A vote for anyone else in 2004 is a vote against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There are no more excuses.

[url]www.PetitionOnline.com/Paul2004/[/url]

To:  the Honorable Ron Paul

    Sir, we come to you as very concerned American Patriots.

    First of all, we want you to know that we have the greatest respect for you and your insistence on doing the right thing in support of freedom. You have been one to show America that there is
    still a glimmer of hope for generations to come.

    It is our faith in America's future, and the facing of the harsh realities of the past, that brings us to you, Sir. America needs Ron Paul at the helm.

    We realize that you currently intend to focus on your reelection as representative to Congress from the 14th District of Texas. Still, we share the hope of many Patriots that you will eventually,
    and hopefully soon, choose to be America's candidate of choice for President in the 2004 election.

    Rather than telling us No, we ask that you allow us to rally a base of support for a campaign for your Presidency.

    Many of us are trying to bring the 3rd parties for freedom together to choose and support a common candidate. That is the purpose of the United America Party and Patriot Alliance, for
    example.

    The idea of you running for President would set the Patriot Movement on fire, and could help unite a divided movement. We believe the support needed to elect Ron Paul President is here.

    The signatures below from this petition, as well as from others that may be drafted among the various parties and organizations, can help provide evidence that the grassroots support needed to
    get you elected as President does indeed exist.

    We also offer to you the independent website Paul2004.com in support of your candidacy for the White House. When you decide to accept our offer, we will gladly turn the website over to you
    and your official campaign staff.

    There are many of us standing at the ready to do what needs done to get the 3rd Parties heavily involved to get Ron Paul elected President in 2004. We also anticipate that many from the
    Republican Party, as well as many who do not affiliate with any party, will gladly support your candidacy.

    In locations where we are not able to get you on the official ballot, we will promote a write-in campaign.

    We await your affirmative reply, but meanwhile we will gladly work to show you the level of support you have.

    As we said before...America needs you -- as President.

    Let's surprise them.

    Unless you say no, or unless a more qualified candidate steps forward (It is hard for us to imaging that this could be the case), we will be voting for you in both the primary election and general
    election in 2004, whether you are on the ballot, or whether we submit your name as a write-in.

    Sincerely,

    The Undersigned

Done.

USPC40

-------------------------------------------------
[b][blue]NRA Life Member[/blue][/b] - [url]www.nra.org[/url]
[b][blue]GOA Life Member[/blue][/b] - [url]www.gunowners.org[/url]
[b][blue]SAF Supporter[/blue][/b] - [url]www.saf.org[/url]
[b][blue]SAS Supporter[/blue][/b] - [url]www.sas-aim.org[/url]

[img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]

I'm 223!

Neener, Neener, Neener! [:D]

raf,  agreed.  

That doesn't mean we shouldn't support him as hard as we can at this stage in the game.  The more support and the more press he gets, the more he will push electable candidates in our direction.  When it's election day, I'll agree: an electable ok candidate is better than an unelectable perfect candidate.  Before that, right up through primaries and into the general campaigns: Ron Paul all the way.

Done #252

ColtShorty

GOA KABA COA JPFO SAF NRA

"I won't be wronged,  I won't be insulted
and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do
these things to other people and I require
the same from them."

Yes, but you'll feel good about yourself.
And isn't that the most important thing?
You'd teach everyone a lesson by seeing to it that Daschle is elected, too.
As they outlaw firearms ownership, you can feel good that you voted your conscience, and not for any candidate that had a chance to actually do anything.

wooho, the diehard republicrats hit this one hard......your tired old lesser of two evils speech ain't working anymore. Not when have 9-year olds being searched at airports and SECRET "military" tribunals and, once again thanks to a republican, I have to fill out a yellow sheet to get MY OWN DAMNED RIFLE out of pawn this week. You boys ain't getting it and more and more people are coming to see that Gore light ain't the wave of the future.....

Before signing the petition, I would like to ammend the following:
"We also offer to you the independent website Paul2004.com"

with
"Whilst bowing before your presence and anointing your head with oil, we also offer to you the independent website Paul2004.com"

He's a good guy but I don't like writing fluff.

Done, #263. The choice is liberty(Paul), slavery slowly(Repubs), or slavery fast(Dems). You choose. For me, liberty or death!

Voting for unelectable third-party candidates is what got Bill Clinton elected.  Keep that in mind.

Alright, you guys caught me on a bad day so I'll vent on you.  Please remember that I don't mean any of this personally....but

...you f'ing idiots are the reason we had to endure 8 years of Bill Clinton.  You piece of shit "purists" opted to weaken President Bush by either supporting the likes of Pat Buchannan or any of the other numerous unelectable dipshits rather than vote for someone who will at least give our cause an audience.  The end result was that the conservative vote was split and Bill Clinton was elected along with his anti-2nd Amendment agenda.  

Angry at the Brady Bill?  YOU CAUSED IT!

Angry at the 2nd Amendment challenges by the courts looking to restrict individual rights?
YOU CAUSED IT!

Against abortion? YOUR HANDS ARE AS BLOODY AS SLICK WILLIE'S!

It is unbelieveable that looking back on how close the 2000 election was (which hinged on a couple of hundered votes) that you are willing to f'ck over the party that gave you John Ashcroft, the single most important advocate for us in recent history.

You people make me sick.  You don't deserve liberty, you deserve the cold hand of individual enslavement that only the Democratic Party can provide.

(Remember, I meant none of this personally)

MierinMD

Sounds like we agree.  [:)]

Sure.  We'll stay pure.  "Our guy or nothing."    Then we'll get Demoncrats and you won't [i]have[/i] a rifle to get out of the pawn shop.  Don't think for an instant that the Republicans "gave" you the shit you've got now.  They were able to hold it [b]down[/b] to that level.  If the dem's ran the country, you can bet they would have 100 time the controls in place.  Make that prohibitions.

Go ahead, vote for a candidate that you know has no chance of being elected.

But when Daschle gets in office, don't complain.

This is a simple reality.

Pick your future and vote for it.
The choices are in front of you.
Voting for a Libertarian Utopia is childish.

to reply--Brady bill....
It is called the Brady Bill, and Reagan said Congress should enact it without delay. ``It's just plain common sense that there
be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to
conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun,'' the former president said.
Abortion--
Roe vs. Wade---1973
Under a Republican President that was less than
perfect---Richard Milhouse Nixon

John Ashcroft---the same person who has lied on the Sept 11 events and who wants Secret tribunals......

I say give me a democrat that is busy with his member and can't seem to get anything big passed.......health care....WTO....Tokyo Agreement

Very childish.
It's a tantrum.
"If Superman can't be president, I don't care who is!"

Of course, Carter would have been much better.
[i]" 'I've got several guns, but I don't see any reason why armor-piercing bullets and concealed weapons should be sold legally in this country. They are only used to kill human beings,' " - Former President Jimmy Carter[/b]

Um....Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court Decision, not an Executive Decision.

Not quite sure what you mean about "[lying] on the Sept 11 events." But it is the very same Ashcroft who's sweeps uncovered a Al-Queda sleeper cell who was organizing a terrorist act on Washington DC.  It is the very same Ashcroft who said "let me state UNEQUIVOCALLY (emphasis added) that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of INDIVIDUALS (emphasis) to keep and bear firearms."


But is able to get major gun legislation passed?  And I guess the felony perjury doesn't bother you either.  Or any of the other criminal acts the Clinton Administration engaged in.

Please, continue to stick your head in the sand.  Real defenders of the Second Amendment don't need you. I hope that when you sleep at night your head rests lightly on your pillow, safe in the knowledge that your decision will "only" affect future generations.

As rightly stated above by Major-Murphy, "When Daschle gets elected, don't complain"  Because we don't want to hear it.

oh boy did you make my point for me....
reagan vs carter---and the difference on gun-control is what?
Roe VS Wade----republican judges hint hint...
Sept 11 and Ashcroft----not an exact quote..
"the president made a decision about whether or not to intercept" nope It ain't his decision...
Does anybody remember Payne Stewart and Air force planes all over......? Same Ashcroft whose
buddies didn't see the writing on the walls when certain people didn't go to work on September 11
felony perjury is better than "No new taxes" and
then the largest tax increase in years....
MAybe we measure the lesser of two evils by different scales....And the real defenders of the second amendment remark....which version?
The amendment or the NRA version?

Maybe you should try writing in "George Washington", or maybe bugs bunny.

The real answer, is to work hard at the local level, to get Libertarian candidates out there.

Excellent logic...

...and since death is inevitable, why not just kill ourselves right now?

I say if you don't stand behind your principles, however unpopular, you are not living your life to the fullest.

Who would have thought that a bunch of civilians, merchants, and farmers could band together and defeat the British Empire in 1776? Most thought it was impossible, but aren't you glad they did?

I think some of you would prefer steak at your table and a Redcoat at your door rather than an empty stomach and your liberty.

roy d.

That sounds nice and all, Roy, except it's fantasy.

It is a fact, an absolute fact, that as things are now, a libertarian has no chance to get elected president.
None.
Zero.
Fact.
If, we talk Republicans into voting Lib, all it will do (now, as things are now) is get a Democrat elected.
Fact.

"But if we talked enough of them into voting libertarian it would work!"

Not going to happen.

[b]It is in no way courageous, voting for a libertarian, for president.
Quite the contrary.
It's as cowardly as sticking one's head in the sand.
It's ignoring reality.[/b]

Does this mean I don't want there to be a libertarian president?
No.

If you think that, you're not actually thinking.

Major..I absolutely agree. It sounds impossible so we should never try.

1902: " If man was meant to fly, he would have been born with wings"

1903: Wilbur and Orville Wright blew that "fact" out of the water.

1968: "Man will never set foot on the moon. It's foolish and men will needlessly die trying."

1969: Neil Armstrong...need I say more?

The only fact I know of is this: The only failure is not to have tried.

Whether or not you want a Libertarian president is not the issue...the FACT that you would accept anything less than a Libertarian is the issue.

Libertarians are still on the fringe, but as the old Chinese proverb reads: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step."

But that first step is at the bottom of the ladder.  You're not going to get an unknown elected president.  You have to start at the local and state level and gain some name recognition.  Then a libertarian might become electable.  Until then, a vote for a libertarian presidential candidate is a vote for the Democratic president.

But Roy, by voting Libertarian in a national election, YOU are accepting a democrat.
If you can think critically, yuo will realize that YOU are actually requesting and facilitating the election of a democrat, by voting Libertarian.

I guess you're just a dreamer, though.

You have to start local.
That's the way it can work.
It's childish to be so impatient.
The way to change the public attitude towards libertarian candidates is through familiarization.  By electing them to local office.
Or we can try you approach, making a wish, and hoping it comes true, because you want it so bad.
I'm surprised that so many of you lack the work ethic and patience to actually try to make this happen.
Instead I hear the endless:

"I want it now! I want it now!"

Yup!  Bush Senior really stuck up for our 2nd Amendment rights! RIGHT! [:P]

How soon we forget!  Read this to jog your memory!  [url]http://www.netside.com/~lcoble/2ndamend/oct1989.txt[/url]

DaMan

Sure start local...I never stated otherwise.

However, on the national level, I vote for the candidate that I feel is best for the job. NOT, the candidate who is more likely to win, or the candidate that is the lesser of two evils...it's called principle. Check it out sometime.

By voting for an impotent Republican to avoid a philandering Democrat, you are endorsing their agenda. They look at the numbers, raw numbers.

"X number of people voted for me, therefore they support what we are doing"

"On the other hand, X number of people voted Libertarian and almost cost the election...hmmm what are they saying? Maybe we need to bring some of their ideas into the fold so we don't lose their vote again"

Is this idealistic thinking? Sure it is, I'll admit it. But there is some validity to that scenario.

I am not impatient. I choose to vote with my conscience. Vote local AND national. You've got nothing to lose that they aren't trying to take away anyway.

I hate to use a sports analogy...BUUUUT:

I have been a Vikings fan for 33 years. I don't cheer for the Steelers because they have a better chance to beat Green Bay. I'll stick with my Vikings (33 years= NO FREAKING SUPER BOWL VICTORY!!! How's that for your g**damn patience?) [;)]

Funny. Steal that one all by yourself? I'll bet that 12 year old put up a hell of a fight before he gave up that little gem.

roy d

Keep dreaming.
We'll wake you up when it's over.

Voting for Republicrats is a lot like sleeping with a whore. She may say thanks and tell you how wonderful you are, but all she really wants is your money.

I'll avoid the whores and keep my money and my dignity.

And your vote for (Buchannan...?) helped us how?

Maybe.  Maybe if you vote for a Republican, you might get the clap.

If you vote for a Libertarian, and end up electing a Democrat.....

...you'll end up with AIDS.  And you didn't even get laid.

And your vote for (Bush...?) helped us how?
Can you peeps not understand that voting for vanilla or for vanilla ain't any different?
A vote for chocalate may help, but one more vote for vanilla won't...........

If you can't see the difference between Democrats and Republicans, then your ability to think critically is sorely lacking.

Your reasoning behind supporting a Libertarian candidate must, therefore, be faulty too.

What the F?

That is about as lucid a reply as I get from my five year old!

It is not dreaming. I realize that a Libertarian President (or even a significant number of senators or reps) in my lifetime is improbable. I will not, however, buy into the notion that Republicans and Democrats are the ONLY parties worthy of my vote.

I'll tell you what. Keep dreaming that the Republicans are going to maintain your freedom and liberty. Keep dreaming that they will fight the good fight for you. Keep dreaming that they are even savvy enough to take on the Dems.

I'll wake YOU when it's over.

Truth is, you blame the Libertarian Purists for Dems winning elections. This argument is very similar to blaming guns for the death of children. (We all hopefully know it's the people) Democrats beat Republicans in elections because of the dumb masses. The Dems are better at getting their message out, slandering and vilifying Reps, and suckering people in by promising the moon and then blaming Reps when they can't deliver. Dems are much more savvy than the Reps.

So you go bury YOUR heads in the sand. Keep counting on the Republicans to do the right thing. And then become their apologists when they let you down again (and again and again).

Buchannon?  No, I was smart!  I voted for Bush!  After all, he really made my "pre-bans" go up in value!  Come to think of it, he's the one we should thank for the terms "pre/post-ban" coming into our vocabulary!  [:P]

DaMan

Clearly you don't understand the concept of "Cause and Effect".  Did you actually think that by voting for your third party candidate that he'd actually win?  Your "conscience" vote aided and abetted the attempted rape of the 2nd Amendment by the Clinton Administration.  Or are you saying that we're actually better off than we were 8 years ago in terms of liberty?

Nobody is perfect.  Bush Sr. made bad choices, so did Reagan.  I accept that.  What I won't accept is the deliberate, methodical, intentional destruction of our freedoms by electing someone of Clinton's ilk.

The choice is simple.

1) Vote the unachieveable and willfully assist in the election of someone who couldn't give a shit about you

or

2) Vote for someone who shares a "majority" of your beliefs and at least have the opportunity of having your voice heard.

Um, no.  That was the 1994 Assault Weapons ban that did that. Signed into law September 13, 1994 by William Jefferson Clinton.

There is a difference...just not enough of one.



To a photographer, white is the presence of all colors, while black is the absence of all color.
To a painter, white is the absence of color and black is the presence of all color.

There is your difference. The problem is I am not a photographer or a painter...I am an American. The only colors I car about are the Red, White and Blue of my flag, and the green of my money.

So you admit that it's an exercise in futility.



Roy, if as you say, there won't be a libertarian in office, DURING YOUR LIFETIME.  Who then do you think will better safe guard your freedoms.  You have two choices, by your own admission. Unless pretending counts as a choice.

Voting Libertarian will NEVER result in the election of a Libertarian president.

If you honestly think that Hilary Clinton's vision of America is identical to J. D. Hayworth's, then you need to think harder.  

To use your sports analogy, I'm a diehard Giants fan.  I always have been, too.
I root for them every game, and I always will.
The difference between you and me, is that I won't bet everything on a dream that they'll win the Superbowl.  Because I know enough about football, to realize that they can't win (regardless of my dreams).

[b]directed to the more sane and logical thinking on the board[/b]

Don't waste your time banging heads over this.  Think of it this way:  this site is probably a bastion of libertarian thought.  If WE here don't even want to split up the vote for a glimmer of libertarian hope, then this yokel has about .0001% chance of even hitting his 5% funding mark.  

Much less convincing faithful repubs to flip.

I'm still trying to figure out why Imbroglio thinks Rue Paul would make such a great president.  Can anyone help me here?

Heh heh.  I was waiting for that one.

Maybe he'd make a better candidate for the Lib's than what they've been putting up.