Democrats and Republicans

[Gordon]

Dr. Alan Keyes is a Republican you can trust to do the moral and best interest of American people. That is why was escorted to the outskirts of Atlanta when he was ejected from Republican presidential convention. He gets my whole hearted vote. J.C. Watts did more in congress to bring sensibility back to government and is a rigtheous man in all respects . Although he quit politics I'm sure he would run for VP. He'd get my vote for a great republican. Condoleeza Rice would make a great Secratary of State as NOBODY be pulling any S##t on her, she says it straight up she just needs a handler with cajones. The Republicans CAN be different that the socialist/pervert party the Dems have become. Unfortunately I can't think of any dems that could change what they have become can you?

 

[dog3]

I trust no republican.
I trust no Democrat.

Our choice;

"Would you like the puppet
on the left, or the puppet on the
right?"

Follow the money.

 

[Justin Moore]

Re: legalizing drugs....

I'm sure you have all seen the commercials that say 'if you buy drugs you are supporting terrorism'.

My argument would be: the prohibition on drugs causes their prices to be artificially inflated. That being the case, the prohibition on drugs actually FUNDS terrorism. When a dealer
gets busted, the other dealers raise their prices, and blammo
more money for 'terrorists'.

Pretty simple, isn't it? I wonder why George W. didn't thunka that?

The WoD is actually the War on the Bill of Rights, in disguise.

I say let em get stoned, and let natural selection take its course.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Blackhawk,

Where does that leave law enforcement? In a weird situation, but it's one their currently in and not just a theoretical one they might be in later on. People who know a lot more than I might be able to come up something.

As far as the breathalizer is concerned, I've seen some cops with a gaget on their flashlights that sucks up a certain amount of air, which can then be analized for alcohol content. This, I don't think is a violation of one's rights, if a cop takes a sample of air coming out of one's car.

Chris Rhines,

Why don't you smack me upside the head with a 2 x 4 next time? I had actually gotten kinda fond of your handle "Christopher II" and now you pull this on me. What's next: famine, plague, war?

Dr. Alan Keyes is a Republican you can trust to do the moral and best interest of American people

Maybe it's just my Stalinist paranoia kicking in, but I don't trust anyone who runs for office. If they are elected to office, I watch them like a hawk.

And many of Keyes' views turn many people off, myself included, which does not help with getting elected, though he's a million times better than McCain or Bush. If he stopped saying "moral" and "God" more than Ted Kennedy goes to happy hour, many people would find him tolerable. I also don't believe in prayer (govt initiated) in public schools, and I also don't believe in public schools. I have no problem with a moment of silence but to have a certain prayer is crossing the line. Get the govt out of the school business and let people do their thing and we can stop fighting each other and get back to yelling at the govt for something else.

I don't like the fact that he stresses personal responsibility when sex and guns are concerned but he is all about the drug war. I've also heard him say that we should make foreigners pay for the cost of US govt by imposing a tarrif. This bothers me because he is too smart to think that the cost won't just be passed on to the American consumer. He's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.


Ron Paul is my man, as he might be Republican but I think he is a very solid and consistent libertarian. I think it's significant that he actually got elected for office rather than just talking like Keyes. Another thing, Keyes comes off being kinda arrogant with the way he speaks. There's no need to use 75 words to say what you can say in 25. Efficiency, please.

 

[peteinct]

Here's my 10 cents, my 2 cents are free,
If you believe in freedom as an objective, it is freedom for more than just your cause. " I should have the right to carry a gun But you should not have the right to be in some strange religion. Or to engage in some activity which I dissapprove but does not have any effect on me."
I believe that as a society we give to much power to the government in the name of the war on drugs.
"But there is a war on. But wasn't there always?" Harlan Ellison. I think that the majority of the social cost of drugs is because they are illegal rather than inherent in the drug itself. Alcohol has an enormous effect on this country. We have decided to try to deal with irresponsible users and could probably do the same with other drugs. As an aside why did alcohol prohibition require an amendment but not other drug prohibition?
"Its for the children" is said by any politician trying to steal your rights. I would bet any kid in any town in this country could find and buy any drug he/she wanted. Drugs are not just an inner city problem.
As gun owners we have to be aware that people think our guns pose a cost to society. The Majority of the votes rule even whenthe voters are mistaken. The tatics used against Drugs can be turned on us and with frightening speed.
Tactically the libertarian movement has to infiltrate and take over a party to achieve its goals. I feel however that the mood of this nation is anti freedom and would glady trade liberty with its attendant responsibility for promises of freedom and safety. So any platform that promises liberty would not win an election. pete

 

[Chris Rhines]

Glockler -

Well, I figured that when my posts to THR are read into evidence at my sedition trial, I'd save the state the trouble of proving that Christopher II = Chris Rhines. I try to help.

Ron Paul is indeed a Good Guy. I only have one serious disagreement with him, and to be fair it's a pretty big one. But he's still a politician. The only politician that can be trusted is one that has a gun firmly wegded into his/her ear. (H.L. Mencken said something like that once upon a time.)

- Chris

 

[JPM70535]

I can't see where the legalization of drugs will do anything ecxept increase crime rates,so on this matter I disagree with the Libertarian point of view.
The addict, no matter his drug of choice, is still an addict and will do whatever it takes to support his habit. If he is using his drug of choice and drives, he becomes a danger to those around him on the road. If he works while high, he again endangers those who work with him, or have to depend on his judgement.

I agree with the Republican stand against the legalization of drugs including pot. I don't agree with their stand on stem cell research. I agree with the Democrats stand on freedom of choice, and I vehemently disagree with their stand on RKBA.

That being said, I have never been able to vote for a Democrat for national office, and have always voted for the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Glock Glockler]

The addict, no matter his drug of choice, is still an addict and will do whatever it takes to support his habit

Please explain how it is any different with someone who is addicted to alcohol or nicotine?

I agree with the Republican stand against the legalization of drugs including pot.

If I want to do whatever drug, in the privacy of my own home hurting no one, what right do you have to legislate away my rights?

 

[Tamara]

The addict, no matter his drug of choice, is still an addict and will do whatever it takes to support his habit.

Eh? What's that you said? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you; I was downstairs mugging my roommate for some cigarette & coffee money.



The "dangers of crime to support addiction" argument is a little weak, seeing as how caffeine and nicotine are every bit as addictive as anything on the government's special list.

 

[Soap]

I trust no man whose will includes having forceful control over my life. And yes, this includes Repubs, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc. If you do not harm other people in any way, shape, or form, yet someone still seeks to control you, then you cannot trust them to make decisions for your benefit.

 

[Soap]

The only politician that can be trusted is one that has a gun firmly wegded into his/her ear.

*Gasp*, you mean that politicians must be forced to act in our best interests!? You are un-Amorican and you are most likely a Turrurist. End of debate.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

"We have both kinds of music here... country AND western"

 

[Zander]

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers had any idea of the mischief against the republic that political parties would be or they would have outlined the rules of the houses of Congress and all kinds of other things that would have prevented the accretion of power within parties.

Couldn't disagree more. The Constitution was written as much for the purpose of restricting the power of the federal government as it was for delineating our unalienable Rights.

The Founding Fathers knew the dangers posed by the political process. Two centuries of eroding our Rights by amendments and judicial fiat have, if nothing else, proven that the inherent distrust expressed by our founders was entirely justified.

 

[pax]

I think a pretty good case could be made for saying that the Founders fully expected the central gov't to grow and to become more powerful, even tyrannical in the end. I think an even stronger case could be made for saying that they firmly believed that there is no way to break the cycle from tyranny to rebellion to freedom to complacency and back to tyranny.

I do not think they expected freedom to endure without rebellion and without bloodshed. The miracle is that such freedom as we have, has lasted so long.

This despite the best efforts of 200 years of politicians to grow the state and to shrink our rights.

pax

The tree of liberty is a fragile thing, and must be replenished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Blackhawk]

Couldn't disagree more. The Constitution was written as much for the purpose of restricting the power of the federal government as it was for delineating our unalienable Rights.

I'm not sure you understand what you're disagreeing with, Zander, because I agree completely with your next sentence.

Unrestricted power to political parties has greatly increased their strength and accelerated the increase of power of the federal government. The Constitution is a huge restriction on government, much more than an empowering government document.

The FF depended on the People to be the ballast that kept government in check, and strong political parties very effectively disenfranchise the people from exerting their will. For example, would NAFTA have passed as a discrete issue? Would the Tonkin Gulf Resolution? Would we even have the plethora of entitlement programs that reward the few politically connected people from the pockets of the taxpayers? Would abject liars be able to remain in office? And on and on and on.

Congress critters would have to look out after the best interests of their constitutients to be elected regardless of what the critter from several states over wanted to do. Wouldn't that be a hoot? I can't even imagine the permutations and combinations of that, but I really think that's more in line with what the FF intended instead of the party power brokers we have now.

 

[Aces]

This whole dem vs.repub vs.lib thing misses the point to some extent,I think.WOD not withstanding that is.
My point is there's just not a big constituency out there that wants smaller government. If there was, that's what we'd have. These politicians don't assume power after all, someone is electing them.
Talk to the average person, and there is an underlying if not upfront feeling that government is there to fix whatever problems exist.
The saying that " A liberal is one mugging away from being a conservative" can work in reverse too. "A conservative is one layoff from being a liberal". I've seen it.