[TEX]

START NOW - SPREADING THE WORD

Almost without exception every democrat or liberal that I have spoken to or have heard speak is under the impression that G. W. Bush stole the election and they are pissed. I firmly believe that democrats will turn out in record numbers in November. Its not that they all believe Kerry is the best man for the job, but that they loath and hate Bush with a maniacal zeal. I think, only partly joking, that they would sooner vote for Saddam than Bush if that's who the democrats were running. I am not really that fired up about Bush, but Gore worried me a great deal - Kerry scares me even more.

The point is this - we need to start getting the word out now that no true freedom loving American can stay at home on election day. We must get the vote out for Bush, even if he is the lesser of two evils. If you vote Libertarian, you are in effect voting democrat. If we can keep Bush in office and get a few more democrats replaced with conservatives, we may actually get a few worthwhile things done in this country.

My suggestion would be to make out an extensive e-mail list of friends and family who don't always vote and send them something every couple of months encouraging them to get out and vote come November. If they are democrats try to convince them to vote for Nader. :)

If someone knows how to keep this post at the top of the forum and thinks it would be beneficial to do so, please do so - I don't know how.

Thanks,

TEX

[Greg Bell]

Amen!

[PATH]

DITTO!

[Kurt S.]

But good point about how much the Democrats/liberals hate GWB.

I do consider myself to be a small "L" libertarian and vote for a libertarian whenever given the chance, but I will not make the same mistake I made in '92 when I voted Perot as an attempt to protest against Bush I. I don't agree with a lot of GWB's ideas, and except for his initial 9/11 response and the tax cuts I don't believe he's done that great of a job. However I either am completely opposed to anything I've heard Kerry propose, or when it sounds good I simply look at his past record to know he's lying.

[tiberius]

If you vote Libertarian, you are in effect voting democrat.
If you vote Libertarian, you ARE in fact and effect voting Libertarian.

[MicroBalrog]

that they would sooner vote for Saddam than Bush

Heck, Saddam was better on gun rights.:neener:

[Moparmike]

Its true. The Dems are going to be out in force, and we cant bring ourselves to come together and vote for Bush. I know that if Bush stands any chance of winning, I wont vote for him. Personally, given the choice of giving a 'thumb's up' to my current tyrranical leader who has brought us closer to 1984 than we have been since McCarthy and voting for Kerry, I would rather bring the revolution quicker and vote Kerry. THis is assuming that there were no 3rd parties.
We must get the vote out for Bush, even if he is the lesser of two evils. If you vote Libertarian, you are in effect voting democrat. If we can keep Bush in office and get a few more democrats replaced with conservatives, we may actually get a few worthwhile things done in this country. I dont want to put Bush in office for a 2nd term. I could think of a lot more worthwhile things that could be done by putting a libertarian in office.

And dont give me any guff about how it wont happen. I said things could be better with one in office, not that it would be easy to get one there.



Tiberius beat me to it. No one has your vote till you give it to them, and they had better damn well give you a reason to give them your approval. Bush has done nothing of the sort.:fire:

[Dave R]

If the Libertarians siphon a significant number of votes away from Bush, then Kerry WILL WIN.

Its that simple.

It sucks big time.

But its the truth.

[MicroBalrog]

Only assuming that libertarians siphon votes only from bush.

[316SS]

I'm with tiberius. [edit- and MicroBalrog, and Moparmike]

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Bush has conducted an executive power grab and attack on civil liberties since 9/11 that is as significant as any in our history. Do I believe Kerry would be better? No. But I'll abstain before I commit my vote, and my moral support, to George W. Bush.

Practical considerations, vote strategizing, etc. are all well ang good. But I assume moral responsibility when I vote vor a candidate, and its a responsibility I take very seriously.

316SS

[Moparmike]

If the Libertarians siphon a significant number of votes away from Bush, then Kerry WILL WIN.Then maybe Bush should stop giving freedom-minded individuals a reason to go vote LP. Its my vote, not Bush's. I decide who I will use it on.

If you want to waste your vote on someone you dont truely believe is right for the job, wether he hasnt a chance of being elected or is a shoe-in, then I wont stop you. I respect your right to vote for anyone you want. But you* should respect my right to vote for whom I believe in too. That person is not Bush.:scrutiny:



*Collective 'you'. Not anyone in particular.

[fix]

I would rather bring the revolution quicker and vote Kerry.

I understand the sentiment, but I have a family who I would rather not see put through the horror of any kind of civil war. While I don't feel the election of Kerry would necessarily result in that, I do feel it would accelerate things very rapidly in that direction. Given the choice of two locomotives, one bearing down on me at 300mph while the other closes at 30mph, I'll take the latter every time. I might be able to stop it before it reaches me, and I definitely have time to prepare for impact. Getting out of it's way might be an option for some as well. So feel free to wish for war if you choose, but having seen the results of it firsthand...I will not share that hope.

[sch40]

Well it's pretty obvious that the Libertarian candidate will not win (I'm a Libertarian purist), but what I'd LOVE to see is a Libertarian candidate in the national debates. It is disgusting that the Republicrats and the Democans keep upping the voting percentage needed to get free press in the debates, and it would be great to see those two politicians dumbstruck when confronted with intelligent arguments from someone who really knows about rights, freedoms, and the economy.

take care, and may the worst man not win! :D

--sch40

[fix]

Well it's pretty obvious that the Libertarian candidate will not win (I'm a Libertarian purist), but what I'd LOVE to see is a Libertarian candidate in the national debates.

Now that's a realistic and worthy goal for the Libertarian Party. I'd love to see that as well, even though I find myself at odds with large portions of the LP platform.

[TEX]

To those of you who wish to vote Libertarian, my heart is with you, but I am stuck with reality. If there was a true Libertarian who had a chance of winning, I would vote for him/her without a doubt. I may be wrong, but my perception is that more people who end up voting Republican, would rather have voted Libertarian - if the runner had a chance, than the opposite - Democrats really wanting to vote Libertarian, but don't for the same reason.

Because of my job and functions that my wife drags me to, I come into contact with quite a few liberals ranging from mild to fanatical. I have yet to hear one of them show any Libertarian leanings. And about 50% of them almost start foaming at the mouth when Bush is mentioned. On the other side of the coin, almost all (80%+) of my friends (that I shoot with, etc.) indicate that they would much rather have a viable Libertarian to vote for, but understand the reality of such a vote. Don't forget that Perot very likely cost Bush senior his second term and put Clinton in office. My hat is off to anyone who votes their heart, but I still think a vote for a Libertarian ticket that can't win is a vote for the Democratic ticket. OK, maybe technically 1/2 of a vote.

I am no big fan of Bush. His signing of the Patriot Act was A BIG STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, in my opinion. Parts of it have some merit, but it leaves the door wide open for abuse and destruction of personal liberties and privacy. That said, just listen to what Kerry says, and check out his voting record. I would not want to be responsible, even in a small part, to putting this clown in the White House. Don't take this the wrong way, but someone who votes Liberation this time around, knowing what is at stake, reminds me of one of my kids refusing to eat at all because they could get what they wanted to eat.

My intent is not to put down the Libertarian cause. No not at all, but I am forced to live in the real world. In my opinion, if Libertarians really want to make a difference, they need to infiltrate and take over the Republican Party. I fear that we will, for many generations, be a two party system. Just as a side note, I feel some Democratic ideas have some merit also, even though in other areas I feel they have lost their minds. As an example, I am pro union. I am in favor of strong, but not overpowering unions.

Stay Safe Folks,

TEX

[fix]

Don't take this the wrong way, but someone who votes Liberation this time around, knowing what is at stake, reminds me of one of my kids refusing to eat at all because they could get what they wanted to eat.

Well put.

[tiberius]

TEX,

Relax presidential elections are done at the state level. W will win TX big. He got over 60% last time. You can vote your concience and he will still win this state.

Of course this assume that your name signifies you as a Texan :)

[Fly320s]

Who is/are the L/libertarian candidate/s?

I sure don't know. Maybe, if all of us who would like to vote for the other guy would start making noise in the press and polls, then the Lib candidate would get more air/press time.

That is what we need more than anything else. The only reason Kerry, Bush, et al., are the name-brand candidates is because we hear their names every day. Now, if the Rest of America* would get off of their collective butts and actually think about what they want and then actually find a candidate who supports those positions, then we might get a third or fourth or fifth choice on the ballot.

Can you imagine how things would change if we were to hear the names of other candidates every day? What would happen if the Lib candidate had all the sound bites on CNN & Fox? What would happen if We The People actually had a candidate that would stand up for us?




*It seems to me that only a small portion of voters actually give a damn.

[tiberius]

http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/pres-cand-2004.html

This shows the Libertarian candidates. They will select one at their convention this spring. I am not a Libertarian, just a libertarian of sorts.

The Libs need star power if they are going to get national attention. However, hooking up with a "star" would probably force them to compromise too much on their principles.

[Moondancer]

Gotta concur with Tex et al. The Dems that I know really don't care who they vote for AS LONG AS BUSH GETS THROWN OUT OF OFFICE!

Now, I never liked Clinton, even before he lied to me on national tv about Monica. ("I... did... not... have... sex... with...) But, I never hated him nearly as much as the Dems seem to hate Bush. It's darn near pathological. Again, Tex is right when he says they darn near start foaming at the mouth. If I wasn't armed, I'd probably be afraid for my life when I tell 'em I'll never vote Democrat!:D

I've been telling my wife (who is a confirmed Dem, but doesn't understand their gun control stance :fire: ) that Bush will win, but the longer this goes the less I am sure of it.

I hate the idea of war, but MoparMike may be right.

[Standing Wolf]

We must get the vote out for Bush, even if he is the lesser of two evils.

1.) The lesser of two evils is still evil.
2.) I'm not convinced Bush is measurably less evil than that Kerry creature.

If the election were to be held today, I'd vote Libertarian. If we end up with a very close race between Bush and that Kerry creature, I may hold my nose and vote for Bush.

[Daniel T]

Relax presidential elections are done at the state level. W will win TX big. He got over 60% last time. You can vote your concience and he will still win this state.

I was going to point this out, but tiberius beat me to it. It's worth repeating, though.

[gunsmith]

Bush is the only choice.
Kerry would actively seek AWB and never sign a CCW bill.
Bush will only sign AWB IF it gets to his desk and has signed Texas CCW into law. Botoxed,babykilling billionaire john effing kerry never ever would sign any CCW law and would deny us our rights from CCW to semi-auto anything.
Mr Heinz is practically a socialist.
Bush is the only choice.

[greyhound]

Its not that they all believe Kerry is the best man for the job, but that they loath and hate Bush with a maniacal zeal

I have been pounding this drum with everyone I know since Iowa on Jan. 19 - when it became apparent that the Dems weren't going to swallow the Dean kool-aid after all, and that thge sudden elevation of Kerry meant that they really were serious about "anybody but Bush".

2000 election + Iraq War = more hatred of Bush than for Clinton

(and I think gay marraige, though not helpful in his image to the left, is not a game-breaker like the two above).

[Battler]

What counts too is what's behind the scenes. Bush really isn't pushing really hard for an AWB to get to his desk - quite the opposite, I imagine.

Also, he's not going on TV every time there's a well publicized shooting and blaming the NRA.

[jeil]

A vote for Bush is a vote in support of what he has done which hardly is in support of liberty. As far as Dem's and Repub's, there is little difference as each has a fundamental belief in the concept of government rule which translates into constantly increased government (less freedom). The only real difference is in their preference for which area of your life they choose to dominate. You must also consider that the politicians are a reflection of the values of the voters, and the Dem's and Repub's are what most voters want, i.e, most voters do not understand, not do they want freedom, but rather government rule.

When I read your post I thought of a scene out of the tv series "Roots" where the runaway slave was given the choice of having half his foot cut off or some of his private parts cut off in punishment for seeking freedom. You are in effect saying, choose or else someone else will choose for you, yet both the choices are abhorant and both will lead to a significant loss. Neither is acceptable, so I either stay home or vote Libertarian.

In reality, it is all of little consequence. The die is already cast and little can be done. We are truly headed for civil war, about 2020 if not earlier. This is for two significant reasons; the first is that every 80+ years or so we hit a crisis point which ends in a major, nation threatening conflict (1776, 1861, 1939, 2020?); two of the last three have been civil conflict. This goes much farther back in Western history, and it is a cyclical/generational thing as described in the book, "The Fourth Turning." There is a yet more compelling reason that civil disorder is in the cards and that is the economic decline that will follow peak oil, estimated to occur this decade. The carrying capacity of this planet for human beings has been artificially extended beyond the norm by use of stored energy; this expansion went parabolic beginning in the early part of the 20th century and had a lifetime of about 100 years (1930 to 2030) so we should be back at the 1930 living standard by 2030. Think of it as the Titanic with lifeboats only for 1/3 of us, and imagine the squabble over who gets a seat.

I cannot think of a more compelling reason to own a good variety of guns for personal protection.

[spartacus2002]

Someone please explain to me how a vote for Bush is any different than a vote from Kerry.

Save the chest-thumping "I bleed Republican" crap and give me good reasons. Don't tell me about how Kerry is a liberal and will thus drive up budget deficits, increase bloated social services, and fail to protect the borders -- we have all that now.

Ask yourselves which you want to arrive the fastest: the police state or the welfare state?

[commygun]

I've neither seen nor experienced anything that suggest's GWB's America
is a police state. Everything I've seen and heard of John Kerry suggests
that his America will be a police AND a welfare state.

[Daedalus]

If the Libertarian candidate is Badnarik I am voting for him, otherwise (and assuming the AWB sunsets) I will vote for Bush.

[turtle]

Voting for a third party is more like a kid refusing to eat when he knows his food has been poisoned.

Which is worse? Gun control or the Patriot Act? Cut off your arm or your leg?

Maybe we should have two votes. One that doesn't count for anything, where people can feel free to choose who they think would be best, and the other that's the real vote that counts, where they can vote for the winner. Probably wouldn't do any good.

If you participate in a poll, it might be worth telling them who you really think would be best, since it doesn't really count. You can always change your mind when it's time for the real vote. Maybe if the polls showed a large count for a third party, more people would feel safer voting for a winner.

I think this article on third parties is worth reading:

http://www.reformparty.org/documents/misc/timeforreform.html

[Tom Bri]

The only issue for me is, which candidate will reduce the chance of nuclear terrorism. Sadly, Bush is the only one. Kerry seems to have no foreign policy except appeasment, and the LP can't win.

[dale]

"On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The
people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong
lizard might get in."

-- Douglas Adams, _So Long and Thanks for All the Fish_

[rick_reno]

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Bush has conducted an executive power grab and attack on civil liberties since 9/11 that is as significant as any in our history. Do I believe Kerry would be better? No. But I'll abstain before I commit my vote, and my moral support, to George W. Bush.

Ditto.

I'll vote for Bush if he gives me a chunk of that $200M he's expected to have to bankrolled to "get/buy" votes, and I don't want a big chunk.

[Jay Kominek]

Don't forget that Perot very likely cost Bush senior his second term and put Clinton in office.
NO. Bush Sr. cost Bush Sr. his second term, by not giving those people who went and voted for Perot what they wanted. If you're fired by your boss because you simply weren't doing your job to his satisfaction, who is to blame? The American people are the 'boss' of the President. Apparently, they didn't like what Bush Sr. was doing well enough to keep him around. His fault. Nobody else's.

As for those of you who havn't ever met any Libertarian-leaning Democrats? What is the predominant party in your area? If the vast majority of people you know are Republican, then of course you're that much less likely to meet a Libertarian-leaning Democrat. Where I'm at, its Democrat-central, and I assure you, I know plenty of Libertarian-leaning Democrats. Most of my friends, in fact. :( (Generally ones who thought they liked Democrats because of their support for personal freedoms, rather than for their fiscal "policy".)

The only issue for me is, which candidate will reduce the chance of nuclear terrorism. Sadly, Bush is the only one.
Wow, I missed this. What exactly did Bush do to lessen the threat of nuclear terrorism? Geigercounters every 5 feet the length of the entire national border?

[fallingblock]

For gunowners, this time around.:D

I agree with gunsmith, but most of y'all know that by now:) .

Moparmike is right as well:
************************************************************
"But you* should respect my right to vote for whom I believe in too."
************************************************************

I hope enough folks vote for Bush to keep Kerry out of the Whitehouse.

[The_Antibubba]

Ahh, Kerry. Sort of like a Clinton-lite. I was really hoping Dean would sweep it. I didn't agree with a lot of what he said. But at least I knew his convictions were his own and not formed by poll results and policy committees. But it's not about conviction, is it?

It's about ELECTABILITY.

Of course, GW Bush is a GHW Bush-lite, himself. Senior at least seemed to have experience and beliefs. GWB is a shadow of his father, and Senior wasn't exactly one of the greats ones, either.

It's kind of like being told you have to eat another person's feces, but you get to choose between two steaming piles of different origin.

Libertarian is looking better and better. And if that counts as a vote against King George so be it.

:(

[natedog]

Besides being "a democrat" (oh my!), what is so bad about Kerry? What policies has he announced that he will try and pass? I don't think he (like most Democrats) are going to be pressing after the gun issue as much, as it is a loosing issue that costs them votes but doesn't exactly gain them anything. Mostly I've seen that the first term a president serves doesn't really matter- they don't introduce any radical policies, as they don't want to fall out of favor with the people- their only goal is to get re-elected.

[fallingblock]

:what:

:eek:

At a loss for words....



The_Antibubba:

************************************************************
"Libertarian is looking better and better. And if that counts as a vote against King George so be it."
************************************************************

Everyone ought to vote their conscience for sure.....

But 'King George' has been dead for some time now... even George VI ;)

I suppose that'd be no worse than some of the precinct votes in Chicago, though:)

[Tom Bri]

Wow, I missed this. What exactly did Bush do to lessen the threat of nuclear terrorism? Geigercounters every 5 feet the length of the entire national border?

Well. Now which North African country recently gave up their nuclear ambitions, and why? Which Central Asian country ruled by Islamic fanatics stopped providing haven for Al Qaida, and why? Which nuclear engineer working for a Central Asian country which already HAS nukes has been forced to stop selling plans to fanatic Islamic countries, was arrested, and why?

The job isn't done, by a long shot, but it has to be by someone. So far no one else is stepping up to the plate, so it has to be the US. War has been declared against the United States by a variety of Islamic groups, they have killed thousands of Americans already, and they would just LOVE to kill a lot more of us if they could. We know they have been trying to get nukes for a long time. I sure hope to GOD (that's a prayer, not a swear) they never do get nukes, or 9/11 will become a footnote. Some people seem to have their heads buried in the sand.

[natedog]

I'm not saying Kerry would get my vote (if I had one), but I'm just wondering what is evil about him, besides the fact that he's a democrat.

[fallingblock]

"I'm not saying Kerry would get my vote (if I had one),but I'm just wondering what is evil about him, besides the fact that he's a democrat."
************************************************************

My response earlier was not very informative.

THR is a very 'firearms-oriented" place.

Some of us are a bit "single issue" focused on the Second Amendment and the RKBA.

John Kerry, in his 19 years in the Senate, has voted for nearly every piece of anti-gun legislation introduced.

Just recently, to reaffirm his support for anti-gun legislation, he took the time off from campaigning to reappear in the Senate and vote for the anti-gun amendments which assured the death of S. 1805, which would have protected gun manufacturers against frivolous lawsuits brought against them for the criminal misuse of their lawfully manufactured products.

Kerry's record is also very poor on supporting national defense.

[DualBerettas]

because Bush signed the Patriot Act.......no. If he didn't do that or had it repealed, he might have vote...not anymore...

DB

[natedog]

We must get the vote out for Bush, even if he is the lesser of two evils

After the Patriot Act and affirming support for the AWB, I'm starting to question whether GWB really is the lesser of two evils.

[Zundfolge]

Which is worse? Gun control or the Patriot Act?

False Delima ... do you honestly think that President Gore would have vetoed the Patriot Act?

I'm not convinced that right after 9/11 if we had a Libertarian in the whitehouse that we'd still wouldn't have got the Patriot Act.


So with Kerry you get Gun control and the Patriot Act.


As for those of you Libertarians who don't believe that a vote for the Libertarian candidate is a defacto vote for Kerry; who would you vote for if all the Libertarian candidates had heart attacks and dropped dead two weeks before the election? I seriously doubt it would be for Kerry.



But all that said, if Kerry gets in the white house its not going to be the end of America. Remember Republicans control the house and senate (hell, maybe the Republicans in the house and senate will start acting like Republicans if they have an enemy in the whitehouse)

[fallingblock]

"Remember Republicans control the house and senate (hell, maybe the Republicans in the house and senate will start acting like Republicans if they have an enemy in the whitehouse)"
************************************************************

That's a cheering thought......I think.

I wouldn't trust Kerry with the power of executive order.:eek:


************************************************************
"do you honestly think that President Gore would have vetoed the Patriot Act?
************************************************************

It would have had some "anti-gun" riders attached as well.

************************************************************
"I'm not convinced that right after 9/11 if we had a Libertarian in the whitehouse that we'd still wouldn't have got the Patriot Act."
************************************************************

Politics being politics, some sort of "Patriot Act" would have happened.


************************************************************
"So with Kerry you get Gun control and the Patriot Act."
************************************************************


Exactly!

And some sort of "U.S./UN Transfer of Authority Act". no doubt.:mad:

[Col. Mustard]

But all that said, if Kerry gets in the white house its not going to be the end of America. Remember Republicans control the house and senate (hell, maybe the Republicans in the house and senate will start acting like Republicans if they have an enemy in the whitehouse)

But if Kerry gets elected, the Republicans may also no longer have a hold on the Senate. There is only a thin margin, with 34 Senate seats on the election block; a Kerry election may well drag a majority of Democrats into the Senate. If that happens, President Kerry may get to appoint the next generation of our judiciary. Any thoughts on what that would do to our gun rights?

Calling Bush "the lesser of two evils" is also disingenuous. Sure, he's done a bunch of things with which we disagree. But we all can speculate on the situation we'd be in had Gore won, and anticipate our predicament under President Kerry. And I'll be damned if I'll shoot myself in the foot to convince the Republicans of the error of their ways.

When the Libertarians produce a credible candidate for President, I'll vote for that candidate. Until then, I'll stick with the candidate most likely to keep the enemies of the USA at arm's length.

[turtle]

I doubt it would have been any better with Gore. That's kind of the point, all of the republican and democrat presidential candidates seem to be about the same.

I'm not sure I'll vote libertarian. I'm also considering Peroutka. We need a strong man with integrity that believes in the constitution. I think Peroutka comes across as being stronger than Nolan or Badnarik. It's still early, though.

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0404/south-carolina-lp_dinner.html