Posted on 04/12/2003 7:50:38 AM PDT by Mini-14
The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.
Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority of the NRA. Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Oh, Oh, the word has been spoken by someone who has never won an election and refuses to admit that political warfare is a component in modern America.
not his campaign promises. Oddly enough, you apparently think that this is the better choice, because political posturing is more important to you than Constitutional principles. Happily, I feel that the opposite is true... and I'm very glad that you are on the other side of this issue. That's usually a good sign
You keep on with your self flagellation, I guess it makes you feel important to bad mouth a President who is 1000 times better than Gore.
You also are a hopeless malcontent, IMO.
As we've said, he's been great overseas
Proposing a major tax cut
Care to explain how the budget grows by 20% in two years over Clinton's over-bloated atrocities = a cut?
Will sign a PBA ban
Will sign a bill protecting the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits
Those are Congress's victory. Just because he refuses to veto them doesn't mean he gets the glory. (Apparently, he won't veto much... after all, you would call that "acting like a dictator"!)
Pushing for drilling in ANWAR
Another domestic failure in the works. His pushing, during a "war that is all about oil", has done nothing to get the issue anywhere.
And on and on. Yep you are hopeless malcontnent in my book.
And you're a hopeless sycophant. We all knew this beforehand.
Probably true--and BUSH needs to remember that. It is us "litmus test" gun owners that provided his margin of victory against Gore. Hell, even Clinton acknowledges it.
Ummm, surely the war on terror didn't have anything to do with this, did it? You can't just crap money out, and there isn't enough time to trim the dead weight first.
If I am a sycophant to beleive that a second Bush term will be 1000 times better any democartic candidate, then so be it. I wear your label as a badge of honor.
You go ahead and wander the wilderness for perfection, since the beginning of time man has sought perfection and has never found it, because man is an imperfect being.
And that pretty much sums it up. Well put.
ROFL! I love it when you use the tactics of the Left. Attack the speaker rather than the thought. Once again, you revel in the methods of the Left, while insisting that you are on the Right. Too funny. Try addressing the point that he sworn an oath to prevent unConstitutional bills from passing his desk (aka "upholding the Constitution of the United States").
You keep on with your self flagellation,
You keep using dat word. I do not think it means what you think it means. /Inigo Montoya from the Princess Bride>
I guess it makes you feel important to bad mouth a President who is 1000 times better than Gore.
Ah, but once again, let us use your own analysis here. If he is 1000 times better than Gore based on principle alone, yet the political reality is that the country domestically gets virtually the same exact results, then what is the point of worrying about the principles? (This mirrors your argument that the political realities of bill-signing prevent you from worrying about the principled arguments on the Constitution: Pragmatism over Principle. So using your logic, I do not have to worry about not voting for GWB in the primaries or the general election!)
I'll give him MAJOR points if he can get them seated... but once again, he has shown that he is not up to the job of standing up to the Dems on domestic issues!
Sounds like GWB really *does* want to follow in his father's footsteps. During the campaign, he acknowledged that renewing this ban would be political suicide. Perhaps with the war going well, the White House figures this is a good time to comment on this, hoping to minimize criticism.
Bye, George.
Ummm, surely the war on terror didn't have anything to do with this, did it? You can't just crap money out, and there isn't enough time to trim the dead weight first.
That doesn't fly. If Clinton's $1.8T was bloated, then it was at least $100B too large. (I would at least doble that amount). The war has cost about $100B. Therefore, if Bush had a budget that spent more wisely and cut the waste, he would not have to increase it by a single penny, and STILL be able to pay for the war. He's increased it by $400B over a bloated amount... four times as much as the war. Increased spending on social programs accounts for the difference, not the war. (The war was not included in his first budget at all, by the way, and the increases were still there.)
What other things?
Thank you for the compliment. I guess this thread is a text book case of the old sayings, "cut off the nose, to spite the face, and seeing the forest for the trees".
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.