Idea # 1 for Republican Voters 2004?

Great Debates
21

First off, you need to be more friendly, there are sometimes things called “Mistakes” my god what a concept.

In this case, those rolling eyes, I don’t know how they got in there because I dont’ remember selecting them.

However, when I said “I’m not going to comment on this” about Nixon I meant it literally, because I don’t know. The only thing I care to know about Nixon is he got us out of Vietnam, regardless of the rest of his politics.

So your attack makes you look like an ass, if you’d care to not look like an ass in the future, excersise more brotherly-love, or friendliness, rather than instant “Judo-CHOPS!”

After all this is the internet and inflections of voice don’t exist, so meanings can be lost in how things are written.

So you let everyone else do the thinking for you?

I fail to see how Bush is increasing the powers of the federal government.

He’s increased the powers of the State Governments by changing the criteria for what they can search and seize and so forth. But he has not expanded National Government powers into the Jurisdictions of the States such as Lyndon B. Johnson and Clinton did.

And I don’t know where you heard I’m for taking the issue of Marriage out of the hands of the States.

I am for letting each state make up its own mind. Nevada already has hurrah…ban to Gay Marriages.

But you know the liberal courts, most likely won’t uphold this for much longer. When it hits the national table of issues, the ruling will most-likely be that each state needs to respect the other’s laws. So an Amendment isn’t too shabby of a way to go in that sense.

But I’m still more for state’s rights. But the Courts are not going to respect that in this case. Or if they do, that would be a first for them since the 60s.

Considering that you don’t seem to have any biff with anything else I said, I’ll consider this post an over-all victory.

Especially since all that mattered was cleaning-up Reagan’s name, which so many ignorant liberals have managed to tarnish. One such liberal in this thread…whom now has been corrected.

Flies off to save history from yet another liberal butcher --WOOSH–

22

The_Broken_Column: You seem to be blissfully unaware of dutchboy208’s Pit thread in your honor.

You should take a look. I pit The_Broken_Column.

23

That’s durned presumptuous. I know that I am going to have to hold my nose with both hands and use my elbow to cast a vote for GWB come November, but I am voting my conscience because I know that voting for GWB is the only way to prevent Kerry or Edwards from becoming the next president, and as far as GWB is from my ideals, either Dem is even worse. It’s not a matter of ignoring conscience, it’s a matter of looking at the bigger picture, and voting, in this case, for the lesser of two evils. I could easily go in and write in Mickey Mouse and walk away, but my conscience tells me that my vote isn’t just personal. It’s not just me making the decision which rubs me the right way, it’s about doing what I can to elect the person I think will be best – or least worst – for everyone.

24

What’s the bigger picture, here? You got lots of Halliburton stock in the portfolio or something like that?

25

You mean the same way that an overwhelming majority of Democrats voted to re-elect Clinton in 1996 despite his reneging on NAFTA, reneging China MFN status, reneging on gays in the military, rolling back welfare, and declaring the “end of big government”? Lotsa moral courage there, bucko.

26

I’m one of the “fiscal conservative” types that is not satisfied with President Bush on a number of issues,and am not sure if I’m ready to support John Kerry. (and I’m finding out I’m not alone in those feelings)

This seems like an optimal time for a serious showing by a Libertarian party candidate for president. With the way a number of fiscal conservatives feel about Pres. Bush, a Libertarian party candidate should get enough support to show up on the media radar, and maybe even get enough of a percentage of votes to qualify for funding.

Maybe I’m not remembering things too well, but it seems like at this point four years ago, most people were aware of Ralph Nader and his bid for president as a member of the Green party, and Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party. I think that if they would get with the program, the Libertarian party would be able to
get some of that type of publicity, and send a message to the Republicans that there is a serious libertarian voting block that they should be paying attention to.

When I go to the Libertarian web site, I can’t even find a candidate’s name for president in 2004!

27

If you send the Liberatarians your name, they might make YOU the candidate this year. :slight_smile:

They have no funds, and no large group behind them like Nader did last time…or Buchanan for that matter. The Reform Party was still coasting along from Ross Perots showing from '92 and still getting federal funds at that point. You won’t see much of them this time around either as they didn’t get enough votes last time to maintain those funding levels. I agree…this would probably be the perfect time for the Liberatarian party to make a move to get on the board. It would make a lot of the hard core 'Crats in this tread and on this board jump for joy too. I don’t think its going to happen though as they just don’t have the funds to even get started.

-XT

28

That’s because s/he hasn’t yet been selected.

If you click on the “Libertarian Party National Convention” section at the top left of the home page, it will take you here, where it says that the nomination of the LP’s candidates for President and Vice-President will be named on Sunday, May 30.

To find out who those candidates are, click on the “Campaigns” tab at the top of the LP home page, and then click on the link at the top left. It will take you to this page, which lists the candidates and has links to their websites.