Don't be so hard on yourself. If you stick around FR long enough, you'll get better and won't have to grasp so much!
Posted on 09/27/2002 8:43:42 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
I already posted numerous sources that you claimed didn't exist. Magaw represented Bush. Fact. You still haven't provided a source for the two bills you claim exist. And you haven't posted even one source showing Bush disagreeing with Magaw on the issue. Thus we must assume that Magaw was acting on behalf of his boss, George Bush.
Don't be so hard on yourself. If you stick around FR long enough, you'll get better and won't have to grasp so much!
Nonsense. Point one, I didn't claim that sources were unavailable or nonexistent, I said that at BEST the sources would NOT show Bush saying that he opposed arming pilots. Case in point, you still haven't quoted Bush saying that he opposed arming them.
Point two, Magaw did represent Bush up until Bush fired him and signed the second pro-gun pilot-arming bill. That's not exactly a pattern which would support your claim of Bush "opposing" arming pilots.
Point three, for sources on the two pro-gun bills, you have ALREADY conceded that Bush signed into law the bill that federalized airport security workers (and that bill contained the first arming pilots provision, a "test" in which 2,500 pilots were eligible for training and packing firearms). In addition, you've already conceded that Bush has fired the ONLY Bush-administration official who claimed to oppose arming pilots. Now you want sources for what you've already conceded?! Oh please. It's not like showing one more source is going to open your tightly closed-mind.
Point 4, you've not managed to substantiate your own claims with sources. Citing the media is NOT the same as citing Bush on a position. Just because the media printed it doesn't make it an official Bush position.
In sum: Bush has signed two pro-gun bills into law (you've conceded that one of those exists). Bush has fired Magaw (the only administration official that you've been able to find who even temporarily harbored any public anti-gun sentiment in GWB's administration). Bush directed Ashcroft and Olson to change the official U.S. position on "individual" 2nd Amendment rights, and Bush has a history as governor back in his Texas days for signing CCW into law.
Against those facts, you've managed to cite some press lackeys and one fired official.
Gee, I wonder which argument is right?!
Now you're getting the feel for it!
The "only way"?!
Oh please. Take the ICC. Not only were you wrong, but I quoted your precise words AND provided a hyperlink to the CATO Institute (and numerous sources exist if that reference isn't good enough - but since you seem to rant like a discredited Libertarian, a libertarian thinktank seemed like an appropriate source to debunk you) to further buttress that point.
The "only way"?! Oh, that's just rich. Next you'll be asking me who Magaw works for again!
Hogwash. Magaw was quoted. Magaw worked for Bush. Are you claiming that the media was lying when quoting Magaw?
How about Tom Ridge? As director of homeland security, you would think that he represents Bush's direction. He hasn't been fired.
http://www.americanpolicy.org/newswire/v5n2.htm
"I don't think we want to equip our pilots with firearms," said Ridge. "That doesn't make a lot of sense to me."
Point one, I didn't claim that sources were unavailable or nonexistent, I said that at BEST the sources would NOT show Bush saying that he opposed arming pilots.
Source?You have none.
I had some. Why isn't Tom Ridge history? Bush signed the bill because it included other provisions that he wanted. Clearly he was compromising and his administration has been opposed to the idea. Do you really think that Magaw and Ridge were expressing opposing policies to what Bush has laid out to them?
Get real.
There you go again. In the very post you are responding to I concede this point. The fact that you have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said otherwise doesn't change.
You're lying again.
I quoted Tom Ridge and Magaw.
Here's Bush on the subject:
"There may be better ways to do it than that," Mr. Bush said in response to questions at the White House about allowing pilots to carry guns in the cockpit. "But I'm open to any suggestion." [The New York Times, 9/27/01]Well, President Bush says he's open to suggestions on this subject. Although today, he outlined several safety proposals in Chicago, and arming pilots was not one of them.
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
"Hogwash. Magaw was quoted. Magaw worked for Bush. Are you claiming that the media was lying when quoting Magaw?" - Demidog
No, silly!
I claimed that you couldn't show Bush personally opposing arming pilots, contrary to your original wild-eyed claim against him. Then I said that at best, you'd be able to show only non-Bush sources claiming that Bush was against arming pilots.
And guess what?! All that you've managed to show are non-Bush sources!
You've also managed to ignore the clear pattern that Bush has established with his track record (e.g. signing CCW as governor in Texas, signing two pro-gun pilot-arming bills into law as President, ordering Ashcroft and Olsen to support "individual" 2nd Amendment rights, firing the most vocal Bush admin official -Magaw- to oppose arming pilots, et al).
And yet, I'm not the one claiming that Bush was OPPOSED to arming pilots, you were (I presume that I've spanked you enough so that even you have moved that erroneous view into the past tense, but if you still believe it, then say so and post your sources).
What's your source for that wild-eyed claim?
"You're lying again.
I quoted Tom Ridge and Magaw."
Do I owe you an apology, or did you quote Ridge AFTER I made that original statement above?
I know. In spite of the fact that several of his cabinet officials opposed the idea publically (Norm Mineta, Magaw and Ridge for starters) and in spite of the fact that he himself NEVER suggested that pilots be armed even when he was speaking on the subject of airline security, you want everyone to believe that he directed his employees to oppose his own views and that he REALLY supported the idea. His own words show that he thought there were better ways. He was opposed to the idea. Get over it.
Fact is that public criticism of his administration's stance coupled with a house bill that passed with a large majority (attached to a bill containing homeland security measures which he wanted) led him to sign the bill in spite of his administration's opposition to it.
And doing a fine job of it, too. : )
Being open to better ways is NOT the same as being opposed to arming pilots.
Moreover, Bush has signed TWO pro-gun arming pilots bills (and you've now conceded this point for BOTH bills by pointing out that you think that Bush liked OTHER things in the most recent bill to make it worth signing), hardly the stuff of someone who "opposes" arming pilots.
Yeah. I quoted Ridge after you said I only quoted "press lackeys."
You've been claiming that Magaw's firing was solely based on his opposition to Bush's real opinion. You didn't know that Ridge, Minetta and FAA administrator Jane Garvey were also saying similar things. When I quote Bush himself showing that he thinks there are better ways? You ignore it.
You keep defending Bush in spite of the fact that all of the evidence runs against your position.
No doubt! McCarthy WAS right (click on my profile).
I've been talking about the same bill. The one YOU brought up several posts back, making the point that it was attached to a homeland security bill. I claimed right from the beginning that he only signed it because of the homeland security issues. You haven't cited either of the alleged bills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.