NRA Endorses Bush, Badnarik Not Surprised

[The Rabbi]

So you're saying that every Bush appointee, present and future, holds that view? WHat evidence do you have for that, other than this one guy? I'll point out what is already known, that Ashcroft holds the individual view of 2A, so you're proposition is flawed already.
It may come as a surprise, but some appointments, and decisions for that matter, are not made on the basis of an individual's views on guns. Thats just political reality.

 

[pinblaster]

Nightwatch , would you prefer a Kerry appointee ? Lets all take off our tinfoil hats and rose colored glasses , and face reality . Our next president WILL be , Bush or Kerry , period . :banghead:

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Or Cheney or Edwards, depending on the principle candidates' health. Actually, I'd be cool with Cheney; Always thought that ticket was upside down.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Brett,

Double decker ditto on Chaney

S-

 

[Michigander]

It is quite amazing that they can control things so well.

They sure know us sheep, don't they?

They've got most of the country feverishly arguing for/against Bush/Kerry!

What a joke! What a laugh!

Either way, "they" win!

If we all saw this for what it was, we'd be crying (or fighting)!

Don't you all get it yet?

What more is required?

If Bush and Kerry could meet privately, they'd be laughing at how they have us clamoring for one or the other.

The jokes on us people!

Sad, but true.

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

Nightwatch , would you prefer a Kerry appointee ? Lets all take off our tinfoil hats and rose colored glasses , and face reality. Our next president WILL be , Bush or Kerry , period.

Of course. Nobody is saying that Badnarik can win the presidency. A big enough national vote would be a victory though. And I think that this time around it will happen. Because people are fed up.
I think both Democrat and republican supporters at this point in time buy tin foil hats and rose colored glasses wholesale. Because reality and reason should be guided by principle (Our Sacred Constitution) and longterm sacrificial conviction. The problem here is not the LP. But the lack of voter cajones and vision to make change happen.

Yes, it will be Bush or Kerry, but anyway you cut it, I will be able to have a clear conscience when politicians continue to betray us in the future. I will be able to say to myself at some point in my line of thought, that I was not further suckered into the lies. That I did not surrender my convictions simply because I wanted to be on the winning team. I voted for the people first, not the machine that is going to one day bite us all in the ass.

PS- An NRA endorsement to Badnarik would have caused a political tidal wave. It would have sent a message to DC that the NRA is serious about the future of the Second Amendment. But, like Badnarik, Im not surprised. There is no honor amongst theives.

 

[RavenVT100]

I hope those of you voting for Badnarik in this election are willing to tell me that a massive tax on your ammunition, a sweeping ban on all of your semiautomatic rifles, the targeting of a Kerry justice department, likely headed by someone such as Chuck Schumer, at YOU and YOUR family instead of people committing actual crimes is completely worth it, because it was just too important for the Libertarian party to get support during this election. If you would put up with something like that, then fine. Vote Libertarian. But you had better be prepared to deal with what Kerry has planned for you and your weapons once he takes office. He has spoken of a "billion dollar anti-crime" program that will surface when he takes office. I hope that some of you realize that you will be among those targeted by this "anti-crime" program of his.

I also hope some of you realize that Kerry's (financial) backers include George Soros, a person with more money than you or I will likely see in our lifetimes and who wields enough power to influence global change. Someone who would like to see you put in prison for even touching a firearm without proper government "authorization." These are the people who are paying for Kerry's campaign, and these are the people who Kerry will pay back--to your detriment--once he is elected.

I'm sorry, but keeping Kerry out of office is imperative. Every day other than election day in 2004 is a good day to fight for the Libertarians. But on election day, making sure that there will still be a second amendment worth fighting for is more important than supporting the political party that is most aligned to our views.

 

[Michigander]

If we always do what we've always done, then we're always gonna get what we've always gotten.

What part of that don't you "lesser of two evils" types understand?

They are always, and have always, made sure the "lesser of two evils" choice appeared to have merit. It will seem that way come 2008 too. And in 2012 also. Don't you get it?

Sad.

 

[Justin]

Michigander nailed it.

Every election that I can remember has been "the most important election of this generation" or "the most important election in decades." This mantra gets repeated every four years to rally the voters to one side or the other, and it obviously overwhelmingly works.

Quite frankly I'm fed up with Bush and the Neo Con movement. I'm sorry, but I'm not leaving the Republican party. They're leaving me. From where I stand, I can discern no major qualitative difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

I'm sick and bloody tired of hearing about how Kerry is a massive boogie man who supports gun control, socialized medicine, and higher taxes.

Guess what? Bush supports all of those things, too. It's all in how it gets phrased.

Besides, it doesn't matter if I vote for Badnarik, Bush, Kerry, Saddam, or Betty Boop. The mathematical odds that my single vote will somehow have any sort of real impact on the election are so vanishingly small that it absolutely, positively does not matter.

 

[TimRB]

"Michigander nailed it."

Why don't you vote for him, then, since you've already decided that your vote doesn't count anyway? Warbow nailed it. A vote for anyone other than Bush helps Kerry. If you really think there is no difference between Bush and Kerry, so be it, but I am not throwing *my* vote away, and I live in California.

Tim

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I'm with Justin. The way I see it, Bush is a dangerously insane war criminal who is too incompetent to be president of a condominium association, much less the the United States. And he's surrounded himself with people who would fit right into the Third Reich.

You may disagree, but that's not the point. The point is that deep in my heart I believe this to be true, and hence cannot in good conscience vote for the man.

But I can't vote for Kerry, either, for the same reasons most of you won't be voting for him.

But I genuinely support Badnarik and the Libertarian party, so right now the only choices for me are Badnarik, writing in John McCain's name, or not voting. Then I just have to hope that if Bush is re-elected he will have squandered what little credibility he has to the point where he is too weakened to get us into another no-win war, or that if Kerry wins he will not have the popular support to enact some idiotic Utopian gun-control measures.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who was it who wrote that the aluminum foil hat crowd would be supporting Badnarik? If there was any doubt about that statement I think it's been answered.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I don't see why my opinion implies I wear aluminum foil hats, Rabbi. John McLaughlin, a former Nixon staffer, compared Rove to Josef Goebels this weekend. Does that mean he also wears tinfoil hats?

As for being a dangerously insane war criminal, I originally blamed the Iraq fiasco on the psychpaths with whom Bush surrounded himself. In recent months it's been made clear that Bush gave birth to this abomination of a war on his own initiative. This damned fool was given an opportunity to initiate a world-wide conservative revolution and he pissed it away chasing his demented, simplistic, and childish utopian dreams in Iraq. Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, and it gets worse by the day. If Bush is re-elected, this quagmire is going to blow up in his face like 380 tons of missing plastic explosives. Regardless of who is elected, this insane war is going to go down in history as a far bigger disgrace than Vietnam.

I'm furious that this man squandered an opportunity to inject some sanity into world politics. Instead he lit the fuse under the biggest powderkeg the world has ever seen. Mark my words--George W. Bush will be remembered as the greatest failure ever to occupy the White House. Had he not been obsessed with dragging us into a war with Iraq, he may have gone down as a great president. Too bad he had to drag the entire country down with him. If he had one lick of sense, he'd be too ashamed of himself to show his face in public.

 

[buzz_knox]

John McLaughlin, a former Nixon staffer, compared Rove to Josef Goebels this weekend. Does that mean he also wears tinfoil hats?

Do two wrongs make a right?

Exactly how do Condi Rice and Colin Powell fit in with the Third Reich argument? What has Rumsfeld done that justifies a comparison with, say, Speer, Goering, or Eichmann? I presume you compare Ashcroft to the Gestapo heads so I won't ask about that one.

Regardless of who is elected, this insane war is going to go down in history as a far bigger disgrace than Vietnam.

Please explain this, without the blistering polemics or insults to the character or intelligence of individuals and based on facts, not what you "believe in [your] heart to be true." So far, this "quagmire" has led to the disbanding of the Libyan WMD programs, and a host of successes (not generally reported in the media) in restoring aspects of Iraqi life that had been decimated by Hussein's rule and sanctions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Keep talking.

The idea that Bush simultaneously a) was skillful enough to persuade the country to support the war and b) not smart enought to be president of a co-op seems a little contradictory, to say the least.
Liberals have been calling this a "quagmire" ever since the first troops went over the Kuwaiti border. Compared with other wars they are way ahead of schedule. What do you mean its going to blow up in the second term? What's going to blow up? According to you the situation is already out of control and hopeless. I dont see how it can go downhill from there.

What chance for a "world-wide conservative revolution" was there? What does that mean? North Koreans are going to be investing their 401K's? Vladimir Putin will run for president on an agenda of tax cuts? You seem to have forgotten a little event that happened 09/11/2001. Yeah, Bush could have pulled a Clinton and sent a cruise missile into Afghanistan, sounded menacing and then gone home. But that wouldnt really solve anything would it?
What was your solution to world terrorism again?

 

[Michigander]

Attacking Iraq to rid them of WMD's was genius considering how the WMD's were magically eliminated. Not to mention how terribly menacing the threat these WMD's posed to me here in Michigan. Over 1,000 troops have died to protect me from what again?

And anyone who will not acknowledge, even the to the tiniest of degrees, that the "conservative party" has taken most of the conservative ideas, ideals and policies out to the trash bin should really get their head out of the sand. When you take such a position, the rest of your arguements ring hollow.

editted to add: and for those who do take such a position, please let me know where you buy your tinfoil; that's some good stuff!

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I didn't imply that Bush is the retard his enemies make him out to be. A damned fool, yes, but the colleges of this country are filled with damned fools who are highly intelligent.

I think Collin Powell is the one grown up in the entire administration and believe he would make a fine president. I would vote for him anytime. I don't know what to make of Rice. She has made incredibly misleading statements, and I don't appreciate someone who is less than honest. I wouldn't compare her to anyone in the Third Reich, however. I'm not sure I would put Rumsfeld in there, either. If Hitler's military advisors had been as incompetent as Rusmfeld, the Nazis would still be mired down with an insurgency in Poland.

What would I have done to fight terrorism? Well for starters I wouldn't have gotten mired down in Iraq before I cleaned up the cesspool that is Afghanistan and CAUGHT OSAMA BIN LADEN. Remember him? He was the SOB who killed 3,000 people on American soil. Where is he again? Oh yeah--we don't freaking know! Why is that? Because our incompetent (but intelligent) leader put all our resources into getting Saddam Hussein. Near as I can tell, we got Iraq out of Kuwait about a dozen years back, so I don't really understand why you think this was reason enough to divert our resources from catching the miserable dog who actually did attack us. Nor do I understand how our president came to such an illogical conclusion. Had I been in charge, we would have put all those resources into catching Bin Laden, stabilizing Afghanistan, and turning it into a genuine democracy. Imagine what a stable nation-state in that part of the world would do to stop terrorism? I guarantee it would be a lot more effective than creating total chaos in what was previously a corrupt but relatively stable nation.

And mark my words: I'm afraid you will see exactly what I mean when I say that Iraq is going to blow up in our faces. Here's what I see happening--we hold some indecisive elections in Iraq, declare stability, and get the hell out of there as fast as we can. Really, we'll have little choice since a Shiite theocracy is all but assured in a democratic election, and the first thing the new Ayatollahs will do is tell us to take a hike. At that point Iraq will erupt into a festering pit of terrorism that will make Afghanistan look like the police academy for the Keystone Cops.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am carefully weighing the utility of arguing with someone named "Lobotomy Boy."

You must work for the Kerry campaign because all of your points echo what they say.

Powell has been just awful as SecState. He bought into the State dept line on Israel and pushed that. Notice you dont see a lot of him around anymore?
Bin Laden? Bush said (despite what he claimed in the debate) that he doesnt worry about Bin Laden. He's right. Bin Laden is marginal to the whole terrorist network. They are semi autonomous so cutting off the head will just cause new ones to grow.
Kerry and Bush have two distinct approaches to dealing with terrorism. Kerry's is to treat it like a police matter. Investigate, apprehend, and prosecute. That worked really well under Clinton after the '96 WTC bombing. "Getting bin Laden" is just more of the same.
Bush's approach is that terrorism is war by other means. To defeat the enemy you have to make war on his ability to make war. Terrorists need nation states to provide papers, visas, training grounds etc etc. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, etc all did or do this. Despite what the Dems claim, there are long standing ties between Saddam and terrorists. It is idiotic to deny this.
I'll also mention that we went into Iraq to enforce sanctions that the UN passed and then refused to enforce. This is the reason. WMD or their absence is just smoke.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am carefully weighing the utility of arguing with someone named "Lobotomy Boy."

You must work for the Kerry campaign because all of your points echo what they say.

Powell has been just awful as SecState. He bought into the State dept line on Israel and pushed that. Notice you dont see a lot of him around anymore?
Bin Laden? Bush said (despite what he claimed in the debate) that he doesnt worry about Bin Laden. He's right. Bin Laden is marginal to the whole terrorist network. They are semi autonomous so cutting off the head will just cause new ones to grow.
Kerry and Bush have two distinct approaches to dealing with terrorism. Kerry's is to treat it like a police matter. Investigate, apprehend, and prosecute. That worked really well under Clinton after the '96 WTC bombing. "Getting bin Laden" is just more of the same.
Bush's approach is that terrorism is war by other means. To defeat the enemy you have to make war on his ability to make war. Terrorists need nation states to provide papers, visas, training grounds etc etc. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, etc all did or do this. Despite what the Dems claim, there are long standing ties between Saddam and terrorists. It is idiotic to deny this.
I'll also mention that we went into Iraq to enforce sanctions that the UN passed and then refused to enforce. This is the reason. WMD or their absence is just smoke.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Rabbi, I expected more from you than you resorting to the painfully obvious ploy of attacking my user name. This is generally the last resort of weak minds when they have clearly lost a debate. You clearly do not fall into that catagory.

You wrote:

"Terrorists need nation states to provide papers, visas, training grounds etc etc."

This is my point exactly. That is why I think it was the height of incompetence to invade Iraq before establishing a stable, anti-terrorist nation state in Afghanistan. I agree that that would have been more important than finding Bin Laden. But that said, I think it would have been good for U.S. morale to find the filthy swine anyway.

 

[zahc]

don't see why my opinion implies I wear aluminum foil hats, Rabbi.

Tin. Tinfoil.

Aluminum does not have a high enough molar mass to be effective.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is my point exactly. That is why I think it was the height of incompetence to invade Iraq before establishing a stable, anti-terrorist nation state in Afghanistan. I agree that that would have been more important than finding Bin Laden. But that said, I think it would have been good for U.S. morale to find the filthy swine anyway.

Your points are contradictory. You say you would have poured more resources into catching "the filthy swine" and cleaning up Afghanistan. Have you noticed they have written a constitution and held democratic elections for the first time in 5,000 years? How long do you think it would take thoroughly to subdue a country like Afghanistan? 2 weeks? It took about 5 years in the Philippines and longer than that in Honduras, Cuba, Haiti, etc. So we were suppsoed to devote all our resources to stabilizing one country while the terrorists moved over to Iraq or Sudan and had 3-5 years to operate? Great plan.
There is no argument that finding bin Laden would boost morale. There is equally no argument that another terrorist attack supported by Libya, Iraq, Iran, Sudan etc would have nullified any morale boost.
I would heartily recommend Max Boot's boot on America's Small Wars. The wars fought include the Philippines, the Boxer Rebellion, the war against Pancho Villa, etc etc. Many of them were exactly the type we are fighting now. Amazingly the press then railed against messy, long-lasting wars and called them all mistakes, quagmries, etc. In the end, the US won when they were able to persuade their enemies they meant business and were not looking to get out at the first opportunity. I would send a copy to John Eff Kerry but Theresa probably already owns the publishing house.

 

[buzz_knox]

You said that you don't trust anyone who is not honest. So, I would ask you to defend this statement:

And he's surrounded himself with people who would fit right into the Third Reich.

You failed to do so previously. When you make a damning comparison like this, you have an obligation to back it up with facts or to retract it.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

You folks have almost convinced me to change my vote... from Badnarik to Kerry.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hmm, let's see:

You have made many unsubstantiated statements (Bush's advisers belong in the 3rd Reich), have demonstrated little to no understanding of the war on terror, have no familiarity with American history and its past wars similar to this one, cannot articulate why you dont like Bush, other than that your heart tells you so, and show no willingness to admit to all of this.
Yep, you belong in the Kerry camp.:banghead: