I see several anti-Bush ppl here..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forget the AWB, the spineless bureacrat already earned my undying contempt by signing the Campaign Finance Reform act, while acknowledging that it was unconstitutional!

If he ain't got the stones to veto unconstitutional legislation, he ain't doing his job right, period.
 
I live in Florida, I voted for the man in 2000!

Even so, I have a bad taste in my mouth about it. I voted for him because I thought he was the smaller curculio (lesser of two weevils),but I've since come to the conclusion that all weevils are bad.
 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030514-5.html#8

Q Ari, a new subject. The House Republicans have apparently broken with the President over the issue of the assault weapons ban. Is reauthorizing assault weapons ban a priority enough for the President to do some of his own arm-twisting to try and get the House to allow a vote?

MR. FLEISCHER Well, I think the President's position is clear and the President supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons
ban. We are working right now with the Congress on the issues that are on their plate, that they're focusing on right now, and then Congress, of course, is going to leave for the Memorial Day recess. I mentioned the AIDS initiative and the tax cut, the growth initiative that are pending on the floor this week. The President doesn't set the congressional calendar or schedule. We'll continue to work with the Congress, and they know the President's position.

Q Does the President believe that the bill -- excuse me, the law that's on the books right now has taken steps to alleviate crimes?

MR. FLEISCHER Well, there's a study underway to determine that, and the study is still pending. The President said in the 2000 campaign that he supported the assault weapons ban because he thought it was reasonable. He stated then that he would support the reauthorization of it, and he states that again today.
 
one more...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030430-10.html#m

Q Another thing, on another subject. The NRA, Charleton Heston has left. Many are wondering about a statement that was said that the assault weapons ban will not continue once it expires. The administration has said something different. How is this meshing with a group that is friend to the Bush administration?

MR. FLEISCHER I think the administration is already on record about the assault weapon ban. The President has said that he supports the current assault weapons ban, and he would support the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban.

Q So the NRA is just out in left field then?

MR. FLEISCHER The President approaches every issue on the merits of the issue. Sometimes he agrees with different people on different issues, but I think when it comes to virtually all the issues that have been presented, the President has strong agreement with the National Rifle Association. The President's position on the current assault weapons ban is known.
 
So far, the only reasons I've heard to support Bush have been....

1. He's done a good job with the War on Terrorism (granted, but can you say that any of the other '00 Republican primary candidates wouldn't have done as well?)

2. Even though he says he'll sign an AWB, he probably won't. (...which would make him a liar. Why would we trust someone who lies? :scrutiny: )

3. He's a lot better than any of the Democrat candidates running. (Maybe. But he's helped pass a lot of bills that the Democrats supported--CFR, education spending, illegal alien amnesty, etc. Kinda like saying that Hitler is OK because he didn't kill as many Jews as Stalin... :banghead: )

For those who disagree w/ Bush's positions but are voting for him anyway: If he has your votes no matter what, what motivation does Bush have to change? :scrutiny:

For those who plan to skip voting: Why do you think that will help send a message other than the American public is apathetic & more interested in "American Idol" than American elections? :scrutiny:

For those who want to send the Republicans a message: Check out my sig line... :cool:
 
A long but great thread.

If W is creating this much upset and descention with a group of individuals that would typically be considered at the heart of his voting base, it should give one pause. Many here that voted for him last time will do otherwise this go-round.

What should be scarier still for Rove and Bush, if they cared to consider it, is that there are other groups and individual voters out there that have a different "main issue". Be it the size of government, immigration, spending or the intrusiveness of government , in so many ways this president has upset, disappointed and alienated many of them too. Again, these individuals might have been considered strongly part of his core of supporters.

If any of you follow M. Savage he was pondering this trend on his radio show last night and many callers were of the mindset not to support this president in the next election for a lot of the reasons listed in this tread.
I was amazed how similiar the emotions expressed by many of the callers were to those expressed here.

It may not make too much difference if W is the lesser of the two evils from a 2A POV. I think he has lost just enough support to loose the election.

S-
 
I listened to Savage last night and he brought up a lot of good points. I think that there is a real possibility that GW could be a one termer like his old man. He has turned his back on the people who put him in office. He seems content to use the "where ya gonna go?" defense. Lemme tell ya, I'm gonna go home...that's where. No vote for Bush if this continues. I could not, in good conscience, vote for any of the Democrats. But, I would harbor no guilt at all for just holding my vote.

Hmmm...

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-campaign2002/1049494/posts
 
I voted for Bush but I won't do it again.

Vin Suprynowicz wrote a book that told a story about the 1932 election. He pointed out the huge difference between the Socialist Party platform and that of the winning Democrats. He then went on to list all the planks from thae Socialists that were enacted into law by the Democrats.

Bush has done much the same. Only this time, the Republicans have stolen the Democrats thunder. My vote might as well have been for Gore. Granted, Gore wouldn't have prosecuted the war as well as Bush, but we'd still have some form of CFR, the Patriot Act, Patriot II, and an impending renewal of the AWB.

Is it time yet?
 
IMO we now have two groups of conservatives. Those who fully realize that we made a mistake and those who are in denial. We should have nominated Alan Keyes but instead we chose the more electable candidate and made a horrible mistake. Had Gore won, we would have gridlock and gridlock is looking mighty good right now.
 
fix:

IMO we now have two groups of conservatives. Those who fully realize that we made a mistake and those who are in denial. We should have nominated Alan Keyes but instead we chose the more electable candidate and made a horrible mistake. Had Gore won, we would have gridlock and gridlock is looking mighty good right now.
Click to expand...


In Bush's agenda it is kind of amazing to see how the far-left Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party has returned zombie-like from the grave that Goldwater and Reagan were supposed to have put it in.

What conservative can put thick-headed leftists like Bush I and II out of the Republican Party for good? Congressman Dana Rorabacher (R-CA) seems to be one of the few making any sense and speaking the truth about Bush II's liberal B.S.
 
Well, the GOP's chief apologist, Rush Limbaugh, is spinning this like an ADHD ballerina...

Read this...

He's praising Bush for taking a "leadership position" and taking another issue from the Democrats. He's also saying that Bush isn't in danger of losing his base....:rolleyes:

Wonder if anyone will ask him about this on January 2005? :banghead:
 
Almost all of the conservative radio hosts are doing the same. I listened to the Martha Zoller (local to GA) show on the way into work this morning and she was catching hell for her apologist attitude. Hopefully the message got through.
 
At the risk of sounding like the Tinfoil Man I will suggest that the reason the "old conservatives" never died is that they have been running America, from behind the arras, all along. Now and then a "proxy" appears (Carter, Clinton), but they usually turn out to be backed by Old Connections and Old Money. Folks, the State Dept. is a branch of the Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Clubs, and this Election is practically an all-Yale, mostly Skull & Bones affair. If they are not in active cahoots, they think alike and were raised alike. Dean and Bush could be brothers, and I'm beginning to think they share the same elitist lunacy.
 
Longeyes is correct. Unfortunately, the starter of this thread asked who would be better then Bush... Well, my answer is someone, anyone who isn't associated with these Elitists pigs that want to ruin us.

J
 
I'm a two issue voter. RKBA is second only to a smaller government. When the Republicans had the Contract With America 10 years ago I believed they were headed toward a smaller gov. If you believe that now your eyes are closed.

So I'll probably be "wasting" my vote by sticking to my principles and voting Libertarian. I live in a largely Republican state so it probably won't matter. But if my vote results in gridlock, well that's probably better than a runaway government.
 
BTW, Bush signed a CCW bill into law in Texas. & the point? How is that a positive for gun owners? The CCW bill requires a Texan to grovel & beg the state, after paying a hefty fee, in order to exercise a natural, inherent Right that's guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Well, that's not completely true. A Right is something that is exercised without having to grovel for permission. What Bush did is turn what should have been respected as a Right into a privilege that the poorest Texans could not afford.
Click to expand...

At least in Texas there is the possibility of a citizen getting a CCW permit. In my state where we have a fricken loser for a governor, the whole idea that a person could carry a defense weapon got vetoed. Would you prefer that we had Jim Doyle as the president of the United States? How about Al Gore?

There's a whole lot of bitching about the president, yet noone here is stepping up with a solution to the perceived problems or for that matter is running for president themselves.:rolleyes:
 
cracked butt,

There's a whole lot of bitching about the president, yet noone here is stepping up with a solution to the perceived problems or for that matter is running for president themselves.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Let me guess, that's from the new Campaign Finance Reform Act, right? "Sec. 135.2: Voters may only express dissatisfaction with incumbents if they can present viable alternatives or are listed on the ballot themselves."

That loud buzzing sound you hear is the bones of Jefferson hitting 30,000 RPM. :uhoh:
 
Willp38,
To answer your original post, single issue voting is NOT a good thing. It's very narrow-minded and overly-simplistic. Don't you care about the economy, the war, the terrorism, the budget, and other issues? There *are* other issues, you know.

In fact, the issue that most directly affects the average Americans day-to-day life is not gun ownership, but their employment. I.E., whether or not their company decides to sell out the workers and ship tens of thousands of jobs overseas. Bush and company are doing an absolutely rotten job of protecting American employees. They're on the side of large corporations.

If you do, in fact, work for a company, think about what it would be like to lose your job and can't afford more guns and ammo. Not a pretty picture, huh?
 
Well Bush has me a bit perplexed. Im not going to throw away a vote on someone unelectable though and Bush is also pro-life which is a very important issue for me.

As far as understanding/defending the constitution - as written - I like Alan Keyes. I wonder how he would have handled 9-11 and the war on terror though and what kind of cabinet he would have assembeled.

Mark
 
Tamara,
Do you think that the campaign finance reform act, a darling cause of the media would not have passed if someone else were president? The only candidate in the last election that would probably opposed such nonsense was Buchanan. As long asa the Supreme and Federal courts are stacked with liberal activist judges, don't expect the law of the land to change.
 
cracked butt,

Do you think that the campaign finance reform act, a darling cause of the media would not have passed if someone else were president?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the price of caffeinated beverages in the Orient?

"Just because all the other kids would've signed an unconstitutional bill into law, little Georgie, that doesn't make it okay for you to sign one." :uhoh:
 
I may support Bush - in a somewhat dismayed fashion right now - but the best that can be said about campaign finance reform is that it was a huge political miscalculation. Assuming the Supremes would overturn it was actually a very shaky assumption to make. I think Keyes would also have rejected such a law.

Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Thank Goodness That Bush Trusts the People
Replies
3
Views
673
glocksman
G
Thumper
  • Locked
The Bush gun myth
2 3 4 5
Replies
102
Views
3K
Moparmike
M
R
  • Locked
Evangelicals frustrated by Bush
Replies
11
Views
652
M1911Owner
M
J
  • Locked
Electing Pro 2A Politicians
Replies
10
Views
565
ArmedBear
A
G
  • Locked
Alternative to Bush?
2 3
Replies
67
Views
2K
PWK
P
Back
Top