[Monte Harrison]

This is an article I stumbled onto while looking for gun clipart:

Texas Nurses Association "Gun Safe" campaign unites community with common goal
http://www.nursingworld.org/tan/98novdec/spotligh.htm

This paragraph caught my attention:
The Texas Nurses Foundation (TNF) provided more than $75,000 in seed money to the coalition, which launched the Gun Safe campaign on May 16, 1996, a date designated by Governor Bush as "Gun Safe Day." TNF also assumed responsibility for coordinating the campaign, developing materials and training volunteers and continues to provide staffing and the bulk of the program's funding.
Getting clintongore out of the White House was reason enough to have voted for W in 2000. I seriously doubt I'll be voting for him in '04.

[Felonious Monk]

Yeah, I agree.
Al Sharpton would be a MUCH better president. :rolleyes:

[zahc]

Can't you abstain or something? I'm not of voting age but it was my understanding that one could vote basically "none of the above". But still have his voice be heard.

[Joe Demko]

GWB's slogan for the upcoming campaign should be:
"W. 'Cause he sucks less."

[Zander]

Hmmm...May 16, 1996...was that before or after he signed Texas' new CCW law into existence?

What a stretch...

[benewton]

If you want some type of freedom, you can vote Libertarian. There are, of course, a number of third parties that you could also go for, but, for my money, I wish the Libertarians to win.

However, what you'll end up with, should you go that way, is either a Republican or a Democrat.

In the latter case, the situation will go down the tubes rapidly, since the Democrats prefer a strong central government with no personal control over your own life. You would, of course, be responsible for any "illegal" activity you might indulge in. They will, however, tax everything, including air, thus limiting your possible choices.

In the former case, the situation will go down the tubes more slowly, since the Republicans prefer a strong central government with no personal control over your own life. You would, of course, be responsible for any "illegal" activity you might indulge in. They will, however, criminalize everything, including breathing, thus limiting your possible choices.

Isn't democracy great???

[Chris Rhines]

No, democracy ain't great.

I was not planning on voting in the next election. Honestly, I'd get more utility out of spending the day at the local pub drinking myself into a stupor than I would wasting my time at the polling place.

But.

If Bush II puts his stamp on an AWB reauthorization, I plan on voting against him, for whomever is most likely to unseat him. Ditto my Senators and Reps, should they vote for such a bill.

Scorched earth, baby!

- Chris

[Justin]

I'm with Chris on this one.
The Republicans control congress.
There's a Republican in the White House.

In order to make the AW ban go away, all they have to do is sit idly by and let it expire.

Instead, we have a president who openly admits that he will renew the ban if given a chance, and a number of congressmembers who are working to see that it does get re-authorized.

Hate to say it, but the Republicans can't leave well enough alone. They don't even have to do anything!
They could win this issue through sheer apathy, and yet they pick at it like a scab.

was not planning on voting in the next election. Honestly, I'd get more utility out of spending the day at the local pub drinking myself into a stupor than I would wasting my time at the polling place. I can't remember if it's a state or Federal law, but bars have to be closed on election day.

[David Roberson]

There's no federal requirement for bars to be closed on election day or any other day. Here in NC, they're open.

benewton has the right idea. Vote for every Libertarian you can. No, in the short term they aren't going to win many elections, but the stronger showing they make, the more that Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B will try to co-opt some of their positions.

[Blackcloud6]

And what is wrong with promoting gun saftey and the proper storage of firearms? I hope we all support the safe use and storage of firearms. The Highroad, right?

[Master Blaster]

I plan on voting against him, for whomever is most likely to unseat him. Ditto my Senators and Reps, should they vote for such a bill.

So Chris does that mean you would vote for Hillary Clinton if she was most likely to unseat Bush? Or some other totally anti-gun democrat that runs?

Personally I'm hoping that our senators or congressmen will keep this bill off the presidents desk, thus giving him plausible deniability and allowing him to defeat the next demonrat in 04.

Bush should be working behind the scenes to make sure that it does not reach his desk. The I will sign it is to keep some of the middle of the road liberals voting for him so he can win the election in 04.

Or if the bill is more onerous than the last he may then veto it anyway but without alienating too many middle of the roaders and losing to an anti freedom demonrat.

My goal is to keep as many gun rights as I can, not to screw myself.

Have you contacted your congresscritters via phone and letter to let them know how you feel?

I have SEVERAL times now.

I urge all out there to do the same.

[GregoryTech]

And what is wrong with promoting gun saftey and the proper storage of firearms? I hope we all support the safe use and storage of firearms. The Highroad, right?

Nothing, in theory. Except you can't legislate responsibility. All you end up doing is making lawful activity illegal.

Safe storage laws threaten your ability to keep a loaded gun by your bedside, even if you have no children. Safe storage laws remove parental descretion in evaluating their own situation and give that ower to the sate.

Yes, we're all for safety and responsibility of firearms. Good ideas do not always make for good law.

[Jim March]

Zahc: yes, there is. Look for the guy with the label "Libertarian" :D.

[Smoke]

hmmm....

I won't vote for anyone just to oust GWBII.
I more than likely won't vote for a Democrat.
I doubt I'll vote Libertarian, wasting a vote to keep out a Democrat.

Democracy is good. Not perfect. GWBII is more Pro Gun than any Democrat. I have faith he'll not pass any more gun control legislation and don't feel it is a threat if he renews current legislation. Rome didn't fall in a day. So he renews the AWB....it is at the extreme of gun laws and garners the most publicity. Throw them this one and maybe they'll be appeased. We can readdress it during a better climate.

[kidao35]

Throw them this one and maybe they'll be appeased. We can readdress it during a better climate.

Letsee:

1) Democrats admit they lost the House and Senate in '94 because of the original AW Ban.

2) In 2000, Gore loses a number of key states due to "gun control", even his home state.

3) In the wake of 9/11, citizens become aware of the fact that they must take personal responsibility for the safety of themselves and loved ones. Many individuals rush to buy firearms, even soccer mommies.

3) In 2002, Dems lose again, in both House and Senate. Key issue: gun control.

The climate isn't going to get better than this, folks.

BTW, we've been appeasing the gun control groups for 35 years. We're in a cage with a lion, using the sword in our hands to hack off our own limbs to feed the lion, hoping to finally satiate him.

Its time to kill the lion. :fire:

[Preacherman]

Guys, I think you've been misreading the article referenced in Monte's post. To quote some excerpts:TNA members realized that they would need broad-based support to make a dent in the problem and decided to form a coalition that would represent both gun owners and non-gun owners.Those early struggles to define a purpose paid off with a message that is easily articulated. The Gun Safe campaign emphasizes simple rules. There should be no unlocked guns. Adults should lock up guns in a gun safe, fire safe or lockbox. The locks should be key or combination and only adults should have access to the keys. Unstored guns should have a properly fitting trigger lock. "PTA members, police officers and volunteers of all kinds have presented the program at health fairs, camps, PTA and other community meetings, places of worship and professional conferences, but school nurses have been particularly integral to the program," says program coordinator Debbie German. "We sent a kit to every school nurse and present annually at their conferences." ... TNA's work with the Rockport Police Department is a good example of the coalition's success in working with non-traditional organizations. Officer Mark Gilliam of the department's Community Policing Unit uses the materials when he speaks to community groups and calls the program "a real blessing."
Personally, I find nothing objectionable about such a program. They're not trying to ban guns, or discourage ownership of guns: merely trying to make sure that those who own them act responsibly. If GWB endorses such a program, good for him!

[Augustwest]

We can readdress it during a better climate.

The climate seldom gets better, and often gets worse.

[Ian]

GWBII is more Pro Gun than any Democrat. So? That's like saying that lung cancer is less lethal than ebola, because it kills you more slowly. But they both kill you.

I probably won't vote next year either, but my Congress-critters don't know that and you can bet I'm telling them how I feel about the AW ban.

So he renews the AWB....it is at the extreme of gun laws and garners the most publicity. The same was true of short shotguns when the NFA was passed. No appeasement. Not when my rights are being auctioned off.

[Chris Rhines]

So Chris does that mean you would vote for Hillary Clinton if she was most likely to unseat Bush? Or some other totally anti-gun democrat that runs? Exactly right. My goal would be to unseat Bush my any means necessary.

Bush should be working behind the scenes to make sure that it does not reach his desk. He should be, but he isn't. You're still operating under the incorrect assumption that Bush II is pro-gun. He isn't.

My goal is to keep as many gun rights as I can, not to screw myself. At least with Hillary, we gun owners get screwed in the front. With Bush, we get it from behind. Not much of a pick.

Have you contacted your congresscritters via phone and letter to let them know how you feel? Yes, for all the good it has done me (none.) Do you really think that your erstwhile representives care what you think? They know what's best for the proles, and your (or my) feelings don't matter worth a pitcher of warm spit to them.

- Chris

[Bainx]

I worked hard to get Bush in office.

To those of you in above postings who say "giving a little never hurt anything" type B.S. I pose to you....you boil a frog by gradually turning up the heat. That is what GW is doing to us I feel. Pander to the liberals, get yourself re-elected. Self first. Country second.
Whatever happened to taking a stand on something?
As I said in another thread, if the NRA does not jump up and down about this and point the condemming finger at our President, I will ditch them in a heartbeat.

I'm getting tired of sending money to an organization that is reactive rather than proactive. How many existing gun laws has the NRA fought to get off the books? Answer: none.

[FNHP35]

While I understand your point Chris, I don't think you're using good logic. Yes, Bush isn't as good as we had hoped, but he is better than Hillary. The "getting screwed" analogy isn't a fair analogy at all. This is more of a situation where someone is attacking us, Bush would be a person standing on the side lines, but Hillary would be one wanting to join in the fight to kill you. I would rather have him on the sidelines than have someone attacking me.

Plus, Bush did sign into law the CCW for TX. He has other agendas, other issues to take care of which may or may not politically allow him to tackle this one. Would I prefer he would, yes. Have I written my congressman, yes. Will I write Bush, yes, will I write my Senators, yes. Will my letter do anything... not alone, but if enough people write, then it will. Politicians are people very in tune with.... not the polls of the majority of the people, but polls of voters. They know that it's not the majority of the poeple that vote them in, but the majority of the voters that do. People that take the time to write letters, are often the ones that take the time to vote. Anyway, that's my $.02 on the issue. I've been wanting that ban dropped ever since it came about, and for me, that's been just a tad under half of my life. I want this thing dead. But, in the next election, I'll vote for Bush, (unless a more conservative candidate with a chance of beating the leading liberal is a viable option).

[Feanaro]

I'd like to quote the comedian Lewis Black. "Democrats suck, Republicans blow". :D

[Chris Rhines]

The "getting screwed" analogy isn't a fair analogy at all. This is more of a situation where someone is attacking us, Bush would be a person standing on the side lines, but Hillary would be one wanting to join in the fight to kill you. Supporting and signing into law anti-gun legislation is "standing on the sidelines?" No. Al Gore pulls the same stunt, no one here would think twice about voting against him.

He has other agendas, other issues to take care of which may or may not politically allow him to tackle this one. Well, let's see, that buys him exactly squat. I care nothing for 'other issues' or the 'political situation.' If Bush II supports and signs anti-gun legislation, he is anti-gun.

But, in the next election, I'll vote for Bush,...Expediency. Morality. You make the call.

- Chris

[Zander]

I suppose that my inclination to think long-term precludes my ability to recognize what short-term gain we would realize by expressing the intention to vote [if you vote at all] for one of the most venal, corrupt and sociopathic members of Congress to occupy the chief executive's position.

Just so we all understand your mindset, tell us what you envision a Hillary Clinton-controlled regime would entail and how that would help us regain/retain our inalienable Rights. Do you foresee an inevitable armed revolution? Will a reversion to "leadership" by thinly-disguised Marxists suddenly awaken our fellow citizens that the country is in real danger from within? Is the undiluted hate for the current political status and its attendant faults reason enough to make things infinitely worse in a much shorter period of time?

I'm asking you, anarchists et al., to think long-term and tell us what your game-plan is for securing and re-securing our Rights; for us, our children and our grandchildren. And please refer to established history when you tell us why you think we should proceed with giving our mortal enemies, foreign and domestic, the reins.

My inquiries are genuine. Please, don't assume they are condescending or dismissive...I'm just confused as to where your strategy will lead us.

Keenly awaiting your replies...

[oldfart]

Ok Zander, you want stuff based on history? It's all around you, all the time. It's so prevalent I won't even give dates or names, there's too many of them. Let me just make a couple of statements that anyone who has ever cracked a history book will recognize as truth.

First: All governments and all civilizations fall. They always have, they always will and ours will too.

Second: When enough people get tired of getting screwed over by an uncaring government-- usually by excessive taxation but other problems can cause it too-- then those people will rise up and throw the bums out. We Americans did it once for far less reason than we have now and the French followed our lead a few years later.

These two instances are relatively fresh in our historical memories but the same things have been happening all over the world since time immemorial. I believe it was the Phillistines who enslaved the Hebrews and forbade them any blacksmiths lest they make swords or spears. The Jews had to have their tools sharpened by Phillistine blacksmiths. Yet when the Jews finally decided they'd had enough, they ran the Phillistines out. Variations of the story are told in Chinese history, in Mayan and Incan history and in Polynesian history.

It will happen again right here in the good ol' U, S of A too. I don't know when, though I suspect it will be after I have gone. My children and grandchildren will probably have to go through it. I hope I've_prepared them well enough.

Prior to the 2000 elections, when these boards were rife with do or die statements regarding Bush vs. Gore, I predicted that GW would lead us down the same garden path that Gore would. Gore would have made the trip a lot quicker but no less certain. Hillary (if elected) will make Gore look like a Libertarian. But maybe that's what this nation needs as a wake-up call. Maybe the Sheeple need to have the bread taken out of the 'bread and circuses' life they now get to lead.

One thing more. Our revolution was against a king several thousand miles away. Ocean travel made it difficult for that king to react in a timely manner to an armed citizenry. Our next revolution won't have that problem. The objects of the citizens' hatred will be right among them, like during the French revolution. I would imagine the next revolution conducted in America will make the French version look like a tea-party. We are already seeing a polarization of the population into two distinct groups, the very poor and the very rich. The so-called middle-class is rapidly shrinking and being sucked into the other two camps. When the very poor finally realize they have nothing to lose but a few years of misery the very rich will be in serious trouble.

George Bush has an opportunity to change the course of the future, but he'll have to become a better student of history to do so. Like all_powerful people, he has the idea that he is above all that. He will turn his back on those who elected him and, with his new Patriot Act and the upcoming Patriot Act II, will declare any who oppose him 'terrorists' and crush them like ants. Alexander did it, Caesar did it, Hitler did it, Mao did it, Castro did it... It's a function of power.

[ahadams]

that people can take stuff out of context, and when it's put back into context for them (by Preacherman in this instance) simply continue to ignore reality and argue about their emotions instead...

[Zander]

First: All governments and all civilizations fall. They always have, they always will and ours will too.Granted. Sort of begs the question: WHY?, doesn't it?

Second: When enough people get tired of getting screwed over by an uncaring government-- usually by excessive taxation but other problems can cause it too-- then those people will rise up and throw the bums out. We Americans did it once for far less reason than we have now and the French followed our lead a few years later.This seems to presume that only an armed revolution will "fix" our problems. Since there has been no comparable country in the world's history, are we doomed to armed revolt? Is so, when?

It will happen again right here in the good ol' U, S of A too. I don't know when, though I suspect it will be after I have gone. My children and grandchildren will probably have to go through it. I hope I've_prepared them well enough.Likewise...but I don't agree that we must pass along the responsibility for correcting the problem to our heirs. In point of fact, I hope and pray that we will solve the problem within our generation. Call me an optimist...I am.

But maybe that's what this nation needs as a wake-up call.Our nation needs a wake-up call that involves installing closet-Marxists as our "leadership"?!? You can't be serious.

We are already seeing a polarization of the population into two distinct groups, the very poor and the very rich.Only in the minds of the class-distinction bigots.

[President Bush will declare any who oppose him 'terrorists' and crush them like ants.Oh, c'mon...we all know that Feinstein, Schumer and Clinton will protect us from an overweaning government. We are so fortunate to have such protectors of liberty representing us. :rolleyes:

[SteelyDan]

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face... Fine, vote for Hillary, don't come complaining here when you lose your ears and mouth, too. I'll vote for Bush in a heartbeat, because any other choice is at best a wasted vote, or more likely a step in the wrong direction.

[DonQatU]

I love the "neo-cons" who try to make their "lesser of two evils" arguments in an attempt to defend "dubbyuhs" anti-gun position on gun laws!

I say! ....... Mr. President, "YOU'RE EITHER WITH US......OR AGAINST US!!!!" (Simple ....eh?)

Don

[FNHP35]

Living in a society means that sometimes you are forced to do something that you would rather not have to do. It comes with the territory. I would rather not have to vote for Bush, but I also realize that he is the lesser of the evils (or, so I'm assuming from the front runners in the next election). Until you can show me how voting for anyone but Bush will actually get anything concretely accomplished in our quest to take back control of our rights, I'm sticking to the "Expedient" solution. I'm not sure of what you mean, I know he's supported gun locks, which, I don't like, and I think go too far, but I'd hardly consider that anti-gun. The fight analogy still stands.

It might buy him squat with you, but happily, most people differ. There is more to politics than guns rights, however important the rights are. There are incredibly important issues that have nothing to do with guns. 4th Amendment rights, campaign finance reform, corporate welfare, taxes etc. are issues that we need to be watching. As are foreign issues. Politics is not just about guns. He’s not the best, but he’s also not the worst.

When Al Gore is attacking Bush (as did Handgun control Inc) then it sure does draw into question the idea that Bush is anti-gun. Gore and Bush are not the same when it comes to gun control.

Anyway, no real use arguing, you’ve made up your mind. You’ve chosen a path to take, and sadly, that path is not one that will increase gun rights at all.

[fallingblock]

And I suppose I'll support him in '04, especially if the alternative is Hillary:what:

Meanwhile, I'm doing everything I can to get the AWB sunsetted.

We've got to keep up the fight with what's at our disposal, right?

"W" is a better tool than Hillary, I'm sure of that;)

[Chris Rhines]

I suppose that my inclination to think long-term precludes my ability to recognize what short-term gain... You've got your concepts backwards. Dethroning Bush II would be a short-term pain, but the long-term benifits could be substantial. For one thing, the GOP would finally get the lesson rammed into their thick skulls, that the gun owner vote cannot be counted on.

Just so we all understand your mindset, tell us what you envision a Hillary Clinton-controlled regime would entail and how that would help us regain/retain our inalienable Rights. Major lost concept here. If your rights are inalienable, why do you need to regain or retain them? Why not just express them?

That said, I would expect a Hillary Clinton presidency to be roughly similar to the Bill Clinton regime, with more gridlock and less legislative progress. Hillary is so demonized that I doubt she'd be able to get so much as a Congressional pay raise passed into law.

Do you foresee an inevitable armed revolution? Hell no.

Will a reversion to "leadership" by thinly-disguised Marxists suddenly awaken our fellow citizens that the country is in real danger from within? 'Thinly-disguised Marxists' are pretty much what we've got in the oval office now. Very few of the citizens are cognizant of this danger. So probably not, but who can say? When things start becoming uncomfortable enough for the yuppies, perhaps our government will see some real dissent.

Is the undiluted hate for the current political status and its attendant faults reason enough to make things infinitely worse in a much shorter period of time? Like I said, scorched earth, baby!

It's not a question of making things worse or better. It's a question of making the current leadership understand that they serve at my pleasure, and that Bush (and the GOP) can betray the gun lobby at their political peril. If four years of Democratic government is the byproduct of that, that's okay. I'm prepared to go that route, because quite frankly, nothing less will get the message across. (Frankly, this won't get the message across either. The liberty problem cannot be solved politically.)

I'm asking you, anarchists et al., to think long-term and tell us what your game-plan is for securing and re-securing our Rights; for us, our children and our grandchildren. I'm too worried about my rights to concern myself with yours. If you want to claim your rights, go out and claim them! Don't wait for our leaders-on-high to hand them down to you.

And please refer to established history when you tell us why you think we should proceed with giving our mortal enemies, foreign and domestic, the reins. What you mean 'our,' paleface?

Bush II is my mortal enemy, he's already got the reins, and he's well on his way to creating a society that you'd have to be insane to live in. Way I see it, I'm formenting dissent between two enemy camps.

- Chris

[oldfart]

Zander: You ask why governments and civilizations fall. The answer is right before your eyes. It's because people have different ideas about how things should be done. You and I have differing opinions about things and we're thousands of miles apart. If we were sitting at a bar after imbibing a few drinks, the discussion might become heated enough for us to resort to violence.

Then you ask if resorting to arms is the only way we can get out of this quagmire. I don't know. But again, history has shown that war is the normal method to resolve such issues.

And before you catagorically denounce war and violence as a solution, let me point out that all life, and not just human life either, is dependent upon war or some variation of it for survival. It's called 'survival of the fittest' and we humans have managed to alter the outcome of our own race temporarily. In time, we'll get brought up short and find ourselves no longer the dominant life-form on the planet. But that's even beyond the AWB renewal.

As for the wake-up call: There's a very good reason why military units use a bugle to awaken the troops rather than a gentle call from an NCO. The bugle is loud and strident. It jars the troops from the deepest slumber and gets their attention quickly. Many of the Sheeple in this country are quite willing to admit that 'things' need fixing, but right now all they want to do is watch the footbal game and drink another beer. These are the ones who need a bugle blast of real tyranny to wake them up. Those of us who recognize the danger present right now need to prepare for that great awakening by continually reminding our legislators that they work for us rather than for the courts or for the corporations or the UN. Bad as it will be, we will probably need a Hillary or someone like her to provide the tyrannical wake-up call needed to jar Mr. Monday Night Footbal Fan off his couch.

I don't have the text right in front of me, but Patrick Henry said something about using the light from the past as a lamp to guide his feet into the future. That's all any of us have, but once guided, our feet can take any of millions of paths. History has shown that we usually take the more violent path. I would like to see us break with history but I doubt that will happen.

Bush will quietly urge members of congress to pass the AWB. Once it's on his desk, he'll say something about it being the 'will of the people' and he'll sign it. If he can maintain his popularity until next election, he'll win, but it'll be without my vote.

One thing that bothers me; people who say publicly that they'll vote for him no matter what he does. We 'Gun Nuts' aren't the only ones reading these statements. If everyone on all the boards were to state that they would not vote for any legislator who voted for the AWB, those legislators would get a real message. When it comes to the actual election, everyone has to do what they think is right. Until_then though, keep your poker faces on and bluff!

[Zander]

If we were sitting at a bar after imbibing a few drinks, the discussion might become heated enough for us to resort to violence. Since I carry at least one pistol everywhere I go, that would be highly unlikely. I don't let situations escalate and would just take my leave.

You should talk to someone who actually knows me and converses with me "in the flesh", so to speak. They'll tell you that we'd probably have a great time discussing the really important stuff we have in common. Heck, I'd even buy!

And before you catagorically denounce war and violence as a solution,...I wouldn't do that as it's not what I believe.

There's a very good reason why military units use a bugle to awaken the troops rather than a gentle call from an NCO. The bugle is loud and strident. When I was in basic training, there was a tall, lanky guy from Anniston, Alabama [a fellow platoon leader] who had a habit of sitting straight up in bed when the trumpet blew. The majority of mornings, he hit his head on the rafter above his upper rack. He just didn't seem to have the capability to change his behavior no matter how many times the trumpet startled him awake.

IMO, the political trumpet has sounded. Hildebeast has already been elected to the Senate of the United States of America! Those who would elevate her power want the next piece of music we hear to be "Taps".

Not me...I'm not foolish enough to wish for civil war. And I'm not foolish enough to waste my vote on someone who cannot possibly win.

[DonQatU]

I'm not foolish enough to waste my vote on someone who cannot possibly win.

Zander, many gun owners are not willing to waste their votes on someone who has already shown that he is more than willing to betray us for political advantage.

Your time might be better spent lobbying "dubbya" to change his "neo-con" anti-gun stance than trying to convince us that we should vote for someone who will betray us........again!

Don

[JohnBT]

Let's all vote for the Democratic Party candidates - that'll teach those old Republicans a lesson alright. Yep, sure will.

Or, we could all just go to the range on Election Day and have some fun before the Dems take our guns away.

All in favor raise a hand and say "I surrender."

John

[DonQatU]

Let's all vote for the Democratic Party candidates

John, should we limit our choices to anti-gun party A or B?

Don

[SodaPop]

Bush could lose if he it passes again. I expect Bush to say he is against it and Ashcroft will let it sunset. Bush will separate himself from Ashcroft and we'll win.

[Zander]

Zander, many gun owners are not willing to waste their votes on someone who has already shown that he is more than willing to betray us for political advantage.Not sure what you mean. How has he betrayed us?

Did you miss the other thread(s) where this was dissected to a fare-thee-well? It's a political strategy; nothing more nor less. The battle is in the House of Commons. If we stop it there [we will] it can't possibly make it to Dubya's desk, thus can't be signed into law.

You do your part, I'll do mine and we'll make this abomination go away. But we won't make it go away by beating our gums and threatening to cut our own throats out of sheer spite.

And that's it for me in this thread...the meanderings are getting a bit irrational for my tastes.

[DonQatU]

And that's it for me in this thread...the meanderings are getting a bit irrational for my tastes.

I don't blame you Zander! The "high grass" is the best place to retreat when you've lost the fight.

"Dub" SIGNALED "the House of Commons" (isn't that British?) that he would rubber stamp their decision! As long as that decision didn't sunset the AW bill.

Bye-bye! Don

[ambidextrous1]

In 1992 I voted for Perot because I wanted to "make a statement", and in doing so, I facilitated the election of Bill Clinton.

In 1996, being a slow learner, I voted for Perot, knowing he could not win, but wanting to "make a statement".

In doing so, I helped ensure the re-election of Bill Clinton.

Please forgive me for the error of my ways; and learn from my pathetic example.

Talk about 'unintended consequences'.... Sheesh! :banghead:

[DonQatU]

Who the heck was the President who signed 18 USC Chapter 44, subsection 178.39 into effect?

Wasn't his name.......BUSH? Damn!!!! Glad I didn't vote for Perot!
:rolleyes:

Don

[Preacherman]

Friends and THR'ers, I've tried to be VERY patient and let the discussion go on, hoping that some sanity would prevail. The topic of this discussion was very clearly stated in an article that it appears very few of the respondents have bothered to read. The ensuing discussion has been rather nasty at times, politically inept on occasion, and appears to be dominated by the absence of tinfoil hats rather than the exercise of logic. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that some of the respondents are still responding instead of heading for the hills in a "Red Dawn" apocalyptic frenzy!

Folks, this is and will remain "The High Road". Please keep posts ON TOPIC: if you want to go off at a tangent, start another thread to do so. Also, I sincerely hope some of you will stop having knee-jerk emotional reactions to things, rather than sit back, smell the roses, and realize that there are many good things in life, as well as many bad things. It's up to us to work for the good and against the bad. Just because our President may not see things our way doesn't mean that he's evil: and just because some of our fellow THR'ers disagree with us doesn't mean that they're weak-at-the-knees pantywaists who are unwilling or unworthy to "fight the good fight" with us.

Reluctantly closed as having veered permanently off-topic and into an overgrown, thorny left field...