Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is Bush trying to lose my vote?

After now talking about amnesty for illegal immigrants, it seems as though there are fewer and fewer reasons left to vote for Bush, other than that he is better than Kerry. The only things left are his Christian beliefs and his slightly better stance on the 2nd Amendment. He's sounding more and more like a Democrat...

I know he will be better than Kerry, but I am voting Constitution Party.

Bush betrayed us. He is a self proclaimed Methodist. I have read every word of John Wesley's published works. If following the teachings of Wesley makes you a Methodist than Bush is no Methodist. His religion is shallow in my estimation and questionable. Constantine unintentionally ruined the Christian Church by showering money on it, so I don't like Bush's faith based initiative. If Bush had read Wesley he would know this sort of thing. But hey! Folks don't have to read the bible anymore to be "Christian" and Senators and Congressman and Supreme Court Justices don't have to read the Constitution either...

I like Bush sort of, but I feel like he is not his own man. Somebody else pulls his strings, I suppose the Chamber of Commerce.

Hard times coming, because it seems like this nut case Kerry will get win the election. God forbid.

I saw a UAW sticker yesterday on a truck that said
" VOTE THE SON OF A BUSH OUT ". I'll Never vote the kethup queen but I did think the sticker was darn funny.

DixieFreedom ; There is truth in your words but could a bible believing contitutionalist be elected president of this country ?
Bush is not the best but he is the best we have and that is a disgrace . The line has been drawn in the sand . It will be Bush or Kerry that will be elected president come november . An nonvote for Bush will be the same as a vote for Kerry .

FLUSH THE 2 JOHNS IN 2004 !

The reason to vote for Bush is not his views, but the 6000 or so high level people that the President appoints.

Whom do you want to be attorney general: John Ashcroft, an NRA Life Member who has caused the Justice Department to take the position that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right, or Janet Reno, who caused the Justice Department to take the position that there was no right at all?

Y'all, we are back yet again to the lesser of evils. Nothing more or less.

You are correct Sir ! Kerry is much more evil ! Bush is much less evil !

No argument there Sir.

I will have to vote for Bush. There is no way we could live under another Clinton/Gore type administration which I feel is what we would have with Kerry. The "lesser of two evils" is right on target.

Jim

Ya'll are still looking for the perfect man to be president. Ain't never been one.

Bush isn't perfect, but at least he's smart enough to know it.

Kerry, on the other hand, is perfectly perfect. All liberals are. They have to be. Especially when they're telling you how ignorant you are, and that you can't think for your own damned self.

I just don't buy the lesser of two evils argument. I'm going to vote my heart - Badnarik!

Indy, you hit the nail on the head, see the big picture, vote for Bush. Personally, I wont even flinch, Bush gets my vote, and I am not looking back. I havent seen a thing in the democratic party I believe in, so it's Bush for me, period.

If Kerry were elected he would likely get to appoint from 2 to 5 Supreme Court justices. With two enemies of the 2nd amendment already on the court, electing Kerry coud very well get the Second Amendment essentially written out of the Constitution. I personally can think of a dozen other sufficient reasons to vote for the President, but that one will do by itself.

BTW have you heard the news: Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam, and Edwards' father was a millworker. GMAFB

achadwick,

If Kerry gets in and puts in some anti 2nd amendment judges, you should not say much should you?

That's an interesting viewpoint. How many unconstitutional, unprovoked wars of aggression has Kerry started? How many innocent civilians has he killed? I think Bush is up to around 15,000 or so now. Certainly no Joe Stalin or Pol Pot or Idi Amin, but I do think he has Clinton handily beat--unless each lily-white Branch Davidian is worth a few hundred brown Iraqis and Afghans.

Nothing will convince die-hard Republicans who would rather vote than think; but somewhat more intellectual Republicans might be interested in the fact that we'll probably lose more liberties in Baby Bush's second term than we will in Kerry's first, for two reasons.

First, the only thing Republican politicians have ever been good for, in my experience, is blocking Democrat usurpations of liberty. Republicans in Congress will fall all over themselves to be photographed and interviewed voting against Kerry initiatives. But when Baby Bush moves on our liberties, Republicans will continue to give him a green light, just as they have been doing ever since he first took office. Baby Bush may want to gobble up liberties slower than Kerry (although the USA PATRIOT Act, the new Department of Homeland Security--when's the last time a Democrat increased the size of government by an entire cabinet-level bureaucracy?--Operation TIPS, Patriot II, and the like are convincing arguments against that), but even if that's true, Kerry will be held to a slower rate by Republicans in Congress. Not because they care a whit for liberty either, of course, but because voting against Democrats is good politics.

Second, Baby Bush can't be elected more than twice, which means that after he wins the upcoming election he will have no incentive whatever to give the tiniest hoot what you think, or what you want. Kerry will want to be reelected, so he'll at least have to appear to care.

But they're both complete disasters. Bush should long ago have been impeached, and Kerry should never have been nominated. Neither of them deserve my vote, and neither of them will get it. Right now I'm thinking Badnarik too.

C'mon, Steve: the Second Amendment is already gone, just like the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth. "Shall not be infringed" has been history since at latest 1968; I'd personally argue for 1934. If you believe in keeping your guns for the purpose of threatening an overbearing government, then you will be a felon someday soon, just like me, regardless of who is elected or who sits on the Supreme Court. Make peace with it and stop grasping at straws. It's embarrassing.

If you're interested in keeping your guns because you like target shooting and hunting, then maybe there's some difference between Bush and Kerry; but if that's the case, then please don't claim you're a Second Amendment supporter, because pursuits like that are completely irrelevant to the Second Amendment, and I suspect you know it.

Barak- Fellons can't vote..Ha Ha....Quit yer whinning or move to France.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Barak, why don't you tell the truth you are a stinking kerry supporter in here to sow dissent.
Anyone that does not vote for Bush by either voting for kerry directly or by voting for someone else in protest should go ahead and box up their guns and send them in to the atf now to avoid the lines later. tom

Sure we can.

We're just not supposed to.

Kind of like illegal aliens.

Heh. Do I sound like a Kerry supporter? You should read some of my past posts. I've been here awhile.


I am so sick of this "a vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrats! (booga booga!)" line I could puke. It's founded upon the assumption that I owe my vote to the Republicans, and if I cheat them out of it I'm being delinquent in my duty.

I owe my vote to nobody. I'm not giving it away for free: if somebody wants it, he has to earn it. Neither Bush nor Kerry has lifted a finger to earn it; therefore neither of them gets it. Badnarik has at least put together a set of position papers that are exhilarating. (Read this one and ask yourself if you'll ever hear anything like that from either a Republican or a Democrat.)

Is he serious? Does he mean it? Heck, I don't know. He's a politician: like as not he's just as crooked as the rest of them. But at least he talks a good line, which is more than Bush or Kerry does--those two can't even lie attractively!

Will he win? Almost certainly not. If I vote for him, I hope he doesn't, else I'd feel responsible every time he hurt or killed somebody. (Imagine how I'd feel if I'd voted for Baby Bush!) But I'll once again be able to leave the polls feeling that I've voted for good, rather than for evil. Until you've tried that, you have no idea what it feels like.

And no, I don't care which of Bush or Kerry wins. There is no difference between them that is significant to me.