Make Colorado a FREE STATE!

From the Facebook Group:
Make Colorado a FREE STATE! - Vote Dan Maes for Governor
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120921514621244

-------------------------------------------------

Don't care about Politics?
Well, you should.
Politics care about you.

Colorado is in a unique swing status right now, where we could either sway into becoming a nanny-state under federal control (like New York or California), or dig into our roots and become a FREE STATE.

This isn't about Republican, Democrat, Independent--whatever.

One of the greatest tricks the tyrants ever did was to distract us with division by parties. When the Left does something terrible and crushing to freedom, the people who identify themselves with the Left say, "well, YOUR president BUSH did THIS and THAT!" instead of looking at the bigger picture and real threat to Liberty.

-----

Right now we have three main people fighting for the governor's seat:

John Hickenlooper
Scott McInnis
and Dan Maes

Hickenlooper is nothing more than the successor to Bill Ritter, an incompetent big-government tyrant-supporter who will be a rubber stamp for Obama and his tyrannical agenda, someone who doesn't believe in Federalism (independent states making their own laws) and will raise your taxes, try to take away your rights (free speech and the right to defend yourself), and submit to whatever plot the Leftists in Washington DC decree. He is Colorado's Obama. But then again, if you understand why Obama is such a poison to freedom, you won't be voting for Hickenlooper anyway, will you?

Scott McInnis claims to be the 'Conservative' candidate, but is the lesser man and is NOT the freedom-minded activist he's trying to make himself out to be. He's a career politician, and he's riding on the wave of the peoples' current political atmosphere, like politicians do. He's never responeded to my letters or my questions (as Dan Maes did), because he doesn't care about us and is out of touch with the people. Whatever sort of Republican he may be, he's not the true Conservative. And his recent scandal only reinforces the typical politician BS.

Dan Maes is the peoples' candidate. A true Conservative and a business man with the experience to 'manage' Colorado and its budget with 20 years small business experience that McInnis does not have. I saw him speak at a Tea Party Rally, and he's the real deal. We've conversed via email. He has built his popularity by traveling around Colorado and meeting its people.

-----

Gun rights are my particular fight, and in my emails with Dan Maes he told me:

- He would support a 'Constitutional Carry', Vermont/Alaska/Arizona style (concealed carry without a permit for law-abiding citizens), because he supports out right to carry unharrassed.
- He would revoke all the extra BS anti-gun restrictions of Denver County

He's also said that he will enact laws to protect us from illegal immigrants (similar to Arizona), and would take the axe to the bloated state budget.

-----

Vote in your primaries (August 10th), and support Dan Maes. Scott McInnis is a weak candidate, and is not the man we need to turn Colorado's path back toward freedom and the Constitution. And we must defeat Hickenlooper at all costs.

McInnis and Hickenlooper are politicians with a lot of money. Hickenlooper has MILLIONS, since he's being groomed by Obama. Dan Maes is just a grassroots Conservative with a whole lot less resources to work with, so he relies on Coloradans to spread the word and help the cause of freedom.

So get involved. DEFEND LIBERTY BEFORE IT'S LOST! If you're 'not involved' with politics, then GET IN, because we're at a critical time, never before in American history, where your freedoms that you take for granted and have known all your life may be TAKEN AWAY.

If you're Republican, vote in the Primaries for Dan Maes. If you're an Independent, go with the governor that will make Colorado stand on its own, lower taxes, and support the Constitution, our Country's LAW and IDEALS. If you're a Democrat, and you're finally learning what a mistake it was to vote a Communist into the Whitehouse, change over to Republican (it's a NEW Republican party--it's about Freedom and Liberty, not about *Bush*) and support Dan Maes in the Primaries and the main election.

Help make Colorado a FREE STATE. Vote Dan Maes.

__________________________________________________ __

Make Colorado a FREE STATE:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120921514621244

"Open Carry" Supporters of Colorado:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=212878675303

+100

How does voting for a guy that can't beat Hickenlooper make Colorado any more free? Seems like it's a vote in the opposite direction if you ask me.

The time for compromising is over. Vote for the best person. I'm putting up a Dan Maes sign in my yard.

I keep hearing that Mays can't getrdone, but nobody ever explains why?

Looper is going to get the lockstep vote of certain segments of our population, that is a given for someone with his party affiliation and there isn't anything that crackers like me can do about it.

After writing those folks off, how does McCopy-n-paste do better than a warm body with R next to his name?

I don't know if Dan can do it and not sure if I care, I have to vote the man and not the party.

Problem I have is Dan has some issues of his own.

Based on the small amount of info he has allowed out about his tax returns it does not seem to me he is a particularlly good business man. I have heard him speak about why he did not want to share the info and it does not ring true to me.

Add the funding violations which he has explained but has not shown the paperwork to back it up.

I had high hopes but not sure I have a vote to cast in this primary at this point.

Bring me Tancredo as an Indepandant or Libritarian and then we can talk.

I don't want a liberal but am sick of voting for the lesser of the evils.

So the primary is between a giant douche and a shit sandwich?


Great, just great. [Bang]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XJ

So the primary is between a giant douche and a shit sandwich?


Great, just great. [Bang]

---

and people wonder why I want to retire to the Philippines and just watch it all burn.

game on


http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15582443

Former GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo issued an ultimatum Thursday to both Republican gubernatorial candidates: Drop out of the race or I will jump in as a third-party candidate.

As much as I like Tancredo's stand on illegal immigration, he's not a big friend to gun owner's. So I'd be really careful about what you wish for.

I'll be behind Dan Maes all the way.

[quote=Bailey Guns;223807]I'll be behind Dan Maes all the way....with a shotgun!![/quote]


Fixed for ya! [Beer]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OgenRwot

How does voting for a guy that can't beat Hickenlooper make Colorado any more free? Seems like it's a vote in the opposite direction if you ask me.

---

Thats what the repiblican party wants you to think, same thing both the dems and reps made people believe about Ross Perot.
The Colorado republican party is a shit pile and has once again proven they can only put out horrible canidates, this is because they put canidates up by the "its your turn now" method of endorsing canidates.
Dan has made it to the primary because "We The People" have brought him here and "We the People" can win any election if we can stop lisitening to the parties and vote for whom we want and not whom they give us.

I am behind Dan, not because I think hes as clean as a whistle but because I think he will work for us and I know Scott will not.
Scott has served us before and look at all the great stuff he did, yeah I dont see it either. But he did name a mountain range after his family, wow great work Scott

So Tancredo is not a 2nd Amendment supporter eh?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Tom_...un_Control.htm

Sorry, he's getting my vote, none of the other fucktards are even close to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XJ

So the primary is between a giant douche and a shit sandwich?


Great, just great. [Bang]

---

Don't you see all elections are between a giant douche and a turd sandwich!

In Colorado, all the candidates suck. There isn't a single NON ass-hat running. Lickyourpooper is going to win, hands down, it's now just a matter of how well we show. Having a strong republican base doesn't get anyone elected, it's the swing voters that ultimately choose, and few of those are going for McGinnis OR Maes. We're strong this season in other places though, so I think we'll take back control of the state via the house and senate, I'll have to be happy enough with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim02

Thats what the repiblican party wants you to think, same thing both the dems and reps made people believe about Ross Perot.

---

Yeah, and when Perot took nearly 20% of the popular vote from Bush we had Bill Clinton for eight years. Again, I ask, what's better: Clinton/Hickenlooper who you agree with 0% of the time or Bush/Maes/McInnis who you agree with 80% of the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadShot

So Tancredo is not a 2nd Amendment supporter eh?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Tom_...un_Control.htm

Sorry, he's getting my vote, none of the other fucktards are even close to him.

---

He's not in the race yet, he has to find a party to run for still. Let him get on the ballot first, then we can vote for him.

I don't know much about the R letter people running but I do know that once they comfortable in office its back to BS laws that rub me wrong everytime. But its better then Lickenpooper who told me that I had to let Code Enforcement anywhere they wanted to go on my property. Cops can't even do that without cause. But in a typical 2 faced politician way they haven't been back so he said one thing and maybe did the opposite and told them Code Enforcers to back off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OgenRwot

Yeah, and when Perot took nearly 20% of the popular vote from Bush we had Bill Clinton for eight years. Again, I ask, what's better: Clinton/Hickenlooper who you agree with 0% of the time or Bush/Maes/McInnis who you agree with 80% of the time?

---

I think the polls after the election showed that if people voted for whom they wanted to and not for whom their party convinced them to vote for, Perot would have won. The 2 party system was effective in defending their power system that year.

So lets vote for another shity republican canidate just so they can keep their power system in tact.

Until we clean up the republican party we will never get this nation turned around. We dont clean it up by voting for whom they tell us to.

Right now they are telling us McGinnis is no good and they know it, so we should vote for him and then they will ask him to sit out and we will assign you a new canidate that is better. They are the ones that gave us McGinnis in the first place.

I am the swing voter the republican party needs, I dont vote for a party I vote for the canidate.
The die hard republicnas will use the same tatic the dems use, they will say I am the problem, its always someone elses fault, the republican party needs to look within to find the root of there political problems.

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.

So we need to run Tea Party people under the Republican name. That way it won't split the votes. If we get some to run under the Dems too that would ensure that the better people get elected and the lesser people can go back to chasing ambulances.

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.