User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 2:31:48 AM EDT
[#1]
The economy could be his downfall if something doesn't break soon.
I don't see any "third term" law change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 2:40:01 AM EDT
[#2]
He would need an amendment to the constitution to seek a third term.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 5:09:54 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: will GW be re-elected? Yes, if we're lucky. will the economy keep him from a 2nd term? I hope not. if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ? No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it. will Jeb Bush make a run for the Presidency in a few years? Yes. I think he will be the GOP candidate in 2008. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 5:21:04 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ? No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it. Yeah - And I never thought a President would sign a law like the Patriot Act that allows warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretaps, allows citizens to be jailed without counsel, without being charged, being held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time and a host of other Constitutionally illegal activities. Come to think of it - why would they need to amend the Constitution to go for a third term? .Gov has had no respect for the document for a long time. Just raise the threat level to red, scare the sheeple enough, and they'll buy into anything. Half the people here would probably be all for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 5:51:53 AM EDT
[#5]
i think it's too early to tell but i do believe he will be re-elected. I have to say after some of this legislation he ahs pushed through and his public stance on the AWB i am going to think VERY hard before voting for him next time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 5:52:16 AM EDT
[#6]
For me it depends on what happens with the AW Ban. If he signs a new one, I'm sure as hell not voting for him even if he runs against Hillary Clinton.
Now will he be re-elected? Its the economy stupid (and maybe the gun issue too, cause if he screws us he is going to lose a lot of support). Let's wait and see. As for a third term, I hope not, because if he does he is probably going to do away with future "elections." As for his brother........ I doubt it. My feeling is that Jeb will run for the Florida Senate in 2006. I doubt that with only 2 years in the Senate that he will turn around and run for President. My bet is that the next Bush to be President will be named Jenna. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 6:05:44 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: will GW be re-elected? will the economy keep him from a 2nd term? if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ? will Jeb Bush make a run for the Presidency in a few years? what say you ? Ok, here's how its going to play out: 1)GW will get re-elected 'cause the Dem's don't have anyone with any balls to beat him. 2)About a year into the next term, Dick is going to 'resign due to health issues. 3)GW is going to appoint his brudda Jeb. 4)Jeb gets the 'nod in '08, and the Dem's still don't have anyone with balls. (Hillary?....Naah!) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 8:04:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ? No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it. Yeah - And I never thought a President would sign a law like the Patriot Act that allows warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretaps, allows citizens to be jailed without counsel, without being charged, being held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time and a host of other Constitutionally illegal activities. Come to think of it - why would they need to amend the Constitution to go for a third term? .Gov has had no respect for the document for a long time. Just raise the threat level to red, scare the sheeple enough, and they'll buy into anything. Half the people here would probably be all for it. Cassidy, just in case no one's told you this today, let me: You're a raving lunatic that should be measured for a jacket that fastens up the back. Really. You're a nutburger. A looney. A crazy man. Seek help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 8:46:08 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: will Jeb Bush make a run for the Presidency in a few years? Yes. I think he will be the GOP candidate in 2008. Hear, hear! Did you hear the stuff he said at the NRA convention - "the sound of our freedom is the sound of our guns". He might as well be one of us. Dumbya would never say something like that. Jeb for 2004! No more Dumbya! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 10:43:55 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ? No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it. Yeah - And I never thought a President would sign a law like the Patriot Act that allows warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretaps, allows citizens to be jailed without counsel, without being charged, being held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time and a host of other Constitutionally illegal activities. Come to think of it - why would they need to amend the Constitution to go for a third term? .Gov has had no respect for the document for a long time. Just raise the threat level to red, scare the sheeple enough, and they'll buy into anything. Half the people here would probably be all for it. Cassidy, just in case no one's told you this today, let me: You're a raving lunatic that should be measured for a jacket that fastens up the back. Really. You're a nutburger. A looney. A crazy man. Seek help. HeHe - You probably right! But I am wondering which part of the post you are having trouble with? The Constitutional violations of the Patriot Act, or my assertion that .Gov has no respect for the Constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 1:28:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: But I am wondering which part of the post you are having trouble with? The Constitutional violations of the Patriot Act, or my assertion that .Gov has no respect for the Constitution? The part where you type your own words. It starts there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 2:00:14 PM EDT
[#12]
I'm pretty sure he'll be re-elected. The Democrats just don't have anyone with the prestige or leadership to mount a serious challenge. There was a survey a while back; I think it said that less then 20% of the population could name a Democrat presidential candidate.
Even if something really bad happens like a economic crash or another terrorist attack, I don't think the Democrats have the leadership to challenge him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 2:20:22 PM EDT
[#13]
RikWriter, CassidyGT,
It's not black and white, it's shades of gray. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 2:32:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ? No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it. Yeah - And I never thought a President would sign a law like the Patriot Act that allows warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretaps, allows citizens to be jailed without counsel, without being charged, being held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time and a host of other Constitutionally illegal activities. Come to think of it - why would they need to amend the Constitution to go for a third term? .Gov has had no respect for the document for a long time. Just raise the threat level to red, scare the sheeple enough, and they'll buy into anything. Half the people here would probably be all for it. They can call you a lunatic but I see no one refuting your post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 2:38:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: They can call you a lunatic but I see no one refuting your post. Arguing with a lunatic is a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 2:49:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: They can call you a lunatic but I see no one refuting your post. Arguing with a lunatic is a waste of time. Whatever.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 2:51:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: But I am wondering which part of the post you are having trouble with? The Constitutional violations of the Patriot Act, or my assertion that .Gov has no respect for the Constitution? The part where you type your own words. It starts there. Ahh, good old Rik. Attacking the person instead of the argument. Supporting statism does that to people. Its a fact that GW has violated the Constitution, many times. He is no defender of liberty, only tyranny. He has hurt the US, not helped. Just because he's a Republican doesn't make him any better than the Democrats. In any case, I hope GW doesn't get elected. I don't think he will, especially if the economy stays where it is. And signing the AWB will certainly not help. Who will win? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary made a run for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 3:09:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Not if he signs a renewal to the AWB.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 3:09:45 PM EDT
[#19]
i think Bill Frist will be the nominee in '08
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 3:12:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: But I am wondering which part of the post you are having trouble with? The Constitutional violations of the Patriot Act, or my assertion that .Gov has no respect for the Constitution? The part where you type your own words. It starts there. Ahh, good old Rik. Attacking the person instead of the argument. Supporting statism does that to people. Its a fact that GW has violated the Constitution, many times. He is no defender of liberty, only tyranny. He has hurt the US, not helped. Just because he's a Republican doesn't make him any better than the Democrats. In any case, I hope GW doesn't get elected. I don't think he will, especially if the economy stays where it is. And signing the AWB will certainly not help. Who will win? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary made a run for it. Funny, If I had FACTS to rebut cassidys statement, I'd post links to the FACTS, just to watch cassidy walk away with crow feathers in his mouth....... Anyone?? [snoopy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 3:18:47 PM EDT
[#21]
the dumbocrats keep saying stupid stuff that Americans dont like in tmes of war.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2003 8:22:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Funny, If I had FACTS to rebut cassidys statement, I'd post links to the FACTS, just to watch cassidy walk away with crow feathers in his mouth....... That's been done before. It does nothing to discourage nutballs like Cassidy and liberty76, so why go to the effort? They believe what they want to believe and don't let facts get in their way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 5:09:22 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Funny, If I had FACTS to rebut cassidys statement, I'd post links to the FACTS, just to watch cassidy walk away with crow feathers in his mouth....... That's been done before. It does nothing to discourage nutballs like Cassidy and liberty76, so why go to the effort? They believe what they want to believe and don't let facts get in their way. Well go ahead smarty pants. Refute that the Patriot Act does not do the things I outlined above. Refute that the US Govt. does not regularly violate the Constitution and enforce the Patriot Act. You can feed yourself whatever nonsense you want to believe, and that is your right. But denying reality is the definition of insanity. You can go right on believing that .Gov is fount from which all goodness flows and that they would never abuse their powers. I think people like that were once called 'loyalists'. Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 5:28:11 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?! Do you have an issue with the FISA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 5:36:59 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?! Do you have an issue with the FISA? No, I was referring to how FISA came into being. Because .Gov was illegally abusing their powers - Congress saw fit to try to rein their asses in! .Gov WILL abuse their powers if given ANY opportunity - hence the BOR, the Constitution, separation of powers etc. I hope this all rings a bell with some out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 5:49:30 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?! Do you have an issue with the FISA? No, I was referring to how FISA came into being. Because .Gov was illegally abusing their powers - Congress saw fit to try to rein their asses in! .Gov WILL abuse their powers if given ANY opportunity - hence the BOR, the Constitution, separation of powers etc. I hope this all rings a bell with some out there. Okay - gotcha. Wasn't sure which way you were going with that. I had some experience with FISA and from what I saw, you had to have a pretty damned good reason to step in front of the judge and request one of these. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 5:53:16 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?! Do you have an issue with the FISA? No, I was referring to how FISA came into being. Because .Gov was illegally abusing their powers - Congress saw fit to try to rein their asses in! .Gov WILL abuse their powers if given ANY opportunity - hence the BOR, the Constitution, separation of powers etc. I hope this all rings a bell with some out there. Okay - gotcha. Wasn't sure which way you were going with that. I had some experience with FISA and from what I saw, you had to have a pretty damned good reason to step in front of the judge and request one of these. Exactly, and now they are making FISA warrants alot easier to come by. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 5:57:45 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Funny, If I had FACTS to rebut cassidys statement, I'd post links to the FACTS, just to watch cassidy walk away with crow feathers in his mouth....... That's been done before. It does nothing to discourage nutballs like Cassidy and liberty76, so why go to the effort? They believe what they want to believe and don't let facts get in their way. You forget there are other people reading this who do have open minds. I for one would like to hear your side because right as it stands they have made a point that you have not refuted. While it is unlikely you will change their mind, you might change others who are reading this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 6:04:51 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?! Do you have an issue with the FISA? No, I was referring to how FISA came into being. Because .Gov was illegally abusing their powers - Congress saw fit to try to rein their asses in! .Gov WILL abuse their powers if given ANY opportunity - hence the BOR, the Constitution, separation of powers etc. I hope this all rings a bell with some out there. Okay - gotcha. Wasn't sure which way you were going with that. I had some experience with FISA and from what I saw, you had to have a pretty damned good reason to step in front of the judge and request one of these. Exactly, and now they are making FISA warrants alot easier to come by. Considering the current climate, I don't have a problem with that. Muhammed Atta and his ilk showed us what can happen if you don't keep an eye on those that wish to do us harm. Now, for your concern as to abuses. Will they occur - I'm pretty sure it will happen on occasion. Will it be widespread and rampant? I don't think so. I liken it to an argument as to whether police are a good thing. We all know (with the exception of a few here) that if it weren't for police, there would be anarchy. But will there be abuses by police? Of course, there will be. At the end of the day, you can't guarantee that you will have a perfect society, but I think we're doing a good (and FAIR) job of the way we are currently doing business and handing the terrorist threat. Wait, I take that back. We need to tighten up the borders. They're leaking like a sieve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 6:17:07 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: You forget there are other people reading this who do have open minds. I for one would like to hear your side because right as it stands they have made a point that you have not refuted. While it is unlikely you will change their mind, you might change others who are reading this. This has all been discussed before, but here's just one instance where Cassidy was lying: the Patriot Act does NOT allow phone taps without a warrant. All it does is make warrants good for INDIVIDUALS rather than for specific lines so if the feds are listening in on a suspect's landline with a warrant, if he switches to a cell phone they can listen to that too without having to go back and get a separate warrant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 6:37:54 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: You forget there are other people reading this who do have open minds. I for one would like to hear your side because right as it stands they have made a point that you have not refuted. While it is unlikely you will change their mind, you might change others who are reading this. This has all been discussed before, but here's just one instance where Cassidy was lying: the Patriot Act does NOT allow phone taps without a warrant. All it does is make warrants good for INDIVIDUALS rather than for specific lines so if the feds are listening in on a suspect's landline with a warrant, if he switches to a cell phone they can listen to that too without having to go back and get a separate warrant. So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps. The whole thing is ripe for being grossly abused. And it will be if history is any guide. Hey Rik - if you believe everything is all fine with the Patriot Act and the further encroachment of Federal power over your life, that's great for you. I just happen to disagree. I think that history teaches us that .Gov is a necessary evil and should be given very limited powers. You may feel differently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 6:48:51 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps. No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 6:56:12 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps. No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant? So do you still believe in Santa Claus too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 8:25:24 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps. No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant? So do you still believe in Santa Claus too? Do you have any evidence or proof that RikWriter's statement is incorrect? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 8:39:16 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps. No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant? So do you still believe in Santa Claus too? Do you have any evidence or proof that RikWriter's statement is incorrect? No, I wasn't addressing his statement of 'fact'. I was addressing his contention that only those who are on the warrant will be listened to regardless of whose phone it is and who is talking. Pure fantasy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 8:46:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Patriot Act
Support for the AWB Homeland Security Office of Information Awareness Rumored VAT tax on the way Come on. Who else are you gonna vote for but the [b]republican[/b]! [rolleyes] Scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 10:35:40 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps. No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant? So do you still believe in Santa Claus too? Do you have any evidence or proof that RikWriter's statement is incorrect? No, I wasn't addressing his statement of 'fact'. I was addressing his contention that only those who are on the warrant will be listened to regardless of whose phone it is and who is talking. Pure fantasy. Perhaps I worded my original question poorly. Do you have any proof that the new wiretap law put into effect (which allows monitoring of a specific individual's communications as opposed to a device owned by said individual) will be used to listen to others than who the original "warrant" allows? Do you have any examples of abuse or are you just speculating that you believe that they will occur? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2003 10:46:44 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Patriot Act Support for the AWB Homeland Security Office of Information Awareness Rumored VAT tax on the way Come on. Who else are you gonna vote for but the [b]republican[/b]! [rolleyes] Scott Of course there is really nothing inherently bad about the Patriot Act or Homeland Security or the Office of Information Awareness, and the VAT is RUMORED, not real. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
