Make Colorado a FREE STATE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim02

I took this pledge "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" I did not pledge allegiance to any party.

---

I agree wholeheartedly, but I also believe in what I believe in and the party, as flawed as it is, tends to have the same beliefs overall. Even when you get a renegade in there like McCain or Lindsay Graham, they may not be 100% in the same direction as me but 75% is better than -80% that I get from the other side.

Let's say that Lickyourpooper is a better all around choice (hypothetically) because he has excellent integrity and all the other traits that make a good man a good man - he still will vote for things I don't approve of such as gun rights or abortion, therefor I don't care that he's a good man I care that he believes in the same things that I do.

I don't find swing votes to be a problem, not in the least. My fiance is one of those swing votes and I vote party lines all the way down. Perhaps I am the problem. I can tell you this, I don't like McGinnis but he shares at least SOME of my beliefs and I'll vote for him because he has an (R) after his name. The only time I deviate from this is if that (R) is phony and is a liberal in republicans clothing, then I have to make that choice of "lesser of two evils".

I consider the end result. Let's say McGinnis gets in and is a total ass-hat, if he wants another term he is going to have to cave into republicans to do that, so it makes him just a pawn in the overall game, not the queen (king), so by voting party lines I still win with an ass-hat.

That's my $1.02 :).

[quote=Ranger;223901]I agree wholeheartedly, but I also believe in what I believe in and the party, as flawed as it is, tends to have the same beliefs overall. Even when you get a renegade in there like McCain or Lindsay Graham, they may not be 100% in the same direction as me but 75% is better than -80% that I get from the other side.
[quote]

The republican party does not seem to share my beliefs if I assume their canidates lately are a direct look into their beliefs.

Bush and McCain have shown they want amnesty for illegals.
Both parties do not seem to understand the 2nd amendment and both try to regulate it in some fashion.
Both parties have supported the welfare policies and government healthcare programs.

General election i have to pick the lesser evil for sure for but the primary I can advocate for who I think is the better canidate and try to get a non-evil to the election.

http://www.rmgo.org/images/Dan%20Maes%20Survey.pdf

If someone can find the same thing on McInnis and Hickenlooper, please post.

Finally someone with worse handwriting then my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wheelgun

http://www.rmgo.org/images/Dan%20Maes%20Survey.pdf

If someone can find the same thing on McInnis and Hickenlooper, please post.

---

In this survey he answers "No" and writes "We are not Vermont or Alaska" when asked "Would you support Vermont style legislation which would allow law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun for any reason except for the comission of a crime?"

On his website he says he will support the law if the people of Colorado ask for it. Anyone know where he really stands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOC

Finally someone with worse handwriting then my own.

---

Seriously, it looks like a chicken on dope wrote it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wheelgun

Seriously, it looks like a chicken on dope wrote it.

---

And I know several REALLY good Doctors that don't have legible handwriting either. Just saying.
[Beer]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadShot

So Tancredo is not a 2nd Amendment supporter eh?

---

That's correct. He is better than some, but not nearly as good as others, despite what he may say. But no need to take my word for it. Here it is in his own words:


From the Rocky Mountain News, Jan 31, 2000:

Tancredo, who faces a potentially tough challenge in his re-election bid, said he is not dismissing the volatile issue of gun control. The freshman lawmaker was the only member of the state's six-member House delegation to vote for a package of compromise gun-safety measures that ultimately was defeated. The pro-gun faction thought the package did too much, and gun-control advocates thought it did too little.

``That bill would have closed loopholes at gun shows, and it would have banned high-capacity clips,''Tancredo said. ``No person who, as a juvenile had committed any crime, could have been sold a gun under that law. And it made possession of an assault weapon by a juvenile a federal crime. ``I defy anyone to describe those things individually and call them watered-down, or pro-gun, or NRA-sponsored,'' Tancredo added. All four Republican members of the House delegation have received financial support from gun-rights groups - but none more than Tancredo. In his first election in 1998, Tancredo received $10,400 from gun-rights groups. Schaffer took in $7,000, Hefley $5,000 and Rep. Scott McInnis $3,000. Underscoring the sensitive nature of the issue, Tancredo vowed last month not to accept any contributions from gun-rights groups for his re-election campaign.

Compromise "gun safety" measures? Gun show loophole? Ban high-capacity "clips"? No person who had committed any crime as juvenile can buy a gun?

Even the NRA could only muster a B+ rating for him.

Sure, Tom. You're a staunch 2A supporter. Got it.

Excellent point, but what about the rest of the cited voting record? We are yet again faced with the lessor of the available evils. Or is that avoiding the Evil of the batch of Lessors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadShot

Excellent point, but what about the rest of the cited voting record? We are yet again faced with the lessor of the available evils. Or is that avoiding the Evil of the batch of Lessors?

---

I wish I had the answer. I like Tancredo. I don't like his lukewarm history on the gun issue. Personally, my opinion is if you can't trust him on one thing you probably can't trust him on others. I also believe Hickenlooper stays up late at night praying that Tancredo will enter the race as a 3rd party candidate. If he does, Hickenlooper might as well start picking out the drapes for the gov's mansion.

I tend to believe the latter part of your question is closer to the truth. We (the constituents, citizens, voters) are constantly forced to vote based on, "I'm voting for candidate X because he doesn't suck as bad as candidate Y."

Frankly, I'm tired of it. As a matter of fact, I'm seriously considering changing my affiliation to independent after this election cycle. The republican party leadership, in my view, has become far too corrupt and tainted and has repeatedly demonstrated to me they just flat don't care what the conservative people of this country want in terms of a republican agenda. The current republican party is nothing more than democrat lite. I don't like that one bit.

I told that to Waddams a few months ago at a republican meeting at the county level. His response was basically, "Too fuckin' bad." Of course, he didn't use those terms but that was the jist of it. And the county leadership just parroted whatever Waddams said.

So, like many others, I'm stuck voting for the guy who doesn't suck as bad as the other guy.

It's a real shame what we've come to in this country.