Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/27/2007 9:38:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/27/2007 11:36:30 PM EST by sherrick13]
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 9:43:52 PM EST
I'm being forced to study up on their party. Why don't they tone that stuff down? I get it, personal rights. All for it. But a big weed leaf on the screen like that just isn't going to cut it. Is that even real? That's how ridiculous it is.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 9:49:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/27/2007 9:50:26 PM EST by sherrick13]
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 9:55:45 PM EST
Guys. Seriously. The website looks like it was designed by a 15 year old kid who just pirated photoshop 3.0 from a warez site. I guess you guys can discount reading it as well, since you've already made up your mind based on the header image.

Perhaps you can't judge a book buy its cover, but I guess websites are exempt from this rule.


well played.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 9:57:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/27/2007 10:00:36 PM EST by sherrick13]
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:04:30 PM EST
Don't knock it till you try it.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:07:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/27/2007 10:08:10 PM EST by Mountain_Snipe]

Originally Posted By maggotbrain:
Guys. Seriously. The website looks like it was designed by a 15 year old kid who just pirated photoshop 3.0 from a warez site. I guess you guys can discount reading it as well, since you've already made up your mind based on the header image.

Perhaps you can't judge a book buy its cover, but I guess websites are exempt from this rule.


well played.


That's why I asked if it was real. It's pathetic.

always.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:12:39 PM EST
This coupled with their new antiwar newsletter is why I'm renouncing my membership.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:12:43 PM EST
A big problem with the Libertarians is that they have practically zero grass roots support. How many Libertarians are actually holding an office at the local levels of govt(city, county, School board)? They can't win.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:15:33 PM EST
Here we go again.

First, this is CALIFORNIA where a porn star ran for Governor.

Second, potheads are as much true Libertarians as KKK guys are true Republicans. It's simply as close to representation as they are capable of getting.

And I find the fact that a politician (from any party) would pander to the weed crowd in California spectacularly unremarkable.

Maybe I'll pop over to Stormfront and ask them how they are voting and use that as evidence that Bush and the Republicans truly are Nazis.

Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:17:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
www.voteshaw.info/

Sorry, I should have included the link.

Yes, very real. And very telling.

And they don't tone it down because that is the ONLY issue all LP'ers agree on. And why do you think that is?


Because the Libertarians are about LIMITING government authority in most things.

Next question.

Somewhere on DU is your counterpart going on and on about how Libertarians are about NOTHING ELSE but guns. And how we are all a bunch of armed terrorists.

Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:18:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:19:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/27/2007 10:19:20 PM EST by sherrick13]
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:19:35 PM EST
If they have so much to offer, now is the time, and I don't see too many people banging down their door. I don't see them banging on any doors, either.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:21:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Here we go again.

First, this is CALIFORNIA where a porn star ran for Governor.

Second, potheads are as much true Libertarians as KKK guys are true Republicans. It's simply as close to representation as they are capable of getting.

And I find the fact that a politician (from any party) would pander to the weed crowd in California spectacularly unremarkable.

Maybe I'll pop over to Stormfront and ask them how they are voting and use that as evidence that Bush and the Republicans truly are Nazis.



And again I will ask you.

Does MJ use define the LP party?

Does racial hatred define the Republican party?


No MJ use does NOT define the LP party. I'm a Libertarian and I've NEVER used it. As a Libertarian I've never been directed to use it by the LP.

But the LP is about LIMITING GOVERNMENT and on MOST ISSUES defers to the LIBERTY of the CITIZEN.

Same as with guns.

Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:22:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
This is the front page of the Libertarian Lt Gov candidate for CA.

www.voteshaw.info/banner.gif


Of course I've been told over and over LP'ers don't really want to use drugs. The just want freedom and hate the War on Drugs. Yeah right.


Notice the MJ leaf is bigger than the American Flag and superimposed upon it.


You're too old to still have the mindset of "A is bad, and is a member of B, so everything that is a member of B must be bad too."

Nobody said that all Libertarians don't want to do drugs. Some of them do, some don't. What they all want is the freedom to make their own decisions about what's 'for their own good'.

I don't smoke weed, I never have, and have no desire to ever use it. I've never used any drugs except alcohol and I don't plan on ever using any.
But I want the freedom to be able to.

Weed isn't the only issue, it's not a main focus for most of us, but it's a good starting point.
If we can get the government to stop outlawing harmless things just because they don't want use to have them, then it sets the precedent to restore more freedoms we never should have lost.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:23:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
www.voteshaw.info/

Sorry, I should have included the link.

Yes, very real. And very telling.

And they don't tone it down because that is the ONLY issue all LP'ers agree on. And why do you think that is?


Because the Libertarians are about LIMITING government authority in most things.

Next question.

Somewhere on DU is your counterpart going on and on about how Libertarians are about NOTHING ELSE but guns. And how we are all a bunch of armed terrorists.



Not about her. She has guns no where on her site. And after reading it I bet she is a screaming lib.


Guess what.

Not EVERYONE who professes to be a Libertarian holds all Libertarian views.

Kinda like those 10 Republicans who voted FOR the Assault Weapon Ban renewal. Kinda like how George Bush vowed to sign it.

Does that make Republicans ANTI GUN?

I mean I have 10 examples to your 1.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:26:14 PM EST
Here We Go Folks...

TRUE REPUBLICANS...

The Senate voted 52-47 for an amendment that would have renewed the 10- year ban on the sale of assault weapons.

Republicans who voted in favor:

-- Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Me.; DeWine, Ohio; Fitzgerald, Ill., Gregg, N.H. ; Lugar, Ind.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Me.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.;

Before the bill was scuttled, Feinstein and her supporters, who included 10 GOP senators, had a few hours to savor victory.

"This is a tremendous day," Feinstein said after the initial vote, which was in doubt until the last few minutes. "It was an uphill battle, but it was a battle worth fighting. The NRA went all out to repeal this legislation, and we won. ... Once in a while, when you have something in which you deeply believe, and that something is made into law and sustained, it is so elating and so important.''


So CLEARLY, using sherrick13 logic, the Republicans ARE the party of GUN CONTROL.

I mean the proof is RIGHT THERE.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:28:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
www.voteshaw.info/

Sorry, I should have included the link.

Yes, very real. And very telling.

And they don't tone it down because that is the ONLY issue all LP'ers agree on. And why do you think that is?


Because the Libertarians are about LIMITING government authority in most things.

Next question.

Somewhere on DU is your counterpart going on and on about how Libertarians are about NOTHING ELSE but guns. And how we are all a bunch of armed terrorists.



Not about her. She has guns no where on her site. And after reading it I bet she is a screaming lib.

Then she's not a fucking libertarian.
Sorry to interject facts into (yet another) of your anti-libertarian rants, but unless she is for every personal freedom from gun rights to abolishing seat belt laws to recreational drug use, she isn't a real libertarian any more than someone that wants to massacre Jews is a real Christian.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:30:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By 72826:

Then she's not a fucking libertarian.
Sorry to interject facts into (yet another) of your anti-libertarian rants, but unless she is for every personal freedom from gun rights to abolishing seat belt laws to recreational drug use, she isn't a real libertarian any more than someone that wants to massacre Jews is a real Christian.


And let's not forget George Bush Sr. with his 89 Import ban.

At least Clinton's AW Ban had a sunset. The 89 Bush Ban doesn't ever expire.

More proof that Republicans are ANTI GUN.

And these aren't CANDIDATES mind you, these are the guys who actually GOT ELECTED and HELD OFFICE.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:31:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/27/2007 10:31:50 PM EST by sherrick13]
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:33:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:34:29 PM EST
Steyr, why aren't they out telling the world this, shouting from the rooftops what they can offer? They don't seem to work too hard for votes.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:35:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
In reality yes, the current majority of Republicans are for moderate forms of gun control. And unfortunately that is also in line with the majority of Americans. That is why we didn't get rid of much over the last six years. I'm not aruging that.

However I would say 90% of the LP are for MJ legalization or rec use. That is NOT even close to mainstream American.

IMO, it would be much easier to shift the Republicans slightly to the right than to change the LP enough to make it mainstream and then actually get them elected in enough numbers to make a difference.


If the majority of Americans wanted to abolish the constitution and turn the country into a fascist state, would you go along with that?
How is MJ in any way dangerous? Have you ever seen a perfectly normal person get hopped up on weed and start shooting up day care centers?
No, because drugs don't change a person. If you're going to do bad things to other people, then you're going to. Drugs don't just make that happen, and especially weed doesn't.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:35:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:37:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:


However I would say 90% of the LP are for MJ legalization or rec use. That is NOT even close to mainstream American.

IMO, it would be much easier to shift the Republicans slightly to the right than to change the LP enough to make it mainstream and then actually get them elected in enough numbers to make a difference.



Where the hell do you get 90%?

The above is the ONLY "weed candidate" you could find. If 90% were as you say, you'd have DOZENS of examples.

Do you even KNOW 10 Libertarians?

Just because Bill Maher CLAIMS to be a Libertarian doesn't mean he is.

I think the Republicans are lost, not because they are anti gun, but because they are full of people like YOU who have no problem with misrepresentation of the truth and promotion of agenda over fact.

I got a news flash for you. More people who smoke weed are registered Republicans than registered Libertarians. So I am forced to conclude the GOP is the major pothead party.

Must be true because I think I'm right. Isn't that how that works for you?

I'm not gonna take the time to decide if any of that is true, I'm just gonna state it as fact and keep doing so at every opportunity.

So what have we learned?

The Republicans are nothing but a bunch of ANTI GUN POTHEADS.

I don't know how you guys live with yourselves.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:37:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
Not arguing it.

But we got Republicans elected that let the AWB expire. Passed protection for gun manufacturers and more States with CCW.

Much better than supporting candidates that, although may repeal NFA34, are never going to be elected.

You know why they won't get elected? Because too many idiots in this country have the same view as you. They probably won't win, so let's just not support them.
If everyone ditched the idea of choosing a lesser evil and voted for freedom, then the NFA act could be repealed. If you refuse to support them from the start, then they can't do anything at all, and nothing will change.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:38:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:39:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Here We Go Folks...

TRUE REPUBLICANS...

The Senate voted 52-47 for an amendment that would have renewed the 10- year ban on the sale of assault weapons.

Republicans who voted in favor:

-- Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Me.; DeWine, Ohio; Fitzgerald, Ill., Gregg, N.H. ; Lugar, Ind.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Me.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.;

Before the bill was scuttled, Feinstein and her supporters, who included 10 GOP senators, had a few hours to savor victory.

"This is a tremendous day," Feinstein said after the initial vote, which was in doubt until the last few minutes. "It was an uphill battle, but it was a battle worth fighting. The NRA went all out to repeal this legislation, and we won. ... Once in a while, when you have something in which you deeply believe, and that something is made into law and sustained, it is so elating and so important.''


So CLEARLY, using sherrick13 logic, the Republicans ARE the party of GUN CONTROL.

I mean the proof is RIGHT THERE.


In reality yes, the current majority of Republicans are for moderate forms of gun control.



Just wanted to take this one by itself.

This was NOT "moderate gun control" I sourced.

This was the RENEWAL of the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban.

Don't try and sugar coat shit.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:39:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:40:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By 72826:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
www.voteshaw.info/

Sorry, I should have included the link.

Yes, very real. And very telling.

And they don't tone it down because that is the ONLY issue all LP'ers agree on. And why do you think that is?


Because the Libertarians are about LIMITING government authority in most things.

Next question.

Somewhere on DU is your counterpart going on and on about how Libertarians are about NOTHING ELSE but guns. And how we are all a bunch of armed terrorists.



Not about her. She has guns no where on her site. And after reading it I bet she is a screaming lib.

Then she's not a fucking libertarian.
Sorry to interject facts into (yet another) of your anti-libertarian rants, but unless she is for every personal freedom from gun rights to abolishing seat belt laws to recreational drug use, she isn't a real libertarian any more than someone that wants to massacre Jews is a real Christian.


Yes she is. There are many LP'ers that are screaming libs. Notice those don't mention guns much. They are still LP'ers. In fact if they are elected to run as an LP how can you say they aren't LP'ers. LP elected them.

The basis of libertarianism is personal freedom. If she is against gun rights, then she is not libertarian. The same way that someone who is pro-gay marriage and socialized medicine isn't really a conservative.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:40:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:40:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mountain_Snipe:
Steyr, why aren't they out telling the world this, shouting from the rooftops what they can offer? They don't seem to work too hard for votes.


Honestly? Not my job and my job keeps me pretty busy.

Anyone who wants to find out what Libertarians ACTUALLY stand for can do so pretty easily.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:42:47 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:44:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
I would have to go along with it. Or die.

There's a word for that. Bahhhh.
It's obvious that you don't care about freedom, so I don't think there's even much point in arguing this with you. Even if I convinced you that there is nothing wrong with personal freedom you would still go along with the masses anyway.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:44:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:



But we got Republicans elected that let the AWB expire.


ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE AT ALL.

The amendment to add the renewal to Larry Craigs bill PASSED with the help of 10 Republicans.

Larry Craig then killed his own bill.

Had Craig not done so, and had it passed other amendments, it would have gone to Bush who had vowed to sign it.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:44:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:45:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By 72826:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
Not arguing it.

But we got Republicans elected that let the AWB expire. Passed protection for gun manufacturers and more States with CCW.

Much better than supporting candidates that, although may repeal NFA34, are never going to be elected.

You know why they won't get elected? Because too many idiots in this country have the same view as you. They probably won't win, so let's just not support them.
If everyone ditched the idea of choosing a lesser evil and voted for freedom, then the NFA act could be repealed. If you refuse to support them from the start, then they can't do anything at all, and nothing will change.


No, the reason why they won't get elected is that a majority of Americans on BOTH SIDES actively OPPOSE THE MAJORITY OF WHAT THEY STAND FOR...

Try again...
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:46:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Here We Go Folks...

TRUE REPUBLICANS...

The Senate voted 52-47 for an amendment that would have renewed the 10- year ban on the sale of assault weapons.

Republicans who voted in favor:

-- Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Me.; DeWine, Ohio; Fitzgerald, Ill., Gregg, N.H. ; Lugar, Ind.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Me.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.;

Before the bill was scuttled, Feinstein and her supporters, who included 10 GOP senators, had a few hours to savor victory.

"This is a tremendous day," Feinstein said after the initial vote, which was in doubt until the last few minutes. "It was an uphill battle, but it was a battle worth fighting. The NRA went all out to repeal this legislation, and we won. ... Once in a while, when you have something in which you deeply believe, and that something is made into law and sustained, it is so elating and so important.''


So CLEARLY, using sherrick13 logic, the Republicans ARE the party of GUN CONTROL.

I mean the proof is RIGHT THERE.


In reality yes, the current majority of Republicans are for moderate forms of gun control.



Just wanted to take this one by itself.

This was NOT "moderate gun control" I sourced.

This was the RENEWAL of the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban.

Don't try and sugar coat shit.


So define moderate gun control.

Beleive me, the old AWB didn't really do much. It was very moderate. You of all people should know this.

Have you read 1022? That is serious gun control. If it is enacted as written.

Moderate gun control is things like background checks, and restricting gun ownership from felons (not all of which are violent).
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:46:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:47:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:


However I would say 90% of the LP are for MJ legalization or rec use. That is NOT even close to mainstream American.

IMO, it would be much easier to shift the Republicans slightly to the right than to change the LP enough to make it mainstream and then actually get them elected in enough numbers to make a difference.



Where the hell do you get 90%?

The above is the ONLY "weed candidate" you could find. If 90% were as you say, you'd have DOZENS of examples.

Do you even KNOW 10 Libertarians?

Just because Bill Maher CLAIMS to be a Libertarian doesn't mean he is.

I think the Republicans are lost, not because they are anti gun, but because they are full of people like YOU who have no problem with misrepresentation of the truth and promotion of agenda over fact.

I got a news flash for you. More people who smoke weed are registered Republicans than registered Libertarians. So I am forced to conclude the GOP is the major pothead party.

Must be true because I think I'm right. Isn't that how that works for you?

I'm not gonna take the time to decide if any of that is true, I'm just gonna state it as fact and keep doing so at every opportunity.

So what have we learned?

The Republicans are nothing but a bunch of ANTI GUN POTHEADS.

I don't know how you guys live with yourselves.


It is not a major part of their platform? I've probably talked to hundereds of LP'ers in my lifetime. And can not remember one that didn't bring weed up.


Stop hanging out with stoners.

Not that you are in the least bit interested. But here is what the LP platform actually looks like.

A Libertarian’s Platform

THE PLATFORM of the libertarian candidate is simple. It has only one plank in it: No special privilege for anyone. He conceives himself with only two methods of achieving this worthy objective:

1. The free market.

2. Government limited to the defense of life and property.

There is no way known to man to determine prices of goods or rates of wages or where man should travel or where he should work or how long he should labor or in what manner he should exchange the fruits of his efforts, except in a market free of coercion or by some measure of authoritarianism. There is no possible way of determining value except by what an unfettered people will offer — of their own free will — in exchange for any product or for any service. But governmental authoritarianism can, and does, curtail and destroy this freedom, in the marketplace by granting special privileges to various persons and groups.

Special privilege cannot be granted, however, except by a government that is out-of-bounds. Government, limited to the defense of the life and livelihood of all citizens equally, has no special privilege within its power to grant. A government cannot grant anything to anyone which it does not take from someone else.

The libertarian candidate, regardless of how great his competence may be, reasons thusly: “You as a person are better able to control your life than I am. Your life is your personal affair, for better or for worse, except as in the living of your life you may impair or endanger the life and livelihood of others. No person or set of persons on this earth has any logical right to interfere with you except as you may do injury to them.”

No person, without an element of authoritarianism, can argue otherwise. Libertarians — nonauthoritarians — recognize that they have no logical rights, with respect to other people, beyond the defense of themselves. Nor do they grant to an agency — government in any of its forms — any rights which they themselves do not possess. A libertarian’s government has nothing to dispense except equal protection against, or equal penalizing of, fraud, misrepresentation, predatory practices, and violence.

The variations among men — in their intelligence, their talents, their inheritances — are the handiwork of God; and the libertarian accepts this fact. He refuses to play the role of god-man and to attempt a coercive readjustment of that which God has provided. He stands on the single platform of no special privilege for anyone, insofar as his dispensing of it is concerned.

The libertarian goes on the political stage more to present his view than to seek his office. For special privilege will prevail unless its error is understood at least by those whom others follow. Votes, the concern of those who cast them, are not to be sought at the expense of integrity or by concessions to authoritarianism.

The libertarian has faith in free men. He is conscious of their natural inclination to cooperate for their own benefit and he knows that only in the release of their energy is good accomplished. He, therefore, does not want power. He wants only freedom from power, the mark of civilization. And he reasons that he cannot correct uncivilized man by becoming uncivilized himself.



As you can see, it's all weed, weed, weed.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:48:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/27/2007 10:48:33 PM EST by sherrick13]
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:48:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:



But we got Republicans elected that let the AWB expire.


ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE AT ALL.

The amendment to add the renewal to Larry Craigs bill PASSED with the help of 10 Republicans.

Larry Craig then killed his own bill.

Had Craig not done so, and had it passed other amendments, it would have gone to Bush who had vowed to sign it.


You're distorting the truth:

1) Craig's bill passed the very next year, WITHOUT the AWB...

2) The AWB expired under the same Congress that added the 'poison pill' AWB amendment...

Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:49:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:


However I would say 90% of the LP are for MJ legalization or rec use. That is NOT even close to mainstream American.

IMO, it would be much easier to shift the Republicans slightly to the right than to change the LP enough to make it mainstream and then actually get them elected in enough numbers to make a difference.



Where the hell do you get 90%?

The above is the ONLY "weed candidate" you could find. If 90% were as you say, you'd have DOZENS of examples.

Do you even KNOW 10 Libertarians?

Just because Bill Maher CLAIMS to be a Libertarian doesn't mean he is.

I think the Republicans are lost, not because they are anti gun, but because they are full of people like YOU who have no problem with misrepresentation of the truth and promotion of agenda over fact.

I got a news flash for you. More people who smoke weed are registered Republicans than registered Libertarians. So I am forced to conclude the GOP is the major pothead party.

Must be true because I think I'm right. Isn't that how that works for you?

I'm not gonna take the time to decide if any of that is true, I'm just gonna state it as fact and keep doing so at every opportunity.

So what have we learned?

The Republicans are nothing but a bunch of ANTI GUN POTHEADS.

I don't know how you guys live with yourselves.


But if Bill Maher got elected to represent them, he would be.


So David Duke is what Republicans are all about huh?
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:49:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:51:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Here We Go Folks...

TRUE REPUBLICANS...

The Senate voted 52-47 for an amendment that would have renewed the 10- year ban on the sale of assault weapons.

Republicans who voted in favor:

-- Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Me.; DeWine, Ohio; Fitzgerald, Ill., Gregg, N.H. ; Lugar, Ind.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Me.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.;

Before the bill was scuttled, Feinstein and her supporters, who included 10 GOP senators, had a few hours to savor victory.

"This is a tremendous day," Feinstein said after the initial vote, which was in doubt until the last few minutes. "It was an uphill battle, but it was a battle worth fighting. The NRA went all out to repeal this legislation, and we won. ... Once in a while, when you have something in which you deeply believe, and that something is made into law and sustained, it is so elating and so important.''


So CLEARLY, using sherrick13 logic, the Republicans ARE the party of GUN CONTROL.

I mean the proof is RIGHT THERE.


In reality yes, the current majority of Republicans are for moderate forms of gun control.



Just wanted to take this one by itself.

This was NOT "moderate gun control" I sourced.

This was the RENEWAL of the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban.

Don't try and sugar coat shit.


So define moderate gun control.

Beleive me, the old AWB didn't really do much. It was very moderate. You of all people should know this.

Have you read 1022? That is serious gun control. If it is enacted as written.


If you think the Clinton AW Ban was "moderate" then we are done here.

I don't find magazine restrictions and feature bans passed with the hope of doing away with an entire class of weapons "moderate."
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:53:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:


However I would say 90% of the LP are for MJ legalization or rec use. That is NOT even close to mainstream American.

IMO, it would be much easier to shift the Republicans slightly to the right than to change the LP enough to make it mainstream and then actually get them elected in enough numbers to make a difference.



Where the hell do you get 90%?

The above is the ONLY "weed candidate" you could find. If 90% were as you say, you'd have DOZENS of examples.

Do you even KNOW 10 Libertarians?

Just because Bill Maher CLAIMS to be a Libertarian doesn't mean he is.

I think the Republicans are lost, not because they are anti gun, but because they are full of people like YOU who have no problem with misrepresentation of the truth and promotion of agenda over fact.

I got a news flash for you. More people who smoke weed are registered Republicans than registered Libertarians. So I am forced to conclude the GOP is the major pothead party.

Must be true because I think I'm right. Isn't that how that works for you?

I'm not gonna take the time to decide if any of that is true, I'm just gonna state it as fact and keep doing so at every opportunity.

So what have we learned?

The Republicans are nothing but a bunch of ANTI GUN POTHEADS.

I don't know how you guys live with yourselves.


It is not a major part of their platform? I've probably talked to hundereds of LP'ers in my lifetime. And can not remember one that didn't bring weed up.


Stop hanging out with stoners.

Not that you are in the least bit interested. But here is what the LP platform actually looks like.

A Libertarian’s Platform

THE PLATFORM of the libertarian candidate is simple. It has only one plank in it: No special privilege for anyone. He conceives himself with only two methods of achieving this worthy objective:

1. The free market.

2. Government limited to the defense of life and property.

There is no way known to man to determine prices of goods or rates of wages or where man should travel or where he should work or how long he should labor or in what manner he should exchange the fruits of his efforts, except in a market free of coercion or by some measure of authoritarianism. There is no possible way of determining value except by what an unfettered people will offer — of their own free will — in exchange for any product or for any service. But governmental authoritarianism can, and does, curtail and destroy this freedom, in the marketplace by granting special privileges to various persons and groups.

Special privilege cannot be granted, however, except by a government that is out-of-bounds. Government, limited to the defense of the life and livelihood of all citizens equally, has no special privilege within its power to grant. A government cannot grant anything to anyone which it does not take from someone else.

The libertarian candidate, regardless of how great his competence may be, reasons thusly: “You as a person are better able to control your life than I am. Your life is your personal affair, for better or for worse, except as in the living of your life you may impair or endanger the life and livelihood of others. No person or set of persons on this earth has any logical right to interfere with you except as you may do injury to them.”

No person, without an element of authoritarianism, can argue otherwise. Libertarians — nonauthoritarians — recognize that they have no logical rights, with respect to other people, beyond the defense of themselves. Nor do they grant to an agency — government in any of its forms — any rights which they themselves do not possess. A libertarian’s government has nothing to dispense except equal protection against, or equal penalizing of, fraud, misrepresentation, predatory practices, and violence.

The variations among men — in their intelligence, their talents, their inheritances — are the handiwork of God; and the libertarian accepts this fact. He refuses to play the role of god-man and to attempt a coercive readjustment of that which God has provided. He stands on the single platform of no special privilege for anyone, insofar as his dispensing of it is concerned.

The libertarian goes on the political stage more to present his view than to seek his office. For special privilege will prevail unless its error is understood at least by those whom others follow. Votes, the concern of those who cast them, are not to be sought at the expense of integrity or by concessions to authoritarianism.

The libertarian has faith in free men. He is conscious of their natural inclination to cooperate for their own benefit and he knows that only in the release of their energy is good accomplished. He, therefore, does not want power. He wants only freedom from power, the mark of civilization. And he reasons that he cannot correct uncivilized man by becoming uncivilized himself.



As you can see, it's all weed, weed, weed.


No, it's all unworkable utopian bullshit, suffering from the same fatal flaw as Marxisim...

IT IGNORES THE FACT THAT HUMANITY IS INHERANTLY EVIL AND CORRUPT

By not accounting for human nature - in fact by ignoring it - libertarianisim is doomed to failure...

Men do not have a "natural inclination to cooperate" - they have a natural inclination towards greed & corruption... The only solution is to balance my greed & corruption against yours, and thus get a zero-sum effect...

That's where government comes in....

Rights are meaningless without coercive force to ensure they are observed...

Freedom is short lived without something preserving it by force of law/arms...

And so on...

Libertarianism ignores it all

P.S. I am a realist. I have NO FAITH in my fellow man at all...
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:53:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:54:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By 72826:

Have you read 1022? That is serious gun control. If it is enacted as written
Moderate gun control is things like background checks, and restricting gun ownership from felons (not all of which are violent)..



OK, I agree. That is very moderate gun control.

So in your opinion serious gun control is the old AWB?

Unless we can have (for the most part) the same arms as the military, then the second amendment doesn't mean much.
The AWB was a direct step towards fascism, so yes, it was serious.


Originally Posted By sherrick13:

Originally Posted By 72826:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
I would have to go along with it. Or die.

There's a word for that. Bahhhh.
It's obvious that you don't care about freedom, so I don't think there's even much point in arguing this with you. Even if I convinced you that there is nothing wrong with personal freedom you would still go along with the masses anyway.



Did I say anywhere I wouldn't fight? Don't you call me a coward. I don't see you pulling an Ed Brown.

I said your average person would have to have nothing left to lose to sacrifice his children and wife.

Are you willing to let your kids die in gunfire over HR1022?

No parent wants their kid to die, for anything.
But the fact is, if no one dies for it now, then farther down the line, even more people are going to die for it.
I'd rather my kids die for freedom than live under oppression.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:54:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:



But we got Republicans elected that let the AWB expire.


ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE AT ALL.

The amendment to add the renewal to Larry Craigs bill PASSED with the help of 10 Republicans.

Larry Craig then killed his own bill.

Had Craig not done so, and had it passed other amendments, it would have gone to Bush who had vowed to sign it.


You're distorting the truth:

1) Craig's bill passed the very next year, WITHOUT the AWB...

2) The AWB expired under the same Congress that added the 'poison pill' AWB amendment...



Not distorting the truth at all.

The Senate voted 52-47 for an amendment that would have renewed the 10- year ban on the sale of assault weapons.

Republicans who voted in favor:

-- Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Me.; DeWine, Ohio; Fitzgerald, Ill., Gregg, N.H. ; Lugar, Ind.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Me.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.;

When it was time for a vote on the overall liability bill, the bill's chief sponsor, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, urged his colleagues to kill the legislation because of the poison-pill amendments. "It is so dramatically wounded that it should not pass,'' said Craig, a National Rifle Association board member.

Before the bill was scuttled, Feinstein and her supporters, who included 10 GOP senators, had a few hours to savor victory.

"This is a tremendous day," Feinstein said after the initial vote, which was in doubt until the last few minutes. "It was an uphill battle, but it was a battle worth fighting. The NRA went all out to repeal this legislation, and we won. ... Once in a while, when you have something in which you deeply believe, and that something is made into law and sustained, it is so elating and so important.''


Which is EXACTLY how it happened when we watched it live on CSPAN.
Link Posted: 2/27/2007 10:54:14 PM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top