Kerry is SUNK!


PDA






telewinz
August 6, 2004, 11:17 AM
http://www.swiftvets.com/ it says it all.

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto#

If you enjoyed reading about "Kerry is SUNK!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Croyance
August 7, 2004, 01:37 AM
Not really, voting isn't about issues and the people anymore.
Essentially, both sides have stopped listening. The noise is just to get the party faithful out on election day.
People aligned with either party vote whichever lame candidate their party trots out. The public is inflicted with one or the other.
Both candidates are uninspiring, witness the record numbers of undecided voters.

Sodbuster
August 7, 2004, 08:44 AM
Both candidates are uninspiring
Agreed. And that's the best thing to be said about them. I don't hear a Vachel Lindsay writing poems (ala William Jennings Bryan) about either one of them.

Shooter 2.5
August 7, 2004, 09:06 AM
Talk is cheap. Bush freed two countries and Libya has denounced terrorism.
We have the Bush tax breaks, the economy is getting stronger. He hasn't signed any anti-gun legislation. He did sign a pro-gun bill into law.

Kerry has done nothing in 19 years in the Senate, he's phony and an opportunist.

As a gunowner who supports the Bill of Rights, I believe the anti-gun dem party has to be driven from office.

RWK
August 7, 2004, 09:30 AM
With respect, I am afraid I disagree. Obviously, with many – certainly including me – he has been “sunk” for years (the most liberal voting record in a long Senate career, the worst attendance record, the “poster boy” for Massachusetts liberals, and so forth). Further, the dubious history of his in-country “courage”, the profile of his remaining Naval service, the anti-veteran diatribes are not news. [Note: I say all of this in the context of a peer, who served as a Naval officer in the late ‘60s, the ‘70s, and the ‘80s].

Most unfortunately, many people do not care if his peers – brother Riverine Naval officers from the same River Patrol Squadron – are virtually all appalled by his actual Vietnam service and his post-war reputation. In addition, the Democrat “spin artists” are already attempting to neutralize the testimony of his fellow-officers, indicating that they did not “serve” with him (evident, since Swift boats had a small (usually 5 or 6 man) with only one commissioned officer). This misses the point that in a squadron where patrol lasted only hours, where “all hands” lived together on a river-anchored LST, and where crewmembers frequently transferred among boats, character was instantaneously transmitted to all squadron-mates.

El Rojo
August 7, 2004, 01:53 PM
I think Bush is going to win this one no problem. Kerry is running on a raise taxes platform. He is going to pay for all of his plans by getting rid of the tax cut. I think there are just enough American's out there to realize, "Hey that is my $300 ($600) he wants to take away." Kerry has nothing going for him. Sure the liberal polls want us to think so, but I don't think so. But talk is cheap, lets see what happens in November.

Derby FALs
August 7, 2004, 02:33 PM
Someone has to pay. At least you will be paying for the Iraq War 20 years longer than me. :D

DigitalWarrior
August 7, 2004, 02:55 PM
One of the funniest things I ever saw on "The Daily Show" was a repubican get just destroyed by Jon.

Jon: where did the statistic that "the most liberal voting record in a long Senate career" come from.

Repub: There are poeple who study this sort of thing by examining blah, blah, blah.

Jon: But where specifically, like which magazine, did the statistic that "the most liberal voting record in a long Senate career" come from.

Repub: There are lots of them.

Jon: Name one

Repub: They are from both the left and right, you know people look at voting records, blah, blah, blah.

Jon: which one.

DigitalWarrior
August 7, 2004, 02:56 PM
RWK, where did this come from "the most liberal voting record in a long Senate career"?

GSB
August 7, 2004, 04:12 PM
Essentially, both sides have stopped listening.

I think Croyance has nailed it.

RevDisk
August 7, 2004, 04:22 PM
I see both candidates as being equally bad people. I guess facts on both sides don't really matter anymore.

The way I see it, there are pro-Kerry folks, pro-Bush folks and then a bunch of people in the middle that can't decide which candidate is more horrible.

I wonder when we'll get better choices.

RWK
August 7, 2004, 05:36 PM
Digital,

This has been widely reported on both MSNBC and Fox News. I cannot say I have analyzed the votes Kerry has cast, but what riveted my attention was Kerry's voting record was evaluated as "more liberal" than even Ted Kennedy's. Also, highlighted was Kerry’s flagrant absenteeism – the worst in the US Senate.

Shooter 2.5
August 7, 2004, 05:36 PM
F rating from the GOA.
F rating from the NRA.
A rating from Handgun Control Inc.

There are websites that track the conservative or liberal votes on politicians. If you're interested do a search.

Shooter 2.5
August 7, 2004, 05:39 PM
http://www.conservative.org/98ratings/fullsenate.htm

Shooter 2.5
August 7, 2004, 05:41 PM
Kerry rated the most liberal member in the Senate.'
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm

Justin
August 7, 2004, 05:45 PM
We have the Bush tax breaks $300 isn't a tax break. It's a kick to the groin.

sendec
August 7, 2004, 05:52 PM
I cannot help but think that many people are rabidly anti-Kerry because it is too difficult to be pro-Bush. The main decision in this election is which candidate sucks less than the other, not which is best. Kinda like in the 70's when in high school we'd argue about which was better, a Pinto or a Vega.

SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI
August 7, 2004, 07:33 PM
$300 isn't a tax break. It's a kick to the groin. :rolleyes:


In that case, I'll take a few more kicks to the groin, please.

Shadowman
August 7, 2004, 08:01 PM
Essentially, both sides have stopped listening

Who says there are sides...

Atticus
August 7, 2004, 10:09 PM
Rats! I thought this had something to do with friendly fire off of Martha's Vineyard.

Gary H
August 7, 2004, 10:26 PM
Ya, a night drive with Ted.

VaniB.
August 7, 2004, 11:25 PM
Boy, you guys who say 'Kerry is Sunk", or "Kerry is finished".... Could you tell me how you come to this inspiring conclusion. I guess you don't believe the polls that show Kerry edging ahead of Bush already, as Kerry of late has gained a lot of ground in popularity and trust with the American people.

If you ask me, I'd bet that Bush is sunk, not Kerry! You can't win with less than 50% of the people behind you.

2nd Amendment
August 7, 2004, 11:31 PM
Sure ya can. Bush already did it once and Clinton did it twice! :)

Croyance
August 7, 2004, 11:38 PM
Bush freed two countries and Libya has denounced terrorism. Libya gathered material for weapons building, then admitted to it and denounced terrorism to get back into the international community. Bush did not do this. It is only a strategic move that may not have meaning - what is said and done are two different things.
Must suck to be North Korean and not worthy of freedom. Before you get your back up about this, tell me who was clearly ahead in the nuclear game in 2000?
Iraq was a problem that should have been dealt with when promised, when George HW Bush said. Clinton should have dealt with it when Saddam was starting to build credibility with his former enemies, the muslims. The intelligence gathering act of watching Middle Eastern TV and reading their newpapers would have given that away. A whole world of problems openned up because two presidents did nothing drastic.
I wonder when we'll get better choices. You must know better than that. Have realistic expectations and you will live a happier life. At least you will have a life less unhappy and stressed.

telewinz
August 8, 2004, 07:45 AM
Most unfortunately, many people do not care if his peers – brother Riverine Naval officers from the same River Patrol Squadron – are virtually all appalled by his actual Vietnam service and his post-war reputation It may be a regional thing but EVERYONE around the upper Ohio Valley (battle ground area) who has heard or seen this commercial is shocked! Heap big medicine for our Great White Father.

Shooter 2.5
August 8, 2004, 07:56 AM
Bush did have something to do with Libya denouncing terrorism. You don't think Libya got the message when we attacked Iraq and Afganistan?

George H. Bush couldn't continue into Iraq. The coaliton wouldn't allow it and the American People wouldn't have supported it. Half the people don't support it now.
During the eight years, clinton should have done something but as usual, throwing a rocket at a camel once in a while was the only thing he was good for.

MP5
August 8, 2004, 08:05 AM
For those who would like to examine the specifics of Kerry's record instead of relying on hearsay:

http://www.senate.gov/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103&PHPSESSID=adcf340464883a70f4581e8e962acf66

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm

telewinz
August 8, 2004, 03:44 PM
George H. Bush couldn't continue into Iraq. The coaliton wouldn't allow it and the American People wouldn't have supported it.
I clearly remember...The stated mission was accomplished (free Kuwait). Only later (as always) did people second guess and forget Bush kept his promise. For this he gets bad mouthed?:what:

A country only loses when they admit defeat. Just ask Frederick the Great and Japan (WWII). Saddam never admitted defeat like EVERYONE expected.

Destructo6
August 8, 2004, 03:59 PM
cannot help but think that many people are rabidly anti-Kerry because it is too difficult to be pro-Bush.
I have yet to meet or even hear about one of these. Kerry elicits little more than a yawn from most pro-Bush types and even quite a few anti-Bush types.

As for "most liberal," it's obviously subjective and is determined by the reader after examining information such as:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

and,

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm

telewinz
August 8, 2004, 04:22 PM
as Kerry of late has gained a lot of ground in popularity and trust with the American people. Not so in one poll it gives Kerry a 5% lead over Bush BUT the margin of error is also 5%! Some polls show that Bush got a jump after the DEMOCRATIC convention! Either way it don't look good for the bad guys.

hammer4nc
August 8, 2004, 08:03 PM
I don't disagree with telewinz's title for this thread. The democratic convention should have been inspiring; it was a snooz-a-thon. But, there's a whole lifetime between now and Nov. 2. Because both sides are so uninspiring, the election could well be decided by a minor debate gaffe, a major terrorist event, or anything in between. This time last year, Howard Dean looked unstoppable as the demo nominee. One slipup in Iowa...and poof!

Beware the October surprise! Factions on both sides are preparing...

All experts don't agree, though...look at the latest:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Analyst says Bush needs 'miracle' to win re-election

Associated Press

POINT CLEAR, Ala. - George W. Bush would need a "miracle" to win the presidential election as the war in Iraq becomes increasingly unpopular, a political analyst told members of the Business Council of Alabama.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said if the election was held now, Democratic nominee John Kerry "would win very handily."

The war is the biggest factor hurting Bush's re-election chances, he said, noting that if the president hadn't ordered the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year, he likely would be leading in 45 states and heading toward a landslide victory.

"He really will need a miracle to win, and the last miracle was for Harry S. Truman," Sabato told the Birmingham News after his speech at the council's governmental affairs conference in Point Clear. Truman pulled his upset presidential victory in 1948.

Sabato said Bush also must deal with a mediocre economy and a sour mood among voters that sees the economic glass as half empty.

Democratic Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, who joined dozens of legislators listening to Sabato's speech, said his national perspective offered an interesting contrast to the view from Alabama, which tends to vote heavily Republican in presidential elections.

"Apparently, Kerry is doing a lot better in a lot of areas in the country," Baxley said.

Sabato said Bush's best chance at winning is to hit "hot-button social issues" and try to paint Kerry as too liberal on issues such as gay marriage, gun control, abortion and the death penalty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where's James Carville, when you need him?

Shooter 2.5
August 8, 2004, 09:29 PM
John Kerry on Gun Control
Click here for 9 full quotes on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.

* Gun owner & hunter, but rights come with responsibility. (Mar 21)
* Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA. (Nov 2003)
* Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

VaniB.
August 8, 2004, 10:14 PM
Shooter 2.5,

uhhhhh.....like we didn't know John Kerry was anti-gun and we might have voted for him?


-the Choir

Shooter 2.5
August 8, 2004, 10:23 PM
Just a little reminder to the members who think both candidates are the same.

Besides, when did the High Road get so many kerry supporters? It's getting to be ridiculous when a few members start with the old " They're all alike". When that doesn't work then it's "kerry's not that bad". A few more posts and it's "Well, ok, he's against guns, but he's still not as bad as Bush".
Ridiculous. kerry isn't fit to be a dogcatcher. If he was, he would collect purple hearts for dog bites.

sendec
August 8, 2004, 11:04 PM
Hey I think we should lay the paddles and zap some joules to Pat Paulsen. If ever his country needed him, that time is now. What was that stripper's name who ran against Arnold? Team her with Gary Coleman, they could'nt be any worse than what we face now.

I'm lucky, I have an abandoned mine on my property, I'll surface in 2008 and look for my shadow.

JG
August 9, 2004, 12:33 AM
Besides, when did the High Road get so many kerry supporters? It's getting to be ridiculous when a few members start with the old " They're all alike".


Go to a few of the other well known forums that are "evil" gun oriented and you'll find just about everyone is a Bush supporter.

This site seems to appeal to a whole variety of people/shooters.

Croyance
August 9, 2004, 01:35 AM
Only later (as always) did people second guess and forget Bush kept his promise. For this he gets bad mouthed? I remembered when I was watching Kurdish refugees fired upon by Iraqi helicopters. I remembered when I was watching footage of rebels getting killed and put down.
What did I remember? I remembered GWB saying that we would support any rebellion against Saddam.
In not keeping his word thousands died or were tortured. The rebels acted believing they had US support.
Yes, I will bad mouth a person who does not keep their word, especially when so much is at stake.
Did Bush have the power to do what he promised? Well he shouldn't have opened his mouth if he didn't.
The analysis at the time was that if there were US casualites he might lose votes.
Politics is a dirty buisness, pragmatism and honor don't always go hand in hand.

Croyance
August 9, 2004, 01:42 AM
Bush did have something to do with Libya denouncing terrorism. You don't think Libya got the message when we attacked Iraq and Afganistan? Given that so much of their weapons program was in boxes and the amount of time that it took to gather all that stuff, I think that the denouncement was always in the works. I think they looked at the economic benifits of ending an embargo and said what they needed to say and turned over some boxes.
I think they looked at the fact that Iraq was attacked and not North Korea or Iran and drew the conclusion they were safe either way.
Iran and Yemen support much more terrorism than Iraq did.

Croyance
August 9, 2004, 02:41 AM
Got distracted there for a moment.
Getting back to GWB, when those Kurd civilians were being gunned down and the southern rebellion put down we had just negotiated the ceasefire. Saddam's men were negotiating the peace.
Given that Saddam was seen as a huge enemy of Muslims in general, by Muslim countries I think a good case could have been made at that time for stopping the human rights abuses. Footage of what was happening was airing here. Many generals were for going in. Shi'ite nations would have been for it.

Who says there are sides... When one group of people is applying a set of standards that they say the other candidate is not meeting while ignoring the fact that their candidate is equally bad while the another group is doing the same tells me there are sides.
The fact that both choises are insipid is buisness as usual. The fact that both sides are telling me their candidate can do anything is getting repetative.

Besides, when did the High Road get so many kerry supporters? I've said time and again that the only thing you can rely on is that we are gun rights supporters. Not that we share any other politics, beliefs, or tastes. Further, not everybody is a single issue voter.
I am not a Kerry supporter. I just realistically be an enthusiastic Bush supporter, why should I be? An awareness that my choises are limited and certainly not great is not a bad thing.
Patriotism or candidate loyalty does not mean putting on blinders. If anything one's choises and beliefs should be more closely examined for flaws to buttress them against the opposition, whoever they may be.

atek3
August 9, 2004, 05:01 AM
Talk is cheap. Bush freed two countries and Libya has denounced terrorism. We have the Bush tax breaks, the economy is getting stronger. He hasn't signed any anti-gun legislation. He did sign a pro-gun bill into law.

Oh please.
"Freed two countries"
If iraq and afghanistan are models for american-style "liberation", I'd hate to see what kind of menace to the world the Bushiviks would be during their second term.
Bush Tax Breaks:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-18-03.html
Unfortunatly, those tax cuts were accompanied by the biggest spending increases since "guns and butter" LBJ.
Economy Getting stronger?
Are you kidding? Right now Americans are up to their eyeballs in debt. To maintain current consumption levels we require billions in external financing from asian central banks. When americans can't buy another car, cash-out refinance their homes again, and have maxed out their credit cards, they will have to stop buying. The current 'economic recovery' was a sham and a hoax propelled by artificially low interest rates and short term stimulus (tax 'rebates', etc.). Now that interest rates are rising, commodity prices and inflation are soaring, the economy has no place to go except for down.
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/168421-7352-031.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39080
Maybe you heard that oil hit 44 dollars a barrel and OPEC has proclaimed they are at full production.
Maybe you are aware that the current housing boom is unsustainable and that tens of thousands of poor credit risks that overpaid for homes using variable-rate mortgages are going to have their homes foreclosed.
All and all I'd say Bush's stewardship of the economy has been near perfect.( NOTE: I'm not implying kerry would be better, he'd likely be as bad or worse.)
Then we've got the largest expansion of medicare since its inception, which will saddle the country with billions of new taxes to fund said boondoggle. A Farm subsidies bill that brings home the bacon to farmers, when crop prices are nearing multi-decade highs and would thus be a great time to phase out said subsidies.
Let's see, Bush has been one of the worst protectionists in recent memory, having bought votes from the steel, textile, lumber, and numerous other industries using tariffs and quotes. DURING A RECESSION MIND YOU. (anyone remember the smoot-hartley tariffs, that exacerbated the great depression?)
The recent corporate tax reform bill has been a total nightmare. Unlike the '86 tax reform bill which flattened tax rates and eliminated distorting exemptions. This bill would add silly quasi-subsidies to industries with good lobbyists (such as manufacturing)
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-15-04.html

"He hasn't signed any anti-gun legislation"
That's because it hasn't hit his desk. Bush will sign anything that hits his desk, ANYTHING. HE HASN'T VETOED ONE BILL.
Campaign Finance Reform aka Free Speech Infringement Bill, "Well I think its unconstitutional, but I'll sign it any way." WHAT AN IDIOT. Every leader elected pledges to uphold the constitution, sure slimy politicians break that pledge every day, but at least they don't RUB OUR NOSES IN IT...unlike Herr Bush.

Honestly, Kerry would be worse than Bush on just about every issue, but there is no way I'd do anything to help that corporatist fascist Bush get elected.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-HL Mencken

If Mencken was right, may we get another four years of the bushiviks.

atek3

telewinz
August 9, 2004, 05:11 AM
The analysis at the time was that if there were US casualites he might lose votes. I remembered when I was watching Kurdish refugees fired upon by Iraqi helicopters. I remembered when I was watching footage of rebels getting killed and put down.
Bush didn't say anything about sending US troops back (help) in to support the Kurds. After Vietnam, I'd never agree to fighting someone elses battles for them and that applies even today. There is a limit to "help", I might give a street person $5 but no way will I let him move into my home.

Shooter 2.5
August 9, 2004, 07:51 AM
Yes, George Bush freed two countries in three years. Are they on their way to two cars in every garage. No. They are Muslim countries and their culture won't change. At least they won't have a bunch of princes gambling in Vegas. They'll have a voting choice.
Bush hasn't signed any gun legislaton because he doesn't want to. He isn't in the Rose garden every day with a group of police officers talking about smart guns, registration, safety locks, loopholes, evil black guns or doing something idiotic "for the children".

We had the socialists in charge and now we have a moderate. We can keep going in this direction toward a true conservative or throw it all away with kerry. Your choice.

MP5
August 9, 2004, 08:09 AM
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2)


Remember to look into the specifics of each of those items before casting judgement. You probably wouldn't want him to have voted "Yea" on that bill (S.1805) since it included an amendment sponsored by Diane Feinstein to extend the Assault Weapons Ban by another ten years.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.1805:

With amendments like that tacked on, it's no surprise that only eight senators voted for it:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00030

fallingblock
August 9, 2004, 08:14 AM
"If Mencken was right, may we get another four years of the bushiviks."
************************************************************

'Cause we surely don't deserve an anti-RKBA certainty such as JFK.:eek:


Exactly, Shooter 2.5!
************************************************************
"We had the socialists in charge and now we have a moderate. We can keep going in this direction toward a true conservative or throw it all away with kerry. Your choice."
************************************************************
;)

MP5
August 9, 2004, 08:37 AM
'Cause we surely don't deserve an anti-RKBA certainty such as JFK.

Bear in mind, though, that the Bush administration is no great defender of human rights and civil liberties, but rather the opposite (Patriot Act, due process abuses in connection with the so-called war on terrorism, attempts to circumvent the Geneva Convention, torture--at least under its watch, even if not directly condoned). Bush went into office saying he'd support existing gun legislation, like the AWB.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/08/opinion/main592130.shtml
http://www.aclunc.org/911/scorecard.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/index.do
http://www.jpfo.org/2nd-setup.htm

Countless other news articles and interest group statements on these issues are available online.

Justice Stevens: "At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. For if this nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny."

Shooter 2.5
August 9, 2004, 08:39 AM
Mp5

"Q: Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?

A: I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA. And when I was fighting to ban assault weapons in 1992 and 1993, Dean was appealing to the NRA for their endorsement, and he got it. I believe it's important for us to have somebody who is going to stand up for gun safety in America and make certain that we make our streets safe, our children safe, and not allow people to get assault weapons in America. "


He couldn't answer the question but he did get that comment on banning the black guns.

MP5
August 9, 2004, 08:41 AM
Shooter 2.5, I'm not endorsing Kerry here, but rather urging an investigation of the facts before people assume he's the devil incarnate (he's too boring for that ;) ) or that Bush is some great leader and RKBA advocate.

MP5
August 9, 2004, 08:52 AM
Kerry * Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

"That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun."

--Bush

Shooter 2.5
August 9, 2004, 09:02 AM
Bush is a moderate. He has shown he doesn't actively support gun control in any form.
Kerry has an F from the NRA and the GOA. He has an A from handgun control inc.

That's good enough for me. I want to keep moving in a more conservative direction so that in four more years we can get a true conservative.

I also don't want the dems to be the ones replacing Supreme Court Justices.

fallingblock
August 9, 2004, 09:53 AM
when it comes to RKBA.;)

Bush as newly-elected governor of Texas signed into law the CCW that Ann Richards had fought against.

At the U.N. Forum on Small Arms, it was the Bush Administration that told IANSA and the UN that the U.S. would not be supporting IANSA proposals for a curb on private ownership of firearms.

Kerry has voted consistently against our RKBA throughout his 19 years in the Senate.

Kerry certainly is boring, but he will serve his masters at the DNC to curtail our RKBA.

At WORST, Bush is a politician who postures to capture the 'moderate' vote.

There is a world of difference between the two on RKBA.:)


************************************************************
"....(Patriot Act, due process abuses in connection with the so-called war on terrorism, attempts to circumvent the Geneva Convention, torture--at least under its watch, even if not directly condoned)."
************************************************************

All of which certainly would have come to pass under a Gore Administration faced with the same chain of events.
Perhaps even worse with a rabid 'gun control' agenda added.

If the war on Iraq had failed to occur to the Demoncrats, they no doubt would have been lobbing cruise missiles and frightening the camels.:eek:

Bush's administration has been fairly reliably pro-gun.
Compared with what we would have gotten from Gore,
that's a very positive step.

Kerry certainly would be worse than Gore for RKBA,
his voting record in the Senate confirms this.

Even if one does not like "Dubya" for other reasons, there is little point in claiming that Kerry "wouldn't be THAT bad" when it comes to RKBA.

That sort of thinking will result in Clinton-style massive setbacks for the cause of RKBA.
:scrutiny:

Destructo6
August 9, 2004, 03:17 PM
Shi'ite nations would have been for it.
That is wild speculation. And there is only one Shi'ite nation: Iran. There's no reason to believe that Iran would have been any more pleased by a US-led invasion in 1991 that it was in 2003.
I think they looked at the economic benifits of ending an embargo and said what they needed to say and turned over some boxes.
I think they looked at the fact that Iraq was attacked and not North Korea or Iran and drew the conclusion they were safe either way.
Of course they looked at the benefits: get sanctions lifted and ecomonic opportunities or risk tangling with the US military...Unlike Saddam, Kadafi picked the rational choice. Your conclusion doesn't seem to follow your premises.

MP5
August 9, 2004, 03:40 PM
Bush's administration has been fairly reliably pro-gun.

Seems like they've been more asleep on the issue than actively pro-RKBA. The fact that they eagerly curtail other rights sure doesn't lead me to sleep easily and certainly doesn't indicate that they'll leap up in defense of the RKBA or any other Constitutionally protected freedom.

That said, I'm not arguing that Kerry is pro-RKBA. His stance there is pretty clear :( It's merely to point out that Bush is at best the lesser of two evils--though when taken on all the issues, even that's debatable, IMO.

moa
August 9, 2004, 05:09 PM
Also Vice President Cheney spoke at the recent NRA national convention. Do you think Kerry or Edwards would do that?

According to Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, Kerry missed 38 of of 49 public hearings on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Miller has no idea how many secret hearings Kerry missed. Maybe Kerry ought to tell us.

And, I think we all know by now that Kerry voted against many of successful weapons systems in the Pentagon's inventory today.

Kerry is a disaster on every front, not just RKBA.

By the way, one of Kerry's Swift boat comrades (name Gardner), who was Kerry's machine gunner, roundly denounced Kerry recently on the Michael Savage radio program. Unfit to be Commander In Chief.

Croyance
August 10, 2004, 02:58 AM
Of course they looked at the benefits: get sanctions lifted and ecomonic opportunities or risk tangling with the US military...Unlike Saddam, Kadafi picked the rational choice. I don't think he really felt like he was in danger from the US military. Everything we have done so far, we've looked for a fairly recent triggering incident.
I think the weapons program was built for the sole purpose of turning it in, so sanctions would be lifted. I think that Bush going on about WMD's just made the timing good, maximized the gain.
Turned out Saddam wasn't hiding anything either.
Yes I know that he was sharing his none existant weapons.
There's no reason to believe that Iran would have been any more pleased by a US-led invasion in 1991 that it was in 2003. Let's see, the war Iran had with Iraq was more recent. Saddam was seen as an enemy to all Muslims at the time, a greater local threat than anyone but Israel.
Bush didn't say anything about sending US troops back (help) in to support the Kurds. Indeed he did not. Support can be taken many different ways. In this case it meant watching passively while civilians in the north and south were slaughtered. I myself only hope I get friends that supportive one day.
Before that even happened, before the ceasefire, we had divisions in Iraq on the way to Bagdad. Republican Guards were in paniced disarray. We drew back then instead of finishing the job.

fallingblock
August 10, 2004, 05:07 AM
"Seems like they've been more asleep on the issue than actively pro-RKBA."
************************************************************

No, not the Bush Administration taken as a whole. They have been proactive in many ways, not the least of which was Ashcroft's support of the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment.
And the slap dealt to IANSA by the Bush Administration served to at least temporarily put the brakes on an organization which still threatens to disarm all individual gun owners.

Gore would almost certainly have caved-in on that one.



************************************************************
"The fact that they eagerly curtail other rights sure doesn't lead me to sleep easily and certainly doesn't indicate that they'll leap up in defense of the RKBA or any other Constitutionally protected freedom."
************************************************************

And Kerry will?

In what way?:confused:


************************************************************
"That said, I'm not arguing that Kerry is pro-RKBA. His stance there is all to clear It's merely to point out that Bush is at best the lesser of two evils--though when taken on all the issues, even that's debatable, IMO."
************************************************************


THIS is where we agree, MP5!:)

I'm certainly not making any claim that Bush is the ideal leader.:eek:

Merely that he is certainly preferrable to Kerry on the RKBA issue, and that there would not be much difference between the two on loss of individual freedoms.

The Democratic Party really is NOT the party of individual freedom and responsibility.:barf:


Shooter 2.5 is expressing what to me seems a very reasonable and pertinent view of the central issue at stake in this election:
************************************************************
"We had the socialists in charge and now we have a moderate. We can keep going in this direction toward a true conservative or throw it all away with kerry. Your choice."
************************************************************

With Kerry in the Whitehouse and the minders at DNC pulling the strings, the situation will slip backwards rather than continuing (perhaps?) to build towards a true conservative government.

I'd rather take the more evolutionary course myself.

MP5
August 10, 2004, 07:16 AM
Gore would almost certainly have caved-in on that one.

Gore is irrelevant. I'm interested in what the actual President has and hasn't done.

And Kerry will?


I'm talking about Bush, not Kerry :) Remember, expressing dissatisfaction with the Bush administration doesn't in any way imply some love for Kerry.

Remember, too, that there are other candidates out there besides the big two. People say, "Ah, but they have no chance because no one will vote for them." But that's why they have no chance: it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want a party that really advocates a strong RKBA position, for example, check out the Libertarians:

http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.html

The Democratic Party really is NOT the party of individual freedom and responsibility.

No question, but neither are the Republicans much of the time. They're generally two sides of the same coin.

Shooter 2.5
August 10, 2004, 08:18 AM
The nation already checked out the Libertarians. They have rejected them because of their platform. One side of the nation doesn't believe in their stance on guns and the other doesn't believe in their stance on drugs. No thanks. I'm not interested in opening up the borders.
We have a two horse race. It's between Bush and kerry. If you want to keep your firearms, lower taxes and defeat terrorism, vote for Bush. If you want to run out of Iraq in a year no matter what the situation is, raise taxes, destroy your firearms, vote for kerry.
Let's work to drive the dems out of office. Let's make sure they can't be elected. Then you can have the Libertarians as a strong second party. Only after the dem party is unemployed.

2nd Amendment
August 10, 2004, 10:58 AM
The Libertarians will never be a strong second party because they do nothing to build their base. For 30 years they have had the same little core and they keep running presidential candidates for publicity. That's the Lib Party in a nutshell. No change and no growth. Someone the other day said something about their having run 1600 candidates in 2000. Sounds impressive...till you realize that's about 32 candidates per state at all levels. My COUNTY had more offices than that up for grabs in 2000...

VaniB.
August 10, 2004, 01:34 PM
I don't have to tell you guys how you can never convince these died in the blue dreamers that they are just throwing their vote away from Bush and helping to elect Kerry. The minorities and most white Liberals would never be this silly to waste their vote in this fashion.

They will counter your arguments listing the faults of both major parties, and respond how true they are to their hearts voting for Badneck. (or whatever his name is), and other useless foolish dribble. :rolleyes:

Can a fringe political party ever made headway....maybe:
Ross Perot came from no where and stormed the political scene during one presidential season. Hitler's Brown Shirts built a following from the start and took the nation in a matter of a few short years. Fidel Castro and his band of thugs marched into Havanna and watched Batista flee the nation in one afternoon.

30 years of the "Libertarian" party, and this is where they are today? Nothing more than an irritating election spoiler? Perhaps, it's time to modify the plan, or start a new party......hmmmm?

Destructo6
August 10, 2004, 11:02 PM
Yes I know that he was sharing his none existant weapons.
Do you deny that Saddam used gas against Iranian soldiers in the 1980s? Do you deny that Saddam used gas against Kurds in the 1900s? If you do, you deny reality. If you don't you admit their existance in Iraq within the recent past. They were there, where did they go?
Let's see, the war Iran had with Iraq was more recent. Saddam was seen as an enemy to all Muslims at the time, a greater local threat than anyone but Israel.
Assuming all Muslims did believe Saddam was an enemy, the US has been the enemy since about 1948. Also, Iraq is the cradle of Shi'ism and the core of Mulim heartlands. To believe that Muslims would have gone along with an invasion in 1991 is unsupportable. The massive Coalition, most likely would have been reduced to a Coalition smaller than what is in Iraq now.
we had divisions in Iraq on the way to Bagdad.
"On the way," is still a long ways away. Do you honestly believe that it would have been a pushover or something?

fallingblock
August 10, 2004, 11:57 PM
"Gore is irrelevant. I'm interested in what the actual President has and hasn't done."
************************************************************

No, Gore is not irrelevant. He was the "other choice" for those who didn't like Bush. Gore in the whitehouse would have done far more harm to RKBA than Bush.

It's the realistic choice that matters, not the ideal that is unattainable.;)


************************************************************
"I'm talking about Bush, not Kerry Remember, expressing dissatisfaction with the Bush administration doesn't in any way imply some love for Kerry."
************************************************************

I understand that, MP5...

But when you are talking about the election approaching, you are talking about Bush AND Kerry. One of them will be President.

If it's not Bush, you don't have to love Kerry, you've got him.:eek:


************************************************************
"Remember, too, that there are other candidates out there besides the big two."
************************************************************

None that can win....merely 'spoilers'.

************************************************************
"People say, "Ah, but they have no chance because no one will vote for them." But that's why they have no chance: it's a self-fulfilling prophecy."
************************************************************


They would be wise people in saying those candidates have no chance......

It is because they do not appeal to the mass of voters.

Fringe parties are great fun, but not in a time when clear cut choices stand to be made, as with the difference between Bush and Kerry on RKBA.

If one 'hates' both electable candidates, but wants the satisfaction of having cast a vote, that's what the fringe parties are for.


************************************************************
"If you want a party that really advocates a strong RKBA position, for example, check out the Libertarians:"
************************************************************

I have, thanks.

Their open border policy is not to my liking,
and their stance on drugs seems mor than a bit unrealistic.

Beside which, they can't win.:)

Croyance
August 11, 2004, 03:06 AM
Do you deny that Saddam used gas against Iranian soldiers in the 1980s? Do you deny that Saddam used gas against Kurds in the 1900s? If you do, you deny reality. If you don't you admit their existance in Iraq within the recent past. They were there, where did they go? NOt at all, we were okay with him using gas on other people, we just think that it is to inhumane to be used on us. Some say we also provided the gas, which make you think we have an idea of how much Saddam had left. Would he use these weapons if he had them? Would he share them in spite of the lack of high level contact with Al Queda and a general antipathy towards each other? Big ifs. Were did they go? Used up? Why haven't they been used in any attacks against US forces or the new government?
Assuming all Muslims did believe Saddam was an enemy, the US has been the enemy since about 1948. Also, Iraq is the cradle of Shi'ism and the core of Mulim heartlands. To believe that Muslims would have gone along with an invasion in 1991 is unsupportable. The massive Coalition, most likely would have been reduced to a Coalition smaller than what is in Iraq now. I don't know about that. You really don't need everybody to agree, just for them not to vorciferously disagree. He was violently repressive and a much more immediate threat to them. I don't think anybody would have gotten worked up about him being gone then. He wrapped himself in the trappings of a Muslim state after Desert Storm. Al Queda also did not have the funding or orginization back then.
I also didn't realize a thousand troop here and a few hundred there were huge suppots. I didn't count the British in that comment, of course.
Do you honestly believe that it would have been a pushover or something? No, I don't. I certainly didn't this time around when the Iraqi Army caved. Just a lot easier than it is now, as I previously stated. Things you should do aren't always easy, that's the way life is. More importantly, knowing that Iraq had years to plan, why did Bush & Co. think it would be a pushover? If they didn't, where was the post-war planning?

None of this is to say that Kerry is the better candidate, just that Bush is clearly not a great candidate. I will insist, until either the mob with pitchforks or the black helicopters arrive, that we have two flawed choises.

telewinz
August 11, 2004, 04:52 AM
Seems like they've been more asleep on the issue than actively pro-RKBA I don't like it but since George is not a shoe-in for re-election, he has to resort to a "behind the scenes" technique. It's a question of political survival. Just ask David Duke. .Do you deny that Saddam used gas against Iranian soldiers in the 1980s? Do you deny that Saddam used gas against Kurds in the 1900s? If you do, you deny reality. If you don't you admit their existance in Iraq within the recent past. They were there, where did they go? There is some evidence that most if not all WMD were destroyed BEFORE our invasion. But if the WMD did exist and were moved to Syria (or elsewhere), why then did we invade Iraq instead of Syria? Saying OOPS!, we made a mistake (Intelligence Services) is a poor justification/explanation for war. This situation is sooo funny that almost a thousand American service families are laughing so hard, they are crying.

2nd Amendment
August 11, 2004, 10:59 AM
30 years of the "Libertarian" party, and this is where they are today? Nothing more than an irritating election spoiler? Perhaps, it's time to modify the plan, or start a new party......hmmmm?

Look down.

Click link.

Help out.

:)

cordex
August 11, 2004, 11:40 AM
Hey 2nd ... that ain't a bad platform. Much closer than the Libertarians to my way of thinking.

1911WB
August 11, 2004, 11:53 AM
I can't believe that we, as gun owners, are even debating this issue. If you like your guns and want to keep them, Bush is your man- defend, support & vote for him! If you, on the other hand, want to turn in your guns, then by all means vote for Kerry. But don't try to tell me there is no difference between the two! :cuss:

Destructo6
August 11, 2004, 02:29 PM
There is some evidence that most if not all WMD were destroyed BEFORE our invasion. But if the WMD did exist and were moved to Syria (or elsewhere), why then did we invade Iraq instead of Syria? Saying OOPS!, we made a mistake (Intelligence Services) is a poor justification/explanation for war. This situation is sooo funny that almost a thousand American service families are laughing so hard, they are crying.
In that respect, Saddam did everything he could to look like a duck and walk like a duck. We acted before he could demonstrate a quack. The lesson being, don't look like a duck.

Other leaders, like Kadafi, will realize that if they don't want to be belligerant, they shouldn't act belligerant.
Saying OOPS!, we made a mistake (Intelligence Services) is a poor justification/explanation for war.
That's not a justification, it's an after action report.
NOt at all, we were okay with him using gas on other people, we just think that it is to inhumane to be used on us. Some say we also provided the gas, which make you think we have an idea of how much Saddam had left.
How about some sources? I'm calling BS otherwise. Their fermentation vessels were French (so was their nuclear reactor), not US.
Would he use these weapons if he had them? Would he share them in spite of the lack of high level contact with Al Queda and a general antipathy towards each other? Big ifs. Were did they go? Used up? Why haven't they been used in any attacks against US forces or the new government?
Zarqawi is a high ranking Al Queda member, no? He sought and received refuge in Saddam's Iraq after being wounded in Afghanistan, no? Why would it be any more unthinkable for two groups with little other in common that a shared enemy, the US, to get together than it has been in the past (ie US + USSR vs Nazis)?

Gunstar1
August 11, 2004, 03:19 PM
If you want to know who the big suppliers to Iraq were before the war, look at who defended them by not letting us go. (France, Germany)

The countries we have the most problems with (China, North Korea, and others) are publicly for Kerry. I find that somewhat disturbing.

A poor reason for war is if a countries leader called the US a bad name.
But, If multiple countries come up with data saying WMD are in Iraq, that if we attacked they might even use nukes in the desert to stop our tanks, and we would not know otherwise becuse inspectors are denied access to plants is a good reason for war. (as said before Don't act and quack like a duck if you do not want to be mistaken for one)

This election boils down to whether you live in a battle ground state or not. If you do, vote for Bush otherwise any other vote is a vote for Kerry.

If you live in a Bush state or a Kerry state, vote for who you want to.

Croyance
August 12, 2004, 03:38 AM
I can't believe that we, as gun owners, are even debating this issue. If you like your guns and want to keep them, Bush is your man- defend, support & vote for him! If you, on the other hand, want to turn in your guns, then by all means vote for Kerry. But don't try to tell me there is no difference between the two! What makes you think this is a pro-Kerry thread? I just don't see the point of saying one or the other is a great choise when it is clear they are not. Both are flawed and lacking. What is wrong in admitting that? Are you wholeheartedly in favor of your candidiate? Great, then on election day you will feel better than me.
Zarqawi is a high ranking Al Queda member, no? He sought and received refuge in Saddam's Iraq after being wounded in Afghanistan, no? Why would it be any more unthinkable for two groups with little other in common that a shared enemy, the US, to get together than it has been in the past (ie US + USSR vs Nazis)? Zarqawi was there without knowledge of Saddam. Is it unthinkable that they would work together? Of course not, I never said that. I said that all the evidence was that they are not. Two different things there. Iraq really had nothing to offer except space, space that had a lot of satellites and planes monitoring it. Fine for hiding a few people, bad for training. All of Iraq's anti-US plans were much more poorly funded, organized, and planned than Al Queda. Iraq had nothing to offer.
If you want to know who the big suppliers to Iraq were before the war, look at who defended them by not letting us go. (France, Germany) Post Desert Storm this is true. Before then, especially after the overthrow of the Shah in Iran we supplied plenty. US foreign policy never had issues in creating one problem in getting combating another.
But, If multiple countries come up with data saying WMD are in Iraq, I don't care what everyone else has, I care about getting good information. We spend more than most countries. Many countries even get their information from us, so to quote "other countries" is often just pointing back at ourselves. You claim to be the best? Then do better. That said, the CIA analysts had reservations and doubts about WMDs in Iraq. That means you need real cooberating data.
Their fermentation vessels were French (so was their nuclear reactor), not US What of it? A fermentation vessel can be used for many things and can be bought anywhere. They really should have made this themselves. As for their nuclear reactor, again, so what? It was no breeder reactor, necessary for plutonium. They had not capacity to refine uranium to weapon's grade, so they lacked the major elements needed to get weapon grade plutonium.
Now Japan, they have a breeder reactor, supposedly for electrical generation. The first people in the world to construct a breeder reactor for the electricity.

Croyance
August 12, 2004, 03:54 AM
I can't believe that we, as gun owners, are even debating this issue. I'm a gun owner, not an automoton. A swearing smilie doesn't change that. Nothing here even suggested Kerry would be as much as neutral on RKBA rights.
As is often said, the Second Amendment is what ensures the other Amendments. Consider this and all threads an excercise in the First.
The countries we have the most problems with (China, North Korea, and others) are publicly for Kerry. I find that somewhat disturbing. I do to. I also think that some on that list see advantages to them if Bush wins. China keeps its Most Favored Nation trading status either way.
This election boils down to whether you live in a battle ground state or not. If you do, vote for Bush otherwise any other vote is a vote for Kerry. Vote for who your conscience tells you. In my case I will vote for the least bad candidate.
Other leaders, like Kadafi, will realize that if they don't want to be belligerant, they shouldn't act belligerant. Kadafi hasn't been saber-rattling in a long time. This didn't change him, he knows enough to have known he was safe. North Korea is always skittish, but I don't think they have much to fear, invasion-wise. Not until a few years of negotiation at least. Saddam did overplay a hand he thought he had.

telewinz
August 12, 2004, 05:31 AM
That's not a justification, it's an after action report. The truth is, there were plenty of before action reports as well, Bush (and we)chose to ignore them.
I don't care what everyone else has, I care about getting good information. We spend more than most countries. Many countries even get their information from us, so to quote "other countries" is often just pointing back at ourselves. You claim to be the best? Then do better. That said, the CIA analysts had reservations and doubts about WMDs in Iraq. That means you need real cooberating data. Amen!
In that respect, Saddam did everything he could to look like a duck and walk like a duck. We acted before he could demonstrate a quack. The lesson being, don't look like a duck. then where are the WMD? Maybe the "hunter" (Bush) was sooo hungry he confused the sound of a duck with that of a TURKEY.

AF_INT1N0
August 12, 2004, 05:47 AM
quote:

$300 isn't a tax break. It's a kick to the groin.

Thats a WINCHESTER 1300---All Black to make the Bradys cry! :neener: :neener:

Destructo6
August 12, 2004, 03:20 PM
Zarqawi was there without knowledge of Saddam.
Do you really believe that treatment of a gunshot wound in an Iraqi hospital would go without notice in Saddam's Iraq? He knew Zarqawi was there.
Two different things there. Iraq really had nothing to offer except space, space that had a lot of satellites and planes monitoring it. Fine for hiding a few people, bad for training. All of Iraq's anti-US plans were much more poorly funded, organized, and planned than Al Queda. Iraq had nothing to offer.
Sattelites which have proven to be of little use, other than to say, "something is/is not here." Afghanistan, in that case, has less to offer, yet they were there.
It was no breeder reactor, necessary for plutonium. They had not capacity to refine uranium
The reactor was destroyed before it came online, or are you missing that point intentionally. No reason to build an enriching program around a destroyed French reactor. A "breeder reactor" or "fast breeder" is a specific type of reactor, cooled by liquid metal and is far more complicated to build and use than usual enriching methods.
It is generally agreed that the FBR poses a greater risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons than the PWR. Unlike a PWR, an FBR can in theory produce weapons grade material. However, to date all known weapons programs have used far more easily built thermal reactors to produce plutonium.
Post Desert Storm this is true. Before then, especially after the overthrow of the Shah in Iran we supplied plenty.
Pre and post Desert storm, the French supplied Saddam's Iraq well. Other than money and some information, what was supplied to Iraq by the US? In the first Gulf War, we faced French and Soviet aircraft, Soviet armor, Soviet small arms, etc. None was US. Oh, that's right, they could have been using that stuff to deliver pizzas.

If you enjoyed reading about "Kerry is SUNK!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!