What do you think of this candidate for senate?

Can you, will you, make a hyperbolic, perhaps outrageous, pro-gun statement to encourage the doubting fence-sitters here?

To me, that a politician bleed political blood-votes for my cause is important. I realize also that we are a tiny special interest minority.

ETA: I searched for "Wisconsin vote on line" and was surprised by the number of on-point hits. Including one "intercepted by G00gle" as

G00gle said:

"This site may harm your computer.The Wisconsin Vote Web site is a project of Wisconsin Public Television and ... The first phase of the Online NewsHour 2008 election site covers the ..."

Click to expand...

Why we need our guns

Doug Huffman said:

Can you, will you, make a hyperbolic, perhaps outrageous, pro-gun statement to encourage the doubting fence-sitters here?

To me, that a politician bleed political blood-votes for my cause is important. I realize also that we are a tiny special interest minority.

Click to expand...

An unprecedented opportunity to change and challenge the political landscape is before us. A landscape where our representatives and the gun control movement they embrace have implemented so many restrictions that are designed to not only to physically disarm our citizens but to morally disarm and lessen resistance to desensitize the public in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Passing laws like the assault weapons ban and executive orders with the UN to move on the Small Arms treaties is a symbolic - move in that direction.

If we accept their ideas that the American people cannot be trusted with the tools necessary to defend our liberty, then we will surely accept the idea that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself and we should check our citizenship at the door along with our guns.

These views are incompatible with the sovereignty of the American people. If we intend to exercise the duties of self-government and justice as free and rational Americans, then we will need to think clearly and logically about securing the means necessary to do so.
By disarming, we will be sending a signal to our government that we no longer aspire to sovereignty and justice. We will be signaling with great clarity that we wish to be comfortable slaves -- and slaves we will be.

Well I am not going to be a slave for I would rather die on my feet, than to live on my knees.

Our founding fathers felt very strong and knew from history the first-hand experience, the necessity of the 2nd amendment and the duties that it implies. It was added to the Constitution so that when a government with the intent to infringe or strip us of our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover those rights. This duty involves both the judgment and the moral capacity to resist tyranny. This duty means YOU.

I must be an extremist because I find that quite a reasonable, and reasoned, political statement. Thank you. You have my vote.

I am enjoying Angelo Codevilla' The Character of Nations, and am rushing through it, now, to read his Advice to War Presidents.

This site may harm your computer.

Doug Huffman said:

Can you, will you, make a hyperbolic, perhaps outrageous, pro-gun statement to encourage the doubting fence-sitters here?

To me, that a politician bleed political blood-votes for my cause is important. I realize also that we are a tiny special interest minority.

ETA: I searched for "Wisconsin vote on line" and was surprised by the number of on-point hits. Including one "intercepted by G00gle" as

Click to expand...

This site harms more than your computer.

LOL, only those with minds so open that their brains have fallen out.

My mind is like a steel-trap -- rusted shut, closed, trapping all of life's lessons where I can use them and relate them.

I need to not overwhelm the thread or dominate less well held opinions. I hope others will take advantage of your presence. Thank you.

Here's what I don't understand.

With so many people (we all know some of them) that vote straight party line without even thinking about it; Mr. Taylor, why wouldn't you run as a RINO? There were so many opportunities to take over the party from the inside and yet, it seems, no one really jumped on it.

It's worked for Ron Paul for years.

Another question: How would you feel about an amendment to the constitution that brings the commerce clause back to it's original meaning? How do you think it would be worded?

Not speaking for the candidate: why? PRINCIPLE!

The Dn'R is full of pols that hop from one horse's ass to the other mid-stream - the very definition of unprincipled pol.

Doug Huffman said:

Not speaking for the candidate: why? PRINCIPLE!

The Dn'R is full of pols that hop from one horse's ass to the other mid-stream - the very definition of unprincipled pol.

Click to expand...

It seems to me it would depend on if the party platform really goes against his principles. I believe there is plenty of room in the platform to stay in line with many varying ideas.

I would think that getting into office to actually put your principles to work would be more important and we all know that you aren't going to get kicked out of the party for going against the platform, even to a large degree. We have enough political martyrs, what we need is someone who can get elected and make a difference.

Out on another limb..

If a third party has no chance of winning, a vote for that party is wasted even if it is principled, and change will not occur.

Doug says

Either or both a democrat party vote/republican party vote is for status quo.

Click to expand...

Don says

...getting away from the status quo, we need change now

Click to expand...

If the third party cannot win, then change will not occur and status quo prevails.

Let's say that Feingold gets 1,856,341 votes, Johnson gets 1,846,027 and Taylor get 10, 314 votes. Have we affected change? Have those principled 10, 314 voters affected change? Taylor maybe be better than Johnson, but if he (Taylor) doesn't win, Feingold will be back in the Senate and it is truly the status quo.

What needs to happen is that a third party needs to become a formidable opponent to the other two parties such that the third party garners enough votes to win. If that can't or won't happen, I repeat, change will not occur.

I applaud principles. I even have some of my own. I am just being realistic.

You have my vote

robtaylorforsenate said:

An unprecedented opportunity to change and challenge the political landscape is before us. A landscape where our representatives and the gun control movement they embrace have implemented so many restrictions that are designed to not only to physically disarm our citizens but to morally disarm and lessen resistance to desensitize the public in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Passing laws like the assault weapons ban and executive orders with the UN to move on the Small Arms treaties is a symbolic - move in that direction.

If we accept their ideas that the American people cannot be trusted with the tools necessary to defend our liberty, then we will surely accept the idea that the American people cannot be trusted with liberty itself and we should check our citizenship at the door along with our guns.

These views are incompatible with the sovereignty of the American people. If we intend to exercise the duties of self-government and justice as free and rational Americans, then we will need to think clearly and logically about securing the means necessary to do so.
By disarming, we will be sending a signal to our government that we no longer aspire to sovereignty and justice. We will be signaling with great clarity that we wish to be comfortable slaves -- and slaves we will be.

Well I am not going to be a slave for I would rather die on my feet, than to live on my knees.

Our founding fathers felt very strong and knew from history the first-hand experience, the necessity of the 2nd amendment and the duties that it implies. It was added to the Constitution so that when a government with the intent to infringe or strip us of our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover those rights. This duty involves both the judgment and the moral capacity to resist tyranny. This duty means YOU.

Click to expand...

I will also vote for RobTaylor

Brass Magnet said:

Here's what I don't understand.

With so many people (we all know some of them) that vote straight party line without even thinking about it; Mr. Taylor, why wouldn't you run as a RINO? There were so many opportunities to take over the party from the inside and yet, it seems, no one really jumped on it.

It's worked for Ron Paul for years.

Click to expand...

exactly. we don't even need a majority. just enough of them to stir the pot and force the conversation.

phred said:

Out on another limb.. If a third party has no chance of winning, a vote for that party is wasted even if it is principled, and change will not occur. Doug says ... Don says ...

If the third party cannot win, then change will not occur and status quo prevails.

What needs to happen is that a third party needs to become a formidable opponent to the other two parties such that the third party garners enough votes to win. If that can't or won't happen, I repeat, change will not occur.

I applaud principles. I even have some of my own. I am just being realistic.

Click to expand...

I have had a number of private correspondences with various candidates, that I initiated by urging them to a more extreme pro-gun position, asking them to make an outrageous commitment that might encourage US. In most cases they said that their re/election was too important to risk over a single issue of principle.

There is only one way to make them regret that decision, elect their opponent.

Everyone of you lurking pols here that are not re/elected remember that we may not have voted for YOU. If you won't bleed for us before the election then you will bleed right along with us after the election. SCREW YOU moderates.