Now Bush will win for sure!

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Third_Rail

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,979
So.....


Has anyone else seen Gov. Terminator campaigning for Bush? :rolleyes:

How about Clinton for Kerry? :uhoh:


Now, the real question is... who will people listen to more, and will the Sox win? :scrutiny:


Personally, I think that many people will do what the Gov. wants over what Clinton wants, just because that's how they are... And if the Sox win, Kerry has a good (hahahahaha) chance.
 
Clinton might help Kerry some. Black people don't like Kerry, but they do like Clinton, after all, he's been called America's first black president.

I am not sure who Bush thinks Arnold is going to help pull in. California is a lost cause, and in the rest of the red states Arnold is considered part of the problem not part of the solution.

Just my opinion, and I know very little more than the average talking head on cable news.
 
Well, I was just very amused. I happened to see CNN :)barf: ) in the bank today and what they were doing, so I decided to post.
 
Ahnold will be in Ohio this weekend.

He announced long ago that he must stay close to his new job in Sacramento so was not available for extended trekking, but would make an exception for that one state because of his long-time ties there.
 
Clinton is only going to appeal to people who are ALREADY voting Democrat. The very best they could hope for is to help get their existing supporters to actually show up at the ballot box. Arnold has a much broader appeal both because he is more of a "centrist" and because he is a celebrity in his own right.
 
Unless the courts decide in Bush's favor, I think George is going to lose next Tuesday. I can't stand Kerry but as long as half of Congress stays Republican, their is little damage Kerry can do. Bush's performance has been too poor, he claims to be a war time President yet he is screwing that up also. Maybe once I'm in the voting booth I'll change my mind but it looks like I'll leave the Presidential box blank for this election. What a sad state of affairs:barf: Four years ago I was a 100% Bush, he blew it... just like his father did.
 
Unless the courts decide in Bush's favor, I think George is going to lose next Tuesday. I can't stand Kerry but as long as half of Congress stays Republican, their is little damage Kerry can do.
Click to expand...

Please take a few minutes and brush up on your civics lessons. Put special emphasis on the areas of the President being responsible for enforcing (and interpreting laws), appointing those who enforce the laws, and essentially enacting new law via executive orders which "intepret" existing laws. Take a moment and consider what an anti-gun President could do if, say, he put his chosen people in at ATFE, FBI, etc. Also consider what a President could do if he gave authority to another nations or the UN to dictate such issues as when we deploy troops, or the course of domestic policy. The Senate doesn't have to ratify a treaty for it to become customary international law, nor does the Senate have to ratify a treaty for the President to act the way Kerry has promised to act.

Further, take into consideration the fact that for the last 4 years, the Republicans have argued (properly) that the role of the Senate in confirming Presidential appointments is to advise and consent, not to stonewall. Even if the Congress remained half Republican (which gives effective control to the Democrats), expect this argument to be given new weight by the Democrats and the media, and massive pressure will be put on the Senate to confirm Kerry's choices.

Explain to me again how Kerry can't do harm?

We'll leave the "he blew it" argument concerning the war aside. The course of the war has exceeded all but the most optimistic projections and is well within the worst case projections. It had the desired effect of removing Hussein, taking the war on terrorism to their homelands, not ours, and sending a message that has been clearly heard by other nations, including Libya, who have decided that playing nice is in their best interests.
 
I am no fan of Kerry, and would not consider voting for him. However, executive orders are rather limited in what they can accomplish. He could ban importation of a few things, like Presidents before, including Bush I.

However, in a lot of ways a Kerry presidency may be no more detrimental to the nation than four more years of Bush. The Republicans have been in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, and not much good has come out of it. We got McCain-Feingold, which is blatantly unconstitutional, and was signed simply as a political maneuver by Bush. We also got Medicare Reform, No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act.

I do not think our government works best when one party has too much power.
 
executive orders are rather limited in what they can accomplish.
Click to expand...

That's the common view, but only because people don't realize just how many executive orders there are, the scope of them, or the fact that some of them will never see the light of day due to the classified nature.

As for Kerry not being detrimental, I'd expect things to be far worse simply because with his promise to tie our hands internationally, and with his attitude that terrorism is properly a nuisance issue, we can anticipate far more trouble at home than if we continue the current course. If another major strike happens, expect that the pump primed by the first one and the subsequent reaction will go into full swing. We will see far more restrictions in the name of security.

The reason we haven't had an attack here hasn't been good intel or the Patriot Act. It's that for years, we responded to terrorist attacks with the FBI and investigations. That's what the terrorists expected with 9/11: more of same: posturing by Clinton, but nothing more. Instead, they got the "cowboy" who sent in the 101st and SOCOM, to kill the terrorists and break their things. What's kept us safe here is the sure and certain knowledge that the terrorists will not be safe there if they screw with us. Going with Kerry would be going back to Clinton's way of doing things, but worse due to his long-held desire to cripple our sovereignty which Clinton didn't even attempt as it would have deprived him of his personal power.

I don't agree with Bush on a lot of things, and I'd have happily seen the SCOTUS toss a lot of the current laws out. But I'm not going to engage in some fantasy that allowing someone like Kerry in would not be harmful. I remember these same arguments at this time 12 years ago, and I remember how they were proven false by 8 years of Clinton.
 
Don't expect anything pro-gun to get passed either. Kerry will veto, and I doubt there would be a 2/3 majority to override him. At the very best, status quo would be maintained.
 
Governor Arnold is a filthy swine who is a Member in Good Standing of various Illuminati Secret Societies.

He and Kerry are both scum.

The Republicrats are setting up Conan, I mean Arnold, to be our Presidente in 2008, but first they gotta work on revising the Constitution to allow a stinking Foriegn born Schweinhunt, Leftist, Anti-Gun Skunk such as Gov. Arnold to run for the Presidency and be elected and become our Great Warlord Leader.

Sad to say, some here absolutely love Arnold and don't realize he was hand-picked last year by the Boyz at Bohemian Grove to run for Governor in California.
 
Are you saying that the republicans in congress are weenies and will do what Kerry tells them?
Click to expand...

I thought one of the articles of faith of the Libertarian party was that the Republicans and Democrats are identical. So, why would you expect the Republicans to do anything except what Kerry wants?

For that matter, why are so many of the people voting against Bush expecting a Republican Congress to protect them from the consequences of a Kerry administration?

As for Ahnold, he won't be President. The odds of a Constitutional amendment being passed and ratified within 4 years are exceedingly low, and especially not for him. He won the election because of the antagonism towards his predecessor. He's got nothing to justify the enormous political capital that would have to be spent on an amendment.
 
Mr. Knox, you are very perspicacious

When you said
I thought one of the articles of faith of the Libertarian party was that the Republicans and Democrats are identical. So, why would you expect the Republicans to do anything except what Kerry wants?
Click to expand...
I was trying to elicit the same thought from Mr. ACP230.

Although I agree that they are subsets of the same party, I do not think they will sacrifice the appearance of conflict and destroy their whole "Punch and Judy Show" charade at this time.

There are still too many of us out here who don't know that we are watching a performance.:uhoh:
 
Although I agree that they are subsets of the same party, I do not think they will sacrifice the appearance of conflict and destroy their whole "Punch and Judy Show" charade at this time.
Click to expand...

If you believe what you said, then citations to the 2/3 requirement is irrelevant and somewhat misleading.

To be honest, most LPs seem to have an inherent disconnect in how they present their case. On the one hand, the parties are effectively the same. On the other hand, supporting Badnarik and allowing Kerry to win is fine, as the inherent tension between a Republican Congress and Kerry will insure general gridlock. The two positions are mutually exclusive, yet uttered almost in the same breath.
 
It is exactly in accordance with my position. Read it again.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could enlighten us. The disconnect seems irredeemable to these (admittedly tired) eyes.
 
On the one hand, the parties are effectively the same. On the other hand, supporting Badnarik and allowing Kerry to win is fine, as the inherent tension between a Republican Congress and Kerry will insure general gridlock. The two positions are mutually exclusive, yet uttered almost in the same breath.
Click to expand...


Buzz I will tell you my opinion on the above.

First though, realize I am not a Libertarian, I am a conservative. Previously I have considered myself a conservative Republican, but such an animal ceased to exist in 2000 when Bush took control.

Anyway, I do feel that under Bush, the line between the parties has become blurry. We have seen expansion in the size of government under Bush and we have seen expansion of social welfare. Both of these things are positions the Democrats have traditionally supported. We have also seen increased government intrusion into our lives through such legislation as McCain Feingold and the Patriot Act. This is also something I would have expected a Democrat and not a Republican to have supported.

So I do think that the parties are becoming more similar.

Now I also think that while the parties are very similar, having one in control of Congress and one in control of the presidency would ensure gridlock.

The gridlock would ensue not because of party differences, but simply due to partisanship.

I think McCain Feingold, for example, would have never been passed into law if different parties controlled the branches of government. I think one party would have opposed it simply because the other party suggested it.

Medicare Reform and No Child Left Behind would not have made it either if different parties had controlled the Congress and Presidency.

So I dont think any mutual exclusion of these ideas exists. I just don't think you are looking at it from the right angle.
 
Ok, so I will try in my humble awkward way to 'splain it.

Allegorically

Lets say the cat gets out of the bag. The veil is lifted. They admit to all being in the same party.

Limbaugh tells us that Hillary would make a good supreme and that Chuckie would be a great AG. James Carville goes on Meet the Press and agrees with a tax cut and outlawing Partial Birth Abortion. Together they come up with the GCA of 2005 which bans all but rimfire single shot rifles and over and under .410s.

You think the dems and reps of today would vote for Prez. Hillary and VP Condoleeza in 2008? Who are they gonna vote against?

Without a boogie man the voting populace would start looking for alternatives.

What? somebody who would return us to a constitutional republic? That would not be good. Better to keep up the appearance of conflict between the two subsets so that the voters have somebody to hate.

If Kerry gets elected and the Republican Congress rolls over and gives him who he wants on the supremes. The Republican party is dead.

You want that?
 
Don't count on divided government to save your guns from Kerry.
Click to expand...
It's worked pretty well for decades. Many people feel the least a government does...the better. One house of Congress is ALL we need. Guns are important but that issue alone will not gain my support for Bush. He is a MAJOR disappointment, and with a Republican Congress no less! Mind you, up until the last few months I was a strong supporter of Bush but his performance as President (regardless of his "values") rivals that of Grant:barf:

At a meeting of World Leaders, how can you spot Bush from a distance?

He's the one wearing the Dunce Hat!:banghead:
 
So in a group of world leaders who include former (current?) terrorists (including one who sold a nuclear reactor designed for weapons production to Hussein), you think Bush would be wearing the Dunce cap?

Turn off the TV and take a look at what the people closest to him have said for years: Bush isn't a great public speaker but he's no dunce.

By the way, you said you were a major Bush supporter until the last few months? What happened to change your mind? The debates? Holy crap. If the debates changed your mind, then you've never seen him in a press conference, where he isn't any better.

What must have changed your mind is the campaigning by the Kerry camp and the media. Because NOTHING else has happened in the last few months except people spinningl Bush's record, which he developed while you were a "staunch" supporter of his.

As for one house defending us, not hardly. That house (no matter who controls it) will be filled with individuals who answer to constituencies. With the gun rights movement has divided as it is, they will not be able to count on us to protect them when the President, the media, and the other house rakes them over the coals for impeding the passage of "common sense legislation." Instead, they'll have to pass legislation (even if in modified form) in order to get what they need for their constituencies (i.e. federal tax dollars spent in their districts).

Basically, if we are relying on one house of Congress or gridlock, then we are screwed.
 
However, executive orders are rather limited in what they can accomplish.
Click to expand...
Have you tried to find a FFL dealer lately? How many dealers were there before Clinton had the ATF crack down?

A quick search reveals this article from 1995

"During 1993, the Licensed Firearms Dealers declined from 248,692 to 246,777, an insignificant decline of only 1,915," Welter said. "However, during 1994 the dealers declined by 43,036 to a new level of 203,741. The vast majority of this decline occurred since the first of June 1994. In January 1995, there were 198,848 dealers. Further declines are expected throughout all of 1995."

How far will the number drop?

"We can expect the FFL total to crash below 120,000 by December," according to Tom von Rosen, president of Firearms Marketing Group
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n3_v40/ai_17000034

How many are left now in 2004?

There are many things the President can do that will hurt us as gun-owners, many of which we won't think of until after they occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top