Posted on 12/30/2003 11:44:49 AM PST by GunsareOK
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:41:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.
It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes, and whether it will translate to damage at the polls in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Not in the least bit. All I wanted was an honest answer to my question. While there is information to be gained from the simple numbers, there is underlying variables that may or may not have an influence on the point that was (attempted) to be made.
If human resources includes social security (not sure what the off-budget part is about), then to get a true picture of increases soley responsible to President Bush's doing, one might want to correct for things such as an aging and longer living population.
My point was, and remains that there is much more to the information than a simple number. That number means something but is certainly isn't the whole story.
Qualify the "numbers" appropriately or expect them to be scrutinized - which is what I did.
Don't know, don't care. Maybe the link expired, or the author didn't like it being posted here or didn't like having it looked at with a critical eye, etc.
Not my concern actually.
They don't need to be shot. I don't think they even need to be prosecuted as long as their only crime was just being over here --- and they aren't prosecuted for that. Just give them a ride back home, let them go and try again ---- that's not the problem in my opinion. Too many are getting stolen and fraudulent documents, or they make it to a hospital and give birth so they can collect a welfare check. I'd rather see them get serious with those presenting stolen identities --- stop leading them to think they may be rewarded now with Social Security checks for doing that. It seems it would be easier to clean out the Social Security number databases and make sure the one who is using a number was issued a number. They guy making it over the border who finds himself raking leaves for $20 cash isn't really as bad as many of the others who also commit serious fraud.
You need to be advised that conservative and republican are not synonyms.
You should substitute republican for conservative in this statement of yours if you want to be accurate.
Regards
J.R..
But I will still vote for Bush...WHY!... no other reasonable choice even though theres other choices just not reasonable ones....
Hey dope IT'S THE SAME GUY!!!
Aren't you missing the ELEPHANT in the room with that question???
Who is "We?" Name ONE PRESIDENT that that particular "We" has ever put in office?
I'll wait.
O-L: Hey dope IT'S THE SAME GUY!!!
LOL! So, you’re telling us that if a governor (like Bush, or Clinton, or Dean ;>) is elected President, his 2nd Amendment policies are guaranteed to remain identical to his policies as Governor? Just because he’s “THE SAME GUY?”
From your “liberal website” quote in Post #442:
”Bush claimed to support background check requirements for unlicensed dealers at gun shows, but... claimed the federal government should solve the gun show problem...”
Tell us about the so-called “gun show problem.” According to you, Governor Bush thought "unlicensed dealers" (a 'fringe left' term for 'law abiding citizens' ;>) should be subjected to "background check" requirements, and that the “federal government should solve” the problem. Has President Bush actually done anything in that regard? Does a problem even exist? Are you a complete idiot, or just clueless when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues and party politics?
;>)
Do you have a link to verify that data?
I'm not a big one on playing games with this kind of stuff. My position is well known to "politicians" through various channels.
I also place less stock in individual issues than I do on the larger picture. I would not vote for a candidate that promised to enact my exact solution to my personally most important issue if the other 200 issues I care about are being tanked in the process.
I also don't think my opinion on the AWB is any surprise to the Administration. If (we have to remember it hasn't happened yet) an extension is signed into law swithing (even conservative) Presidents won't make all that much of a difference. The list of failures to get to that point is too long to place the blame on one individual (even if they have a veto pen).
Congress shouldn't be passing such bills, the President shouldn't be signing them into law, and if the first two checks and balances don't work the courts certainly should be protecting our Constitutional rights.
The reality of the situation is all three checks are failing the Constitution right now. The only way to really fix the problem is with a team that requires victories in all three branches. Restoring courts that respect the Constitution takes time. Populating a Congress willing to do the same takes a great deal of effort also.
But in the end, a President who veto's gun ban legislation can still be over ridden, the courts can still say it is Constitutional, and the law still goes into effect.
We have problems to fix, I just think it will take time and effort. I also expect setbacks throughout the process. But in my opinion the only long term solution to restoring our rights is through continuous expansion of conservative values in all branches of government.
Otherwise all we get is more of this see-saw crap where the laws flop back and forth, better and worse while making no progress. And when that happens the gun banners win because they can continue to expend their efforts on offensive actions instead of being forced into the unproductive defensive or rolled out of consideration all together.
Anyway, hope you are having a good start to the new year.
While I am grateful for President Bush to stop one form of infanticide, I am disappointed that he has not pursued defending the unborn from murder in other procedures.
FYI, Michael Peroutka is the leading candidate for the Constitution Party nomination.
But the psuedo-cons are getting stiffys over Dean who does not support arming pilots or protecting manufacturers and does support extending the AWB.
Rational thinkers can clearly see Dubya as a better choice for RKBA fans, but because Dubya has said he will sign legislation if it passes the Republican controlled House and Senate he is branded as a traitor by the far right nuts.
LOL! So, you’re telling us that if a governor (like Bush, or Clinton, or Dean ;>) is elected President, his 2nd Amendment policies are guaranteed to remain identical to his policies as Governor? Just because he’s “THE SAME GUY?”
Yes Madam Cleo, I think people should be judged by previous behavior and not by what MIGHT happen in the future.
And 'far left fringe party hacks' never answer simple questions:
"Tell us about the so-called 'gun show problem.' According to you, Governor Bush thought 'unlicensed dealers' (a 'fringe left' term for 'law abiding citizens' ;>) should be subjected to 'background check' requirements, and that the 'federal government should solve' the problem. Has President Bush actually done anything in that regard?"
You posted it - answer the question.
"Does a [gun show] problem even exist?"
You posted it, my left fringe friend: answer the question.
As for "previous behavior," that now includes the President's promise to sign an extension of the Clinton 'assault weapons' ban, if Congress sends it to him. You have two choices:
1) Mr. Bush meant what he said, and is therefore no better than Clinton when it comes to the phoney 'assault weapons' issue; or
2) Mr. Bush was 'playing politics,' and said he would sign the bill even though he really wouldn't.
Which is it, "Madam Cleo?" Please be specific.
;>)
And therein lies the problem. More and more, I hear from the right that it feels betrayed by Bush, and I think they are correct. I won't vote for 'Socialism Lite', no matter who is running against Bush. With "conservatives" like Bush, who needs Democrats?
Your definition of 'conservative' leaves a lot to be disired.
The courts? Dream on...
The reality of the situation is all three checks are failing the Constitution right now. The only way to really fix the problem is with a team that requires victories in all three branches. Restoring courts that respect the Constitution takes time. Populating a Congress willing to do the same takes a great deal of effort also.
True.
But in the end, a President who veto's gun ban legislation can still be over ridden...
Give me a f@cking break! You do the math - are you honestly suggesting that there are enough anti-constitution votes in Congress to over ride Mr. Bush's veto? Is that what you are really saying? If so, the Republican Party is "toast"...
We have problems to fix, I just think it will take time and effort. I also expect setbacks throughout the process. But in my opinion the only long term solution to restoring our rights is through continuous expansion of conservative values in all branches of government.
The "continuous expansion of conservative values in all branches of government" does NOT include signing bills that should be - and can be - vetoed. Ignoring the President's veto power is just plain "stoopid"...
Anyway, hope you are having a good start to the new year.
As good as can be expected. And as I'm sure you know, we agree on more than we disagree - 'Happy New Year' to you, my friend!
;>)
In the RadioLiberty interview on Decemember 15, he said that his campaign page would be up soon, but I haven't seen it yet.
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.