Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban

Washington Post ^ | April 12, 2003 | Unknown

[The Coopster]

Still out of context. I am talking about US. The other people on FR. I don't know how to say it more plainly; perhaps you're being difficult/obtuse on purpose.

Every time we have a thread like this (2nd Amend., illegal aliens, abortion, etc), the liberals win. Dividing the right wins elections for the left.

Vote for whomever you like - it's certainly your right. We'll all be so appreciative of your single-issue principle when the next Perot balls it up for the Right.

[Dane]

He's betraying his oath of office,

Oh, Oh, the word has been spoken by someone who has never won an election and refuses to admit that political warfare is a component in modern America.

not his campaign promises. Oddly enough, you apparently think that this is the better choice, because political posturing is more important to you than Constitutional principles. Happily, I feel that the opposite is true... and I'm very glad that you are on the other side of this issue. That's usually a good sign

You keep on with your self flagellation, I guess it makes you feel important to bad mouth a President who is 1000 times better than Gore.

You also are a hopeless malcontent, IMO.

[gdc61]

here i am, i support my president 100%. he knows that reauthorization will NOT reach his desk. it won't even make it to vote. quit chewing your nails people!!!

[Teacher317]

Putting the kibosh on Kyoto and the International Court
Actually showing that the UN is totally irrelevant
Has gotten rid of the Taliban and saddam

As we've said, he's been great overseas

Proposing a major tax cut

Care to explain how the budget grows by 20% in two years over Clinton's over-bloated atrocities = a cut?

Will sign a PBA ban
Will sign a bill protecting the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits

Those are Congress's victory. Just because he refuses to veto them doesn't mean he gets the glory. (Apparently, he won't veto much... after all, you would call that "acting like a dictator"!)

Pushing for drilling in ANWAR

Another domestic failure in the works. His pushing, during a "war that is all about oil", has done nothing to get the issue anywhere.

And on and on. Yep you are hopeless malcontnent in my book.

And you're a hopeless sycophant. We all knew this beforehand.

[gdc61]

thank god we are not a democracy!! representitive republics work better.

[heckler]

Look at the men and women he is selecting to be judges. Staunch constructionists. They will be there long after he is gone.

If there is one thing that G.W. can accomplish that is more important than getting the right kind of judges appointed to the high courts please tell me what it is.(aside from national defense)

[Wonder Warthog]

"I'm as pro-Second Amendment as anybody. But, this is truly amazing if you think about it. It appears that, if there'd been enough "litmus test" voters in our ranks, and the left had convinced enough of us during the 2000 campaign that Bush would consider supporting the extension, we could be coping with President Gore today."

Probably true--and BUSH needs to remember that. It is us "litmus test" gun owners that provided his margin of victory against Gore. Hell, even Clinton acknowledges it.

[The Coopster]

Care to explain how the budget grows by 20% in two years over Clinton's over-bloated atrocities = a cut?

Ummm, surely the war on terror didn't have anything to do with this, did it? You can't just crap money out, and there isn't enough time to trim the dead weight first.

[Dane]

And you're a hopeless sycophant. We all knew this beforehand

If I am a sycophant to beleive that a second Bush term will be 1000 times better any democartic candidate, then so be it. I wear your label as a badge of honor.

You go ahead and wander the wilderness for perfection, since the beginning of time man has sought perfection and has never found it, because man is an imperfect being.

[The Coopster]

If I am a sycophant to beleive that a second Bush term will be 1000 times better any democartic candidate, then so be it. I wear your label as a badge of honor.

And that pretty much sums it up. Well put.

[Teacher317]

Oh, Oh, the word has been spoken by someone who has never won an election and refuses to admit that political warfare is a component in modern America.

ROFL! I love it when you use the tactics of the Left. Attack the speaker rather than the thought. Once again, you revel in the methods of the Left, while insisting that you are on the Right. Too funny. Try addressing the point that he sworn an oath to prevent unConstitutional bills from passing his desk (aka "upholding the Constitution of the United States").

You keep on with your self flagellation,

You keep using dat word. I do not think it means what you think it means. /Inigo Montoya from the Princess Bride>

I guess it makes you feel important to bad mouth a President who is 1000 times better than Gore.

Ah, but once again, let us use your own analysis here. If he is 1000 times better than Gore based on principle alone, yet the political reality is that the country domestically gets virtually the same exact results, then what is the point of worrying about the principles? (This mirrors your argument that the political realities of bill-signing prevent you from worrying about the principled arguments on the Constitution: Pragmatism over Principle. So using your logic, I do not have to worry about not voting for GWB in the primaries or the general election!)

[chnsmok]

No, but basing all of your voting desicion on a single issue is just plain stupid. Look, American Politics is/should be about finding the middle ground that suits the population as a whole. It shouldn't be all about hardcore partisanship and finding that middle ground after the dust settles. To often, that ends up tilting toward the liberals - they're not so easily divided and conquered like the single issue crowd. Look at this thread. Based on an article in one of the most liberal pulications out there, you've all got your panties in a wad, crying "treason", and vowing do vote for someone else? Who is the other viable candidate that you'll vote for? Get some perspective, people. You've got to choose your battles wisely. And quit fighting those who are on your side.

I am sorry if I stupidly or obtusely interpreted the context of "And quit fighting those who are on your side." I didn't mean to be difficult.

[Teacher317]

Look at the men and women he is selecting to be judges. Staunch constructionists. They will be there long after he is gone.

I'll give him MAJOR points if he can get them seated... but once again, he has shown that he is not up to the job of standing up to the Dems on domestic issues!

[Cloud William]

"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.

Sounds like GWB really *does* want to follow in his father's footsteps. During the campaign, he acknowledged that renewing this ban would be political suicide. Perhaps with the war going well, the White House figures this is a good time to comment on this, hoping to minimize criticism.

Bye, George.

[The Coopster]

Thanks for the post. I certainly feel your pain, to some extent. My main point here is that we've all got to work together, and that means not putting all your eggs in one basket.

United we stand, divided we fall......

[Teacher317]

Care to explain how the budget grows by 20% in two years over Clinton's over-bloated atrocities = a cut?

Ummm, surely the war on terror didn't have anything to do with this, did it? You can't just crap money out, and there isn't enough time to trim the dead weight first.

That doesn't fly. If Clinton's $1.8T was bloated, then it was at least $100B too large. (I would at least doble that amount). The war has cost about $100B. Therefore, if Bush had a budget that spent more wisely and cut the waste, he would not have to increase it by a single penny, and STILL be able to pay for the war. He's increased it by $400B over a bloated amount... four times as much as the war. Increased spending on social programs accounts for the difference, not the war. (The war was not included in his first budget at all, by the way, and the increases were still there.)

[templar]

... it is when they get into other things that I get concerned.

What other things?

[Teacher317]

I don't want perfection... just adherence to the Oath of Office. Apparently, you see that as too much to ask of mere mortals.

[Dane]

And that pretty much sums it up. Well put.</i

Thank you for the compliment. I guess this thread is a text book case of the old sayings, "cut off the nose, to spite the face, and seeing the forest for the trees".

[Redcloak]

Great, another one-termer named Bush who went from winning a war to losing an election in less than 19 months.