Vote Bush instead of third party

[Phyphor]

Screw Bush

Simply because he promised to sign the AWB, if congress put it across his desk..... IF he did so, he'd be anti-2'nd.... If he did not, he'd be a liar.


Either way, I trust him as far as I can throw him, to be honest.

-Louis

 

[Chris Rhines]

There is no possible way that I will cast my vote (and therefore, my moral sanction) for Bush. If I vote for him, I say that I support him and his actions. No way.

I'm torn between my usual futile LP vote and just staying home (or in a bar) on election day. At least then I'll get something productive done. And hey, at least
I won't have agreed to accept the outcome of the election by participating in it - if you vote, you can't complain when the wrong guy wins...

- Chris

 

[GeneC]

" I won't have agreed to accept the outcome of the election by participating in it - if you vote, you can't complain when the wrong guy wins..."



Uh, I think that's if you DON"T vote, you can't complain about the outcome.

 

[Don of Kalifornia]

Look all you people who are so twisted saying because "I'm in California, MA,NY, etc I'm voting libertarian or other 3rd party" Think of this even if all of the "occupied" states fall to Kerry, but Bush wins the Electorial college, would it be a real thorn in the Dem's foot, if Bush also took the popular vote by say a 53%-44%? Then no more of this crap "Bush Stole the Election"

Truthfully think about this, the Wjite House has not said a peep about the "assault weapons" bill and this is good, as many liberal newspapers are already hammering Bush to speak up and push it thru as per Billy Jeff Klinton. I don't think this will happen, Bush knows it was the gun owners that got him elected, and caused his daddy to be out after only one term.

The main difference between Bush and "Scary Kerry" is the SCOTUS, get 3-4 "Kerry" judges on the SCOTUS and this country will be totally gone. You who bitch about Bush will really be crying then, and many of us who supported him..well..

So all you gun owners/conservatives/libertarians?etc there is only one choice and that is Bush, anything else is suicide!

 

[GeneC]

Vote how you want, the Electorial College votes the President in and knows that the Bush Administration is most qualified to win the War and they know Kerry would hand the Country over on a silver platter and any vote for a third party won't even be considered('cause their infrastructure isn't in place).

 

[Akurat]

There are 2 choices. If you want to have an impact on the outcome of the election, vote for one or the other.

If you want to vote for someone else, it might as well be Mickey Mouse because you will have had absolutely no effect on anything. Therefore you render yourself - quite literally, meaningless.

"In fact, my imaginary friend shares my exact beliefs. I think I'll write him in!" "At least then I can cope and be able to look at myself in the mirror." ....

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Think of this even if all of the "occupied" states fall to Kerry, but Bush wins the Electorial college, would it be a real thorn in the Dem's foot, if Bush also took the popular vote by say a 53%-44%? Then no more of this crap "Bush Stole the Election"

This is exactly why I do not intend to vote for Bush. Georgia is going to go for Bush by a good margin, so he will get Georgia's electoral vote.

By not voting for him, at least it will increase the margin by which he will lose the national popular vote, thus making his win less than a mandate, and hopefully making his leadership in his second term less effective.

Really, do you want a president who will restrict the First Amendment, sign things into law he says are unconsitutional, and increase federal government ? ? ?

 

[GeneC]

Yes, I believe certain restrictions are necessary, like on the 1stA. The Pres admitted that some parts of the Patriot Act leaned toward infringing on some Constitutional issues, but overall was necessary to combat terrorism and so far it has worked and I justt don't see the increase in Fed Govt , keeping in mind that anything to do with the War on terrorism don't count abd sure, wheb you have 8 yrs od cutting back the military and DOD R&D,etc, it'd appear to be increases, when in fact it'd be just getting up speed with beofre the 8 yr setback.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

GeneC,

None of what I mentioned has anything to do with the War on Terror.

I was speaking of Campaign Finance Reform, which is a blatant attack on the first amendment and has nothing to do with any war.

The increase in federal government I was talking about was the huge increase he has created in the Medicare program by funding drugs. Biggest increase in government welfare since LBJ.

Again, this has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

As for this statement by you:

Yes, I believe certain restrictions are necessary, like on the 1stA.

Do you also think the rest of our guaranteed rights should be restricted for our own collective good?

 

[GeneC]

On March 27, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), Public Law No. 107-155. The BCRA contains many substantial and technical changes to the federal campaign finance law. The Commission's implementation of BCRA included rulemakings (listed below) on the following topics:

"Soft Money" -- i.e., solicitation and use of nonfederal funds by parties, candidates and officeholders
"Electioneering Communications" -- e.g., issue ads
Increased contribution limits
Prohibited contributions -- i.e., from minors and foreign nationals
Inaugural committees
Coordinated and independent expenditures
The "Millionaire's Amendment" -- i.e., the increase in contribution limits for candidates facing a wealthy opponent who intends to make large expenditures from personal funds
Fraudulent solicitations
Disclaimers
Prohibited and permitted uses of campaign funds
Civil penalties
Reporting
Most of the changes became effective November 6, 2002; however, changes involving contribution limits took effect with regard to contributions made on or after January 1, 2003.



This was a Bi partisan Act the was passed thru Congress. The President agreed with Congress and the majority of this Country that campaign reform was needed and this is what CONGRESS came up with. This doesn't effect my right ot free spaech at all.

 

[GeneC]

Medicare Modernization Act: Again , designed, discussed, voted and passed thru Congress addressing the issues of our senior citizens. The AARP backs it, I don't see a problem here. I see our Govt doing it's job and I see the American way in progress and I see much ado about nothing.

As far as your last question, yes, if a special interest group or individual is taking advantage of a freedom or right to promote a personal agenda, it should be restricted for the greater good.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

This doesn't effect my right ot free spaech at all.

if a special interest group or individual is taking advantage of a freedom or right to promote a personal agenda, it should be restricted for the greater good.

Yes, I believe certain restrictions are necessary, like on the 1stA.

Your willingness to trade freedom for the greater good is impressive.

So you think drastically increasing the welfare state is good American progress?

I don't know what else to say or discuss here, as we have no common ground on these issues to work from.

 

[GeneC]

The only difference I see here is our different definitions, like "welfare". If you think giving senior citizens, our Grand and Great Grandparents who raised us and worked and bared the burden for their whole lives a break, as welfare, then I don't think you have a grasp on the concept of welfare, which to me is giving money, food and free medical to a fat, lazy baby making machine who could work, but just won't or throwing money at someone because of the color of their skin or nationality. BIG difference.

And if you think smearing pig feces on a statue of Jesus or pictures of porno queens in habits should be protected under the 1stA or perhaps an Islamic group out on the street yelling into bullhorns how wonderful it was so many Americans died on 9/11 and how wonderful it'd be for many more to die like that . According to you, they should be protected, right? I say there should be a line somewhwere. We have SO many laws because apparently some in society can't discipline themselves.

But , whatever. You either get it or you don't, nothing's gonna get resolved here.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

But , whatever. You either get it or you don't, nothing's gonna get resolved here.

You got that right, Bra.

Grandma and Grandpa shoulda saved some money, or not retired.. There is a role for charity, but it should not be government mandated.

 

[griz]

If you want to vote for someone else, it might as well be Mickey Mouse because you will have had absolutely no effect on anything. Therefore you render yourself - quite literally, meaningless.

Agree on the first but disagree on the second. Admitedly a third party canidate has no real chance. But when the right and left wings of the ruling party realize that the 3rd party protest votes are enough to swing the election, those votes stop being meaningless. The two parties shift a hair toward there base instead of the center. I think a third party vote in the election has a bigger influence on the next canidate than a principled vote in the primary.

 

[GeneC]

You got that right, Bra.

Grandma and Grandpa shoulda saved some money, or not retired.. There is a role for charity, but it should not be government mandated.


__________________

Oh yeah, they couldn't 'cause they spent every dime they had bailin' your parents out of one bad 'deal' after another and then made sure you had things for Christmas, birthday, etc, or else, especially in Ga, they had a nice farm and sunk every dime into that and lost it all. Shoulda , woulda , coulda, time will tell if you fare so well. Fact is, since the beginning of the history of man, Cultures have been judged by how well they take care of their elderly and infirmed and all the one's who didn't , were destroyed.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Cultures have been judged by how well they take care of their elderly and infirmed and all the one's who didn't , were destroyed.

What the heck are you talking about?

Are u saying, for example, that Rome fell because of lack of an adequate drug bill for their seniors?

To what length are you willing to carry welfare?

Many people are already paying close to 40% federal and state income tax. When you add sales tax, property tax, etc to it, it gets close to 50%.

How much of my money do you need to take from me to improve society?

 

[GeneC]

"Agree on the first but disagree on the second. Admitedly a third party canidate has no real chance. But when the right and left wings of the ruling party realize that the 3rd party protest votes are enough to swing the election, those votes stop being meaningless. The two parties shift a hair toward there base instead of the center. I think a third party vote in the election has a bigger influence on the next canidate than a principled vote in the primary."


The problem with that is ,until the 3rd party gets an infrastructure, every election is the same, the MOST is a SWAG as to how many votes are going to 3rd parties, so that another SWAG can be made as to how many votes are available.

 

[GeneC]

LG, READ YOUR HISTORY!

 

[GeneC]

See, we have a definition issue , that YOU didn't address, even when you indicated we had a communication breakdown and now here you are talking as if nothing happened. Maybe that's the problem, but I'm not a
psychiatrist( but I did stay a a Holiday Inn Express). HELPING THE ELDERLY OUT WITH LIVING OUT THEIR LIVES IS NOT WELFARE, IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[R.H. Lee]

To what length are you willing to carry welfare?

If you mean social security I gotta disagree. When the gubmint forcibly extracts the fruits of our labor in the form of social security taxes, they impose a contractual obligation on us and on THEM. That's not "welfare".

Now if you want to give me all my money back, plus the interest, dividends and capital gains I would have earned on that money over the years, maybe we can talk. Otherwise, I'll be collecting my social security benefits, thank you very much.

 

[fix]

deja vu all over again

 

[GeneC]

So what'd be a quick-fix? I mean, that reminds me of situations, like a carfull of people are going down the road and the car goes into a slide and the someone in the crowd ALWAYS yells ,"OMG. we're all gonna die!" or you and the better half has had opposing discussion before and some time later you step close to it again and she says, " oh no, here we go again." Well, guess what, to those I say, maybe not, it might seem close, but since we've been here before and have some experience, maybe together we can steer it into a different direction, but since you seem to think it's deja vu, perhaps YOU'RE the one willing it to be the same.

 

[Justin]

<taking the bait>

So, Gene, just how exactly does it feel to be a Communist?

</taking the bait>

 

[Silver Bullet]

I'm sorry for nudging this back on topic, but ...

At the World Small Arms Conference in 2001, Bush slam-dunked the Euro-socialists who were trying to ramrod a world-wide gun prohibition down our throats. In the big scheme of things, this is far more significant than even the AWB. This was a real gut-check, and to my mind shows which side the administration is really on.

You don’t remember this ? It was three years ago:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74609&highlight=small+arms+conference

What would Kerry have done if he were president then ? More to the point, if Kerry is elected, the European girly-guys will bring this up again. The question then is what will Kerry do then ? He’s already on record as saying he will be much more brown-nosey with the Euros if he’s elected.