Are You Voting Republican Or Third Party This Year?

[Thumper]

"Ah...a Perot voter. Did slick willie teach you a valuable lesson?"

bzzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing . . .

Evidently my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. Hopefully my point was.

[Taipei Personality]

Evidently my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. Hopefully my point was.

The sarcasm was obvious, the point was not.

To clarify, I did not vote for Perot and the Clinton presidency taught me nothing that I did not already know - for example, that I should not vote for a candidate that does not actively promote liberty.

[Thumper]

So you dislike Bush and Kerry's policies equally, then?

Hypothetically, you would defer the opportunity to cast the deciding vote (between those two) to someone else?

[Real Gun]

I too am concerned with the GOP's decision to effectively eliminate RKBA from their platform. - fix

What does this mean? RKBA is not in the 2000 GOP platform nor is any anti gun talk. That is in stark contrast to the Democrat platform, which mentions gun control repeatedly. Was RKBA ever in the GOP platform? You imply that there is some current initiative or some new found opposition to the BoR.

The GOP website lists the 2000 platform. I don't know when platforms are published relative to a convention date. Could you share a draft or explain the inside information you seem to have? I subscribe to GOPUSA and believe I would have heard about it. They have a gun forum by the way.

[fix]

They have removed it from the marquee, so to speak. Meanwhile, the third parties have their stance prominently displayed. If you don't find that disturbing, then I don't know what to say. But there's no need to defend them...I'm voting for Bush (pending AWB Sunset).

[Real Gun]

They have removed it from the marquee, so to speak. - fix

As of when? Prior to 2000? Could you be more specific?

[Taipei Personality]

So you dislike Bush and Kerry's policies equally, then?

Correct, although for different reasons. Although both routinely ignore the govermental contract we call the US Constitution, Bush, and the Pubbies in general, seem to have a special penchant for the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, while the Dems seem to concentrate on the 2nd, 9th, and 10th. Both parties, and candidates, seem to ignore the provisions of the Constitution equally. Their focus is simply a bit different.

The R's seem to think that the citizenry are socially and morally incompetent and need guidance, while the D's seem to feel that the people are financially incompetent and lack appropriate decision-making skills. Both parties think that we need to be cared for. I don't want to be cared for; I want to be left the hell alone.

Hypothetically, you would defer the opportunity to cast the deciding vote (between those two) to someone else?

Yep, I sure would. The choice between a police state and a welfare state is a hobson's choice. If no pro-liberty candidate existed I would simply not cast a vote or write in someone whom I knew to be pro-liberty.

Give me liberty or give me safety and security!

- Patrick Henry, 2004

[JB in SC]

I remember how simple buying a firearm was prior to 1968. I've seen a few elections since then. The phrase, "My vote won't make a difference" was painfully evident to the Democats in the 2000 election. You just never know how people will vote until they go into the booth.

Given a choice between the only two that can win...there is only one that I can make in good conscience as a gun owner and that's Republican. Regardless of what is said or done, in the end a vote against the President will result in a win for Kerry. It will be a horror that gun owners have yet to see in America. The repressive laws in California (and other states that are mainstream Democratic strongholds) will sweep throughout the United States. Mark my words, we will not be happy. The AWB is just the beginning.

Perhaps George Soros will be the AG, or Secretary of Defense.

[edward j williamson]

Taipei,

Right you are in your assessment. I have been a member of the LP for over 25 years. I have stood and watched as people have griped and moaned for years about the same old politicians, just to see them vote for the same old politicians. DC has the sheeple effectively snookered into voting the same way for the same two parties. Both the GOP and Dems voted and supported Campaign Finance Reform in droves - all in an effort to stem what they viewed as the 'encrouchment' on their lifetime entitlements, i.e career political offices!

I wrote an article a couple of years ago called, "The Gullability of the Governed". I should post it here, it would be an appropos thread.

[Taipei Personality]

I wrote an article a couple of years ago called, "The Gullability of the Governed". I should post it here, it would be an appropos thread.

Please do, I would like to read it.

[edward j williamson]

The Gullibility of the Governed.
by Edward J. Williamson

Almost 220 years ago, our founding fathers embarked upon their quest to create an independent nation, a nation in which individuals would be free to prosper according to their abilities, initiative, and self-discipline without the previous requirements of inherited entitlements so endemic to European societies of the eighteenth century; a society in which one need not be born to privilege in order to enjoy a life of plenty, but rather a society where one could create his own opportunities through individual effort, ingenuity, initiative, and achievement; a society in which free and independent citizens could celebrate the results of their efforts, become successful, accumulate wealth, and fairly enjoy the fruits of their own labors. The founding fathers also understood that the greatest threat to individual achievement and the smooth functioning of a fair and free society was government, specifically a strong centralized government such as the one they fought against and set about separating from.

One common misinterpretation of the motives of the founding fathers is the idea that their principal goal was to create a new and better government that would insure our new found freedoms. Right away one can see the erroneous reasoning in this line of thinking. The objective of government in and of itself is to control the people, make laws, and direct the flow of goods and money; to impose its version of order and regulation. Why in the world would a group of people, who were trying to throw off the chains of an oppressive government, seek to turn around and establish government? Simply put, they didn't. They set about to free themselves and these 'United States' from the control of a distant and tyrannical monarchy, one that ruled over the people, without their consent, and to enter into a provision in which the people could, in effect, govern themselves.

In 1781 the Articles of Confederation, which provided for a nominal federal government, were ratified by the states. Before long, naturally, the shrill cry trumpeting the need for a stronger central government resonated across the land. "The Federal Government lacks the power to compel the people and the states to pay taxes," came the call. As if this were a bad thing! I bet many now wish this were the case. So in 1787, our founding fathers formulated a new plan of government, the U.S. Constitution, which provided a stronger federal government, albeit with checks and balances and strict conditions. Even though it gave more authority to the federal government than the founding fathers envisioned at the time, it was far superior to any other plan or organization of government anywhere else in the world, then and even to this day. This article is not a constitutional treatise, however, but rather, as the title suggests, an explanation of just how the American people, as a whole, have been duped by politicians.

Our forefathers, when finally forced to contemplate what form of government our fledgling nation should adopt understood these truths: first, a monarchy and a powerful central government were anathema to a society that values the individual and liberty. Second, a true democracy was akin to mob rule and was an even greater threat to individual liberty. Another threat was the proliferation of political parties, for the founders knew that this was a tool to allow politicians with agendas to hijack any government of the people.

The framers of the U.S Constitution made no provisions for the formation of political parties because they had a deep distrust of them. Traditionally they had always been a source of corruption and an impediment to the freedom of the people to judge issues and politicians on their own merit. James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers against a political system in which 'factions' would be able, in effect and practice, to seize control of the reins of government, as well as to turn it into a virtual exclusive club bent on the agenda of a select group. I ask, "Has it not become so?" How many third parties do you see being elected to the halls of government, especially the Imperial Federal Government? Well, there is Bernie Sanders of Vermont, but he is a socialist, unfortunately, and seeing as how our government is in effect socialistic, it only figures!

For proof that the Democrats and Republicans protect the exclusivity of their special 'members only' club, one only needs to harken to one of the most insidious pieces of legislation ever passed, the so called 'Campaign Finance Reform' which virtually ties the hands of third party candidates hoping to make inroads into the halls of government, and in effect limits the viable choice of candidates to two parties. Here is what I have come to believe is taking place. The 'sheeple' at this stage are still smart and aware enough that if one party decided on a platform of complete control of all aspects of our lives they would quite possibly smell the rat. The Democrats, therefore, have evolved to the point where they take the duty of legislating laws meant to curb our financial freedoms, to redistribute our wealth, inhibit our free exercise of business by imposing political correctness laws, and exacting high prices through unconstitutional taxation in order to redistribute produced wealth and support their voting base. The Republicans have, over the years, come to take on the so-called 'burden' of controlling the social fabric of our lives through controls imposed on what one can do to his body or ingest into it, what one can watch, take part in, and with who.

Of course, they converge in certain areas as well. Take the 'TIPS' program and 'Homeland Security' for instance. The GOP has traditionally trumpeted its support for limited government, yet this new boondoggle has put onto the government payroll 171,000 new UNIONIZED government employees. So basically what you have is a class of people who can not be fired for being incompetent and inefficient. Both Democrats and Republicans supported, en masse, this new agency. We hear about tax cuts, yet the income tax remains, as do capital gains and corporate tax. This is a blatant trade off between the parties. The Republicans claim to support the Second Amendment, but still the Administration balked at supporting the arming of pilots. In that same vein, do people still have license to pack and carry whenever or wherever they deem necessary? No, of course not, because the Social Democratic Party has championed that side of the issue and their job is to keep the people unarmed, thereby keeping even safer, the fat, comfy politicos and ensuring that the same club members remain ensconced in their self-entitled thrones!

Until the people realize that the corner on the political market is being carefully guarded by a two party system, we will continue to lose our individuality and the liberties that have come at great cost. Until we realize that two party politics is a carefully crafted game meant to keep pre-arranged and pre-ordained 'club members' in office, it will be business as usual. How do the parties manage to keep a slew of gullible voters under their wings? Well, if you need me to spell it out for you in plain English, then why would I bother? You are already one of the duped!

[K80Geoff]

Gunboat Johnny changes his position so often, he might just let the AWB sunset stick if he becomes president.





Unfortuntely I am in a battleground state and have to vote against Kerry.

[Taipei Personality]

Very well done, sir! I especially enjoyed these points:

The founding fathers also understood that the greatest threat to individual achievement and the smooth functioning of a fair and free society was government, specifically a strong centralized government such as the one they fought against and set about separating from.

. . . That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . .

One common misinterpretation of the motives of the founding fathers is the idea that their principal goal was to create a new and better government that would insure our new found freedoms.

. . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

The objective of government in and of itself is to control the people, make laws, and direct the flow of goods and money; to impose its version of order and regulation.

Our forefathers, when finally forced to contemplate what form of government our fledgling nation should adopt understood these truths: first, a monarchy and a powerful central government were anathema to a society that values the individual and liberty. Second, a true democracy was akin to mob rule and was an even greater threat to individual liberty. Another threat was the proliferation of political parties, for the founders knew that this was a tool to allow politicians with agendas to hijack any government of the people.

For proof that the Democrats and Republicans protect the exclusivity of their special 'members only' club, one only needs to harken to one of the most insidious pieces of legislation ever passed, the so called 'Campaign Finance Reform' which virtually ties the hands of third party candidates hoping to make inroads into the halls of government, and in effect limits the viable choice of candidates to two parties.

Very, very well done.

[seeker_two]

Making your own lane would be fine if three or four Supreme Court justices weren't about to retire. You want Kerry nominating them?

I sure don't want BUSH nominating them--esp. if he keeps caving to the Dems on the appointments... :barf:

[fix]

He didn't cave. He promised not to make any more recess appointments during his first term. Considering the fact that he had no intention of doing so to begin with (as stated by his people), I'd say he just snookered the Dems.

[Selfdfenz]

Agreed Seeker.

It's a given what kind of Supremes Kerry will pick but we have no indication the people Bush will pick will be on our (RKBA) side. Republican presidents can take credit for picking some problematic Supremes in the past and they are still there.

Not to steel this thread but if the Rep platform has nothing about RKBA, what does that say to you?

Here is what it says to me. "no promises were made and we have therefore, none to keep". AWB gets renewed and signed in Bush's 2nd or Kerry's 1st I fear either way. So many here think Bush is THE lessor of the two evils but that's still bad for us as gunowners I'm afraid.

The silence from the Bush camp in not strongly supporting RKBA and a dozen other points important to me is mind boggleing and equals a ck beside the CP candidate name. I can't moderate the Republican party or their stance on the issues but I can send them a message ( possibly whispered) if they care to listen and it's this "I not buying your message or your product". If the CP guy only get's one vote and its mine, I can live with that. If Bush is re-elected and turns on us I hope his supporterd here can live with that. If Kerry is elected it made no difference as the problems were a lot bigger than 2A.

JMHO

BTW I think W is very likely a very decent guy and I have no hard feeling toward him as person, just the way he does his job. I actually like the man and the day does not go by that I don't get a chuckle out of the Bushism calender.

Take care all,

S-

[Thefumegator]

Selfdfenz, you are right. The lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL!

We NEED someone who is strongly pro-2A. Kerry is certainly not, and Bush isn't making any promises. Libertarians are probably the only hope for making this country back into what it should be.

I will admit that if it is close, I'll vote for Bush, but if not, I'll go for the LP.

Wes

[obiwan1]

I'll let you know September 14th.

[longeyes]

Bush: Alternative to Chaos.

(Imperfect alternative but the best available option right now. Re-elect him and bore from within for better times.)

[kidcoltoutlaw]

if you put somebody in a election who can not win but can pull votes from the man your trying to beat its as good as a vote for you,thanks,keith

[seeker_two]

Bush: Alternative to Chaos.

Maybe we NEED a little chaos to wake ourselves up to how far down the tyrranical path we've traveled...

Besides, if Kerry's in office, we'll KNOW who the enemy is. Bush hasn't made his mind up if he's more liberal than moderate. :barf:

I'll take the frying pan over the slow boil anyday....

[Lavan]

I will be reluctantly and ashamedly voting for the ape-brained Bush!

On a SINGLE ISSUE.....guns.

This disgusts me and makes me ashamed to admit it.

We have not had a CHOICE since 1964 for President.

So, once again, I will cast my vote for the single issue that is most likely to allow me to remain in a condition to resist the New World Order that BUSH AND KERRY both pay homage to.

Phooey!

I am tempted......SORELY TEMPTED .....to try to "send a message" thru a Libertarian vote but am too old and experienced to think that it is anything but a feeble and ineffective gesture that will ...possibly.... put anti-gun Kerry in office.

It is a sad state of affairs.

:barf:

[Tactical Arms]

I'll be voting for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party.

[Justin Moore]

Hrm. For the blame Perot crowd. Who's fault is it that Clinton got elected. You all have it backwards. It was Bush 1's fault, for not representing his constituency. You can't just scapegoat Perot because Bush 1 was a RINO. Nice try thou. So much for the age of personal responsability eh?

The same thing is equally true of Ralph Nader/Gore. Gore's fault. The Dems
should shut up about Nader.

For those that say a vote for a 3rd party canidate is a waste of a vote because they can't win, I suggest you look up 'circular logic' in the dictionary. OF COURSE THEY WON'T WIN IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. DUHHHHH!

I dunno, I might just vote for the biggest big government statist I can possibly find. O wait, that would leave me with either Bush or Kerry.

That being said, I have made my position known about the AWB to my congresscritters and made it clear to them that if they support it and the Pres SIGNS it, they will not be getting my vote. No matter how close the margin. Now if the ban sunsets, and no other onerous laws are passed and its tight margins, I'll vote for the Shrub, grudingly. Loose margins=3rd party.

I allways love the famous quote from CO's RINO Governor, Bill Owens about guns owners:

"What are they going to do, vote democrat?"

I love being taking for granted by elitist politicians.

[fix]

OF COURSE THEY WON'T WIN IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. DUHHHHH!

Classic libertarian misinterpretation of the situation. It's not a matter of not voting libertarian because they can't win, but rather a case of not voting for them because their naive approach to foreign policy and immigration will get us all killed. That said, the Constitution Party represents my views the best. However, they will never have a chance at winning anything because they scare away the large portion of the population who are terrified of the "Evil Christian Right™" and therefore would not even consider them.