McCain to visit LA rig today

[owen502]

The lesser of two evils is a figurative term. Not a literal one. Charles Manson??? You are way off course

I would prefer Manson.

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

Principles and voting for the best person. Barr or Hagel, or no vote.

We know the outcome of McCain or Obama....

Okay you know the out come and you know one is in someway better than the other, but you would vote out of principal for someone you know will not win there by helping the worst of the two possibly win. I don't get it....

 

[Manimal]

You seem pretty passionate whenever you're discussing JBTs, no-knock warrants, and other police excesses- real or imagined.

You recognize the danger; your own words say that you know McCain won't go after we gun owners as vigorously as the other charlatan will. But you seem to be willing to allow that to happen? I'm with WindsorFox; I don't get it either.

Are you an NRA member?

.

I'm passionate about a lot of things, you just notice those b/c you take them personally and seem to think that I'm a cop hater...which there is no way for me to prove otherwise to you. I believe in Justice, some 'protectors' get away with injustice and I don't like it.

I campaigned for Ron Paul, donated a lot of money to him, and did a lot of grassroots campaigning...and obviously I'm here pleading a case to vote for who you believe in and not for just who you think will win.

I don't think I said that he wont go after gun owners as much, I said that he'll do it better. And he will, through more acts like the "Patriot" act and things like that. I am certain of it. He will also engage our soldiers in just about -everything- that isn't our business (Darfur is our "Moral Obligation" to intervene, for instance), and that isn't oriented in National Defense, he'll also give Illegal Aliens more benefits, and more educational opportunities than US citizens (Bills he introduced to make them legal).

Someone can -try- to take my guns, and they will fail...oops they got lost!

If I -try- to stop illegal immigration, or to defend my nation after he runs our military ragged, or taxes us severely to keep it up, I may fail or go hungry.

Gun laws don't mean squat, you know that as well as I do...how many armed criminals obey gun laws? How many CHP holders have you arrested for armed robbery? They inconvenience citizens...O'Buckwheat can throw what he wants my way as far as gun laws go. Good luck to him.

I make no sense? There are battles we can fight and win, they just look scary...and there are battles that -we will lose- that look tolerable for the moment.

P.S.
I'm not 100% sure if I'm a NRA member or not, Pangris was hooking me up with that but I haven't gotten a member package yet. I know I'm an LSA member.

 

[nikolai]

I'm gonna have to side with Manimal on this one. The bipartisan system is the reason we "must" always choose the lesser of two evils. On one hand, you can get screwed. On the other hand, you can get screwed with a pineapple. Personally, I'd rather not get screwed at all.....I don't get it.

The longer that people keep up this mentality of thinking short term rather than long term benefits by voting for the lesser of the two evils, the longer the problem will continue to exist. The sooner that people realize that there are (and have always been) more than 2 candidates, the more power you will have with your vote. The Rep and Dem parties are something of an oligopoly in modern US politics and voting for smaller parties is the only way things will ever change. Everyone seems to keep voting on party lines hoping that one day some Golden Politician will emerge from the ashes and save them. It's not going to happen.

 

[W1nds0rF0x]

Its not a matter of who I think will win; its a matter of stopping the candidate I'm pretty sure will be VERY bad for the country as a whole, and gun ownership in particular.

DING!!




edit wait, did he say "Obuckwheat??? Tsk, tsk, tsk, I think SOMEone is in need of some sensitivity training....

 

[Magus8764]

You bet I do. But pouting and not taking a stand (by refusing to vote, or throwing away your vote by casting it for a candidate who has NO chance of winning) is worse, IMO, than those who aren't even registered to vote. Some of those are mental deficients who cannot be expected to know any better. But you, for instance, are a well-educated, very erudite person who damn well should realize that OBuckwheat is the greater of two evils here.

You are talking about NOT taking a stand?! How is refusing to compromise your values away NOT taking a stand? By your own admission you say that both major candidates are evil, at least to some extent. How is willfully supporting an evil man for ANY reason taking a stand for good? Try to cover it up all you want by saying it is to stop a greater evil, but supporting ANY evil is, guess what, EVIL. Taking a stand entails no compromise with evil whatsoever. I refuse to support the socialist gun-grabbing nanny state guy OR the crazy religious warmongering "everything in the entire world is America's business and if you don't support everything we do you are a terrorist" guy.
My vote will go to Barr, or if I find out something about his policies that is evil, no one.

 

[Magus8764]

And you've never, ever compromised, right? Right.

Not on anything related to my ideals.

So you're going to vote for someone you know has zero chance of gaining the office, instead of choosing the least unsavory candidate who can gain the office, therefore possibly facilitating the more unsavory candidate's chances?

Got it...

.

3rd party candidates only have a 'zero chance' because of this pervading self-fulfilling notion that that can't win. Just vote for the candidate that you think is the best one suited for the job, and get your friends and acquaintances to do the same. Those people get their friends, etc etc. Boom, the election is going to go to the person most qualified for the job, and the two party system finds out that the ones with all the power are the voters, and not the R or D next to the names on the ballots.
Or, as you suggest, we should not bother to stand up for what we believe in since, as you say, qualified people have no chance of winning. Of course, if the people who would vote for a person don't do so simply because they don't have a good chance at winning, you should apply that logic to the main parties also. Since Obama will be getting Kommiefornia, New York, and the People's Republics of at least Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Jersey automatically, and those are a large chunk of electoral votes, there's simply no reason to vote for McCain, since Obama has a MUCH better chance of winning. That mentality would result in McCain getting less votes, which would cause him to lose by a greater margin, which OBVIOUSLY proves the point that Obama is the only guy who can win. Do you see where I'm going with this and how little sense this line of thinking is?
Just give your vote and support to the most qualified candidate, and leave speculation as to their chances of winning to the candidates themselves.

 

[owen502]

This is why we need a "None of the Above" option. Once that wins, the two in the race would not be able to run again, EVER.

 

[Longleaf Hunter]

Neither is a good choice. Three hundred million Americans, and that is what we have to choose from to lead our country? Someone stuck a dead shad in the ventilation again this election.

That said, Osama Obama is a far worse choice. His only "change" seems to be that he has no experience in federal politics, and his state politics were horrible. Now his appointments and running mate Biden are all recycled dems from the past. How is that change? His "change" will be that he and the government will end up with our money and our guns.