This is the moron that Democrats want to lead us?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"....if it isn't said by a Murdoch or Rev. Moon source it never happened or it's "liberal propaganda".
************************************************************

Are there other sources that are not liberal propaganda out there? :confused:

The ones w4rma cites so often do seem to be liberal propaganda sources.:D
 
I do not think Dean's stance on gun control is going to be as popular on this board as you think.

From his website (emphasis mine)

"I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed."

"we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales."

If you are happy that putting a bayonet on your rifle can make you a felon, Dean is your candidate. If you are happy paying 100$ for a high cap pre ban mag for your son's 10-22, Dean is your candidate. If you want de facto gun registration and to extend it to personal sales, Dean is your candidate. If you want a president who promises gun owners nothing, and promises gun prohibitionists vetoes, Dean is your candidate.

Dean is NOT my candidate.
 
do you think that Bush will re-up the AWB or let it die?
He will sign it and in Bush's usual Orwellian way he'll call it a great triumph for gun owners. His big buisness backers want him to sign it and he *always* does what they tell him to do.

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04122003/nation_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11013-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts
What would Clinton have done?
He would have signed it.
What would Dean do if he were President now?
He would sign it, also.

I've always maintained that the difference between Dean and Bush on gun policy is very minute (note that in Vermont, Dean never pushed for nor signed a single gun control law in his 11 years as governor. IMHO he will hold the line as long as he is in office.), while their differences on other civil liberties are nearly polar opposites. Bush supports Ashcroft who, IMHO, is one of the most totalitarian AGs ever and Bush supports judges just like Ashcroft. When they say conservative judges, they mean pro-Patriot Act, pro-state religion, pro-big buisness, anti-individuals and anti-small buisness judges.

Greyhound, you are incorrect, IMHO. Dean is a moderate in the mold of Harry Truman. I think as he switches gears towards the general election that will become more and more obvious, maybe even to yourself. I sincerely hope that you'll go out and do some research on his positions (This, IMHO, is a good place to start, C-Span video unfiltered by journalists or columnists: Fmr. Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) holds a town hall meeting campaign event in North Conway, New Hampshire. The focus of this meeting is education. - 12/18/2003) rather than taking the word of many of his opportunistic opponents and pundits in big media who wish to stereotype him as something he isn't for their own political gain.
w4rma, i'm adding the link in your sig line to mine. We'll see how many more gun owners of dean on this board will catch on.
Fantastic!
 
I am going to say this again because it is not being addressed by Dean's supporters.

DEAN WILL VETO ANY LOOSENING OF FEDERAL GUN RESTRICTIONS.

That is what is called a campaign promise. Dean's website says "Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong." and w4rma says that Bush is going to pass the AWB. That is what is called mixed signals. Dean is obviously courting the anti-gun lobby, and his supporters are courting us. We will never regain lost ground under Dean, there will be no restoration of our 2nd Amendment rights. There is nowhere for us to go except further into Brady territory. That is something to keep in mind when you vote.
 
There is nowhere for us to go except further into Brady territory.
You are beginning to understand. But, you're not there yet. BOTH political parties are moderate on gun control and to turn it around we need someone who will talk about guns and gun control. Remember, in 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the first significant federal “anti-gun†legislation since 1968.

Also, note that just like Nixon was the only President who could open up trade relations with China, IMHO, it will be a Democrat who stops the slide into more and more gun control.
 
IMHO, it will be a Democrat who stops the slide into more and more gun control.

So the answer to getting back our missing chickens is to give the fox the keys to henhouse? Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Dean promises nothing for us, the RKBA crowd.
He. Has. Made. Veto. Promises. To. The. Gun. Grabbers.
Reading his policy page on "Sensible Gun Control" shows it is an offering to the gun grabbers. He is towing the line of courting the gun grabbers and relying on his activists to try and smooth things out with us. Talking about guns? All I have heard is the same crap we hear from every liberal gun banner. Sensible Gun Control. Renew the AWB. Close the so-called gun show loophole. Your hunting rifle is safe. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck...

Bush is not going to be the Republican that will lead us into the RKBA promised land, but his 2008 successor may well be. Bush will not dare to pass any new gun legislation because he knows that if he does we will desert him and the rest of the Republicans, as many of us already have. Bush cannot run for reelection in 2008, and the Republicans will have to come crawling back to us if they want to secure a victory.

I will vote Libertarian in 2004 as a pro-gun protest vote, and let us see who the Republicans will give us as a candidate if Libertarians can make 5% of the vote.
 
So the answer to getting back our missing chickens is to give the fox the keys to henhouse? Brilliant.

I will take this as a compliment.

'Sides which, you know, there are left-libertarians there too.

A 5% libertarian candidate will cause both sides on the fence to move towards freedom... but that's actually not the best L statistic.
 
Bush supports Ashcroft who, IMHO, is one of the most totalitarian AGs ever and Bush supports judges just like Ashcroft

I am not a big Ashcroft fan either, however the AG who scares me the most is thankfully a former AG: Madeliene "October Surprise" Albright.*

* who claimed while waiting to go on TV she wouldn't be surprised if Bush had Osama Bin Laden under wraps and was going to trot him out in October, right before the election. When called on it, of course she said she "was joking".

These are the kind of people we want to turn the country back over to?

W4RMA - You may be right about Dean being a centrist a la Truman, but I only know what I've seen so far and that is a raving lunatic pandering to the far-left of the party. I remain open minded, but I'll have to see a real change. (The man wouldn't hurt himself by thinking twice and speaking once. I'm getting tired of hearing op-eds that say his gaffes are seen by his base as "refreshing". Maybe to his base, but they cause most of us to recoil in horror!)
 
BOTH political parties are moderate on gun control

How ridiculous...w4rma is trying to actually get you to think that there's no difference between Repubs and Dems on gun control.

Such a time honored tactic of the left: The outright, bald-faced lie:

Luckily, easily refuted in the internet era...

The current Senate AWban scoreboard:

http://www.awbansunset.com/senate.html

Pretty cut and dried...see also: The Congressional Voting Record on anything involving gun control.

Also from awbansunset.com:

'The Federal ban on "assault weapons" became a top priority of the Clinton administration in early-1994, and was passed by a very narrow margin (216-214) in the House of Representatives (where the most resistance was expected). On September 13, 1994, about a month after being passed by the Senate, the "Crime Bill" (which included the ban) was signed by the president.

A few months later, Democrats were eviscerated at the polls, losing nine seats in the Senate, and a whopping 54 seats in the House of Representatives, handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Among the casualties was then House Speaker Tom Foley (who, thanks to some last minute rule-breaking and arm-twisting, was largely responsible for the ban passing in the House); a district tossing out a Representative who holds such a high-level position of seniority and leadership in Congress was quite a rare event. In any case, President Clinton stated that 20-21 of the seats lost in the House were directly due to their votes on the ban. Considering that the Repubicans' post-election majority was only 14 seats, it is clear that Clinton's "assault weapons" ban cost his party control of the House.'

Gun owners are more informed than that, w4rma...please try again.
 
greyhound, Maddy HAlFbright was SecState. (Once taken for a charlady by a French diplomat, which is why I'm not all that down on the French.)

Janet "The Rhino" Reno was AG. She later wandered around Florida in a daze...Oops, 'scuse me, she was a gubernatorial candidate agains Jeb Bush.

:), Art

"How soon we forget..."
 
an astute summation by greyhound.....

".... a raving lunatic pandering to the far-left of the party."
************************************************************


Howweird is no friend of gunowners.:scrutiny:

Howweird is actually an enemy of the Second Amendment:eek: .

Howweird is definitely a raving lunatic pandering to the left.;)
 
Bwaaaaaaahahahahaha!!!

I guess he was waiting for President Bush to drop by and close the vault door for him. :neener:

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/national.bg?articleid=409&format=text]SOURCE

Nuke flap dogs Dean
By David R. Guarino
Tuesday, January 6, 2004

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says former Gov. Howard Dean and other Vermont officials violated federal law by releasing secret protection plans for its nuclear power plant in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The NRC's charge had Vermont officials scrambling to impound top-secret nuclear documents the Democratic presidential front-runner wrongly made public.

Some of the documents regarding the Vermont Yankee nuke plant include so-called ``safeguards information,'' which is to be released under ``need to know requirements and . . . not publicly releasable,'' said NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.

The documents are included in files Dean made public - even as he opposes the release of other records on the grounds that they may include similar security or personal information.

``They have been made aware that these documents aren't supposed to be publicly available,'' said Burnell. ``They have assured us that steps are being taken to remove the documents from public availability.''

Burnell said visible warnings on the records weren't heeded by Dean's office, the Vermont secretary of state and the state archivist - making civil or criminal charges a possibility.

``If warranted, there is going to be an investigation,'' Burnell said.

Dean has come under steady fire for refusing to release many of the files from his 11 years as Vermont governor until 2013.

The front-running Democrat has said he doesn't want his gubernatorial records released for political reasons but said he also worries that security data and things like constituent medical information could accidentally be released if all his documents were made public.

The NRC review follows a Herald report last month that documents containing security and personal medical information were tucked in Dean's public files.

The documents undercut Dean's argument that files should remain private and have been used by his competitors, most recently by U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman during a debate in Iowa Sunday.

Dean has also been criticized for reports of lax security at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Officials at the Vermont state archives told the NRC that documents were released only after an OK from Dean's office, according to Burnell.

Dean campaign spokesman Jay Carson refused to comment. But Vermont Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz, a Democrat, said her office is equally to blame for the gaffe.

``Because of the very quick and intense interest in Gov. Dean's records, we simply missed this batch,'' Markowitz said. ``It was ultimately a result of the pressure our office had, we weren't ready for it.''

Markowitz said governors are supposed to exclude data not subject to public records laws. But, she said, her office is the last check. ``We're the custodian of the record. The buck stops here,'' she said.

The nuclear files have been removed from public view. Archivists and officials from the NRC will soon review all public documents to ensure there aren't other secret files available, officials said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top