George Bush is no friend of mine…


PDA






StrikeFire83
February 2, 2006, 04:49 AM
I was watching the state of the union address last night, and like many others here I know bull***** when I see it. I voted for this man in the last election, because the BS coming out of his mouth seemed to stink less than the BS coming out of Kerry’s. Only now, after it’s too late, do I realize that I’d been bamboozled in my first presidential election. Bush is no friend of mine, or of other gun owners.

The two biggest Gun Rights issues in the past 6 years: 1) Sunset of the ‘assault’ weapons and 2) Gun manufacturer lawsuit reform

And where was Bush in either of these debates?! This supposedly pro gun president did NOTHING to help push ahead the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban. In fact, his handlers intentionally kept him silent on the issue, so as not to piss off the soccer moms and single dads that have become such an important voter base for him. As for the lawsuit reform, all he did was not veto it, surely not rousing support for gun rights. The NRA keeps telling me what bulwark this administration has been for freedom and justice in America, but I don’t see it.

But here is a short list of what this president HAS done:

1) Branded the law-abiding citizens of the Minutemen Project as vigilantes, which they clearly are NOT.
2) Done absolutely NOTHING to secure a porous and virtually unguarded border, which allows drugs, murderers, and possibly terrorists to slip into our country at will.
3) Paid lip service to being a “compassionate conservative” while increasing the size of government and allowing spending to spiral out of control.
4) Gives me $250 more per year in tax refund money, and $12 MILLION more per year to Dick Cheney, and thinks I won’t notice what he’s doing. Meanwhile, siphoning my taxes for Christian Churches, the one f-ing group that isn’t taxed at all!
5) Keeps bailing big businesses out with huge government kickbacks (cough*Amtrack*cough)

And how he’s caught spying on American citizens, many without cause, and he has the balls to stand up there and say that “I knows the law, and we didn’t break it.” Excuse me, but COURTS know the law, and THEY determine whether or not you’ve broken it, it’s called the separation of powers, you idiot.

This guy is a big-government, big brother, tin-plated puppet of the large corporations. I feel like a fool for voting for him. This man is no friend of freedom, and no friend of mine.

If you enjoyed reading about "George Bush is no friend of mine…" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ReadyontheRight
February 2, 2006, 06:15 AM
So get involved in politics and give us someone to vote for.

MarkDido
February 2, 2006, 07:18 AM
And how he’s caught spying on American citizens, many without cause

And you know that he did this, how? You privy to some intel that the rest of the planet is not?

and he has the balls to stand up there and say that “I knows the law, and we didn’t break it.” Excuse me, but COURTS know the law, and THEY determine whether or not you’ve broken it, it’s called the separation of powers, you idiot.

And the FISA court said that he DID have the power to do exactly what he did.

Devonai
February 2, 2006, 08:36 AM
I don't care if you have video footage of Bush drowning puppies in the Washington Monument reflecting pool, he got John Roberts and Sam Alito onto the SCOTUS for lifetime appointments. Time will tell how they vote with regards to firearms rights, but how do you think any given candidate that Kerry would have nominated would vote?

1 old 0311
February 2, 2006, 08:49 AM
Yea..........Kerry is Pro Gun. Remember the 'staged photo shoot' of him hunting in Ohio:neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:

Kevin

RealGun
February 2, 2006, 08:53 AM
Rather than dispute the points, none with which I agree, I will just propose that George Bush was the best candidate you were offered. If you truly did vote for him, I should think you would be counting more than what you see as failures.

With all due respect, when I opened this thread, I bet myself that the author would have less than 100 posts on THR.

Sinsaba
February 2, 2006, 08:56 AM
<sarcastic remark gone>

Michigander
February 2, 2006, 08:57 AM
I don't care if you have video footage of Bush drowning puppies in the Washington Monument reflecting pool, he got John Roberts and Sam Alito onto the SCOTUS for lifetime appointments. Time will tell how they vote with regards to firearms rights, but how do you think any given candidate that Kerry would have nominated would vote? The SC nomination scam! We've been through this numerous times. The "conservative" appointments have been taking us down the same road as the "liberal" appointments. It won't change now. Good grief!

WillBrayJr
February 2, 2006, 09:06 AM
Bush isn't great at all. Cutting student aid and medicaid so he can make up for the money he has blown on the war in Iraq is morally wrong. The cost of my medication far outseeds my monthly income. without my meds I would be either dead, inprisoned or locked up in the Funny Farm.

Devonai
February 2, 2006, 09:17 AM
The SC nomination scam! We've been through this numerous times. The "conservative" appointments have been taking us down the same road as the "liberal" appointments. It won't change now. Good grief!

Bet you a case of Shiner Bock it will. A lot of those cases were pretty close splits. It only takes five justices to settle a matter and now two more of them are on our side. Plus, you can't blame Scalia and Thomas for "Turncoat" O'Connor.

hube1236
February 2, 2006, 09:19 AM
I agree with this one, Kerry is bad, Nader worser, but I wanted to vote for Nader, but he was not on the GA Ballot, so I voted for the Libertarian. I could not vote for Bush as I see him leading the Republicans away from the non-christian conservatives. Government should balance the books, but Bush panders to everyone. Govt goes in cycles, so amnesty for Mexicans is the wrong answer to the wrong problem. American "liberty" will never work in the Middlle East. We should kick butt- and kill everyone, take what we want andleave. If we are not willing as a Country to kill everyone and take what we want, we should not be there.

But until the holier than thou members of this group, or others can vote for the true leader whom may drink and looks at internet porn, and thinks and says trach like Sharpton and Jackson are the Nations true racists, we are stuck with the left wanting every one having an abortion by the age of 14, and the right wanting to fight crime in the most effective way known to man, posting the 10 commandments under the Confederate Flag on the State capitol.

RealGun
February 2, 2006, 09:26 AM
But until the holier than thou members of this group, or others can vote for the true leader whom may drink and looks at internet porn, and thinks and says trach like Sharpton and Jackson are the Nations true racists, we are stuck with the left wanting every one having an abortion by the age of 14, and the right wanting to fight crime in the most effective way known to man, posting the 10 commandments under the Confederate Flag on the State capitol.

Too much coffee.:what:

Lobotomy Boy
February 2, 2006, 10:03 AM
And the FISA court said that he DID have the power to do exactly what he did.


It did? When did this happen? I must have missed it. Could you please provide some links?

Thanks.

engineer151515
February 2, 2006, 10:11 AM
I ...............


But here is a short list of what this president HAS done:

4) Gives me $250 more per year in tax refund money, and $12 MILLION more per year to Dick Cheney, and thinks I won’t notice what he’s doing. Meanwhile, siphoning my taxes for Christian Churches, the one f-ing group that isn’t taxed at all!

...........

Young person. If you REALLY believe this, you need to read a lot less internet and ground your reasoning in factual basis.

TexasRifleman
February 2, 2006, 10:14 AM
LB is right. You can't really claim FISA approved Bush's actions since FISA meets in secret anyway.

All that is documented is the court DOES seem to push back on a lot of applications, which is maybe the reason Bush went on his own.

With all the secret back room goings on, who really knows either way.


And to the topic, remember what your choices were at the last election.
Given all we know now would you really go back and choose John Kerry?

Did you listen to him during the Alito hearings?

He and Chappaquidik Boy are joined at the hip and brain. Would you rather have THAT in the White House?

Although Republican SCOTUS nominees may have softened in the past, when was the last time you read of a Democrats justice turning hardline.

Between Roberts and Alito both, I believe our gun rights are as safe as they were before. No better but no worse, at least as far as SCOTUS goes.

As for Bushs' remaining quiet on the AWB, we have the outcome we wanted.

Look to the mess in WI to see what happens when Exec branch isn't quiet.
If the gov in WI had just sat quietly they would have CCW today.

Sometimes remaining quiet is a good move.

Marshall
February 2, 2006, 10:16 AM
Strikefire sounds like a wolf in sheeps clothing to me.

TexasRifleman
February 2, 2006, 10:22 AM
Strikefire sounds like a wolf in sheeps clothing to me.

This always seems to happen with second term Presidents. They always disappoint.

You figure they have nothing to lose now so they can really go out and do some good work, stand up for everthing they believe etc with no fear of repercussions.

But then they start to think of their "legacy" and what the history books will say. They have 8 years to account for, that gets a bigger presidential library and more in the history books.

So, they veer off. Look back at Clinton. Did he accomplish anything his second term? That whole 4 year period is summed up in one word "Monica".

GWB's second term is going to be summed up in one word "Iraq". He so wants to have a happy ending there before he leaves so that history will be kind. They all do it.

So, we have no more AWB, and we have the lawsuit prevention law helping to protect gun makers.

We're still a bit better off than we were 4 years ago.

I propose one term limits with a 5 year term.

Ermac
February 2, 2006, 10:24 AM
And where was Bush in either of these debates?! This supposedly pro gun president did NOTHING to help push ahead the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban. In fact, his handlers intentionally kept him silent on the issue, so as not to piss off the soccer moms and single dads that have become such an important voter base for him. As for the lawsuit reform, all he did was not veto it, surely not rousing support for gun rights. The NRA keeps telling me what bulwark this administration has been for freedom and justice in America, but I don’t see it.

But here is a short list of what this president HAS done:

1) Branded the law-abiding citizens of the Minutemen Project as vigilantes, which they clearly are NOT.
2) Done absolutely NOTHING to secure a porous and virtually unguarded border, which allows drugs, murderers, and possibly terrorists to slip into our country at will.
3) Paid lip service to being a “compassionate conservative” while increasing the size of government and allowing spending to spiral out of control.
4) Gives me $250 more per year in tax refund money, and $12 MILLION more per year to Dick Cheney, and thinks I won’t notice what he’s doing. Meanwhile, siphoning my taxes for Christian Churches, the one f-ing group that isn’t taxed at all!
5) Keeps bailing big businesses out with huge government kickbacks (cough*Amtrack*cough)

And how he’s caught spying on American citizens, many without cause, and he has the balls to stand up there and say that “I knows the law, and we didn’t break it.” Excuse me, but COURTS know the law, and THEY determine whether or not you’ve broken it, it’s called the separation of powers, you idiot.

This guy is a big-government, big brother, tin-plated puppet of the large corporations. I feel like a fool for voting for him. This man is no friend of freedom, and no friend of mine.

Take your sensationalism and shut the heck up :cuss:
Instead of being the typical bush basher, why don't you stand up and make your points in politics instead of being a little cry baby on here.

Igloodude
February 2, 2006, 10:36 AM
Take your sensationalism and shut the heck up :cuss:
Instead of being the typical bush basher, why don't you stand up and make your points in politics instead of being a little cry baby on here.

If "typical bush bashers" are apparently pro-gun small-government conservatives that have voted for him previously, then I cringe at what you'd call US liberals. :eek:

GTSteve03
February 2, 2006, 10:37 AM
Take your sensationalism and shut the heck up :cuss:
Instead of being the typical bush basher, why don't you stand up and make your points in politics instead of being a little cry baby on here.
AMEN! Why in the world are we even letting people on this site bad-mouth the President. I mean, he's the PRESIDENT for goodness sake! The leader of the Free World! There isn't anyone more important out there and we should all be behind him 100%, because if we aren't with him then we're with the terrorists!

Lobotomy Boy
February 2, 2006, 10:40 AM
Ermac, you might want to back off on that personal attack stuff. It never seems to work out well in the end. It doesn't add to the discourse, and more often than not it weakens the point of the person making the attack. And the mods don't much care for it.

TexasRifleman
February 2, 2006, 10:41 AM
Ermac, you might want to back off on that personal attack stuff. It never seems to work out well in the end. It doesn't add to the discourse, and more often than not it weakens the point of the person making the attack. And the mods don't much care for it.

Yep, that's probably true. :uhoh:

Ermac
February 2, 2006, 10:43 AM
gotcha

Camp David
February 2, 2006, 10:53 AM
And how he’s caught spying on American citizens, many without cause, and he has the balls to stand up there and say that “I knows the law, and we didn’t break it.” Excuse me, but COURTS know the law, and THEY determine whether or not you’ve broken it, it’s called the separation of powers, you idiot...

Strikefire... sorry to hear of your feelings toward our Chief Executive.... Rather than address all your points, I'll just target my comments on the above as the sentiment you express, in my opinion, sound unfounded. Initially, can you identify which American citizens he has spied on, as you allege? Name and location please? Secondly, the president has repeately maintained that his ability to understake this effort, during wartime, in the name of national security, has been legally reviewed and appropved. Do you expect him say anything less as president? Third, should a terrorist from a foreign land be communicating with a person or persons within the United States, would you expect the United States to ignore such a communication? Don't you agree that it would be reckless incompetence to do less?

In terms of this issue, you may be interested in reading a bit more of the rational and reasoning for it and behind it. See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/

As the president maintained, such a NSA surveillance effort is engaged only on calls (communications) originating from a foreign nation. Fighting the War on Terror is different than typical wars and requires different strategy. He describes the enemy as follows:

"...We've seen that part of the terrorists' strategy is to place operatives inside of our country. They blend in with civilian population. They get their orders from overseas, and then they emerge to strike from within. We must be able to quickly detect when someone linked to al Qaeda is communicating with someone inside of America. That's one of the challenges of protecting the American people, and it's one of the lessons of September the 11th."
-- President George W. Bush
National Security Agency
January 25, 2006

You are allowed to disagree with this strategy of course. But your post failed to surface a different method of detecting terrorists, only criticism of the means being employed today. Bear in mind that those means have prevented terrorism from happening again domestically since 09/11/01.... Should you have a better method let's hear it.

Camp David

wingman
February 2, 2006, 11:02 AM
Long time supporter of the republican party however I have been very disappointed past 6 years, in truth I see very little support from either party for the lower middleclass, working poor, and sad to to say I do not see it in the future. It has become a vote for the lessor of two evils. I really don't see the need in bashing someone who is upset with either party in truth we should cheer anyone who seems interested in politics.:(

GTSteve03
February 2, 2006, 11:03 AM
Bear in mind that those means have prevented terrorism from happening again domestically since 09/11/01.... Should you have a better method let's hear it.
Initially, can you identify which terrorist attacks have been prevented, as you allege? Date, description and location please?

Thanks.

bogie
February 2, 2006, 11:17 AM
Okay, guys... Lemme lay out the agenda for you. We're not going to talk politics, or tell 'em about all the great things that we'll do. We've got our core voters, and the parties are so close, we just need a few votes.

Now, those gun people are so darn fiercely independent, and there's enough folks who are paranoid after all we've done to 'em, so we're going to try to make 'em the swing voters. The object here is to get 'em to get disgusted and not vote, vote for some third party loon, or to even vote for our candidate - they just have to vote for anyone but one of those Republicans. Now, get out on there, and start hitting those online forums, and stick to the central theme - Bash Bush!

Wllm. Legrand
February 2, 2006, 11:17 AM
So get involved in politics and give us someone to vote for.

That tired old platitude is trotted out whenever somebody points out the obvious failure of the political system in this country and the corruption of the political parties.

The quoted statement makes as much sense as, "Well, heck, if you want to defend the oceans, why don't you just build your own aircraft carrier?"

As with large corporations, the two wings of the State Party work just as diligently to PREVENT people they do not like in running as they do in promoting their own harlots.

gt3944
February 2, 2006, 11:30 AM
Rather than dispute the points, none with which I agree, I will just propose that George Bush was the best candidate you were offered. If you truly did vote for him, I should think you would be counting more than what you see as failures.

With all due respect, when I opened this thread, I bet myself that the author would have less than 100 posts on THR.

Pretty much voted for the best of two evils.....

22-rimfire
February 2, 2006, 11:31 AM
If someone actually had did document the foiling of a terrorism plot in the US, you'd say it was Bush propaganda. If a terriorist act happened, then "HE" didn't do his job. Sounds like Catch 22 to me. Either you believe that our government is doing everything they can to foil terriorism in the US or you don't. How many of your freedoms are you willing to give up to "feel safe" from the hypothetical terriorist? I believe the state and federal government is doing the best they can. My concern is that there may not be any truly effective defense against terriorism. So, we have an Offense.... and people complain about that....

I have never met George W. Bush, so I guess I can't claim him as being a friend. :p I feel like throwing out a Forrest Gump line or two, but I'll refrain.

Bush has not done anything that would make me truly dislike him or his politics. I can't say that for Bill Clinton. Sometimes choosing a candidate to vote for becomes a choice over the lesser of two or three evils.

Oldtimer
February 2, 2006, 11:33 AM
"Roosevelt got us into war!"
"Hoover was a jerk!"
"Eisenhower was a do-nothing President!"
"Kennedy was a rich kid!"
"Johnson was a schemer!"
"Nixon was a liar!"
"Ford was stupid!"
"Reagan was a 'B' movie actor!"
"Bush (sr.) was a fool!"
"Clinton was a womanizer!"
"Bush (jr.) wasn't qualified!"

There has NEVER been a President that was well-liked by EVERYONE....unless you go all the way back to George Washington, who turned down the offer to be KING of the USA!

All of our Presidents DESERVED our support, even though we may not have liked them as much as "the other guy". They've all had their short-comings and faults, but they all have one thing in common:
They were the leaders of this great nation, and the Commanders-in-Chief of our military forces.

Somehow, we have made it to the year 2006 without imploding, and we will get a NEW President in 2008!
Until then, it's time for all of us to be AMERICANS who are UNITED! I am proud to be an American!

bogie
February 2, 2006, 11:33 AM
I just had an idea...

Moderators, I'm wondering... Where are these sub-100 post "I hate Bush, and you should vote for anyone else" folks coming from? It'd be interesting to map 'em... I'm guessing Massachusetts...

GTSteve03
February 2, 2006, 11:38 AM
If someone actually had did document the foiling of a terrorism plot in the US, you'd say it was Bush propaganda. If a terriorist act happened, then "HE" didn't do his job. Sounds like Catch 22 to me.
Projection. You don't know what I'll say in response to an actual foiled terrorist plot caught by domestic spying. Until they actually prove that one exists. Which you and they still haven't.

How many of your freedoms are you willing to give up to "feel safe" from the hypothetical terriorist?
Not a single damn one. :fire:

middy
February 2, 2006, 11:41 AM
in truth I see very little support from either party for the lower middleclass, working poor, and sad to to say I do not see it in the future.
Where, exactly, in the Constitution, is this a responsibility of the Federal government? Move to Sweden if you want the State to change your diapers.

Rockstar
February 2, 2006, 11:47 AM
I'm always amused by the genius of those who bitch about decisions of Presidents with MBA's from Harvard and Vice-Presidents who get $12M for doing ANYTHING, when the "genius" gets a paltry $250 tax advantage. Maybe a real "genius" would have a higher income and a more responsible, $uce$$ful career path!:rolleyes:

middy
February 2, 2006, 11:51 AM
Maybe a real "genius" would have a higher income and a more responsible, $uce$$ful career path!
Not with "the Man" keeping them down. :D

carlrodd
February 2, 2006, 11:52 AM
AMEN! Why in the world are we even letting people on this site bad-mouth the President. I mean, he's the PRESIDENT for goodness sake! The leader of the Free World! There isn't anyone more important out there and we should all be behind him 100%, because if we aren't with him then we're with the terrorists!

is that a joke? i don't even agree with all of what strikefire said, but he's free to make his thoughts known. as far as "leader of the free world" is concerned.....i think the last time i heard that was during the reagan years. and i'll make a suggestion for people that are as important or more important than the prez.....ME, YOU.....anybody on this site......any homeless guy you meet on the street. if that post WAS a joke....kudos. if it wasn't, god help you.

Ermac
February 2, 2006, 11:58 AM
is that a joke? i don't even agree with all of what strikefire said, but he's free to make his thoughts known. as far as "leader of the free world" is concerned.....i think the last time i heard that was during the reagan years. and i'll make a suggestion for people that are as important or more important than the prez.....ME, YOU.....anybody on this site......any homeless guy you meet on the street. if that post WAS a joke....kudos. if it wasn't, god help you.

I'm pretty sure it was a joke...it took me a second there to realize it...but it was the last sentence that I realized he was joking.

meef
February 2, 2006, 12:00 PM
Oh gosh I hate Bush!

I mean, I really really really hate Bush!

Boy do I ever hate Bush!

Ooooo... that dratted George Bush just makes me soooo darn mad!

Wow! I hate Bush so bad I itch all over!!!

Ahhhh..... There, I feel so much better now.

What's for breakfast?

:rolleyes:

dolanp
February 2, 2006, 12:02 PM
Bet you a case of Shiner Bock it will. A lot of those cases were pretty close splits. It only takes five justices to settle a matter and now two more of them are on our side.

Eh... maybe one at the most. Roberts replaced Rehnquist which is like a younger clone. Alito replaced O'Connor who leaned conservative but sometimes swung. The best we can hope for is one more vote.

Too bad one of the liberals didn't kick the bucket, then things would have really been interesting. They'll probably hold out until a D wins POTUS and then retire.

CAnnoneer
February 2, 2006, 12:31 PM
I think this would have been a better discussion if there were fewer personal attacks. It would be more useful to address what the original poster said, rather than speculate who or what he/she is/might be. The fact is, his complaints and indignation are legitimate, and I think he is entitled to a rational answer from all the President's men.

"He is not Kerry" is quite a bit of a cop-out, IMO. GWB has shown himself to be a liberal globalist, while his "conservatism" is limited to a primitivistic uninformed interpretation of christianity. If Iraq does not pan out as we want, the history books will be absolutely brutal about his 8 years in office, and he knows it.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 2, 2006, 12:34 PM
The two biggest Gun Rights issues in the past 6 years: 1) Sunset of the ‘assault’ weapons and 2) Gun manufacturer lawsuit reform

And where was Bush in either of these debates?! This supposedly pro gun president did NOTHING to help push ahead the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban. In fact, his handlers intentionally kept him silent on the issue, so as not to piss off the soccer moms and single dads that have become such an important voter base for him. As for the lawsuit reform, all he did was not veto it, surely not rousing support for gun rights.


During the 2004 debates on lawsuit protection, Bush was offered an opportunity to have both the assault weapons ban and the lawsuit protection on a single bill. He wrote a letter to Congress asking them to pass lawsuit protection without the assault weapons ban amendment.

The party he leads went to bat for us three times in 2004 to make sure AWB amendments were either not offered or were not passed in the Senate - each time killing their own legislation to do it.

The NRA keeps telling me what bulwark this administration has been for freedom and justice in America, but I don’t see it.

Tough to see something if you don't open your eyes and look for it. There are certainly a lot of areas where the President and I don't agree; but here are a few things that happened during this administration that are at odds with your hypothesis:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US (http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/calendar/2001UN/confnews/change_tone.htm)

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_020507.html) - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush signs lawsuit preemption bill (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6719)

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks (http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/9981-1.html)

7. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed (http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-BushSignsCargoPilots031215.html)

8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp) that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Bush instead sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

10. Sponsored a few pro-gun bills in the 109th Congress (http://www.gunowners.org/109anatb.htm).

11. Lawsuit preemption bill declares Second an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/10/gun_mfr_liabili.php). Might be useful in front of SCOTUS?

12. House votes for repeal of D.C. gun ban (http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm).

13. Signed exemption for gunsmiths from manufacturing taxes for creating custom firearms (http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ITNDrop=1711-L).

14. Twice "filled the tree" as suggested by GOA on legislation in order to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for an AWB (once in July 2004 on a tort reform bill and again during S.397). I can't find another instance on any bill where the Senate has taken this action for any other group.

15. Bucked public opinion showing 68% of American supported renewal of assault weapons ban (including almost a third of NRA members) (http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf) to kill ban not once; but three times.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 12:42 PM
I'm no fan of el Presidente Jorge Shrub, but I do get the general impression that he does believe what he is doing is best and that he is inherently patriotic and supportive of America.

I think of him as the ever-loyal and friendly golden retriever who keeps crapping on the couch...

RealGun
February 2, 2006, 12:44 PM
I think he is entitled to a rational answer from all the President's men.

'Too likely to be a wasted effort. It's easier and more productive to focus on the successes and where the administration is responding to expressed concerns, leaving the naysayers to be consumed by negativity and predictable opposition.

MechAg94
February 2, 2006, 01:15 PM
Well, some of us realized that Bush II was not 100% conservative before he became President the first time. However, I was willing to accept what he might do over what I KNEW that Al Gore would try to do. Pretty much the same decision in 2004. I have been, overall, pleased with Bush. He had the opportunity to do a LOT worse.

The Republican Primaries in 2000 were a choice between Bush and McCain. I don't like McCain at all. I don't remember anyone else better in the Dem primaries either.

Until the Dems stop being so hard left or another party rises, I doubt our choices will get much better.

Master Blaster
February 2, 2006, 01:22 PM
Hmm Bash Bush use the F=word, Nothing gun related.

Manedwolf
February 2, 2006, 01:32 PM
Bush isn't great at all. Cutting student aid and medicaid so he can make up for the money he has blown on the war in Iraq is morally wrong. The cost of my medication far outseeds my monthly income. without my meds I would be either dead, inprisoned or locked up in the Funny Farm.

Drastically cutting student aid, coupled with...

...drastically increasing the budget for military recruitment advertising with the "money for college" message.

Hmm.

GEM
February 2, 2006, 01:34 PM
Yea..........Kerry is Pro Gun. Remember the 'staged photo shoot' of him hunting in Ohio:neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:

Kevin

No offense, but there hasn't been a picture of Bush hunting since he shot down some protected birdie.

carlrodd
February 2, 2006, 01:39 PM
During the 2004 debates on lawsuit protection, Bush was offered an opportunity to have both the assault weapons ban and the lawsuit protection on a single bill. He wrote a letter to Congress asking them to pass lawsuit protection without the assault weapons ban amendment.

The party he leads went to bat for us three times in 2004 to make sure AWB amendments were either not offered or were not passed in the Senate - each time killing their own legislation to do it.



Tough to see something if you don't open your eyes and look for it. There are certainly a lot of areas where the President and I don't agree; but here are a few things that happened during this administration that are at odds with your hypothesis:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US (http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/calendar/2001UN/confnews/change_tone.htm)

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_020507.html) - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush signs lawsuit preemption bill (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6719)

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks (http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/9981-1.html)

7. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed (http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-BushSignsCargoPilots031215.html)

8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp) that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Bush instead sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

10. Sponsored a few pro-gun bills in the 109th Congress (http://www.gunowners.org/109anatb.htm).

11. Lawsuit preemption bill declares Second an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/10/gun_mfr_liabili.php). Might be useful in front of SCOTUS?

12. House votes for repeal of D.C. gun ban (http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm).

13. Signed exemption for gunsmiths from manufacturing taxes for creating custom firearms (http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ITNDrop=1711-L).

14. Twice "filled the tree" as suggested by GOA on legislation in order to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for an AWB (once in July 2004 on a tort reform bill and again during S.397). I can't find another instance on any bill where the Senate has taken this action for any other group.

15. Bucked public opinion showing 68% of American supported renewal of assault weapons ban (including almost a third of NRA members) (http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf) to kill ban not once; but three times.

thanks for getting all that together. very informative.

Michigander
February 2, 2006, 01:40 PM
The "conservative" appointments have been taking us down the same road as the "liberal" appointments. It won't change now.

Bet you a case of Shiner Bock it will. A lot of those cases were pretty close splits. It only takes five justices to settle a matter and now two more of them are on our side. Plus, you can't blame Scalia and Thomas for "Turncoat" O'Connor.

Bet!

And most of the next "important" cases will be pretty close splits too. But guess what? I'll bet you another case of Shiner Bock they go the Liberal way more often than the Conservative way. Just wait and see. They purposely make the vote close so we can have more to bicker about among ourselves.

Camp David
February 2, 2006, 01:43 PM
No offense, but there hasn't been a picture of Bush hunting since he shot down some protected birdie.

http://img342.imageshack.us/img342/7802/hunting8vr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5435/hunting16rt.th.jpg (http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hunting16rt.jpg)

A few photos I found in web search... there are many others...

UWstudent
February 2, 2006, 01:51 PM
he still spys on people.. :neener:

seeker_two
February 2, 2006, 01:52 PM
Once again, a criticism of President Bush’s policies has started a polarized debate where a poster is either a “pro-American, patriotic, support-the-troops, kill-all-terrorists, Bush lovin’ Kool-Aid drinkin’ Neo-Con (-man)” or a “liberal-weenie, Kerry-lovin’, left-winger, Cindy-Sheehan-is-a-hottie, anti-war Demo-rat”. :rolleyes:

Ever think there may be a third position?…..:scrutiny:

I’m a bred-in-the-bone conservative Christian who believes that the Constitution (esp. the Bill of Rights) means EXACTLY what it says, Fed-Gov intrusion and spending must be reined in, and that a President’s powers and responsibilities are clearly spelled out—esp. the part about defending this nation against enemies foreign and domestic. And I voted for President Bush in 2000 because (based on his governance of this state) I believed he would represent these beliefs in his Presidency.

How wrong I was….:banghead:

Bush has supported expanded federal spending and expansion of power (i.e. education, Medicare Drug, foreign aid to the PLO & Russia). Bush has taken positions that violate the restrictions placed on FedGov by the Constitution & the BOR (i.e. Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act.) Bush has involved the US military in two foreign wars while restricting the rules of engagement (i.e. no attacking schools or mosques even if the enemy is located inside, no reparations from Afghanistan or Iraq to the US & allies, limiting interrogation techniques, court-marshalling soldiers for battlefield decisions). And Bush has been lax in protecting our national borders from illegal invasion while spending billions of dollars and hours eavesdropping on American citizens without any warrant or review (as his own Patriot Act requires.)

And, in a final insult, he nominates a person (Harriet Myers) with no judicial or legal history (and some dubious positions on abortion and affirmative action) for the most important position on the Supreme Court. When his own political base objects, he puffs up and, in a fit, passes over several qualified conservative women and non-Caucasians (who would be virtually untouchable by the Democrats) to nominate “another white guy” (qualified-absolutely, but a much harder fight than necessary).

Bush has been a disappointment to his conservative base. That’s why I voted for Michael Peroutka and the Constitution Party. And, based on the Republicans’ record recently, I’ll be voting Constitution Party again in ’06 & ’08. :cool:

Lobotomy Boy
February 2, 2006, 01:57 PM
just had an idea...

Moderators, I'm wondering... Where are these sub-100 post "I hate Bush, and you should vote for anyone else" folks coming from? It'd be interesting to map 'em... I'm guessing Massachusetts...


This sort of elitist sentiment has a stench of tyranny about it.

GEM
February 2, 2006, 01:57 PM
If I'm wrong, fine but IIRC - Bush hasn't done a current hunting trip with photo-ops since the bird incident.

What's the date on the pictures? I certainly can be mistaken. I'm sorry if I think Bush is too passive on the gun issue. He will sign what he thinks will work for him, if it gets to him.

Clinton in the State of the Union, would have antigun themes. I don't recall a strong pro one from George.

longeyes
February 2, 2006, 02:00 PM
The SOTU speech could have been given by any Democrat--before the advent of the ultra-left core that now runs that Party. Taken in concert with the remarks he delivered The Morning After it was worse than underwhelming, at least from my perspective. Bush has become a one-trick pony, basing his entire Presidency on his Middle East strategy, while being oblivious to grave problems of fiscal irresponsibility, energy dependence, and illegal immigration, among others. He remains clueless on illegal immigration, wallowing in self-serving platitudes. He shows no signs of any meaningful reduction of Federal spending or a willingness to share the burdens of his war policy by mobilizing American citizenry. He thinks we can go the slow, evolutionary route in terms of energy independence whereas most in the know believe we don't have two decades to "adjust." With the Middle East Neo-con theories of how to go about dealing with radical Islamic terrorism in seriouos question, his legacy appears to be SCOTUS, and that too is more hope than experience at this juncture. As others have suggested, Bush is a globalist liberal who happens to have some strongly held orthodox religious beliefs; that doesn't qualify him in any way as a Conservative.

Derby FALs
February 2, 2006, 02:04 PM
John Kerry was the only reason to vote for Bush.

JohnBT
February 2, 2006, 02:04 PM
"I'm wondering... Where are these sub-100 post "I hate Bush, and you should vote for anyone else" folks coming from?"

I don't know, but it enlightening to go to their Profile and pull up all of the their posts to see how many are gun related vs. political. Doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting.

John

Trip20
February 2, 2006, 02:05 PM
George Bush is no friend of mine…
That's ok. He might not like you either. :neener:

Michigander
February 2, 2006, 02:21 PM
"I'm wondering... Where are these sub-100 post "I hate Bush, and you should vote for anyone else" folks coming from?"

I don't know, but it enlightening to go to their Profile and pull up all of the their posts to see how many are gun related vs. political. Doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting.

John I've got 1,000+ and the vast majority of my posts are in Legal & Political.

You're right: Doesn't prove anything.

superhornet
February 2, 2006, 02:43 PM
Well for goodness sakes!! All of you wussies who have no use for the present administration will all get your chance to vote for Hillary and Billary very soon....I am certain that once she or JK or Al are elected things will get a lot better. Higher taxes, more attacks for gun control, cut and run defense programs, Heathers two mommies, Billies two daddies, continued mush pumped into the heads of your children by the NEA, downgrading the military, attacks on big business and the UNIONAZATION OF WALMART. Other than that the Demos will do a good job..ho ho ho

Biker
February 2, 2006, 02:53 PM
Well for goodness sakes!! All of you wussies who have no use for the present administration will all get your chance to vote for Hillary and Billary very soon....I am certain that once she or JK or Al are elected things will get a lot better. Higher taxes, more attacks for gun control, cut and run defense programs, Heathers two mommies, Billies two daddies, continued mush pumped into the heads of your children by the NEA, downgrading the military, attacks on big business and the UNIONAZATION OF WALMART. Other than that the Demos will do a good job..ho ho ho
Well, if Hillary gets into office, it may force the remaining Repubs to do at least an impersonation of conservatives. Just a thought...
Biker

GTSteve03
February 2, 2006, 03:21 PM
Well, if Hillary gets into office, it may force the remaining Repubs to do at least an impersonation of conservatives. Just a thought...
Biker
I fondly remember the last time we had a Democrat Prez and Repub Congress... the budget actually got balanced. :rolleyes:

sithanas
February 2, 2006, 03:22 PM
Well for goodness sakes!! All of you wussies who have no use for the present administration will all get your chance to vote for Hillary and Billary very soon....I am certain that once she or JK or Al are elected things will get a lot better. Higher taxes, more attacks for gun control, cut and run defense programs, Heathers two mommies, Billies two daddies, continued mush pumped into the heads of your children by the NEA, downgrading the military, attacks on big business and the UNIONAZATION OF WALMART. Other than that the Demos will do a good job..ho ho ho

I'm sorry, but after reading this post, I just have to jump in and make my first post ever a political post.

Number one, just because I'm not a big fan of Bush doesn't mean I didn't vote for him last time, nor does it mean I'd vote for Hillary. I'm pretty sure very few people in the entire country would vote for Hillary. If the Democratic Party runs her as their 2008 candidate they'll be dead in the water until 2016.

Obviously, one of my primary voting decisions is based on gun control policy of the candidate. It was a no-brainer to vote for Bush over Kerry - a man who's tried to ban all center-fire ammunition does not get my vote. Not to mention that Kerry's economic policies were, shall we say, suspect. However, you seem to think that all the ideals of the Democratic Party are entirely worthless, which is a point I must disagree with. I think that if you took time and looked, you'd find that the centrists of both the Democratic and Republican parties have many ideas in common.

Since I'm not even sure what a "cut and run" defense program is supposed to be, let's start with the two mommies/two daddies point. Is there some major problem with homosexuality? I'm not gay. However, I have several friends who are and it doesn't make them any better or worse than I am. A couple of them are avid shooters and occasionally even clean my clock at the range. It's not as if the gay/lesbian community is building some kind of "gayification device". And on the topic of marriage, you can't have government-issued marriages and have them be a religious institution at the same time. You get one or the other. Either have the government issue marriage licenses to anyone who wants them, or have the government not issue them at all and leave that up to religious institutions. I'm in favor of the second; after all, a civil authority should be instituting civil unions. See the symmetry?

On the point of the NEA, I'm not a big fan of theirs. I think they do a lousy job and are in favor of too many failing teachers. Want to know why so many teachers are such morons? Because they're the kids who couldn't do any better in college. Students studying for teaching jobs regularly fall in the botton twenty-five percent of all college students aptitude- and grade-wise. Teaching certificates are the lowest common denominator of higher education jobs. I attended a high school that taught the International Baccalaureate Program exclusively. There are a lot of people who don't like that program because it's supported by the United Nations; however, that doesn't change the fact that it is far more rigorous and far more useful in preparing a student for college than the standard we have today in American public education. When I graduated, I was fluent in a foreign language (Spanish), had written six dissertations (one for each major subject group), had received a firm grounding in theoretical calculus, had won two economics competitions, had demonstrated a sound knowledge of relativistic physics, and had earned of two full years of college credit. This kind of education shouldn't be the exception, it should be the norm. No matter how much we wish for the world economy of yesteryear, we are in a global economy today. Students in India and China are perhaps not smarter, but certaintly more motivated and much more highly educated than ours here. Remember, India and China have more highly educated people than we have total population.

I'm going to ignore downgrading the military entirely, because I don't think I have the background to discuss it. Someone else can handle that for me.

In terms of attacks on big business, what constitutes an attack exactly? Forcing executives to pay equivalent amounts of tax? Forcing large corporations to pay proper wages and the correct amount of corporate income tax to the government? In terms of simple economics, many corporations haven't been offsourcing just to save costs on labor. They've been offsourcing to save costs on corporate taxes. Foreign holdings must pay federal tax; however, foreign subsidiaries pay tax to the country of residence. In India and China, that tax is practically nil. So your company executives set up a paper corporation in India, relocate most assets, and reward themselves with four million dollar bonuses. You know why Japan does better automotive work than the US? They ensure their staff is of high quality, pay them for performance, and do not tolerate subpar quality. There's no such thing as an "acceptable rate of failure" in a Japanese car plant. Either it works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't you make damn sure it does. Over here, all we've been concerned with is cutting costs. Sure, you can save one-tenth of a cent per bolt. However, how much weaker is that bolt? The executives would be better off taking a pay cut themselves. A Japanese executive pays himself far less than his American counterpart. At the same time, he pays his employees more. The amazing thing? His employees do better work.

I do agree that unionization is probably overdone in many cases. However, labor unions do have a way of getting positive reform done before they become corrupt. What Walmart needs is some positive reform. They can either do it themselves, or be "persuaded" into doing it. It is simple fact, though, that Walmart places a huge strain on the Medicare/Medicaid system by simple virtue of their unwillingness to provide benefits to workers, who then must rely on overburdened "entitlements". Not to mention that they force suppliers to provide goods at the price level Walmart wants, not the price level dictated by economies of scale.

Wow. Looking back at this post, I realize I got off-topic pretty quick. However, I think my points are valid. All of these are things that should be supported by an ideal candidate (in my opinion). The problem I have with today's political climate is there aren't any good moderates to choose from; simply extreme left and extreme right, with the vast majority of the American people caught squarely in the middle.

sithanas
February 2, 2006, 03:24 PM
I fondly remember the last time we had a Democrat Prez and Repub Congress... the budget actually got balanced. :rolleyes:

Very true.

cbsbyte
February 2, 2006, 03:26 PM
Bush is now a lame Duck president. We don't have to worry about any of his "great ideas" ever passing in Congress. Nothing will happen, since the Dems will block anything he or the Repubs propose. Hopefully the Dems, now fully understand that they must bring the fight to the American people by showing what this adminstration have done to this country. I hope the Dems after the fall elections will have enough power to undo some of his adminstrations evils, and then start impeachment hearings. BTW, In Nov the Dems WILL take back the Senate.

Igloodude
February 2, 2006, 03:28 PM
"I'm wondering... Where are these sub-100 post "I hate Bush, and you should vote for anyone else" folks coming from?"

I don't know, but it enlightening to go to their Profile and pull up all of the their posts to see how many are gun related vs. political. Doesn't prove anything, but it's interesting.

John

How about sub-1000 post "Anything Bush does, I'll defend vehemently" folks? I just took a look at one, and probably 80-90% of their posts are L&P or current events General Gun Discussion.

And you and Michigander are right, doesn't prove anything.

dmallind
February 2, 2006, 03:36 PM
Welcome Sithanas. A well reasoned and rational post by somebody who realizes politics is not a black and white us or them issue. Sadly it will hardly see the response in kind it deserves. It's easier to remonize and dehumanize the "enemy" party and throw around buzzwords that have lost all meaning (or where people remain stunningly ignorant of their meaning).

Frankly I can't imagine why a conservative would support a president who took a surplus and turned it into record deficits in just a few years, who increased civilian discretionary (not military, not entitlement) spending four times faster than the "tax and specd socialist nanny state liberal" who preceded him, who has presided, gleefully and willfully, over unprecedented expansion of executive authority, and who has done little but pay lip service to fiscal conservatism or individual freedom. Sure Clinton took 5 rounds from a G19 mag. Silly, unneccessary law but hardly of catastrophic impact on the lives of normal people. Bush on the other hand pursued fiscal policies that will put us in towering debt to the Chinese and Saudis for decades, send our currency into freefall that only Carteresque interest and inflation rates would possibly save, and all but destroyed any moral authority the US had.

Yes I will be instantly excoriated for this I know, but given the choice I'll take the balanced budgets, full employment and stable economy and put up with having to reload 3-4 times more per range session.

StrikeFire83
February 2, 2006, 03:37 PM
Young person. If you REALLY believe this, you need to read a lot less internet and ground your reasoning in factual basis.

I was referring to the Faith Based Initiative, which as of TODAY has only redistributed tax money to CHRISTIAN CHURCHES that do “charitable” work. Churches are not taxed, thus in my reasoning they are the LAST organizations that should receive MY tax dollars.

Oh, and there’s that whole 1st Amendment thing, as well.

If you’re not familiar with the Faith Based Initiative, then YOU are the one who’s naïve and spent too much time on the internet.

Kim
February 2, 2006, 03:39 PM
I would be happy if there was no medicaid except for the truly disabled. I would be happy if there were no Government subsidy of higher education. Get a job pay for both and quit asking those of us who do to give those who don't our money we worked for. There are many young adults working their way through college. My niece is. It is not that hard. Granted you have to not party so much as you don't have the time. No one is keeping anyone from going to college. Medicaid is a money pit that keeps growing and growing. I will see it today at work. Those with medicaid will bring in all their children for a runny nose of 24 hours or less and a half of those will tell me --------Might as well bring them all in as I do not have to pay for anything. None needed to be seen. Not one. Those with insurance or those paying their own money will not be so inclined to waste their money.

StrikeFire83
February 2, 2006, 03:40 PM
Welcome Sithanas. A well reasoned and rational post by somebody who realizes politics is not a black and white us or them issue. Sadly it will hardly see the response in kind it deserves. It's easier to remonize and dehumanize the "enemy" party and throw around buzzwords that have lost all meaning (or where people remain stunningly ignorant of their meaning).

Frankly I can't imagine why a conservative would support a president who took a surplus and turned it into record deficits in just a few years, who increased civilian discretionary (not military, not entitlement) spending four times faster than the "tax and specd socialist nanny state liberal" who preceded him, who has presided, gleefully and willfully, over unprecedented expansion of executive authority, and who has done little but pay lip service to fiscal conservatism or individual freedom. Sure Clinton took 5 rounds from a G19 mag. Silly, unneccessary law but hardly of catastrophic impact on the lives of normal people. Bush on the other hand pursued fiscal policies that will put us in towering debt to the Chinese and Saudis for decades, send our currency into freefall that only Carteresque interest and inflation rates would possibly save, and all but destroyed any moral authority the US had.

Yes I will be instantly excoriated for this I know, but given the choice I'll take the balanced budgets, full employment and stable economy and put up with having to reload 3-4 times more per range session.


EXACTLY.

JohnBT
February 2, 2006, 03:42 PM
"I've got 1,000+ and the vast majority of my posts are in Legal & Political.

You're right: Doesn't prove anything."

Proves you don't like to talk about guns on THR. No need to get defensive. :)

John

longeyes
February 2, 2006, 04:03 PM
Well for goodness sakes!! All of you wussies who have no use for the present administration will all get your chance to vote for Hillary and Billary very soon....I am certain that once she or JK or Al are elected things will get a lot better. Higher taxes, more attacks for gun control, cut and run defense programs, Heathers two mommies, Billies two daddies, continued mush pumped into the heads of your children by the NEA, downgrading the military, attacks on big business and the UNIONAZATION OF WALMART. Other than that the Demos will do a good job..ho ho ho

Maybe Bush should listen to the people who put him in the White House--and I don't mean Karl Rove and the faceless shades from Global Corp. Anonymous. Maybe he needs to have a deeper vision of where he is taking America. As for Hillary, my gut tells me the Bushes welcome a Hillary Presidency and they are certainly making it easier for her. What does that tell you about what their highest priority really is?

PS No one likes emasculated mags but we should all be using 1911s anyway. :)

progunner1957
February 2, 2006, 04:11 PM
I was watching the state of the union address last night, and like many others here I know bull***** when I see it. I voted for this man in the last election, because the BS coming out of his mouth seemed to stink less than the BS coming out of Kerry’s. Only now, after it’s too late, do I realize that I’d been bamboozled in my first presidential election. Bush is no friend of mine, or of other gun owners.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

1: Blah.

2: Blah, blah.

3: Blah.

4: Blah, blah, blah, blah.

5: Blah, blah, blah,

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah, blah.

This guy is a big-government, big brother, tin-plated puppet of the large corporations. I feel like a fool for voting for him. This man is no friend of freedom, and no friend of mine.


What we have here is a prime example of a person who has been programmed to hate Bush and the Republican party because he/she has mindlessly lapped up the drivel being spewed nonstop by the Demosocialist controlled media outlets.

(With thanks to Al Franken for use of his signature "big, fat poopypants" line).

StrikeFire83
February 2, 2006, 04:21 PM
Okay, I think some elucidation on my part is in order.

First, just because I feel betrayed by the actions of the Bush administration DOES NOT mean that I suddenly wished I had voted for Kerry. I NEVER said that, so please don’t put words in my mouth.

Second, if you wish to admonish my points, go right ahead. But for those of you who have said “no wonder, this guy has less than 100 posts on THR” or “why do they let people like this post,” all I can say is that I have no respect for you and have nothing else to say to you. I have few posts on this board because up until very recently I was working full time AND going to college. But if you people want truly informative and worthwhile debate, then I think you would welcome those with slightly differing opinions then you own. I am just as fit to make points and have positions are any person who’s made 1000 posts to this board.

Third, here are my positions. If you think I’m still a “flaming liberal” then you’ve fallen off the apple cart one too many times to be regarded with any seriousness.

My Positions
----------------
1) I am a complete and total supporter of the 2nd Amendment and everything it stands for. I believe in the unadulterated existence of civilian firearms ownership. I believe in nationwide legalized concealed carry, the sunset of the ‘assault’ weapons ban, and an end to the 1930s firearms act which in many ways effectively bans civilian ownership of automatic weapons.

2) I believe in a 3% FLAT TAX with NO deductions for anyone, from working poor to elite corporation-owning millionaire. I believe this money should be used for building roads, schools, strengthening the military, NOT for bailing out failing private business ventures.

3) I believe in the disillusion of Social Security. It is a failed program that can and is raided by the federal government at will to pay for pet projects. It will NOT be around when my generation needs to retire, so we should be allowed to opt out and invest our savings how WE choose.

4) I believe in a strong and secure border with both Mexico and Canada. I believe that ILLEGAL aliens should be stopped from entering this country at all costs. I believe that the solution to the alien problem is NOT another broad spectrum amnesty program, which only rewards criminals.

5) I believe that the United Nations is a dangerous tyrannical organization which stands as a direct threat to national sovereignty and our constitution. I believe that the United States should immediately withdraw from this body and cease the unthinkably gargantuan contributions that we give to it on an annual basis.

6) I believe in the immediate repealing of unconstitutional and discriminatory affirmative action policies, which clearly violate the 14th Amendment in both letter and spirit.

I could go on and on, but clearly, I am NOT a big government socialist liberal. I do not see the Bush administration as DIVERGENT from true principles of classical “leave me the F alone” classic conservative principles. If you wish to attack me because I don’t support your golden boy, than go right ahead. But remember, that in so doing you may have lost yet another potential ally in your struggle to get this country back on the right track.

bogie
February 2, 2006, 04:22 PM
The biggest problem with today's Republican party is what gave it the initial resurgence/power base back in the late seventies/early eighties - the massive defection of religious fanatics from the Democratic party.

Today you have a lot of folks who'd probably vote Republican, except that the folks who are pushing theocracy scare the bleep out of 'em.

Lobotomy Boy
February 2, 2006, 04:25 PM
Today you have a lot of folks who'd probably vote Republican, except that the folks who are pushing theocracy scare the bleep out of 'em.


Dang, I agree with Bogie. It's a might chilly in hell today.

StrikeFire83
February 2, 2006, 04:25 PM
What we have here is a prime example of a person who has been programmed to hate Bush and the Republican party because he/she has mindlessly lapped up the drivel being spewed nonstop by the Demosocialist controlled media outlets.

(With thanks to Al Franken for use of his signature "big, fat poopypants" line).

I find it interesting that you would have a line in your signature like “more corrupt a government, the more numerous it’s laws” and still blindly support an administration what has made more useless and repressive laws than “Demosocialist” presidents have in the past 30 years.

The fact that you are blind to this simple fact means that you are scarcely worth talking to anyhow.

dmallind
February 2, 2006, 04:30 PM
Heck I agree with bogie AND Lobotomy Boy. Now there's a rare event indeed :-)

In fact I AM one of those people Bogie mentions. At least in most part - I still would not have supported Bush, but there are plenty of Republican candidates I could and would support if power for them did not also mean power for the fundies.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 04:30 PM
What we have here is a prime example of a person who has been programmed to hate Bush and the Republican party because he/she has mindlessly lapped up the drivel being spewed nonstop by the Demosocialist controlled media outlets.

[sigh] When will you Shrub-lovers realize that the number one reason these days to dislike el Presidente and his ilk is something called "objective reasoning?"

I've been "programmed" to hate Bush and the Republican Party because they are incompetent. :fire:

seeker_two
February 2, 2006, 04:31 PM
Okay, I think some elucidation on my part is in order.

First, just because I feel betrayed by the actions of the Bush administration DOES NOT mean that I suddenly wished I had voted for Kerry. I NEVER said that, so please don’t put words in my mouth.

Second, if you wish to admonish my points, go right ahead. But for those of you who have said “no wonder, this guy has less than 100 posts on THR” or “why do they let people like this post,” all I can say is that I have no respect for you and have nothing else to say to you. I have few posts on this board because up until very recently I was working full time AND going to college. But if you people want truly informative and worthwhile debate, then I think you would welcome those with slightly differing opinions then you own. I am just as fit to make points and have positions are any person who’s made 1000 posts to this board.

Third, here are my positions. If you think I’m still a “flaming liberal” then you’ve fallen off the apple cart one too many times to be regarded with any seriousness.

My Positions
----------------
1) I am a complete and total supporter of the 2nd Amendment and everything it stands for. I believe in the unadulterated existence of civilian firearms ownership. I believe in nationwide legalized concealed carry, the sunset of the ‘assault’ weapons ban, and an end to the 1930s firearms act which in many ways effectively bans civilian ownership of automatic weapons.

2) I believe in a 3% FLAT TAX with NO deductions for anyone, from working poor to elite corporation-owning millionaire. I believe this money should be used for building roads, schools, strengthening the military, NOT for bailing out failing private business ventures.

3) I believe in the disillusion of Social Security. It is a failed program that can and is raided by the federal government at will to pay for pet projects. It will NOT be around when my generation needs to retire, so we should be allowed to opt out and invest our savings how WE choose.

4) I believe in a strong and secure border with both Mexico and Canada. I believe that ILLEGAL aliens should be stopped from entering this country at all costs. I believe that the solution to the alien problem is NOT another broad spectrum amnesty program, which only rewards criminals.

5) I believe that the United Nations is a dangerous tyrannical organization which stands as a direct threat to national sovereignty and our constitution. I believe that the United States should immediately withdraw from this body and cease the unthinkably gargantuan contributions that we give to it on an annual basis.

6) I believe in the immediate repealing of unconstitutional and discriminatory affirmative action policies, which clearly violate the 14th Amendment in both letter and spirit.

I could go on and on, but clearly, I am NOT a big government socialist liberal. I do not see the Bush administration as DIVERGENT from true principles of classical “leave me the F alone” classic conservative principles. If you wish to attack me because I don’t support your golden boy, than go right ahead. But remember, that in so doing you may have lost yet another potential ally in your struggle to get this country back on the right track.

I like this guy.... :D

bogie
February 2, 2006, 04:32 PM
Checks and balances...

I think that the "separation of church and state" largely keeps the fanatics at bay... But just by being there, the scare the bejeebers outta folks...

I mean, who would _seriously_ think that Pat Robertson could be a presidential candidate...

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 04:37 PM
I mean, who would _seriously_ think that Pat Robertson could be a presidential candidate...

Pat Robertson and his God: who seems markedly different then mine...

bogie
February 2, 2006, 04:38 PM
Oh, and let me make a prediction...

A large number of THR (and other online forum) accounts will go stagnant following the next election if a Democrat wins. If a Republican wins, the message will be the same, in preparation for the next election.

What's really sad is that some folks will vote "against Bush" and then they'll wonder why their $5 box of shotgun shells suddenly costs $30, or $255, or whatever...

Camp David
February 2, 2006, 04:39 PM
I've been "programmed" to hate Bush and the Republican Party because...

The effectiveness of the left's message, which is compunded by the mass liberal media blaming Bush for all things bad, has never been disputed. The left has been contant in their message that Bush is bad and their minions effective in spreading such a message. Your use of the word "programmed" is both appropriate and accurate.

Lone_Gunman
February 2, 2006, 04:45 PM
What's really sad is that some folks will vote "against Bush" and then they'll wonder why their $5 box of shotgun shells suddenly costs $30, or $255, or whatever...

Thats nothing more than a scare tactic, and will not happen. For that to happen, not only would we need a Democratic president, but also a democratic controlled House and Senate, and the abolition of the NRA.

We suffered through 8 yrs of Clinton, and came out ok.

engineer151515
February 2, 2006, 04:50 PM
....

We suffered through 8 yrs of Clinton, and came out ok.



Only because of the "sunset" of the assault weapons ban. (aka - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)

President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994


Had it been permanent.... well, why expound on the negatives that did not happen in spite of President Clinton.

middy
February 2, 2006, 05:01 PM
I have to agree that Bush isn't the perfect Republican. I don't agree with a lot of what he has done and hasn't done.

But I also think that he takes a lot more bashing than he deserves by people who really ought to know better. He isn't the king, just the executive, and his power is second to the power of Congress.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 05:02 PM
The effectiveness of the left's message, which is compunded by the mass liberal media blaming Bush for all things bad, has never been disputed. The left has been contant in their message that Bush is bad and their minions effective in spreading such a message. Your use of the word "programmed" is both appropriate and accurate.

Nice redirect. Allow me to retort:

When will you Shrub-lovers realize that the number one reason these days to dislike el Presidente and his ilk is something called "objective reasoning?" :banghead:

That being said, with a Democratic victory, I'm likely to think they're incompetent, too.

McCall911
February 2, 2006, 05:20 PM
George Bush is no friend of mine…

Yes, well...

Sometimes it's a mostly a matter of who/what you're voting against (like Liberal Dems) instead of who/what you're voting for.

I guess you could say you're choosing the lesser of two evils.

Derby FALs
February 2, 2006, 05:46 PM
Yes, well...

Sometimes it's a mostly a matter of who/what you're voting against (like Liberal Dems) instead of who/what you're voting for.

I guess you could say you're choosing the lesser of two evils.

ONE ELECTION WON'T MAKE OR BREAK THE SYSTEM.

I would rather vote for the candidate that suits me best. Dems and Reps haven't done that for quite awhile. :(

superhornet
February 2, 2006, 05:51 PM
Sithanas--dmallind--Strikefire83---while I do not concur with all you say, I do respect your right to debate any and all subjects. Debate is an educational learning experience.
I am not actually a Republican or Democrat. I am from the old school of Ayn Rand and I posted not necessarily as a rebuttal to the subject topic, but only as an effort to further the discussion and seek other opinions. I do agree on one thing---The media, democratic party and certain splinter groups have motivated their followers to a true and deep hatred of the President. I belong to the old brotherhood of military members and spent 33 years teminating Commies for Christ and protecting the land. And if someones favorite tune happens to be "He's my Lollipop", I could care less......IMHO of course.

bg
February 2, 2006, 06:13 PM
Bush isn't great at all. Cutting student aid and medicaid so he can make up for the money he has blown on the war in Iraq is morally wrong. The cost of my medication far outseeds my monthly income. without my meds I would be either dead, inprisoned or locked up in the Funny Farm.
I voted for him twice, because I was and still am concerned
the firearm issue here in the Nation. But I agree 100%
on this Medicaid cut business. I've been taking care of my
Mother since 2000 due to multiple strokes and it has NOT
been easy. She will soon have to go into long term care as
I cannot hardly pick her up anymore to clean her and care for
her. We had just a tiny bit of resource to help her, but it's
almost gone, and I can't find work because there's no one
to watch her.

So what does the Pres do ? Cuts one of the programs I was
really counting on to help with her. I don't know what we'll
do, but we'll figure it out. As far as this new budget he
proposes, Folks like us are in trouble. He can send that
budget to the trash can.

Now if I was da*n illegal here in Corrupfornia, I'd be ok..:cuss:

JohnBT
February 2, 2006, 07:03 PM
"I mean, who would _seriously_ think that Pat Robertson could be a presidential candidate..."

Al Sharpton (D-NY)?

There are nuts scattered all across the land.

John

Helmetcase
February 2, 2006, 07:05 PM
This guy is a big-government, big brother, tin-plated puppet of the large corporations. I feel like a fool for voting for him. This man is no friend of freedom, and no friend of mine.
Seriously, you sound like a forward thinking guy. Even if we don't agree on everything, I'd support you. Make a run for office, I'll endorse you on my site. Yeah I'm four pages late to this argument, but I'll catch up reading the rest of the thread later. :)

yucaipa
February 2, 2006, 07:09 PM
We suffered through 8 yrs of Clinton, and came out ok.

It sounds like you learned to like the whippings ?:D


:neener:

sithanas
February 2, 2006, 07:36 PM
... I believe this money should be used for building roads, schools, strengthening the military, NOT for bailing out failing private business ventures...

I hate to nitpick, but Amtrak isn't really a "private business venture". It's a quasi-governmental organization, in the same venue as the USPS. Sure, it doesn't serve as many people, but to those who it does serve it's invaluable.

On the other hand, bailing out bankrupt airlines is a different matter. If there was only one airline, it'd be a different story, but the air carriers could probably use a little pruning in the name of cost effectiveness. If you can't handle financial solvency as an air carrier, let your assets get bought by one who can. Free market economics.

wingman
February 2, 2006, 07:42 PM
The working class has no friends in government...... Corporate greed and
government is hurting America and we continue to pay. Not a pretty
picture from where I set and I don't expect any president to fix it.:(

xd9fan
February 2, 2006, 07:43 PM
Okay, I think some elucidation on my part is in order.

First, just because I feel betrayed by the actions of the Bush administration DOES NOT mean that I suddenly wished I had voted for Kerry. I NEVER said that, so please don’t put words in my mouth.

Second, if you wish to admonish my points, go right ahead. But for those of you who have said “no wonder, this guy has less than 100 posts on THR” or “why do they let people like this post,” all I can say is that I have no respect for you and have nothing else to say to you. I have few posts on this board because up until very recently I was working full time AND going to college. But if you people want truly informative and worthwhile debate, then I think you would welcome those with slightly differing opinions then you own. I am just as fit to make points and have positions are any person who’s made 1000 posts to this board.

Third, here are my positions. If you think I’m still a “flaming liberal” then you’ve fallen off the apple cart one too many times to be regarded with any seriousness.

My Positions
----------------
1) I am a complete and total supporter of the 2nd Amendment and everything it stands for. I believe in the unadulterated existence of civilian firearms ownership. I believe in nationwide legalized concealed carry, the sunset of the ‘assault’ weapons ban, and an end to the 1930s firearms act which in many ways effectively bans civilian ownership of automatic weapons.

2) I believe in a 3% FLAT TAX with NO deductions for anyone, from working poor to elite corporation-owning millionaire. I believe this money should be used for building roads, schools, strengthening the military, NOT for bailing out failing private business ventures.

3) I believe in the disillusion of Social Security. It is a failed program that can and is raided by the federal government at will to pay for pet projects. It will NOT be around when my generation needs to retire, so we should be allowed to opt out and invest our savings how WE choose.

4) I believe in a strong and secure border with both Mexico and Canada. I believe that ILLEGAL aliens should be stopped from entering this country at all costs. I believe that the solution to the alien problem is NOT another broad spectrum amnesty program, which only rewards criminals.

5) I believe that the United Nations is a dangerous tyrannical organization which stands as a direct threat to national sovereignty and our constitution. I believe that the United States should immediately withdraw from this body and cease the unthinkably gargantuan contributions that we give to it on an annual basis.

6) I believe in the immediate repealing of unconstitutional and discriminatory affirmative action policies, which clearly violate the 14th Amendment in both letter and spirit.

I could go on and on, but clearly, I am NOT a big government socialist liberal. I do not see the Bush administration as DIVERGENT from true principles of classical “leave me the F alone” classic conservative principles. If you wish to attack me because I don’t support your golden boy, than go right ahead. But remember, that in so doing you may have lost yet another potential ally in your struggle to get this country back on the right track.


Beautiful

xd9fan
February 2, 2006, 07:46 PM
Bush and the GOP spends more money and time with the "freedom" of the people of Iraq then with slowing down the Federal Govt and protecting the Liberty of the individual american from Govt. This is why the GOP will fail. They are not a reform party....they are just another pro-statist party.

nomadboi
February 2, 2006, 07:48 PM
Like some of you guys said- anybody who is so unpatriotic an inappropriate as to try to start political dialogue here needs to go find a forum area with 'politics' in the title, join the masses who just want to agree that Busy is great, or shut the hell up.

Oh wait, this is a politics forum, in a board that ostensibly supports at least some of our rights to make our own decisions.:p

308win
February 2, 2006, 07:49 PM
Initially, can you identify which terrorist attacks have been prevented, as you allege? Date, description and location please?

Thanks.
Also links.

308win
February 2, 2006, 08:14 PM
The biggest problem with today's Republican party is what gave it the initial resurgence/power base back in the late seventies/early eighties - the massive defection of religious fanatics from the Democratic party.

Today you have a lot of folks who'd probably vote Republican, except that the folks who are pushing theocracy scare the bleep out of 'em.
+10 I don't know about the defection of the American Taliban from the Democratic party but I won't argue the point either.

RealGun
February 2, 2006, 10:34 PM
Nice redirect. Allow me to retort:

When will you Shrub-lovers realize that the number one reason these days to dislike el Presidente and his ilk is something called "objective reasoning?" :banghead:

That being said, with a Democratic victory, I'm likely to think they're incompetent, too.

The act of being objective deserves more credit than would be derived from what the Bush haters display. There is nothing objective about assuming everything Bush does or says must be bad or that there must be a negative side to everything, and by jiminy we are going to find it and blow hard about it..

bogie
February 2, 2006, 11:05 PM
Thats nothing more than a scare tactic, and will not happen. For that to happen, not only would we need a Democratic president, but also a democratic controlled House and Senate, and the abolition of the NRA.

The above refers to the concept of high taxes being placed upon sporting ammunition. The legislation keeps coming up to tax the heck out of "bullets," likely in the theory that "guns" are constitutionally protected, but the ammo isn't.

All it takes is ONE time where the crap gets attached to something. ONE time.

Derby FALs
February 2, 2006, 11:14 PM
The above refers to the concept of high taxes being placed upon sporting ammunition. The legislation keeps coming up to tax the heck out of "bullets," likely in the theory that "guns" are constitutionally protected, but the ammo isn't.

All it takes is ONE time where the crap gets attached to something. ONE time.

Well then maybe that is what it will really take...

rbernie
February 2, 2006, 11:25 PM
Well, I agree with this whole thread - George Bush is no friend of mine, either. Here I am, inviting the guy over for a beer after work, day after day, just trying to be a friendly guy. But does he bother to show up? No. Now what kind of friend is that, I ask? Not much. Nope, GWB is not MY friend any more, either. I spent a lot of time in the Clinton era White House - maybe Hillary would be willing to drop by some time.....

Naw - probably not. <sigh>

Maybe Lord Acton was right, after all. Expecting politicians and others in positions of relative authority to act like something other than a politician or person in relative authority is probably a fools errand...

Nevermind.

Wllm. Legrand
February 3, 2006, 12:16 AM
The act of being objective deserves more credit than would be derived from what the Bush haters display. There is nothing objective about assuming everything Bush does or says must be bad or that there must be a negative side to everything, and by jiminy we are going to find it and blow hard about it..

I don't believe your assertion about "everything Bush does or says must be bad" has any merit whatsover. I've never actually read that on this thread. Moreover, to put people who NOW despise what GWB STANDS FOR, as evidenced by his actions, policies, and statements, as categoric haters for illogical reasons is preposterous. I voted for him the first time. Now, having experienced his incompetence, corruption, lies, and betrayals, and the same from his administration on virtually all levels, I have come to despise him as well.

My repugnance is not based upon knee-jerk opposition to a Republican, being one in the past myself until the betrayal of the Republican Party to classical American values of the last 4-5 years, but rather is a thought out, reasoned, measured hatred against liars, poltroons, thieves, and traitors.

I can give specifics if you so desire, but only those so blind as they cannot see could not understand from where I WAS politically, to where I AM NOW.

carlrodd
February 3, 2006, 12:44 AM
I don't believe your assertion about "everything Bush does or says must be bad" has any merit whatsover. I've never actually read that on this thread. Moreover, to put people who NOW despise what GWB STANDS FOR, as evidenced by his actions, policies, and statements, as categoric haters for illogical reasons is preposterous. I voted for him the first time. Now, having experienced his incompetence, corruption, lies, and betrayals, and the same from his administration on virtually all levels, I have come to despise him as well.

My repugnance is not based upon knee-jerk opposition to a Republican, being one in the past myself until the betrayal of the Republican Party to classical American values of the last 4-5 years, but rather is a thought out, reasoned, measured hatred against liars, poltroons, thieves, and traitors.

I can give specifics if you so desire, but only those so blind as they cannot see could not understand from where I WAS politically, to where I AM NOW.


+1,000,000 "liars, poltroons, thieves and traitors". men are only men....human. i don't expect perfection or anything close to it from politicians, but the past two administrations have set new standards for betrayal of the american people, those they have SWORN to SERVE. clinton did his damnedest to crap all over the white house with his complete lack of moral fibre, and total disregard for his responsibility to be someone that is a cut above your common gutter scum. his time in office was full of lies, backpeddling and selfish, personal dramas.
president bush has surrounded himself with some of the shadiest, angriest, most manipulative people that i can imagine. they have had an agenda for the past 30 years, it is frightening, it has NOTHING to do with preseving the freedoms and liberties of our people, and it has nothing to do with the constitution they have sworn to uphold. dispicable!! i'm all for trying to recognize the worthwhile things this administration has accomplished, but the mistakes that have been made, and the continuous and varied disservice to the american people completely overshadows any good that has been done. i have no hope for anything better in 2008, neither from the republicans, nor the democrats. we have one hope in this country, one hope to remain viable as a nation, and one hope to ensure that the freedoms we so value are nurtured and protected.
our one hope lies in working toward breaking apart this two party system. it has to go. the common man is virtually voiceless while it remains, and if it does not go, our nation has a definite half-life. i see this as clear as day, and it makes me angry, but i admittedly have no idea how to effect serious change.

bogie
February 3, 2006, 01:06 AM
Guys, do me a favor. Try to forget what you see every night on the evening news, and hear on Howard Stern, etc., etc...

The more you repeat something, the more credibility it has. After all, don't we know that Al Gore was far more intelligent than George Bush?

Let's see... Gore flunked out of several "academic" programs, including some holy roller stuff (before his wife tried to ban instrumental jazz albums because they had "objectionable lyrics"), and used faked pictures of himself "in the bush in the 'Nam" in his campaign.

Bush may not have been at the top of his class, but at least he graduated. And his military record, while in guard/reserve stuff, was public record. And they don't let dumb people fly jets, even if they have influential daddies.

Yup. That Al Gore sure was a smart fellow...

carnaby
February 3, 2006, 02:39 AM
I was referring to the Faith Based Initiative, which as of TODAY has only redistributed tax money to CHRISTIAN CHURCHES that do “charitable” work. Churches are not taxed, thus in my reasoning they are the LAST organizations that should receive MY tax dollars.

Oh, and there’s that whole 1st Amendment thing, as well.

If you’re not familiar with the Faith Based Initiative, then YOU are the one who’s na&#239;ve and spent too much time on the internet.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How does your point about Bush have anything to do with the above quoted text?

Lots of organizations are not taxed. Why exactly is that one last on the list of those organizations that should receive government money? I suppose you'd rather see the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence receive government money first? Or maybe one of Soros' organizations? Obviously, none of them should receive money from the federal government, but if that was your point, it was poorly made.

In addition, how exactly is it that Cheney got 12M$ ?? That makes no sense. He gets a regular salary for being vice pres, what else is it he got from the government? If you're going to mention Halliburton, better you research that position more thouroughly first.

meef
February 3, 2006, 03:02 AM
Here's an idea.....

Let's petition the moderators to set a permanent sticky thread titled "All of the Many Things I Don't Like About George Bush and Why".

That way everybody who wants to post doesn't have to go to the trouble of creating their own redundant, tiresome thread where everybody sings the same old tired song. They can just hop right into the handy sticky, peruse what's already there, and see if they can't find new and different ways to say the same things over and over.

Saves everybody a lot of trouble and gives those so inclined a kindred place to hang out.

Those not so inclined could go about the business of posting things in other threads that were relevant to the legal and political aspects of firearms related issues.

lamazza
February 3, 2006, 03:53 AM
Okay, I think some elucidation on my part is in order.

First, just because I feel betrayed by the actions of the Bush administration DOES NOT mean that I suddenly wished I had voted for Kerry. I NEVER said that, so please don’t put words in my mouth.

Second, if you wish to admonish my points, go right ahead. But for those of you who have said “no wonder, this guy has less than 100 posts on THR” or “why do they let people like this post,” all I can say is that I have no respect for you and have nothing else to say to you. I have few posts on this board because up until very recently I was working full time AND going to college. But if you people want truly informative and worthwhile debate, then I think you would welcome those with slightly differing opinions then you own. I am just as fit to make points and have positions are any person who’s made 1000 posts to this board.

Third, here are my positions. If you think I’m still a “flaming liberal” then you’ve fallen off the apple cart one too many times to be regarded with any seriousness.

My Positions
----------------
1) I am a complete and total supporter of the 2nd Amendment and everything it stands for. I believe in the unadulterated existence of civilian firearms ownership. I believe in nationwide legalized concealed carry, the sunset of the ‘assault’ weapons ban, and an end to the 1930s firearms act which in many ways effectively bans civilian ownership of automatic weapons.

2) I believe in a 3% FLAT TAX with NO deductions for anyone, from working poor to elite corporation-owning millionaire. I believe this money should be used for building roads, schools, strengthening the military, NOT for bailing out failing private business ventures.

3) I believe in the disillusion of Social Security. It is a failed program that can and is raided by the federal government at will to pay for pet projects. It will NOT be around when my generation needs to retire, so we should be allowed to opt out and invest our savings how WE choose.

4) I believe in a strong and secure border with both Mexico and Canada. I believe that ILLEGAL aliens should be stopped from entering this country at all costs. I believe that the solution to the alien problem is NOT another broad spectrum amnesty program, which only rewards criminals.

5) I believe that the United Nations is a dangerous tyrannical organization which stands as a direct threat to national sovereignty and our constitution. I believe that the United States should immediately withdraw from this body and cease the unthinkably gargantuan contributions that we give to it on an annual basis.

6) I believe in the immediate repealing of unconstitutional and discriminatory affirmative action policies, which clearly violate the 14th Amendment in both letter and spirit.

I could go on and on, but clearly, I am NOT a big government socialist liberal. I do not see the Bush administration as DIVERGENT from true principles of classical “leave me the F alone” classic conservative principles. If you wish to attack me because I don’t support your golden boy, than go right ahead. But remember, that in so doing you may have lost yet another potential ally in your struggle to get this country back on the right track.


Very very nice!

RealGun
February 3, 2006, 10:51 AM
My Positions
----------------
1) I am a complete and total supporter of the 2nd Amendment and everything it stands for. I believe in the unadulterated existence of civilian firearms ownership. I believe in nationwide legalized concealed carry, the sunset of the ‘assault’ weapons ban, and an end to the 1930s firearms act which in many ways effectively bans civilian ownership of automatic weapons.

Some of these are debatable but they do serve to ingratiate you with THR subscribers.


2) I believe in a 3% FLAT TAX with NO deductions for anyone, from working poor to elite corporation-owning millionaire. I believe this money should be used for building roads, schools, strengthening the military, NOT for bailing out failing private business ventures.

This is not on the table and has little if anything to do with George Bush. Spending federal tax money on schools is certainly debatable.


3) I believe in the disillusion of Social Security. It is a failed program that can and is raided by the federal government at will to pay for pet projects. It will NOT be around when my generation needs to retire, so we should be allowed to opt out and invest our savings how WE choose.

George Bush is the champion of this issue. He has taken lumps for sure but has just come back in his SOTU speech raising the issue again.


4) I believe in a strong and secure border with both Mexico and Canada. I believe that ILLEGAL aliens should be stopped from entering this country at all costs. I believe that the solution to the alien problem is NOT another broad spectrum amnesty program, which only rewards criminals.

"Amnesty" is not a fair description of what has been proposed. What people seem to want is to shoot people coming across the border or to build physical or technical walls around the country. That is not going to happen. People responsible for what actually happens have more sensible plans that have nothing to do with hating or at least resenting little brown people who don't speak English.


5) I believe that the United Nations is a dangerous tyrannical organization which stands as a direct threat to national sovereignty and our constitution. I believe that the United States should immediately withdraw from this body and cease the unthinkably gargantuan contributions that we give to it on an annual basis.

I would say that George Bush carries a similar message better than any other President. There is a GOP sponsored bill in Congress to cut the cord with the UN. While it will not likely pass, the debate will be healthy and will support a number of George Bush ideas, doing what needs to be done regardless of UN footdragging or lack of resolve.


6) I believe in the immediate repealing of unconstitutional and discriminatory affirmative action policies, which clearly violate the 14th Amendment in both letter and spirit.

Corruption of its application does not mean the concept was wrong. At some point there has to be a price paid for slavery, discrimination, and disadvantage. I wouldn't mind seeing it withdrawn, but I think it served a purpose. In any case, it wouldn't be one of my top 6 issues.


I could go on and on, but clearly, I am NOT a big government socialist liberal.

It wouldn't be particularly relevant as long as you weren't anti-gun or guns were such a low priority that you sided with those who were anti-gun.


I do not see the Bush administration as DIVERGENT from true principles of classical “leave me the F alone” classic conservative principles.

I didn't take any point from this except you seem to be endorsing George Bush for something he may not quite deserve.


If you wish to attack me because I don’t support your golden boy, than go right ahead. But remember, that in so doing you may have lost yet another potential ally in your struggle to get this country back on the right track.

Who has attacked you? None of what you listed here serves very well to explain a thread titled "Bush is no friend of mine". I mean, come on. The guy is not up for election, could use a little support, (especially on the Social Security issue you listed), and he does not single handedly pass laws.

What is your point in ragging on George Bush? Was America offered a better candidate with a prayer of winning? Give it a rest. Think positive, like maybe increasing a GOP majority in Congress and yes, working for the candidates lining up to run for the Presidential primaries. They will announce right after the Congressional elections in November.

meef
February 3, 2006, 12:37 PM
Guys, do me a favor. Try to forget what you see every night on the evening news, and hear on Howard Stern, etc., etc...
I'd say that's pretty much a futile request, bogie.

The problem is, when the choir's being preached to - all it generally tends to do is generate a lot of "Amens!" and "Hallelujahs!".

Manedwolf
February 3, 2006, 12:56 PM
The act of being objective deserves more credit than would be derived from what the Bush haters display. There is nothing objective about assuming everything Bush does or says must be bad or that there must be a negative side to everything, and by jiminy we are going to find it and blow hard about it..

There's also something to be said for recognizing that despite an unwillingness to ever admit a personal mistake or to hold friends and cronies accountable for their mistakes (or actual lack of competence in their appointed positions), George Bush is a fallible human being and does not walk on water. This is an administration of "failing upwards".

Honestly, from your posts, I see a lot of rationalization of each and every thing he does. It's All Good.

Being objective means questioning every decision of every person based on all best available evidence, not just seeking out the evidence that supports your particular alignment.

superhornet
February 3, 2006, 12:59 PM
Some very constructive and interesting post. It is evident that all of you love your country and have some viable ideas on how to fix it. We tend not to agree with each other on many subjects, not just politics, and that element was instilled in us from a young age....I ask only these question from those of you who may have the answer....
What does today's Democratic party stand for ?? What is their platform? All I ever heard is Abortion and cut and run? They stand for education ?? Look up the phrase Dispositional Theory under diversity and multi-culturalism. Conservatives need not apply.....God bless George Bush...and so as not to be biased, Hillary, Al, Jesse, Mike, Bill, Teddy, Chuckie and Rosie O also ......

Lobotomy Boy
February 3, 2006, 01:17 PM
What does today's Democratic party stand for ??

That is a question I ask my Democratic friends on a daily basis. I'm still waiting for an answer. When it comes to our major political parties, I'm reminded of the cliche: "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Not that third parties offer alternatives either.

If the Democratic party abandoned its misguided anti-gun bias, a tool it cynically uses to whip its dogmatic base into a rabid frenzy, made a move towards the center on social issues, and began looking at foriegn policy as adults rather than as a bunch of ideological college students, it would offer a legitimate alternative for many voters who disagree with the Republican platform on issues such as gay marriage and abortion, decimating the ranks of moderate Republicans. For every left-leaning nut job it lost it would attract maybe five moderates.

RealGun
February 3, 2006, 01:19 PM
Honestly, from your posts, I see a lot of rationalization of each and every thing he does. It's All Good.

If you read with less bias, you might see that I propose merely being fair and objective rather than being caught up in the disease of being mean spirited, vitriolic, and predictably critical.

wingman
February 3, 2006, 01:23 PM
I voted for this administraion twice however I have been very disappointed in the results.

We continue to outsource jobs,loss of manufacturing, public schools not doing well, continued rising fuel prices, loss of freedom, loss of medical benefits,pensions etc I can go on but the main idea is the working person has no one, the wealthy corporations are in charge.

With all of this we ship billions of dollars to Iraq/Afganistan while we're told we cannot afford heat for schools, health care for seniors. Where is the return for the working taxpayer. so I feel safe now with billions going to other countries, sorry, no.

I support our troops, I served in Vietnam, some member of my family has been in every war since the beginning of this country however I do not like the path we are taking to a rich & poor society.

To believe any politician is your friend is somewhat naive. In my opinion we need to take care of America before we try to change the world because in our haste and greed perhaps they will make the changes.

carlrodd
February 3, 2006, 01:34 PM
If you read with less bias, you might see that I propose merely being fair and objective rather than being caught up in the disease of being mean spirited, vitriolic, and predictably critical.


it's not about bias, it's about looking at results. you're entitled to offer your support to any politician, regardless of his shortcomings, and you're entitled to debate with people that don't, but there is no sense in telling them they are simply biased. these people on here are offering their opinions just as you are. and unless they are in the military, it is perfectly suitable for them to be critical of a president they feel has not served his country well. i don't have loyalty to any politician. they are servants to the american people, and if they betray that charge, or otherwise fail to perform their representative duties adequately, then it's time to say something.

RealGun
February 3, 2006, 02:05 PM
it's not about bias, it's about looking at results. you're entitled to offer your support to any politician, regardless of his shortcomings, and you're entitled to debate with people that don't, but there is no sense in telling them they are simply biased.

Then how do you account for me and others being accused of BIAS in favor of George Bush? You would also have to somehow explain why there can be nothing good said about GW and his administration when to appear to say that there is nothing good and inherently could not be is pure nonsense. We have both blessings and complaints. Why does it have to all be negative, usually accompanied by childish pejoratives applied to people and political parties or anyone else with which we disagree?

I think what we really see is THR L&P heavily populated with anti-establishment types. If it weren't George Bush getting hammered, it would be someone else...anyone in authority. There can be valid reason for that, but at some point it is irrational or certainly unbalanced. We do need government and laws in some form. If unwilling to compromise and have a nice day, might as well eat that bullet right now. There is a lot to be said for thinking positively, not to mention having patience.

carlrodd
February 3, 2006, 02:19 PM
Then how do you account for me and others being accused of BIAS in favor of George Bush? You would also have to somehow explain why there can be nothing good said about GW and his adminstration when to appear to say that there is nothing good and inherently could not be is pure nonsense. We have both blessings and complaints. Why does it have to all be negative, usually accompanied by childish pejoratives applied to people and political parties or anyone else with which we disagree?

I think what we really see is THR L&P heavily populated with anti-establishment types. If it weren't George Bush getting hammered, it would be someone else...anyone in authority. There can be valid reason for that, but at some point it is irrational or certainly unbalanced. We do need government and laws in some form. If unwilling to compromise and have a nice day, might as well eat that bullet right now. There is a lot to be said for thinking positively, not to mention having patience.

i certainly don't advocate the absence of laws, and i understand the need for government. but you're right...if not bush then someone else, because our system is broken, and by and large, those who "represent" us don't have our interests and rights as a top priority. a lot of people seem to be in the business of looking at bush's shortcomings and mistakes, and saying, "well imagine if kerry had been elected....". we have hit an all time low if we measure the service of a man by whether or not his failures have been as bad as someone else's could have been. i don't care what kerry would have done. kerry's or anyone else's potential failures shouldn't be an excuse for bush's. cult of personality....americans are especially addicted to it.

Ezekiel
February 3, 2006, 02:27 PM
I think what we really see is THR L&P heavily populated with anti-establishment types.

It seems to go hand-in-hand with single issue voters of any kind. Frankly, that is the problem I have with many pro-gun (or pro-choice) zealots: they have a single-minded intensity that causes them to become idiots. :banghead:

Then how do you account for me and others being accused of BIAS in favor of George Bush?

"A desperate desire to have a perceived pro 2nd Amendment President even though he sucks in most other areas?" Merely a thought.

There can be valid reason for that, but at some point it is irrational or certainly unbalanced.

Just like following el Presidente Jorge Shrub into the rabbit hole merely because of a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and his perceived stance on guns?

"Singularly dumb, no?"

Lobotomy Boy
February 3, 2006, 02:30 PM
I'm certainly no supporter of Bush's, but I can see how he's become the nexus where all our anger at a broken and corrupt system of government is focused. I believe he deserves much of, if not most of the criticism leveled against him, but at the same time I think our dissatisfaction with the way government operates in general is amplifying this criticism. Maybe if we focus our efforts on fixing the system we will end up with a higher caliber of president than we've seen in recent years.

I think our anger should more accurately be focused on the Svengalis who have cynically manipulated the system to put their bobos in power--the Lee Atwaters, James Caravilles, and Karl Roves of this world. Since Atwater originally conceived of this political model for getting one's chosen bobo elected we have had a progressively lower quality of candidate to choose from. Some might argue that it is a tough call deciding who is worse--Clinton or W.--but both are clearly worse than GHW Bush, who was clearly a step down from Ronald Reagan. At the rate we are going, sooner or later our choices are going to be between a hot water bottle used as a feminine hygiene applicator and a talking bag of feces. Probably sooner.

cosine
February 3, 2006, 02:37 PM
Anybody want to take me up on my bet that this thread will be locked within 24 hours? :rolleyes:

Geez, this is The High Road. Stop throwing soundbites back and forth; we've all heard them before here and they're not changing anybody's mind.

Ezekiel
February 3, 2006, 02:40 PM
At the rate we are going, sooner or later our choices are going to be between a hot water bottle used as a feminine hygiene applicator and a talking bag of feces.

Man. I wish I were cool enough to have come up with that. :evil:

Lobotomy Boy
February 3, 2006, 02:44 PM
I ripped it off from an episode of South Park, sort of. On South Park it was a feces sandwich running against a feminine hygeine applicator.

carlrodd
February 3, 2006, 02:48 PM
Anybody want to take me up on my bet that this thread will be locked within 24 hours? :rolleyes:

Geez, this is The High Road. Stop throwing soundbites back and forth; we've all heard them before here and they're not changing anybody's mind.

that's ok. every thread has a lifespan. some good thoughts have been exchanged here.

CAnnoneer
February 3, 2006, 02:48 PM
+1 Wllm. Legrand

At the rate we are going, sooner or later our choices are going to be between a hot water bottle used as a feminine hygiene applicator and a talking bag of feces. Probably sooner.

I think we are already there - just look at the 2008 lineup. South Park - it's funny 'cause it's mostly true.

That is why I plan to vote third-party, at least until the crap gets expelled from both major parties.

Lobotomy Boy
February 3, 2006, 02:55 PM
I came to that conclusion two years ago. That's why I voted Libertarian in 2004.

RealGun
February 3, 2006, 03:31 PM
Just like following el Presidente Jorge Shrub into the rabbit hole merely because of a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and his perceived stance on guns?

"Singularly dumb, no?"

How would it have worked for the government to do nothing to try to ensure that something like 9/11 didn't happen again? I dare say GW would not have gotten reelected.

Bush and guns is as much a defense against Gore and Kerry as anything else. So far, that appears to have been a good move by gun owners. It didn't cure anything, but things are not as bad as they projected to be otherwise.

The man's name is George Bush, President and Commander-in-Chief. First respect the office and then you can talk about who is a good President (or not).

Camp David
February 3, 2006, 03:32 PM
The man's name is George Bush, President and Commander-in-Chief. First respect the office...

+1

carlrodd
February 3, 2006, 03:35 PM
How would it have worked for the government to do nothing to try to ensure that something like 9/11 didn't happen again? I dare say GW would not have gotten reelected.

Bush and guns is as much a defense against Gore and Kerry as anything else. So far, that appears to have been a good move by gun owners. It didn't cure anything, but things are not as bad as they projected to be otherwise.

The man's name is George Bush, President and Commander-in-Chief. First respect the office and then you can talk about who is a good President (or not).


i'll respect the office when the people in it respect the office. again, we are not in the military; it's a right to be critical. that's not up for debate.

Igloodude
February 3, 2006, 03:39 PM
I'm certainly no supporter of Bush's, but I can see how he's become the nexus where all our anger at a broken and corrupt system of government is focused. I believe he deserves much of, if not most of the criticism leveled against him, but at the same time I think our dissatisfaction with the way government operates in general is amplifying this criticism. Maybe if we focus our efforts on fixing the system we will end up with a higher caliber of president than we've seen in recent years.

I think our anger should more accurately be focused on the Svengalis who have cynically manipulated the system to put their bobos in power--the Lee Atwaters, James Caravilles, and Karl Roves of this world. Since Atwater originally conceived of this political model for getting one's chosen bobo elected we have had a progressively lower quality of candidate to choose from. Some might argue that it is a tough call deciding who is worse--Clinton or W.--but both are clearly worse than GHW Bush, who was clearly a step down from Ronald Reagan. At the rate we are going, sooner or later our choices are going to be between a hot water bottle used as a feminine hygiene applicator and a talking bag of feces. Probably sooner.

Interesting thought. I'm not sure that focusing our anger on the high-end political consultants gets us anywhere - #1, the better they are the more successful they are and thus the more insulated they personally are from public dissatisfaction, and #2, voting for a politician's opponent because the politician employs one of the nastier consultants is a concept that will be understood by about 2% of the voting population, and appeal to roughly 1% of the voters that understand it.

But, I don't have a better idea, either. :(

RealGun
February 3, 2006, 03:41 PM
i'll respect the office when the people in it respect the office. again, we are not in the military; it's a right to be critical. that's not up for debate.

Quoting myself from way back the line in this thread:

'Too likely to be a wasted effort. It's easier and more productive to focus on the successes and where the administration is responding to expressed concerns, leaving the naysayers to be consumed by negativity and predictable opposition.

Lobotomy Boy
February 3, 2006, 03:53 PM
Interesting thought. I'm not sure that focusing our anger on the high-end political consultants gets us anywhere - #1, the better they are the more successful they are and thus the more insulated they personally are from public dissatisfaction, and #2, voting for a politician's opponent because the politician employs one of the nastier consultants is a concept that will be understood by about 2% of the voting population, and appeal to roughly 1% of the voters that understand it.

But, I don't have a better idea, either.


This sort of brings us back to the dilemma inherent in a free-market system. If hiring slimeball political consultants gets one elected, he or she is likely to hire slimeball political consultants. That is the way a free market in a free society works. That is the ugly side of freedom; unfortunately every alternative is far worse.

I don't have a better idea either. I guess as long as the American public accepts a choice between a feces sandwich and a feminine hygeine applicator, the Roves and Carvilles and Atwaters of this world will be pulling the strings behind the scenes. If we demand better, the free market will dictate that they need to start supplying a better product.

Consider this the first official demand for a better political product.

GTSteve03
February 3, 2006, 03:54 PM
+1
Hey Camp David, how are those examples of terrorist attacks stopped by the government wire-tapping coming? I'm still waiting (along with others, I'm sure)...

Igloodude
February 3, 2006, 04:11 PM
This sort of brings us back to the dilemma inherent in a free-market system. If hiring slimeball political consultants gets one elected, he or she is likely to hire slimeball political consultants. That is the way a free market in a free society works. That is the ugly side of freedom; unfortunately every alternative is far worse.

I don't have a better idea either. I guess as long as the American public accepts a choice between a feces sandwich and a feminine hygeine applicator, the Roves and Carvilles and Atwaters of this world will be pulling the strings behind the scenes. If we demand better, the free market will dictate that they need to start supplying a better product.

Consider this the first official demand for a better political product.

One problem is the effective restriction down to two choices. We could fix that by going to one of the other balloting systems, but that would require legislation by lawmaking bodies composed mostly of members that got there through lesser-of-two-evils voting, or in lieu of legislation, perhaps an initiative by the Federal Election Commission... umm, that is composed of people nominated by those same legislators. :(

The only thing the Republican and Democratic Parties agree on is that there should only be two parties (unless the third party is a spoiler for one or the other, then all bets are off).

middy
February 3, 2006, 05:01 PM
You know, Lobotomy Boy, I'm beginning to like you. :)

Art Eatman
February 4, 2006, 02:23 AM
I had to go out of town overnight. Just got back.

I'm sore tempted to go to the start of this thread and clean out everything that I don't see as being High Road.

From the automatic "Tell a Mod" emails I've gotten, it would probably go down to maybe three posts?

I'll sleep on it...

:(, Art

Old Dog
February 4, 2006, 03:14 AM
Wow, leave town for a couple days and come back to a vitriolic six-page thread spawned by yet another adolescent anti-Bush rant.

Lobotomy Boy seems to have provided a much-needed sanity check with his remarks:
I'm certainly no supporter of Bush's, but I can see how he's become the nexus where all our anger at a broken and corrupt system of government is focused. I believe he deserves much of, if not most of the criticism leveled against him, but at the same time I think our dissatisfaction with the way government operates in general is amplifying this criticism.
Exactly. L.B. made another good point:
Maybe if we focus our efforts on fixing the system we will end up with a higher caliber of president than we've seen in recent years.
We have the system in place; we simply seem to lack motivated persons to get involved. Of course, becoming politically active, even at a local level, is much too difficult for most people; far easier to simply spew hateful rhetoric about the President on the internet from one's desk chair, rather than try and figure out what the country's real problems are and join the programs for reform.

If we demand better, the free market will dictate that they need to start supplying a better product.
Concur.

Waitone
February 4, 2006, 03:54 AM
I'm late to the thread and yes, I read the whole thing. Easy to do when one possesses no recognizable life.

I don't think I seen a more polarizing figure in my lifetime than Bush. Clinton was in second place but what seemed to happen with him was the political divide stayed put. With Bush there seems to be a meandering political divide. It seems the guy was invested with political beliefs he never did profess. I attribute that to a sick and tiredness over Clinton where people were not interested in reality, just wanted to be rid of Clinton. I predict the same boredom with Bush. Problem is started acting like a lameduck in year 3 of his first term. His last term if we are luck will be a complete bust.

I think Bush does two things which are helpful to the body politic. He is flushing out the radical left in the country. They can easily be spotted by their drooling when not talking and their profanity laced spittle while raging. The other service he provides is he demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of the republican party contrary to what AM bootlickers pontificate. I take no comfort in the demise of the democrat party. I take less comfort in the republican party's vaccuous political philosophy WTHIS. This country is ripe for a potent third party move. Problem is it won't arise out the usual suspects.

NineseveN
February 4, 2006, 04:08 AM
Well, if Hillary gets into office, it may force the remaining Repubs to do at least an impersonation of conservatives. Just a thought...
Biker

This man is a genius! Give him a cookie. :D

Robert Hairless
February 4, 2006, 05:11 AM
No offense, but there hasn't been a picture of Bush hunting since he shot down some protected birdie.

Why not write President Bush and suggest that he should take the time from his day job to be photographed hunting? Let him know why you think it's important.

PCGS65
February 4, 2006, 05:38 AM
Art it's time to wake up and lock this thread! I can't take it anymore, the same old disrespectful Bush bashing BS.
There is some good news, in 3 years Bush will no longer be president and no one will have any more problems. No crime,no terrorists,no illegal immigration,no budget deficit,no low paying jobs,ect.,ect.
Don't make cosmoline a loser.

Wllm. Legrand
February 4, 2006, 02:09 PM
BETTER LOCK THE THREAD!!

Bush-lover's feelings might get hurt....They're getting testy...

(said in my best Ahnold Austrian accent)
We cry for you, but our tears are tears of laughter...

xd9fan
February 4, 2006, 02:18 PM
+1


I do not respect Bush or Clinton.....the office...sure as a concept...yes...but as for the crap that holds this office...no.

Don Gwinn
February 4, 2006, 02:30 PM
Closed for sheer, brutal childishness.

Sheesh.

If you enjoyed reading about "George Bush is no friend of mine…" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!