Is this conservative? I appreciate your efforts in battling the soccer mom contingent of the new republican party. Good luck.
Posted on 05/14/2003 2:32:06 PM PDT by Godebert
By JIM ABRAMS
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -
President Bush should take the lead in overcoming resistance within his own party to extending an assault weapons ban due to expire next year, Democrats said Wednesday.
"If the bill dies we will lay it at the president's doorstep," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said a day after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters that the 1994 law banning the manufacture of 19 types of common military-style assault weapons would not be renewed.
Schumer said the gun bill would be an issue in the 2004 election, a development that could pose problems for Democrats who represent districts with strong gun rights sentiment. The assault ban vote was also a campaign topic in 1994, the year Republicans recaptured the House after spending 40 years in the minority.
Bush, taking a position at odds with the National Rifle Association, has voiced support for extending the ban, and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer on Wednesday said that support would carry weight in Congress.
"This is a matter that the House has to work out, of course, by listening to the will of its members, but the president's position is clear on it," Fleischer said. "When the president states his position like that, it helps get the message to the Congress."
Fleischer would not say whether Bush would pressure DeLay to bring such a bill up for a vote. DeLay, R-Texas, on Tuesday indicated that there would be no effort to renew the current law before it expires on Sept. 13, 2004. "The votes in the House are not there to reauthorize it," he said.
"The real question is will the president weigh in and ask the leaders to schedule a vote," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who as a senior adviser to President Clinton played a key role in guiding the 1994 legislation through Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
I do. I can read. I can think. I have observed history unfolding for a longer time than you.
You prefer to ignore facts.
You do this magnificently. You don't even know that the Constitution authorized the government to exist and limits its powers to what the citizens specify. The Constitution is not an instrument that the government used to grant rights to the People. Is this bile to which you are referring below?
You prefer to steep your soul in bile until you poison all you come in contact with.
You are a liberal, but just don't know it. They like to make personal attacks when their arguments are refuted. I'm not using blackmail. I am using the power of the vote as it was intended. That vote must be leveraged the best it can, its the only tiny rudder I have on this Grand Ship of State.
Why do young females attack the person rather than argue the facts? You even stated that you refuse to converse in fact yet are anxious to get your "next blow in" without understanding what you have read. You don't even know the Principles on which this Nation was founded. Worse than that, you dizzy girl, I haven't berrated GWB at all on this thread. I have been addressing the lack of Constitutional understanding shown by our congresscritters and GWB related to the "Rigt to keep and bear arms". More bile, or upholding my oath to defend the Constitution?
Is this conservative? I appreciate your efforts in battling the soccer mom contingent of the new republican party. Good luck.
Looks like those terrorist weren't quite as shocked, awed and gobsmacked as you thought Missy. Why don't you head to the kitchen and fix your hubby something nice to eat.
Bombs kill at least 40 in Casablanca (Al Qaida suspsected)
MSNBC.COM ^ | 5/17/03 | MSNBC AND NBC NEWS
CASABLANCA, Morocco, May 17 — A series of suicide bombings rocked the Moroccan city of Casablanca Friday night, U.S. and Moroccan officials said. At least 40 people were killed and 100 others injured in the attacks, which bore many of the hallmarks of an al-Qaida operation. At least one of the suicide bombers may have survived and may be in Moroccan authorities’ custody, senior administration sources told NBC News.
He made a mistake. He should have capitalized it. Here you go:
But I guess we just didn't understand that brillant strategy. Could you explain it again, please? And type slowly.
*snicker* If you can't argue the message, denigrate the messenger?
Looks like those terrorist weren't quite as shocked, awed and gobsmacked as you thought Missy. Why don't you head to the kitchen and fix your hubby something nice to eat.
Bombs kill at least 40 in Casablanca (Al Qaida suspsected)
Now, from the same article:
A Moroccan official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there were probably foreigners among the victims. U.S. officials said they did not believe any Americans were among the dead or injured...Speaking on Moroccan television, Sahel said 10 of the dead were the bombers....Most of the victims were Moroccans, he said.
First of all, they don't seem to have been targeting Americans. Perhaps this is a change in strategy - that remains to be seen.
Secondly, I've already said there would probably be more terrorist attacks, and that if they could be easily stopped, Israel wouldn't have any.
I think all the dead American's that were killed just the other day in Saudi Arabia would disagree with you. Hehehe.
Now go on and makes something yummy for your hubby.
Will you stop that, please? I don't see her addressing you that way. (I'm sure it must be tempting - and you have left her several openings. She apparently has more confidence in her ability to debate without being condescending than you have in your own. Good for her.)
Your post was referring to the Moroccan bombing, not the Saudi one. The Saudi one could be targeting Americans, or it could be an attempt to embarrass/harm the Saudi government. Or both.
Now go on and makes something yummy for your hubby.
Do you really think this adds weight to your arguments? You've been around here long enough to know that resorting to personal attacks means you've lost.
The other thing is, such remarks give the impression that you have a really low opinion of women, which makes it appear that the women you know best (wife, mother, sisters, daughters) are either shallow, stupid, or both. I really hope you didn't mean to give that impression.
So you have presented the theory that the terrorist may be changing their strategy and may no longer targeting American's?
Do you really believe this is possible?
If you really think this could be true, why would they do this Missy? In addition, why would they be trying to embarrass the Saudi government? And why do you think American's may no longer be targeted by terrorist even though many American's were just killed in SA?
As I said, this sort of name calling gives the impression that you have a really low opinion of women, which makes it appear that the women you know best (wife, mother, sisters, daughters) are either shallow, stupid, or both.
Do you REALLY mean to give that impression?
And you didn't answer my last response to you.....But that's OK, I know it was a tough one.
"Missy" is a diminutive, and it's condescending. The people who want your money might be willing to put up with it to make the sale.
And you didn't answer my last response to you.....But that's OK, I know it was a tough one.
Your last question, I believe, was:
So you have presented the theory that the terrorist may be changing their strategy and may no longer targeting American's?Remember my original comment was as follows:Do you really believe this is possible?
If you really think this could be true, why would they do this Missy? In addition, why would they be trying to embarrass the Saudi government? And why do you think American's may no longer be targeted by terrorist even though many American's were just killed in SA?
No one has said the war against terrorism would be short or easy, and no one has said it's over.The attack in Saudi Arabia the other day was terrible, and I doubt it will be the last. If terrorist attacks were easy to stop, Israel wouldn't still be suffering from them.
However, the speed of our invasion of Iraq does now have the Arab world in 'shock and awe'....some of the fundamentalists believe that Allah grants the victory to those he favors - and the quick defeat of Iraq has them gobsmacked.
That part of the world respects force. During the Clinton years, we made ourselves victims - the terrorists attacked, and our retaliation was weak or non-existant. Now we've shown we will not take the terrorist actions lying down.
They may not like us any better, but I'd bet they are rethinking their strategies.
I was referring not only to the terrorists, but to the "Arab street" being shocked and awed. I think it's possible that these most recent attacks are attempts by the terrorists to show that they are still there and still relevant.
We know that al-Qaeda was upset with the Saudi government for allowing us to base troops there and stage attacks from there. They may still be upset at the American presence there.
If the Moroccan attack was targeting Americans, it seems to have been a failure.
However, none of that really has anything to do with the topic of this thread, does it?
I have observed that few congresscritters and few citizens understand the Constitution. This is not just a problem local to my critters. The problem is much more wide-spread than that. Even on this thread there are those who tell me they don't know the voting record of their represenatives, but intend to vote for them neverless. Is that responsible?
The lack of knowledge displayed by the average American in the Founding Principles of this Nation is anything but a local problem. Just because the majority believes, thinks, acts, or even votes one way or another doesn't doen't mean it is right. "What is right" is not subject to majority rule. If the majority fails to adhere to "what is right", then the fault must lie with the majority. Surely you have observed that in your own life by now.
The Bill of Rights is not subject to a majority vote. It is an absolute measure of individual freedom. Undereducated Americans have allowed Constitutional issues to become subject to the whims of Congress. The Founders warned of this time and again.
If this Nation is to survive, the government must be kept compliant to the restrictions dictated by the Constitution. Never forget that this is a Nation "By the People and for the People". It is the responsibility of the citizen to preserve Constitutional rule. The natural tendency of the "governors" is to take charge of people right down to the last detail. American citizens have traded away rights for pretense of security. There is no government in history that has taken away citizens rights in bad times only to restore them in better times. Governments govern. Let us be sure this government stays in the hands of the citizens. There are some really bad laws on the books; and, some of the worst come from the present Administration.
Please! Don't take my word for this. Go read the Founding Documents including the "Federalist Papers" and perhaps "The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson". Don't forget Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry. If you are under the illusion that "those dead guys" couldn't possibly write anything pertinent to today, you are in for a shock. These are works of philosophy, not "cookbooks" for running law and government. Those writings are timeless.
Much of this material is on the internet. If you read this stuff, you will become a better Republican and, more importantly, a better American. This Nation is founded like no other, and we are losing it out of ignorance.
I forgot to paste this one in for a response in my last post. We did see a change, and it was very heartening. The problem is that the Pubs are trying really hard to emulate Dems in order to retain the voting edge. What they are overlooking is that they were placed into office by their own "silent majority" that doesn't vote until things look really desperate. If those people believe that this Administration is cold to their strong beliefs, they will just stay at home next time.
If you add the "Bush the Senior" vote to the "Perot vote", you see roughly the same numbers. The Pubs aren't going to get many swing Dem votes, Mexican votes, or Black votes. But they do stand to lose the "silent majority". I'm doing all of my ranting and raving in the hopes that the Pubs will pay attention so as not to lose the "silent majority".
Most people forget what "Conservatism" really means. It is "Constitutional Conservatism", as in retaining the old tried-and-true Republic. In this day and age, only the Libertarians and the Constitution Party practice that brand. It is my hope that the Pubs will make some moves to provide an umbrella for those folks ... the "silent majority".
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.