T-M -

This idea of "tactical retreat" is the ONLY thing keeping me from "Burning Bush" in effigy.


Auggie -

I think you've captured the essence of "lesser of two evils" politics. The reality is that Bush isn't a very strong ally for RKBA. But that shouldn't prevent us from voting for him, necessarily.

When November rolls around, and the curtain closes behind me, the question will be "Do I vote for Bush and keep a Dem from wholesale rape of the Constitution, in exchange for hush-hush rape of the Constituion, or do I vote my conscience, and essentially WASTE my vote on a Libertarian, ensuring wholesale rape of the Constitution can begin immediately??"

The Chinese curse seems to apply - "May you always live in interesting times."

But I'm thinking (hoping) you are wrong about guns, and public attitudes about gun control. The COMPLETE AND TOTAL silence by Gore on guns during the election, Sept. 11, recent data re: the futility of gun control, the hypocrisy of Sarah "the-Brady-Law-for-you-but-not-for-me" Brady (among other things) all give me hope that we may have turned a corner here.

Posted by Zak...


Yup... that about sums up where I'm at right now.

I disagree. The reason 3rd pary candidates don't win is not because of their message, but their lack of organization and grass-roots support.
Teddy Roosevelt won as a Republican, lost as a Bull Mooser.  Same guy, same message, no organization.

Ross Perot lost because he went for the gold because he didn't prove that his organization could lead the entire country (not just preach to the choir).

3rd party are usually run by extremists at both ends.  Hence, they never go anywhere. Change comes [u]from within[/u] existing parties.

I'd never trust my vote to an organization or individual that has not proved itself through local leadership, State Legislatures, and  Governorships first.  I don't want Pat Buchanan running this country when he can't effectively win even local elections.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't want him as a part of the Administration - just not leadership.

Lastly, thanks for the dialogue. I am certainly [b]VERY[/b] troubled by the CFR Act and by Bush's backpedaling (sp?). I am much more of a conservative than this thread probably makes me seem.  Thanks,

I disagree. The reason 3rd pary candidates don't win is not because of their message, but their lack of organization and grass-roots support.--read lack of big money

Ross Perot lost because he went for the gold because he didn't prove that his organization could lead the entire country (not just preach to the choir).---Ross lost because people figured out he was a loony

3rd party are usually run by extremists at both ends. Hence, they never go anywhere. Change comes from within existing parties.---Change is found under the seat cushions...BOTH parties just keep deconstructing the framework of this country...

I'd never trust my vote to an organization or individual that has not proved itself through local leadership, State Legislatures, and Governorships first. GW---bad failed businesses
and an Unconstitutional CCW.....not proven by your standards

I don't want Pat
Buchanan running this country.Period you should have stopped here--- when he can't effectively win even local elections.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't want him as a part of the Administration - just not leadership. --chaplain maybe?

Guys, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe there is something to this campaign finance reform bs.  Ron Paul voted in favor of it (or so I'm told, I haven't double-checked this).  I trust that guy, his ideas and statements are exactly in line with my own.

Why would he vote in favor of it?  Did he sell out?  Unlikely.  He has no reason to sell out to anyone.  Maybe he thinks it might actually do some good.  

I strongly disfavor laws, especially those that limit free speech, and especially political speech at that.  But, the spending limits could actually do some good according to Neal Knox, another man whom I trust.  

I sincerely doubt that this new law will have any effect on the political process in America.  But if anything can limit the influence of special interests, then that is good for liberty.  What would be better for liberty is if we marched on DC and murdered every one of the lying sons of bitches.  But that is unlikely to happen, so this is the weak alternative.

Read this article to enlighten yourself about why government only grows and grows and grows:
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/jarvis14.html[/url]

I agree with you on this one and almost added this to my last post, but I was worried about running up against the 3500 character boundry.

On the other hand, the "you'll throw your vote away" mantra does indeed play a big role in them gaining any serious toe holds.

Ron Paul is the wildcard in all this. I too IMPLICITLY trust him.

The Dems played thie usual BS line. Bush did the usual "get re-elected" thing. But Ron Paul???

Either he's lost his friggen mind, or Ron Paul and Bush just bought "Long Island" from the Democrats for $24 and a wigwam full of trinkets.

I'm HOPING it's "trinkets."

Yeah, and they supposedly care about the 4th, and 5th, and 6th, etc, etc.  The 2nd Amendment isn't the only one being raped, in case everyone didn't know.  

The Supreme Court will do NOTHING, and the Senators that are saying that they will break the law, and then take it to court are full of sh*t.    If I am wrong, and it is declared unconstitutional, then I'll openly apologize to everyone on the board for my opinions.

The law is signed...it is a done deal.  When was the last time you have seen a significant law stricken from the books...especially a FEDERAL law?

In 1975, the NRA, and every pro-gun group was saying something to the effect of, [b]"Don't worry.  Washington D.C.'s new law totally banning guns will be stricken down by the courts."[/b]  Well guess what?  Its still in effect.



I won't vote for either, because the real problems that are being ignored by the two parties will never be addressed with either your "moderate Republican" (an oxymoron), or a Dimocrat.  If all gun owners would wake up to this fact...we would carry every election, EASILY!

Reagan's "Line-Item Veto" law was struck down by  the SCOTUS.

Ron Paul has publicly voiced his support for terrorism against the United States? I never heard that.

[b]But I did hear this:[/b]


[b]This statement also speaks volumes:[/b]

I can't disagree with any of your points.

Bush is wrong in principle for signing it.

But I just know he'd be wrong in tactics if he didn't sign it.  And tactics win wars.

I hope it's a tactic. If not - this will be George Junior's "Read my lips" moment.

Hey fellows, at least we should be happy that there was....

[size=4]no public signing ceremony for this POS![/size=4]

No smiling out their asses Daschle and McCain learing over President Bush's shoulder!

[b]Dark deeds [u]should[/u] be done in dark theatres.[/b]

Eric The(ThereIsAnUpside,However)Hun[>]:)]

My guess is that Paul was "taking one for the team". How long has the guy been in office? How strong of a win did he have last time around. Wasn't there something mentioned a while ago about him pandering to the mexicans in his home state? My guess is that he's a career politician and will do what it takes to stay in office, but other than that it seems like he's gunning for us. We'll see i guess.

Here's an idea:

Let's all vote democrat next time around. Maybe we can speed the decline along till it gets so bad here that the masses wake up and do something about it. Make them uncomfortable. Poke the hornets nest.

How high do you think taxes would need to be before people start shooting? What are the odds of the people getting fed up enough that we take out the trash and reinstate the constitution (or maybe even an improved version of it. fix all of the things that let us get this for down the police state road. I don't know what those things are but there must be something, since we're here.)

I've been reading AW too much.

A 3rd party win would open the door for the public to retake the government, it will NEVER happen. The current government and the way parties raise funds and get coverage  is set up to PREVENT that from ever happening. Our government is defacto by design. Each party takes turns depriving us of something depending upon which one wins. They have more to do with each other than us.



If you think the general public and the vast majority of the population is educated on anything beyond a 6th grade level, you are as misinformed as they are. How many idiots passed around that "Bill Cinton has twice the IQ of George Bush Jr." email and accepted it as fact? How many people get their personal perception of the world from Oprah? How many even notice there is a problem?

Rest assured they won't be concerned about ANYTHING until 2004, when Democrats and the media at large will shock and startle them with the news that "George Bush Jr., and the Republicans in general, want to REPEAL the Assault Weapon Ban thereby insuring that once again AK47s and UZIs flow into the hands of violent criminals and children." They will show clips of the LA bank robbery and use Columbine as examples of "assault weapons in the wrong hands."

Is the statement accurate? NO. Is it greatly misleading? YES. Will it matter? NO. Will voters remember it and accept it as truth? OF COURSE.

Where did you hear/see that? Because according to the [url=http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=34]House Clerk[/url] Paul voted against that.


Yep, me too. I have been slowly getting more and more upset with Bush, but this takes the cake. I will not vote for him in 2004. He has lost my vote.


Yes.


No, I do not. Screw those damn laws.


No, I choose to be free.


He is violating the Constitution, that is what he is doing.


Absolutely not!

[b][red]MEA CULPA!!![/red][/b][>:/]
[b][red]MEA CULPA!!![/red][/b][B)]
[b][red]MEA CULPA!!![/red][/b][BD]

You're right - he voted against this one.

I got this bill mixed up with an even more ATROCIOUS bill that Ron Paul [u]DID[/u] vote for... [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:28:./temp/~r107FfKPhW::][b]Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.[/b][/url]

Again, I'm sorry to anyone who I mistakenly misled.

HA! HA!

You ain't seen nothing yet.

I am dissapointed in GWB, but will not give up on him.  He does not want to give the demoncrats anything to rally around right now.

Posted by Bill of Rights...


Apparently he doesn’t want to give the freedom loving Americans who elected his sorry ass anything to rally around either!

I noticed that too, and smiled (briefly)

The only thing better he could have done (if he HAD to sign it)  was sign it while sitting on the john.

garand(AndThenWipedWithItAndFlushedIt)man

[}:D]

If you look at it as a point of honor or integrity, then as an individual I think Bush made a mistake. However, if he has a plan (as was mentioned earlier), for instance, he knows the SCOTUS will blow it out the door the first time it's put to the test, than it was probably a good political move. It's akin to a Klinton "feel good" and it's less ammunition the demos can use against him.

True, but I am convinced that the Oprah e-mail forwarders don't vote very much.

Consider:

Again, Gore COMPLETELY avoided appealing to the "I hate guns" crowd in the last election. There IS a reason for that.

State legislatures are EN MASSE passing pro-CCW legislation, and legislation preventing lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Why? a huge groundswell of grassroots activism by gun owners. Legislators today DO NOT vote pro-gun UNLESS they are afraid of losing their job to the gun crowd.


Courts are EN MASSE throwing out the cities anti-gun lawsuits.

The armed soccer moms (since Sept 11) now have a vested interest. All we have to do is remind them of the fear they felt on that day, and then convince them the gun-grabebrs want them defenseless, and we've got them.

Aug, I'm NOT saying this is a slam dunk. I'm saying there are indications perhaps 50-60% of the voting public are either staunchly or moderately pro-gun, and legislators are learning you DO NOT piss off these people.

I'm simply saying that Oprah regulars don't vote much, and that there is a glimmer of hope.

My intent is to fan that flickering flame into a bonfire if I can.

Oh Dude, you don't know how wrong you are. Oprah says get out and vote and they do. MTV even manages to motivate some of the most disinterested portions of our society to vote. Special interest groups like the NAACP make sure everyone votes. Many organizations like the above actually drive around and pick everyone up so they can vote.

The one that floored me though was this one. A group went around before the last election to bridge overpasses and homeless shelters and offered packs of cigarettes to anyone who would register and vote. Lots of takers. Who do you figure they voted for?

G'man, I can only guess you live in a semi rural area in the country surrounded by more or less normal thinking people. You have clearly never been in a major city and heard these people think and talk. Our stupid people outnumber your normal people.

You have pegged me, sir.  [}:D] I've been IN a major city, or two, but for as short a time as humanly possible, and then always like a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

May the Heavens help us if you are right about "your stupid people." [:D]

Question -

With over HALF the country not voting last election, what demographic do you think makes up the majority of non-voters????

I was hoping it was the Oprah crowd. [BD]

At an exponentially growing rate.

Chairborne has a point.  I don't expect this one to last long.  Even if the senators and the NRA bail on their suits, I'm pretty sure the ACLU is locked & loaded.  They may not be pro-gun, but when it comes to defending the 1st Amendment, they ARE the big guns and they have a significant track record to prove it.  Just a couple years ago, they knocked the CDA off the books after Congress passed a law restricting free speech on the internet (ACLU v. Janet Reno).

Too easy.

Approx. 1/3 were conservatives/republicans who KNEW FOR SURE the Dems didn't stand a chance after Bill Clinton scandals. Also they KNEW FOR SURE the NRA would protect their rights. So no need for them to do anything like vote.

Approx. 1/3 were liberals/democrats who KNEW FOR SURE the Republicans didn't stand a chance after Bill Clinton wonderful accomplishments. Also they KNEW FOR SURE the NRA and gun owners had been successfully portrayed as waco style gun nuts. So no need for them to do anything like vote.

Approx. 1/3 were of both parties who KNEW FOR SURE they didn't understand the issues or really give a shit who won. So no need for them to do anything like vote.