Dear NRA

2nd Amendment and Freedom

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw

Sleeper362
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:22 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Dear NRA

Post by Sleeper362 » Fri May 04, 2012 5:14 pm

bakerjw wrote: When we allow ourselves to be driven by "OMG we have to vote against <_____>" rather than voting for who most parallels our ideals then we have lost.
Hear fucking hear. Rather deal with four more years of Republicans saying no to Obama than four more years of Republicans saying Yes to Romney. Both are socialist scumbags.

Surly
Silent Operator
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: SD

Re: Dear NRA

Post by Surly » Sat May 05, 2012 9:57 am

The NRA will endorse dear leader because he hasn't passed any gun legislation. If they don't, they are liars. The NRA is full of s--t and I have no use for them.

For those of you that will vote your conscience or, better yet, not vote, this is the wrong time to get all sanctimonious with your politics. While getting the House and Senate should be the priority, letting dear leader have another four will be our last mistake. He has shown that when he doesn't get his way, he forces it on us anyway. You just go ahead and give him four more years with nothing to lose and see what happens. I can't believe I have to type this out to get your heads out of your fourth points!

With Romney, we will be guaranteed a slowing of the socialization of the USSA. At least the stinking republicrats are skittish enough to back off when there is a public outcry...not so much with the progressive left. When we get the reigns on these crooks, THEN we work on changing it up. To think a conscientious vote will miracle the evil out of this country is about as foolish as being a dear leader supporter.

Chances are this may be your last chance to vote the way you want if you piss it away and let Chavez Junior have this one. Chavez had an opposition party...HAD.

User avatar
bakerjw
Elite Member
Posts: 3615
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:13 am
Location: NE Tenn.

Re: Dear NRA

Post by bakerjw » Sat May 05, 2012 10:11 pm

That's a good little lemming. Do what's expected and not what it takes to be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning.
July 5th, 2016. The day that we moved from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

Sleeper362
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:22 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Dear NRA

Post by Sleeper362 » Sun May 06, 2012 9:30 pm

bakerjw wrote:That's a good little lemming. Do what's expected and not what it takes to be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning.
Exactly. If you think Romney will do anything to 'slow' socialism, I have beach front property for sale in Iowa, sell it to you dirt cheap. In fact I think a Romney presidency will speed up the socialism process because no one will oppose him. He would be touted as one of the best presidents ever because he 'reached across the isle' and passed very moderate legislation. When in reality all they are saying is that he is a pro corporate welfare socialist.

User avatar
yellowfin
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:52 pm
Location: south PA
Contact:

Re: Dear NRA

Post by yellowfin » Mon May 07, 2012 11:28 am

Sleeper362 wrote:
bakerjw wrote: When we allow ourselves to be driven by "OMG we have to vote against <_____>" rather than voting for who most parallels our ideals then we have lost.
Hear fucking hear. Rather deal with four more years of Republicans saying no to Obama than four more years of Republicans saying Yes to Romney. Both are socialist scumbags.
The problem is that Obama doesn't stop when told no.
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws...it's insane!"-- Penn Jilette
http://www.NYShooters.net

User avatar
continuity
Elite Member
Posts: 4554
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:39 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Dear NRA

Post by continuity » Mon May 07, 2012 12:22 pm

Surly wrote: ...With Romney, we will be guaranteed a ...
Right up to here I was actually thinking you were gonna make a point.

There is NO politician, anywhere, that a guarantee applies to. With the exception of the guarantee that they will say what they need to say, and do what they need to do to, to become elected, or reelected.

(I believe that RP falls into the statesman category.)
What amount of a man is composed of his own collection of experiences... and the conclusions that those experiences have allowed him to "know" for certain as "Truth"? :Ick

Surly
Silent Operator
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: SD

Re: Dear NRA

Post by Surly » Wed May 09, 2012 10:15 pm

bakerjw wrote:That's a good little lemming. Do what's expected and not what it takes to be able to look yourself in the mirror each morning.
So I should vote third party for some schmuck nobody has heard of or wants and defacto vote dear leader in again, right? I tried that s--t once with Perot...once.

User avatar
continuity
Elite Member
Posts: 4554
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:39 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Dear NRA

Post by continuity » Fri May 11, 2012 10:39 am

Surly wrote:So I should vote third party for some schmuck nobody has heard of or wants...
If you're referring to R. Paul, you're obviously not from Texas, nor do you speak for many others.
Surly wrote:...and defacto vote dear leader in again, right?...
When the mega-media drives the options of who will be on the ballot, and it would appear that is has happened, not only in your case but in general, then things move closer to the nightmare inspiring dynamics of system collapse.

Not a case of "if', only "when".
What amount of a man is composed of his own collection of experiences... and the conclusions that those experiences have allowed him to "know" for certain as "Truth"? :Ick

Surly
Silent Operator
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: SD

Re: Dear NRA

Post by Surly » Sun May 13, 2012 12:59 pm

continuity wrote:
Surly wrote:So I should vote third party for some schmuck nobody has heard of or wants...
If you're referring to R. Paul, you're obviously not from Texas, nor do you speak for many others.
Surly wrote:...and defacto vote dear leader in again, right?...
When the mega-media drives the options of who will be on the ballot, and it would appear that is has happened, not only in your case but in general, then things move closer to the nightmare inspiring dynamics of system collapse.

Not a case of "if', only "when".
I like a lot of what Paul has to say right up to where he starts preaching isolationism. Sorry, that s--t won't work. Or it will work right up to when the muzzies nuke us or Israel.

F--k the media...I don't listen to a word they have to say to include Fox. I gather my own info and decide from there.

User avatar
copenhagen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Dear NRA

Post by copenhagen » Fri May 18, 2012 10:44 pm

Muzzies? :lol: That's a new one. What do you call Israelis? Well who's to say the threat of Israel nuking us and blaming it on Muslim terrorists to get us to go to war with Iran is any less than the threat of Islamists nuking us to get us to leave Afghanistan or stop supporting Israel? Is minding our own business such a bad thing? Is there anything so wrong with letting middle easterners fight their own fratricidal war with out our blood, sweat, and tears?

Surly
Silent Operator
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: SD

Re: Dear NRA

Post by Surly » Fri May 18, 2012 11:50 pm

copenhagen wrote:Muzzies? :lol: That's a new one. What do you call Israelis? Well who's to say the threat of Israel nuking us and blaming it on Muslim terrorists to get us to go to war with Iran is any less than the threat of Islamists nuking us to get us to leave Afghanistan or stop supporting Israel? Is minding our own business such a bad thing? Is there anything so wrong with letting middle easterners fight their own fratricidal war with out our blood, sweat, and tears?


Not at all, but there are times we do need to intervene and it can be handled better than this and the past three admins. We'll start with payment for services rendered paid with cash or oil. Letting shitheads do as they please when it's not in the best interest of others is foolish to be nice about it. The muzzie uprising started with that turd carter and was Quashed by Reagan. It wasn't until klinton that they decided to start prairie dogging and testing the waters again. Now we have the biggest pussy in office since carter and everything is to hell in a hand basket.

Will Romney be any better? He can't be any worse...that's for sure. Will four more years of dear leader help? F--k no. Will the RP approach of pretending like nothing is going to happen work? Maybe about as well as dear leader. The time for a third party is not now. Getting the appeaser in chief out is a priority.

User avatar
copenhagen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Dear NRA

Post by copenhagen » Sun May 20, 2012 9:37 pm

Nah, Romney is just as useful to these United States as Obama. Not a dime's worth of difference. No significant difference in their interventionist foreign policies either, so you should be happy if Obama gets re-elected too.

User avatar
atilliar
Silent Operator
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Dear NRA

Post by atilliar » Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:50 pm

Surly wrote:
copenhagen wrote:
Will Romney be any better? He can't be any worse...
Every new presidential administration makes me long for the previous one.
"What worries me is not the younger generation's rebelliousness in petty matters, but their tameness in great matters." Albert Jay Nock
M4-1000
Eco 9
Omega
SBR

User avatar
smcharchan
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2268
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:06 am
Location: VA

Re: Dear NRA

Post by smcharchan » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:57 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92 ... edded#t=0s

Watch it and weep partisan serfs.

The system that creates your vetted candidates is rigged, the votes are bought, and your "choice" is an illusion.

Keep believing that the lesser of two evils has your best interests in mind.

User avatar
Hush
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 65404
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 8:07 pm

Re: Dear NRA

Post by Hush » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:49 pm

Romney the rino, the white O'bama.

Vote for Dr.Ron Paul, a vote for America.
Demand stringent background and mental health checks on your politicians.

User avatar
continuity
Elite Member
Posts: 4554
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:39 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Dear NRA

Post by continuity » Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:44 am

smcharchan wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92 ... edded#t=0s

Watch it and weep partisan serfs.

The system that creates your vetted candidates is rigged, the votes are bought, and your "choice" is an illusion.

Keep believing that the lesser of two evils has your best interests in mind.
My semi-sane nutcase neighbor insists that you are the reincarnation of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson incarnate. I told him I didn't think that was possible.

He "pffffff'ed me.

I'm not sure what I'm gonna do with him. :D
What amount of a man is composed of his own collection of experiences... and the conclusions that those experiences have allowed him to "know" for certain as "Truth"? :Ick

User avatar
copenhagen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Dear NRA

Post by copenhagen » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:33 pm

To whom it may concern,

Your article on page 14 of the last American Rifleman was garbage, pure garbage. Mitt Romney got on TV after he signed that bill saying saying how we are safer now due to assault weapons being banned for good. If you can claim that bill was pro gun, you can also claim that taking away any other gun rights of ours which you may select, at your whim, are also pro gun. Shame on you NRA. You make me sick. I am embarrassed to call myself a member of the NRA. Now I know why you let the Hughes amendment go through in '86 without so much as a squeak in the so called "Firearms Owners Protection Act." You have made it abundantly clear that either you have no concept whatsoever of the true meaning of the Second Amendment, or you do not care. Maybe you think that all your readers are stupid ignorant hicks or rednecks. Honestly, we are not. Why not try the truth for a change? It really is not that difficult.

V/r

-Concerned Citizen
.....crickets.....

User avatar
TROOPER
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7440
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Re: Dear NRA

Post by TROOPER » Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:11 pm

yellowfin wrote:The reason a lot of major candidates have the same sponsors is that w/ as much as the government meddles with everything, major corps can't afford to not hedge their bets by bribing both sides.
This statement cannot be over-emphasized. A large corporation cannot afford to be on the wrong side of a winning politician if their competitors are on the other side.

User avatar
silencertalk
Site Admin
Posts: 33985
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:31 am
Location: USA

Re: Dear NRA

Post by silencertalk » Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:28 am

Vote for Gary Johnson?

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-pol ... ry-johnson

On the other hand, a vote for him increases the chances Obama will win.

User avatar
WhisperFan
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Dear NRA

Post by WhisperFan » Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:14 am

The time to address who we, as Republicans or Conservatives - or whatever group you associate with yourself - is during the primary.

Follow me here - If one waits until the primary is over and then jumps in on the side of someone else, then they waited far too late.

I think that every time a large portion of either base votes for a third party because the two party system has nominated a candidate that is not whatever-enough for them - they are actually aiding in the loss of their 'standard' party.

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Democrat decide to vote for the Socialist Party of America because the Democrat that won the nomination isn't liberal enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well.

Likewise -

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Republican decide to vote for the candidate from a Tea Party group, or the Libertarian Party because the Republican that won the nomination isn't conservative enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well!

It is my feeling that a third party candidate will NEVER win the election, either in electoral college, or in the general popular vote.

The thing to do, is not try to create a third party, or a fourth, but rather to change the party you normally align with to more closely represent you! So - don't try to create a Tea Party, or a Conservative Party, or a Party that bears your name (because it exactly matches your view) The thing to do, is to work within the existing structure, and 'take over' the Republican Party with people that more closely represent you.

It won't happen in one election cycle, it can't ..... 2010 helped, perhaps 2012 will help some more ... but if a person decides to not vote, or vote with someone who stands no chance at all of winning, they are not only refusing to help the side they are 'more like' but they are actually helping the side they are 'less like'

That is idiotic thinking to me! "My party didn't nominate the person I thought they should. So I'm going to do my best that the other party wins." You might not think that is what you are doing with that attitude, but I only see one other train of thought and that is, "My party didn't vote someone conservative enough - so I want the liberals to win - maybe then the conservatives within the Republican party will take it back." I've actually heard people say stuff like that ... and I think that is very, very dangerous.
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas

User avatar
copenhagen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Dear NRA

Post by copenhagen » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:44 am

WhisperFan wrote:The time to address who we, as Republicans or Conservatives - or whatever group you associate with yourself - is during the primary.

Follow me here - If one waits until the primary is over and then jumps in on the side of someone else, then they waited far too late.

I think that every time a large portion of either base votes for a third party because the two party system has nominated a candidate that is not whatever-enough for them - they are actually aiding in the loss of their 'standard' party.

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Democrat decide to vote for the Socialist Party of America because the Democrat that won the nomination isn't liberal enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well.

Likewise -

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Republican decide to vote for the candidate from a Tea Party group, or the Libertarian Party because the Republican that won the nomination isn't conservative enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well!

It is my feeling that a third party candidate will NEVER win the election, either in electoral college, or in the general popular vote.

The thing to do, is not try to create a third party, or a fourth, but rather to change the party you normally align with to more closely represent you! So - don't try to create a Tea Party, or a Conservative Party, or a Party that bears your name (because it exactly matches your view) The thing to do, is to work within the existing structure, and 'take over' the Republican Party with people that more closely represent you.

It won't happen in one election cycle, it can't ..... 2010 helped, perhaps 2012 will help some more ... but if a person decides to not vote, or vote with someone who stands no chance at all of winning, they are not only refusing to help the side they are 'more like' but they are actually helping the side they are 'less like'

That is idiotic thinking to me! "My party didn't nominate the person I thought they should. So I'm going to do my best that the other party wins." You might not think that is what you are doing with that attitude, but I only see one other train of thought and that is, "My party didn't vote someone conservative enough - so I want the liberals to win - maybe then the conservatives within the Republican party will take it back." I've actually heard people say stuff like that ... and I think that is very, very dangerous.
I disagree with your philosophy. I refuse to compromise my integrity and honor by supporting a candidate with whom I vehemently disagree with on a number of issues. I will not bow before flagrant dishonesty simply because I am trying to change the party which allowed this candidate to come to power in the first place. I cannot control the actions of others, nor do I wish to, but what I can do, is always stand for what I know for myself to be true, right, and good.

User avatar
WhisperFan
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Dear NRA

Post by WhisperFan » Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:59 pm

copenhagen wrote:
WhisperFan wrote:The time to address who we, as Republicans or Conservatives - or whatever group you associate with yourself - is during the primary.

Follow me here - If one waits until the primary is over and then jumps in on the side of someone else, then they waited far too late.

I think that every time a large portion of either base votes for a third party because the two party system has nominated a candidate that is not whatever-enough for them - they are actually aiding in the loss of their 'standard' party.

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Democrat decide to vote for the Socialist Party of America because the Democrat that won the nomination isn't liberal enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well.

Likewise -

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Republican decide to vote for the candidate from a Tea Party group, or the Libertarian Party because the Republican that won the nomination isn't conservative enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well!

It is my feeling that a third party candidate will NEVER win the election, either in electoral college, or in the general popular vote.

The thing to do, is not try to create a third party, or a fourth, but rather to change the party you normally align with to more closely represent you! So - don't try to create a Tea Party, or a Conservative Party, or a Party that bears your name (because it exactly matches your view) The thing to do, is to work within the existing structure, and 'take over' the Republican Party with people that more closely represent you.

It won't happen in one election cycle, it can't ..... 2010 helped, perhaps 2012 will help some more ... but if a person decides to not vote, or vote with someone who stands no chance at all of winning, they are not only refusing to help the side they are 'more like' but they are actually helping the side they are 'less like'

That is idiotic thinking to me! "My party didn't nominate the person I thought they should. So I'm going to do my best that the other party wins." You might not think that is what you are doing with that attitude, but I only see one other train of thought and that is, "My party didn't vote someone conservative enough - so I want the liberals to win - maybe then the conservatives within the Republican party will take it back." I've actually heard people say stuff like that ... and I think that is very, very dangerous.
I disagree with your philosophy. I refuse to compromise my integrity and honor by supporting a candidate with whom I vehemently disagree with on a number of issues. I will not bow before flagrant dishonesty simply because I am trying to change the party which allowed this candidate to come to power in the first place. I cannot control the actions of others, nor do I wish to, but what I can do, is always stand for what I know for myself to be true, right, and good.
Great - When President Obama is re-elected and he appoints a couple more activist-type, liberal, living-breathing-Constitution believing Supreme Court Justices for the rest of their lives .... you can feel great (and I will too) that at least you didn't compromise your integrity! :roll:

As the USA abdicates more and more of its sovereignty to the UN and our freedoms are slowly (and sometimes not so slowly) eroded - you can feel comfortable in the knowledge that you feel more comfortable throwing your vote away (or not voting at all) because you don't recognize that the process of changing this country back into a land where the Constitution is honored, people are more free - rather than less, property rights are respected, and individuals are held accountable for their actions .... is a long term goal - not something that will be accomplished in one election cycle.
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas

User avatar
copenhagen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Dear NRA

Post by copenhagen » Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:19 pm

WhisperFan wrote:
copenhagen wrote:
WhisperFan wrote:The time to address who we, as Republicans or Conservatives - or whatever group you associate with yourself - is during the primary.

Follow me here - If one waits until the primary is over and then jumps in on the side of someone else, then they waited far too late.

I think that every time a large portion of either base votes for a third party because the two party system has nominated a candidate that is not whatever-enough for them - they are actually aiding in the loss of their 'standard' party.

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Democrat decide to vote for the Socialist Party of America because the Democrat that won the nomination isn't liberal enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well.

Likewise -

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Republican decide to vote for the candidate from a Tea Party group, or the Libertarian Party because the Republican that won the nomination isn't conservative enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well!

It is my feeling that a third party candidate will NEVER win the election, either in electoral college, or in the general popular vote.

The thing to do, is not try to create a third party, or a fourth, but rather to change the party you normally align with to more closely represent you! So - don't try to create a Tea Party, or a Conservative Party, or a Party that bears your name (because it exactly matches your view) The thing to do, is to work within the existing structure, and 'take over' the Republican Party with people that more closely represent you.

It won't happen in one election cycle, it can't ..... 2010 helped, perhaps 2012 will help some more ... but if a person decides to not vote, or vote with someone who stands no chance at all of winning, they are not only refusing to help the side they are 'more like' but they are actually helping the side they are 'less like'

That is idiotic thinking to me! "My party didn't nominate the person I thought they should. So I'm going to do my best that the other party wins." You might not think that is what you are doing with that attitude, but I only see one other train of thought and that is, "My party didn't vote someone conservative enough - so I want the liberals to win - maybe then the conservatives within the Republican party will take it back." I've actually heard people say stuff like that ... and I think that is very, very dangerous.
I disagree with your philosophy. I refuse to compromise my integrity and honor by supporting a candidate with whom I vehemently disagree with on a number of issues. I will not bow before flagrant dishonesty simply because I am trying to change the party which allowed this candidate to come to power in the first place. I cannot control the actions of others, nor do I wish to, but what I can do, is always stand for what I know for myself to be true, right, and good.
Great - When President Obama is re-elected and he appoints a couple more activist-type, liberal, living-breathing-Constitution believing Supreme Court Justices for the rest of their lives .... you can feel great (and I will too) that at least you didn't compromise your integrity! :roll:

As the USA abdicates more and more of its sovereignty to the UN and our freedoms are slowly (and sometimes not so slowly) eroded - you can feel comfortable in the knowledge that you feel more comfortable throwing your vote away (or not voting at all) because you don't recognize that the process of changing this country back into a land where the Constitution is honored, people are more free - rather than less, property rights are respected, and individuals are held accountable for their actions .... is a long term goal - not something that will be accomplished in one election cycle.
Are you seriously implying that it is ever necessary for a man to compromise his honor and integrity?

CDAT
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:11 am
Location: Washington State

Re: Dear NRA

Post by CDAT » Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:20 pm

copenhagen wrote:
WhisperFan wrote:The time to address who we, as Republicans or Conservatives - or whatever group you associate with yourself - is during the primary.

Follow me here - If one waits until the primary is over and then jumps in on the side of someone else, then they waited far too late.

I think that every time a large portion of either base votes for a third party because the two party system has nominated a candidate that is not whatever-enough for them - they are actually aiding in the loss of their 'standard' party.

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Democrat decide to vote for the Socialist Party of America because the Democrat that won the nomination isn't liberal enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well.

Likewise -

If a large enough portion of people that normally vote Republican decide to vote for the candidate from a Tea Party group, or the Libertarian Party because the Republican that won the nomination isn't conservative enough, they are a) throwing away their vote, because the third party won't win, and b) Aiding in their normal party is less likely to win as well!

It is my feeling that a third party candidate will NEVER win the election, either in electoral college, or in the general popular vote.

The thing to do, is not try to create a third party, or a fourth, but rather to change the party you normally align with to more closely represent you! So - don't try to create a Tea Party, or a Conservative Party, or a Party that bears your name (because it exactly matches your view) The thing to do, is to work within the existing structure, and 'take over' the Republican Party with people that more closely represent you.

It won't happen in one election cycle, it can't ..... 2010 helped, perhaps 2012 will help some more ... but if a person decides to not vote, or vote with someone who stands no chance at all of winning, they are not only refusing to help the side they are 'more like' but they are actually helping the side they are 'less like'

That is idiotic thinking to me! "My party didn't nominate the person I thought they should. So I'm going to do my best that the other party wins." You might not think that is what you are doing with that attitude, but I only see one other train of thought and that is, "My party didn't vote someone conservative enough - so I want the liberals to win - maybe then the conservatives within the Republican party will take it back." I've actually heard people say stuff like that ... and I think that is very, very dangerous.
I disagree with your philosophy. I refuse to compromise my integrity and honor by supporting a candidate with whom I vehemently disagree with on a number of issues. I will not bow before flagrant dishonesty simply because I am trying to change the party which allowed this candidate to come to power in the first place. I cannot control the actions of others, nor do I wish to, but what I can do, is always stand for what I know for myself to be true, right, and good.
I have to say that I agree when we compromise they think that we agree with them, when we stand up for what we belive to be "true, right, and good" then we either make the party listen to us or form our own, as has happened in the past. I will not disagree that it might help one party or the other but I think that we need to keep doing it tell they listen to we the people and stop only listening to there special intrest groops. It may be wishful thinking on my part but that is what I do.

User avatar
WhisperFan
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Dear NRA

Post by WhisperFan » Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:33 pm

copenhagen wrote:Are you seriously implying that it is ever necessary for a man to compromise his honor and integrity?
What I am implying is that sometimes you have to make the best decision you can, when faced with two choices, and you don't particularly like either choice at all.

If a person chooses not to choose, that (in itself) is a choice.
If they do something that is destined to fail (like a third party candidate) that too is a choice - and it is a choice that helps the party that represents you least of all.

So - the fix is to get a candidate in a major party that you can feel fully comfortable, and a House and Senate that will support them. That is what the Democrats did in 2008 and we got ObamaCare and trillions of dollars wasted, Justice Kagan, and Justice Sotomayor .... and that was basically in 2 years ..... Let's not give them another 4 by refusing to choose a candidate, that while not ideal, is better than the alternative.
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas

Post Reply