REVOLT on the Right

[poncho]

The ledgislature is not the problem as I see it. The Judiciary is. Until the Judges are brought to some kind of accounting for their actions, we will keep getting what we have been getting. Global laws passed on Americans that usurps the soverignty of this country.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

I agree with CMG. The people are to be directly represented by their congressman. Talk to him and if he doesn't respond properly vote him out.

 

[fromtheright]

Galatian,

Posted by fromtheright:

Oh, we know "where else you can go". We also know what the real world effect will be when enough of you do: President-elect John Kerry the day after the election. And we know that you'll blame Bush, Kerry, and anyone but yourselves when it happens.

Response by Galatian:

This sounds kind of like.."You're going to vote for the right guy, but there aren't enough of you, so one of the wrong guys will get in, and it's ALL YOUR FAULT!"

Not at all; more like, when you're concentrating on defeating someone, be careful of what you wish. You may replace him with worse. And if you pull enough votes from Bush, that is exactly what you will do. Not all your fault, but it will be wildly irresponsible to pretend you had no role in it.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
And if you pull enough votes from Bush, that is exactly what you will do. Not all your fault, but it will be wildly irresponsible to pretend you had no role in it.

If one million of the conservatives who did not even vote in 2000 decide to vote for Peroutka in November instead of staying at home and not voting, they will NOT be pulling any votes away from Bush. I can't seem to understand the argument people throw at me, that by voting for Peroutka I am taking a vote away from Bush, wouldn't my vote have to first belong to Bush in order for Peroutka to take it away from him?

 

[KenH]

Unfortunately, many people live in a bipolar political world and they don't think outside of that box. Therefore, they think if one is conservative that his vote must assuredly go to Mr. Bush by default.

CONSERVATIVES AGAINST BUSH

 

[Stratiotes]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
It is true that the Libertarians are splayed all over the spectrum. That is the reason that I said that a majority of them are permissive on moral issues and therefore the Libertarian Party should be counted as leftist and of no reliable help to conservatives. I doubt if you could count on Libertarians to picket an abortion clinic, a go-go joint, or an adult bookstore.

I don't know that its a majority since I have not seen any objective data, but I suspect you could be correct about that. I just know of some very moral people who happen to be liberterian - in fact, the majority of the liberterians with whom I have corresponded are brothers and sisters. I just want to be careful about blanket judgements of guilt by association.

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
As for the idea of some sort of technological democracy, I would be against it as it would be mob rule sooner or later. The Founding Fathers gave us a republic, which is superior to a democracy.

I don't know if there is evidence in history that a republic is superior. I know the debate has gone on since Adams and Jefferson. I think the founders attempted to give us the best of both with greater democracy at the local level and an emphasis on a republic at the fed level. Decentralization is key since it was felt that a pure democracy was unmanageable the larger the country was. Switzerland was an example the founders often spoke of and they founded a union based on the idea of independent units within a federal union where the independent entities (Cantons in Switzerland/States here) emphasized local democracy. They create more of a democratic-republic than either a pure republic or pure democracy.

 

[church mouse guy]

I think that ancient Greece might be considered an example of pure democracy if you like slave states. The evidence that you ask for about the superiority of a republic is the USA since 1776. There is no reason to change what we have.

The Libertarians want to legalize homosexual marriage, legalize drugs, legalize prostitution. The fact that some of them are "Christians" does not offset the fact that most of them are Howard Sterns.

 

[The Galatian]

"Ancient Greece" had no government at all. There was no such political entity as "Ancient Greece."

Athens was the extreme, being a pure democracy, but limiting citizenship to a few, with many metics, or free non=citizens, and some slaves.

Sparta was a militaristic oligarchy, with a titular king. There were also dictatorships, "tyrannies", although "tyrant" then meant someone who ruled with no legal sanction, not necessarily a brutal or repressive ruler.

Novgorod, in Russsia was a pure democracy in medieval times.

There are a few other examples, none of which were nations of any size.

All city-states, as far as I know.

 

[fromtheright]

Net Pup,

If one million of the conservatives who did not even vote in 2000 decide to vote for Peroutka in November instead of staying at home and not voting, they will NOT be pulling any votes away from Bush. I can't seem to understand the argument people throw at me, that by voting for Peroutka I am taking a vote away from Bush, wouldn't my vote have to first belong to Bush in order for Peroutka to take it away from him?

Good point, but would you not say that Bush's political positions are closer to what you want than Kerry's? If so, and all your votes for Peroutka won't come anywhere close to putting him in the White House, but those same votes (assuming that they agree that Bush's positions are closer to their own than Kerry's) might ensure Bush a win, then yes, a vote for Peroutka will help put Kerry in office. If you disagree with that and view Bush and Kerry as equally bad (or Bush worse than Kerry) then it follows that you would have no more problem with Kerry being President than Bush.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Net Pup,

If one million of the conservatives who did not even vote in 2000 decide to vote for Peroutka in November instead of staying at home and not voting, they will NOT be pulling any votes away from Bush. I can't seem to understand the argument people throw at me, that by voting for Peroutka I am taking a vote away from Bush, wouldn't my vote have to first belong to Bush in order for Peroutka to take it away from him?

Good point, but would you not say that Bush's political positions are closer to what you want than Kerry's? If so, and all your votes for Peroutka won't come anywhere close to putting him in the White House, but those same votes (assuming that they agree that Bush's positions are closer to their own than Kerry's) might ensure Bush a win, then yes, a vote for Peroutka will help put Kerry in office. If you disagree with that and view Bush and Kerry as equally bad (or Bush worse than Kerry) then it follows that you would have no more problem with Kerry being President than Bush.

I honestly can't think of many of Bush's political positions are close to what I want. I would guess that Bush and Kerry would agree on more issues that Bush and I would agree on. I will admit that Kerry is more liberal than Bush on some issues, but it doesn't mean that Bush is a conservative on those issues, just a little less liberal than Kerry. We moved more the the left and saw more liberal agendas accomplished in the last 3.5 years under the Bush administration than we did in 8 years under the Clinton administration. I refuse to cast a vote to help either Bush or Kerry get elected. My vote for Peroutka is not helping either of them get elected, because my vote for Peroutka never belonged to either of them. The total number of votes that Bush and Kerry recieve will not be changed by whether I vote for Peroutka or stay home and not vote at all.