Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment More lies....shame on you Mr. Bush

"Gonna get tough on illegal immigration.....tighten up our borders" - W 2000 -2003


And now he wants to "legalize" crimaliens????


Just yet another reason he is not getting my vote.

Come on RAM. You know it's now an election year. He's trying to gain votes. These illegals have relatives that CAN vote. My views are on the riight politically, but I don't really trust or like any politician. -TomT

"Can" vote Tom, but usually don't.

And when they do, they vote democRAT

Mexico has won the Alamo. Again

If you ever find a candidate that you agree with and support 100% let me know. I never have. American politics is no longer a case of "vote for the best choice." These days you have to figure out who will do the least damage rather than having a choice between good and better.

RAM, Skid, your both so right. It pains me to make my living commuting to Manhattan every day and watch the city I grew up in become the human cesspool it has become. Just ask anyone that's taken pretty much any subway in the city in recent years. I can't get out of the city fast or often enough ino rural upstate NY, PA or Maine when I have the chance. Unfortunately for me it's where I make my living and I'm still raising 3 children with my wife. Overpriced, overcongested Long Island not where I plan to be in a dacade when I hope to retire. I just pray there are still nice places to retire to. I certainly won't miss passing Dunkin Donut's parking lots at 7A.M. full of ever increasing numbers of day laborers that snuck into this country illegally and go unchecked by either police or immigration. I feel better now that i've had my rant. -TomT

RAM;

I am with you on this one and over on campfire too. Bush has betrayed us on many issues. It is getting downright scary.

I think I'm going to have to agree with RAM too. At some point we have to stop supporting the Republican Party, as it degenerates into "Socialism Light." If we keep supporting it as it declines, we are telling them we approve of that direction. More of us need to jump off into the U.S. Tax Payer/Constitution Party if we are going to make a difference in the long term. Remember, the Republican Party was the Third Party (with "no chance of winning") in the 1850s. At some point, enough people made the jump, and all the sudden it had a chance of winning, and in fact won. Unfortunately its first president was a disaster for this nation, but that's another thread.

At least, maybe, if there were a Democrat in office (preferably a really hated one) there would be some effective opposition. Bush has been a terrible president. He has delivered almost none of his promised tax cuts (oh, I did get 300$ back a few years ago, dinner and drinks one night), he has drastically increased the deficit, passed a prescription drug plan that may cost more than one trillion dollars in the next ten years, and started a war in Iraq that has no end in sight. Now, he wants to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and get them on social security. What? Remember, this is the same social security system he said was broken in his campaign. Nothing has been done to fix it, now they propose to add millions of people to it. Are they trying to bankrupt the country? I defy anyone to explain how any of his domestic policies, minus the miniscule tax cut, are in any way remotely conservative. Had Bill Clinton done any of this stuff, most the posters on this board would have been calling for his head on a pike. However, it would be unwise to call for any such action against the current president because he has presided over the most sweeping abrogations of civil liberties in this country since the Civil War. Say something negative about the president, outside of the designated free speech zone, of course, and you can find yourself in serious trouble.

Wake up, it doesn't matter if GW is doing this stuff so that he can capture the center and get reelected, it is still being done. Almost as irrational as the continued support given by conservatives, is the absolute hatred of GW by liberals. GW is the most liberal president since Johnson and possibly FDR. Bill Clinton was the most constitutional president in the last fifty years because he accomplished almost nothing of any substance. Scandals rocked his presidency and a Republican controlled congress meant that he could get almost nothing done. That is what I want out of a President, nothing. Coincidentally, the economy seemed to flourish in those years and things were generally better than they are now.

Listen, it doesn't matter that GW seems like a nice Christian guy and tha Bill Clinton was so scumy. Look at the results. We are getting bent over by the nice, and oh so likable, George Bush. It may feel a little better than if Clinton had done it, but we're still going to be awfully sore in the morning.

The irrational love of GW and his administration is the most dangerous thing to happen to this country since the Civil War. Questions for all you George Bush lovers. Will you be so happy with the government and all the protection it offers when eight years from now the Hillary Clinton Justice Department is using all the powers gained during the Bush regime? Will you be happy as they use these powers and precedents to radically redefine who is a "terrorist" and a threat to America? Will you be happy as the massive deficites come home to roost and are used by the new Clinton administration as justification for the the most massive tax increase in history? Will you be happy as your sons and daughters are drafted into an Army and used as cannon fodder in Iraq or some other Middle Eastern cesspool?

The Illegal Immigrant move is scandalous, but cleverly calculated. It's not like Bush will lose his core constituency over it. He is probably trying to get swing voters on his side.
However, this move will prove disastrously costly in the long run.
I am a legal immigrant to this country and paid my dues, both financially and in time (lots of time spent on it).
I feel kinda dumb now. Shoulda just jumped the border, eh?

I agree with Joe. At least when a Dem is in office, conservative Americans put a hot poker under the seats of their Congressmen to put the breaks on his liberal/totalitarian agenda. Because George is a nominal Republican, we tend not to resist his liberal/totalitarian agenda. At least, we say, it's not as bad as what a Democrat would want to do (the truth of which is becoming more and more questionable every day).

Hawkeye...I seem to remember you promoting voting for the lesser evil, and then working to change that party from within?
Is that still your point of view?
I have to admit, I am pretty disappointed with some things Bush has done.

Campaign Finance Reform, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act (SOME of it), and now the Aliens.

Matt, I'm gonna have to call you on this one. It just doesn't sound like me to have advised voting for the lesser of two evils. I do recal that I favored voting in Republican primaries for the most conservative candidate, but I have voted third party on many occasions for president. I voted for Reagan twice. Didn't vote for G.H.W. Bush either time he ran. Didn't vote for Dole. Voted for G.W. Bush the first time, but will vote third party next time.

Hawkeye, don't get me wrong. I simply did not remember, it seemed like you stated something of that sort in the Liberal View valid? thread.

I apologize.

Matt, I called you. You have to fold or show your hand. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Actually, Matt, there was no thread called "Is the liberal view valid." The name of the thread was "Is the libertarian view valid." BIG difference in modern day American English.

Aw...come on, quit nitpickin'! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yes it was called "Losertarian", em "Libertarian", pardon me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well, I'm not very happy with the new policy on illegal aliens. It is really going to hurt where I live! California laready has huge budget problems and now we're going to let a whole bunch more illegals in. (And it does not matter to me whether they are Mexican, South American, Asian or European - they are illegal!) However, there is no politician that I agree with 100% on every issue. Bush still comes closest, and I will vote for him next time, probably - there's still time for him to lose my vote, though.

Don't really care about the deficit, prescription drugs, tax cuts, war in Iraq, illegal aliens, social security, et al. I do REALLY care about guns. I don't agree with everything the Bush administration has done but I don't agree with my wife about everything either. Most of us went somewhere else in '92 and look what that got us. The Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban, and an ATF that was absolutely out of control. What few here are bothering to mention is that anything that Bush says he wants has to get though the Congress. Most of the worst of the Patriot Act was put in there by the Dems as they had control of the Senate at the time of its passage. Remember the big [bleep] over whether union seniority or the security of the nation was more important? Remember where the TSA came from? And those were just the high profile arguements. The House doesn't do the country any favors either. The Republican majority there is so slim that most legislation that goes in is almost unrecognizable by the time it comes out because of all the compromises that had to be made to sustain a majority. It seems that a good many folks on this board are perfectly willing to dump it all on Bush and never say a word about their Representative or Senator. Y'all need to remember that Bush can't get a damn thing done without them. In the first two years of his administration Bill Clinton was well on the way to dealing a death blow to our gun rights until the Republicans gained control of the House and Senate after the '94 elections and stopped him. Many of you seem to get off "Bush Bashing" as much as the Bradys do because he isn't dancing 100% to the tune that you would like him to. If you think all I'm doing is defending him then you're not paying attention. What I'm saying is that its not that simple. The whole government is a mess, not just the president. Look at the courts. Do you want Howard Dean, Weasely Clark or the party of Charles Schumer to be in a position to appoint judges? Do you want the likes of them able to appoint an Attorney General who will interpret what gun laws mean and how they are to be enforced at the Federal level? Would you like them to appoint the next head of Homeland Security and control the ATF and how they write and enforce the implimenting regulations of current and future Federal gun laws? Will reelecting Bush and a Republican majority in the House and Senate be a panacea for all that's wrong with our country? Hell no!!! But there is an alternative and its about as ugly as your faces will be after you cut your noses off. "Dance with the one who brung you" works both ways. Bashing Bush et al feels good but then so does screwing someone with VD. Its only later that you realize the consequences of your actions. Wake up! Its just not that simple. Actions, or lack thereof, have consequences. Think about it. Really think about it!

If we are going to be betrayed by the President, does it really matter if he is a Republican or a Democrat?

I agree with most of what Skidrow says. I remember the morning of 9-11-01 and the first thing that I thought of was " I sure am glad that Gore is not president". I still have that opinion. I do not agree with some of the things that are happening, but I still think that we are better off with President Bush. I also think that he is a better choice than anyone running in the Democrat party. The only one that I might consider is Joe Libberman and I don't agree with a lot of his ideas. He is by far the most honest of the democrats running. It is most improbable that we will ever have a president that will be a true conserveative. There are too many people that want the socialistic country that we have. Any time that welfare pays more than minimum wage the people on it will vote for anyone that will keep it going. miles

Skidrow - I couldn't have said it better myself - I especially liked the VD analogy. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The problem with liberals is that they actually do see politics and politicians through the same rose colored glasses that they wear when spouting their socialist ideals. Any party that would put Gore on the ticket needs some work. The bottom line is there is no reason to fix things that aren't broken - especially not in the name of "progress" even more so if this "progress" is a reflection of something European in origin. More laws, more government, more B.S. is all that the Democratic party is about these days.

What is the answer??? If you vote for a popular 3rd party conservative you could just as well vote for the Dem. candidate and the opposite is true as well. This is why G.W. is pres. now -- Thank Nader. You can't tell me that you honestly believe that a Dem. pres. wouldn't be raping us of an even greater degree of our individual liberties than G.W. Personally I'd be in favor of shipping all current politicians to England, Little England(Canada), or Australia, and starting over with some honest, uncorrupted men. Then again this process would have to be repeated every 20 years or so just to maintain an acceptable level of honesty in gov't. Aside from my utopian plan above I don't have any answers but I know voting Dem. is not even close to an option for one who loves his guns.

republican myth

gun control myth

I am a new member & very interested in this thread regarding President Bush. I voted for him because I believed that a Gore administration would certainly have resumed the unprecedented assault on gun rights that the Clinton administration had been waging.



I must confess that I have grave reservations about George W. My concerns began with his embrace of Ted Kennedy on the education bill. Kennedy repayed him by promptly attacking him on some issue. I forget which one, but I felt at the time that it served Bush right. I have been looking at public education in America for thirty years. I am convinced, & can prove, that contrary to popular belief public schools are not a failure. They are working exactly as planned by men like John Dewey & Horace Mann.



They were designed to destroy the capitalist system & turn America into a Socialist nation. Increasing the level of illiteracy was a primary goal, & it has been achieved. We live in a degraded & dumbed down nation that is well on the way to being totally dominated by a political elite. Our so called elected represented view themselves as part of that elite.



My fear is that all of these politicians on the national level are perpetrating a monumental fraud on us. That means Republicans as well as Democrats.



Consider this. When the Democrats held the White House our gun rights were under constant attack. Republicans seemed unable to stop the process. I voted for George W because I thought he would at least slow things down. He has, but I frankly do not trust him. In addition to his alliance with Ted Kennedy on education he supported continuing the ban on so called assault weapons. Now he is spending like a drunken sailor & has offered amnesty to a few million illegal immigrants.



Why? I think that he, like his father, is a globalist. Does anyone remember the first President Bush referring to the New World Order when he was seeking authorization from Congress for the First Gulf War? Ross Perot challenged him to tell the American people what he meant when he used that term. He never did.



Recently though, while commenting on GATT & NAFTA he sneeringly pronounced that it was time for America to join the world community. He said there is no more "Fortress America." That statement came to mind as soon as I heard that George W. was granting amnesty for all these illegals.



In regard to immigration I ask you to consider how the face of America has changed over the last thirty years or so. I am talking not only about illegals, but all those who have been flooding this country from all over the globe. Politicians from both political parties have thrown open our borders. They did it without ever announcing their efforts to increase immigration. Not a peep out of any of them for thirty years.



In 1991 I attended a conference in Philadelphia on Asian immigrants. One of the presenters was Korean. He informed us that there were at that time 58 seperate groups of Asians in this country. That was news, but he then went on to inform us that in 1973 the maximum number of Koreans eligable to enter this country was 20,000 in a one yesr period. At the time of the conference, 1991, that number had increased to 200,000.



Understand, that represents Koreans only. One group out of fifty-eight. Never mind those from other countries all over the world. Please remember that this entire process has been going on for thirty years or more. Now, after 9/11, the immigration issue is finally getting some attention from the media.



Remember all the posturing from the blow hard politicians? Remember their vows to hold hearings to find out how something like this could have happened? I contacted a few of them & asked if they planned any hearings on their own role in opening our borders. I didn't get a single response.



That beings me back to George Bush. I fear him & I do not trust him. God help me, I'll vote for him again though, because these dwarfs in the Democratic primaries will certainly move forward forcefully on eliminating the Second Amendment.



I believe that If there is any hope of changing this we are going to have to let our so called friends in the Republican Party know that each & every one of us will be watching every move that they make, & that we will do every thing in our power to help put them out of office if they do not stand firm in the defence of gun rights. We have to mean it too. I say that with complete understanding that if these politicians who profess to represent our interests are removed from office they may be replaced by enemies. The way I feel now, so what. To tell the truth I think it is too late to change where we are going. I'm glad I am almost sixty-nine years old. Hopefully I will not live to see America become a part of the "Global Village" Hillary Clinton is working toward.

Good post legs. The problem with voting for Bush is that you need to ask yourself a question. When the Democrats finally do regain power, and they certainly will at some point, who will be responsible for increasing the power of the Federal government to such an extent that abrogation of 2nd Amendment rights (any any other inconvenient rights) will be but a simple matter? George Bush is who will have given them the ability. The so-called Patriot Act has provisions for rounding up American citizens and their guns if a national emergency demands it. They can be held indefinitely. Go to LewRockwell.com and read the article on there today called GIVE YOU LIBERTY OR GIVE YOU DEATH. It is an article about our tactics in Iraq. Specifically, it makes the point that the Coalition Authority has claimed that everything done in Iraq is being done under the color and in accordance with laws currently in effect in the United States. Read that carefully, that means given the right circumstances, defined by the government of course, troops could go door-to-door, round up so-called insurgents, confiscate weapons, and set up road blocks in Dallas or Cleveland instead of Bagdad or Tikrit. Scary stuff indeed.

I will never vote for George Bush again. I may not be able to bring myself to vote for any of the Dems. but never for GW. If and when someday we are under a full scale police state, we will look back to the Bush administration and the Patriot Act and say "that is where we went over the edge".

you think bush jr. is bad now, just think what will happen if he is re-elected, he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected again and there is no telling what he will do. the guy is a nut case in some ways, meglomanic he is. Lets not forget that Bush Sr. and Bob Dole were all part of the PRO gun control picture too.

I will never vote for Bush again. I'll vote third party. I voted for him once, as I did his father, but both of them fooled me once, and no more. How foolish of me it would be to give him a second vote. That would truly be throwing my vote away. I will use my vote to make it clear that phony Republicans cannot expect me to support them just because they are "Republicans" by name.

Pretty amazing. Its no wonder the gun control crowd keeps making progress. You all seem to be doing your damnedest to make sure a liberal anti-gunner is elected president. Would have thought you'd have had enough of that with Clinton but it looks like there's still a lot of slow learners out there. The man appoints an attorney general that says that the 2nd means what it says for the first time in generations and you all want to run him out of town on a rail. Yup, you'll really send them a message by making sure a liberal democrat gets elected. And after you've sent that message by voting for an unelectable 3rd party candidate and making sure that someone who is at worst neutral toward gun rights loses, I suppose you'll expect better treatment from your government because you made sure an enemy of gun rights now has the political power. Got to agree with Pogo.

By your reasoning a slow decline is preferred to making the point that Republicans don't have us in their pockets. If they feel they can count on our vote, because we have no choice, they will just continue to give our rights away, and you will end up in the same place. At least my way, there is a chance the Republicans will think twice before putting up a statist like George W. Bush. Believe me, they look at which third party got the votes that "should have" gone to their man. If they want to be in office, they will then make use of that knowledge and give us someone we can vote for in good conscience.

Yeah, in the Republican National Committe. A child can look at the voting success of the various presidential candidates since 1980 and conclude that when the Republican candidate is pereceived as a solid conservative, he wins big. Soon as he is perceived as a moderate, he loses to a Democrat. Reagan was portrayed as way too conservative for America by the press, and that message was drilled into us. What did we do? Voted him into office in two landslides. Americans like conservative Republican presidents, and we really wanted to get that message across by voting for the guy the press called too conservative. Next comes George Bush number one. It was drilled into us by the press that he was "no better" (read, no less conservative) than Reagan. He was just going to continue the "failed policies" of Reagan. What did we do? We voted him into office in a landslide. We liked Reagan. Then perceptions changed. People began to perceive Bush as not solidly conservative. He was not another Reagan after all. What happened? Lost, big time. Dole, perceived as an establishment moderate compromiser with the left. Lost big time. Then came GWB. The press told us he was way too conservative for America. America heard that, and (tending to want anyone the press thinks is too conservative) voted for him. He just barely won, but that was because many conservatives didn't like his "compassionate conservative" label, which seemed to imply that, normally, conservatism is devoid of compassion. That's not something conservative Americans think about themselves, so their support was half-hearted, but enough were willling to give him a chance to push him over the top. Well, we've given him that chance. NEXT!

Skidrow,



If you think GW cares about your rights, gun rights or others, you are sadly mistaken. Even if he does, he has put into place the apparatus by which they will all be dismantled.



Understand this, GW and the Republicans will not be in power forever. I can guarantee that the next president will be a liberal Democrat. It may be next year or it may be four years from now. When that happens, they will have unprecedented power, thanks to GW. It is thanks to GW and this Republican congress that they will have all the tools they need to disarm us or do anything else they choose.



Now, if the Democrats win this year the most likely winning ticket will be Kerry/Edwards. Both are venal politicians, but not overtly evil. Even the Democrats are fearful of gun control now, so it is unlikely that it will be a major issue. Perhaps the defeat will awaken the Republicans and they will understand that their socialism light policies contributed to their defeat. Perhaps they will mount some successful opposition and display some of the principles we expect.



If Bush wins reelection, here is what will happen. The war in Iraq will go on. We will eventually get out and things over there will go to hell in a handbasket rather quickly. We won't be any safer from terrorism and by 2008 people will be ready for a change. It happens even when things are going well. I suspect that by 2008 things won't be going all that well. The next Democrat president will be swept into office on a wave change that sees the Democrats win control over both houses of Congress by a large margin. The new president will be Hillary Clinton. President Clinton, remember, not the nice, but unprincipled guy, but his certifiably evil wife, will have unprecedented power to do whatever she pleases, thanks to GW and his Patriot acts.



I would rather take the plunge right now than wait for a Hillary administration.

Cossatotjoe,
I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognizes that a Bush win in 2004 pretty much gets us Hillary in 2008 with the added provisions of the PATRIOT Acts. My belief is that we would be better off to lose the Presidency to any of the Democrats, especially with the current situation in the Congress, and put the DNC in the position of having to choose between the incumbent and Hillary. Given her age a run in 2012 is highly unlikely.

I have also come to the conclusion that as long as the RNC wants to moderate the party I will no longer be a member. As much as I can't morally abide by some aspects of Libertarian thought I refuse to support the continued growth of government and it's impact on individual freedom. Government is getting "too big for it's britches" and needs to understand it's role is to secure rights, not grant or refuse them.

Bob

I doubt he cares about much of anything except getting reelected at this point. As far as him not being in power for ever, I understand politics very well, thank you very much. I may well understand them better than you. Democrats aren't fearful of gun control now, they just are realistic enough to realize it doesn't play well in the current political environment. Just let one candidate like John Fing Kerry, who has stated "I don't want to be the candidate of the NRA" get elected and see how fast things turn arround. Bush is far from my choice as a prefered candidate but I'll take the status quo vs what's coming down the pike if Kerry or someone of his ilk gets elected. The reason we've been backed so far into a corner as it is, is that for the most part our side ( if I may include myself in "our side") is way too idealistic and not nearly pragmatic enough. The liberals don't let idealism get in the way of practical politics. That's why they'll win in the end. We would rather eat our children than admit that everyone's feet are made of clay and sometimes you just have to make the best of a bad deal. Bye the bye, Iraq, etc. doesn't get it. Told you all earlier the only issue that concerns me is guns. If we can keep that everything else will take care of it's self. What y'all don't seem to understand is that if you want to play with the big boys, you've gotta win. Only winners matter. Losers don't influence anyone nor do they make policy. If you're not winning then you're P___ing in the wind.

A delaying action allows you to prepare for a counter attack. If you concede just because you don't like some of the players you've just taken yourself out of the game and may as well end it all with a shot to the head. How much more damage will be done by electing a anti gun president? Are you truly naive enough to believe that things won't get worse while waiting for the perfect Republican that satisfies you? After the first time Clinton won the Republicans didn't seem to have paid much attention to your message since the next time they ran the one Republican who was sure to loose because of being percieved as being "lets make a deal Bob". Futile gestures don't protect your rights. Winning elections does. If Bush loses the Republicans won't give a damn about your message. What they'll see is that even when they think they're giving you what you want they lose. They won't get closer to what you want, they'll get further away. Bottom line is you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. I'll just consider you a fool and will happily agree to allow you to feel the same way about me. I've got other people to work on who aren't as stuck on the importance of sending their own message as you are.

Skid, you're thinking short term, I'm thinking long term. You're only seeing the small picture, I'm seeing the bigger picture. That's the difference between us. We both want the same thing, but you are so focussed on holding on to a slow decline, for fear of the rapid one, that you cannot see beyond the nose on your face. Given enough repeated lessons (history makes it clear that candidates perceived conservative win national elections), the RNC might actually learn the lesson. If they don't, one or the other party will eventually become irrelevant, and a third party will emerge to take its place.

I am not satisfied with riding the slow boat to socialist totalitarianism because it's not as fast as the fast boat. I feel compelled to choose a third alternative, even if it means being a little creative and thinking longer term.

Skidrow,

It is not conceding. It is voting against a candidate who has come to embody almost nothing in which I believe. Bush has done nothing conservative and he has greatly increased the size of the Federal leviathan. Sorry, I don't buy that we are better off with him than Democrats. At least if there was a Democrat president, the Republicans in Congress would oppose him.

Talk about guns all you want, but as a deterrence to despotism they are fast becoming irrelevant. Hell, even in the darkest days of Saddam Hussein, the average Iraqui was the best armed private individual in the world. Guns mean nothing without the will or the willingness to use them. We don't have that. I like to shoot them and I don't want them taken away, but I have no illusions that my neighbor would rise up in rebellion if the Federal goons came one night and took me away. Afterall, we enjoy the most freedoms of any nation on earth, don't we?

GW is slowly turning up the fire and it will be too late to jump out of the pot before people like you even realize your being cooked. I don't consider GW reelection a "victory". You go ahead and be on the side of the "winners". All it will get you is taken for granted.

I don't thing so Hawk. Of maybe I just don't see the comming decline if a liberal democrat gets elected as being slow. Who would have thought when Clinton was first elected that within two years we'd have the Brady Bill, the Assualt Weapons Ban and the two thirds of the FFLs in the country would have been driven out of business. If that's slow I'd hate to see fast. I think we're both seeing the same picture but reacting to it differently. A famous man (not to mention a famous Packer) once said, "Winning isn't the main thing, its the only thing." If you're not winning you're dancing to someone else's tune. I'd rather dance to a tune I like, even if there are a few sour notes now and then. If we don't win the next few elections then the only way to get where you want to be will be to exercise our right to overthow an unconstitutional government by force of arms. Not sure I'll be up for that. I've seen the "elephant" so to speak and I'm not sure I want to go there again or if I'll be in any condition to. I'd rather take the easier but perhaps more arduous route and chip away at it using politics. You claim I'm using tactics and not stratagy. I think I'm using a stratagy that you won't admit has merit.

Another intellectual giant! Obviously you believe in the Phoenix rising from the ashes of the Republican party sometime in the late 22nd century and righting all the wrongs of past administrations. Bush getting reelected no more insures that Hillary will be elected in 2008 than the USSR putting the first man in space insured that they would be the first country to put a man on the moon. Every thing in your post seems to come from a loser's point of view. I'd have expected more of a Gunny, especially a Badger Gunny, than that. Since you appear to enjoy Heinlein, what do you thing about something else he espoused, that only veterans should have the right to vote? "To those who have fought for it, Freedom has a meaning the protected will never know." Conversely, the protected shouldn't have the responsibility of being the stewards of Freedom since they don't really appreciate it. Let's see what a sh__storm that raises.

The Republicans in congress will go to the highest bidder. Hell, the east coast Republicans aren't much different than Democrats these days anyway. There are maybe 3 Republicans in congress that have the courage of their convictions. If you're betting on congress to pull your ass out of the fire I hope you enjoy hot places. Maybe if you're lucky the Democrat you help get elected will P_ss on it and put it out. I hope you continue to feel so morally superior and pure when the liberal administration that you helped put in place comes down on your neck. You're probably better off staying aloof from the unwashed masses anyway. Some of our pragmatism might rub off on you. Maybe your guns mean nothing. Mine sure as hell mean something. Just don't really want it to come to that. But then, I guess I'm not as morally pure in my political views as you are.

Okay Skidrow,

What do you believe? At some point anyone with dignity has to stand up and say I will go no farther. You will not deceive me again. At what point will you say that? As to the Republicans and Democrats, I say, "a pox on both your houses". Will failing to vote for a Republican help bring in a liberal Democrat? Yes, maybe? Are 3rd parties hopeless? Yes, maybe. But I do know a third party will never get off the ground unless someone finally stands up and refuses to take the crap the other parties are spewing.

As to guns, well guns are great and I won't allow mine to be taken without a fight. However, if you cannot see that GW has put into place the mechanisms for removal of guns from our society, then God help you. For goodness sakes, the Patriot Act has provisions for U.S. troops going door to door in U.S. cities removing weapons from peoples' homes in response to unspecified "terrorist threats" and emergencies. If Bill Clinton had signed such a bill into law, you would be trumpeting it as a sign of the Democrat's impending plan to disarm us all and you would call Bill Clinton a traitor. GW or a Democrat, it makes no difference, none of them have done anything to merit my vote. I see no real differences between any of them. But, bottomline, GW has presided over the largest government powergrab and the largest increases in spending in the last half a century.

Bush lov'in bunkerheads................LOL <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> what will it take for people to see the light? a miracle. there is no hope, the republican party as it once was is dead. but somepeople can't really wake up, at this rate the republicans will be pro gay marriage and the like etc very soon, then what? heck were almost there now. LOL <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well, first of all I don't believe that Bush betrayed me because I never really expected too much out of him in the first place. He was the party's candidate, not mine. Unfortunately he won the primaries, not the man I would have prefered. As far as dignity goes, I can't eat it, I can't spend it, and I sure as hell won't stand on it if it gets in the way of what I percieve as my best interests. Are third parties viable? Maybe, but the way to build up a third party is from the bottom up, not from the top down. The Liberatarians finally realized this a while back and are running a lot of candidates for local and state offices now instead of just having a perennial losing candidate for president. As for staying above the fray, that's just fine if you don't have a stake in the outcome. Otherwise you've got to get dirty wrestling with the pigs 'cause that's sure as hell what politics is all about. If you want to stand on your honor and stay out of it that's fine but just by staying out of it you lose.

Where in the act did you read what you're refering to. I don't mean who told you about it, I mean where did you read it. I've read it briefly and don't recall seeing reference to such actions. I've heard of a lot of things the Patriot Act does that I couldn't find in the actual text of the bill. Could it be something you've heard taken out of context? Tell me where you saw it so I can look at it too. Something to remember though, as I've mentioned before, is that the Patriot Act was a compromise between Bush and the Democratic controlled senate. Bush didn't ask for everything in the act and didn't get everything he asked for. He was doing something else I've mentioned before; making the best of a bad deal. After that east coast republican senator turned coat and handed the senate to the Democrats they did their damnedest to give Bush a rough row to hoe and were very successful at getting their way until the Republicans regained control of the senate after 9/11. Yes, I would call Bill Clinton a traitor. Bush I would just call a man who isn't quite big enough to fill the office.

Let me ask you something. In all the hoopla that was going on in the Senate after 9/11 do you think that a liberal Democrat appointed Attorney General would have refused the Democrat call to hand over the results of the approved Brady transactions because it would violate the law? Records that shouldn't even have existed at all but did because of the way the last liberal Democrat appointed Attorney General chose to interpert the law. I certainly don't think so.

So here we are. You've got John Kerry, who looks like the Democrat front runner since Dean imploded, who stated in Iowa that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, and you've got the Bush administration who says it is an individual right and that it means what it says. Some choice huh? For the first time in generations we've got an administration who's official policy is that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, no matter how much they may waffle on the details, and you want to sell it down the river. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't see how you misunderstood me, but apparently you did. The slow boat to socialist tyranny is the Republican Party. If you say otherwise, has our national government been getting less intrusive or more intrusive under GWB? The fast boat that you fear so much is the Democratic party. I am for some other option. I don't want to be heading that direction at all, and will not settle even for the slow boat.

I didn't misunderstand you at all. I prefer to die of old age. You apparently prefer to die of a bullet to the brain.

I guess I don't see things as darkly as you do. My glass is half full while it appears that yours is half empty. I think that by winning, given enough wins and enough time, we can turn back the tide and regain some of what we've lost. You appear to have decided that the only question is a protracted illness or a quick one. You seem to have decided that the patient is terminal and seem to be looking for another means of immortality rather than trying to cure the patient. I understand you. I just don't agree with you. You seem to think that to waste your vote on an unelectable third party candidate to send a message to one party at the cost of giving the election to the other party is somehow a worthy and noble gesture. I don't.

As far as the government being more intrusive, do you have a bank account; a library card, a drivers license, a social security number, do you own a vehicle, property, have you purchased a firearm since November of 1998, are you registered to vote, do you hold a job, do you have insurance, or any number of other things I could list? Voting for a third party candidate won't make the fact that you can be tracked through any of those examples and many more besides go away. You can't fix what's wrong by saying "I don't like what your doing so I'm not going to play anymore." All the little 60s student radicals learned that the way to really change things is to hold the positions of power in whatever institution you want to change. They learned it so well that they have infiltrated every institution in the country and are well on the way toward achiving their agenda. You're not going to beat them by conceding them the field. We're back to where we were on another thread. Only power matters. If you don't have your hands on the levers of power you can't make changes. If you win often enough eventually you get your hands on the levers of power and can make the changes you want made. You don't get that opportunity by opting out.



If you stand on your pride, dignity, and noble purpose and make your noble and worthy gesture and send you message of disapproval you'll be heading straight in the direction you say you don't want to be heading in at all. But that's your choice. Don't be supprised at being run over by a steamroller while you're standing on your principle

Thanks, but I don't consider myself intellectually very strong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> . I don't believe in the RNC rising from the ashes, I believe they will go the way of the Whigs they replaced and the new party will return to the ideals of Jefferson the Republicans who first met in Racine WI admired so much.

As for my thoughts on Hillary... First, who will the next RNC candidate be? After 8 years of the Patriot Act, massive government growth, a return to billion dollar annual deficits, and constant preaching that the government should give tax money to faith based groups that some may not support is there truly a chance that the RNC can win in 2008? Next question is who will the DNC candidate be? Hillary is out of this race specifically because they have to put up a candidate but today she carries too much bad baggage. Watch the cycle, assuming the Dems lose this year Hillary's platform for election will be identical to the losing Dem candidate, plus she will have all her normal supporters to push her over the edge.

I'm willing to lose a fight today, with a Republican Congress, to avoid losing the war by having her elected. This is not a military action, but I'm looking at it like one, sometimes you have to force the enemy to commit, and in doing so give up a platoon, so the Rgt can concentrate and win elsewhere. It's part of Economy of Force.

Regarding Heinlein, your mistake is a common one. Read this and then tell me that Starship Troopers espoused veteran only franchise. Heinlein Discussed

Perhaps the movie did, but the movie was crap with a capital "C".

BTW, how's that old Weaver K3 working for you?

Bob

No, it is you that insists there are only two choices (the fast boat or the slow boat to socialist tyranny). I am looking for choice number three, which is a long term strategy to turn the country around.

Coss;



Interesting dynamic you touched on with taking a Democrat now, to avert Hillary in 2008. that very same topic was discussed on a talk radio show out of Boston just yesterday. (96.9 fm WTKK)



Its going to be a hard lesson learned I fear, as too many of those who consider themselves to be "in the right" so to speak, are REALLY lost, left of center, and are akin to the "boiling frog".



Unfortunately, from either fear or ignorance, many times those that think outside the box are greeted with a "shoot the messenger" attitude from the people we try to discss topics with. Take this from someone who's been "shot at" more than once <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



History is in the making NOW. We can all take an active part in forming it. Or, we can just sit here F,D, & H because "A REPUBLICAN" is in the White House and continue to be victimized into Socialism.



The choice is up to us, and the man in the mirror.

Haven't sent it in for a rebuild yet. I get them all reconditioned before I start using them. It's in line behind a couple of K2.5s and a K10. Used the last K2.5 I had rebuilt to kill three deer up near Rhinelander last season.



If we could be sure of maintaining a Republican majority in congress I might agree with you. As it is I can't because the label "Republican" doesn't mean anything any more. The present day meanings of "Liberal" and "Conservative" are more meaning full than "Republican" and "Democrat" since these days eastern Republicans are hard to tell from most Democrats and some southern Democrats are hard to tell from most Republicans. Even "Liberal" and "Conservative" have regional flavors. The only thing that you can take to the bank about any polititician of any flavor is that you can't trust them, you can only try to control them if they win. If they lose it doesn't matter what you do with them because they aren't in a position to do anything to or for you.



You can't always pick and choose your battles. Sometimes they come to you and you have to work with what you have the best way you can. Unlike Hawkeye, I don't think we have the time to wait for the perfect candidate with the perfect platform etc. or whatever he may think is the third option. I think that if we don't start working with what we have we won't have anything to work with. The reason we keep losing ground is because, unlike the opposition, we value our independence more than winning. We believe in what was and don't see that what is still has the makings. Our opponents believe in their goals and themselves and will do whatever it takes to achieve their end results. We won't. We are the Athenians who value our rights and principles above all else. That's why, in the end, we'll be beaten by our opponents who are like the Spartans in that they are willing to sacrifice everything in the pursuit of their goal. Alcibiades was the greatest, most brilliant Athenian of his era and as a General was never defeated in battle, but he was beaten by Athens and during his era Athens fell to Sparta. We are like warring Greeks or Irish Chieftains and in our failure to unite will be overcome by those who would unite against us.



"It is certainly the case that making some form of military service mandatory to become a public official will mean that all public officials will be experienced military men. This isn't an argument -- it's a tautology. There is no reason to think, though, that the situation presented to the vast majority of the citizens in the book -- two years of peacetime service -- is any more likely to make them militarists than the it did the World War II generation in America. (Or presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, or Bush.) Indeed, I would argue that military experience should be a requirement in civilian leaders; experience is the best way to understand both the abilities and limitations of the military, and any civilian who is going to take a roll in deciding where and when and why to commit combat forces better damn well understand those limitations. [As a side note, am I the only one who finds it ironic that some people who don't trust the military suggest that the best way to prevent the military from running rampant is by ignorance on the part of civilian leaders? If only military leaders have military experience, how are the civilians expected to know when to believe them?] Anyone who thinks the military can successfully brainwash thinking people into mindless supporters hasn't talked to enough people with military experience." Your own petard. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I never said that, and you know it. If you are going to address my argument, please don't distort it. I voted for Reagan twice, and don't regret it. Far from a perfect candidate. I only insist on an acceptable candidate, i.e., one who will at least not take us further down the road to socialist statism/tyranny/totalitarianism, and preferably take us back from this direction a bit.

Congrats, I did my hunting in Waupaca County this past year and came home with 2 does.





Here you're more right than most folks I've met. The issue isn't Repub vs. Dem, it's traditional conservative vs. modern liberal. Read Compassionate Conservatism by Marvin Olasky and then tell who the current Repubs are.





Let's look at your argument... If I state the goal should be a return to a government of the 1890's in size and scope vice what we have today and am willing to sacrifice everything for that goal then I may well beat the liberals? Hello, welcome to the Libertarian Party! Perhaps instead of uniting behind the "lesser of two evils" we should unite behind what we really want. That is exactly what the Republicans of 1848 did and they had a President in office less than 2 decades later. Similarly, although I am hoping for Bush not to be reelected for the reason stated above I will not be voting for a Democrat candidate either. I failed to vote my conscience once, in 2000 I voted for the "lesser of two evils" and am kicking myself for it, I will always vote my conscience in the future, regardless of the chances of winning.



In the end what is it you want? What goal are you willing to sacrifice everything for? Unlimited gun rights? Removal of the 1968 GCA, the Brady Bill, the Bush 41 Presidential Order banning importation of certain "Assault Weapons" and magazines (a ban only another Presidential Order can rescind, not the Congress, and his own son hasn't chosen to rescind even though we gun owners got him elected)? None of this has yet been done by Bush 43, nor will any of it.





From the same webpage:

"Myth #2: "Robert Heinlein was advocating the society in Starship Troopers; the characters are expressing his opinions."

Tough call. Starship Troopers was written in response to real-world situations, and Heinlein certainly argued in defense of the book that the current method of awarding the franchise -- accidental birth in the country in question, followed by surviving long enough to reach the age of majority -- is, by itself, a somewhat haphazard way of guaranteeing that the enfranchised are prepared to exercise their privilege in a responsible manner.



On the other hand, he has also specifically stated (in private correspondence submitted to the Quotable Heinlein page) that his "fictional characters speak for themselves, not [Heinlein]."



Heinlein was against conscription, as he stated in the Guest of Honor speech at the XIXth World Science Fiction Convention:





I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain! [Heinlein 1961:245]



My belief is that Heinlein was interested in exploring the faults of current society rather than necessary proposing workable solutions; as such, I believe that the book is more about the rights and duties of citizenship than about how to set up a workable government. This is just my belief, however -- if someone has a solid quote from Heinlein on the subject, I would love to hear about it."



We can pull supporting quotes from this page all day and it won't answer the question of whether Heinlein himself thought it was a great idea. I think if you read the entirety of the discussion and the book itself you will see that although there is noted issues with universal suffrage nowhere is it stated that the system used in the book is perfect, only that it is satisfactory. Read Chapter 12 of the book where Juan and his OCS classmates have to defend the reasoning for adopting such a system to their Instructor, not just lap it up like a catechism lesson like in High School.



Lastly, my own petard nothing <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> . It was your contention that Heinlein epoused veteran only suffrage. It is the contention of the webpage author that perhaps only veterans are qualified to serve in positions that could use the military (and any civilian who is going to take a roll in deciding where and when and why to commit combat forces better damn well understand those limitations) due to their understanding of the military. Nowhere does the author say only veterans should be allowed to vote, you are putting words in his mouth. There are many layers of government that non-veterans could still serve in provided they are enfranchised.



Bob

Kindly don't distort what I said. If you'll read the sentence again you'll see that I acknowledged in the latter portion of the sentence the possiblity that I hadn't accurately described your "choice number three" in the former portion of the sentence and left it open for further clarification in the event you chose to grant us futher enlightenment. Any candidate who opposes the candidate of my opponents is acceptable to me. I'll concern myself with winning first and worry about bludgeoning the candidate that I support in to subbmission later. Any victory achieved by those that I support is a loss to those that I oppose. You can't turn back the tide until you can stem it. You seem to want to do it all in one fell swoop. I think its too late for that already. You seem to feel that its important to stand on principle while I prefer to fight for the principles that I believe in.

You believe and will act on your beliefs in the manner that you chose and I'll do the same. Neither of us will convince each other to work together toward a common goal. In the end both of us will lose because those whom we oppose aren't nearly as concerned as we are about how they accomplish their victory as long as they accomplish it. I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Which K3 did I get from you? I've picked up quite a few K3s and K2.5s in the last couple years as I find them to be an excellent match for the rifles that I prefer to use and the area that I use them in. Haven't been to Stevens Point in over 30 years.





Try Concience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. Campaigned for him in '64. Haven't learned much since.







I want the government of the United States of America to officially recognize that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, means what it says, and protect the right recognized by the 2nd Amendment with out reservation. Show me the Constitutional authority for the Bush 41 Executive Order relating to "Assault Weapons." For that matter, show me the Constitutional authority for any "Executive Order." As far as Congress not being able to resind an "Executive Order", the way its supposed to work is that Congress proposes, debates and approves the laws and the President either agrees and signs them or disagrees and vetoes them. Where does the President's authority to make law come from?



As far as Libertarian Party goes, for years I was a dues paying card carrying member. They're not all they're cracked up to be either. More like an exercise in futility.



I'll grant you the point on Heinlein. You're the first one who's ever argued the point on its merits. Everyone else I've ever hit with it has simply accepted it and tried to discredit the thesis, not its basis. Extra credit for original thinking.



Bye the bye, we had a Marine Staff Sergeant as one of our Gunnery instructors when I went through the Advanced Course at Knox. When he introduced himself he went to great lengths to explain to us that he was a Marine Staff Sergeant and was not to be addressed as "Sarge." After that, I made a point of addressing him as "Sarge" and when he objected I explained to him that as long as I outranked him I'd address him in any manner that I damn well pleased, just as he was free to address me as a "horse's ass" or in any manner that he damn well pleased as soon as he was out of my hearing, but that in the meantime that he should quit quibbling about matters of address and answer my question. After classes we got along fine and drank a good deal of each others adult beverages. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

There were other times when I was on the other end of the stick.



Just for the record: I prefer Adams to Jefferson.

How many old Weavers have you bought from Stevens Point in the last 3 or so years? I sold it on eBay, I was surprised to see you used the same username there as here. Mine is also very similar, this Geek Box (computer) has me confused a lot so I keep it simple.

There's some folks out there who will tell you that Goldwater was the first real Neocon. I don't believe them, but will look for the book. Thanks, don't often go that far back in my political reading, but I can start, the library is drying up in these parts. I'll concede that the LP has it's issues as well, but I would rather give others more "rights" or "liberties", even if I don't agree with them, than have others walk on mine. If that means voting 3rd Party I;m all for it, like I said, the Repubs started that way.

Most who throw out that assertation of Starship Troopers have only seen the movie. There's nothing necessarily wrong with the thesis, I just don't agree with it. I like my Presidents to have real military experience so they think twice about some adventures. If the only other option is someone who thinks he's still a general I'll take someone with zero military experience any day, it's the job of the Service Chiefs to advise him, not just nod like fluffers on a porn set. I'm rereading Stranger in a Strange Land now and I find it rather amusing.

Yeah, we Marines are sticklers on the rank thing. I can accept being called "Sergeant" by soldiers, they don't know any better. I was once called "Staff" by a soldier (when I was a Staff Sergeant) who thought he was dong the right thing, I asked him if I looked like a disease. That was worth a good laugh.

Good Luck,
Bob

Actually I've picked up a couple dozen or more over the last few years. I'll have to dig back in my files. El Paso Weavers are a poor man's Leupolds. You can pick them up for little or nothing (relatively speaking), get them refurbished back to factory specs for around $50 including shipping and you've just about got to run over them with a tank to hurt them. Sure, Leupold has that forever warranty but the initial investment even for a used one is at least 4 times that of an old Weaver.

I don't have a problem with newly discovered rights or liberties either, its just that most of those who keep dreaming them up are also those who have no respect for mine and firmly believe that only their rights count because they're special. They seem to think that there isn't enough room in this country for theirs and mine so some of mine have to go. I DON'T THINK SO!

The military experience part I find interesting. Kerry served in the Naval Service and Bush in the National Guard. Kerry served in VN and as soon as he was separated from service realized that he was really anti-war and anti-military and that all the time he had spent in Naval Service was a mistake. Bush served his time in the Guard (I know, there is controversy about that too. What ever) and then went about his business. Now Kerry finds it convenient to beat his chest and remind every one that before he was a dove he was a hawk. Somewhat reminiscent of AL GORE's TDY tour as a military journalist. Oh I won't try to deny Kerry his decorations, but we both know that oft times those are the result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time conspicuously and that in most cases you're so concerned with completing the task at hand that you don't even realize that you might be in danger. Bottom line is that none of the above had military experience commensureate with the position of Commander in Chief. That didn't stop either of the more, shall we say sensitive or perhaps caring ones from touting themselves as junior Field Marshalls. Given the position each held what they should have learned is to surround themselves with knowedgeable people and listen to them. I don't have a problem with someone who served in the National Guard, although others have and have cast aspersions on Bush's service. To date I haven't seen them prove any of them. I do have a problem with Kerry turning his back on the military for over 30 years and now when its convenient playing up his service and expecting to be able to trade on that to gain currency with veterans after distaining them for all that time. But the sad truth is that he'll probably get away with it. Weaslely Clark ain't even in the running. Can't imagine how someone who was relieved by Bill Clinton of all people can try to run on his military record.

As far as the movie goes, never seen it. I've enjoyed reading the book many times over the years. I would say that the words and actions of the charactors support my thesis but as I said, I'll grant you that one since I'll admit that I was in fact trying to put the words of his charactors in his mouth.

Worked a lot of joint actions during the last 7 years of my apprenticeship. When dealing with other services, especially over the phone, I sometimes found it simpler to refer to myself with their terms rather than to try to explain what I held. Everyone for the most part seems to have a somewhat nebulous idea of what other service's rank structures are but they damn sure know their own. Also rather interesting is that while almost everybody knows when the Marine Corps birthday is practically no one knows the birthday of the country's senior service; to include most of us who served in it. I did have a company commander once who always addressed every one by their complete rank. I found it somewhat tedious but then being a cavalryman I often found formality for the sake of formality tedious. Formality for the sake of respect or tradition is another thing entirely.

I'd give you a Semper Fi but its not mine to give so instead, Allons.

It's an easy choice for me. I'll gladly vote for Dubya again. The sky is not falling.

I am amazed at all of the anti-Bush sentiment expressed here. Consider:

1. The two greatest threats in the mid-East--Iraq and Afghanistan--have been neutralized.

2. 75% of the senior al-Queda leaders are dead.

3. Libya has given up its nuclear program. Iran is allowing inspectors in. Pakistan is stopping proliferation.

4. North Korea is begging--pleading--for the US to talk with them.

5. The Saudis are cracking down on militant Moslems, and slowly rewriting the textbooks feeding the Madrasa hate schools.

6. The US Arttorney General is an NRA Member and the official position of the Justice Department is that the Second Amendment is an individual right. This is the first time such a position has been taken.

7. A family of four earning $50,000 has had a $2000 tax cut per year.

8. The economy is growing at 8% per year (last quarter), which most economists ascribe to the Bush tax cuts.

9. The value of stocks and houses has recovered to the pre-9/11 and pre-telecom bust highs of 2000.

10. By reducing the dollar value 25% on international markets, a move long sought by the National Assn. of Manufacturers, Bush has made US goods much more competitive with foreign imports, helping us export.

Sounds like one helluva lot of progress since Clinton. For this you want to vote for Kerry, whose record is more liberal than Kennedy? For this you want to throw away your vote on some third party that's not even competent to get a city councilman elected?

Yeah, I don't like talk about illegal aliens either, but talk is cheap. Look at the results.

Anything has to slow down and stop before it can reverse. If you think a protest vote will acomplish anything except get a Democrat elected, you are sadly mistaken. That is mostly what got Bill Clinton in the first time. People voted for an unelectable Ross Perot and most of them were Republicans. miles

You people from New Hampsuire always did have a liberal lean, so your position is not new, I doubt you voted for him the first time. I will vote for him, that way, RaM, I cancel you out.

I have taken the time to read this whole post with great interest, and each of your points are well taken and I am sure each of you feels that your point is most valid.
I have come to the conclusion, as many of you have, that politics has simply gotten way out of control.
What we have is taxation with representation, which IMHO, is as bad or worse than taxation without representation.
The government has gone from "by the people and for the people" to something akin of "what's in it for me ?"
As long as the two party system has no real competition, does it really matter who wins the election ?
It is my opinion that the only policy makers are the ones who put money in the campaign kittys. They all "donate" to both parties on a greater or lesser basis, to cover their @$$es no matter who wins.
It is not rocket science and doesn't take long to figure out who really runs the show in America. I am convinced that our country is run by big business and the wealthy.
That is why all the fuss about disarming Americans, because they enjoy the status quo and have a sneaky suspicion that we as mere citizens will eventually take up arms to bring about change for the better of this country and ourselves, and they want no part of that.
Call me what you will, say my cup is half empty, but I consider myself a realist.
I don't know about you, but I have had it up to my ears with so called "American" corporations that have no qualms about pink slipping our citizens by the thousands only to send that labor overseas, and still have the nerve to pay the top execs in the MILLIONS. I have had it up to my ears with the slow but steady erosion of our constitution, and just because a justice declares the second an individual right, nothing has really changed, has it ?
I won't be satisfied until the Federal Government insists on the States of the Union allowing full, unencumbered, and unregistered firearms ownership for all citizens. Screw the bans, if a United States Citizen wants a full auto anything, state politicians should have no right to override the constitution. Yeah, I know what you are thinking, excons on the streets with guns, well here's what I think: There should be no excons. We as taxpayers waste billions on taking good care of the scum in prisons. Those convicted of murder or rape should be executed NOW. No ifs ands or buts. Everyone else should truly pay their debt to society before being let out on the streets. Gun rights are for everybody.
There are many laws, in fact ALL of the firearms laws, that are unconsitutional, but yet, we sit by and let it ride. Unconstitutional laws are illegal, as per the constitution, but try and convince the state trooper or BATF that you decided that it was so. Hi ho, Hi ho, its of to jail you go.
And how convenient that our government immunized itself against the very redress that we are supposedly guaranteed.
I could go on, buy my throat is getting sore.
Off rant.
Ranger

Well, how about a compromise? You make sure the democratic party stops it's quest for gun control, and I will stop supporting the president with his patriat act?????Deal?

Millerman, that was some good stuff you posted.

You post Aggie (from Kalifornia) shows how truly ignorant you are. Get yourself an election map from 2000. Blue was Gore States, Red was Bush States.

N.H. was the [only] little red State in the N.E. in a Sea of Blue.

Yeah! Your right. The "live free or Die" State is really "liberal leaning" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

If you have only personal attacks to level, and nothing germain to offer, don't bother responding.

Ram, you are right on that one, and I am big enough to admit it, so I owe you an apology. Something set me off, probably your comment "just another reason Bush wont get my vote:
Hey, living here in CA, I can assure you I am 100 percent against his immigration law, but I guarrantee you, he was just beating the democrats to the punch. And if you will remember, many democrats, including Diane Fienstein who I dispise, and the Gov of New Mexico, and other prominant democrats critizized Bush for not going far enough. So it seems to me, a vote against Bush will open the borders even further. Were it me, I would lock them all down and make people come in legally. But I am not running for anything.

But, you are just as wrong on CA. Sure Gore won the state, but if you would have looked on the map, you would have noted 3/4 of the state voted for Bush, including mine in Placer county. It's no different here than other rural areas that get dominated by liberals from the big cities.
But, you do have my apology.....