User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:34:21 AM EDT
[#1]
Cool, now if Badnarik would just endorse Bush and ask his supporters to support him... but no, in a close race be a spoiler... fucking brilliant!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:43:33 AM EDT
[#2]
Which is really kinda nutty. I've met Michael a couple times here in Austin at the LP meetings. He wasn't talking that kind of shit back then. I stopped going to the meetings when more and more anti-war fruit cakes kept shouting everyone else down. It wasn't just about "non-initiation of force" for them... they took it all the way to "no force... ever". Idiots. Sometimes using force can STOP more force from being used against the innocent. A million dead Iraqi's at the hands of Saddam's Ba'ath party. Who knows how many dead from his support of Al ansar al Islam and Salmon Pak. The way Boortz put it was your neighbors house being on fire. You don't wait until your own rafters start smoldering. If you, or your property, is in danger, you take steps to protect it first. If it later turns out you were wrong in your actions, then you make amends. First and foremost.... CYA. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:49:21 AM EDT
[#3]
LOL, that would be the sane, reasonable thing to do. What are the chances of a libertarian doing that? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:50:35 AM EDT
[#4]
I guess that's how Libertarians define "relevance" and "legitimacy" - spoil elections thereby putting liberals like John Kerry in office who disagree with 95% of what their party platform says. %&$^ing brilliant. Idiots. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:55:06 AM EDT
[#5]
Yep... that'll win converts. Nice going ace.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:57:49 AM EDT
[#6]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 7:59:35 AM EDT
[#7]
So why bother trying? Just step up and insult them. That always draws people to your side of an arguement right? BTW... I'm a libertarian who is voting for Bush this year for the reasons I stated above.
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 8:00:59 AM EDT
[#8]
I'm more libertarian than conservative, and I'm supporting Bush. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 8:07:59 AM EDT
[#9]
We have been trying to convert them, if they can not see that (1) they will not win and (2) Bush or Kerry will and (3) Bush is more in keeping with their values than Kerry... even if Bush is not ideal... well they are beyond hope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 8:10:18 AM EDT
[#10]
I'm registered Libertarian, and I already voted for Bush. And I'm in CA, where it probably won't make a difference anyway. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 8:27:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Many libertarians, for some reason, enjoy categorical decisions. All or nothing. I guess there's some thrill in that, or it's just easy. I try telling them to examine how the Left has succeeded so much in recent decades, and why they were forced to adopt incrementalism. There's a massive political inertia in a country the size of the USA, and it cannot be told to stop on a dime and change course. The Left worked under that assumption for years, and have had great success with it. It's great to believe in something. But to categorically demand all those beliefs become policy, regardless of almost assured rejection is, in my view, a betrayal of those principles to pride. If it is a moral good to advance all of them, it is still good to advance some of them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 8:32:03 AM EDT
[#12]
I think I'm gonna start contributing financially to Dr. No's RLC. See if we can't get the Republican party back to it's small government/free market roots.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 8:43:18 AM EDT
[#13]
It amuses me that so many so-called Libertarians actually lean either left or right and end up supporting Bush or Kerry. What hypocrites. Either remain firm in your convictions, or just shut up about them. Bush is not favorable to Kerry. Kerry is not favorable to Bush. They are a dead-even, no-win situation for this country. It's like deciding to still go out for the evening when the only sitter available is convicted child molester. Oh "they're not ideal, but they're better than nothing..." Listen to yourselves. HOPE is a rationalization. Hope is for eternal optimists. Me? I've just plain HAD IT WITH THEM ALL. I'm keeping my guns no matter who wins. And--AND--I am going to figure out a way to pay fewer taxes, fees and fealties and live more like a free man and less like a slave--REGARDLESS OF WHO WINS. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 8:45:01 AM EDT
[#14]
And everything you post here continues to amuse me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 8:55:30 AM EDT
[#15]
 please... stop... outbursts of raucus laughter is so not appropriate to a reserved work environment.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 9:10:56 AM EDT
[#16]
I am voting for Badnarik.
Now if Bush would just endorse Badnarik and ask Republicans to support him I might start to see a ray of freedom, but no, the two parties want to keep me controlled... fucking brilliant! Neither of the two parties represents me, and they want to keep it that way. They always want me to choose between the lesser of 2 evils to maintain power over me. Its a trap! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 9:16:54 AM EDT
[#17]
Ahhhh so rather than work within the system to change it to something more palatable to you... throw your vote to a losing cause every time and make sure you relegate yourself to political obscurity... here is a clue, people like you will never see the change you want from whining like a little girl about how both the democrats and republicans are the same... boo fucking hoo... Why not come on board and bring some of those libertarian values into our fold and work toward them being adopted by a party that can win, can hold office and can effect a change? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 9:19:17 AM EDT
[#18]
Fixed it for you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 9:21:33 AM EDT
[#19]
Rik you keep doing shit like this nd I'm gonna have to start liking you!
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 9:22:07 AM EDT
[#20]
Yeah, the point is the LIBERTARIAN PARTY has been HIJACKED by LIBERAL HIPPIE ANARCHISTS!!! I used to consider myself a Libertarian, but once they started going for legalization of drugs, I saw the writing on the wall... The hippies, fed up with being ignored by the Dems, were taking over... The LP became the party of 'Peace, Pot & No Laws'... Pathetic... It's much better over here with the GOP in neo-con land...  At least we have a viable foreign policy, ACTUALLY strictly read the Constitution instead of interpreting extra 'rights' & 'freedoms' that are not there, and realize that some people cannot be trusted with absolute freedom (What's that quote about 'Average' people, and 50% being stupider than them?)... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 9:45:33 AM EDT
[#21]
This is the October Surprise!
This is a far better written endorsement of the Bush administration than any of the RNC attempts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 9:45:44 AM EDT
[#22]
Er... I'm all for decriminalization. There is no Constitutional authority for the FedGov to wage a "War on Drugs". Asset Forfeiture laws are a travesty and encourage corruption. Leave such things to the States were it belongs.
Bush is a Constitutionalist like Kerry is a Gun owner. Still, he is much better than the alternative. He is fighting our avowed enemies on thier land instead of ours. He also let the AWB sunset. Ergo... he gets my vote this time around.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 10:27:28 AM EDT
[#23]
You are forgetting that I am in Commiefornia, and I have nothing to lose.
What are the Republicans doing to unseat my Socialist oppressors from this state? Nothing. They sent a Hollywood liberal in to steal even more of my freedom. They could have put everything they had behind Mcclintock. Do the Republicans have an exit strategy for the war on drugs? When will they declare victory and stop the assault on my freedoms? The Democrats spend like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store, but the Republicans are almost as bad. If I call up GWB and tell him to stop, will he? When will the Republicans repeal the GCA 1968? Or for that matter any law whatsoever? The Dems and Repubs have been running things for years, and our kids come out of school dumb as fuck. No child left behind means that the smart kids are chained to a bunch of idiots. Please spare me the "get on board and work within the system" speech. I would just be arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It is time for real change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 10:31:55 AM EDT
[#24]
So helping elect Kerry will get that "real change"? How do you feel about the Libertarian Party's stance on: Open Borders Abolition of the UCMJ (soldiers can quit at ANYTIME, with no consequences) NO defense in depth (Bringing ALL troops home from overseas) The LP position on these issues makes the Libertarian Party WORSE than John Kerry. Hell, it makes the Libertarian Party WORSE than the Communist Party. At least the Commies have no desire to commit suicide. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 10:41:38 AM EDT
[#25]
Worse? How so? How about their pro-2A stance? Private property? Real Constitutional Law? Taxes? Free markets? Worse than the commies or the libs my ass.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 10:45:48 AM EDT
[#26]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 10:49:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Yes, worse THAN THE COMMUNISTS. Because the Libertarian policies on the Border and the Military would guarantee that we would die. Elimination of Customs and Border patrol? No checking of Passports, AT ALL. A military where you can quit at any time. Even in combat, with no consequences. Pulling us back from ALL places overseas. Allowing nations that support and supply terrorists to build Nuclear weapons. YES. The Libertarians in power would be more of a threat to our Nation, than Communists. Because we would die. At least if the Communists were in power, we'd be alive to fight and kill them. Their stance on guns and markets are irrelevant. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 10:50:21 AM EDT
[#28]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 10:55:54 AM EDT
[#29]
Dave_A, you are quite simply wrong on the "War on Drugs" issue. There is NO, repeat NO constitutional justification for the federal government criminalizing recreational drug use. The police powers (regulation of health, safety, and morals) were explicitly left by the Founders to the states. The General Welfare clause cannot be stretched to create a grant of power to the the feds when that power was left to the states. While the Commerce Clause has broad reach, it has been badly abused starting with the New Deal. It has grown to mean the federal government can regulate anything once they decide it has even the smallest incidental effect on commerce. This was never the intent of the Founders, and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Always remember that every single Federal gun control law has used the Commerce Clause for its constitutional justification. Don't fall into the common trap of finding powers in the constitution that just happen to coincide with what you WISH were there. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 10:56:55 AM EDT
[#30]
For a supporter of a party based on strict Constitutional interpretation, you don't seem to be showing much awareness of how the Constitution works. Laws are passed by the House and the Senate and then signed by the President. From 1960 to today, the Republicans have never been in control of all three Houses except for the last two years - and because the "control" of the Senate was a one vote margin, it was effectively meaningless in repealing any type of controversial legislation. Despite that, the Republicans repealed large sections of the 1968 GCA in 1986. They also managed to pass a law repealing some of the administrative decisions made by the Clinton Administration just this year (Tiahrt Amendment). Personally, I can think of good reasons to vote for libertarian policies, especially in a "safe" state like California; but blaming the Republicans for being unable to achieve the impossible is not one of them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:00:40 AM EDT
[#31]
Do you always make this much of a mess of a thread? This does not account for their needing an Amendment to criminalize Alcohol during prohibition. Inventing powers under unrelated clauses is judicial activism. Same thing that gave us gun control at the national level. Thanks for playing though...
The laws the creat the problem are all FEDERAL.
Only because the Constitution is ignored. Re-enforce that, like the LP wants to do, and you wouldn't have California thinking it can abrogate your Right to self defense. Unlike now, where both of the major party candidates are on record supporting different levels of gun control.
You mean passing McCain-Feingold was a Constitutional position to take? Even with its blatant limits on free speech? Even though he himself is on record as having "Constitutional questions" on it? Has he forgotten that he has an as yet un-used power called VETO? How about the medicare drug give away program? Where in the Constitution does it say the FedGov can take over whole sections of our private medical industry? Or are you in favor of "free healthcare" as well? Maybe you should actually READ the Constitution before you expound any more on what it says.
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:02:28 AM EDT
[#32]
Libertarian Platform:
Borders Military Foreign Nukes. Those three issues make anyone who supports the Libertarian Party one of two things: 1) Ignorant 2) Traitorous Those policies alone would cause untold damage to our nation. Those policies combined would ENSURE our deaths. The is NO denying this fact. The is no debating it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:11:05 AM EDT
[#33]
You mean, a civilian population of 80 million armed can be taken over easily? Especially if none of the current un-Constitutional gun laws were on the books? That the "Supreme Law of the Land" was actually that and places like California could go suck a cock with their gun laws? Idiot.
I don't agree with their stance on the borders. Thanks for asking shithead. As for the military, there is a contractual obligation involved. The LP is wrong on that one. All contracts need to be honored. Else you are committing fraud. That is a "sin" in objectivist circles from wnece LP positions are supposed to come from. As for pulling us back from over seas, are we the World Police now? Where is that in the Constitution?
Yes... we did real good with North Korea didn't we? And Russia? Where in the Constitution is that our job? The Islamic threat is different as they have already attacked us. A state of war exists.
Hyberbole. Without the IRS, we'd all be richer, be able to afford whatever guns and ammo were on the market, and we could BUY some of the third world countries for our playgrounds.
Entirely relavent. Without the right to dispose of your goods and money as you see fit, you have no property. Everything you "own" is the property of the State to them. Without economic freedom, there is really very little OTHER freedom you have. Without guns, you cannot DEFEND said freedoms. You really may want to get your head out of your ass on this one. I just don't have the time today to cure you of what is obviously a bad case of public education. *sorry for all the editing. But piss poor formating on the part of others is screwing with the code. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:15:39 AM EDT
[#34]
Okay, first I had to fix that mess. Learn the Board Code, for God's sake.
"Taken Over"?? Be honest, you own a copy of Red Dawn, and watch it ALL the time. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but our enemies don't want to take us over, they want to kill us. HOW would all of those guns prevent someone from unloading ten or twenty Nukes, loading them into trucks, driving them to every city in the Country, and detonating them. At what point are you and Patrick Swayze going to ambush them and paint "wolverines!" on their truck? Name how such a thing would be stopped, were the Libertarians to impliment their Platform! Don't bother. It wouldn't be stopped.
You think that saying you don't support "part" of their platform, exonerates you from the stupidity of the rest of it? Not if you vote Libertarian, dummy.
Again, who cares if YOU think they're wrong. If you support them, you support that. Period.
Objectivism? Oh, please. Stop it.
Sorry, read your own damned platform. That wouldn't cut it. The LP party believes that Nuclear deterance is the defense against nukes. Someone should tell them about that whole "cold war ending" thing. Their Platform could not be more clear. They believe that other countries have just as much right to have nukes.
If the Libertarian Platform were to be implimented, how would we be able to prevent terrorists from driving a dozen trucks with nukes, into the US and detonating them? How? You couldn't. You wouldn't know about the plot, because we wouldn't be "over there" to find out. No Border Security. No ID checks. How would they be stopped? ...and no one denies that there are those who would do this, if we dropped our guard.
Your knowledge of history and your own Party's Platform IS lacking. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:16:03 AM EDT
[#35]
Well, since Badnarik has NO chance of winning, you are gonna GET either Bush or Kerry. So a vote for anyone other than Bush is a vote for Kerry. You voting for anyone other than Bush is you being a representative for John kerry. Don't blame me - that's REAL life. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:17:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Anyone ever notice how cincin ignores everything to bring up the same tired stuff....
One more time borders, If your buddies in both parties would quit paying for rampant illegal immigration and even offering illegals citizenship, then we would have the financial situations we have now. As for the security standpoint, the party in power at any time ain't doing real well on that one either. Military--did you take an oath, I did to. So shut your pie hole and leave what some long haired hippie got put in the platform to lalaland where it belongs. Do you agree with Bush salivating whenever Vincente Fox rings the dinner bell? Many things are stupid, this is one of them. Foreign nukes...here we go again Do you get your talking points from the neo-con headquarters? Nukes are ok as long as your friends have them right? Bullshit on that whole argument. everyone should have one...after we make a few sas of glass them some people will learn not to fuck with the US. Here's one for you, why are here railing against a tiny political party that will at most see 3% of the vote? Why don't you spend your time changing your party to get the right one back? I guess you can't do that can you sparky? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:18:41 AM EDT
[#37]
Am I the only one who actually read the endorsement? It reads like a Bush campaign speech, the man is not a libertarian, doesn't hold libertarian ideals, if it's real at all which I'm beginning to doubt.
You'll never understand the positions unless you accept the truth of our current monetary and economic policies, that's the core issue that leads to the others. That's what makes the left correct when they call the right fascists, just as the right is correct when they call the left socialists. Bush would have to embrace free market interest rates to win me over, and that aint happening. There will be a third party president someday, one election too late. I consider conservatives my political allies, but unfortunately the neocons are misguided and misled by a conservative cathechism that fails to address the fundamental issues and places no effective limits on the state. I agree there are some hippy anarchist types who support the LP, that's unavoidable when you're the only party that's even talking about the issues, and one or the other of those issues grabs people. The subject of hope has been mentioned, and that's what it comes down to really, eventually you realize the welfare/warfare state, funded as it is by debt piled upon debt, not only the federal debt but the private sector debt pushed into the economy by the state itself (they call it liquidity) is going to fail, and if measures aren't taken to mitigate the collapse the republic will not survive. The policies of the mainstream parties are going to put either another FDR or another Hitler into power in my lifetime, unless we change direction. I beleive it's essential to do what I can to ensure there will be an alternative. I'm very glad I don't live in a swing state, then I'd agonize over the lesser of two evils. You folks who are terrified of Kerry winning shouldn't be, whoever is in power for the remainder of this decade will be thoroughly discredited by events already in motion. Bush may be the Hoover of our generation,giving power to the left for a generation. Kerry would be another Carter, and another Reagan landslide could follow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:20:38 AM EDT
[#38]
Actually dumbass, the 14th says no such thing. It was the GCA of '68 that criminalized possesion of firearms by felons. If they are that dangerous, why bother letting them out? Once you have served your time, you should get your Rights back. Otherwise, we should just kill you. I have no problem with the death penalty. Especially if delivered at the hand of the intended victim. So you are OK with Bush being on record as wanting a new AWB? As per his statements in the debates? If so... fuck you pal. Molon Labe...
Asset forfeiture is not eminent domain. What grade are you in? You cannot be out of high school yet. ED was also only supposed to be used for emergencies. Not to increase tax revenue by seizing Bob's Farm and selling the land to a developer.
Considering how badly I decimated your arguments above, that really makes this statement a laughable joke.
Boy are you way off base. Communistic bull shit? How is capitalism communist you freak? LOL... good fucking God. And no... free markets are free from border restraints as well. If medical company "X" wanted to buy its pharmaceuticals from Pakistan, it bloody well could. It'd also be held criminally responsible for any damages caused by bad product being used in their facilities. Not just the current product liability standard. No idea where the hell you got all these screwed up ideas from. But this has gone beyond pathetic.
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:29:49 AM EDT
[#39]
Actually, Badnarik is wrong on several issues. Borders and the War on Terror being the most prominent two. Which is why I plan on voting for Bush. Despite some of the asshat lockstep bots on this thread.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:49:41 AM EDT
[#40]
It'll still be better than Mexico, and the Libertarian Party believes that there should be NO checks, NO inspections, NO Border Security.
Sure, if the Soviets try to roll across in their T72s, we'll be ready....
It's beyond stupid. It's a formula for the utter detruction of our military. Why would anyone support a candidate that supports THAT? Does Badnarik support the entire Platform? You bet your ass he does.
Terrorists smuggling nukes into the US would be able to do so unfettered, if the Libertarian policies were to be implimented. So what then? Let them vaporized 10 cities, then teach them a lesson? I'd prefer not to wait.
I vote for the Republican candidates whom I think are best. BUT, if I can educate these ignorant fools who see NOTHING about the Libertarians besides their Gun Policies... ...at least I can prevent a John Kerry from doing the damage and appoint the Justices, who will set us back SO far, that if and when the perfect Party comes along.... It won't be too late. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:56:06 AM EDT
[#41]
Twas you the fucker that fucked it first. Trying to decipher where you put font color tags in from teh rest of your rant was a chore.
Good question. Don't know. If you'd bother to read my above posts, you'd see I don't support the LP's position on this issue. Too much to ask of someone with the bit in their teeth like you have, I know. But do try to keep up.
Good one shit for brains. How many times do I need to state that I'm voting for Bush? Would one more help get it through that thickened skull of yours? Neither is that an endorsement of all of the GOP's socialized ideology.
Much better than whatever form of mutant socialized BS you appear to advocate.
So... you are saying we SHOULD be the world police. Nice to see you are Kofi Annans side of that one. I take it you'll be voting Kerry then?
How about you read some history? How did we deal with the Barbary Pirates? Worked then. It'd work twice as good now. Especially with all that oil money laying around over there in terrorist hands.
So we should be the finaly arbiter of who gets to play in the nuclear playground? And when will that be added to the Constitution?
Ever hear of Letters of Marque and Reprisal? Worked great against teh Barbary Coast. Same situation as now, accept now we have much better technology than we did then even though they aren't much more advanced. I also note the Bush has done NOTHING to secure our boarders either. Other than continue to stroke Fox off at every opportunity.
So... how is keeping the law abiding civilian populace from their rightful carrying of arms working in helping to protect the homeland? Ah... Bush is AGAINST that kind of thing, isn't he? So much for doing everything we can to "keep our garud up". We had citizen watches in WWII. Why not now?
Your reading comprehension skills aside, your knowledge of anything is severly lacking. Including historical precedent. Call me "junior" to my face sometime. Please.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 11:59:42 AM EDT
[#42]
Since this is going to be locked......no asshat if you quit paying people to come here they won't come. Is that hard to understand. No worky, no eat. No welfare, no child care, no drop a baby and get paid for the rest of your life. Are you listening?
You want border security? how about referencing your history and recall why some countries didn't invade the CONUS---a gun behind every blade of grass---but your lords and masters don't want people to have guns. OR the rights of property owners to keep people off their property. nukes nukes nukes, I am so scared of nukes...how about 19 people with "boxcutters" sparky. Did you forget this? 4 planes full of people disarmed by the goverenment fell prey to animals with knives. Scare tactics are well and good until someone stabs you in the back. Get real get with the program and realize you are living in a dream world. Just give up and shut up. Most of the "libs" here are going to vote for Bush. So quit atacking us and go talk to your party. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 12:00:07 PM EDT
[#43]
iballthelibertarianbasherseventhoughthefounderofthepartyisendorsingbush
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 12:00:27 PM EDT
[#44]
I'm tired of all this socialist bull crap that is supported by both Kerry and Bush. They are as bad as each other. The Democratic Party is only a few steps farther to the left than the republican. I'm tired of my rights being shit on by both these parties. Its may body, it’s my life and it’s my fucking money. What I do with it is my business, not yours. If I have to live with some open borders and a few pussies running away from war, so be it. At least I'll wouldn’t be jailed or fined for doing what I want with my life and my money. Both Bush and Kerry are a step towards the very thing we have being opposing for decades, Communism.
I assume from most of the responses that most of you sheeple will be voting for Dick n Bush (how’s that for Christian morality), but come Nov. 2nd I'll be voting a freer nation. My vote goes to Badnarik |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 12:01:42 PM EDT
[#45]
With 159 posts, you ain't earned the right to dis anyone around here. That said.... Popcorn.....check Comfy chair....check Sody pop.....check. Go ahead and kick his @$$, Cincinatus.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 12:01:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Can I get an AMEN!!!! What does it take to get through to some of these guys?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 12:03:08 PM EDT
[#47]
If you actually beleive that, youa retoo mentaly instable to vote. I ain't happy with the Repubs, but to say they are only slightly better than the Dems is idiotic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 12:05:19 PM EDT
[#48]
N008 to the board doesn't mean shit. I've been on BBS's since the days of 1200 baud modems. I'll "dis" any asshat anywhere when they fuck with our freedoms and our Constitutional Republic. ESPECIALLY if we are supposed to be on the same side.
If this is his "A" game, he needs all the help he can get.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 12:08:17 PM EDT
[#49]
Medicare. More Socialist Security. More open boarders and workers permits. Massive expansion of the government. Yep... real friggin' conservative there. Kerry would be orders of magnitude worse. This only makes Bush "conservative" by comparison, not by ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2004 12:08:49 PM EDT
[#50]
Libertarian Platform: the military...
Libertarian Platform: Immigration...
Libertarian Platform: One World...
[Librtarian Platform: Military poawer...
And last but not least, hubris: [Librtarian Platform: Insanity...
These policies would spell disaster for our country. If you disagree, that's just because you are SO enamored of their GUN policies, that you won't look at the rest of it. Or you're an idiot. ANY candidate who supports the Libertarian Platform is just too STUPID to deserve election. Anyone who supports such a candidate.....well, you do the math. |
|||||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
