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 ...
We can't all live in Never Never Land as you clearly do. You're not a conservative though. That much is very clear.
Judging by Dubya's past 3 years in office the answer is no. Dubya has proposed nothing to stop gun shows as President.
You posted it, my left fringe friend: answer the question.
I'm pro-life, Pro-RKBA, for taxcuts, for a strong military, and for free trade. I just think there are common sense approaches to solving the problems in the world that don't include erecting a 15 foot fence around our borders, shooting abortion doctors, or blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah building. Extremism in the pursuit of liberty invites a backlash like President Johnson. Johnson is Goldwater's legacy and the Great Society is the legacy of people on the far right fringe. They look at one statement about signing an AWB that will never pass a Republican controlled congress and forget about taxcuts, military victories, and abortion restriction. Then they say really stupid things when they are faced with a choice of Dean or Dubya like "what precisely would be the difference?" These people are my enemy because they are fighting on the side of the leftists all while fooling real conservatives and even themselves into believing they are on the side of Right. They are like little children who say "I don't want SOME, I WANT IT ALL, and if I can't have it all, I want NONE."
There are some conservative who are concerned about RKBA and felons buying guns. Do you think Americans should have any limits on buying weapon? Some far right fringers say no even to the point of nuclear weapons...after all "the Gubmint has 'em. I got my rights in the 2nd ammendment to defend myself from the tyranical gubmint!" Do felons have a right to fear the tyranical gubmint? Maybe they should be armed too? If you do have limits on arms then you are no better than Dubya and 98% of Americans...It is just a matter of degree. Tell me please how strongly you support the 2nd Ammendment.
2) Mr. Bush was 'playing politics,' and said he would sign the bill even though he really wouldn't.
I'm going with 2 Einstein. In fact I'm very proud of the job Dubya has done "playing politics." Nobody does it better than Dubya and it has paid off in some great changes for America IMO.
All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu's Art of War
It is strategery. Can you immagine a general on the battlefield telling his opponents how he was going to kill them? That is what many far right fringers expect from their representatives. Until Jesus comes back and runs for office the far right fringers will lose election after election because their standards for support are too high for mere humans. I guess they will just have to pine for goldwater or (snicker) write in Tom Tancredo.
If Dubya said "I will not pass an extension of the AWB EVEN if my own party passes it," he would be pounded with it day after day. Now he can say "I'm willing to sign it if Congress decides it is a necessary." When Dubya says he will sign a law that will never pass it cancels some of the votes the rats might get from moron centrist voters. The rats do the same thing...take Howard Dean for instance. Howard will tell you he is for more taxes, a weaker military, gay rights, affirmative action, socialized medicine, but he says he would only support an AWB and no more than that...can you believe that some knuckle-headed far right fringers are considering voting for Dean because they are too stupid to discern a difference between Dean and Dubya? Neither can I.
Be careful... this kind of logic might get you into big trouble around FR.
O-L: Judging by Dubya's past 3 years in office the answer is no. Dubya has proposed nothing to stop gun shows as President.
A few points:
1) Why do you need “Dubya's past 3 years in office” to judge whether a “gun show problem” exists? Do the facts of the matter somehow depend on Dubya's ‘proposals?’
2) If the facts do depend on Dubya's ‘proposals,’ why are you suddenly ignoring what Dubyah proposed as governor? After all, “dope,” “IT'S THE SAME GUY!!!”
3) Your Post #442 states: “Bush claimed the federal government should solve the gun show problem… [ Houston Chronicle, 4/27/99; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 5/22/99 ]” Did the “gun show problem” exist in 1999, and magically disappear by 2001?
They’re simple questions – even you should be able to cobble together relevant answers.
WIJG: You posted it, my left fringe friend: answer the question.
O-L: I'm pro-life, Pro-RKBA, for taxcuts, for a strong military, and for free trade… [blah, blah, blah…]
You really should learn to read – I didn’t ask for your biography, or your ‘enemies’ list.
I just think there are common sense approaches to solving the problems in the world that don't include erecting a 15 foot fence around our borders, shooting abortion doctors, or blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah building. Extremism in the pursuit of liberty invites a backlash…
You actually equate objecting to an unconstitutional law with murder, mass murder, and terrorism? “Hey dope:” the ‘assault weapons’ ban fails to satisfy even the restrictive standards established by the Supreme Court in US v Miller - it’s blatantly unconstitutional. If there is any “extremism” around here, it emanates from air-heads like you – and if there’s any “backlash,” it is no doubt generated by extremist bullsh!t like your suggestion that 'protesting = murder’…
Then they say really stupid things when they are faced with a choice of Dean or Dubya like "what precisely would be the difference?"
If you had bothered (or been able ;>) to read, you would know that the comparison was between laws, not candidates:
!1776!: The libs version [of the ‘assault weapon’ ban] would be much worse.
Really? We'll see if Mr. Bush signs an extension of the 'assault weapons' ban. If it's as bad as (or worse than ;>) the original 1994 "libs version," what precisely would be the difference?
398 posted on 12/30/2003 5:42:18 PM PST by Who is John Galt?
“You now know that you are ignorant”…
;>)
There are some conservative who are concerned about RKBA and felons buying guns.
So, now you’re saying that there IS a “gun show problem?” You just told us that “(j)udging by Dubya's past 3 years in office,” the problem doesn’t even “exist.” Which is it, “Madam Cleo?”
;>)
WIJG: [Or are you suggesting that] 2) Mr. Bush was 'playing politics,' and said he would sign the [‘assault weapons’] bill even though he really wouldn't.
O-L: I'm going with 2 Einstein.
So you’re telling us Mr. Bush is a liar? You sound like one of the Nine Dwarves! Personally, I would never suggest such a thing. A friend from West Texas sat down to lunch with Mr. Bush a while back, and tells me the President is an honest man. You apparently believe otherwise.
Until Jesus comes back and runs for office the far right fringers will lose election after election because their standards for support are too high for mere humans.
ROTFLMAO! ‘You can’t expect the President to tell the truth! You can’t expect him to honor the Constitution! Your standards are too high for mere humans! TOOO HIIIGH!!!’ You’re nothing but a de facto Clinton apologist! No wonder you whine so much about “far right fringers!” And it certainly explains the link in your Post #442 to the anti-Bush ‘hate’ site...
If Dubya said "I will not pass an extension of the AWB EVEN if my own party passes it," he would be pounded with it day after day.
“Hey dope:” why would he have to say that? Hmm? FWIW, if he did issue such a strange and unnecessary statement, and got “pounded” at all, it would be by only half of your ‘enemies’ list: the “leftists,” rather than “right fringe.” (Funny how your “enemy” supposedly includes both the “left” and the “right!” Guess that makes you ‘middle of the road’ - a “moron centrist voter”… ;>)
Now he can say "I'm willing to sign it if Congress decides it is a necessary."
“If Congress decides?” I thought Mr. Bush swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? (I guess your copy of the Constitution doesn’t include Article I, Section 7, Clause 2. What a shame… ;>) Looks like you consider him a ‘slave of Congress’...
When Dubya says he will sign a law that will never pass it cancels some of the votes the rats might get from moron centrist voters. The rats do the same thing...take Howard Dean for instance.
OUCH! Now you’re comparing Mr. Bush to - Howard Dean!?! Really? You were just telling us a few lines back how “really stupid” it is to compare the two men and suggest that they are similar. Here you suggest that Mr. Bush is a liar, and so is Howard Dean. You’re an amazingly obvious hypocrite, my friend.
...can you believe that some knuckle-headed far right fringers are considering voting for Dean because they are too stupid to discern a difference between Dean and Dubya?
Based on your written characterization of both Dubya and Dean as lying politicians, the “too stupid” label is just as applicable to you, “Einstein,” as it is to any other ‘knuckle-head’...
;>)
You called me left fringe I responded to that. Looks like it went over your head.
“Hey dope:” the ‘assault weapons’ ban fails to satisfy even the restrictive standards established by the Supreme Court in US v Miller - it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
It is the law of the land. I really don't care if it is unconstitutional in your opinion. I'm against abortion. I think it is unconstitutional but the SCOTUS doesn't care about my opinion either. The far right fringe always whines "it's unconstitutional"...it doesn't make a bit of difference...it is the law of the land. Unless you face reality you have no hope of changing reality.
ROTFLMAO! ‘You can’t expect the President to tell the truth! You can’t expect him to honor the Constitution! Your standards are too high for mere humans! TOOO HIIIGH!!!’ You’re nothing but a de facto Clinton apologist!
Deception is a tool for winning. Winning is not something a lot of far right fringers care about. I voted for Bush Sr and Dole. You are a Dean apologist.
Funny how your “enemy” supposedly includes both the “left” and the “right!”
Your not the right.
Looks like you consider him a ‘slave of Congress’...
He is a servant of the people
OUCH! Now you’re comparing Mr. Bush to - Howard Dean!?!
They are both men, and politicians. They both have 2 legs. They have many things in common. They have many differences. I can see those differences, you can not.
Thank You.
I don't think CFR was a good thing or even constitutional. Much like the Medicare drug give away and welfare reform the American voter wanted it. Clinton was smart enough to sign welfare reform, Dubya is smarter than Clinton. The American people were lied to by the rats and the media and told they must have CFR. That is why CFR had bipartisan support. The American people demanded it from their President. If a Republican or a Democrat has to sign CFR then let it be Dubya.
I am a manager of people. I never fault my workers for doing what I tell them to do. I can not fault Dubya for doing what the American people want done. The people get the government they deserve. Thankfully CFR hurts the rats more than the Republicans.
I'd say that if Madison or Jefferson were alive they would have kicked GWB's ass around the oval office for not vetoing that bill.
Madison and Jefferson should be kicking themselves in the ass. They did a great job creating a constitution but when the gave the House 2 year terms, the President 4 year terms, the Senate 6 year terms, and the SCOTUS life terms, they ensured that the men who interpret the constitution would have ultimate power. The constitution is practically useless, unless the American people want to protect it. The American people don't seem concerned about it. Too bad...so sad. I didn't make it that way, I just am willing to admit reality.
I've been very disappointed in President Bush. Can you make me feel better and name a few conservative things he has done since he took office.
The ban of partial-birth abortion is the only thing I can think of.
No one should ever trust a Democrat on National Security, that alone is enough to vote Republican each and every time.
The conservative base learned in '92 all too well about what a third party vote accomplishes. It gave Clinton a victory with a record low popular vote of 46%.
The majority of conservatives do not agree with the extreme right and their "Fall-on-their swords" illogic.
Pat Buchannan's massive 1% of the vote, proves that the fringe right is irrelevant and will also be that way again this election.
It will be president Bush in a "RED TIDE" landslide!
Killing terrorists and starting a mission to change the Middle East in a move that was nearly impossible to pull off politically, one that nearly the entire world was rabidly against him on, but one that was unbelievably long-overdue and will end up being one of the most world-changing moves (for the better) in history. It simply would not have ever happened had GWB not been elected President, yet it very simply means the survival of the free, Western world, probably even moreso than Churchill's stand against Naziism did. This cannot be overstated. Increases in Medicare spending are so unbelievably, incomprehensibly, ridiculously minor by comparison that if there is even a .00000001% chance that vetoing such a raise might jeapordize his re-election, that it is 100% imperative that he do so. This can be worked on later (as the privatization-increasing, Medical Savings Account provision of this bill will be later used to do).
Beyond this, Bush has nominated over 100 federal court judges that will limit legalized abortion, free up restrictions on churches, businesses, and a wide range of individual liberties. He has cut taxes three times leading to not only more money in Americans' pockets but a rapid boom in their 401ks and stock portfolios that they simply would not have had otherwise. He has played a huge role, as the most powerful person in the world, in advancing and continuing an on-going global boom in Christianity, most specifically in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the U.S. There are increasingly more reports from China of a boom in Christianity absolutely un-paralleled save for possibly within the 2nd Century Roman Empire. This is a boom spreading to all levels of the Chinese hierarchy that is already leading to more freedoms for Christians in China (though China has a long way to go of course) and threatening to radically change a government ruling over 1.6 billion human beings that has been a serious enemy of the US and American interests for over half a century and killed over 40,000,000 human beings in the span of a few years just a few decades ago. And the 70 million Chinese Christians (as well as persecuted Africans, Cubans, freedom-loving Arabs, and dozens of millions of pro-US people being oppressed around the world) believe GWB is something just short of divine. (Try living as a Christian trapped inside a 3rd world tyranny and this might make more sense, if it doesn't already.) This is an unrivaled build up of support for American interests (i.e. its safety, success, etc.) from people that will very likely have a huge say in America's well-being (and the well-being of its allies) in the future.
Bush has also prevented a further increase in restrictions on gun owners (besides the judges of his that will be fighting to roll back restrictions on them). He has repeatedly battled and spoken out against the teachers' unions and labor unions to protect American children trapped in federally-hijacked schools and workers trapped in union-hijacked industries, respectively. He has increased the GOP's control at the Congressional and Senate levels, threatening to give conservatives more power to actually enact things Bush has wished to do but has been unable to do with a sharply-divided Congress and electorate, after only a couple more elections. He has strongly condemned the sweeping encroachment for support of the destruction of marriage within American courts and with another term will continue to appoint judges to work to keep this movement from spreading.
This list could go on for days. It is simply mind-boggling to think that even a handful of Americans calling themselves "conservative" would rather just let Howard Dean take his chances against George W. Bush without their support. I thank God that polls show that the malcontents at FR pretending to be "conservatives" (not saying you are of this group, of course) are very small in number actually. I know from personal experience combined with my travels as well as those of hundreds of friends of mine that the thanks to God for GWB from Chinese Christians, Cuban Christians, and most American Christians, makes mine look like a mere joke. For most of the first two groups, his re-election is literally a matter of life or death for their Earthly lives, and for the 3rd group, it's only slightly less so, thanks to being fortunate enough to already live in freedom. Freedom that GWB is currently sacrificing valuable years of his life to spread. (Consider that this was a guy that had absolutely no desire to do this (his wife and daughters even less so) and was perfectly content to own his baseball team and relax at the games every night for the rest of his life while raising his family in relative privacy, just a few years ago; yet he consented to getting into politics after years of prodding and begging from thousands of personal contacts of his (I am from Dallas and know many of these men and women); now he and his immediate family instead live lives completely laid bare to the harassment, mockery, vitriol, utter hatred, constant inspection, and complete evil of many of their now sworn enemies, both home and abroad).
So you say, "I've been very disappointed in President Bush."
I haven't.
Actually, I asked a simple question – you responded with what looked like a page out of your diary. “Looks like [my question] went over your head.”
It is the law of the land. I really don't care if it is unconstitutional in your opinion... The far right fringe always whines "it's unconstitutional"...it doesn't make a bit of difference...it is the law of the land. Unless you face reality you have no hope of changing reality.
Your ignorance is absolutely amazing. There’s a freeper who could be your philosophical ‘twin brother,’ who claims that it would be entirely “constitutional” for a D@mocrat-controlled Congress to appoint Hillary Clinton ‘Queen for Life,’ simply by passing a law to that effect. Until the high court ruled otherwise, he insists, we would all have to accept Queen Hillary as the “constitutional” head of government - no matter what the Constitution actually said.
Allow me to introduce a little “reality” into your equation: the Constitution (and laws made ‘in pursuance thereof’) is the “supreme law of the land.” And any law not made in pursuance of the Constitution is void. An unconstitutional law is not "the law of the land" - it is void. You seem to have discarded the idea of a written Constitution, accepting in its place an undefined ‘living document’ interpreted by judges. (Funny - that's the same theory pushed by the 'fringe left' and their activist judges... ;>)
WIJG: ROTFLMAO! ‘You can’t expect the President to tell the truth! You can’t expect him to honor the Constitution! Your standards are too high for mere humans! TOOO HIIIGH!!!’ You’re nothing but a de facto Clinton apologist!
O-L: Deception is a tool for winning. Winning is not something a lot of far right fringers care about.
In other words, you would ‘deceive’ the electorate, and apparently do anything else it takes as well, so long as your candidate wins? Thanks for proving my point – “You’re nothing but a de facto Clinton apologist!”
People like you nauseate me.
I voted for Bush Sr and Dole.
If we are to believe you, they apparently didn’t ‘deceive’ enough voters to win...
You are a Dean apologist.
Sorry, “Einstein,” wrong again! Questioning the constitutionality of the ‘assault weapons’ ban & campaign finance ‘reform’ hardly makes me “a Dean apologist.” You’re confusing me with the “left” side of your ‘enemies list’...
;>)
WIJG: Looks like you consider [President Bush] a ‘slave of Congress’...
O-L: He is a servant of the people
LOL! You just exposed the ‘fringe left’ foundation of your political philosophy, my friend. Chairman Mao was “a servant of the people.” President Bush is not. We live under a different form of government than the communist Chinese. If you doubt it, answer a simple question: does the President swear an oath to 'serve the people?' Or does he swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?
By the way, you were just suggesting a few lines above that the President should ‘deceive’ the people to win reelection. How exactly do you reconcile the idea of ‘deceiving’ the people with being a “servant of the people?” (Yet another schizophrenic aspect of your wild-@ss philosophy... ;>)
WIJG: OUCH! Now you’re comparing Mr. Bush to - Howard Dean!?!
O-L: They are both men, and politicians. They both have 2 legs. They have many things in common. They have many differences. I can see those differences, you can not.
Wrong again, “Madam Cleo.” You’re the one who lumps the two together – you’ve suggested, for example, that both Bush and Dean are liars. While Dean is quite obviously a liar, I have suggested that Mr. Bush is an honest man. (Maybe that’s how you define the “fringe right” – people who think Mr. Bush is an honest man? ;>)
I say the AWB is the law of the land...you say it is unconstitutional. You are not facing reality here. Next thing you'll be telling me is that abortion, gay sex, and federal tax dollars used to support PBS are "unconstitutional"...WHOOPADDIE DOO!!! What difference does your opinion make? The SCOTUS says none.
People like you nauseate me.
I didn’t ask for your biography, or your ‘enemies’ list.
President should ‘deceive’ the people to win reelection.
You're twisting my words. I said "Deception is a tool for winning," and I asked "Can you imagine a general on the battlefield telling his opponents how he was going to kill them?"
Dubya did not lie. He said he would sign a bill that he knew would not be passed. He did this to sidestep a divisive issue that would cost him votes. It is an intelligent thing to do. I should have known you would not understand ideas like strategy and tact. You twist my words to make them sound illogical. I don't know if this is intentional or you really don't understand simple concepts like portraying a negative in the best possible light, or holding your cards close to your chest (also called spin, and less than full disclosure.) Shocking as it may seem to a simple and naive man like yourself, politicians often try to mold public perception.
I am sorry I wasted my time correcting you. I have learned absolutely nothing from your exchanges and it is quite obvious it will take a better man than me to teach you anything. I tire of your posts and I see no point in continuing to read them. Respond if you must but don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.
I have also stated on this forum that the recent campaign finance “reform” law is palpably unconstitutional. You will no doubt disagree, suggesting that it is “the law of the land” – to which I can only respond: what part of “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” do you not understand?
You’ve substituted judicial opinions for a written Constitution. You are not, of course, sufficiently honest to admit it.
What difference does your opinion make?
That’s rather entertaining, coming from someone who posts nothing but unsubstantiated opinions and quotes from anti-Bush ‘hate’ sites.
;>)
WIJG: People like you nauseate me.
O-L: I didn’t ask for your biography, or your ‘enemies’ list.
LOL! I was merely commenting on your status as a de facto Clinton apologist. Obviously, ‘the truth hurts’...
;>)
WIJG: You were just suggesting a few lines above that the President should ‘deceive’ the people to win reelection.
O-L: You're twisting my words.
Really? We were discussing Mr. Bush’s promise to sign an extension of the ‘assault weapons’ ban. When I asked you if he really meant what he said, you suggested that he did not (that he had, in effect, lied). You subsequently began pontificating about the usefulness of deception for such purposes as gaining the support of “moron centrist voters.” It certainly appeared that your comments were related to Mr. Bush and his ‘assault weapons’ statement. If not, it wouldn’t be the first time you’ve posted completely irrelevant material.
;>)
Dubya did not lie. He said he would sign a bill that he knew would not be passed.
In Post #442 you criticized me (without factual basis, of course ;>) for blaming “Dubya for something he hasn't done (extended the AWB.).” But here you’re assuming that Congress will not extend the law in question – ‘you’re giving them credit for something they haven’t done yet.’ You really are a complete hypocrite.
;>)
He did this to sidestep a divisive issue that would cost him votes.
Really? Exactly how many more votes will this gain Mr. Bush, than it will lose for him? Do you know that ahead of the fact, as well? Kind of depends on whether Congress passes the extension, doesn’t it, “Madam Cleo?” Oh, sorry – we wouldn’t want to “blame” or credit anyone for “something he hasn't done”...
It is an intelligent thing to do. I should have known you would not understand ideas like strategy and tact. You twist my words to make them sound illogical.
ROTFLMAO! You’re statements are so inconsistent, and so dependent on hypocritical ‘double standards’ that you don’t need any help at all making “them sound illogical.”
I don't know if this is intentional or you really don't understand simple concepts like portraying a negative in the best possible light, or holding your cards close to your chest (also called spin, and less than full disclosure.)
Give me a break: if Mr. Bush had stated that he would consider whatever legislation Congress might pass, based ‘on its specific merits,’ that would be ‘holding his cards close to his chest.’ Announcing months before the election that he would sign an extension if it was offered to him only put unnecessary pressure on Republicans in Congress. It appears “you really don't understand simple concepts” like ‘passing the buck.’
Shocking as it may seem to a simple and naive man like yourself, politicians often try to mold public perception.
Certainly I understand it – and if I see someone like William Jefferson Clinton ‘lying through his teeth,’ I will say he is ‘lying through his teeth.’ “Shocking as it may seem,” I won’t defend his actions, citing “Sun Tzu's Art of War,” the benefits of deceiving “moron centrist voters,” and refer to the resulting agglomeration of bull sh!t as “spin,” or “less than full disclosure.” You, quite obviously, have different ‘standards’...
I am sorry I wasted my time correcting you.
LOL! You have yet to correct me regarding the facts. In actuality, I have repeatedly corrected YOU regarding your factual errors (see Posts #475, #508, etc. ;>).
I have learned absolutely nothing from your exchanges and it is quite obvious it will take a better man than me to teach you anything.
For once, a truthful statement! Your dependence upon opinion and hypocritical double standards no doubt prevent you from teaching just about anything to just about anybody – and qualifies just about anyone as “a better man than” you to ‘teach me anything’...
I tire of your posts and I see no point in continuing to read them. Respond if you must but don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.
Gosh, and I was still hoping you would answer questions 1 through 3 in Post #508...
;>)
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.