USA: "In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban "
- Thread starter cuchulainn
- Start date
- Status
Aw come on GG, you know as well as I do that politicians have to have their speech filtered.
I will tell you exactly what it does. It takes the wind out of the sails of the other side. It places congressional republicans on notice that they cannot try and curry political favor with those across the aisle by voting for this, the onus for its end is on them, which is where it should be. The president is a last place to stop to law, not the first place. It puts voters on notice that they need to put the right congress types in office, which they should know anyway but apparently do not. This last aspect also serves to provide Bush with a stronger majority, which will allow him to more easily put in good judges and pass worthwhile bills (tax issues for instance).
I didn’t say that. I said he is more supportive of the second amendment than any president we have had in many, many years.
Tamara
Senior Member
So in other words, he says he supports the assault weapons ban, but he doesn't really. I get it.
There's a word for people who say things that aren't true; it'll come to me in a minute...
There's a word for people who say things that aren't true; it'll come to me in a minute...
I know the word you’re looking for, its called a lawyer. Oops, no, that would be politician. Crap, no you must mean a guy on a date.
Look, I realize we all want a president that talks just like us and says what he means and means what he says, however it ain’t gonna happen in present day America. Until such a candidate comes along, I’ll continue to enjoy whatever little victories I can and continue to go beyond the “read my lips†crap that hasn’t happened in politics since before the turn of the last century. I suppose it is your prerogative to bury your head in the sand and bemoan the fact that he is a politician but until I see you running for office the complaint isn’t going to hold much water. Shoot, I bet you’d get at least the membership of THR to vote for you. You'd get mine.
Look, I realize we all want a president that talks just like us and says what he means and means what he says, however it ain’t gonna happen in present day America. Until such a candidate comes along, I’ll continue to enjoy whatever little victories I can and continue to go beyond the “read my lips†crap that hasn’t happened in politics since before the turn of the last century. I suppose it is your prerogative to bury your head in the sand and bemoan the fact that he is a politician but until I see you running for office the complaint isn’t going to hold much water. Shoot, I bet you’d get at least the membership of THR to vote for you. You'd get mine.
Thumper
Member
Whether or not it was the Prez's intention, what ahenry said is undeniably true...and isn't that good for our cause?
WonderNine
member
Unfortunately, there's alot of delusional people out there who are willing to support Bush no matter what he does. They want to keep believing the "Bush is a master politician" B.S. Rush Limbaugh keeps pushing on them.
Whatever happened to "When Bush says something, he means it."
What if the AWB extension passes by some miracle and then Bush will be forced to live up to his words.
What will you think of your hero then, compassionate conservatives?
Thumper
Member
By some miracle? Don't let the optimism of some of these boards fool you.
I EXPECT it to pass...if you aren't writing at least one hard copy letter a week to your congresscritters, you're part of the problem.
Let's take responsibility for this one, folks.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
On the one hand I can understand those claiming that Bush is just using a bit of subterfuge to pay lip service to the left on this issue.
On the other, words and actions mean things. Bush has said that he would support an extension on the ban. He supported the PATRIOT ACT, Total Information Awareness, and getting a DNA sample of every person arrested, nevermind whether or not you were convicted. Bush has not been very good for civil liberties.
For those of you who hear him say he will support a renewal of the ban, yet claim that he does not, I have a question:
How is it that you are coming to this conclusion? What form of clairvoyant insight do you have that the rest of us Doubting Thomases lack that makes you so sure?
Divining rod?
Crystal Ball?
Chicken Bones?
Ouija Board?
Magic 8 Ball?
I hope you'll forgive me if refusing to have blind faith in a politician is bad form.
On the other, words and actions mean things. Bush has said that he would support an extension on the ban. He supported the PATRIOT ACT, Total Information Awareness, and getting a DNA sample of every person arrested, nevermind whether or not you were convicted. Bush has not been very good for civil liberties.
For those of you who hear him say he will support a renewal of the ban, yet claim that he does not, I have a question:
How is it that you are coming to this conclusion? What form of clairvoyant insight do you have that the rest of us Doubting Thomases lack that makes you so sure?
Divining rod?
Crystal Ball?
Chicken Bones?
Ouija Board?
Magic 8 Ball?
I hope you'll forgive me if refusing to have blind faith in a politician is bad form.
Pendragon
Member
I have no doubt that he will sign it if it passes.
I dont think any of us are claiming that he will not.
I personally think that he is not that concerned with the gun issue either way - I think he considers it mostly noise in the light of recent events.
That said, I think he is giving those who oppose it a very clear line in the sand: you dont want the AWB, dont let it get to my desk.
Things are slowly swinging our way - they are not our way yet, but they are already less their way.
We will not make major headway with Bush - the best we can hope for is that he will get his jurists seated and then we can see more change, longer.
Baby steps - he is not great contributer to our cause, but I do not see him as going out of his way to hurt us either. Our challenge will be to help him help us as it were.
This is not an optimal situation, but it is the one we got, and we need to deal with reality.
In reality, he is better than Clinton, and better than his dad - we will see what happens the next couple years.
I guarantee you he is worlds better than anyone the Democrats will try to field.
I dont think any of us are claiming that he will not.
I personally think that he is not that concerned with the gun issue either way - I think he considers it mostly noise in the light of recent events.
That said, I think he is giving those who oppose it a very clear line in the sand: you dont want the AWB, dont let it get to my desk.
Things are slowly swinging our way - they are not our way yet, but they are already less their way.
We will not make major headway with Bush - the best we can hope for is that he will get his jurists seated and then we can see more change, longer.
Baby steps - he is not great contributer to our cause, but I do not see him as going out of his way to hurt us either. Our challenge will be to help him help us as it were.
This is not an optimal situation, but it is the one we got, and we need to deal with reality.
In reality, he is better than Clinton, and better than his dad - we will see what happens the next couple years.
I guarantee you he is worlds better than anyone the Democrats will try to field.
WonderNine
member
Jebus Crisp Pendragon, I think you've swallowed this whole right wing line hook line and sinker. G.W. signed campaign finance reform under overwhemling pressure from his party not to do so right? This is complete bollocks that you're spewing. He's not indifferent to AWB renewel in order to get his judges appointed. He knows very well that won't make a difference anyways. Honestly I believe he is for the renewal of the AWB.
Let me ask you, when have you ever seen Bush with a firearm other than a shotgun?
Let me ask you, when have you ever seen Bush with a firearm other than a shotgun?
WonderNine
member
Oh, I'm sorry, I have seen that you do in fact believe that shrubby will in fact renew the AWB. Never mind.
dog3
Member
AHenry;
No worries.
" I agree. However, once liberty is lost it can only be regained through slow and incremental steps or violent revolution. I�ll take the incremental approach over the bloody one any day."
Agreed indeed.
No worries.
" I agree. However, once liberty is lost it can only be regained through slow and incremental steps or violent revolution. I�ll take the incremental approach over the bloody one any day."
Agreed indeed.
Thumper
Member
That who will renew the AWB?
Blackhawk's right...some here need to brush up on their U.S. Government studies.
Maybe some Schoolhouse Rock will help.
Sing after me...
"I'm just a Bill, I am only a Bill, and I'm sittin' here on capitol hill..."
Justin Moore
Member
You left out:
The Farm Bill
Support for "Project SAFE Neighborhoods"
Where do they come up with these Orwellian titles like "Project SAFE Neighborhoods" and "The PATRIOT Act" anyway?
Glock Glockler
Member
Aaron,
If he simply said nothing, all of what you said would happen. Congress would have to deal with on their own just like they did with the first round of the campaign finance BS (which got reinvigorated due to Enron).
Also, if he said nothing, the issue would be that much less on people's minds, including the Ds, who might have let it slide quietly under the radar.
Gun control is on the ropes as an issue, the Ds know that it has cost them too much, so they are letting it lay low for the tme being. This is not the Clinton Administration, where they had the momentum in their direction. 911 served as a great wake-up call, as well as the mounting tide of empirical data against their nonsense.
Also, you are incorrect in that this will motivate voters to elect the right people cause that election already happened. It is the current crop of Congresscheisse that will determine if it dies. It is it reinstated by the new batch, there will already be a period of a few months with it effectively null, and inertia says that it's a lot harder to pass something not in effect than to repass something.
If Bush just shut his mouth we'd all be better off.
I also don't see why he is necessarily pro-RKBA, at all? So he signed a CCW bill in Texas, but was it politically feasable for him to do so?
Justin also summed up a fraction of the anti-freedom things he's done, so why does he believe in freedom on the gun issue?
I also don't see how tax cuts are such a great thing when combined with the out of control spending he's been doing. If you want to cut taxes, no arguement from me, but let's cut spending as well. You're familiar with deficit spending and the effects that the compound interest on that debt will have.
If he simply said nothing, all of what you said would happen. Congress would have to deal with on their own just like they did with the first round of the campaign finance BS (which got reinvigorated due to Enron).
Also, if he said nothing, the issue would be that much less on people's minds, including the Ds, who might have let it slide quietly under the radar.
Gun control is on the ropes as an issue, the Ds know that it has cost them too much, so they are letting it lay low for the tme being. This is not the Clinton Administration, where they had the momentum in their direction. 911 served as a great wake-up call, as well as the mounting tide of empirical data against their nonsense.
Also, you are incorrect in that this will motivate voters to elect the right people cause that election already happened. It is the current crop of Congresscheisse that will determine if it dies. It is it reinstated by the new batch, there will already be a period of a few months with it effectively null, and inertia says that it's a lot harder to pass something not in effect than to repass something.
If Bush just shut his mouth we'd all be better off.
I also don't see why he is necessarily pro-RKBA, at all? So he signed a CCW bill in Texas, but was it politically feasable for him to do so?
Justin also summed up a fraction of the anti-freedom things he's done, so why does he believe in freedom on the gun issue?
I also don't see how tax cuts are such a great thing when combined with the out of control spending he's been doing. If you want to cut taxes, no arguement from me, but let's cut spending as well. You're familiar with deficit spending and the effects that the compound interest on that debt will have.
You honestly believe that the Bradys or certain Democratic presidential candidates are going to keep quiet if President Bush does? That whole side of the fence thrives on the stampede that their fearmongering creates amongst the sheeple.
I'll take two of whatever you're having.
I'll take two of whatever you're having.
Divining Rod? Check.
Crystal Ball? Check.
Chicken Bones? By the bucket.
Ouija Board? Summoning Leonidas.
Magic 8 Ball? That piece of plastic crud is in the shop for frame "upgrade."
Nah. I am just a sneaky mofo doing some triangulating. To figure out a politician, you have to think like one, i.e., you have to have one eye on the polls and one eye on re-election and a whole host of people in your political spectrum playing the conciliator or the hammer as required. You look at how to best defuse the AWB against your re-election chances and you see where Pendragon and me are coming from. We know that we are members of a small and noisy minority, who if we had our druthers, would deregulate the keeping and bearing of all weapons. However we also acknowledge that that is not the world we live in. So we deal with the world as it is rather than rail against its "injustices."
If we can't get to where we want by cajoling or force, we have to get there incrementally using deception if we have to.
By the rules some play by here, I should ditch the cammo on my next deer hunt and carry a boombox with a tape loop saying "Look out Mr. Buck, I am coming for you with a scoped .308 Remington Model 700. You better watch out, for I intend to put you into my freezer!" Heck, Elmer Fudd tells it like it is too. Maybe he's a Libertarian?
You think I'd have anything to tag on that hunt? Same principle here. You want to put some spine into the people who really need to kill the AWB, announce that they cannot depend on you to knife it and take all of the heat nationally. Such a tactic will embolden the House Republicans while at the same time offer scant assistance to the ambitions of the antis.
It ain't blind faith, it's graduate level politics contrasted against tactics akin to those displayed before the local city council on CCTV where some plainspeakin' idjits at times seem to threaten people's lives because a sewer upgrade might result in an increased water/sewer assessment.
[edited for a misspelling]
Last edited:
Pendragon
Member
ROFLMAO: Boombox.
I swear we share the same brain.
I swear we share the same brain.
publius
Member
I think Congress will try to slip passage by in the middle of the night or some such thing, just like they do when they raise their pay. But they might decide to be really sneaky, and kill the AWB during the broad light of day, only to stick the pieces of it back into various bills that "have to pass." A bit goes in the farm boondoggle, at bit goes in the forest boondoggle, some in the transportation boondoggle, some in the next fatherland security boondoggle, etc.
Just thinking like a politician here...what would result in the least political damage with the most power gained by government? Well, we sell the folks on the idea that a series of tactical retreats is the path to victory, we manipulate heck out of everyone, then we dissolve the issue in a huge pool of money so no one can find it any more, then we do what we want.
Just thinking like a politician here...what would result in the least political damage with the most power gained by government? Well, we sell the folks on the idea that a series of tactical retreats is the path to victory, we manipulate heck out of everyone, then we dissolve the issue in a huge pool of money so no one can find it any more, then we do what we want.
hops
Member
Luv the boom-box analogy! I agree with Boats' views on this thread.
Pendragon
Member
Well, personally, I do not get uptight about congressional pay raises.
the thing about the raises is that pretty much all the congress people want more money, and they realize it is controversial - so they just do it.
The AWB is extremely divisive and if one side tried to do their deed under cover of darkness, the other side would not stand for it and would make much political hay over it.
This will definately become a big issue at some point but we want it off the radar as long as possbile so they cant come up with pics of Congressman Buck Hunter in a tutu with a man whore. Several of the votes for the original AWB were obtained in pretty much that way.
Hmmm...so it is ok if Bush votes anti-second amendment as long as he tells us so in advance? We can live with that you say? NOT! Look how close Bush came to losing to the idiot Gore last time and Bush had no "baggage". Now suppose the Dems smarten up enough to run a conservative Dem such as a Zell Miller. Now Bush has lost several southern states from the get go. Does Bush believe that he will make up for lost RKBA voters with the moderates that he will gain? Thats about as smart as the Repubs letting everyone from Mexico enter this country (as they have been doing) and thinking about all those votes they will be gaining. DUH! They won't be voting for YOU Shrub! Read this one thread and look at Bush's popularity fading. And this from mostly right wingers to the umpteen power right after the war has been won. Yes he is high in the polls presently but polls change day to day. Just ask Daddy.
Glock Glockler
Member
You honestly believe that the Bradys or certain Democratic presidential candidates are going to keep quiet if President Bush does? That whole side of the fence thrives on the stampede that their fearmongering creates amongst the sheeple
Why aren't they doing it now? Why not make the ban permanent right now instead of waiting before the election?
People are starting to wake up to the notion of gun control being a sham, and the Ds know that it has been costing them serious votes, so I don't think they're going to make a big stink about it before the election, especially if they're struggling to retake ground in the legislature, as they need to sway as many swing voters who might be otherwise inclined to vote R.
When you percieve them to be more powerful and threatening then they are, you actually make them more powerful.
I'm tired of being on the defensive, I say 'let them take the defensive'.
Why aren't they doing it now? Why not make the ban permanent right now instead of waiting before the election?
People are starting to wake up to the notion of gun control being a sham, and the Ds know that it has been costing them serious votes, so I don't think they're going to make a big stink about it before the election, especially if they're struggling to retake ground in the legislature, as they need to sway as many swing voters who might be otherwise inclined to vote R.
When you percieve them to be more powerful and threatening then they are, you actually make them more powerful.
I'm tired of being on the defensive, I say 'let them take the defensive'.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked