So if ANYONE still thinks the Repub party is a friend or even an ally, wrong!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If all those people who are fed up with the status quo would actually ACT instead of just bitching... Then there WOULD be a viable 3rd party...

That's a popular idea; but where is the evidence to support it? The closest I've ever seen was Perot in 1988 and while he shook up both major parties and encouraged them to stack the deck even more against third parties, he didn't change much. The policies he railed against got passed anyway and by the next election the party he had started went from 19% of the vote in 1992 to 8.4% in 1996 to right off into fringe-land in 2000.

The last party to go from third party to success was the Republican party - who managed to split the Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers over the issue of slavery as well as picking up the already abolitionist Know-Nothing party (another third party split). Unlike most modern third parties, the Republicans concentrated on Congress and won 44 seats in their first election in 1854. They lost their first Presidential election in 1856; but picked up more seats and set the stage for civil war with their win in 1860.

Having the opposing party effectively secede from the Union and then defeating them in gave the Republicans a chance to consolidate their gains.

Since then, only once in our history has a third party candidate beat even ONE of the two major parties (Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 - and he got pounded by Wilson, the other major party candidate).

 

[antsi]

Again, I agree that is a problem, but I would deal with it by correcting bad lawyers, and not limiting everyone's court access. If a physician is high on cocaine and kills a patient, it is a shame that the plaintiffs are limited by the same reforms that limit junk lawsuits.
.

I'm all in favor of it, if it can be made to actually happen. Obviously, the way the system is set up now, it isn't happening... so somewhere, somehow, there has to be some kind of change in law or policy that if this is going to happen on a wide enough scale to actually change lawyer behavior. I am interested to see what legislative or policy changes could be proposed.

I am still skeptical for one reason: studies have demonstrated that the increase in OB malpractice lawsuits has not been associated with an improvement in OB outcomes. It is certainly true that we spend a lot of time and money chasing our tails due to medicolegal fears, but that hasn't translated into any improvement for end users. What I'd like to see on the junk lawsuit front is an actual difference in outcomes, not just a bunch of lawyers running around wasting time and money to lawyer-proof their practice of law.

The lawsuit against Bushmaster was a monstrosity. They paid out a huge sum because criminals abused their product for criminal purposes. I'm not sure I see how lawyers suing lawyers is going to stop that kind of thing from happening. If there's a scheme that will motivate lawyers to police themselves that will actually work, I'm all for it.

I'm not going to be holding my breath, though.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I'm not going to be holding my breath, though.

Me neither. From a practical standpoint, banning these lawsuits is probably all we can do right now. I just don't think that is the best way to stop it theoretically.

 

[RealGun]

The party doesn't care about the RKBA, they only care about being reelected...

They certainly won't care about the RKBA if still in power while all the RKBA type voters drop out and vow not to vote for them. Moveon.org couldn't have planned it better.

 

[Zundfolge]

Most of the people here who bash the GOP are former members who the party LEFT BEHIND. The party doesn't care about the RKBA, they only care about being reelected... and those who defend them on the basis that "there is no viable 3rd party" are only perpetuating the problem.

The problem with your line of thinking is that you have bought the lie told by the DNC run media that the Republicans are a monolithic group that marches in lock-step with W.

The GOP is not monolithic ... there are at least 5 major factions (Neo-Cons, libertarians/RLC, the so-called "religious right", the Rockefeller/wealthy New England Republicans and "mainstream" conservatives.)

The balance of power in the party has shifted many times and if we ever hope to actually push a pro-gun rights, pro-liberty agenda on a national level we'll have to use one of the existing two parties in power.


If we ever do get to the point where the GOP cannot be pulled back into a more pro-liberty camp then we're screwed because the LP (or any other 3rd party) isn't going to get their crap together in time. The LP has had over 30 years to do it and they've got nada ... I don't see any other 3rd party ever being able to build a large enough base to knock either the GOP or DNC off the top.

The two parties that will be in charge in this country are the Republicans and the Democrats ... the only thing that will change is what those two parties stand for (which has changed a ton in the last 3-4 decades alone). If you think you can push the DNC back toward liberty then I wish you luck, but I believe the evidence shows that the GOP is the only one of the two parties that liberty has a chance in.

No its not a guarantee that the RLC types can retake the party, but they would have a better chance if every Libertarian out there registered as a Republican and got involved in the politics of the party.

Problem is that too many LP folk wouldn't accept total victory if it came at the price of having an R in parenthesis after their names.

 

[antsi]

Since then, only once in our history has a third party candidate beat even ONE of the two major parties (Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 - and he got pounded by Wilson, the other major party candidate).

Some people relish the idea of a political landscape with more than two parties, but I don't think they fully recognize what that landscape looks like.

In multi-party systems, it is rare that one party takes full control. It can happen, but not often. And with so many Americans in love with welfare, socialized medicine, government-run schools, government-run day care, and a billion and one other socialist programs, the Libertarians are least likely third party to ever take control of the Congress and the White House together.

What happens more often in multiparty systems is that two or more parties have to form a coalition to obtain a majority. In that case, nobody gets 100% of their policy enacted - you wind up with an amalgam policy that reflects a compromise between the parties in the coalition.

Ironic, isn't it? The hard core "no compromise" people, who won't vote for the Republicans because their support for gun rights is only partial rather than total, are all wishing for a political outcome that would probably result in even more compromises than what they're already balking at.

 

[No_Brakes23]

Please don't use the so called Assault weapon ban sunset as an excuse as the "sunset clause" was inserted in that Bill under Bill Clinton and his Regime. Bush had nothing to do with that.

Not only that, but it was Dubya's daddy that got the "Assault Weapon" ban rolling in '89. I was 15 years old then, and I realized two things that were hard for me to take...

1. I would most likely never get to buy the HK91 I really wanted...

and

2. I would probably never be a Republican again.

 

[RealGun]

Not only that, but it was Dubya's daddy that got the "Assault Weapon" ban rolling in '89. I was 15 years old then, and I realized two things that were hard for me to take...

1. I would most likely never get to buy the HK91 I really wanted...

and

2. I would probably never be a Republican again.

Amazing! Clinton's Gun Ban is Bush's fault. Who knew?

 

[DRZinn]

To those who dismiss the Libertarian Party because of numbers, I have just two questions: how many pro-liberty Republicans and libertarians are there in the Republican and Denocrat Parties, and what would happen if they suddenly all voted their conscience, instead of the "lesser of two evils?" Think about it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have just two questions: how many pro-liberty Republicans and libertarians are there in the Republican and Denocrat Parties

Well based on the platforms of both parties, there aren't enough in either party to signifcantly alter the way both parties do business.

and what would happen if they suddenly all voted their conscience, instead of the "lesser of two evils?"

Extrapolating from past history, I would guess that they would finish with between 5-20% of the vote and one of the two major parties would continue to be in charge and enact a new platform that reflects the total absence of any libertarian thought in the party now.

No third party will ever be successful until it gains a foothold in Congress first. As for multi-party governments, antsi has a valid point. Name one multi-party parliamentary style government anywhere in the world that has adopted even a Libertarian-lite or Republican party style libertariansim as its form of government? The vast majority of parliamentary governments are even more socialist than our own Democratic party.

 

[RealGun]

To those who dismiss the Libertarian Party because of numbers, I have just two questions: how many pro-liberty Republicans and libertarians are there in the Republican and Denocrat Parties, and what would happen if they suddenly all voted their conscience, instead of the "lesser of two evils?" Think about it.

As long as libertarians are perfectionistic, voting only in the most pure of scenarios, they have no future and should not be taken seriously. During the last convention, the Republican Liberty Caucus went off in their own little corner, got no press coverage, and came out with the same unchanged platform that was Libertarian Party verbatim. Although part of an RLC Internet list, I did not get a single contact, nor was there any post on that list. There is no future in that. They are not, in fact, Republicans. Starting from a position of hostility or separateness will not get from here to there.

Meanwhile the GOP platform committee was off doing their thing, mentioning religion and values about every five minutes. If libertarians want to reclaim the Republican Party, they will have to marginalize religion-based issues or strive to make those issues moot.

 

[orionengnr]

Quote:
"Unfortunately, the medical profession is terrible at policing itself, and doctors are way to lenient when it comes to disciplining physicans who are practicing bad medicine. This contributes to the runaway condition we find ourselves in with malpractice lawsuits. Even at the level of state medical boards, bad doctors are rarely punished...."

Quote:
"Yes, I think lawyers would sue each other, if they thought there was money in it. Why wouldn't they? They sue everyone else. The almighty dollar will sway many a lawyer to cannibalize his colleagues."

Now, if the medical profession is so bad at policing it's own, is the legal profession any better? Why is tort reform so difficult to enact? Hmmm, could it be that those passing the laws are, for the most part, lawyers...who clearly are even less willing than doctors to regulate their own?

Now, back on topic, I agree that third party is great in theory but somewhat less so in practice. I voted for Perot in 92, and so did at least half a dozen people I know. After the fact we realised that what we accomplished was to elect WJ Clinton. If Perot had not been in the race, those votes would have, in each case, gone to the guy with a (R) next to his name. So voting for any Libertarian or Independent only gets (D)s elected. (Moonbats such as Nader excepted). I won't make that mistake again.

Won't vote for the "lesser of two evils"? By definition, guess what you end up with?

 

[No_Brakes23]

Amazing! Clinton's Gun Ban is Bush's fault. Who knew?

Well was Clinton the president in 1989? Nope, the import ban came to us via a Republican. Bush tried to gloss it over as "Protecting American gunmakers" instead of violating 2a rights.

 

[DRZinn]

based on the platforms of both parties, there aren't enough in either party to signifcantly alter the way both parties do business.

Party platforms are based on the beliefs of the "elite" in that party. Libertarians in either party aren't enough to be effective, but I think together with those who are in neither, there'd be a real shot.

Unproveable, yes, I know.

If libertarians want to reclaim the Republican Party, they will have to marginalize religion-based issues or strive to make those issues moot.

Why would I want to reclaim the Republican Party? They're statists, and they'll always be. Changing a few details and still ending up with bigger government is no win.

Better, as one member here has said, to "get it on and get it over with."

 

[RealGun]

Why would I want to reclaim the Republican Party? They're statists, and they'll always be. Changing a few details and still ending up with bigger government is no win.

"They'll always be" is a self fulfilling prophesy, is it not. If you didn't work to change the fundamental structure and nature of government, any third party involvement would be just as bad and every bit as compromised, playing the game by the current rules. A third party's only real function is to heckle from the sidelines, rarely relevant enough to make any difference. The members have already taken themselves out of the game, but like it that way, being fundamentally anti establishment. They actually need something to criticize, since being critical is the desired function. Actually being in charge would be their worst nightmare.

 

[Byron Quick]

the medical profession is terrible at policing itself

To date, I haven't been involved in a malpractice suit. An attorney deposed me in a personal injury suit. When I told him we needed supplemental oxygen to work on his client due to emission of noxious clouds of alcohol fumes...I wasn't called as a witness for some reason. It's a shame that CRX's attorney never called me

I ran a furniture store for fifteen years. I had several lawsuits filed for product liablity. All frivolous. Unfortunately for the lawyers, I wasn't insured for product liability. Thus I got to direct my own defense attorney. When we informed the suing attorney that if he won, we planned to appeal until all of the business's assets were exhausted... In other words, Mr. Attorney, if you lose you get nothing. If you win, you get nothing. The only thing that is sure about this case at this time is that you will get nothing unless you get a fee up front from your client. Every attorney withdrew from the suits for various stated reasons.

There isn't but one way to control attorneys. And that's to rub their noses in getting paid nothing for filing frivolous lawsuits. Give judges and juries the power to rule that the suing attorney has not only lost the case but must pay the defendant's legal costs and for the defendant's time at whatever salary he makes and mental anguish and suffering. Then make that attorney return any fees he collected from his client.

Attorneys understand not getting paid very well. They'd understand being fined for filing idiotic lawsuits even better.

Lone Gunman, physicians might not be all that hot at policing themselves, but they are light years ahead of lawyers policing themselves.

 

[Zundfolge]

Why would I want to reclaim the Republican Party? They're statists, and they'll always be. Changing a few details and still ending up with bigger government is no win.

Then why aren't you shooting?

If its impossible to reclaim the Republican Party then its impossible to make change via the system.

Isn't that the clear definition of "time to start shooting the bastards"?

 

[Manedwolf]

I'd respect the Republicans more if they actually still stood for what they used to...small government and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Instead the bus has been hijacked by the Kristol crowd of neocons, who spend like drunken sailors, swell government bloat immeasurably, and go plunging into wars with iffy intelligence and a strategy that amounted to "We go and shoot at stuff...then what? Uh..dunno?"

Sun Tzu would smack them over the head with 'The Art of War', and every one of the founding fathers would follow with copies of 'The Federalist Papers'.

Myself, I've come to hate both parties, one's greedy and one's a doormat. And neither are serving everyday Americans anymore.

I'm also waiting for the shoe to drop of 'You know, TERRAHISTS could, like, get hold of guns, so we need to control them'...

 

[RealGun]

Myself, I've come to hate both parties, one's greedy and one's a doormat. And neither are serving everyday Americans anymore.

I believe both are "serving everyday Americans". That's what wrong with them. Like many, I fear that many of those "Americans" lack a clue about government and politics, and don't really know or want to confront what is in their best interest beyond the short term.

Both parties have to be moderate enough to get elected and to remain influential. If you think some purist libertarian utopia should be implemented, you are dreaming. You would first have to either educate or persuade the public or control who could vote. You will never be handed a license to set up the perfect government as you see it. The Founding Fathers made many compromises also.

 

[HKGuns]

I fear that many of those "Americans" lack a clue about government and politics, and don't really know or want to confront what is in their best interest beyond the short term.

To witness this you need look no futher than the little slice of Americana called "The High Road.org."

 

[willp58]

Compared to the dum0krauts - the Republicans are about as gun friendly as we're gonna get..

Did you forget about shumer and mizz fine-swine??? Both DEMS....

 

[DRZinn]

"They'll always be" is a self fulfilling prophesy, is it not.

So is "Third parties have no chance."

If its impossible to reclaim the Republican Party then its impossible to make change via the system.

Isn't that the clear definition of "time to start shooting the bastards"?

Not quite. It means that there will be a time, not that that time is upon us. We're headed down a very clear path toward that time, and the only thing that may change is the speed with which we travel.

 

[RealGun]

Fed Up Nation: Is it time for a third major political party?

Poll on MSNBC.com. They were talking this up on MSNBCTV yesterday. Result is 71% yes out of 12K votes. The poll is still open. I voted "Yes" BTW, but I was not thinking LP nor any of the other existing third party's.

What I have in mind is Democrats minus the black vote and Republicans minus the religious zealot vote. In both cases I would hope for an abortion neutral stance and a focus on real government. Obviously one of them is going to have to be more conscious of the Constitution, but both would be nice.

 

[Waitone]

Unfortunately Doc Gunman is on to something. Congress wants the US to get back into the flu vaccine business. Legislation is being introduced which will prohibit lawsuits against drug companies because of failure of vaccines. Furthermore, the legislation would seal drug company record to keep them out of the hands of enterprising lawyers hunting a good suit.

Now while we need to reclaim technology, we don't need blanket immunity for drug companies. If this legislation passes, look ahead to a raft of similar legislation for oh, say, automobile companies and ATV makers and hang glider makers and ski equipment makers and . . . well, you get the idea.

Once again the second amendment leads the way.

 

[Cosmoline]

The Feds were never supposed to have a general police power. They just assumed one under the auspices of the Commerce Clause and FDR's socialist Supreme Court went along with it.

The only law enforcement the feds have a right to be involved in pertains to customs, enforcement of federal court orders, and the security needed to safeguard the mail service itself and other federal functions. That's all.

But try finding ANYONE of either party in DC willing to give up their power.