Moparmike
Member
Ed, that is why we vote libertarian.
If Clinton/Clark run, will you vote for Bush?
- Thread starter seeker_two
- Start date
- Status
Felonious Monk
Member
Bush-Rice '04
Rice-Rummy '08
Fate's cruel irony: for the first black woman president of the US to be an articulate, politically shrewd conservative Republican. Poor Hitlery--after that, they'll probably have to lock her up in the padded cell next to mine.
...and, while we're at it, let's harvest some of Lee Atwater's DNA and clone a whole ARMY of a$$kicking, guitar picking conservative blues boys between now and then.
Sorta like the Boys from Brazil. Yeah, that's it.
[FM walks away, holding his head and yelling at The Voices: "Shut up! Shut up ALL of you!"....]
Rice-Rummy '08
Fate's cruel irony: for the first black woman president of the US to be an articulate, politically shrewd conservative Republican. Poor Hitlery--after that, they'll probably have to lock her up in the padded cell next to mine.
...and, while we're at it, let's harvest some of Lee Atwater's DNA and clone a whole ARMY of a$$kicking, guitar picking conservative blues boys between now and then.
Sorta like the Boys from Brazil. Yeah, that's it.
[FM walks away, holding his head and yelling at The Voices: "Shut up! Shut up ALL of you!"....]
LostOneToo
Member
I'd vote for Chairman Mao before I'd vote for Clinton/Clark!!!!
PDshooter
Member
Bush Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A Dem, NFW
A Dem, NFW
AZLibertarian
Member
I didn't respond to the poll because my real choice isn't there.
In no way would I vote for the Democratic nominee...Clark, Clinton, whoever. Any one of them is one step away from being a complete socialist.
Bush43, OTOH, has both disappointed me greatly, and shined brighter than I could have ever imagined. The delay in arming airline pilots, his position on the AWB, trade issues, campaign finance reform, Patriot Act--he's just as bad as the other Republocrats. But he's been nearly perfect in the War on Terror.
How I'll vote will depend on how I think AZ is going to go. If it looks like it may be close here in AZ, I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush. If not (as I suspect will be the case), I'll be voting my heart and be voting libertarian, if for no other reason than to send a message to the R's.
In no way would I vote for the Democratic nominee...Clark, Clinton, whoever. Any one of them is one step away from being a complete socialist.
Bush43, OTOH, has both disappointed me greatly, and shined brighter than I could have ever imagined. The delay in arming airline pilots, his position on the AWB, trade issues, campaign finance reform, Patriot Act--he's just as bad as the other Republocrats. But he's been nearly perfect in the War on Terror.
How I'll vote will depend on how I think AZ is going to go. If it looks like it may be close here in AZ, I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush. If not (as I suspect will be the case), I'll be voting my heart and be voting libertarian, if for no other reason than to send a message to the R's.
sm
member
I have never voted for a Klinton, even when a Klinton was AG or Gov. of my state...I will never vote for one in the future. You can go to the bank on that!
Though not happy with current admin., and I'd like to see a LP canidate win , gonna wait and see. I'd hate to have a repeat and end up with a Klinton, or similar.
Though not happy with current admin., and I'd like to see a LP canidate win , gonna wait and see. I'd hate to have a repeat and end up with a Klinton, or similar.
Hypnogator
Member
Heck, I'd vote for Bush today! On September 12, 2001, NOBODY was saying "If only Gore had won!"
The only Democrat that might cause me to pause while heading for the Bush Button would be Zell Miller.
The only Democrat that might cause me to pause while heading for the Bush Button would be Zell Miller.
Patriot Act
I'll vote for anyone who promises to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act. The dem's... haven't. If a Dem did, I'd vote for'em. But no Dem is. The Dem's only complain about it cause they didn't think of it first.
That said... if the AW Ban passes, I'll vote Libertarian. We HAVE to send a message. That's how you do it gentlemen. This is politics, yes it hurts, but it gives us more power in the long run. The Dem's will fear us more, and respect us more, if they think we'll vote for them if they are pro-gun.
Just cause Bush passed the Patriot act don't mean you shouldn't vote for'em. The other guys won't repeal it, they'll use it, and they'll use it to hunt down "militia" terrorists. I Guarantee it.
-Morgan
I'll vote for anyone who promises to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act. The dem's... haven't. If a Dem did, I'd vote for'em. But no Dem is. The Dem's only complain about it cause they didn't think of it first.
That said... if the AW Ban passes, I'll vote Libertarian. We HAVE to send a message. That's how you do it gentlemen. This is politics, yes it hurts, but it gives us more power in the long run. The Dem's will fear us more, and respect us more, if they think we'll vote for them if they are pro-gun.
Just cause Bush passed the Patriot act don't mean you shouldn't vote for'em. The other guys won't repeal it, they'll use it, and they'll use it to hunt down "militia" terrorists. I Guarantee it.
-Morgan
Brian Dale
Member
Dubya's (virtually) certain to win my state, and that's fine by me. I'll probably vote Lib., because sending that message won't cost Dubya this state's electoral votes. I'll change my plan if that prediction looks too optimistic and the race seems close on Game Day.
No Clintons, ever. The evil-and-wrong excesses we've seen from Dubya's subordinates pale in comparison to what we'd see if Hitler-y were given the reins. I'd support Nixon (who was arguably a jerk who abused the power entrusted to him) over Pol Pot, for the same reasons.
Congress gave us the AWB and the "PATRIOTs-spinning-in-their-graves" Act. I'll focus my attention on supporting the Repub. candidate opposing David Price (North Carolina English for "Gun-Grabbing Socialist") in the House, and the Repub. who'll be campaigning to replace John Edwards (North Carolina English for " Ambulance-chasing Barbie Doll") in the Senate.
No Clintons, ever. The evil-and-wrong excesses we've seen from Dubya's subordinates pale in comparison to what we'd see if Hitler-y were given the reins. I'd support Nixon (who was arguably a jerk who abused the power entrusted to him) over Pol Pot, for the same reasons.
Congress gave us the AWB and the "PATRIOTs-spinning-in-their-graves" Act. I'll focus my attention on supporting the Repub. candidate opposing David Price (North Carolina English for "Gun-Grabbing Socialist") in the House, and the Repub. who'll be campaigning to replace John Edwards (North Carolina English for " Ambulance-chasing Barbie Doll") in the Senate.
corncob
Member
As much as I hate to say it, I'll probably be voting for Bush again. I'm scared not to, honestly. The only thing that might stop me is if I hear good things about the Libertarian, or if Bush does something(else) between now and then that makes me angry enough to stay home. Not that it really matters in SC. What I don't get is why everyone is so optimistic about the AWB and any (worse) legislation that may or may not replace it. The Dems are going to bring it up and, with help from the media, beat Bush about the face with it all year long. I just hope he doesn't try to compromise with these people in keeping with his "new tone" philosophy. It didn't help us much with the farm bill, education bill, airline security, Patriot Act, (thanks Mr. Ashcroft) etc. Sometimed I can't really tell whether the Republicans won the last election or not.
geegee
Member
The way I see it, it comes down to the new Supreme Court Justices. Who do want nominating them? Bush or someone (anyone) else? And there will be more than a couple. geegee
When it comes to RKBA, there is no difference between Bush and Clinton.
Bush has already extended the AWB-- which allows one to manufacture a US made, AWB compliant rifle, if you have enough US parts. So what did Bush do after taking office? Have the ATF ban from importation the non-US parts that make up these rifles, extending the AWB ban to cover rifles that weren't previously covered... or put another way, he banned rifles that were complaint with the AWB by making the importation of parts necessary to manufacture them impossible.
Bush is a gun grabber.
Has everyone forgotten that the AWB was put in place by Bush's father, not Clinton? Yes, under clinton it was made law, but it was already executive order under Bush one (the import ban).
Bush is a gun grabber who has vowed to sign the AWB reauthorization.
As long as you keep thinking a gun grabber is acceptable because you fear another gun grabber is worse, you're endorsing gun control.
Vote third party, or don't vote. But if you vote for gun control, that's exactly what you'll get. And you deserve no sympathy when you get it!
Bush has already extended the AWB-- which allows one to manufacture a US made, AWB compliant rifle, if you have enough US parts. So what did Bush do after taking office? Have the ATF ban from importation the non-US parts that make up these rifles, extending the AWB ban to cover rifles that weren't previously covered... or put another way, he banned rifles that were complaint with the AWB by making the importation of parts necessary to manufacture them impossible.
Bush is a gun grabber.
Has everyone forgotten that the AWB was put in place by Bush's father, not Clinton? Yes, under clinton it was made law, but it was already executive order under Bush one (the import ban).
Bush is a gun grabber who has vowed to sign the AWB reauthorization.
As long as you keep thinking a gun grabber is acceptable because you fear another gun grabber is worse, you're endorsing gun control.
Vote third party, or don't vote. But if you vote for gun control, that's exactly what you'll get. And you deserve no sympathy when you get it!
Brian Dale
Member
Don,
Well put. Was your grandfather named John?
Well put. Was your grandfather named John?
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Don, has it ever occurred to you that what Bush did was encourage the growth of the US gun parts manufacturing industry? Call it a ban if you want, it is actually an embargo to give some incentive for Americans to continue making guns.
There are a whole lot of folks who are not gun grabbers and who believe that there should be a 100% embargo on all Chicom and Comblock rifles. Why? Because if we buy foreign guns then pretty soon Americans start forgetting how to work drill presses, casting machines, lathes, forges and all the other tools needed to make guns.
Go ahead and vote third party if you want, then when Hillary starts confiscation you might think about how she got elected.
There are a whole lot of folks who are not gun grabbers and who believe that there should be a 100% embargo on all Chicom and Comblock rifles. Why? Because if we buy foreign guns then pretty soon Americans start forgetting how to work drill presses, casting machines, lathes, forges and all the other tools needed to make guns.
Go ahead and vote third party if you want, then when Hillary starts confiscation you might think about how she got elected.
geegee
Member
Here's what I see as a problem with that notion. There are pro-RKBA Democrats, both at the state level and national level. The problem is that once almost any at the state level reach the national level, they're told in no uncertain terms that to rock the boat on gun control and abortion rights will mean an end to the contributions coming from the DNC. Period, end of story.
At the national level, there are so few, you can hardly count them. I think John Dingell is able to pull it off because he can deliver the badly needed union votes from Michigan. That's a trade-off the Dems will make for one state. Remember, Al Gore at one time was pro-RKBA.
It's just not being realistic to think that any Democrat can stand up to the Clintons and McAuliffes that run the Democratic Party. Not if they want to get some of the money that's raised by them.
As far as voting Libertarian, or any third party is concerned, face the truth-do so and you just helped an ant-RKBA Dem get to the White House. I understand the frustration we all experience at some time by Republicans, who also sing a different tune during the campaign, then let us down on an important vote, but be realistic. Our country is a two party system. Right, wrong, or otherwise, at this point in our history it's where we are. I'm not prepared to "make a statement" only to wake up the morning after the presidential election and find out a new gun-grabbing Democrat is our new president.
George Bush isn't perfect, but in terms of honor, integrity, and his Second Amendment views, he's head and shoulders above his competition. geegee
Moparmike
Member
I am afraid I have to quesiton part of your arguement geegee...
Edited to add: Meek, I would appreciate some clarity from you as well.
What about when you are helping to elect an anti-RKBA Repuke into office? What then? Even if people say I am throwing it away by voting third party, how am I not throwing it away by voting for Bush? I simply dont get your logic. Clue me in on it.
Again, I ask how? Explain please.
Edited to add: Meek, I would appreciate some clarity from you as well.
chaim
Member
If Hillary, Clark, Kusenich (sp?), Dean and a couple others get the nomination I will be voting third party. Doesn't really matter which one, I guess whoever will probably get the most votes in order to send the biggest message (I won't care if it is the Libertarian, Pat Buchanan, Nader, or whoever else). I will not vote for most of the current Democrats whatever happens, and I can not vote for Bush.
geegee
Member
The first piece of legislation GWB signed into law as Governor of Texas was our Concealed Carry Law. Not exactly the hallmark of an anti-RKBA politician. He said he would, and he kept his promise. To me, that certainly counts for integrity. At the national level, his biggest RKBA legislative test will be the AWB. We'll just have to wait and see how that one turns out.
How? The first thing I'd have to ask you is whether you really believe you'd rather have Al Gore as President, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt, or Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, or Howard Dean, or (dare I say it?) Hillary Clinton? Integrity and the names of most of those people don't even belong in the same sentence. Dean seems to be a nice enough person, who I just disagree with. Kerry is a bonafide war hero, who since entering Congress has never missed a chance to vote for weakening our military and national defense (go figure).
The one thing I've appreciated and admired about Bush as President, more than anything, is having the spine to stand up to the United Nations. He did it when we first went to Iraq, and he did it again today. There isn't a person on my previous list who isn't totally in love with the idea of a bigger, stronger, more powerful U.N. At this point, I'd say Bush has put the interests of our country ahead of a group of internationalist windbags, and for that I am grateful. Had Al Gore been elected President, he'd still be conducting polls to see how many Afghani and Iraqi Americans are in the U.S., and then measure the potential political fallout from offending them by sending troops to the Middle East.
I think another measure of Bush's honesty and integrity is to look who he surrounded himself with. He has some of the finest cabinet and staff members seen in D.C. in years. With Clinton/Gore there were mostly self-serving skanks, who mirrored the values of the people for whom they worked. Ask yourself, just how many were run off because of ethics violations of some sort?
I don't have any quarrel with anyone here who has said the Republicans have let us down too many times-they have (there must be something in the water around Washington, D.C. that causes a man's testicles to shrink, because that same malady affects Republicans far too often once they get up there). As far as GWB is concerned, I've been pleased (on balance) with his administration and how he's represented the U.S. to the world. There are parts of his governing that I've been disappointed with, but on balance in a post9/11 world, I'm still ready to help him get 4 more years. And most especially when I see what the alternatives would be. geegee
Moparmike
Member
Yes, we will. He decides that he wants to fall on the RKBA side, then my vote might fall on the Republican side of the ticket. Might.
That is because you didnt include a Libertarian in your list. Standing up to the UN and Fraermany is admirable, but its rather like standing up to your freshly-made pan of jello. It doesnt take big chrome-moly spheres to do that. I dont have to tell you that if we completely withdrew from the UN, it would become our global whipping boy, then they would suddenly "see our point of view" after they missed our money long enough.
Ok, while I like his "Bring it on" stance (I _really_ loved that), that isnt enough for me to vote him into a second term.
No, this didn't occur to me because that's not what happened. There is no domestic production for these type of barrels... it was a ban to prevent guns legal under the AWB, but going against the "spirit" of it (eg: Evil Black Rifles) from being made. This intent was made very clear when the rule was enacted.
It had nothing to do with encouraging domestic production. I find it sad that you would assume this was the case.... that's seems desperate to me.
How many guns does Bush have to ban before he loses your support?
Americans are going to forget how to work drill presses? Now that's even more absurd!
For what its worth, Bush's new ban applied to non-comblock parts as well. It covered FALS and in fact, now the ATF is raiding people confiscating FAL parts (parts that are totally legal under the law.)
She will have been elected because you didn't have the courage of your convictions. You voted for a gun grabber, and you got one.
Enjoy!
Its worth noting that the AWB may never make it to Bush's desk.
If that happens, then his presidential record will be %100 gun grabber.
It has to make it out of congress, and THEN be vetoed by him in order for him to redeem himself.
His ban on imported rifle parts for scary looking guns is just as wrong as clinton signing the 94 AWB into law... (and bush 1 enacting it by executive order in 89).
That he signed the right-to-carry law-- a law that would surely have overcome his veto in Texas is not much of a pro-RKBA record.
If that happens, then his presidential record will be %100 gun grabber.
It has to make it out of congress, and THEN be vetoed by him in order for him to redeem himself.
His ban on imported rifle parts for scary looking guns is just as wrong as clinton signing the 94 AWB into law... (and bush 1 enacting it by executive order in 89).
That he signed the right-to-carry law-- a law that would surely have overcome his veto in Texas is not much of a pro-RKBA record.
- Status