Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Keith Olbermann has a show on MSNBC called "Countdown", which my wife and I find to be both gritty and entertaining. They cover actual news (albeit from a Liberal slant) along with less-important silly kind of stuff, and don't seem to take much of it very seriously. For the most part, I find Keith's perspective on things insightful and interesting, though I frequently disagree with some of the conclusions he comes to, or the opinions he has.

One of the segments he has is the "Worst Person in the World", wherein he names 3 people who on that day were "worse", "worser", and "worst." Last night, he named Justice Scalia the "Worst Person in the World" because of his decision on the Second Amendment.

(my transcription)
And our winner, Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court. With around 30,000 gun deaths per year in this country, another 75,000 non fatal gun wounds, half of suicides are by guns, this clown and his four colleagues decided that the 32 year old ban on handguns in Washington D.C., and the demand that firearms kept in the home be locked or disassembled was unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment. You remember the Second Amendment: ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ Despite years of fog created by the NRA and right wing organizations, that isn’t very complicated - for the purposes of forming a state militia, you are entitled to keep and bear arms. Obviously those would have to be the kind of arms used in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was passed, the musket, the wheel lock, the flint lock, the 13th century Chinese hand cannon. Stuff like that. Scalia of course simply decided that the “militia” part of the Second Amendment is some sort of quaint anachronism that he could happily ignore. And there’s the beautiful thing about our country - they say anybody can grow up to be a Supreme Court Justice. And in Antonin Scalia, there’s your proof! And tonight’s Worst Person In The World.
link to video (skip ahead to about 2:18): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 7#25402317

:shock: :raisedbrow:

As much as I usually enjoy his insights, I was dumbfounded by Keith's position on this one. It was no surprise that he would disagree with the ruling... what shocked me no end was his logic, or lack thereof.

My thoughts:

-Statistics are crap for the most part, so I don't put stock in the quoted numbers.

-"Half of suicides are by guns" So. :dunno: Do you really think that if we were to confiscate every gun in the country tomorrow, suicides would be cut in half? Guns are a convenient (for those who have access to them), quick, and relatively painless means of killing yourself. Take them away, and people will jump off bridges, slit their wrists, overdose, or whatever other next easiest way they can find is. Guns aren't the problem - mental illness is.

- "...for the purposes of forming a state militia, you are entitled to keep and bear arms." That's not what it says. Yes, the Amendment mentions a militia as being necessary for a free country, but the next part of the sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." leaves at least a doubt as to whether there is a connection with the militia and the right. Doubts like that are why we have a Supreme Court to interpret what the Constitution meant.

- (this is the one that really gets me) "Obviously those would have to be the kind of arms used in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was passed, the musket, the wheel lock, the flint lock, the 13th century Chinese hand cannon. Stuff like that." "Obviously?" :shock: Even without Scalia's articulate statement about how the First and Fourth Amendments aren't limited to methods of communication or methods of search used hundreds of years ago and it would be therefor ludicrous for the Second to be limited to those types of guns, this line of thinking just makes no sense to me whatsoever - no matter how open-minded I try to be in order to see someone's point whether I agree with it or not.

- "Scalia of course simply decided that the “militia” part of the Second Amendment is some sort of quaint anachronism that he could happily ignore." Umm.... no. If Keith had read the opinion (which he obviously didn't) he would have seen that Scalia devoted page after page after page of the opinion to the issue of a militia, what a militia was, what the role of the militia was, and the relationship between the State's authority over a militia and the people's right to bear arms.

:disgusted:

I read the whole opinion, and was REALLY impressed with the way Scalia laid it out. I had heard about his writing and logical styles, but hadn't read much of his stuff. I had heard that even if you disagree with his findings, you would have a very difficult time disputing them. I think that's certainly true. Unfortunately, it's much easier to mock somebody and insult their intelligence than it is to try and understand what they're saying and why they decide the way they do.

That being said, after hearing his thoughts on the Second Amendment, I think Keith Olbermann is a poopoohead. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
No! Keith Olbermann is the clown and the other's like him, idiot. The guy has no clue of reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Well Olbermann better bust out his copy of an 18th century dictonary because he's only covered for language that is used in there. But while he's at it, he needs to look up the term "arms". Which does not specifically say a flint lock, etc but "weapons" which allows it (like the rest of the Constitution) to encompass what ever is available at the current time.

Seriously, who in their right mind thinks only the 2nd Amendment is locked into a specific historical time and the rest is not. You either apply it to the entire Constitution or you don't.

Did Olbermann not pass grade school english? Isn't the 2nd Amendment a complex sentence?
‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
1. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.
2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It's doesn't get much easier to read!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
This is what I don't understand! How can someone be pro 2nd amendment and vote for liberal socialist democrats? I know there may be many other views people have in common with them but to me 2nd amendment issues is just as big as being pro life! To me those two are more common than you would think. I am pro life of an unborn child and pro my life. I am also pro my wife's life and my children's life. I am even pro liberal socialist democrat's life.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,791 Posts
The opinion that Justice Scalia wrote in Heller is the absolute best piece of gun rights literature I have ever read PERIOD. It was brilliant and deserves a place in history as on the the clearest, simplest, legal opinions ever written.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Mazellan said:
This is what I don't understand! How can someone be pro 2nd amendment and vote for liberal socialist democrats?
"Liberal" and "socialist" don't always go together.

I'm very anti-socialism, but I'm sure many people would consider some of my views on the "liberal" side of things. "Liberal" has sprouted a certain connotation over the past few years, when it first described someone who was very permissive - let people do whatever they want to. Which is how I feel, and how you can be considered "liberal" and "pro Second Amendment" at the same time.

:dunno:

PW said:
The opinion that Justice Scalia wrote in Heller is the absolute best piece of gun rights literature I have ever read PERIOD. It was brilliant and deserves a place in history as on the the clearest, simplest, legal opinions ever written.
ABSOLUTELY.

How anybody can actually read the opinion and disagree with the logic totally escapes me. "Well, I still don't like guns." Fine. But you can't disagree with the logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Keith Olbermann.............................what a dork.
I got a Headache as soon as he started to speak and had to REAL restrain myself NOT to turn it off.

It's sad to say that I am more American than this clown, Keith Olbermann, and I just got my Citizenship back in January. To me how ever being a U.S Citizen or NOT....It ALL depends where your heart and head is.

I am glad to say that I moved away from ANY socialism when I came from Sweden and now...jerks like Keith Olbermann happens. As they say poopie happens. And he is JUST that. He is poopie. I guess the same goes for him ANYONE can grow up to be a news reporter/journalist/dork.

The 2nd Amendment is NOT very hard to understand. IF a person knows how to read English.

It's awesome when he said that we should go back and carry the same weapons that they had back then. Would this then mean that we should Rope a Car thief right away too. I mean the car today is the equivalent to the horse back then.

I bet THAT would lower auto theft REAL quick :lolbang:

Should we then match the 1st Amendment back in the day to the same fact as Keith Olbermann brought about the 2nd in this day and age ???

I believe...Back to basics...the ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS. and NOTHING complicated

Just my .40

:mod: Hey TJ, this isn't OCDO, keep the buttockesque language away from here. Using symbols to bypass the filters is not allowed. Just say dork or bum or something like that OK? Thanks buddy :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Keith Olbermann what a joke and waste of air. To be declared the "worst person in the world" by that joke is quite an honor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
Mazellan said:
I know there may be many other views people have in common with them but to me 2nd amendment issues is just as big as being pro life! To me those two are more common than you would think. I am pro life of an unborn child and pro my life. I am also pro my wife's life and my children's life. I am even pro liberal socialist democrat's life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
mchlwise said:
Mazellan said:
This is what I don't understand! How can someone be pro 2nd amendment and vote for liberal socialist democrats?
"Liberal" and "socialist" don't always go together.

I'm very anti-socialism, but I'm sure many people would consider some of my views on the "liberal" side of things. "Liberal" has sprouted a certain connotation over the past few years, when it first described someone who was very permissive - let people do whatever they want to. Which is how I feel, and how you can be considered "liberal" and "pro Second Amendment" at the same time.

:dunno:
I don't know you well enough to call you a Liberal socialist or in other terms Democrat socialist. However, IMO someone that votes
for "The Empty Suit" I would consider a democrat socialist. I don't know to many gun owners planing on voting for him but there are some out there. Their logic escapes me. :dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Mazellan,

Mchlwise is correct in his basic explanation of what a 'liberal' is.

The term 'liberal' has BECOME a mostly negative connotation over the last several decades due primarily to A PARTICULAR STRAIN of liberalism which MANY LIBERALS THEMSELVES DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE: "Social Welfare Liberalism".

In terms of "Conservatives" (which I assume you are, forgive me if I am wrong) there are also many flavors. Oftentimes these different strains, although all are 'conservative', are in many ways diametrically opposed to each other. One example would be "big-business capitalist conservatism" vs. "right-wing conservatism". The former is primarily concerned with the interests of capitalism and the economy and promoting the interests of people buying whatever they want (including, oftentimes, questionable or "immoral" products/services). Right-wingers are primarily concerned with promoting social stability and restricting individual freedom to only permit "moral" activities. Oftentimes the two can be very much opposed to each other. But we still recognize that they are both "conservative" b/c they both seek to maintain the current status-quo (whatever that might be).

Liberals (of all flavors) are largely opposed to conservatives (of all flavors) b/c liberals traditionally seek to challenge and question the "status quo" whenever they see that it is unjust. In many ways, almost without exception, every single one of our FF's were "liberals" (though, to be fair, they were very intelligent and complex individuals and certainly held to some 'conservative' thought as well). But it is no exaggeration to say that, broadly, our FF's were liberals (and yet they believed in Individual Rights and the 2A!) In fact, the general category of a 'liberal' is probably best put as "someone who seeks to protect Individual Rights).

But, just as with Conservatives, there are many Liberal varieties. One of the most prevelant varieties currently is the "Social Welfare Liberal" -- this is the type in the spot-light today (the Billary's and Obama's of the country). Yes, on some areas they are in agreement with the traditional liberal -- but in other areas the traditional liberal would very much disagree with them. Most notably, the traditional liberal would be likely to disagree regarding issues of Individual vs. Collective Rights (a pure traditional liberal would likely STAND WITH the Individual). And the traditional liberal would be much more hesitant about accepting socialistic solutions to social problems (i.e.: they would not necessarily agree with things like Social Welfare) -- hence the very need and reason for some liberals to break away and form a new segment of liberalism (the "Social Welfare Liberalists").

When you said that, "in [your] opinion someone that votes..." you were speaking from the same position as most in our country do. Most have been (myself included until very recently) mis-led into thinking that "liberal = social welfare". Such is not the case, however. It's just *CURRENT* politics that makes it appear that way. But a Social Welfare Liberal is about as far left as a right-wing conservative is to the right.

And while we're on it, "democrat" also doesn't necessarily mean "social welfare" either. It's just that the Billary's and the Obama's and the Jesse Jackson's of the country have hijacked their party and made it look like that's what it is (and in large part they have actually made it that way).

If you want a really good awakening of how messed up our modern view on things is consider this: Most of us if asked to place the Libertarian party into ONLY either the Liberal or the Conservative side would easily place it into the Conservative quadrant. It is, however, correctly placed in the Liberal quadrant.

Recall that the primary goal of the Conservative is to maintain the status-quo; to not question, challenge, or change in any radical or fundamental way the traditions we have grown up with (which, contrary to our short-view of history, is not "pro-Individual Right" but "pro-Government and pro-Society"). The Liberal goal, however, is challenge the status-quo: it is TO question, challenge, and radically and fundamentally change our traditions whenever those traditions seem to be in opposition to the Individual.

I know that these views are not aligned with every-day and common-place thought and speech. I was not aware of this fundamental misunderstanding until this semester I've been learning about it in a political science class I am taking. Turns out that, yes, our FF's and their glorious revolution was in fact very much a LIBERALIST movement -- just NOT a SOCIAL-WELFARE LIBERALIST one.

Yes, I am a Liberal (mostly of the Libertarian variety) -- but I am also pro-2A in the 'Individual' tradition. And this year I registered as a Republican to help ensure gun- and personal-defense-politicians were voted into office. But in the future I would not hesitate to vote in a *TRADITIONAL* Liberalist so long as their view on personal defense were not anti.

Go figure. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
Good post, bane.

To summarize: If you believe people should be allowed to carry guns in DC, you're a liberal!

(A traditional liberal, not a statist social welfare liberal).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
swillden said:
Good post, bane.
:thumbsup: Uh huh. Great summary of my understanding also.

I grew up Republican, but renounced my affiliation with their party a number of years ago when it became clear that they were much more about getting elected, protecting each other, and holding power and influence than they were about any particular ideology or "values".

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the Bush administration and the past 8 years of his presidency - with the exception of his Supreme Court appointments. I don't know that it's worth the way he has trampled on the Constitution and the many lives lost in the ever-changing-excused war, but his Supreme Court appointments have had and will continue to have a long lasting positive effect on our country.

The Republicans had the extraordinary opportunity of holding both houses of congress AND the presidency for a number of years, and I can't see that they did anything with it, or that the country as a whole is better off for it.

Right now, I'm not registered with any party, but am probably more LIbretarian than anything.

I did vote for the empty suit in the primary election... because he's MUCH better than Hillary. There's no way I can or will vote for McCain.

Where's Ross Perot when you need him. :dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Given Obama's anti-2A stance I just don't see how voting FOR him and AGAINST McCain can be justified. I have brought this up before and have been literally lambasted for showing any support for McCain. Admittedly I don't know much about the guy. And so I sat back and just watched for the last several months... and I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. What has this guy done that is SOOOOO incredibly horrible??? OTOH, Obama has come out in speech and his voting record and made it clear that if your gun isn't for hunting, he will work to abolish it.

Why are we so adamantly against McCain and somewhat supportive of Obama??? I just don't get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
mchlwise said:
I did vote for the empty suit in the primary election... because he's MUCH better than Hillary. There's no way I can or will vote for McCain.
I have to disagree with that. I could give you my reasoning, but Larry Correia explains it better. There are a number of things in his rant that I disagree with, but those are nits, the overall message is spot on.

I’m not feeling warm fuzzies about this election…
Posted on June 15, 2008 by correia45

****, I’m not feeling upbeat about the mental state of my fellow Americans. This election brings us what is probably one of the worst match-ups in presidential history. We’re running a conservative democrat against a Marxist, and for some reason I can’t seem to get real excited about our options here.

That said, McCain is still 1000 times better than Obama. Yes, McCain sucks by most conservative standards. But still pick any single issue and McCain is better than Obama. And I don’t know if that says just how stupid we Republicans were this time around, or just how extremely far left Obama is.

Obama supporters confuse me. One of the employees of our subletter (so they’re in our shop and use our parking lot) has a Latinos For Obama bumper-sticker on her car. I remarked that if Obama wins, I’ll probably be out of business within in a year. She was like “Huh?” I pointed out that Barack was no fan of guns, and with a Democrat majority in both the house and senate, I would be shocked if we didn’t get another ban rammed down our throat. She didn’t know that Obama didn’t like guns. In fact, as we talked, I discovered that she didn’t know much of anything about what he stands for.

So why did she support him? Health care. Whooeee… I’m a self-employed small businessman. I pay for my own healthcare out of my own pocket, and I’m not exactly rolling in extra dough if you know what I mean. Paying for my family’s healthcare is expensive. But guess what? Since I realize how much the government is going to butcher health-care, I’m glad to keep paying my own way.

You know what would make our health care more affordable? Stop forcing hospitals to pay BILLIONS of dollars a year for medical care for illegal aliens. But there’s an issue where both of the candidates suck. Because apparently it is our duty as American’s to subsidize the healthcare of the failed state just to the south of us.

So beyond jacking the crap out of my taxes so that you can get free (but poopy) government supplied healthcare, what exactly do Obama fans like about the man?

Hope? Change? Horsepoop.

They can’t like the man because of his experience. He’s not got any. He’s been a senator for 2 years. John McCain has been a senator for like 200. Personally since the senate is about as useless as ball sweat, I think that should disqualify both of them right there, but I digress. Before he was a senator, he was a state legislator (in the most corrupt state legislature in the country, and even then he didn’t manage to accomplish anything), and before that he was a “community activist”. Well, whoop-de-freakin’ do. And I ran a conveyor-belt and a cheese cutting machine for a summer. ****, I’m presidential material too!

This is a man who can read a good speech from a teleprompter (written by somebody else), but as soon as he gets put on the spot, he chokes, stutters, and sounds like an imbecile. Then he says “well, I hadn’t got much sleep when I said that.” Well, cowboy the **** up. You want to be president, which means you’ll probably miss a few nights, chump.

When George Bush says stupid crap, it is on every news station, comedians mock it ad nauseum, and even Iranian sock-puppets laugh at him. Barack says that he’s visited all 57 states where typical white people can abort their mistake children, sweetie, and that’s totally cool. And if you point that out, then obviously you’re a racist.

John McCain doesn’t misspeak. He actually is a democrat on 70% of the issues. The stuff he says that pisses me off is actually on purpose. He’s talking about how Lieberman and Bloomberg are still possible running-mates, and all I want to do is vomit. I’m really wanting to support you here John, because you’re running against a spoiled child that will destroy my country, so stop making it so **** HARD to support you!

Yes, a spoiled child. Barack is your typical clichéd liberal, whining about how the government needs to take care of us, and stroke our soft little heads, and tell us that everything is going to be okay. At least John McCain is an adult (on 30% of the issues, which is still more than I can say for Obama).

Today I heard a soundbyte where Obama was touring a hospital, and talked about how seeing blood made his queasy. Yes, because that’s the kind of testicular fortitude we need in a leader! McCain got TORTURED for five straight years by the Vietcong. I’m willing to bet that he doesn’t get “queasy” at the sight of blood, especially when he’s sticking his own arm bones back into his flesh, making bamboo splints, and tying them up with filthy rags.

So, McCain sucks on politics, but even at 70+ years old, he would beat Obama to death with his walker. That’s at least one quality I can respect in a leader.

Obama will clumsily yank us out of Iraq. Thereby assuring that everything we’ve worked and sacrificed for will be for nothing. And of course, this is when we’re actually doing well and winning. Tell me that that is the kind of strong leadership you want to square off against another rogue state with nuclear weapons. People keep comparing Obama to Kennedy, and all that tells me is that they need to shut their stupid TVs off and pick up a stinking history book. You honestly expect me to believe that little Barry the community activist of hope and change wouldn’t have wimped out during the Cuban Missile Crisis? (not that he would have minded the communists having nukes conversational distance from Florida, because Obama would have just said “go for it Comrade Fidel”, birds of a feather and all that, but you get the idea).

All of the Obama followers I talk to look at him like he’s Jesus. You’ve got women swooning (“can I get a bottle of water over here”) like he’s John Lennon. I’m waiting for the Secret Service to shoot somebody who is just trying to touch the hem of his robe to cure their leprosy.

Yet none of these Obama supporters can tell me what he actually believes in. He believes in whatever they think he believes in. He’s for the working man! I’m a working man, so I’m trying to figure out how losing another 8-15% of my income to the government is going to benefit me. (Let me break that down for you mouth-breathing non-accountants out there. Congratulations, you now get to work another 1 or 2 months a year, FOR FREE!)

Somebody told me that Obama will lower gas prices! How? By not tapping into our own resources? We’ve got oil off both coasts, in Alaska, and under Utah and Colorado, that we’re not allowed to touch. The democrats kiss the ***** of various faceless environmentalists to the point that we’re stupid enough to put our entire nation at a disadvantage to theoretically protect manatees and polar bears, while the same exact parts of the globe are getting tapped by Indian and Chinese interests. Do you really think the Indians drilling in the Caribbean right now give a crap about the manatee? Though Curried Manatee does sound pretty good.

I actually heard some congressional turd the other day say how drilling in those places won’t help gas prices for 10 years… How’s that for foresight? I don’t know about you, but I figure I’ll probably still be driving a car in 10 years, so how about you get off your stupid ***** and give us an energy policy better that “rape the oil companies because they made an 8% profit!”

If it would lower my gas prices ten cents a gallon, I’d club a baby seal with a manatee! Screw the environmentalists.

Once again, not making John McCain a whole lot better, considering that he worships at the altar of the Prophet Al Gore. We’ve got both sides tripping over themselves to destroy our nation over science that is basically a load of crap. And for any of you that are reading this blog that believe in man-made global warming, if you can’t answer this question, shut the **** up: If global warming is happening, and it is man’s fault, explain how the Vikings farmed Greenland in recent history. Oh, can’t answer, then see above. Shut the **** Up.

Five years ago, when I told people that my eventual goal was to build a house out in the middle of nowhere that was totally off the grid, powered by solar panels, a wind turbine, with my own well and gravity fed water tower, I was a psycho right-wing militia type. Now, apparently I’m “environmentally aware” and “Green.” Oh, barf. Anybody who tells me that, I then point out that my off-the-grid house is also going to have a giant fence around it, topped in razor-wire, with solar-powered spotlights for my .50 BMG sniper rifle. Stuff it, hippie. Us government-hating survivalists were into that stuff way before you showed up to the party in your Prius.

I’ve been listening to Obama supporters talk up their boy, (oops, said boy, I must be RACIST), and he’s got nothing. If my side had the balls or the sense to run an actual Republican, then this election would have been a mudstomping like unto Michael Dukakis. ****, if my party hadn’t sucked wind and kowtowed to a bunch of RINOs in the senate then we probably wouldn’t be in the straights that we’re in now. The Republican party had its chance, and we couldn’t show jack squat.

We had the majority for a brief time, and we blew it. We squandered it. My party is pathetic and can’t demonstrate a lick of leadership. Why didn’t we come up with a coherent energy policy? Why won’t we secure our borders? Why can’t we just man up and smack Nancy Pelosi upside her head? The people speak, and we’re slapped down and told we’re stupid. No wonder we’re in the state that we’re in now. Our party is a joke.

And even then we’re still better than the ****** bags on Obama’s side.

May God have mercy on our souls.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
I know most people view a vote for a third party or Libertarian candidate Bob Barr a wasted vote. I feel ashamed that the people in my country feel that they have to vote for one of the two major candidates. This two-party system is ruining our country. I am voting for Bob Barr. Will he win? Not likely, not since everyone feels that they must vote for the "lesser of two evils." I don't want to vote for evil in the first place and I honestly don't think that I could live with myself having voted for someone with whom I disagree on so many major issues. Does this mean that if I don't vote for McCain then Obama will win? Perhaps, but at least I will know that I voted for someone that would have upheld the constitution and made this country a better place and then I stand to oppose the newly elected president's policies. I count my vote as my support, not just casting my hand in the pool. If I decide to vote for someone, I want it to be because I agree with their policies and goals as much as is possible. I know that if this feeling were held by more Americans, we would have better presidents. Unfortunately, as it stands now, and the way people feel they must vote, we will continue to elect officials that will continue to tear down and destroy the very foundations that this country was built upon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
Amen to that. The only truly wasted vote is one that is not true to your own conscience and principles.

:agree:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
WOW! That guy is a *HILARIOUSLY ENTERTAINING* writer! He plays too much against environmentalism I think, but he's still very fun to read!

Thanks for the article, Swil!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Dave, I agree with you 100% -- which is why I very likely will be voting Libertarian for President as well.

It's also why I have decided to care fairly little about National Politics and try and focus more on State and Local politics. Our great country was never intended for the common man to be so wrapped up as we are in National Politics -- the Independent States were to be like competitors, each vying for the best government with which to attract the most and best Citizens. We have all but abandoned that just so that we can have a "King" we can all adore.

Well frankly, it makes me sick and tired. I'll vote for President, sure. But I don't care that much anymore. Instead I care more about voting in good State and Local leaders and let them and their associates in the Electoral College do the job the way it was meant to be done in the first place. If we all did that, we would have pretty good local leaders who would work to make sure we had at least decent Federal ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
Thanks Swill I couldn't agree more.

Dave, I agree with that. Many who feel that voting for Bob will be just like when Perot was running that gave us slick Willy. I am having a hard time with this election. In years past I knew exactly who I was voting for by this time. Now I am not so sure. I know for dang sure I will never vote for Osama-Obama. The more I watch Glenn Beck I want the Governor of Louisiana to run!! I wish we could get the NRA to endorse Bob Barr that would increase his chances of actually winning. So that leaves me with one choice to vote my conscience and the logical choice Bob Barr!
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top