Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 6/23/2003 3:06:39 PM EDT
So far our president has: Refused to secure our borders or address immigration issues. Supported the continuation of racism in the form of affirmative action. The supreme court today upheld affirmative action, presidential support likely factored in the 4-5 vote. Allowed the Iraqi military to be reformed and PAID due to protest by former Iraqi soldiers who fought the US. Continues to be as anti gun as he ever was. Will likely vote for the AW Ban if it ever reaches his desk. I'm seeing one concession after another to the liberal (especially as it concerns minorities) agenda. I don't like this seemingly "new direction" of the Republican Party. Combined with issues like the Patriot Act and their entrenchment with the Religious Right (I don't mind religion, just not as government or a basis for law and policy as it concerns ME) the GOP is probably as much a threat to freedom as pre Clinton Democrats. I always knew the Republicans were the lesser of 2 evils. But they used to be lesser to a far greater degree. And they usually were fiscally conservative as much as they were socially conservative and that was almost a fair trade. I'm not sure how I'm gonna vote now in 2004. With the Republicans moving firmly into areas such as restriction of freedom, socialized government and special rights for some I don't see them being as much "lesser" as they are just "evil." I think we finally have equality in government however. They are both equally bad. I honestly never thought this could happen.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:09:15 PM EDT
Why don't you tell us how you really feel?
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:11:51 PM EDT
You forgot the massive expansion that Bush has created most of it in the name of "terror". Such as Federalizing 50,000+ airport screeners, creating the Department of Homeland Defense, and I'm sure there were many others.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:12:14 PM EDT
yeah today I caught myself thinking "Hmm just how progun is Dean, let me look into his stances on other issues as well" The world and USA has taken a drastic change to say the least in the past decade. I just hope I get to do some shooting soon at reactive targets! Don't want to be too old for SHTF!
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:13:51 PM EDT
I will vote to delete SWIRE'S avatar.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:15:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SWIRE: You forgot the massive expansion that Bush has created most of it in the name of "terror". Such as [red]Federalizing 50,000+ airport screeners[/red], creating the Department of Homeland Defense, and I'm sure there were many others.
View Quote
TRUST ME! That was a good thing! I used to be an airport screener when I finished HS. Some of the people the private sector was hiring probably couldn't get a job at a carwash, and you want them to secure your plane that you will be flying on? At least with the Federal screeners the government will have more rigid testing and accountability. Now if you don't mind me tooting my own horn: I still hold the title at BWI airport for the most illegal currency searches and seizers in a year to date! That was 5 years ago too!
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:17:25 PM EDT
[b]Why Didn't We Just Vote For Gore?[/b] You didn't really want a list of reasons did you? The fact that he makes me want to puke is reason number one.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:18:50 PM EDT
Write the President a letter, fax it to the white house, and send it by snail mail. Tell HIM what you think of his Presidency thus far.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:18:52 PM EDT
And continuing out of control spending on education at the federal level, just like Bill Clinton. And refusing to force Congress into making significant spending cuts too. Much easier to balance the budget [i]that[/i] way.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:19:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: So far our president has: Supported the continuation of racism in the form of affirmative action. The supreme court today upheld affirmative action, presidential support likely factored in the 4-5 vote.
View Quote
Ummm...that is not what I read. [b]The policies even drew criticism from President Bush. The White House weighed in on the legal process, filing legal briefs in opposition to the undergraduate school policy. The administration argued that many more qualified students were passed over in the law school application process in favor of less-qualified minorities. [/b]
Allowed the Iraqi military to be reformed and PAID due to protest by former Iraqi soldiers who fought the US.
View Quote
Iraq was going to have a military and I would rather have those guys where we can watch and control them rather than have them joining the Ba'ath Party resistance.
Continues to be as anti gun as he ever was. Will likely vote for the AW Ban if it ever reaches his desk.
View Quote
There isn't a black-white "anti-gun/pro-gun" dichotomy. Some politicians are very anti-gun, some only slightly, some slightly pro gun some very. Bush is slightly pro-gun. He won't stick his neck out for the RKBA but neither will he push anti-gun legislation. And he would likely sign a bill to prevent lawsuits against gunmakers.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:25:52 PM EDT
Bush's ultra-federalist judicial nominations more than make up for the much maligned (but in actuality, little more than trivial) "new-direction" policies.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:27:05 PM EDT
SA has a few valid points. Gone are the days when "Conservative Republican" meant: 1. Fiscal Responsibility a. Cutting spending b. Cutting taxes 2. Social Conservatism a. Tough stances on "law and order." (see immigration) b. Pro-life c. Limited welfare, fewer handouts 3. Pro-Second Amendment across the board 4. America First a. Reduce/eliminate trade treaties that hurt US job market b. Limited role of US Military worldwide, based on imminent threats This administration is trying to break most of the "old" rules, it seems.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:29:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: At least with the Federal screeners the government will have more rigid testing and accountability.
View Quote
[LOL]
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:29:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U:
Originally Posted By SWIRE: You forgot the massive expansion that Bush has created most of it in the name of "terror". Such as [red]Federalizing 50,000+ airport screeners[/red], creating the Department of Homeland Defense, and I'm sure there were many others.
View Quote
TRUST ME! That was a good thing! I used to be an airport screener when I finished HS. Some of the people the private sector was hiring probably couldn't get a job at a carwash, and you want them to secure your plane that you will be flying on? At least with the Federal screeners the government will have more rigid testing and accountability.
View Quote
I believe the big debate was on who they would work for, whether they would be contracted but still controlled by the feds or if they would actually be federal workers controlled by the feds. The sticking point was a federal worker is much harder to fire than a contractor, meaning the bad apples would get reassigned and not fired, plus federal workers typically lean towards the Democrats when vote. This is why I brought it up, because Bush just caved right into the Democrats demands.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:30:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: yeah today I caught myself thinking "Hmm just how progun is Dean, let me look into his stances on other issues as well" The world and USA has taken a drastic change to say the least in the past decade. I just hope I get to do some shooting soon at reactive targets! Don't want to be too old for SHTF!
View Quote
Don't ever say you are looking into Dean again or as a Vermont I will kick your ass! [:D] Old Howard the Coward never did anything against guns up here but he isn't a fan. We had to keep on him about Sportsman's Right and watch him like a hawk. He's a Klinton wanna-be...take a poll, guage opinion, formulate ass-kissing answer.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:34:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: SA has a few valid points. Gone are the days when "Conservative Republican" meant: 1. Fiscal Responsibility a. Cutting spending b. Cutting taxes
View Quote
Bush has cut taxes. No Republican in recent memory has actually been able to cut spending.
2. Social Conservatism a. Tough stances on "law and order." (see immigration)
View Quote
Just because he hasn't put troops on the border doesn't mean he hasn't taken a tough stance on law and order.
b. Pro-life
View Quote
Puh-lease. If Bush were any more pro life he would be unelectable.
3. Pro-Second Amendment across the board
View Quote
That animal hasn't existed since the 1960s. Nixon was a RINO on guns, Reagan had to compromise to get some gun laws rolled back---which gave us the 86 machine gun ban. The first President Bush gave us the import ban. Politics is about compromise and sometimes we don't like the compromises.
4. America First a. Reduce/eliminate trade treaties that hurt US job market
View Quote
Remember the steel tarriffs to try to help the US steel industry?
b. Limited role of US Military worldwide, based on imminent threats
View Quote
Ummm...no. This has NEVER been a keystone of the Republican party since the 1940s. The GOP line has been military strength and intervention where it was in our security interests.
This administration is trying to break most of the "old" rules, it seems.
View Quote
No, it seems you don't know what the rules were or are.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:36:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: So far our president has: Refused to secure our borders or address immigration issues. Supported the continuation of racism in the form of affirmative action. The supreme court today upheld affirmative action, presidential support likely factored in the 4-5 vote. Allowed the Iraqi military to be reformed and PAID due to protest by former Iraqi soldiers who fought the US. Continues to be as anti gun as he ever was. Will likely vote for the AW Ban if it ever reaches his desk. I'm seeing one concession after another to the liberal (especially as it concerns minorities) agenda. I don't like this seemingly "new direction" of the Republican Party.
View Quote
What new direction?? This has been happening for years!
Combined with issues like the Patriot Act and their entrenchment with the Religious Right (I don't mind religion, just not as government or a basis for law and policy as it concerns ME) the GOP is probably as much a threat to freedom as pre Clinton Democrats.
View Quote
The "religious right", has always BEEN a joke, and always WILL be... A bunch of suckers chasing a bunch of neo-cons. A "diversion", the sheep have enthusiastically swallowed.
I always knew the Republicans were the lesser of 2 evils. But they used to be lesser to a far greater degree. And they usually were fiscally conservative as much as they were socially conservative and that was almost a fair trade.
View Quote
You are still trading evil for evil, in the end you get evil. Never compromise, you lose. Shit in = Shit out..
I'm not sure how I'm gonna vote now in 2004.
View Quote
Try ANYONE who says they will restore Constitutional govt.
With the Republicans moving firmly into areas such as restriction of freedom, socialized government and special rights for some I don't see them being as much "lesser" as they are just "evil." I think we finally have equality in government however. They are both equally bad. [red]I honestly never thought this could happen[/red].
View Quote
You're kidding with the last statement right?? Steyr, if you really are as dissappointed as you sound, you have my condolences. For many years, I was an active Republican. I mean, a WORKER! I have experienced your disappointment. I turned it to determination. I WILL NOT sit idly by, while my Country is stolen. They are no different than the dems, just slower. There are many people who sense what's wrong in our Nation, but are unable to face the reality. It's called denial. To admit our Country is lost, is too much for them to do, in spite of the evidence of the last 100 or so years. Welcome to the Patriot Movement....
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:37:41 PM EDT
as mentioned above.... the gun laws in Vermont are not there BECAUSE of Dean, but despite him. Had he even thought about changing something, he would have kissed his governorship goodbye.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:42:09 PM EDT
Well, at least he isn't kissing Osama, Saddam, and Kim-Jong's asses, which Clinton did and Gore would probably continue to do.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:44:17 PM EDT
Notice how the "Government Agenda" never stops? It may slightly slow down or speed up, but it never stops . Both parties have an interest in bigger government.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:48:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2003 3:48:43 PM EDT by M4_Aiming_at_U]
Originally Posted By greenmountainpatriot:
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: yeah today I caught myself thinking "Hmm just how progun is Dean, let me look into his stances on other issues as well" The world and USA has taken a drastic change to say the least in the past decade. I just hope I get to do some shooting soon at reactive targets! Don't want to be too old for SHTF!
View Quote
Don't ever say you are looking into Dean again or as a Vermont I will kick your ass! [:D] Old Howard the Coward never did anything against guns up here but he isn't a fan. We had to keep on him about Sportsman's Right and watch him like a hawk. He's a Klinton wanna-be...take a poll, guage opinion, formulate ass-kissing answer.
View Quote
Thanks for correcting me. I guess when a commentator in MD calls someone "pro-gun" they could be talking about Gray Davis in comparison to MD gubmint leaders.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:52:16 PM EDT
I'm with you.I'd have voted for Pat Buchanon if I thought he had any chance at all.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:53:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: why didn't we vote for Gore?
View Quote
b/c we like our freedoms?
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:55:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:56:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Bush has cut taxes. No Republican in recent memory has actually been able to cut spending. .
View Quote
Geez, rik, get a grip. Spending is up, tax revenue is down. That means Debt spending. Bush hasn't cut shit, govt is bigger, and has more Authority than ever under the repubs!! You're starting to look like a couple of the cops on some of the shooting threads. Bush praised the court decision for it's consideration, and MANDATE for "Diversity". (wiggle out of that!)
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 3:56:09 PM EDT
Well, cousin Riky, I can't seem to get the "quote" function to function, so, let me clarify my post. It seems I made a broad generalization, then narrowed the focus at the end of said post. Let's lean more towards the former. As the years go by, I have seen a consistent watering-down of traditional conservative values amongst people who call themselves Republicans. This is also true for many elected types as well. Whereas very, very few Republicans in the not-so-recent past were NOT: 1. Fiscally Conservative 2. Morally Conservative 3. Intensely Pro-2nd Amendment 4. Intensely "America First" Now, it seems, many of today's Republicans feel it is their duty to warm up to the liberal agenda by disavowing the party's previous political territory. The way I see it, a "moderate Republican" is just another liberal, and there are alot of them around these days, rather than a few.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:11:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GreyGhost: I'm with you.I'd have voted for Pat Buchanon if I thought he had any chance at all.
View Quote
Funny you should mention that. Didja ever think he can't get elected 'cause he can't get YOUR vote?? [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:21:29 PM EDT
So what is the move, Libertarian? I'd vote Constitution Party but they seem to be as much in the Religious Right pocket as teh Republicans. I know voting Libertarian could mean a Democratic president, but I'm starting to see little difference between the two. It will take something drastic, like candidate Hillary to make me vote Republican "for a block."
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:22:03 PM EDT
We didn't vote for Gore because he was a part of the Clinton team, which means he was and is, a sneaky, lying, unethical piece of shit who thinks he and his followers can make better decisions about your life than you can. Additionally, he looks like he is badly constipated and could explode in a cloud of crap at any moment. Ok so Bush has done some stuff that many of us don't agree with at all. But damn, the very thought of Gore being in charge at the moment the US is attacked leaves me cold and afraid. Who knows what kind of cluster fuck Gore and his minions would have put together, but I'd bet that it would make any violation of our rights by Bush and Co pale in comparison. Until there is a viable third party option we sadly have only these two options to work with and right now most of the Democratic Party isn't an option if you value the 2nd Amendment at all.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:22:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2003 4:24:17 PM EDT by 95thFoot]
Originally Posted By Kar98:
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: At least with the Federal screeners the government will have more rigid testing and accountability.
View Quote
[LOL]
View Quote
Dat ol' [b]F[/b]ederal [b]A[/b]viation and [b]T[/b]ransportation [b]A[/b]gency for [b]S[/b]ecurity and [b]S[/b]creening done strike agin..... Famous words of screener in his previous job: "Do you want fries with that?" Famous words of screener in his next job after everybody figures out that FATASS is an utter boondoggle: "Do you want fries with that?" Go to Newark airport, for example- it's still the same ol' enormously fat women sitting behind the counter, drinking coffee, just like before 9/11- except now there are more of them, and now they are all on our dime. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:27:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Well, cousin Riky, I can't seem to get the "quote" function to function, so, let me clarify my post.
View Quote
I had trouble too, but got it on the 3rd try!! By our post times, I'd say, we were "Hitting it" [:D], at the same time!! Check it out.
It seems I made a broad generalization, then narrowed the focus at the end of said post. Let's lean more towards the former. As the years go by, I have seen a consistent watering-down of traditional conservative values amongst people who call themselves Republicans. This is also true for many elected types as well. Whereas very, very few Republicans in the not-so-recent past were NOT: 1. Fiscally Conservative 2. Morally Conservative 3. Intensely Pro-2nd Amendment 4. Intensely "America First" Now, it seems, many of today's Republicans feel it is their duty to warm up to the liberal agenda by disavowing the party's previous political territory. The way I see it, a "moderate Republican" is just another liberal, and there are alot of them around these days, rather than a few.
View Quote
Now, some here may say, Wobblin don't know shit, but if I recall, he is the [b]ONLY[/B] member here, who has held elective office, AS a repub, in a STATE LEGISLATURE, or higher office. How many of us have seen a "Conservative" repub run for office, win, then turn into Mr. united nations, (sen. Gordon Smith, R, OR)?? [:(!]
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:28:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2003 4:30:15 PM EDT by M4_Aiming_at_U]
Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
Originally Posted By Kar98:
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: At least with the Federal screeners the government will have more rigid testing and accountability.
View Quote
[LOL]
View Quote
[rolleyes]
View Quote
Yeah, you probably know firsthand since you have talked with these people and once worked with them for over a year. Oh wait, your basing the whole industry on one airport. I guess giving you my firsthand experience on the matter wouldn't mean much if you are on that level of thinking. I didn't say it was the answer to all the problems. I said it was a help. Get over yourself, would ya?
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:32:37 PM EDT
[img]http://www.wasserauto.de/img/bush_or_chimp.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:37:13 PM EDT
AT this point, I think I'm gonna vote for whatever expedites teh revolution, so that I can take part in it rather than watch it from my retirement home.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:37:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 4:55:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: So far our president has: Refused to secure our borders or address immigration issues. Supported the continuation of racism in the form of affirmative action. The supreme court today upheld affirmative action, presidential support likely factored in the 4-5 vote.
View Quote
Before you voted, didn't you notice that his favorite language is Spanish and his wife is of Spanish origin?
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 5:26:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2003 7:04:05 PM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: So what is the move, Libertarian? I'd vote Constitution Party but they seem to be as much in the Religious Right pocket as teh Republicans.
View Quote
Steyr, it's a matter of [b]Conscience[/b]. It's personal, AND, (for you so inclined), spiritual.
I know voting Libertarian could mean a Democratic president, but I'm starting to see little difference between the two.
View Quote
The "wool", is dropping from your eyes.
It will take something drastic, like candidate Hillary to make me vote Republican "for a block."
View Quote
Why????
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 5:31:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By GreyGhost: I'm with you.I'd have voted for Pat Buchanon if I thought he had any chance at all.
View Quote
Funny you should mention that. Didja ever think he can't get elected 'cause he can't get YOUR vote?? [rolleyes]
View Quote
Suscribe to "The American Conservative" When the revolution comes who will be the first one against the wall? (and for two points what am I paraphrasing?)
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 5:50:33 PM EDT
no politicain will ever seal the border with Mexico. it would be suicide for their career. i would rather bush be pres. than gore any day.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 6:03:23 PM EDT
Gore would still be seeking approval from the United Nations to begin limited military action in Afghanistan. Gore would mean a lot more money for gun dealers, Clinton sure encouraged a lot of buy before they are banned hysteria.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 6:06:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2003 7:08:28 PM EDT by VX]
[size=1]Quote:____________________ Christ, Why DIdn't We Just Vote For Gore? __________________________[/size=1] To Buy Time, To Spread the Truth to More People, To Organize More. Did you Really think Every thing was going to Be Okay, Once Bush was in Office. It Is only Evil In another Direction. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [size=1]^ Million Gun Freedom March on Washington July 4th, 2003. A Well-Regulated Militia Being Necessary To The... [url]www.Cures-not-wars.org/[/url] Truth Will Liberate Earth. [url]www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-master[/url]Allege 1993 feinstein/hci PRETEXT for TOTAL Gun Freedom Confiscation. [url]www.digitalAngel.net/[/url]Revelation 13:18 ID-GPS-MONEY [red]BAN[/red] Human Power Implant Micro-chip. Never Again, Never Forget -- Seek the Truth , Liberate Your Mind -- We Are At War[/size=1] FIXED BAYONETS -- FORWARD VX
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 6:08:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomholzer: I will vote to delete SWIRE'S avatar.
View Quote
I second the motion! That bitch makes me [puke]
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 6:31:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: ........in the Religious Right pocket as teh Republicans.
View Quote
Sorry, I missed this first time steyr. The "religious right", does NOT have the repubs in THEIR pocket, it's the other way around. That's the beauty of the deception.... (He who has ears)
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 6:56:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2003 7:29:29 PM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By TomJefferson: I've never voted for anyone in my life. [b]I VOTE AGAINST PEOPLE![/b]
View Quote
And, when will you vote FOR someone??? Are you ready to stand before God, and say I voted for the [b]"lessor of two Evils"!!??[/b] Does YOUR God ask for Personal Accountability???[}:D] Mine Does!!!
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 7:11:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fearlessrogue:
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By GreyGhost: I'm with you.I'd have voted for Pat Buchanon if I thought he had any chance at all.
View Quote
Funny you should mention that. Didja ever think he can't get elected 'cause he can't get YOUR vote?? [rolleyes]
View Quote
Suscribe to "The American Conservative" When the revolution comes who will be the first one against the wall? (and for two points what am I paraphrasing?)
View Quote
Never heard of the "American Conservative" scam. I don't get my ideas from magazines, or internet e-mail, I get 'em from History, and Human Nature. Thanks, anyhow....[:D]
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 7:11:47 PM EDT
Why don't all of you who keep bitching about Bush just vote for Dick Gephardt and he will just executive order our rights away? Yes I am not happy about everything Bush has done so far, but if you vote for someone in the same party as shumer, feinstein, Mccarthy, clinton, sharpton, kennedy, jackson, kery, daschle, pelosi, etc, you are either truly an asshole or are one of these make beleive SHTF types that talk shit about the second revolution.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 7:13:03 PM EDT
Steyr- first off, no one is going to convince me that you will leave one cent of Bush's tax savings on the table. You are as likely to buy us all a Barrett at cost. Second-Voting for Gore is not, and never will be an option. Third- I share your frustration with a lot of your points, but you can't expect GWB to change everything overnight. Affirmative action is instituted racism, it is deeply imbedded in our culture. Did the Administration argue for it? What is your source? The Federalization of the airport screeners was a stupid thing that forced me to change careers-but the public the media, and the government was clamoring for it. Not just GWB. He can't be all things to all people, but you gotta keep the faith until we can get a real conservative in office. Otherwise you just sound like one of the- "elect Gore, so we can get the revolution started" crowd
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 7:15:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Geez, rik, get a grip. Spending is up, tax revenue is down. That means Debt spending. Bush hasn't cut shit, govt is bigger, and has more Authority than ever under the repubs!! You're starting to look like a couple of the cops on some of the shooting threads. Bush praised the court decision for it's consideration, and MANDATE for "Diversity". (wiggle out of that!)
View Quote
You're the one trying to wiggle. You're moving the bar from the original points to try to make it look like I was mistaken, but you're merely dissembling. I didn't say Bush wasn't deficit spending. I said that he has cut taxes and that NO Republican president in recent memory has reduced spending. The whole argument was that Bush was changing the policy of the Republicans. I was pointing out how that was mistaken. And you, as usual, are trying to shore up your hopeless arguments by taking things out of their context. BTW, it doesn't mean shit what Bush said AFTER the Supreme Court decision...what Steyr said was that Bush influenced it BEFOREHAND. I have posted evidence that this was not true. Wiggle out of that.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 7:20:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Whereas very, very few Republicans in the not-so-recent past were NOT: 1. Fiscally Conservative 2. Morally Conservative 3. Intensely Pro-2nd Amendment 4. Intensely "America First" Now, it seems, many of today's Republicans feel it is their duty to warm up to the liberal agenda by disavowing the party's previous political territory. The way I see it, a "moderate Republican" is just another liberal, and there are alot of them around these days, rather than a few.
View Quote
Except of course that your original premise is wrong, which negates your conclusions. Your incorrect initial premises are: 1)that Bush is not morally conservative--actually, that charge is so ludicrous I am surprised you can type it with a straight face. 2)that Bush is not America first. Again, an absurd charge that flies in the face of the facts. 3)that most Republicans have been fiscal conservatives anytime since the 60s. Simply not true. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans isn't HOW MUCH they spend but WHERE they spend it. Your whole argument collapses because you build it on inaccuracies.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 7:22:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By GreyGhost: I'm with you.I'd have voted for Pat Buchanon if I thought he had any chance at all.
View Quote
Funny you should mention that. Didja ever think he can't get elected 'cause he can't get YOUR vote?? [rolleyes]
View Quote
If he did, he would be making the same absurd error that you are. You ignore the facts, Duncan. The fact is, even if EVERYONE who was as strongly pro-RKBA as the people here banded together with everyone else who would vote for Pat Buchanan, Buchanan would still lose badly. There simply aren't enough one-issue voters to sway a national election.
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 7:28:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hannah_Reitsch: [url]http://www.wasserauto.de/img/bush_or_chimp.jpg[/url]
View Quote
Hannah, that childish, juvenile drivel does nothing to make any argument you might have and just serves to make you look bad.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top