Gore endorses Dean [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

MrMacMan

Dec 9, 2003, 06:07 AM

Read All about it. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/08/elec04.prez.gore.dean/index.html)

Dean's place is pretty tight right now, other democrat running are gonna need to step it up... a lot.

[If you go into how ____ is better then ____, feel free to slap yourself and expect a slap from me later]

--MrMacMan

edit: Thread was moved... yay! :(

themadchemist

Dec 9, 2003, 06:16 AM

Is there a reason that the title of this thread is "Gore indorses Dead [sic]"? I think this is a good thing. Dean's a little left leaning, but he's the only hope against George Dubya. Man, I hope Dubya loses in 2004.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 9, 2003, 06:46 AM

Dean is to far left for main stream America, i would say it looks like 4 more years of George. Democratic party does not like those traditional hard core American values. when i look at the democrats i see a god hating, gay loving, party that wants to tear down anything that is traditional America. Kick out those christmas trees, they are so offensive, boot the 10 commandments out! Take away those guns! get god off the coins and out of school! Remove the pledge of alligence! have i missed something? This is what the democrats stand for? now add a very left Dean? why did he seal his records for a decade in vermont? a better ticket would be Gore running and Dean as a vp.

caveman_uk

Dec 9, 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
when i look at the democrats i see a god hating, gay loving, party that wants to tear down anything that is traditional America. Kick out those christmas trees, they are so offensive, boot the 10 commandments out! Take away those guns! get god off the coins and out of school! Remove the pledge of alligence! have i missed something?
So a good, traditional American is a god fearing, homophobic gun nut who believes in religious indoctrination?

Just checking.... :rolleyes:

cubist

Dec 9, 2003, 08:18 AM

Oh piffle, this is some political garbage. When I saw the title I thought this was going to be about the Grateful Dead! :D

Kid Red

Dec 9, 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Dean is to far left for main stream America, i would say it looks like 4 more years of George. Democratic party does not like those traditional hard core American values. when i look at the democrats i see a god hating, gay loving, party that wants to tear down anything that is traditional America. Kick out those christmas trees, they are so offensive, boot the 10 commandments out! Take away those guns! get god off the coins and out of school! Remove the pledge of alligence! have i missed something? This is what the democrats stand for? now add a very left Dean? why did he seal his records for a decade in vermont? a better ticket would be Gore running and Dean as a vp.

I'm a democrat and yea, I agree with half of what you say. I love my christmas tree and the holiday to to celebrate giving and is based around Santa. I don't own a gun but that's because I have a kid and I am young enough that I fear the 'power' trip that is associated with owning a gun. Everyone has a right to own a gun, no doubt (not a tech nine tho like some NRA freaks want) The pledge is fine, keep it, but remove 'one nation under god' which was added in the 40s (or so) and does not have to be in the pledge to show allegiance or nationalism to my country.

The booting of 10 commandments are a prime example of those 'hardcore American traditions'. Obviously you are so blinded by your faith that you failed to make that assertion. The separation of church and state was declared by our founding fore fathers. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " and " but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So actaully, the removal of the 10 commandments was actually abiding by those hardcore American traditions. And also, nice to see that politician got the boot as well, not becauee he's a religios zealot trying to force his belief on others but because he failed to uphold his vow to keep church and state seperated.

Want that line to blurr? Well, the Taliban is a great example of why you want that serperate. You think a hardcore Christian government would look better then the KKK? You think Jews and Catholics wouldn't be a little pissed off? What about us Atheists, Hatians, Jamacans, Muslims (don't want to piss them off)? Yea, that's what we need, let's tear this country apart because christians don't like democrats and want to rule the country :rolleyes:

So basically, you're only real bitch is about god. Well then, you don't like anyone is you feel that way because christians aren't the only religious body and many others who believe in god, don't believe in yours.

I like Clark. He needs to step it up, but he's leading in some state primary now and needs to get him name out more. He's the perfect democrat. He admits to being liberal and yet is a general so he's got that fire and military background the rednecks will love.

Dean's OK, I just think he's trying to hard to be liked, and in the process showing that he's only doing or saying things to get accepted. I want his real answer or opinion, not the one he wants me to hear. I think the race is really between Dean and Clark so it will be interesting if Gore's endorsement lengthens Dean's lead and how Clark responds.

themadchemist

Dec 9, 2003, 09:17 AM

phrancpharmD

Dec 9, 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by cubist
Oh piffle, this is some political garbage. When I saw the title I thought this was going to be about the Grateful Dead! :D

Me too - my imagination ran rampant in the second or two it took to realize it wasn't so. . .

phgreer

Dec 9, 2003, 09:44 AM

I don't trust Dean. He makes scary faces.

:eek:

Lyle

Dec 9, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by themadchemist
Is there a reason that the title of this thread is "Gore indorses Dead [sic]"?Freudian slip?

jrv3034

Dec 9, 2003, 10:16 AM

At first I didn't pay much attention to what seems like the 69th democrat running, but check out this piece on him in salon by Michael Moore:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/09/17/moore_clark/index.html

You can read the entire letter here:

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/mmoore_letter.htm

My favorite quote:
"If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them."

mactastic

Dec 9, 2003, 10:23 AM

Lol, we might as well put this in politics right now.

But to add my 2¢, I will say that I hope the Republicans keep piling on the nonsense about how liberal Dean is. Then when the campaign starts the country will see what a big lie that is. Dean is NOT a liberal. He gets a favorable rating from the NRA for pete's sake. Many of Deans most vocal critics from back in the day in Vermont are actual liberals, they fought tooth and nail against many of Dean's proposals.

Dean a Liberal? (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20031124-9999_1n24dean.html)
As he campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's image as a fiery insurgent has some Vermonters scratching their heads.

They say the Howard Dean they know is a centrist who balanced budgets, cut taxes and often battled with more liberal Democrats on spending, health care and other issues.

A look at Dean's record reveals a pragmatist who generally steered a middle ground as governor of a small New England state whose politics are as unique as any ice cream flavor dreamed up by Ben & Jerry's.

"He sure wasn't liberal. I'm liberal. I fought him on a yearly basis," Democratic state Rep. Ann Seibert said.
Vermont is a highly educated state, where nearly a quarter of the people older than 25 have at least a bachelor's degree. The population is about 97 percent white.

But the perceived liberalism of Vermont is textured by a populace tied to the rugged outdoors, where sportsmen and hunters have influence on the state's culture and politics. About twice as many people live in rural areas as in urban communities.

That may help explain Dean's general opposition to gun control, which earned him an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association.
Dean inherited a $65 million deficit – a big sum in such a small state – caused by increased spending and a nationwide recession. He maintained Snelling's plan for erasing the red ink: a temporary, progressive tax increase and spending limits.

"Across the board, except in health care, by and large it was just holding managers to a 2-to 3-percent growth rate," said Tom Pelham, the state's top financial manager under Dean, who, like several Dean appointees, also served in the Snelling administration. "The guy does not like to waste money."

To the chagrin of some Democrats, Dean stuck with the plan Snelling had worked out with the Legislature to let the tax increases expire when the deficit was erased.

In fact, the standard tax rate was later reduced to 1 percent below where it had been before the increases.
Is Howard Dean Green? (http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html)

For Vermonters who have seen Howard Dean up close and personal for the last eleven years as our governor, there's something darkly comical about watching the national media refer to him as the "liberal" in the race for the Democratic nomination for president. With few exceptions in the 11-plus years he held the state's top job, Dean was a conservative Democrat at best. And many in Vermont, particularly environmentalists, see Dean as just another Republican in Democrat's clothing.
And nowhere are the tall tales of Dean's liberalism more off the mark than when the Dean team begins to gush about his environmental record.

"EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection," proclaims Annette Smith, the director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

Smith is no stranger to Dean's environmental record, having tangled with the Dean administration on everything from the OMYA Corporation's mining to pesticide usage on Vermont's mega-farms. When Smith learned that Dean was holding a press conference at the Burlington Community Boathouse last week to celebrate his eco-legacy, she fired off emails to Vermont environmentalist calling for a protest of the event and wondering if they were "going to let Governor Dean ride out on his white horse of environmental leadership?"

It was Smith who stumbled onto Dean's official gubernatorial web site a couple of years ago and found a bucolic photo of her home town of Danby being featured with this caption: "Time stands still hereyou might even forget when it's time to go home." Ironically, the location depicted in the photo was the same spot Dean was pushing to host a massive gas pipeline, a plan that would have required timber clear-cuts and other dramatic topographical changes. The Dean team removed the photo within a couple of weeks, but not before Smith made hay with his apparent hypocrisy.

"Dean's attempts to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud," Smith told Wild Matters. "He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with the development community, and he's made the permitting process one, big dysfunctional joke."
As Dean goes national he may be able to fool an Iowan or two with his eco-record, but Vermonters have seen enough to know that being green isn't easy for Dean. And he's far from being a liberal.

ColoJohnBoy

Dec 9, 2003, 12:45 PM

Why do people use the term liberal as though it's a bad thing? This is one of the reasons I went to work for Wes Clark. On Bill Maher's show, he embraced it, saying how the United States was founded on liberal ideas.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Dean is to far left for main stream America, i would say it looks like 4 more years of George. Democratic party does not like those traditional hard core American values. when i look at the democrats i see a god hating, gay loving, party that wants to tear down anything that is traditional America. Kick out those christmas trees, they are so offensive, boot the 10 commandments out! Take away those guns! get god off the coins and out of school! Remove the pledge of alligence! have i missed something? This is what the democrats stand for? now add a very left Dean? why did he seal his records for a decade in vermont? a better ticket would be Gore running and Dean as a vp.

Huh? Those must be some powerful drugs you're taking because you're way off the mark. Along with Lieberman and Edwards, Dean is the most moderate of the Democratic candidates. If you want extremely liberal, go for Kucinich, or Braun, or even Wes Clark.

God-hating? I'm actually quite firmly Christian thank you very much. I attend church every week. Gay-loving? Well, yeah, seeing as gays are people too and should be afforded all the same rights as everyone else. It's not so much gay-loving, but equality-loving. And yes, throw the Ten Commandments out of the courthouses. The First Amendment clearly establishes the separation of church and state, and for a judge to fight tooth-and-nail to have what is clearly a religious document posted in a place where justice is supposed to be blind demonstrates a clear violation of that principle.

Why did Dean seal his records as governor? Because they don't pertain to public matters. I mean, one of the "records" he sealed was a letter from the family of a cancer patient thanking the then-Governor for the work he'd done in getting health insurance for all citizens of Vermont, something that enabled this person to receive treatment he needed. But while we're on the topic, Bush sealed all his gubernatorial records, including some that were, or at least should have been, a matter of public record.

Research the facts before you launch a tirade, bucko. Otherwise you sound like an idiot.

Taft

Dec 9, 2003, 01:39 PM

g5man

Dec 9, 2003, 02:16 PM

For the life of me I still can not see Dean as the Democratic challenger to Bush. I agree, he is much more moderate than most realize. The problem he will have if he gets nominated will be when he attempts to wiggle his way out of the many statements he has made to pander to the extreem Bush hating crowd.

Gore's endorsment will help, but he really needs Hillary's.

It is still much too early, despite his big lead, to assume that he will be nominated. And yet I have a hard time picking any other Democratic candidate as well.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 9, 2003, 02:18 PM

Well taft looks like i stired up a few, im not even Republican but i get a big kick of the attacks from the liberal left. In fact im not into any form of religion at all. They are all man made and i sure dont remember God or Jesus saying be a catholic, muslim or whatever. dont remember saying gays are immoral so where did that come from taft? and this seperation of church and state is one thing but our forfathers Never intended god to be removed from the big picture in fact just the opposite god was placed all over the documents this country was founded on with many references to him. Its even on your money! Im just making a few observations. and for colonjonboy you want to throw out the big ten? maybe im a idiot but where do you think the foundation of our laws came from? all our original laws are modeled after the big ten and nothing you can spin will change that. Mactastic puts out some good info, didnt know Dean was so anti Green. Maybe this means Ralph Nader will be back. Anyways im just making a prediction, heck i might even vote for Dean but the Democratic Party has moved away from anything that is traditional american values. Dont get mad this is just a observation.

Sayhey

Dec 9, 2003, 02:40 PM

Don't Hurt Me, we can go into the whole debate about the basis for our constitution again, but suffice it to say that idea that it is from the Ten Commandments is not a position that holds much water.

I would agree with you that the Republican party and the right wing preachers have been very successful in portraying the Democratic Party as out of step with "mainstream" values. I think that is a distortion, but they have been successful with their propaganda. It seems to me the ideas of fairness and equality that the Democrats are much more closely associated with are very much American mainstream values. I think the concern for and commitment to children and the elderly are a value that Democrats can be proud of. It is all in how one frames the debate. The Democrats can't let their opponents frame that debate for them or they will lose.

As to Dean, I find it incredibly funny that every time there is a national election that we are always told that it is all over when it is clearly not. Unless I missed something, not one vote as been cast yet in a caucus or primary. The "horse race" character of the political coverage we get may employ lots of pundits but it is a lot like reading spring training predictions of who will win the World Series. Let's see how the season plays out.

Frohickey

Dec 9, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Kid Red
I'm a democrat and yea, I agree with half of what you say. I love my christmas tree and the holiday to to celebrate giving and is based around Santa. I don't own a gun but that's because I have a kid and I am young enough that I fear the 'power' trip that is associated with owning a gun. Everyone has a right to own a gun, no doubt (not a tech nine tho like some NRA freaks want)

You say that everyone has a right to own a gun, but isn't a Tec-9 a gun as well? The right to own a gun is part and parcel of the right to self-defense, and is Constitutionally-guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. There was no distinction of which types of arms are protected, or not... and Democrats are also hot to trot on saying they are for Hunters rights. (John Kerry going on a pheasant shoot/photo op, same with Bill Clinton, same with Al Gore. There is no mention of hunting in the Constitution.

If you read up on the Federalist papers and the various writings of the Founding Fathers, you will see that the reason for the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the rise of an oppressive tyrannical government. That is fact.

How much teeth does the First Amendment have without the Second?

mactastic

Dec 9, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
How much teeth does the First Amendment have without the Second?

Between the courts and the police powers it has plenty of teeth. How many times have we had to use the Second Amendment to protect the First?

G5ROCKS

Dec 9, 2003, 03:48 PM

I don't know why Gore decided not to run himself. He's certainly more qualified to be president that the other Democrats in the race, having been vice president for eight years. He has national appeal, he got more popular votes last time around than Bush did. Why not a rematch? He could even pick Hillary Clinton as his VP candidate. That would be a very formidable ticket. When Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison, despite getting more popular votes, he ran again the next time around and won a second term.

Sayhey,
Democrats are associated with mainstream American values. So are Republicans. People just point to the fringes of the parties to demonstrate otherwise, but most Democrats and most Republicans reflect mainstream values.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 9, 2003, 03:54 PM

I agre with G5 rocks, wish Gore would have ran. oh well. one more thing i noticed about Dean and that is he looked pretty darn short standing next to big AL. I dont know about short people in positions of power? remember Napolean or how about that guy with the funny mustach Hitler.

mactastic

Dec 9, 2003, 03:59 PM

Well, Dean at 5'10 is only an inch shorter than the current occupant of the White House. And he lost to the 6'1 Al Gore. If height has anything to do with anything, John Kerry (6'5) will be our next president.

g5man

Dec 9, 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I don't know why Gore decided not to run himself. He's certainly more qualified to be president that the other Democrats in the race, having been vice president for eight years. He has national appeal, he got more popular votes last time around than Bush did. Why not a rematch? He could even pick Hillary Clinton as his VP candidate. That would be a very formidable ticket. When Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison, despite getting more popular votes, he ran again the next time around and won a second term.

He was not able to secure the same amount of funding as last time around. It would have been an uphill battle against the Democratic establishment. Many felt he should have won had he used Clinton in the campaign, so since then the Clintons have disowned him. Did you see the Hillary interview this weekend? Three times she was asked what she thought of Dean and she manage to avoid saying anything that could be interpreted as positive about him.

The Clintons still own this party and Dean is an outsider. Gore I think truly believes that that Dean has the nomination and he wants to be a player regarless of the outcome.

IJ Reilly

Dec 9, 2003, 05:20 PM

Gore's endorsement is meaningless to everyone except party insiders who feel the need to keep score.

Frohickey

Dec 9, 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Between the courts and the police powers it has plenty of teeth. How many times have we had to use the Second Amendment to protect the First?

Sorry, but the courts and the police can be corrupted as well. There is no guarantee that the courts and police in the United States cannot fall into vice and corruption as in other 'republics'.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Bonus points on who can tell me who and where the above quote was written.

G5ROCKS

Dec 9, 2003, 07:52 PM

Alex Kozinski, in a dissent.
Google can make anyone look good. :)

Sayhey

Dec 9, 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Sayhey,
Democrats are associated with mainstream American values. So are Republicans. People just point to the fringes of the parties to demonstrate otherwise, but most Democrats and most Republicans reflect mainstream values.

G5ROCKS,

I never had any illusions that the Democratic Party did not reflect such values. I only commented on the importance of not letting your adversary frame the debate and paint you as outside the mainstream. That is precisely what Republicans have been attempting to do with Gov. Dean. If he gets the nomination it will be the drumbeat of Rove and others on such issues as the war and gay marriage. It is nonsense, but we have seen how such fear-based campaigns very often do indeed work.

mactastic

Dec 9, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Frohickey
Sorry, but the courts and the police can be corrupted as well. There is no guarantee that the courts and police in the United States cannot fall into vice and corruption as in other 'republics'.

Bonus points on who can tell me who and where the above quote was written.

Lol, I answered your question but you ignored mine.

And it appears the only thing you believe in is the law of the gun. Your libertarian philosophy requires everyone to act in good faith and with the good of their neighbors at heart without government "coersion" for civilization to go on, yet your gun philosophy counts on people being inherently corrupt. Kind of at odds don't you think?

IJ Reilly

Dec 9, 2003, 09:16 PM

I can easily predict how Bush will run against Dean if he is nominated: as a George McGovern retread. That, with a little Willie Horton-style fear mongering thrown in for bad measure. They've already tipped their hands on this strategy. It's a brain-dead simple approach if all you're concerned about is winning a second term, and on that you can bet the house.

MrMacMan

Dec 9, 2003, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by themadchemist
Is there a reason that the title of this thread is "Gore indorses Dead [sic]"?

Yeah I goofed... sorry. It was a little early for me... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Dean is to far left for main stream America, i would say it looks like 4 more years of George. Democratic party does not like those traditional hard core American values. when i look at the democrats i see a god hating, gay loving, party that wants to tear down anything that is traditional America. Kick out those christmas trees, they are so offensive, boot the 10 commandments out! Take away those guns! get god off the coins and out of school! Remove the pledge of alligence! have i missed something? This is what the democrats stand for? now add a very left Dean? why did he seal his records for a decade in vermont? a better ticket would be Gore running and Dean as a vp.
Look on the issues, he isn't Kucinich.
Democrats don't see god as bad, nor are democrats gay (gay loving would be loving a person of your own sex... blah blah = gay)
Kick the Christmas tree? I doubt that... we have Rev. Al Sharpton remember (ala Religious). We also have a jewish person running for Pres... Lieberman (no chance).
The Courts kicked the 10 commandments out of the Judical Courthouse... no Democratic influence at all. (heck most of the Judges were Republican).
Taking away guns? Its called Gun Control. Come on guys, all that needs to be done for gun control is cut off all the loopholes for buying a gun at a convention. Then I will be fine for guns.

Gore was Stiff. Very stiff, it looked like he was dead campaigning... please.

Dean is not Liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by Lyle
Freudian slip?
My brain doesn't work to well until about 8 AM... sorry.

Question: Did our Framers base out very constitution on the writen 10 Commandments?
Answer: Yes they did base it on such, as well as parts of Greek and Roman Political systems.

Question: Did our Framers put the Separation of Church and State for a reason?
Answer: Yes, yes they did. Reason being, they knew not to be ignorant to other peoples religion, they weren't trying to convert people to Judeo-Christian Religions. They tried making it very simple, seperate them and there will be very few problems! Yet, we still debate on their intentions. Many things have changed since back then, would we like to remember how the Framers Solved Slavery? Or National Deby? Yes, we have come to know it is bad to inslave someone, and that becoming trillions of dollars in debt is a bad thing.

Question: Then why is 'G-d' on money?
Answer: The framers yes did not force people into a religion they did worship. But yes parts of their religion become apparent in each country, or society.

Example: Just because you see a Church doen't force you to be a Christian. This is the same way Putting 'G-d' on money doesn't indorce any religion.

Originally posted by Frohickey
You say that everyone has a right to own a gun, but isn't a Tec-9 a gun as well?
Sure it is!
The tec-9
http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/images2/tec9ls.jpg
Sure is quite a gun... semi-automatic... heck yes!

But then I ask... so if I am in need of a lot more protection... why not go all out and get one of my Favorite guns... a Minigun:
http://www.motionpicturearmourer.com/images/minigun_2.jpg
M134 Mini Gun... thats the kind of firepower everyone needs!

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I don't know why Gore decided not to run himself. He's certainly more qualified to be president that the other Democrats in the race, having been vice president for eight years.
I agree, but Gore told the nation he was taking time off. Gore lost, and he is still reeling. Gore will for sure be apart of any democrats team if ellected to president.

Gore is a great Resource for any political party.

Gore would get the nod... but if he lost everyone would shun him for loosing 2 Presidental Elections, could anyone deal with such a lose?

Originally posted by Frohickey
Sorry, but the courts and the police can be corrupted as well. There is no guarantee that the courts and police in the United States cannot fall into vice and corruption as in other 'republics'.
Anyone can be corrupt, that is a non-statement.

I can be corrupt, you can be corrupt. Anyone with an ounce of power can be corrupt.

Republicans shouldn't care really even if they lose the Presidency... they still have the House, The Senate and most small (less populous) states.

--MrMacMan

[Yes, I broke the 'I will never speak in Political Disc, because my thread was moved here]

Rower_CPU

Dec 9, 2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by MrMacman
...
[Yes, I broke the 'I will never speak in Political Disc, because my thread was moved here]

It should have been posted here to begin with.

Frohickey

Dec 10, 2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by mactastic
Lol, I answered your question but you ignored mine.

And it appears the only thing you believe in is the law of the gun. Your libertarian philosophy requires everyone to act in good faith and with the good of their neighbors at heart without government "coersion" for civilization to go on, yet your gun philosophy counts on people being inherently corrupt. Kind of at odds don't you think?

A gun is a tool. Its a tool that could be both used for good or bad. Its used for good if its used for self defense against people that would initiate force against you. Its used for bad if its used for crime to initiate violence against people.

Not at odds at all. My libertarian philosophy wishes that everyone act in good faith and with good in their heart. But my gun philosophy does not expect all people to be good. There are bad people out there, in all walks of life, in all levels of power.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 10, 2003, 02:16 PM

who are the libertarians running this time? I like a lot of what i have heard from them since the republicans & democrats are only interested in fighting whatever the other is trying to do.

Frohickey

Dec 10, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by MrMacman
Taking away guns? Its called Gun Control. Come on guys, all that needs to be done for gun control is cut off all the loopholes for buying a gun at a convention. Then I will be fine for guns.

Sure it is!
The tec-9
http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/images2/tec9ls.jpg
Sure is quite a gun... semi-automatic... heck yes!

But then I ask... so if I am in need of a lot more protection... why not go all out and get one of my Favorite guns... a Minigun:
http://www.motionpicturearmourer.com/images/minigun_2.jpg
M134 Mini Gun... thats the kind of firepower everyone needs!

There is no loophole for buying guns. If you buy a gun from a FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder, you are required, by law, to fill out Form 4473 and be subjected to a background check prior to taking delivery of the firearm. In certain states, there are added requirements such as a 10 day waiting period, or a 30 day per handgun period.

If you are buying a gun from a private party, meaning not a FFL license holder doing business, then, depending on the state, you could take immediate possession of the firearm, or you have to be subject to a background check prior to taking delivery of the firearm, as well as other state requirements... 10 day waiting period, etc.

The gun show just happens to be where you met the gun seller. The paperwork requirements depend on the seller. If the seller is a private gun collector that got a table in order to sell his collection, then the paperwork requirements are not as steep. If the seller is a FFL holder doing business as a gun store, then the paperwork requirements are the same as if he was in his store.

The convention just happens to be a time and place where buyers and sellers congregate.

As to the minigun vs tec-9... have you seen the cost of ammo for the minigun? Besides... miniguns are expensive. Not everyone can afford a minigun, let alone feed it.

Here is a picture of Charles Schumer shooting a Tec-9 (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=1161). :D

Frohickey

Dec 10, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
who are the libertarians running this time? I like a lot of what i have heard from them since the republicans & democrats are only interested in fighting whatever the other is trying to do.

Don't know yet. Its still very early.
Last two presidential elections, the Libertarian candidate was Harry Browne.

He was on a few talk shows and debates during the last election cycle, but none of the Democrat/Republican debates. Somehow, the Federal Election Commission doesn't think its a good idea to have 3rd party candidates be debating alongside the D/Rs. They were hiding behind the 10% rule, instead of making the criteria be if a candidate is in the ballot of all 50 states, or if a candidate has a mathematical chance of winning (by being in the ballot of a certain number of states).

Green party ends up getting votes (from the Democrats).
Libertarian party ends up getting votes (from the Republicans).

On close races, where the Republican candidate is odious to conservatives, there were enough votes for the Libertarian candidate to have swung the election to the Democrat candidate.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 10, 2003, 02:54 PM

Demo's and Repub's run the show and arent going to let anyone in on the party, is this what the original forfathers intended? i doubt it.

Frohickey

Dec 10, 2003, 06:46 PM

I think that there should be bimonthly debates, 6 months prior to the election. A total of 12 debates, make them all 3 hours long. That would really go a long way into figuring out which candidates are for what.

Plus, if you let in the larger 3rd party candidates, definitely the candidates that have a mathematical chance of winning, then ideas from these 3rd parties would much readily flow into the other larger parties.

The Dems/Reps do not have a monopoly on good ideas. It seems that they have had a monopoly on stupid ideas that become law. :D