add much more to the conversation, so I will only add this:I see several anti-Bush ppl here.. Yes, and hopefully more people within the gun community will increase that "several" to "a staggering amount of" when the gun community pulls its head out of its collective a$$ and wakes up.

hardhead
January 12, 2004, 09:36 PM
I'm not anti-Bush per se,

I didn't leave Bush, he left me.

Tamara
January 12, 2004, 10:32 PM
Yeah, the Republikans aren't our buddies, go ahead and vote for the Democrats.

Just because I'm not going to order Possum Kidney, why do you think that means I'm going to request Roadkill Crunch? Chocolate's on the menu; just because most folks are too obtuse to request it doesn't mean that it don't taste better than the alternatives. (It is on the menu, you know... ;) )

Tamara
January 12, 2004, 10:35 PM
The Nazis were a minority party when Hitler got appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg in 1933 with a conservative/Nazis coalition government. Hitler immediately called for new elections in the Reichstag, and even with the weight of the government on his side the Nazis couldn't get an outright majority.... they went up to 44% in the polls.

44% in a multiparty system is a far more convincing "majority" than most of what we get in the spoonfed two-party media-supported system we have in this fair land these days... ;)

Tamara
January 12, 2004, 10:40 PM
Well do you want to die fast or slow?

I'll vote for "not dying" in this election again, Will. You go 'head and take your choice between "fast death" and "slow death". Maybe if I could get you and a couple million of your buddies to vote with me, we could climb out of this damn downward-plunging handbasket... :uhoh:

M99M12
January 13, 2004, 01:17 AM
I'll be voting for Wesley Clark.

Tamara, I am sorry for you.

Tamara
January 13, 2004, 01:21 AM
I'll be voting for Wesley Clark.

You don't like owning guns very much, huh? :scrutiny:

M99M12
January 13, 2004, 01:23 AM
Westley Clark was a joke

M99M12
January 13, 2004, 01:24 AM
who's your fave?

Marko Kloos
January 13, 2004, 01:29 AM
I'd just as soon write in "Ronald McDonald" than cast my vote for either Dubya or any of the nine Democrat clowns masquerading as Champions of the Downtrodden.

M99M12
January 13, 2004, 01:31 AM
I'm sorry, tamara. I wasn't looking. I'm new here and my supper was getting cold, I read more of your stuff, my hat is in my hand. My apologies.

Justin Moore
January 13, 2004, 05:49 AM
I'll be happily registering a vote with the Libertarian party come election time. Bush supports the AWB, PATRIOT Act, suppressing the 1st amendment via campaign finance reform, steel tarrifs, and the biggest expansions of medicare and education pork in recent memory.

I concur, heartily.

A reminder for the 'lesser of the two evils' crowd. I wasn't Ross Perot's fault that Klinton got elected. It was Daddy Bush's fault, for not being a real conservative. I just get sick of those types of arguments.

Anyway, The Shrub isn't getting my vote this time. I have no use for big spending, big government, gun grabbing RINO's.

carpettbaggerr
January 13, 2004, 06:37 AM
Maybe if I could get you and a couple million of your buddies to vote with me, we could climb out of this damn downward-plunging handbasket... Isn't that what Nader voters figured in the last election? You can order chocolate if you want, but I'll bet you don't get any.

Marko Kloos
January 13, 2004, 06:43 AM
Isn't that what Nader voters figured in the last election? You can order chocolate if you want, but I'll bet you don't get any.

If we do ever get it, it'll be no thanks to you...since you apparently can only be bothered to vote for a true freedom candidate when you can be absolutely sure that you'll be with the majority.

Tamara
January 13, 2004, 08:43 AM
Isn't that what Nader voters figured in the last election? You can order chocolate if you want, but I'll bet you don't get any.

"I'm not going to vote for the pro-freedom candidate because not enough people will vote for him, so he won't win." :scrutiny: Circular logic: see "Logic, circular".

So, uh, you vote for candidates you don't agree with because all the popular kids are doing it and you don't want to be on the losing team? Suddenly I'm starting to realize how we wound up in the mess we're in...

seeker_two
January 13, 2004, 09:02 AM
The big question is: what motivates you to vote for a candidate:

1. the ideas that said candidate represents and implements?

2. the fact that said candidate is less offensive than other candidates?

-or-

3. the likelihood of said candidate winning the general election?

If you choose Option 1, then you are living up to the Founding Fathers' idea of a responsible voter. :D

If you choose Option 2, then your responsibility as a citizen is to seek out better candidates (or become one yourself) that DO represent your ideas. :)

If you choose Option 3, then you have no business voting. :banghead:

Justin Moore
January 13, 2004, 09:18 AM
Tamara,

I'm glad you brought up the 'circular logic' point again. Its an argument that I've been making to several of my friends recently, and I think I managed to actually wake them up.

seeker:

Well stated :cool:

Lone_Gunman
January 13, 2004, 09:21 AM
carpettbaggerr,

Consider these things that Bush has done, and explain to me how these things are part of a conservative Republican agenda:

1. The largest expansion of Medicare (ie, the drug bill), since its inception.

2. Campaign Finance Reform, which Bush thought was unconstitutional, signed anyway, and now limits the first amendment.

3. The Education pork bill, supported by Ted Kennedy.

4. The immigration policy change (ie, "its not amnesty")

5. Patriot Act, giving the federal government broader powers to invade privacy without need for a court order.

6. Support for the AWB renewal.

Do you really think Ronald Reagan would have supported any of these things?

Do you really think any of them reflect a conservative philosophy.

Carpettbaggerr, I have never voted for anyone but a republican for federal office. However, over the years the Republican party has moved increasingly to the left. It has become increasingly "big government". This change has sped up under Bush II.

It is hard to break the habit of being a republican, and automatically casting votes in their favor, without thinking about what they really stand for anymore. A vote for Bush today is simply not the same as a vote for Reagan in 1980.

I won't be voting for Bush, and I sure as heck won't be voting for Dean or a democrat. The libertarians, or some other third party, will get my vote.

I realize that this may let a Democrat get elected, but it won't be my fault if that happens, it will be the Republicans fault for letting their party shift from where their voter base is.

Leatherneck
January 13, 2004, 11:04 AM
I too am a disillusioned Bush supporter. While I applaud his cojones in the WOT, I think he's really just a puppet dancing on strings he's supposed to be controlling!

Maybe I'll start a thread on "Who are the best alternatives and what are their platforms?" I gotte tell ya' that Leatherness and I have seen a couple of Lyndon LaRouche ads on TV the last couple of nights and each one occasioned a mutual roll-of-the-eyes. :scrutiny:

TC
TFL Survivor

carpettbaggerr
January 13, 2004, 12:44 PM
So, uh, you vote for candidates you don't agree with because all the popular kids are doing it and you don't want to be on the losing team? Where did you get that idea? The problem is that there is almost no chance of anyone except the two major candidates winning. So either you vote for the one who's closest to your ideals, or you throw your vote away. That's what you're doing if you vote for the Libertarian candidate, or any other minor party candidate. If you want to do that, I have no problem with it, just remember it may well get the other major party candidate elected.

Bush isn't ideal, and he's done many things I disagree with. He certainly isn't Reagan. But I am absolutely certain the Democratic candidate would be worse. Especially regarding RKBA. I'm sure Al Gore would be fighting very hard to renew the AWB. And a difference of a few hundred votes would have made the difference.

I was on the losing team both times when Clinton won. And I can't count the number of times I've lost in the Congressional elections. But I'm not going to pretend there's any chance of a minor party candidate getting elected. I'd rather choose the lesser of two evils than get the greater one.

longeyes
January 13, 2004, 12:50 PM
There is one salvation for this country right now: GRIDLOCK.

Keep a GOP Congress and put a Dem into the White House. Going the way we are going now, with Bush driving the national engine like Mr. Toad, we are headed for huge and mounting trouble.

I back Bush in '00 and until recently. He's lost me. I'll take my chances with a pathetic dwarf in the White House instead of an unfriendly giant.

Joe Demko
January 13, 2004, 01:03 PM
Going the way we are going now, with Bush driving the national engine like Mr. Toad, we are headed for huge and mounting trouble.

What a vivid and appropriate image. Kudos on a very nice turn of phrase.

Lone_Gunman
January 13, 2004, 01:10 PM
carpetbaggerr,

go look back at the 6 Bush policies I have posted, and explain why they would be anyworse if a Democrat had been in office?

In fact, if a democrat had been in office, we probably would not have any of them, because of political infighting between a democrat President and a republican Congress.

Bill Hook
January 13, 2004, 01:45 PM
I'll add my name to the anti-Bush list after the immigation boondoggle. :barf:

Forgot about giving drugs to oldsters. Double plus :barf:

Jonesy9
January 13, 2004, 01:55 PM
I don't know that it's a huge miscalculation. The GOP dwarfs the DNC in collecting individual contributions (www.opensecrets.com).

Bush and Cheney have no problem defiling the Constitution for political power. They know that a vast majority of the electorate has no clue about CFR and they also know that most of the GOP will go along with them. They can also pass the buck easily to the courts for more cover. Win/win.

ojibweindian
January 13, 2004, 01:56 PM
Until just recently, my parents were Bush supporters. However, the prescription drug thing and the change in immigration policy, in addition to my educating them on the Libertarian Party, has provided the impetus needed for them to change their minds. They will no longer vote "Shrub" in '04.

In 2002, the governer's race here in Alabama was pretty darn close. If I remember correctly, Reilly won with about a 1% margin. The Libertarian candidate got, roughly, 1 % of the vote. Libertarians may be a minority, but we're a minority the GOP would do well to not ignore.

Jonesy9
January 13, 2004, 01:56 PM
oops, I dropped in on page 4, didn't see the others.

willp58
January 13, 2004, 02:17 PM
OK, It looks clear that the majority is going to vote against Bush...

Now either they will vote for a "Nader" type ( wasted vote - but it "feels" good)...

OR a Democrat...

Expect the anti's to up the stakes when this happens ---The dems have always come after our guns ..
Look who they have on their team:
Shumer, bilery, Biden etc...etc...etc

A vote for a democrat is a vote for all of them....

Good luck, we're gonna need it.

Bill Hook
January 13, 2004, 02:32 PM
I'd cut off my John Henry before voting for a demokRat.

Why does anything have to happen to Congress? With re-districting in TX, it looks pretty much like the Reps will control at least one house. It would seem RINOs are the biggest threat to RKBA.

Joe Demko
January 13, 2004, 02:38 PM
A vote for Bush is still a wasted vote. The best you have been able to tell us about him is that he isn't as bad as a Democrat. So, if we follow your advice and re-elect him, we get another 4 years of Republican "support" of our gun rights. In his second term will he rescind any executive orders? Will he lead the Republican legislature in repealing any existing laws? Unlikely, I'd say. In fact, the very best we can hope for is that he/they will simply let the status quo continue to exist. Then what? Is there some for-real-and-for-true Republican who is going to restore all we have lost waiting to succeed Bush? Do you think it is possible that the successor might just be one of those Democrats you keep warning us about? Sorry, I don't want to do this game of playing for time when we haven't any other plan or goal than playing for time for its own sake. I'd prefer to have my self-respect and a crisis now, than feel like a whore and still have a delayed crisis anyway.

fix
January 13, 2004, 03:01 PM
The real issue is this. Do I take a chance on falling 3 feet now, or risk falling into the abyss in 4 years? The Hildebeast is coming in 2008 (possibly bringing a Dem congress with her) and the Repubs don't have anything to counter that with.

4 more years of the status quo (at best) under Bush followed by a rapid erosion of rights under Hitlery
...or...
4 years of gridlock (probably status quo) under [insert dem here] followed by a strong conservative administration born from the lessons learned by the Repubs in the 2004 election?

If we teach them a lesson now, it might pay off big time. If we pat them on the back and let them stay in power, it could result in our worst nightmare. The Repubs are sliding left. The only thing that will take them back to the right is a good spanking. While I would never vote for a grabber...I may participate in the spanking by not voting at all. An awful lot is riding on that AWB sunset clause.

ARperson
January 13, 2004, 03:23 PM
fix brings up a good point. If the dems win in 2004, Hitlery will have a hard time running '08. I mean, how can she run against the incumbent? (that's a rhetorical questions; I have no doubt she'd do it if she thought she could.)

will, Tamara is right. You think that a vote is wasted unless you're voting for the winning party. Memo to you: a vote is only wasted when it's not based on sound education about the candidates and their platforms. (Like my step-mom who votes Dem because her daddy did :rolleyes: )

If everybody voted his conscience, we might not be stuck with this rotten 2-party system to begin with. A big fat thanks to you for keeping the beast alive. :fire:

longeyes
January 13, 2004, 03:28 PM
GRIDLOCK NOW!

What I see is a replay of the 20th century: the robber barons versus the Bolsheviks with Bush & Friends doing what they do best, playing both sides against the middle.

We need to arrest this process and re-take control. Handing Bush a potential mandate for a second term is likely to be disastrous for this Republic. I didn't use to think this, but Bush can thank himself for my change of heart. He had three years to show he stood for the empowerment of the individual and respected the Bill of Rights. He blew it.

Balog
January 13, 2004, 03:49 PM
I'll be voting third party, probably Constitution Party. However, I'm in agreement with this quote.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do'Til the Revolution

After so many years of government indoctrination in the schools, the creation of a welfare state, the collaboration between our corrupt and morally bankrupt legislature and judiciary, the destruction of states rights, the ceding of sovereignty to such globalistic organizations as the UN, the rise of the police state, the massive and unprotested limiting of natural rights guaranteed in the BOR and elsewhere, and the lack of accountability for the fed.gov murdering it's citizens at places like Waco and Ruby Ridge; I don't think we've any chance of returning this country to a Constitutionally limited Republic via the political process.

Moparmike
January 13, 2004, 03:49 PM
OK, It looks clear that the majority is going to vote against Bush...

Now either they will vote for a "Nader" type ( wasted vote - but it "feels" good)...

OR a Democrat...

Expect the anti's to up the stakes when this happens ---The dems have always come after our guns ..
Look who they have on their team:
Shumer, bilery, Biden etc...etc...etc

A vote for a democrat is a vote for all of them....

Good luck, we're gonna need it.Willp58, you havent been paying attention. We arent going to vote for Nader, or a Nader type. We wont be voting Democrat either.

We will be voting libertarian. A Nader type wouldnt feel good. A democrat wouldnt feel good. Neither would be good. Not only will voting libertarian feel good (as all votes should, because if it feels wrong it probably is), it WILL BE GOOD.

http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/foghorn/fogleg27.wav
http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/foghorn/fogleg12.wav
http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/foghorn/fogleg17.wav

carpettbaggerr
January 13, 2004, 09:36 PM
The Repubs are sliding left. The only thing that will take them back to the right is a good spanking. While I would never vote for a grabber...I may participate in the spanking by not voting at all. An awful lot is riding on that AWB sunset clause. That's what happened in 1992 with Bill Clinton. That got us the Brady Law, and the AWB. I would rather not have that repeated. Especially with the possibility of several retirements on the Supreme Court.

Lone Gunman,

1,2,3, and 5 may have been the same with Democrats in office. I don't support any of these. I thought #2 was unconstitutional also, what a suprise to see how the Supreme Court can twist that document these days. The new immigration proposal is merely a proposal, and I hope Bush listens to advice against it -- I think it's a bad idea also. On the AWB renewal, I have seen no support from the Oval Office. If he wanted a bill passed, it would be in debate now.

However bad Bush may be, he isn't increasing the erosion of our gun rights. I'm positive you won't be able to say that if a Democrat gets into office.

willp58
January 13, 2004, 09:48 PM
Moparmike wrote:

<<<Willp58, you havent been paying attention. We arent going to vote for Nader, or a Nader type. We wont be voting Democrat either.

We will be voting libertarian. A Nader type wouldnt feel good. A democrat wouldnt feel good. Neither would be good. Not only will voting libertarian feel good (as all votes should, because if it feels wrong it probably is), it WILL BE GOOD. >>>>>

All this time I keep saying that the *ONLY* candidates that have a chance of winning are Bush, Dean, Kerry or Clark...
Slice it anyway you want ---This is the bottom line...

I keep talking about "feel good" votes....Tell me will the Libertarian candidate have a snow-balls chance in hades?????

The answer is no...I know it and so do you...

SO AGAIN!!!! Of the men that *CAN* win, which one will do us the most good as gun people?????

Hey folks, I'm not beating a drum for Bush, even tho it may sound like it...I just like to deal in realism...

Tamara
January 14, 2004, 12:26 AM
carpettbagger,

So either you vote for the one who's closest to your ideals,

None of the major party candidates is within 3.1415 parsecs of my ideals, sorry. Bush is as far from me as Phillips, Dean, or the hypothetical Green Party candidate... I only appreciate libertarians or conservatives, not tax-'n'-spend welfare statists, sorry.

willp58,

I keep talking about "feel good" votes....Tell me will the Libertarian candidate have a snow-balls chance in hades?????

Not as long as folks lack the stones to vote for him, and so instead vote for someone who wants to steal their rights. Look around on this board; this place should be a bastion of Bush supporters. The fact that there's this much dissention in the ranks here of all places should tell you that the GOP in general (and Bush in particular) have strayed pretty durn far from their natural conservative support base...

Zak Smith
January 14, 2004, 02:22 AM
Several people have posted with the thesis that the Democrats will cause a quicker fatal demise of rights, specifically gun rights, to such an extent that some dramatic changes will eventually occur as a backlash. Specifically, that those backlash changes would occur sooner under a Democratic regime than a Republican regime.

I have a different hypothesis:

Assume that both the Democrats and the Republicans will continue to assume more power and that neither party cares for 2A rights.

The Democratic Paradise is a Socialist State, with the primacy of "fairness": aggressive redistribution of wealth, levelling of income, massive social programs. The economic engine of the country will gradually slow and reach the stagnation of the ineffectual European nations.

The Republican Paradise is looking more like a Fascist State, with the primacy of "The State": no privacy, no security of person or property, dominant executive branch. The military and police will be used to silence and persecute those people who do not agree with The State.

Contrary to those that think voting in Democrats will cause a quicker backlash and change, I believe that the Democratic Paradise is not offensive enough to enough people. The country will simply fade into a nanny state such as exist in Europe today. The decay will take 50 or 100 years. The frog will be boiled very slowly. Yes, individuals will be repressed and their rights infringed upon along the way, but the vast majority of the people won't care- You see, they'll be being taken care of.

Contrast that to the Republican Paradise. The strong executive branch will squash privacy, the Fourth Amendment will be obliterated. The military will be used as an occupying force, in the name of defense against terrorism. Checkpoints and mandatory searches will be ubiquitous. Those who disagree with the State will be silenced. Eventually, "Enemies of the State" will be killed by the Secret Police, with the excuse of National Security.

I claim that more people will notice and do something about Fascism. And the Republicans are taking us towards Fascism. The outrage at the Patriot Act is widespread and from many political positions. The outrage at a welfare state is limited essentially to Rich Bastards and Libertarian Freaks (myself included).

Vote For Change. Vote For Fascism. Vote For Republicans.

-z

355sigfan
January 14, 2004, 03:03 AM
I am not voting for president this year. I can't stomach voting for a democrate and I can't vote for Bush after he passed a bill to take away my overtime pay.
Pat

fallingblock
January 14, 2004, 03:47 AM
"most of the Reichstag committed suicide by voting for the Enabling Act and gave Hitler the power to make laws without approval of the President OR the Reichstag..."
************************************************************

What part of "most" do you not understand?:D

A vote for a democrat this time around will speed the erosion of our second Amendment freedoms. Count on it.:(

Bush is more and more the candidate of less and less enthusiasm.:barf:

But things can and will deteriorate if the democ-rats prevail.:banghead:

seeker_two
January 14, 2004, 09:40 AM
But things can and will deteriorate if the democ-rats prevail.

And a lame-duck Bush administration is an improvement HOW? :scrutiny:

abrahamsmith
January 14, 2004, 09:48 AM
You are assuming that the backlash will pull in a certain preferred direction, but consider the scenario.

For a simple reference, consider the Libertarian political diamond thingy: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html Just hit "Score It!" to bring up the map.

Suppose the Fascists get (stay) in power, and pull the country south towards the Authoritarian end, but on the Conservative side. Eventually, enough people will get annoyed and will vote/act in another direction. Under the natural scheme, the alternative is the Commies.

When the Commies come into power, they will see a powerful executive branch, and they will want to work towards their Commie Paradise. "Ah, but now we are in power," the Commies say. "We aren't evil! We are for happiness and egalitarianism and food and shelter and work for everyone!" Since they are not evil in their own eyes, and they have the tools of the Fascist regime, they will use -- not dismantle -- that power for their own ends. Hence, we will have a Commie regime using the tools of a Fascist regime, which will try to work towards the "Liberal" side of the diamond. Since the path is roughly continuous over time, this will drag us straight through the total Authoritarian state.

In the mean time, the Fascists will regain some of their lost power, and there will be an oscillation between the two evils, averaging out to a complete Authoritarian state, until the next major world/historic event disrupts the cycle.

Balog
January 14, 2004, 10:04 AM
willp58 wrote: Of the men that *CAN* win, which one will do us the most good as gun people?????


None of the "electable" candidates will do anything good for us. As has been pointed out before, it's like choosing between the electric chair and the firing squad.

Moparmike
January 14, 2004, 12:00 PM
Even Kucinich (sp?) said in response to a question about his electibility: "Well, I am electable if you vote for me!"


Even Democrats find common sense once in a while, like blind hogs and acorns. If people here cant see that philosophy, then we truely are doomed.:(

Zak Smith
January 14, 2004, 12:42 PM
Hi Abe,

I agree that once the tools of Fascism are in place, the party in power can use them. The point I was trying to get across was that even in that scenario, the abuses prosecuted by the more Statist/Fascist regime will be more disagreeable to more people than the abuses prosecuted by the more Socialist regime - which will by its nature want to provide the standard socialist benefits to people.

-z

longeyes
January 14, 2004, 01:27 PM
Zak Smith,

In ten years your fine thoughts will be considered hate/divisive speech (dangerously analytical) under either type of regime and you will find yourself withering in prison. It's possible that one prison--I'm not sure which one--will have slightly better creature comforts.

fallingblock
January 14, 2004, 09:34 PM
"And a lame-duck Bush administration is an improvement HOW?"
************************************************************

If the Bush folks retain control of Congress and the Senate, there will not likely be any federal anti-gun legislation passed during the next four years.

If the democ-rats prevail, there will be.:eek:

It really is that simple:D .

I don't like the Patriot Act any more than the rest of you, but the democ-rats would have done the same, if not worse, under the circumstances.

It's a matter of choosing between what's being offered with a view to winning the vote, not merely 'wasting' a vote on some third party fantasy.

I'll vote for Bush for four more years of relative status-quo on the Second Amendment...after that, get out the shovels.:what:

The choices aren't that appealing, and I like Tamara's attitude best, but that chocolate sundae is going to be a long time down the track, if ever.:banghead:

Lone_Gunman
January 14, 2004, 10:47 PM
Fallingblock,

I disagree with your statement that the Patriot Act would have been passed with a Democratic President in office.

A Republican controlled legislature and a Democratic president may well have not been able to agree enough to get any legislation through at all.

The Medicare reform bill, education bill, and patriot act may all have died if a Democrat had been president.

fallingblock
January 15, 2004, 01:31 AM
"A Republican controlled legislature and a Democratic president may well have not been able to agree enough to get any legislation through at all."
************************************************************

Like the democ-rats did, any repugs would gladly have voted for a Patriot Act equivalent, or WORSE. What else could they do in the wake of 9/11, to demonstrate that they were doing something?

It's 'politician-think' at its worst!


************************************************************
"The Medicare reform bill, education bill, and patriot act may all have died if a Democrat had been president."
************************************************************

Even in that scenario, with the congress so evenly split, I think we might have gotten worse than we did.

Don't misunderstand....

I'm all for 'gridlock' if it would work to safeguard our fast-disappearing freedoms.

But the democ-rats are not to be trusted in any capacity on the issue of RKBA.

The DNC and most of the party base hate and fear the concept of an armed citizenry.

That's just where they're at today....maybe it could be changed with decades of effort. :(

If you enjoyed reading about "I see several anti-Bush ppl here.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!