How to avoid hearing "President Kerry" in January, 2005!


PDA






I'mSpartacus!
February 15, 2004, 05:52 AM
John Kerry is running on image right now, nothing more, nothing less. If you ask a group of people to describe Kerry they will likely say "Veitnam war hero", "vet" or "moderate Democrat". If the Republicans don't work hard, very hard, to inform people of Kerry's true record, his true stands on the issues, and his ideology then Bush will lose in November and Kerry will be your next Commander in Chief (and the man who will appoint the new majority to the Supreme Court.

Few Americans see Kerry as a liberal:

"* Thirty-nine percent (39%) of all voters see John Kerry as a moderate while 37% say he is politically liberal. Liberal voters see Kerry as a moderate (59% of self-identified liberals have this view). Only 22% of liberal voters see Kerry as politically liberal."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush%20Kerry%20January%2030.htm

I'll bet very few know his stands on these issues:

http://www.wsoctv.com/politics/2653091/detail.html

And I'll bet even fewer know his activities in the 1970s:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/15631.htm

Problem is, it's harder to dispell an acquired image than it is to establish an image in the public mind early in a political race. So unless you want to see 4 - 8 years of a Kerry administration and 40 years of a court dominated by Kerry appointies then you'd better get working on activities like bringing up the facts to associates, letter writing to local newspapers and volunteering to work on campaigns to make sure Bush and other conservatives get elected.

If you enjoyed reading about "How to avoid hearing "President Kerry" in January, 2005!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
glocksman
February 15, 2004, 06:52 AM
It'd be easier to defeat Kerry if GWB would start acting like a Texas Republican instead of a 'Rockefeller' Republican.

I'm sorry, but I won't vote for GWB merely because he's somewhat less offensive than Kerry.

I'mSpartacus!
February 15, 2004, 08:07 AM
Somewhat les????? Compare them on the issues I gave links to and then think about the philosophy of the judges Kerry would appoint! You know how they always point out that people who are "pro-choice" on abortion tend to be against the death penalty for murderers? It's true, due to the philosophy they have about morality and government's role. Those same people tend to want much more restrictions on people's right to have guns. Those are the ones Kerry would appoint to the courts. If that's what you want then that's what you'll get. I will note that "peace" libs will ignore Kerry's vote for the Iraq War and vote for him anyway -- I hope pre-2nd Amendment conservatives won't abandon Bush over views that his opponent won't hesitate to go much further on.

ctdonath
February 15, 2004, 11:01 AM
No question Kerry is very bad. Nobody here will argue against that.

Separately addressed, Bush is basically unsupportable: gutted the 1st Amendment, at best neutral on the 2nd (we'll see how the AWB is handled), arguably gutted the 4th & 5th, and has hugely increased spending sans income. If there was a (D) after his name, we'd be screaming "NEVER!!!"

The only reason to vote for Bush is he's better than Kerry (or Edwards, or Hillary, or ...).

Yes, we need to actively prevent Kerry (or Hillary as I'm guessing) from winning.

Bush needs to actively give his base a reason to vote FOR Bush, instead of just against "the other guy", lest someone else hop in and be the leader the right-wing wants.

MicroBalrog
February 15, 2004, 11:05 AM
The only reason to vote for Bush is he's better than Kerry (or Edwards, or Hillary, or ...).

Dean?:) I think if Dean was still running he would be the better option.

Otherwise, vote Libertarian.

Both D and R options are wannabe tyrants. All you can do is make the statement.

hillbilly
February 15, 2004, 12:43 PM
If Kerry is very bad and Bush is merely bad, then you have no choice to but not vote at all.

Voting third party (i.e. Libertarian) only ensures that the candidate furthest from your basic position gets elected.

We saw that in 1992 when so-called Reform Party voters threw enough votes to Perot so that Clinton was elected with only 42% of the popular vote.

Yeah, 42% got Slick Willy elected because all those Reform Party idiots felt superior and moral about "sending a message" with their votes.

And, ask far-left, liberal Greens about their "message" votes cast for Ralph Nader last year. Who did those far-left, liberal Greens send the White House with their "message-sending" votes?

Voting third party to "send a message" is not just a bad idea. I'd say it's completely idiotic.

If you hold certain principals dear enough to actually vote third party, then why would you do so and ensure that the moron with principals the most removed from your own gets elected?????

I think Idea A is so imporant, that I am going to vote in such a way to guarantee that the candidate whose Idea X is the exact opposite of my Idea A gets elected!!!!

Yeah! Right On! Amen!!!!!!!! We'll show those idiots! We'll put Satan in power to show the Saints that they aren't Saintly enough for us morally superior, enlightened folks!

hillbilly

ClonaKilty
February 15, 2004, 02:16 PM
Problem is, it's harder to dispell an acquired image than it is to establish an image in the public mind early in a political race.

Actually, a convincing and eloquent speaker could readily do just this during a campaign.

I think if he could communicate his ideas, Bush could have a very strong forward-looking vision for America, and inspire many voters. If you are honest about it, I think you'll agreee that he simply cannot speak effectively -- and this fact has me thinking he'll lose this election.

Jay Kominek
February 15, 2004, 02:59 PM
If Kerry is very bad and Bush is merely bad, then you have no choice to but not vote at all.

Voting third party (i.e. Libertarian) only ensures that the candidate furthest from your basic position gets elected.

Uhh. I think you're a little confused on how the voting mechanism works. Not voting, and voting third party have the same "disastrous" effect as far as you're concerned. Third party votes don't magically go to support the opposite of your position, rather they simply "detract" support.

Amusingly, you seem to have developed this idea that somehow, the Republicans are closer to the Libertarian position than the Democrats. In fact, neither is even remotely close any more. Perhaps one of them was historically closer, but at this point, thats long gone. They both want to strip us of our rights, and increase the size of government.

As a Libertarian, I won't be happy regardless of which one of them wins. Its lose-lose for me. So I'll be sending my message, thanks.

And as far as I'm concerned, settling for the lesser of two evils when there are good choices available to you is the most disgusting, repugnant activity you can engage in, and I won't partake of it.

[edit: Mind you, as I point out in my second paragraph, there isn't even a lesser of the two evils. They're both so thoroughly horrible that I can't even point at one and say "Ok, he isn't quite as evil!"]

Don Gwinn
February 15, 2004, 03:21 PM
Aw, geez. . . . voting is not betting!

If you want credit for picking the guy who eventually wins, there are services in Las Vegas that can and gladly will take your bet.

Voting is NOT about picking the person you think is going to win, it's about picking the person you believe should win.

Now, I'm not saying that you should never consider "viability" in choosing your vote. If there's a candidate with a good chance to win who is not objectionable to you, but merely does not go quite as far as you might like, voting for him might be a better choice than a vote for the guy who proclaims himself ready to go that last five percent for your chosen issue but clearly will not win.

That's a far cry from labeling people idiots simply for voting their consciences. Stick to the High Road, please.

At this point, I'm leaning toward a vote for Bush. We'll see, as events unfold. I'm not terribly happy with him at the moment, but I don't see any third party candidates who are very compelling, either. The election is, after all, nearly a year away. But I'm not going to insult people simply for doing what they think is right.

Sven
February 15, 2004, 03:34 PM
It's time for a third party, filled with people FED UP with reckless spending and legislating.

HABU
February 15, 2004, 03:57 PM
Fear not, Sylvia Brown says that bush will beat Kerry. :D

I'mSpartacus!
February 15, 2004, 04:00 PM
What Hilbilly said deserves repeating!

"If Kerry is very bad and Bush is merely bad, then you have no choice to but not vote at all.

Voting third party (i.e. Libertarian) only ensures that the candidate furthest from your basic position gets elected.

We saw that in 1992 when so-called Reform Party voters threw enough votes to Perot so that Clinton was elected with only 42% of the popular vote.

Yeah, 42% got Slick Willy elected because all those Reform Party idiots felt superior and moral about "sending a message" with their votes.

And, ask far-left, liberal Greens about their "message" votes cast for Ralph Nader last year. Who did those far-left, liberal Greens send the White House with their "message-sending" votes?

Voting third party to "send a message" is not just a bad idea. I'd say it's completely idiotic.

If you hold certain principals dear enough to actually vote third party, then why would you do so and ensure that the moron with principals the most removed from your own gets elected?????

I think Idea A is so imporant, that I am going to vote in such a way to guarantee that the candidate whose Idea X is the exact opposite of my Idea A gets elected!!!!

Yeah! Right On! Amen!!!!!!!! We'll show those idiots! We'll put Satan in power to show the Saints that they aren't Saintly enough for us morally superior, enlightened folks!

hillbilly"

Daedalus
February 15, 2004, 04:11 PM
If you hold certain principals dear enough to actually vote third party, then why would you do so and ensure that the moron with principals the most removed from your own gets elected?????

Because I am not in the business of drinking piss and I am not going to have my vote based on deciding whose is sweeter.

I'mSpartacus!
February 15, 2004, 04:20 PM
Yep, voting 3rd. party to teach George Bush a lesson is like cutting off your testicles to teach your ex wife who'se really in charge!

rick_reno
February 15, 2004, 04:24 PM
Fear not, Sylvia Brown says that bush will beat Kerry.

I have no doubt Bush will beat Kerry, but he won't do it on my vote. I voted for him last time, I went door to door in my neighborhood for him and I contributed funds to his campaign. I'm not willing to do any of those things this time. He's lost my support. I'm not sure what he stands for anymore. His agenda has shifted from what's good for America to what's good for Geroge Bush, and the only thing that is good for George Bush is getting another four years in the White House. In talking with friends and family here in N. Idaho - and this should be Bush country - he's lost a lot of support. The other day at a pistol club meeting we were sitting around BS'ing about the election and not one of the people in attendance said they would vote for Bush.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 15, 2004, 04:27 PM
If the Republicans don't work hard, very hard, to inform people of Kerry's true record, his true stands on the issues, and his ideology then Bush will lose in November and Kerry will be your next Commander in Chief (and the man who will appoint the new majority to the Supreme Court.

The news media seems to be doing the Republican patry's work for them.

With their obnoxious misrepresentations about Bush's National Guard record The Dems and their allies in the news media are doing a magnificant job of firming up Bush's republican base.

Every time Rather, Jennings, Brokow, Zahn, et al. do another dishonest hit piece about Bush's service, more Republicans get pissed off and become motivated to get out and vote next November.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 15, 2004, 04:31 PM
Yep, voting 3rd. party to teach George Bush a lesson is like cutting off your testicles to teach your ex wife who'se really in charge!

People need to recall where we'd be if Bush senior had been re-elected instead of voting for Perot.

There'd be no Ruth Ginzberg on the Supreme Court, no AWB, etc.

glocksman
February 15, 2004, 04:34 PM
There'd be no Ruth Ginzberg on the Supreme Court, no AWB, etc

Think so?

I personally think that Bush41 would have signed an AWB.
After all, he signed the executive orders prohibiting imported AW's.

Also, we probably would still have a Democratic Congress if Bush had won.
The 94 Republican takeover was a direct reaction to Clinton's performance in office.

Moparmike
February 15, 2004, 05:17 PM
I would like to hear suggestions on how to avoid hearing "President Kerry" in 2005 without suggested options being voting for someone I find to be repugnant and completely bereft of the skills needed for holding the office of President.

waiting...





waiting...





waiting...





waiting...




Yep, that's what I thought. I think my vote will be going to a worthy candidate. The one who represents me the closest, a libertarian.

ctdonath
February 15, 2004, 05:43 PM
People need to recall where we'd be if Bush senior had been re-elected

People need to recall why Bush senior had not been re-elected.

"Read my lips - no new taxes." Then he passed a massive tax increase. Then his voter base decided to go elsewhere - anywhere.

Bush junior swore to uphold the Constitution - then gutted the crown jewel (timely political speech). As a result of this and related betrayals, his voter base is going away.

Republicans WIN when they stick to conservative principles.
Republicans LOSE when they appeal to socialists.
Republicans may figure this out some day.

MacViolinist
February 15, 2004, 05:52 PM
If you hold certain principals dear enough to actually vote third party, then why would you do so and ensure that the moron with principals the most removed from your own gets elected?????



What if both parties are equally far from the principals you hold dear?

-drew

Malone LaVeigh
February 15, 2004, 06:03 PM
But I don't want "Country OR Western."

Shooter 2.5
February 15, 2004, 07:12 PM
The vote in November is the ultimate public opinion poll. If you want the country to move to the right, you vote for Bush. If you want it to move to the left, you vote for Kerry.
We were lucky enough to get rid of gore so I can't see why gun owners want a return to the dems.
This is going to be a two way race. Betting on the broken down third nag still in the stables does nothing.

Chris Rhines
February 15, 2004, 07:25 PM
The vote in November is the ultimate public opinion poll. If you want the country to move to the right, you vote for Bush. If you want it to move to the left, you vote for Kerry. Hmm. So who should I vote for if I want the country to move towards freedom, rather than mommy-state fascism or daddy-state socialism?

We're probably SOL as a society anyhow, so why not go down with our principles more or less intact?

- Chris

HBK
February 15, 2004, 08:10 PM
If you vote third party, it's basically a vote for Kerry. Talk all you want about princilples and voting your conscience, but that's what it is. If enough people vote Libertarian, then Kerry will win and we can kiss any chance of having a conservative Supreme Court emerge any time soon goodbye. If we vote for Bush, we get that conservative Supreme Court and we can make headway over the next four years to move towards freedom and constitutionalism. We desperately need a conservative Supreme Court. What we have now, make no mistake, is a SC that leans to the left. I think Bush can do some great things in his second term when he doesn't have to worry about being reelected. (And no, I don't mean move the coutry towards facism. :rolleyes: )

Jay Kominek
February 15, 2004, 08:26 PM
If you vote third party, it's basically a vote for Kerry.

No, it is not, and it is fallacious to continue to assert that it is.

If I were a Republican who magically decided to vote for a Libertarian, then I suppose you might be able to say that. But since I would never vote for a Republican, then Bush or whatever other candidate hasn't lost my vote: they never had it in the first place.

If you're going to accost people about what your own pet candidate has failed to earn, then go talk to all the people who don't even bother to register to vote. There's a hell of a lot more of them than there are third party people put together.

Talk all you want about princilples and voting your conscience, but that's what it is. If enough people vote Libertarian, then Kerry will win

If enough people vote Libertarian, then we'll have Libertarian president, and we'll get our freedoms back, rather than simply losing the freedoms we don't use as much (free speech, habeas corpus, etc) before the ones that this particular audience likes to make use of (RKBA).

Waitone
February 15, 2004, 08:30 PM
If we vote for Bush, we get that conservative Supreme Court and we can make headway over the next four years to move towards freedom and constitutionalism What is there in Bush's last three years which indicates he will appoint constitutionally restrained jurists? Is it his support of the Second Amendment (AWB renewal)?

--Is it his support of the First Amendment (Campaign Finance Control)? Is it his push for Medicare Drugs (General welfare clause, I suppose)?

--How 'bout his forthright enforcement of our borders?

--Maybe its his willingness to go to the mat to fight for his court nominees, some of which we know nothing other than Bush's personal approval.

--I know, I know. Its his all out combat against a democrat MINORITY who redefine constitutional provision in terms of partisan procedural niceties.

--Its gotta be his support of US sovereignty by re-entering UNESCO or his willingness to loan money to the UN to rebuild its palace in NY?

Bush is no conservative. He is a form of life known as a 60's democrat. A species of democrat (now extinct) that was socially liberal and militarily hawkish. A species which honestly believed polities stopped at the waters edge. A species sadly going the way of the dodo bird.

Quite frankly I see no benefit to Bush placing his people on the SC. In my view the best thing that could happen is for democrats to continue its magnificant stonewall tactics and Bush concludes the best tactic is to simply not appoint replacement justices. The constitution does not specify the number of justices. Perhaps if the work load was a little heavier SCOTUS would think twice about hearing activist cases.

Moparmike
February 15, 2004, 08:52 PM
If enough people vote Libertarian, then Kerry will win and we can kiss any chance of having a conservative Supreme Court emerge any time soon goodbye. If we vote for Bush, we get that conservative Supreme Court and we can make headway over the next four years to move towards freedom and constitutionalism.http://12.217.194.67/mrapathy/smiley-gifs/lool.gifBwaahahahhahhaaahahahaha!!!!! Right....Bush and conservative, Bush and freedom!...hahahhaahhaahha....If enough people vote Bush, we will be praying for Clinton and his brand of conservatism! God, that was a good one.:banghead:

rick_reno
February 15, 2004, 09:45 PM
If enough people vote Libertarian, then Kerry will win and we can kiss any chance of having a conservative Supreme Court emerge any time soon goodbye. If we vote for Bush, we get that conservative Supreme Court and we can make headway over the next four years to move towards freedom and constitutionalism.

First of all - "if enough people vote Libertarian" - we might get a Libertarian. That is unless they throw the election to the Supreme Court again and they choose to elect Bush. Remember, last time Al Whore got more people votes, he just didn't get the four justice votes he needed to be President.

Are you living in a different dimension than the rest of us? Maybe the Bush in your dimension shows promise of appointing conservative supreme court justices and indicates strong support for the Constitution. You're lucky. I can assure you, the Bush that I've seen has used the Constitution for toliet paper - and we're not moving toward "freedom and constitutionism".

This idea that those of us who choose to vote for our ideals - as opposed to voting for someone who can "win" is getting old. Give it up.

I'mSpartacus!
February 16, 2004, 12:18 AM
Like I said before, voting for a 3rd. party this year is like castrating yourself to spite an ex wife or girlfriend.

If you like the 9th. Circuit based in San Francisco you'll love the loony leftists that Kerry would appoint. Maybe now I understand why so many right wing guys can never get dates, they won't settle for anyone that isn't 100% perfect, and that leads to a life of being lonely.

Just ask yourself, if you were a judge (with your views on issues) would you stand a better chance of being placed on a federal court position by Bush or Kerry! Heck, if you are white would you stand a better chance of being given a federal contract for a project under Bush or Kerry?

HBK
February 16, 2004, 12:22 AM
I'm basing it on the judicial nominees that he has appointed to the circuit courts that have been getting stonewalled by the democrats because they are too conservative. It will be a cold day in hell before we elect a libertarian president. If you were going to vote for Kerrry, then by all means, vote Libertarian. But give Bush the benefit of the doubt if you are trying to decide between him and someone who has no prayer to get elected.

Lone_Gunman
February 16, 2004, 01:03 AM
I have voted Republican for President ever since 1984.

I won't do it in 2004; the Republican party knows why and it scares them.

Bush is slowly realizing that he has alienated his conservative base with his liberal domestic agenda. No, I won't go out and vote for Kerry. But a lot of conservatives are going to sit this election out, or vote for a third party candidate.

Bush's liberal politics are going to come back to haunt them. He will never draw liberals to his side, and he will only push conservatives away.

The breaking point for me with Bush was the Medicare Reform Bill. How can someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative support expansion of the government like this?

This was quickly followed by Bush's decision to sign the Campaign Finance Reform Bill after saying it was probably un-Constitutional. If Bush thinks the law was un-Constitutional, and has an oath to protect the Constitution, then how can he sign something like that?

Jay Kominek
February 16, 2004, 01:21 AM
voting for a 3rd. party this year is like castrating yourself to spite an ex wife or girlfriend.


I'm sorry, that doesn't even make any sense. Perhaps you can elaborate on the analogy, or just, stop using it. Its a little disgusting.

Maybe now I understand why so many right wing guys can never get dates, they won't settle for anyone that isn't 100% perfect, and that leads to a life of being lonely.


Doot doot de doo... ad hominem.

If you're referring to the libertarians here, hot tip: libertarianism doesn't fit the left/right one dimensional scale, so we're not "right wing"

Just ask yourself, if you were a judge (with your views on issues) would you stand a better chance of being placed on a federal court position by Bush or Kerry!

Hello? Didn't we mention the fact that we're libertarian? Neither of them would ever put someone who supported constitutional rights into a court. Thats the whole point, here.

I'm basing it on the judicial nominees that he has appointed to the circuit courts that have been getting stonewalled by the democrats because they are too conservative.

Too conservative, or because they are being appointed by a Republican president, and the two parties like to squabble like small children?

Stonewalling people who are too conservative sounds good to me. Stonewalling people who are too liberal sounds good, also. How about we stonewall everyone who is an extremist until we're just down to nice constitutional centrists?

If you were going to vote for Kerrry, then by all means, vote Libertarian.

Oh some more of the totally fallacious reasoning, come on.

But give Bush the benefit of the doubt if you are trying to decide between him and someone who has no prayer to get elected.

Benefit of the doubt? You say that like we have no idea what to expect from Bush.

We've been watching the guy for more than three years now, it seems like we've got a pretty clear idea what he is up to.


You guys keep going at it like Libertarians are simply wayward Republicans, who need to be abused back into towing the party line. If you'd stop and look at what the parties are actually doing these days, rather than what they say they're doing and stand for, you'd realize that Republicans have a hell of a lot more in common with Democrats than Libertarians have with either of them.

Do I care if Kerry beats Bush, or vice versa? No way. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. We're screwed just as thoroughly either way, from where I'm standing. Trying to entice us to make sure that Kerry loses only makes sense if you continue to persist in the delusion that the Republican position is somehow more palatable to Libertarians than the Democrat position.

They're both equally intolerable. You might as well ask us whether we'd like to die from a bullet wound to the left side of the skull, or the right side.

You might consider looking at The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). In particular, note how close together all the Democratic candidates are to Bush. Then realize that Libertarians are at the very bottom edge of the graph. Look at how much closer Kerry is to Bush, than either one of them are to the Libertarian position. It makes as much sense to ask us to pick one (or care about which one wins!) as it does for me to ask you to decide whether or not you'd rather have Al Sharpton or Dennis Kuicinich as President. They're not identical, but they're so far away from your position (which I'm betting is awfully close to Bush's, if not further up the scale) that the difference is entirely negligable.

fallingblock
February 16, 2004, 03:24 AM
"The other day at a pistol club meeting we were sitting around BS'ing about the election and not one of the people in attendance said they would vote for Bush."
************************************************************

Typical gun owners....sit this one out and let Kerry take your handguns down the "approved sporting purposes" path.:scrutiny:

Vote Libertarian?:eek:

Why not just stay home and let the inevitable happen;) .

I'll vote for G.W., only because he's the best doable choice for gunowners.

Kerry certainly won't do anything positive for the Second Amendment.:barf:

Neither will a defeated Libertarian candidate...as any certainly will be.
:banghead:

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 04:02 AM
1. I never understand the bogus argument that a person won't vote for the lesser of two evils. Guess what? Unless you are a mindless party groupie you will always disagree with something your party does. So, you are always picking the lesser of two (or three) evils.

2. The Libertarians will not win. Please, just accept reality.

3. The Democrats pushed "Patriot Act" like bills during the 90s (when they were in power). The Republicans, being irresponsible partisan jerks, opposed it by hiding behind the Constitutition for political hay. Now the Democrats, WHO NEARLY ALL VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT are pretending they dislike it for political gain. This stuff isn't rocket science.

4. The Democrats basically care about two freedoms: abortion and gay rights.

5. The Democrats have done nothing to reduce taxes or regulation or gun control. The Democrats have no interest whatsoever in private property rights.

6. GWB and the Republicans have held gun laws at bay. Yes GWB is playing games with the AWB--but he knows (as Delay and others have said) that it will never make it to his desk. Who wants it on his desk--Democrats! Who penned it--Democrats. Which party is the only party that has expressed any interest in stopping it--the Republicans!

7. The evil :rolleyes: Ashcroft became the first AG to state the obvious; the 2nd is an individual right.

8. Bush took the war to the terrorists. Afganistan is no longer a Taliban staging area. Saddam is no longer laughing at us and filling mass graves with innocents. Democrats say we needed U.N. permission. Guess what? The Chinese, French and Russians (our good friends) were not coming on board. Germany was not coming on board (lefty leader and elections to win). Kerry has spent 30 years on the wrong side of defense issues. Why shoud we trust him now?

Waitone
February 16, 2004, 09:33 AM
Point of correction:
First of all - "if enough people vote Libertarian" - we might get a Libertarian. That is unless they throw the election to the Supreme Court again and they choose to elect Bush. Remember, last time Al Whore got more people votes, he just didn't get the four justice votes he needed to be President.Irrevelvant argumentation. Presidential elections are done through electors. Popular vote is relevant only to the extent it is to elect the electors. Thankfully we have never had direct election of the president and hopefully we never will.

Bruce H
February 16, 2004, 11:39 AM
Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to be 5to4 conservative now? How will appointing conservatives help? Look what this bunch did with campaign finance. Liberal and conservative isn't nere as important as rule of the constitution.

fix
February 16, 2004, 12:06 PM
With their obnoxious misrepresentations about Bush's National Guard record The Dems and their allies in the news media are doing a magnificant job of firming up Bush's republican base.

Yep. The more the Dems attack Bush on issues that do not merit any attack, the more I tend to support him. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not participating in the Bush bashing anymore. I'm starting to open my eyes and come to the realization that by participating in it, I am furthering the cause of the extreme left wing. Make no mistake folks, they are united. Nothing would make them happier than to see us all divided. I think the "Moby Troll" strategy is succeeding to some extent. I think conservatives are being outwitted and duped into furthering the cause of the extreme left. That said, I have a new barometer:

If the extreme left is for it, I'm against it 99.99999% of the time. If the extreme left is against it, I'm for it 99.99999% of the time. The .00001% that remains is usually some sort of trojan horse.

The extreme left is against Bush.
The extreme left is for Kerry.

I'm definately against Kerry, but as far as being for Bush...this is that rare .00001%. When in doubt, I turn to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is the reset switch. The political entity that has no problem with us having our hands on the switch probably harbors no ill will towards us. The political entity that wants to take away our ability to flip that switch probably does.

AWB renewal, I stay home. AWB sunset, I vote Bush.

George!!! Do you hear me???

TheEgg
February 16, 2004, 01:26 PM
The Presidential race is not the only election being held this fall -- there is also the matter of House and Senate seats up for election.

Make sure that you identify and support the best congress-critters you can.

I'mSpartacus!
February 16, 2004, 01:32 PM
Several conservative and liberal seats will likely become available in the next 4 years. Word is that Rhenqvist is looking to retire soon after Bush gets elected. He has likely held out because a judicial nomination fight now would energize the liberals -- if Bush wins Bush can appoint a more conservative nominee and have a stronger mandate from the American people.

By the way, which of the Dakotas was it that the Democrat liberal won a senate seat over a conservative Republican by only a few hundred votes but the Libertarian pulled thousands of votes in that election?

And if you want a different analogy than the one about someone spiting their ex wife or girlfriend by castrating themselves just to show who is in charge then how about a kid who doesn't get his way (wants a Happy Meal) and because he doesn't get it he breaks his new expensive toy. I think the analogy fits when conservatives threaten to boot a Republican who is (and the liberals know it) many times more conservative than the liberal Democrat just over a couple of issues.

Oh well, maybe in a few years of liberal control over education AND government AND the courts then when your daughter comes home and announces she is getting married to her best girlfriend you can save some money on the wedding cost by splitting the difference with the other girl's parents.:what:

pax
February 16, 2004, 01:34 PM
If you vote third party, it's basically a vote for Kerry.
Okay, time for a lesson in basic math skills.

Candidate R has 250 votes.

Candidate D has 250 votes.

If pax votes for Candidate X, how many more votes will Candidate D have?

pax

Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? – Patrick Henry

Jay Kominek
February 16, 2004, 02:13 PM
By the way, which of the Dakotas was it that the Democrat liberal won a senate seat over a conservative Republican by only a few hundred votes but the Libertarian pulled thousands of votes in that election?


Who cares?

then how about a kid who doesn't get his way (wants a Happy Meal) and because he doesn't get it he breaks his new expensive toy.

I still utterly fail to see how it has anything to do with the situation at hand.

Likely because you're seeing a situation completely different from the one I'm seeing.

I think the analogy fits when conservatives threaten to boot a Republican who is (and the liberals know it) many times more conservative than the liberal Democrat just over a couple of issues.


Again, you persist in believing that Libertarians are wayward conservative Republicans.

Oh well, maybe in a few years of liberal control over education AND government AND the courts then when your daughter comes home and announces she is getting married to her best girlfriend you can save some money on the wedding cost by splitting the difference with the other girl's parents

I'm sorry, since I'm not homophobic, you'll need to find some other fear to play on.

In the event that I have children, I couldn't care less who they bring home, so long as they're happy.

If any hypothetical future daughter of mine is a lesbian, then I'll just have to hope she adopts so I'll have some grandchildren.

Lone_Gunman
February 16, 2004, 02:21 PM
GWB and the Republicans have held gun laws at bay. Yes GWB is playing games with the AWB--but he knows (as Delay and others have said) that it will never make it to his desk.


Yeah, sure, just like he knew the Supreme Court would strike the Campaign Finance Reform Bill for him too, right?

Bush played political chicken with the first amendment, and just plain lost.

Now you say its ok or him to play chicken with the second amendment?

When a party's platform is basically "The Democrats will screw you a little more than we will", its time to find a new party.

fix
February 16, 2004, 02:25 PM
Now you say its ok or him to play chicken with the second amendment?

I don't think anyone is saying that. Bashing Bush on gun control issues is just adding fuel to the fire that the extreme left wing is dancing around. All rhetoric, no substance. If he signs a renewal, bash away. Until then, you are just supporting the Kerry campaign.

Jay Kominek
February 16, 2004, 02:34 PM
If he signs a renewal, bash away.
It'll be a little late at that point, won't it?

If he is so hot on 2nd amendment rights, why doesn't he rescind daddy's executive order banning AW importation?

Why doesn't he issue some pardons for people the ATF put in jail on paperwork charges?

Why doesn't he just order the ATF to stop prosecuting people for owning illegal "assault weapons"?

He could do any of that, you know. He would just need to make a phone call.

He could even do something really radical like propose repealing the NFA, or GCA.

If he is such a big fan of gun owners, and your rights, why doesn't he do any of that?

Perhaps its a vast left-wing conspiracy, and he isn't doing it because it would give the Democrats more power? Right, I'm sure thats it.

He'll do it right as soon as he is reelected, and doesn't need to worry about reprisals.

fix
February 16, 2004, 02:47 PM
It'll be a little late at that point, won't it?

No. It'll be justified at that point. The man hasn't signed the AWB renewal. Until he does, bashing him over it is a bit premature and serves no other purpose than to get more conservatives all worked up over something that might happen. Again, it only serves to further the cause of the left...who have obviously been studying Sun Tzu and applying their lessons to politics.

Lone_Gunman
February 16, 2004, 02:55 PM
Fix, I am not sure what you are saying makes sense to me.

You say not to bash Bush til he signs the AWB, is that right?

You don't think Bush should be cajoled for saying he supports the bill?

Does that only apply to Republicans? or Democrats also?

Should we not bash the Democratic nominee until he signs the AWB renewal?

pax
February 16, 2004, 03:03 PM
The man hasn't signed the AWB renewal.
Yet.

He promised he would.

He showed what he thinks of his duty to uphold the Constitution the day he signed the Patriot Act.

pax

Bill Clinton made it illegal for me to own a 15 round magazine. George W. Bush made it impossible for me to get away with it. -- Shootin' Buddy

fix
February 16, 2004, 03:11 PM
What I'm saying is very simple. If you want to withdraw your support for Bush (which I am personally considering doing myself), do so in silence (with the obvious exception of voicing your displeasure directly to his organization). Doing otherwise does nothing at this point but help the Kerry campaign. The reality of the situation is very simple indeed. At this stage of the game, it looks like Kerry is going to get the nod. Once he does, anything that drags Bush down, boosts Kerry up. Sad but true.

Controversial statement? Absolutely. Hard to understand? Possibly.

If Kerry read this thread, would he be happy to see the anti-Bush sentiments expressed?

Jay Kominek
February 16, 2004, 03:51 PM
If you want to withdraw your support for Bush...
You're implying that he had our support in the first place.
If Kerry read this thread, would he be happy to see the anti-Bush sentiments expressed?
...why does it matter? Oh no! Not a happy presidental candidate! Run! Run away! He might smile at us! ;)

fix
February 16, 2004, 04:06 PM
Look guys. You can talk about GWB and his statement on the AWB until the cows come home. You can even bring up his daddy's executive orders. If you succeed in tearing down Bush, we get Kerry! Period. Your libertarian fantasies are just that, fantasies. Meanwhile the AWB sunsets and Bush gets no credit because he didn't actively DO anything to help it, keeping in mind that he doesn't have to DO anything other than shut up about it, which he has wisely done. If Kerry gets elected, he might DO something...like sign an executive order establishing an AWB of his very own. The SC we have right now will not accept the case challenging it, so in all your infinite libertarian wisdom you will have succeeded in extending the AWB. But at least you'll have a clean conscience. :rolleyes:

I'mSpartacus!
February 16, 2004, 04:07 PM
http://www.wsoctv.com/politics/2653091/detail.html

Kerry -- yeah just what we need!:rolleyes:

Daedalus
February 16, 2004, 05:43 PM
SOmething that noone else has brought up is that the ATF was moved from Dept. of the Treasury to Dept. of Justice under Bush.

HBK
February 16, 2004, 05:50 PM
Here's the thing I don't get. I've seen this quote numerous times on this and other boards. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." So as Libertarians and just wanting to be left alone, aren't you in effect doing nothing, enabling evil to triumph? I thought I was a Libertarian, but I'm not because of a few key issues. I feel all men have a duty to fight evil instead of just looking our for themselves.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 16, 2004, 06:03 PM
I'm not sure if I see the point in voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate. At present, the Libertarian Party has little if any representation at the State and local level, and none at the national level. Given that, what point would there be to a Libertarian Presidency? Any Libertarian President would have almost no chance of seeing his or her platform enacted absent some serious log rolling that would dilute the Libertarian message to the point of irrelevance.

I am not philosophically averse to voting Libertarian. However they won't get my vote until they stop trying to take a shortcut to the White House and buckle down to some serious efforts at local party building, and show some results in State legislative, gubernatorial, and Congressional elections as well. Success in these lower level elections are the indicator that a vote for a Libertarian Presidential candidate has some practical worth. As of now it doesn't.

pax
February 16, 2004, 06:12 PM
HBK,

Great quote, and quite applicable too.

"Doing nothing" might be the insane continuation of doing things you've always done, and expecting to get some different result than you've always gotten.

"Doing nothing" might be simply throwing up your hands and saying, "Well, I'd rather vote for a bad candidate than for the guy who's gonna lose."

"Doing nothing" might be cynically refusing to believe that your vote could make any difference at all in the long run. It might be refusing to give your vote to the candidate you really want in office, because you're too negative and discouraged to believe that things could change, if enough good men voted for change.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good people to vote for the lesser of two evils (which is, of course, still evil).

pax

How fortunate it is for the government that the people do not think. -- Adolf Hitler

Lone_Gunman
February 16, 2004, 06:19 PM
Bush supporters, please justify this:

Bush say he thinks the Campaign Finance Reform bill is un-Constitutional.

Bush signs Campaign Finance Reform bill into law.


Please explain how a man sworn to uphold the Constitution can sign a law that he thinks is un-Constitutional.

No Republican has been able to explain this. I suspect no Bush supporter here can eitehr, but I would love to see some of you try!

I have asked this question on this board a few times now, and so far no one wants to tackle the answer.

How can you vote for Bush knowing you just voted for a man that passed a law which limits free political speech?

jdseven1
February 16, 2004, 06:24 PM
AS long as only 50% of the people vote this country will be in a mess. Kerry is as good as bush nothing will change. How long have they been talking about health care and education?? If they are able to fix these problems what will they talk about. One thing I liked about Clinton was I made lots of money in the stock market. Check out your 401k now.

TamThompson
February 16, 2004, 06:45 PM
Over at infowars.com Alex Jones has a very troubling video clip in which he explores the fact that Bush and Kerry are both admitted members of the elite Skull and Bones club at Yale. Apparently, this is a VERY small club--only inducts 15 members a year. What are the odds that both Bush and Kerry would belong to it?

Also troubling: Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, and Bush Sr. all went to Yale, too, and Bush Sr. also belongs to this Skull and Bones.

Jones also says that Reuters News Service reported that a genealogy expert claims that Kerry and Bush Jr. are third cousins.

Yeah, I can hear it already: tinfoil hats, etc. But I'm serious: the news media really needs to do more looking into this Yale/Skull and Bones connection. I'd like to hear more about how this little tiny club has managed to field two presidents and both the 2004 candidates.

And if you really want to scare yourself silly, play Jones' video on the Bohemian Grove.

On another note: the Second Amendment may become a moot point to people whose jobs are shipped overseas and who have no money anymore for ammo, reloading supplies, or guns.

fix
February 16, 2004, 06:47 PM
How can you vote for Bush knowing you just voted for a man that passed a law which limits free political speech?

Because the alternative is a man who voted to pass the same law + he voted against the ban on partial birth abortion + he has voted for every gun control measure + he plans to raise my taxes + he believes we are subject to UN rule + etcetera etcetera. Like I said before, clinging to this libertarian fantasy will get Kerry elected. I can't justify MANY of Bush's policies. I don't think I can justify ANY of Kerry's.

Geech
February 16, 2004, 07:20 PM
If the Libertarian candidate has no chance of winning, what good does it do to vote for him?

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm asking a serious question. It seems to me you can vote for the lesser of two evils and still be a footsoldier for the LP.

Bruce H
February 16, 2004, 07:28 PM
Lone_ Gunman this is just like the AWB deal. He said he would sign it if it hit his desk. Campaign Finance Reform was very popular. He says he thinks its unconstitutional and signs it thinking the Supreme Court would throw it out. They didn't and now he along with everyone else that voted for it are hung with it. Prime example of passing the responsibility on coming back to bite you.

Michigander
February 16, 2004, 08:44 PM
The Supreme Court nominations issue is a red herring.

Rehnquist - Nixon (Republican)
Stevens - Ford (Republican)
Kennedy - Reagan (Republican)
O'connor - Reagan (Republican)
Scalia - Reagan (Republican)
Thomas - G.W.H. Bush (Republican)
Souter - G.W.H. Bush (Republican)
Ginsberg - Clinton (Democrat)
Breyer - Clinton (Democrat)

As you can see, the vote should be 7-2 if it really mattered wether or not a SCJ was nominated by a Republican or Democrat. We all know this is not the case.

I'm sure someone will argue about "extenuating circumstances" with this one or that one, etc. blah, blah, blah. The end result is the same.

So as far as the Supreme Court Nominations (non)issue goes, for me, IT DOES NOT MATTER one iota at this point in determining who I vote for President.

I'm still voting Libertarian.

editted: I had Souter as a Clinton nominee and I had the "should-be" vote tally at 6-3 instead of 7-2. Makes it even worse than I had figured. (Thanks to Greg Bell for correcting me on this.)

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 09:04 PM
Michigander,

"As you can see, the vote should be 6-3 if it really mattered wether or not a SCJ was nominated by a Republican or Democrat. We all know this is not the case."

Are you serious about this, or is this just third party pabulum?

The SC tends to vote 5-4 because Stevens and Souter turned out to be stealth liberals. Stevens was Ford (a Rockefeller Republican who was never elected) and Souter was GHWB (not Clinton) nominee who was pushed because he was Chief of Staff Sunnunu's friend (with a very even-handed record). Souter, who had no real ideological record, was also the product of all the Supreme Court nomination scandals of the 80's (Bork, Kennedy, etc). To take these mistakes (like Earl Warren and Brennen being nominated by Ike) as a reason why the President who picks the nomination is irellevant, is going too far.

Michigander
February 16, 2004, 09:17 PM
Greg Bell,


The SC tends to vote 5-4 because Stevens and Souter turned out to be stealth liberals. Stevens was Ford (a Rockefeller Republican who was never elected) and Souter was GHWB (not Clinton) nominee who was pushed because he was Chief of Staff Sunnunu's friend (with a very even-handed record). Souter, who had no real ideological record, was also the product of all the Supreme Court nomination scandals of the 80's (Bork, Kennedy, etc). To take these mistakes (like Earl Warren and Brennen being nominated by Ike) as a reason why the President who picks the nomination is irellevant, is going too far.


And as I said,


I'm sure someone will argue about "extenuating circumstances" with this one or that one, etc. blah, blah, blah. The end result is the same.


So I ask you Greg, what's to prevent the same kind of thing happening again? Scandals, stealths, etc.? NOTHING!

And thanks for correcting me about Souter. That makes it even worse. Should be 7-2 IF IT MATTERED!

GoRon
February 16, 2004, 09:21 PM
I have voted libertarian (Instead of Bush Sr 1st time he ran). I had to confront voting for the lesser "evil" when Clinton ran. I voted for Bush Sr. I could have been smug in my superior integrity by voting my conscience (Libertarian), but what good or what profit is there in being right on that one vote when so much is at stake? Politics is as much pragmatism as it is convictions. I also agree that the Libertarians need to get some grass roots movement started. To just go for the highest office(s) shows that there is no real groundswell of support.

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 09:23 PM
Mich,

It just shows, you never know. What would stop a Libertarian from making the same mistake? Oh yeah, there never will be a Libertarian President! :D :D

HBK
February 16, 2004, 10:12 PM
You miss my point, pax. I don't see how voting Republican can be seen as doing nothing. My point was that the whole "I don't care what happens to anyone else as long as I'm left alone" attitude IS doing nothing.

Michigander
February 16, 2004, 10:27 PM
...I also agree that the Libertarians need to get some grass roots movement started. To just go for the highest office(s) shows that there is no real groundswell of support.


Which explains the following how?:

The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the United States by most objective measures, including the following:

•The Libertarian Party is the only third party organized in all fifty states.
•In the 2002 elections, Libertarian candidates for state House of Representatives received more than a million votes -- more than twice the votes received by all other minor parties combined.
•In the 2000 elections, the party ran about 1,430 candidates at the local, state, and federal level. More than 1,600 Libertarians ran for office in the 2002 mid-term election. Both numbers are more candidates than all other third parties combined ran in these elections.
•Following the 2002 elections, more than 300 Libertarians hold elected state and local offices. This is more than twice that of all other third parties combined.
•In 2000, 256 candidates ran for seats in the House of Representatives. In 2002, 219 candidates ran for House seats. These are the only two times in over 80 years that any third party has contested a majority of House seats.
•In 2000, Libertarian candidates for U.S. House won 1.73 million votes. This count is more than any other third party in U.S. history by raw vote totals, although not by proportion of the electorate.
•In 2000, Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate Carla Howell won a record 11.9% of the vote. Then in 2002, Michael Cloud won 19% of the vote for the other Massachusetts seat in the U.S. Senate. (In the latter case, the Republican candidate failed to meet ballot access requirements.)
•In 2002, Ed Thompson won 11% of the vote for governor of Wisconsin despite being excluded from the debates. As a result, one of the eight members of the Wisconsin Election Board is a Libertarian. No other third party holds a seat on the Election Board of any state.
•The Libertarian Party has run in all 50 states in four elections: 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000. No other third party in U.S. history has managed to run a presidential candidate in all 50 states more than once. 50 state ballot access is so difficult that only the Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans are even attempting it in 2004.
•Libertarian candidates have finished third in a presidential election twice, in 1984 and 1988. No other current third party has ever finished third in a presidential election more than once.

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 10:38 PM
Oh Lord, a true believer!:uhoh: :scrutiny:

Wow, a couple of folks got 11% after four decades of running in elections.
:D

GoRon
February 16, 2004, 10:40 PM
I have voted libertarian, I have called and asked to be put on a mailing list so I could stay up to date on candidates and the like. They never followed through on anything. Philosophically I am a libertarian in most areas. But until I see viable candidates with an organization that can compete... I vote Republican.

Michigander
February 16, 2004, 10:44 PM
Greg Bell,

Oh Lord, a true believer!

Wow, a couple of folks got 11% after four decades of running elections.


I'm hardly a "true believer."

My post was in response to:

...I also agree that the Libertarians need to get some grass roots movement started. To just go for the highest office(s) shows that there is no real groundswell of support.


Sorry if facts are not pertinent.
:rolleyes:

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 10:51 PM
Just playin':D

You have to have a sense of humor to vote Libertarian. :evil:

GoRon
February 16, 2004, 10:55 PM
My experience has been that I am like a stranger in a strange land when it comes to libertarian political/economic philosophy. Most people I talk to about current events or politics couldn't even tell you what the Libertarian Party stands for, hell, they don't even know the difference between capitalism and socialism!

Moparmike
February 16, 2004, 11:00 PM
Greg, it seems to me that your "Anti-libertarian" posts are posted for the purposes of pushing libertarians' buttons and getting your jollies. I for one would appreciate it if you stuck to the facts, and quit deriding others for their beliefs and political stances.

If you want to pursuade someone to vote Republican, please do so. If your purpose is to insult the libertarians as "Head-In-The-Clouds morons" (to paraphrase the general feelings conveyed by your posts) who will do nothing but get Kerry elected, then I would be most happy to welcome you to my 'Ignore' list.

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 11:14 PM
Sheesh relax. I explained that I was just kidding. If you look at my earlier post you will see that they are more serious. Sorry.:)

ClonaKilty
February 16, 2004, 11:53 PM
I voted for W in 2000, but was very glad to vote Libertarian in 1996.

We cannot allow Repubs to take gun owner / small government issue voters for granted. Voting Libertarian when the Repubs offer up only tired old party hacks like Bob Dole does indeed send a message to the RNC that if they want to win, they have to have a candidate who takes a firm stand on these issues.

I'm very upset with W over his backing of steel tarriffs & quasi-socialized medicine. So, I'll happily vote Libertarian in 2004 if W renews the AWB (yes, yes assuming it hits his desk). Judging from others on this Libertarian-leaning board I surmise I'm not alone.

pax
February 17, 2004, 02:14 AM
You miss my point, pax.
Nope, HBK, I didn't miss it. I rejected it.
I don't see how voting Republican can be seen as doing nothing.
I know you don't, and you're not alone in that. It is very frustrating to watch how frustrated people get with this concept. Let me try again.

It is a lot easier to complain about how the country is going downhill than it is to really look into the exact things that your own party has done in the past to contribute to -- or even cause -- the trends you are complaining about. (See http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2110/E_LandMines.html for an example...)

It's a lot easier to shut your eyes and pretend as if these guys are the solution, and not a big part of the problem, than it is to admit that your voting patterns might have caused them to act this way.

It's a lot easier to just pull the lever with the (R) after the name, than it is to do your homework and decide who really supports what you believe in -- and then support them, with your time and effort and money, even knowing that few people have the integrity to vote their consciences and so your candidate is going to lose no matter how many people really agree with him and what he stands for.

You can complain that the libertarians really "ought to" vote Republican, for whatever reason. But it's nuts to say that they are libertarians because they are lazy, uninterested, or selfish. Those are not the memes that drive libertarian thought or values.

My point was that the whole "I don't care what happens to anyone else as long as I'm left alone" attitude IS doing nothing.
As a libertarian, I do care what happens to other people. Because I care what happens to people, I want to be left alone and I want them to be left alone. I want the government off my back and off your back. If my neighbor's kids are starving, I might go hungry myself in order to help feed them -- but I will not steal from you in order to help them, nor will I pretend that it is moral to steal from you in order to help them. I'd rather see them starve than to see you enslaved.

If that strikes you as selfish do-nothingism, I don't believe we have enough in common for meaningful communication.

pax

When freedom prevails, the ingenuity and inventiveness of people creates incredible wealth. This is the source of the natural improvement of the human condition. -- Brian S. Wesbury

HBK
February 17, 2004, 03:26 AM
That all makes sense to me, pax. To be honest, what I was referring to (doing nothing) and the one issue that would keep me from voting Libertarian is abortion. The one thing I'm worried about this election year is appointments to the SCOTUS. I KNOW Kerry will load it with liberals and we will be fubar. Bush has appointed some very conservative judges and that's what I want him to do if he gets reelected. Most people on here don't believe that he will, but they are ignoring the appointments he has already made. I know this so called conservative court we have now will rule against the 2nd ammendmeny any chance they get, but 2 more REAL conservative judges would set it right for the next 40-50 years.

fallingblock
February 17, 2004, 05:02 AM
"I know this so called conservative court we have now will rule against the 2nd ammendmeny any chance they get, but 2 more REAL conservative judges would set it right for the next 40-50 years."
************************************************************
It's a difficult decision to take, especially from the Libertarians point of view, but Bush is the best chance to bolster the SCOTUS that we're going to have for a while.:eek:

The Libertarian candidate will not be elected, therefore the outcome will be JFK appointing judges:barf: .

I understand the principle involved, and I am in agreement with most Libertarian ideals, but voting Libertarian if you can stomach voting for Bush will only damage our firearms rights.:(

JPM70535
February 17, 2004, 06:44 AM
I am going to vote for GWB in the November election for one reason, and one reason only, I am better off now than I was 4 years ago when Slick Willy was pres. The few stocks I own are steadily gaining in value without being overvalued. Interest rates on purchases I am likely to make are the lowest I can remember, and while gas prices are too inflated to be be anything but profiteering on the part of the Oil Conglomerates, at least there are ample supplies. (Can you remember rationing) Under GWBs watch , my net worth has increased considerably more than under the previous admins. watch. (The above statement applies to every Term presided over by Repubs. Just to clarify, I am not a Capitalist and have no great stock portfolio and had no silver spoon at birth.

I still have the right to keep and bear arms, albeit with a duly issued permit that should not be required, a circumstance that I fervently believe would not exist today had AL BORE been elected.

When I travel by air ( as seldom as possible ) I feel safer than I did prior to 911. Despite the fact that I would feel safer still if my CCW applied to Air travel.

I feel my chances of retaining RKBA are infinitely greater under another GWB watch than under one presided over by a documented Liberal whose choice to associate with a traitor to this country (Hanoi Jane) can never be justified . For any veteran to have anything but contempt for her boggles the mind. (Picture her sitting at an AA station opining as to how she wished she could be shooting down American aircraft). If the Repubs don't beat Kerry to death with this association they are passing up a golden oppertunity. IMO all we need is for an avowed liberal like Kerry to appoint Supreme Court justices of a like mind, and my RKBA are a long forgoten mermory.

3rd party alternative? Just as soon vote for Kerry, it amounts to the same thing. Libertarians among us need to be aware that the majority of main stream Americans do not accept the Libertarian view that drugs should be legalized, and like myself, could not vote for a candidate who espoused that belief. A 3rd party candidate with the potential to win in a National election would not live long enough to do so. (Think George Wallace)

So in spite of the man's failings, I will vote for GWB and hope like hell he is victorious

JPM

pax
February 17, 2004, 12:41 PM
"I know this so called conservative court we have now will rule against the 2nd ammendmeny any chance they get, but 2 more REAL conservative judges would set it right for the next 40-50 years."
It's a difficult decision to take, especially from the Libertarians point of view, but Bush is the best chance to bolster the SCOTUS that we're going to have for a while.
HBK & fallingblock,

I'd buy that argument if it weren't the same argument presented every year ... in order to get freedom minded folks to do the same thing we have always done. And if it weren't that what we've always done is just to roll over and take it, because the only other supposedly-viable option is so much worse. And if it weren't that every time we vote for these guys, the same thing happens.

Insanity is doing the same thing you have always done, and expecting to get something different than you have always got.

As always, we are told that this year's election is more vital than some nebulous election that will happen down the road. This year's issues, this year's court appointments, this year's legislative proposals, this year's political battles, are all (and always!) more vital now than they will be during any non-specific 'future' election year. So we should hold our noses now and vote for the lesser of two evils, saving our indignation and our moral choices for some time in the hazy future.

But the argument itself is nonsense, designed to get us all to roll over and take it yet again. When are we going to be stronger, in a better position, more free? We're watching our rights dribble away, bit by bit, and all we can think to do is to keep electing the guys that keep making it happen. Will we be stronger and in a better bargaining position after the last vestige of our rights has finally vanished?

You think you're voting for smaller government and lower taxes, but every time you elect these guys, you get bigger government and higher taxes (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault ... even when the elephants control both houses and the Oval Office).

You think you're voting for increased respect for the Constitution, but every time you elect these guys, the Constitution gets a little more irrelevant (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault ... even when the elephants control both houses and the Oval Office).

You think you're voting for the RKBA, but every time you elect these guys, a little bit more infringement happens (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault...) and we lose just a little bit more of our broad freedom (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault...). We're all wringing our hands in fear that the AWB will be renewed (yeah, yeah, I know -- it's the Democrats' fault ... even though the elephants control both houses and the Oval Office).

All we have to do is just do what we've always done, but do it more and do it more emphatically. THIS year, it'll work. THIS year, the folks who have always traded away our basic human rights will suddenly realize that we don't want them to do that anymore, because if they do, we'll -- we'll -- we'll -- I know! -- we'll write them a nasty letter, and tell them we'll never vote for them again! -- if they don't learn to respect our rights.

But we will, of course, vote for them again after all. Because after all, this year's court appointments and political battles are more important than the ones that'll happen sometime in the hazy future. And we'll try to guilt all our likeminded friends into doing the same as we are, because after all, what else are you gonna do? Vote Democrat??

I'm just sick of playing that game, and won't do it anymore.

I won't vote for some jerk who says he understands and respects the Constitution, and vows to uphold the same -- and then says that he believes the piece of legislation on his desk does indeed violate the 1st Amendment, but signs it anyway.

I won't vote for some jerk who says he understands and respects the Constitution, and vows to uphold the same -- and then promises to sign a piece of legislation violating the 2nd Amendment if it crosses his desk.

I won't vote for some jerk who says he understands and respects the Constitution, and vows to uphold the same -- and then lobbies for and signs a piece of legislation radically undermining the 4th Amendment.

He may get into office again, but he won't do it with my vote. I will not vote for an oath-breaker.

pax

The best defense against a usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry. -- Bill Buckley

DTLoken
February 17, 2004, 05:43 PM
Haha, i'm laughing so hard.


A few weeks/months ago you were all bashing Dean, who would be a far greater president than Kerry or Bush.


You get what you wish for, and I don't feel sorry for anyone.

Jay Kominek
February 17, 2004, 06:48 PM
the one issue that would keep me from voting Libertarian is abortion

HBK, I'm not trying to jump on you here or anything, but have you read, say, Michael Badnarik's position statement on abortion? (I noticed while looking this up that Gary Nolan doesn't seem to have a position statement on his web page. I'm a little disappointed, there.)

I havn't been following politics as carefully as I should've for as long as I should've, but it seems to me that the Libertarian position on abortion is starting to shift slightly, sort of towards a stance of "its usually wrong, but making it illegal will just force people to travel to canada to get it done - what do you want us to do, perform pregnancy tests are the borders?" kind of thing. (For What Its Worth)

GoRon
February 17, 2004, 07:42 PM
Dean couldn't even make it through a Democratic primary without imploding. How do you expect him to lead the free world?

HBK
February 17, 2004, 08:38 PM
Dean was a joke to begin with, but Kerry is no better.

GSB
February 17, 2004, 09:08 PM
Remember, last time Al Whore got more people votes, he just didn't get the four justice votes he needed to be President

I must have missed that part of my civics class that discussed the popular vote. I only came in on the day they discussed the electoral college, during which there was a lively discussion of how a candidate could receive less than the majority of the vote and still win the Presidency. There was also some talk about the history of why the Founders set things up that way, but I guess it's not important as I missed the whole lecture about how the popular vote replaced the electoral college.

Or were you talking about Gore's hissy fit recount demands of certain cherry-picked Democratic strongholds?

atek3
February 17, 2004, 09:54 PM
mommy-state fascism or daddy-state socialism
Chris shouldn't it be the reverse? I've always thought the dems were socialist and the repugs were fascist :)

Look guys. You can talk about GWB and his statement on the AWB until the cows come home. You can even bring up his daddy's executive orders. If you succeed in tearing down Bush, we get Kerry! Period. Your libertarian fantasies are just that, fantasies.

In that case, sucks to be an American . In five years all of the fascist fantasies being conjured by the D's and the R's in DC will be real, no fantasizing required. If you want a taste of things to come, watch England. They are always about 10 years ahead of us when it comes to the latest police state tactics. They got the RIP act and we got USA-Patriot. They are getting National ID cards, mark my words, so are we!

atek3

PS I seriously wonder who will doom America more, Bush or Kerry. On one hand, Bush's "Toilet Paper Dollar" monetary policy are ruining us. On the other Kerry will raise taxes to the moon, further impoverishing America. Oh well.

atek3
February 17, 2004, 11:14 PM
You miss my point, pax. I don't see how voting Republican can be seen as doing nothing.
Voting republican is worse than doing nothing. It's promoting the dirty fascists. Fascists with no respect for free speech, privacy, gun rights, don't forget who signed GCA 68, FOPA 86 ( He knew it had the MG provision, if Reagan had principles he would have vetoed and told congress to try again.), and the import ban. Oh ya and don't forget those liberty-promoting endevours such as RICO and the modern drug war.


I am going to vote for GWB in the November election for one reason, and one reason only, I am better off now than I was 4 years ago when Slick Willy was pres. The few stocks I own are steadily gaining in value without being overvalued.

HAH. Of course. The last year was simply the Reflation of the bubble, spurred by artificially low interest rates, a refinancing boom, short term stimulus, and the accumulation of record levels of debt
http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/index.ssf?/base/business-6/1076829455102834.xml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north181.html
http://www.peacockfutures.com/beware_echo_bubble.pdf
http://www.prudentbear.com/

Interest rates on purchases I am likely to make are the lowest I can remember,

Adding to the Two Trillion (with a T) dollar personal debt level in this country.

and while gas prices are too inflated to be be anything but profiteering on the part of the Oil Conglomerates,

Come on... All commodities have soared in price (or rather the dollar has plummeted versus real things...like oil), included in this is oil. Oil is ~35 dollars a barrel, oil used to be ~20 dollars a barrel. Texaco isn't in this game for fun, they exist to make profit. Adjusted for inflation, gas isn't even that high right now:
http://www.narprail.org/gas.htm
(Note, CA and a few states are different because they have stupid laws mandating expensive formulation)

at least there are ample supplies. (Can you remember rationing)

Rationing caused by Nixons stupid price controls, not by insufficient supplies.

Under GWBs watch , my net worth has increased considerably more than under the previous admins. watch.

Your "paper wealth". Remember, Asset price bubbles crash as hard as amazingly as they rise. Be careful.


I still have the right to keep and bear arms, albeit with a duly issued permit that should not be required, a circumstance that I fervently believe would not exist today had AL BORE been elected.

Republicans control the house, senate, and presidency, shouldn't we have nationwide concealed carry? Oh wait, thats right, republicans talk the talk, all the while kowtowing to the demands of stupid soccer moms.

When I travel by air ( as seldom as possible ) I feel safer than I did prior to 911. Despite the fact that I would feel safer still if my CCW applied to Air travel.

When I fly I grind my teeth at being strip searched and treated like a common prisoner in one of our fine prisons (which by the way imprison more humans per capita and over all than any country in the world! Are we free or what?)

I feel my chances of retaining RKBA are infinitely greater under another GWB watch than under one presided over by a documented Liberal whose choice to associate with a traitor to this country (Hanoi Jane) can never be justified . IMO all we need is for an avowed liberal like Kerry to appoint Supreme Court justices of a like mind, and my RKBA are a long forgoten mermory.
Hello? RKBA in this country IS a long forgotten memory, and a bushevik appointee to SCOTUS isn't going to change that one bit.

atek3

fallingblock
February 18, 2004, 12:00 AM
Ranting is not reasoning....just ranting:D

It was Carter, not Nixon, who egregiously mishandled the "OPEC oil shock".:)


I like the idea of criminals being imprisoned, as long as they are given a fair trial.;)

You'll note that Britain's "Diversion" system is a colossal failure at reducing the crime rate there.:scrutiny:

I'll vote for Bush only because not doing so will assist Kerry in more quickly diminishing my Second Amendment rights.:barf:

idd
February 18, 2004, 12:40 AM
It was Carter, not Nixon, who mishandled the 1973 "OPEC oil shock".

While he was still governor of Georgia? That would have been quite a remarkable feat.
(Hint: Carter did not become president until 1977.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jc39.html

Say what you want to about Carter's mishandling of the Iranian hostage crisis, at least he decontrolled domestic petroleum prices to stimulate production, and proceeded with deregulation of the trucking and airline industries.

fallingblock
February 18, 2004, 01:04 AM
My miscommunication:o !

I was on my way back from making lunch to edit that bit, but not in time.

What I wish to say is that it was Carter rather than Nixon who mishandled the situation begun by the Arab Oil Embargo.

If you'll check the dates of the most serious fuel shortages and rationing.
you'll find that these occurred on Jimmy's watch. Poor Jimmy just couldn't seem to bring himself to deal with the crisis. 55mph limits, 55F. thermostats, and still it wouldn't go away!:D

"Tricky" Dick was a bit caught up in other matters at that time as well;) .

************************************************************
"(Hint: Carter did not become president until 1977.)"
************************************************************

Well, don't blame me! I voted against him!:D

atek3
February 18, 2004, 02:52 AM
What I wish to say is that it was Carter rather than Nixon who mishandled the situation begun by the Arab Oil Embargo.

Carter was (stupidly) trying to cope with the effects of the NIXON-era price controls (shortages). And there was rationing under Nixon's reign.

I like the idea of criminals being imprisoned, as long as they are given a fair trial.

Whoa there cowboy, are we talking rights-violating, thieves, rapists, and murderers? Or are we talking people getting busted for NON-rights violating crimes, such as owning a rifle with a 15.75" inch barrel, possession of a bag of pot, etc. etc. Because over half of the prisoners in federal jail eating government on your dime are there for drug crimes. Add in gun "crimes" and I'm sure the number is even worse. In state Jails, 20% are their for drug crimes. Because of mandatory mins. people getting tagged on drug charges are spending a longer time in jail for POT than SEXUAL ASSAULT. Don't believe me? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/match.html
Prohibition of alcohol caused violent criminals to take over the trade. Are drugs any different? I think not.

atek3

fallingblock
February 18, 2004, 06:21 AM
"And there was rationing under Nixon's reign."
************************************************************

The long lines and the really severe rationing came mostly on Carter's watch...but he was stupidly trying....:)



************************************************************
"Because over half of the prisoners in federal jail eating government on your dime are there for drug crimes..."
************************************************************

Drug use is a crime in most jurisdictions. Fair trial? conviction? do the time.

Don't like drug laws? Get 'em changed.

Same with gun laws. You want a 15 3/4" rifle barrel?

Get a transfer stamp.

or

Change the law.

It's really that simple.

The vast majority of drug criminals knew they were breaking the law...they just assumed they wouldn't be caught, or didn't care.:eek:


************************************************************
"people getting tagged on drug charges are spending a longer time in jail for POT than SEXUAL ASSAULT."
************************************************************

It must be time for madatory sentencing for sex offenses.....;)


************************************************************
"Prohibition of alcohol caused violent criminals to take over the trade. Are drugs any different?"
************************************************************

Nope, nor is prohibition of guns.

Get the laws changed.

If you KNOW it is a crime to do drugs...don't do the drugs.;)

I've known a lot of potheads and some junkies, and nobody was forcing them to break the law.

Silly laws? Of course, in many cases.

Are druggies so dimwitted they don't know about the laws? I suspect not.

Greg Bell
February 18, 2004, 01:45 PM
atek3


What did the Repubs have to do with the 68 gca?

I'mSpartacus!
February 18, 2004, 04:15 PM
Good point Greg!

atek3
February 18, 2004, 08:23 PM
Whoops, sorry guys. (I did a lil more research and it turns out it was LBJ's POS signature on the bill. I'm Bob Dole, Bob Dole voted for it though :) )
Oh well.

atek3

Bruce H
February 18, 2004, 10:28 PM
POLITICS 28 questions in need of answers from Kerry
By George Will
02/15/2004


Inconsistenties lace his position on issues, view of facts.


WASHINGTON
In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts can answer questions that linger in spite of, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:

Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO? When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?

Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"? When you denounce "lobbyists," do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?

Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging the First Amendment right of all Americans to "petition the government for a redress of grievances"?

In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough? You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President George W. Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?


In January 1991, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, you advocated economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression? On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?
The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself? On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote, "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?

You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot? You strongly praise former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports the North American Free Trade Agreement and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade?

You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again? A year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995, you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals failed?

You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree?

You say you agree with what Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Some in Massachusetts advocate amending the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How would you vote?

Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?

Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook and I will therefore support it." In December, you saved your sagging campaign with a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome? How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on broadcast messages?

Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat Bush. As one who believes - well, who says - there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?

There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.

Copyright Washington Post Writers Group
E-mail: georgewill@washpost.com


Just more fuel for the fire. Good questions none the less.

If you enjoyed reading about "How to avoid hearing "President Kerry" in January, 2005!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!