Remember Having a Democrat President?

[The Drew]

I may be extreme in my defense of the constitution and civil liberty, but I am not ashamed of it.

Moderates are TOO willing to deal away things when there is political pressure. I'll take my politicians with some conviction thank you very much.

 

[Silver Bullet]

As long as the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, the nation, and our freedoms, are probaly better served by having a Democratic President, even if he is anti-gun. Political gridlock is our friend.

What happens if a Dem president is elected in 2008, followed by Dems getting control of Congress and the Senate in 2010 ? No gridlock.

Or, for that matter, if enough folks buy into the gridlock concept and vote Hillary for Pres in 2008, they might wake up the next day and find out that the Dems have taken control of Congress and the Senate the same night.

Gridlock ? No, we’d be getting two more Ruth Ginsbergs on the Supreme Court instead of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Your choice.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I don't want political stalemate. I want a political scenario that offers the best chance to roll back gun control laws. That appears to be libertarians controlling all three (Pres, Congress, Senate), but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

The next best scenario is the Reps controlling all three. That's what we have right now, and this is the first administration where gun control is less than after the previous administration. Maybe it's not happening as fast as we'd like, but it's better than what we've had before.

 

[RealGun]

Moderates are TOO willing to deal away things when there is political pressure.

These may be the same people who would kinda like to get reelected. Remember that representatives are not supposed to know better than their constituents. Whatever complaint one might have is more likely with the voting public.

 

[Old Dog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drew
Moderates are TOO willing to deal away things when there is political pressure.

Fact is, this is precisely what our system of government was designed to do: achieve compromise. We may not always like the result, but the deals are part of the process.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

This "Compromise" stuff is not what is going on.

"You take the drumstick and I'll take the breast." is not compromise.

"I will bring the taters and you bring the biscuits." that's compromise.

Agreeing to a infringement of 2a that has to be reauthorized in 10 years is not a compromise. It is a loss. Thank you Bob Dole (R).

 

[cookekdjr]

Hollowdweller,
Love your charts and figures. Sad fact is, they are only the beginning of the story.
Yesterday on "Marketplace" (the radio show) they ran a story on the figures released yesterday that show that median income fell for the 4th straight year. In other words, the average American family makes less money now than in 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001.
But to follow up on your "guilded age" comment: For the fifth straight year, the income of the top 20% has risen. In other words, the middle class has gotten poorer every year since Bush was elected. The rich and upper middle class have gotten wealthier and wealthier.
As for the "trickle down effect"? The only trickling has been that the middle class and the poor have gotten pi$$e$d on.
All I have to say to Bush and the GOP is: don't pee on me and tell me its raining.

 

[RealGun]

Hollowdweller,
Love your charts and figures. Sad fact is, they are only the beginning of the story.
Yesterday on "Marketplace" (the radio show) they ran a story on the figures released yesterday that show that median income fell for the 4th straight year. In other words, the average American family makes less money now than in 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001.
But to follow up on your "guilded age" comment: For the fifth straight year, the income of the top 20% has risen. In other words, the middle class has gotten poorer every year since Bush was elected. The rich and upper middle class have gotten wealthier and wealthier.
As for the "trickle down effect"? The only trickling has been that the middle class and the poor have gotten pi$$e$d on.
All I have to say to Bush and the GOP is: don't pee on me and tell me its raining.

Gee. I dunno. Where is it written that it is wrong to become wealthy or that it is illegal? Is it different than achieving the "American dream"? And what is the source of any entitlement for sharing legal wealth?

I think the truth is that when we fight inflation, we try to reduce or minimize the income growth of the working class. We are even working real hard at totally eliminating manufacturing in this country. The declines in income that were noted could be a direct reflection of unions pricing themselves out of the market and of the failure of the "Buy American" movement.

 

[cookekdjr]

Gee. I dunno. Where is it written that it is wrong to become wealthy or that it is illegal? Is it different than achieving the "American dream"? And what is the source of any entitlement for sharing legal wealth?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody said there is anything wrong with becoming rich, or acheiving the American dream.
I'll pose this question: Do you think its a good thing that a majority of Americans are working more for less money? Do you think its just a coincidence that the rich have gotten richer under Bush, but that everybody else has gotten poorer?
Under Clinton, the gap between rich and poor grew, but only because the wages and net worth growth of the rich outpaced the wage growth of the middle class. In other words, under Clinton everybody made more money, but the rich did really well. Under Bush, only the rich thrive.
Nobody complains when the billionaires triple their money if the middle class gets a 20% raise. But when only the rich get richer, at the expense of everyone else, who gets poorer, people complain. Because its wrong, and there's no exscuse for it.

 

[GoRon]

Class warfare still the mainstay of Democrats arguments even to this day.
Spoken as a true proletariat

I have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody said there is anything wrong with becoming rich, or acheiving the American dream.
I'll pose this question: Do you think its a good thing that a majority of Americans are working more for less money? Do you think its just a coincidence that the rich have gotten richer under Bush, but that everybody else has gotten poorer?
Under Clinton, the gap between rich and poor grew, but only because the wages and net worth growth of the rich outpaced the wage growth of the middle class. In other words, under Clinton everybody made more money, but the rich did really well. Under Bush, only the rich thrive.
Nobody complains when the billionaires triple their money if the middle class gets a 20% raise. But when only the rich get richer, at the expense of everyone else, who gets poorer, people complain. Because its wrong, and there's no exscuse for it.

 

[Phyphor]

I don't want political stalemate. I want a political scenario that offers the best chance to roll back gun control laws. That appears to be libertarians controlling all three (Pres, Congress, Senate), but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

The next best scenario is the Reps controlling all three. That's what we have right now, and this is the first administration where gun control is less than after the previous administration. Maybe it's not happening as fast as we'd like, but it's better than what we've had before.

Yea, instead we're just slowly sliding towards Speech control and Privacy control. We may not be there quite yet, but we're on the way.

Hey, this handbasket has a mini-bar!

 

[NorthernExtreme]

Funny thing is, there are a lot of Democrats getting rich too. I don't see any of them screaming for the Government to tax them back to the middle class so the other classes can move on up.

The whole class warfare argument is factually, morally, ethically, and logically bankrupt. The government is not suppose to have the power to control who gets paid what, or who doesn't get paid what. That’s Communism; and if that's what the Democrats want (which they seem to) I'm not interested.

The reason there are a few people doing better and most are not is due to influences outside of Government. There are more and more people competing for jobs which allow corporations to pay less because there is a bigger hiring pool. Unions have driven manufacturing out of the profit arena; so companies go outside the US not to give away American jobs, but to get away from union influence so they can stay in business (keep shareholders happy). Cheep labor, combined with a Wall Street demand for profits drives work out of the US. Many corporations (Republican and Democrat owned) continue to keep jobs in America at the expense of profit just to keep Americans working (a moral stance).

My point is there's little Bush or Clinton did to make the rich richer and the poor porred. We do more by buying goods made in China than Bush ever could to promote that. If you want to shop for cheep prices at Kmart and not pay more at the local store that's fine. But if you want to pay less at Kmart and bi+ch about the rich and the poor; don't expect me to feel your pain (you brought it on yourself). Just remember YOU buy cheep crud from China, Bush isn't making you (or is that another conspiracy we need to disprove).

Now I'm not going to say the Republicans are the whole answer (we all knows they aren't). But what the Democrats say they want cannot be accomplished without destroying the Constitution and creating a Government that looks much too much like Communism/Socialism to me. Every program they want to push allows the Government to control some vital aspect of our lives (healthcare, income, what my children are taught...), and that is something I will NEVER wrap my mind around.

Regards,

 

[Cactus]

Anyone remember this "fine" Democrat president?

Funny thing is, there are a lot of Democrats getting rich too. I don't see any of them screaming for the Government to tax them back to the middle class so the other classes can move on up.

Nor do I see them failing to utilize EVERY single tax deduction they can possibly think up!

 

[JerryM]

I remember several Democrat president, none whom I really liked. There is a world of difference between Dems and Republicans. If one cannot see that, then he is basically ignorant of the platforms.

President Bush is one of the 3 best presidents during my lifetime.

Jerry

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I remember several Democrat president, none whom I really liked. There is a world of difference between Dems and Republicans. If one cannot see that, then he is basically ignorant of the platforms.

President Bush is one of the 3 best presidents during my lifetime.

Jerry

I will go so far as to say that I think Mr. Bush is the best president that we have had in the 21st Century.



But seriously, best president in my lifetime? Lessee, I was born in '43.

FDR is arguably one of the worst presdents in history. Socialist Security, Pack the Supremes, essentially a fascist.

HS Truman? One of my favorites. Maybe simple. Plain spoken like me but I have a hard time with him signing the Central Intelligence Act of 1947. The harm done to the world in general by that act is such that we may never recover our credibility.

Eisenhower......All I can remember is that he played a lot of golf. A good president.

Nixon.......Belonged in Leavenworth.

Ford........Never elected. Fell down a lot. Mostly did nothing. Humor in the presidency has it's place. Probably the best.

Carter......I think he had a good heart. The fed took it personal that their guy didn't get elected so they decided to show us why we should elect who they say. Double digit inflation and like that. Yes, Carter was simple and yes, don't cross the fed. Truman was simple too, but he knew how to win a war. Carter? Sorry.

Reagan? Had a good philosophy. As long as his speechwriters didn't screw up, he came across as OK. Probably would have been the best if he could have stayed awake and not let his handlers have so much power. I would have liked to see him fire someone.

GHW Bush......George the second........George Washington was the first.....GHWB definitely belonged in prison. The first time in history we elected a former head of the CIA to president. (I hope we never do again) Really, Black budgets, no accountability, who in congress audits the CIA's books? LOLOFLMAO

WJ Clinton.........A joke.......everything but clown shoes. The Little Bulldog, Perky Katy loved him. Anybody female in .gov would say, "I would never sleep with him..........again." Not high on my list.

GW Bush....(43).........George the third..........Hey, didn't we fight a revolution with him? Another simple one. His handlers are so slick. The 'Nuckyouler Option', what clever strategery.

George III has done things to this country that mostly haven't been done to us since the worst of our presidents (Honest Abe) have done them to us.

He has suspended Habeous Corpus. Locking up American Citizens without charges. That is about as bad as it gets Then he violates amendment 4 amongst whatever violations he has done that he hasn't been caught at.

Yes, Honest Abe was imho the worst followed by FDR then George III (Dubya) , then Wilson then Nixon and maybe, as hard as it is for me to admit, then Clinton.

Only in my simple understanding of history, have 3 presidents suspended Habeos Corpus. Lincoln, Wilson and Bush (George III, Dubya).

Thus, I have to conclude that the best president of my lifetime was..........







Gerald Ford.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

President Bush is one of the 3 best presidents during my lifetime.

Bush has done more permanent damage to the US than any president since World War II.

He signed Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, Patriot Act, fought the wrong group of arabs over the 9-11 massacre, has expanded federal bureaucracy and spending more than any president sinc LBJ, and has, apparently, allowed government spy agencies to spiral out of control.

Which of these things do you like?

 

[BigFatKen]

Time to wake this thread up

I'll make this simple; If you vote for a non-Republican in November, your vote helps the Democrat.

Feingold was the pusher of McCain-Feingold. He let the Senior man have first place to help get it through. Kerry would have signed it too.

Patriot Act? We are at War ! I am all for the NSA listening to operatives inside the USA. Its total effect on me that I am aware of is showing my SS card to open a bank account.

About when this started, Hillary said the economy was bad and SS was solvet About the same now with 95.3% employment and the McDonalds near NOLA paying $11/hr.

Wrong? Fire away!

Silver Bullet
Senior Member
I don't want political stalemate. I want a political scenario that offers the best chance to roll back gun control laws. That appears to be libertarians controlling all three (Pres, Congress, Senate), but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

The next best scenario is the Reps controlling all three. That's what we have right now, and this is the first administration where gun control is less than after the previous administration. Maybe it's not happening as fast as we'd like, but it's better than what we've had before.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Breaking the Republican stranglehold on power in Washington would be a good thing.

In the last 6 years they have given us Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act.

They have increased federal welfare more than any other president, including LBJ.

They have left our southern border unguarded, and turned a blind eye to illegal immigration.

They have allowed N. Korea to develop nukes, despite talking tough about keeping America safe.

Now I realize the Democrats would not do better, and might even do worse. But if the Dems can take control of the House or Senate, it will break the power structure in Washington. Republicans will spend more time fighting Democrats for control and less time passing bad laws. Political stalemate is the best defender of liberty we can hope for at this point.

So, I will be voting for a Democrat for Congress for the first time in my life.

 

[Biker]

I'm with Lone Gunman for the most part, although I haven't decided on who I'll vote for yet.
Gridlock would be a good thing right about now.

Biker

 

[cbsbyte]

Again.

Another thread brought back to light, that should should have stayed dead and buried.

 

[toivo]

I'm an NRA member, but if you think the NRA isn't a touch too cozy with the Republican party, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Look at the endorsements in the latest American Rifleman: They go on and on about the wonderful careers of the Republican governors, but when they get to Bill Richardson of New Mexico, it's "The NRA endorses Bill Richardson." Period. What did he do wrong besides be a Democrat?

Gun rights should not be a partisan issue. When the NRA turns its back on gun-owning Democrats, the don't do any of us a favor. We need to leave our political differences in some other arena and concentrate on uniting for our rights.

 

[Rem700SD]

On NRA and politics. Bear in mind that funding, unless you are George Soros, is finite. If you are endorsing a candidate you have to ask two questions...

1) does this candidate support our policies?

2)CAN HE/SHE WIN?????

party affilliation comes in a distant third.

If you could show me where a pro-gun Democrat that won by a 5%+ margin, I think you'll find NRA support.

 

[Zundfolge]

If you could show me where a pro-gun Democrat that won by a 5%+ margin, I think you'll find NRA support.

Big problem with pro-gun Democrats is that their party will shut them down on the gun issue (especially when they are freshmen).

The DNC has its platform and any Democrat who makes it to the house or senate will by God toe the line and back that platform 100% or they will be shut down by their fellow Democrats and the party power structure.

That means they will NEVER get anywhere that they could actually help the RKBA struggle.

Unless you can change the core belief system of the majority of the Democrat party, you will ALWAYS have anti-gun Democrats in the seats of power when Democrats are in power. Period.

 

[BigFatKen]

Gridlock ? No, we’d be getting two more Ruth Ginsbergs on the Supreme Court instead of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Your choice.

The most important thing a president does, excepting keeping us from getting nuked, is to appoint the SCOUS. They may beon the bench when the man who appointed them is a "who's that"?

See Judge Bork. Excellent legal mind but not enough Senators on his side.

 

[Helmetcase]

Class warfare still the mainstay of Democrats arguments even to this day.

As though it isn't for the GOP--they just are fighting on a different side. Rearranging tax structures such that the rich get enormous tax benefits while the lower 90% of the populace pays essentially the same rate isn't class warfare? Gimme a break. By doing so, ensuring that real take home wages for the lower and middle classes stagnate while the wealthy see their incomes skyrocket isn't class warfare? Puhlease.

The reality is that for nine out of ten of us, the rate of taxation we pay state, local, and federal combined hasn't really fluctuated much whether Dems or Repubs run things.

I'm all for tax cuts, but the only real tax cut is a spending cut--at the profligate spending rate that your supposed fiscal conservatives are spending, we're smacking a big ole hit onto Uncle Sam's credit card pretty nicely every day.