I see several anti-Bush ppl here..

Status
Not open for further replies.
carpettbagger,

We got the Brady Act.
Click to expand...

Legislation originally pressed for by Bush, Sr. and supported by Reagan.

Lucky for us, the Republicans included the 10 year sunset provision in the AWB
Click to expand...

If they were our buddies, they wouldn't have put in a "sunset clause", they'd have not voted for it in the first place! :rolleyes:

A permanent ban on "Assault Weapons" ?
Click to expand...

Kinda like the one George the First handed us in 1989? You know, the one that ended importation of AK's and HK-91's and left us with MAK-90's and thumbhole-stocked Daewoos?

Wouldn't you rather have a different flavor? And a better waitress?
Click to expand...

Damn skippy. That's why I'm ordering chocolate. You can keep debating the merits of Possum Kidney versus Roadkill Crunch.

All my life I've watched gun laws get crappier and crappier. The only piece of good gun legislation I've seen passed was FOPA '86, and even that got turned into a mixed blessing at the last minute. Every law was passed either with the acquiescence or outright assistance of the GOP. The GOP has both houses of Congress and the Presidency right now. Since they're our good gun-lovin' buddies when in the hell are they planning on actually doing something?

Screw them. I'm sick of being lied to. Sick of them peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. Sick of them snickering behind their hands at what a bunch of rubes me and my gun owner buddies are for voting for them no matter what. Screw them. They'll have to win this one without my vote.
 
Well, look out if they don't win this one without your vote. Just wait for the constant lawsuits by liberal cities and states. Hope they don't put too many manufacturers out of business. Hope they allow us to keep our grandfathered 10 round magazines. Or maybe they'll drop the capacity to 5 rounds? Maybe ban the importation of firearms entirely? Or give OSHA the authority to institute California style safety testing on the federal level?

Yeah, the Republikans aren't our buddies, go ahead and vote for the Democrats. No problem. The gun laws won't get that bad.
 
Still haven't heard how the Republicans or George W. Bush have done anything to make life better for gun owners. Which executive orders did he rescind? Which laws did they repeal? Oh that's right...NONE.
So the system works this way: The Democrats pass anti-gun legislation, we get all pissed off and elect Republicans in their place. The Republicans then allow the anti-gun laws to remain in place because they are "pro-2A?" In the fullness of time, Democrats eventually are elected again, pass more legislation and the cycle continues. Nope, the Republicans are part of the problem, not the solution to it.
I'll start buying into the idea that the Republicans are on my side when I start seeing some existing legislation and executive orders rolled back. Until that time, it strikes me the Republicans and Democrats are both on the same side and it ain't mine.
 
The Republicans have to do more than play possum on gun control. They need to be pro-active in removing current restrictive legislation, just as they should be pro-active in reducing the size of government. That they aren't points to a serious flaw in their party identity. They are not the answer. I'm beginning to see both major parties as just different varieties of cancer--which one do you want to kill you?
 
And a 'majority' elected Hitler, among other examples of the folly of pure democracy.
Click to expand...

Not really. The Nazis were a minority party when Hitler got appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg in 1933 with a conservative/Nazis coalition government. Hitler immediately called for new elections in the Reichstag, and even with the weight of the government on his side the Nazis couldn't get an outright majority.... they went up to 44% in the polls.

The Nazis didn't "win" any elections outright until most of the Reichstag committed suicide by voting for the Enabling Act and gave Hitler the power to make laws without approval of the President OR the Reichstag, at which point he just gradually outlawed all the opposition parties.
 
Longeyes wrote:
<<<I'm beginning to see both major parties as just different varieties of cancer--which one do you want to kill you?>>>>

Well do you want to die fast or slow?

Everyone can say what they want however I firmly believe that this is the way it works:

If the Dems were *Always* in the majority ---our guns would be GONE NOW....

The republicans slow it up...In Bush's 3+ years , the gun grabbing has settled down to almost nothing...

I know that's not the best scenario for us gun people but I belive it's the best we can hope for....
I didn't say I liked it ....I said *REALISTICALLY* it's the best we can hope for..

If anyone thinks for ONE minute there is going to be repealing of gun laws in this day and age, well you are sadly disallusioned..

WHY DO I SAY THIS???

In the majority of districts, there are many people that do not like guns, do not understand them, are afraid of them.....These people are vocal...The politician in that district wants to be reelected...

ERGO:

He votes his constituancy....Folks, that's the way it works

Many pols are now Republicans ---that *could* mean that the pro gun ppl have voted them in.....So what does that mean??? It means they are "savvy" enough to NOT enact any new anti-gun legislation...At the same time they are "savvy" enough to ride the fence and not repeal any existing gun laws...

WHY???

Because the frikkin libs would scream bloody murder and thereby "threaten" this candidate's chance for reelection and a fat paycheck..

These ppl are really NOONE'S friend -- they are Politicians first! And friends second...

It comes down to how fast you want to see you guns disappear.....

Vote Heir Klintoooon and friends and they will go damn fast..

Vote for almost any Republican and they will go Much slower...

We cry all we want about it, threaten to vote for some no-name -- folks IT DON'T MATTER...Either Bush, Dean, Clark or Kerry is going to be the next president ....

Be realistic--- leave Alice be--
 
willp58,

If your theory is correct, and it is just a matter of whether our rights go slowly or rapidly, then I would contend we should all want them to go rapidly!

At some point, when enough rights are limited, a reorganization of government will occur in this country similar to that of 1776, with a new affirmation of our rights.

Why would I want my children, and not me, to have to deal with this inevitability?
 
Regarding this "archaic" electoral college thing. Better becareful what you wish for if your wish is to eliminate it. It would only result in about 5 of our largest cities--New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, to name a few--in determining the President each and every election cycle.

It's not perfect, but it does keep things in perspective. In fact, IF the colleges were required to vote according to the majority of their state, then the electoral college is a great idea. Without it, only 2-3 states would be needed to win. Its purpose is to limit the impact one state has on the result of the Presidential election by keeping its contribution to the total votes relative. They do this using the population of each state. Example: California is about 20% of the U.S. population and California has about 20% of the total electoral votes.

Of course, that was a big "if" and I know it's not the case. But without it...talk about your vote being wasted. :uhoh:

The EC isn't perfect. But it's a better system than purely popular vote. Read up on the FF's opinions on the "common" man and voting.

But back to the original post topic: Bush has abandoned all conservative values. To recap:

Education bill. Teddy Kennedy must be beaming.

Patriot Acts 1 and 2. Can we stomp on our rights any more? (See below.)

Campaign Finance. The answer, apparently is 'yes, we can erode even more of our rights and liberties.'

AWB. No matter how you slice it, the man said he supports the ban. And that's pro-2 amendment how?

Immigration. "Oh sure, just walk across that river, folks. Don't worry about the laws that say you can't. I'm going to give you a job and citizenship eventually. You'll understand I can't give it to you right away. Might wake up the sleeping sheeple. Don't want them catchin' on. And don't forget to bring all yer relatives. Remember: vote for Bush!"

Aside from the war on terror (and even then I'm not sure I like the manner he's gone about fighting this war, but at least he's fighting it), what has this man done to support the Constitution, protects our rights and liberties, etc. A better question is how has this man not behaved like a Democrat/liberal. At least by asking this one, you can keep your answer to just one sentence.

Oh, just imagine if all you people who didn't want to vote for Bush but felt there was no other choice because it was either he or the Dem actually voted for a 3rd party? What if it was the same 3rd party? You think 3rd party voters hurt the cause by taking votes away from "the man." Have you ever stopped to think that you hurt the cause by continuing to support a system and a person who is anti-thetical to your "cause's" way of life? Prolonging the inevitable has never been a good thing if in the meantime you live a lie.

Live free or die trying.

There is no middle ground.
 
carpettbagger,

Yeah, the Republikans aren't our buddies, go ahead and vote for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Just because I'm not going to order Possum Kidney, why do you think that means I'm going to request Roadkill Crunch? Chocolate's on the menu; just because most folks are too obtuse to request it doesn't mean that it don't taste better than the alternatives. (It is on the menu, you know... ;) )
 
Sean Smith,

The Nazis were a minority party when Hitler got appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg in 1933 with a conservative/Nazis coalition government. Hitler immediately called for new elections in the Reichstag, and even with the weight of the government on his side the Nazis couldn't get an outright majority.... they went up to 44% in the polls.
Click to expand...

44% in a multiparty system is a far more convincing "majority" than most of what we get in the spoonfed two-party media-supported system we have in this fair land these days... ;)
 
willp58,

Well do you want to die fast or slow?
Click to expand...

I'll vote for "not dying" in this election again, Will. You go 'head and take your choice between "fast death" and "slow death". Maybe if I could get you and a couple million of your buddies to vote with me, we could climb out of this damn downward-plunging handbasket... :uhoh:
 
I'd just as soon write in "Ronald McDonald" than cast my vote for either Dubya or any of the nine Democrat clowns masquerading as Champions of the Downtrodden.
 
I'm sorry, tamara. I wasn't looking. I'm new here and my supper was getting cold, I read more of your stuff, my hat is in my hand. My apologies.
 
I'll be happily registering a vote with the Libertarian party come election time. Bush supports the AWB, PATRIOT Act, suppressing the 1st amendment via campaign finance reform, steel tarrifs, and the biggest expansions of medicare and education pork in recent memory.
Click to expand...

I concur, heartily.

A reminder for the 'lesser of the two evils' crowd. I wasn't Ross Perot's fault that Klinton got elected. It was Daddy Bush's fault, for not being a real conservative. I just get sick of those types of arguments.

Anyway, The Shrub isn't getting my vote this time. I have no use for big spending, big government, gun grabbing RINO's.
 
Maybe if I could get you and a couple million of your buddies to vote with me, we could climb out of this damn downward-plunging handbasket...
Click to expand...
Isn't that what Nader voters figured in the last election? You can order chocolate if you want, but I'll bet you don't get any.
 
Isn't that what Nader voters figured in the last election? You can order chocolate if you want, but I'll bet you don't get any.
Click to expand...

If we do ever get it, it'll be no thanks to you...since you apparently can only be bothered to vote for a true freedom candidate when you can be absolutely sure that you'll be with the majority.
 
carpettbagger,

Isn't that what Nader voters figured in the last election? You can order chocolate if you want, but I'll bet you don't get any.
Click to expand...

"I'm not going to vote for the pro-freedom candidate because not enough people will vote for him, so he won't win." :scrutiny: Circular logic: see "Logic, circular".

So, uh, you vote for candidates you don't agree with because all the popular kids are doing it and you don't want to be on the losing team? Suddenly I'm starting to realize how we wound up in the mess we're in...
 
The big question is: what motivates you to vote for a candidate:

1. the ideas that said candidate represents and implements?

2. the fact that said candidate is less offensive than other candidates?

-or-

3. the likelihood of said candidate winning the general election?

If you choose Option 1, then you are living up to the Founding Fathers' idea of a responsible voter. :D

If you choose Option 2, then your responsibility as a citizen is to seek out better candidates (or become one yourself) that DO represent your ideas. :)

If you choose Option 3, then you have no business voting. :banghead:
 
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
653
M1911Owner
M
J
  • Locked
Electing Pro 2A Politicians
Replies
10
Views
566
ArmedBear
A
G
  • Locked
Alternative to Bush?
2 3
Replies
67
Views
2K
PWK
P
Back
Top