The Fate of the Nation

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have really enjoyed this thread. It's good to know that this country still has some level headed citizens. I couldn't believe it when clinton was elected the first time, but I was blown away when he was re-elected. I still can't believe. We sure don't need a clinton trained liar in the White House. I know who I will cast my vote for.

------------------
John Foresman
Lifetime member Buck collectors club
Member NKCA
Member AKTI
 
I vote for bush...it just feels better.

------------------
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell
 
I did my part and voted yesterday. It sure felt good. I am also making sure that all of my family and friends also vote. I am very energized about this election. It is time to turn the tide and get this country back on track!

------------------
Dennis Bible
 
It is quite possible that you all have raised some very valid points here. But I guess that all depends on what your meaning of the word "is" is.
wink.gif


------------------
Semper Fi

-Bill
 
Both candidates really scare me. but what frightens me most is that it looks like this country is going to elect someone who takes glee in the number of people his state excecutes every year. Someone who, regardless of making light of it, can't pronounce words correctly, misuses words, can't remember world leader's names.
I'm not so worried about what George Bush Jr. can do, it's the fact that he'd get to appoint 4 supreme court justices. And that's a frightening, frightening prospect. That's far too much power, and could really screw up our country for a very long time.

Not that I'm crazy about Gore either. The thing is that they're both pretty much middle of the road, and there's very few differences between their underlying messages. I'd rather vote for Nader than either of the two, but since one of the two is going to get elected, I'm going to vote strongly against Bush, since although they're both shmucks, Gore is the lesser of the two evils; at least he's intelligent.

So yes, folks, it is possible to be liberal and still love knives. Just as an FYI.

If being president were just about charisma, then I'd vote for Bush in a heartbeat. My fundamental problem with him is that I have yet to see any example of intelligence coming from the guy. At least Gore seems like he ties his own shoes.

That's it from me.
chizpuf
 
Even I'M voting, and I HATE politics! HATE IT! I won't go into who's the best candidate. I won't even say that Bush is a frickin' moron (and sadistic), or that Lieberman is EVIL. I'm just not gonna go there. I'm not even gonna say that I'm voting for Nader.

My dad says voting for Nader is throwing away my vote, but that every vote makes a difference.... that make sense to anyone? Didn't think so. It's up to us to stop this 2-party democracy crap! I HARDLY consider it a democracy at all.

DO vote. Do NOT vote Bush or Gore. Heck, I'd rather have Harvey the Wonder Hamster as President!!!

Howie
:::Pukes at thought of politics:::
 
NO! Don't think that way! It doesn't HAVE to be Bush or Gore! Nader CAN win, but it's up to the PUBLIC to make it happen! If you honestly believe that your vote counts, then you have to believe that it matters WHO GETS your vote! You have to honestly believe in your candidate! DON'T settle for second best! NEVER EVER! If you want to vote for Nader, vote for Nader. In fact, even if you DON'T want to vote for Nader, vote for NADER!

Howie again.
 
Chizpuf,
Gore's spindoctors have worked hard to portray this scholarly image of the VEEP, but interestingly enough, when you actually review the schools the two nominees attended, their transcripts from those schools, the types of courses they took, the classes they dropped/failed, etc., you'll see that it's Algore who has even less upstairs than Dubya. And as far as irreparable damage to the nation is concerned, I respectfully submit that our great Constitution is in far greater peril from a Gore presidency than a Bush one. I think that one should be pretty obvious.
smile.gif


------------------
Semper Fi

-Bill
 
Our current president, a four-point Rhodes Scholar, is the most educated man to ever hold the office. Ronald Reagan was one of the least educated to have held the office in recent history. So, I'm unconvinced that high grades make for a great president.

While I agree that neither of our contenders is a great scholar, getting even a C at Harvard or Yale is no small accomplishment. Neither of these men is exactly stupid.

------------------
Chuck
Balisongs -- because it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!
http://www.balisongcollector.com

[This message has been edited by Gollnick (edited 10-22-2000).]
 
Originally posted by chizpuf:
I'd rather vote for Nader than either of the two, but since one of the two is going to get elected, I'm going to vote strongly against Bush, since although they're both shmucks, Gore is the lesser of the two evils; at least he's intelligent.


That's it from me.
chizpuf
Click to expand...

By all means please vote for Nader.

Bush isn't dumb. Thats just more hype from the criminal liberal media. We would be much better off with Bush appointing four supreme court justices than Gore appointing his cronies. We would be lucky to have any rights at all if Gore appointed four. Gore isn't as smart as his spin doctors paint him to be. You can't believe a word Gore says. He is a habitual liar. Not a direction this country needs to go.



------------------
Dennis Bible
 
-I am a firm believer that grades to not reflect upon one's intelligence.

-Yes, Bush really IS an idiot. A frickin' retard.

-The Constitution is a joke. I don't care too much about the Constitution to be perfectly honest. I'm far more concerned with right and wrong than I am with meeting requirements set 200 years ago. Uh-oh. Gona get crap for that one.
 
I'm going to discuss both national and California votes below.

Pres:

BUSH, all the way.

Here's the scoop: despite Texas's reputation as gun-friendly, for over 125 years concealed weapons carry was banned. By 1994, calls to implement a carry permit system patterned loosely after Florida were rising, especially after Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp watched her parents die at the hands of a crazed gunman Suzanna could have easily stopped had she not obeyed the law and left her gun in her glovebox. Look up the Luby's Cafeteria massacre.

Hupp soon joined the TX legislature, campaigning on a pro-carry platform. Democrat Governor Ann Richards vetoed a carry bill.

Bush campaigned for Governor on pro-carry, gained Hupp's support, and sure enough asked for and signed a decent carry bill in 1996. Two years later he signed a nice little "cleanup" bill improving the CCW system, and then signed a bill outlawing lawsuits against gunmakers by Texas local governments.

What does it mean?

We have NEVER had a strong contender for President who took a leadership role in rolling BACK gun control, until now. Bush *never* betrayed gun owners or those with a general interest in freedom, and he never lost Hupp's support.

The NRA is backing him to the hilt, so is Jeff Cooper for God's sake.

VOTE BUSH
smile.gif
. The more you learn, the more you realize it's not a "hold your nose" vote. Hell, Bush has appeared at AZ rallies where CCW holders and people packing openly were NOT disarmed, and Bush told those people "help was on the way". Cooper heard this and reported it favorably. This is a guy that TRUSTS WE THE PEOPLE, something almost unheard at that level of government.

Califorians:

Unless you KNOW that the Democratic candidate is solid, vote a straight Republican ticket.

Here's why: right now the Dems hold the Governor's seat plus both the state assembly and state senate. That's a nightmare, because the census is done and redistricting is about to happen early next year.

With an all-Dem Sacramento, they can set the districts to marginalize Republican districts and make a joke out of "one man, one vote"...and turn California forever into Massachussets west.

In a few cases, that DOES mean a "hold your nose" vote...Cuneen in the San Jose area comes to mind. It doesn't matter. What's up is that the Repub leadership in this state is pro-gun, led by state senator Ray Hanes. Guys like him sort out the committee seats, if they have control of one or both of the legislative houses.

So let's say the Repubs take back the state assembly. They can take a key committee where all gun control proposals must pass through (such as the public safety committee) and stack it with pro-gunners (Repub, Dem, it don't matter) and create a "killing zone" for new gun control bills.

A special note on Feinstein versus Campbell: Campbell is no direct friend of freedom, but throwing us all in chains isn't his top priority. It IS queen DiFi's biggest agenda item. She may come across as a sweet old grandma, but she's pure unadulterated evil. Hold your nose and vote Campbell.

Major exception to the Repub push: in the LA area, Democrat Assemblyman Rod Wright is the strongest pro-freedom vote in Sacramento.

As to Nader: check his platform, he's a committed gun control proponent.

Jim

[This message has been edited by Jim March (edited 10-23-2000).]
 
Its not just the fate of the US, its the fate of any country who has dealings with the US too (which would mean just about every nation on the planet). I don't know the two frontrunners personally, but Gore really has pissed off a greater portion of the country by his 'intellectual' comments.

This man (who may be the next president) was in my country for barely 2 hours before he demonstrated his intelligence by brushing off our hospitality at his reception and insulting the ruling government. Sure, we are a tiny country in a world of superpowers, but do you treat your friends by how much money they have?

Red

------------------
"Praise not the day until evening has come;a sword until it is tried; ice until it has been crossed; beer until it has been drunk" - Viking proverb
 
Abuse of Power, Corruption- 8 years of "Executive Tyranny"
Gore has been a player all through this game.
And there are still people out there who want more of the same? I don't get it.
the choice is clear- VOTE FREEDOM FIRST

[This message has been edited by JW (edited 10-23-2000).]
 
Howie Lintz said, "-The Constitution is a joke. I don't care too much about the Constitution to be perfectly honest. I'm far more concerned with right and wrong than I am with meeting requirements set 200 years ago. Uh-oh. Gona get crap for that one."

Not wanting to disappoint you, I strongly disagree. The Constitution is what made this country. It turned 13 struggling, recently freed colonies into a nation. It was written and signed by men who wanted to form "a more perfect union". It has stood the test of time and been the backbone upon which this nation has grown and prospered. It is not "a joke".

As far as the future of our country goes, a vote for Gore is a vote for a man who believes the constitution should be changed by judicial fiat. I have no problem with changes to the Constitution, as long as they are done through the proper process - amendment approved by 2/3 of the legislatures of the states - not the vote of 5 out of 9 Supreme Court judges.

Gollnick said: "Our current president, a four-point Rhodes Scholar, is the most educated man to ever hold the office. Ronald Reagan was one of the least educated to have held the office in recent history. So, I'm unconvinced that high grades make for a great president."

I couldn't agree more. Education is important, but morals are more important. A man who deceives his wife and cheats on her may well deceive his nation. Logically follows, doesn't it?

The United States is a great nation; it is in our hands to ensure it remains one. It's NOT the economy; vote for integrity.

 
Originally posted by Howie Lintz:
The Constitution is a joke.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion. However, I'd be interested in knowing what reasoning you have behind this opinion.
 
God help us all, I missed Howie saying that.

Howie, listen: the power of Government is basically a violent force. All laws are enforced at gunpoint, theirs is the power to say "NO", the power to take what you have, even the power to kill.

THERE MUST BE SOMETHING IN PLACE TO LIMIT THAT POWER.

What the founders did was create a set of guidelines that was NOT open to quick and easy alteration to suit the political whim of the moment. Even then it didn't always work: when popular opinion said that "the only good Injun was a dead Injun", public policy came frighteningly close to a total adoption of that mindset.

Howie, you care about "right and wrong"? Sounds great, except you want *politicians* to decide? Or, God help us, COPS? Or even Judges?

Heeeeellll no.

The reason cops, military and many others take an oath to "uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC" is to allow them in a worst case scenario to SHOOT anybody who'd make a mockery of it.

Jim
 
Howie sounds like an anarchist. If that's true, he should just admit it. By the way, in some respects, the line between Libertarians & Anarchists is verrrrryy slim.

chizpuf, and anyone else who thinks there really is no difference between Gore & Bush - you obviously have not been paying attention. The distinctions couldn't be more clear - on the things that count:

- size of gov't
- influence of gov't
- purpose & extent of taxation
- personal rights & freedoms
- foreign policy
- purpose of the military
- personal integrity
- central vs. decentralized control
- Constitutional law

If all you're listening to is their talks about Medicare, Soc Security, and education, of course they sound alike. Who could be "against" any of those ? But that is just the dressing, not the real meat of their positions.

Just remember what Gore said, comparing the last 8 years to his administration:

"You ain't seen nothin' yet"

uh-huh. That's exactly waht I was afraid of.

 
I have to say that I don't agree with Full TAngClans view on things. If you have beliefs and convictions what point is there in believing them if you yourself dont think that your views are right?? This is a self-contradiction. I know that my stance on owning (and also carrying) any knife I want to is absolutley right. It is an unwavering belief and is therefore not open to interpretation. Would Lincoln have provoked a war between the north and south of the United States if he had only believed his opinion was correct in his view of things? Of course not. He knew without a doubt that slavery is and was wrong and there was not going to be any debate about it because his belief was true period. The age of political correctness is destroying the idealogies that people died for. Be right or wrong. Just dont be ambiguous.
 
Great post Tom!

A real key thing here to remember is that the type of people we have in Clinton's administration do not like the type of people that we are. Be it guns or knives. You can give a bunch of reasons for this but what it all boils down to is that they have the most to fear from our independence. Our forefathers admired guns and knives and they also founded this country. They were leaders and rebellious radicals....that is what it took to form this nation. We here in this forum have this same lineage. We are PEOPLE and not "sheeple".

Bush may not be our first, best choice, but what we absolutely must do is to break this 8 year long assault on our freedoms. If it continues for another four years under Gore we will most certainly lose the Second Amendment. Once any individual freedom is lost, is it never given back....ever.

Knives don't stray far from guns in the Clintonista frame of mind....so this discussion is ideal for this forum!!

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top