TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:

Skiprr wrote:A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.

This is simply not true, unless the voter would have voted for McCain instead of Barr.

Sorry for the absence. I've been spending all my non-employee, non-Ike-restoration hours volunteering for McCain/Palin.

You're absolutely correct, Kevin, that on an individual basis "a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama" is not true.

My point, however, was that we have a two-party race. That's simply the way it is.

A vote for Barr or Paul is asinine. If you do so, you're casting your valuable Second Amendment vote into the wind.

We have two choices, Obama or McCain. Any vote for other than one of these two candidates does dilute the vote. The odds are absolutely zero that an independent candidate will win the presidency. And sending a "message" by vote should have been done during nominations, not on November 4.

The Electoral College (almost) always follows the popular vote within a given state. In 2000, New Mexico declared for Al Gore with less than a 1,000 popular-vote margin. Scary, huh?

Texas is not in the bag.


But heck, the polls show that Obama will win handily. A single, individual vote really doesn't count for anything, does it?

A vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul? What difference does it make?

We all might as well stay home, sit on the couch, and watch TV.

Why make the effort to get in the car and go out and vote?

Sorry, Nitro. On this we disagree.

A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.

Obama is absolutely the most anti-gun president we could elect.

We have two choices: Obama or McCain. If you don't vote McCain, you're voting Obama.

I'm not saying that's the way it should be, or the way the Founders thought it would be. But we have a two-party electorate.

You vote "Barr," and Obama chuckles all the way to the bank...