Is Bush signing away your constitutional rights?

[Almighty Colin]

Bush is likely going to sign new legislation extending the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons for ten years. The NRA's not happy. Senate Democrats are. So here the Republican president and many Democratic senators are in agreement.

Will this hurt Bush in the elections with the "NRA Vote"?

Do you agree or disagree with the banning of semiautomatic assault weapons? The US founding fathers were quite clearly concerned that one has the right to bear arms to defend oneself against one's own government. As Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." But are we well beyond this now? In what way does the average citizen have any hope of facing the US Army even WITH semi-automatic weapons?

[JR]

sure he is "signing away our rights"

so was:

George Washington (1789-1797)
John Adams (1797-1801)
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
James Madison (1809-1817)
James Monroe (1817-1825)
John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
William Henry Harrison (1841)
John Tyler (1841-1845)
James K. Polk (1845-1849)
Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
James Buchanan (1857-1861)
Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881)
James A. Garfield (1881)
Chester Arthur (1881-1885)
Grover Cleveland (1885-1889)
Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
Grover Cleveland (1893-1897)
William McKinley (1897-1901)
Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
William Howard Taft (1909-1913)
Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
Harry S Truman (1945-1953)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)
Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
George Bush (1989-1993)
Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
George W. Bush (2001- )

wow. Millard? Chester? Grover? Herbert? Ulyssis? i guess the first thing that went through the minds of these parents was not "i should be careful in choosing a name because my kid might be president some day"

i had no idea we had a president named Millard Fillmore or Martin Van Buren. :( I blame public schools.

[Almighty Colin]

It would be interesting if someone would design a presidential comparison scale and make a "most similar presidencies" list.

Who is Bush similar to? Teddy Roosevelt?

[RawAlex]

43 is like 41. repeat almost to the day.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 8 2003, 08:13 AM
43 is like 41. repeat almost to the day.

Alex
Hi Alex,

Besides the war in Iraq and the same last name, what else did their policies/actions have in common?

Bush I raised taxes. Bush II cut them.

Bush I fought a re-active war in Iraq. Bush II fought a pre-emptive war in Iraq.

Bush I's administration drafted NAFTA. Bush II placed protectionist tariffs on steel.

Bush I banned mining and oil drilling the Antarctic. Bush II supports drilling in ANWR.

Bush I signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Bush II is building a new generation of nuclear weapons.

[Mike AI]

I think Bush is wrong on this. I think he is a political thing for him, he knows NRA votes are not going anywhere ( who are they going to support Kerry? ) It is like the democrats always screwing blacks - they know blacks will not vote for republicans so they take them for granted.

While Bush is wrong on this issue, he is not like is father.... Bush 43 is much more Conservative and a better leader then his father...

[Almighty Colin]

A recent survey of 78 historians, political scholars, and law scholars gave the following results for presidential greatness

1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. Roosevelt
4. Jefferson
5. Teddy Roosevelt
6. Andrew Jackson
7. Harry Truman
8. Ronald Reagan
9. Eisenhower
10. James Polk
11. Woodrow Wilson

The worst were

39 James Buchanan
38 Warren Harding
37 Franklin Pierce
36 Andrew Johnson
35 JR's favorite Millard Fillmore
34 Richard Nixon

Bush I and Clinton both were in the average category.

Most controversial presidents were Clinton, Wilson, Reagan, Nixon, and LBJ.

[Almighty Colin]

This is interesting.

http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/

[Mike AI]

This is a VERY solid top 10, not sure I can argue with excluding any of them.

1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. Roosevelt
4. Jefferson
5. Teddy Roosevelt
6. Andrew Jackson
7. Harry Truman
8. Ronald Reagan
9. Eisenhower
10. James Polk

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 8 2003, 11:12 AM
This is a VERY solid top 10, not sure I can argue with excluding any of them.

1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. Roosevelt
4. Jefferson
5. Teddy Roosevelt
6. Andrew Jackson
7. Harry Truman
8. Ronald Reagan
9. Eisenhower
10. James Polk
Yeah, one can only nitpick it really. I'm not so sure about Eisenhower. :unsure:

Madison wasn't top 10. I think James Madison is one of the greatest/most influential men that was president but his greatness stems more from being a congressman than in his role as president.

If LBJ didn't have Vietnam to his name I think he'd be close.

[RawAlex]

Colin, you cannot day for day compare a presidency.

However, both Bush presidents have shown that they are very tough on foreign policy, and not that hot on the home front. Both has prosecuted a popular foreign war. Now it looks like junior is going to get bitten like his Dad, coming back to domestic issues that he bobbles, drops, and ends up having to follow what the house and senate set out for him.

I am still personally thinking that the Bush family legacy will be one term presidents.

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 8 2003, 08:58 AM
Now it looks like junior is going to get bitten like his Dad, coming back to domestic issues that he bobbles, drops, and ends up having to follow what the house and senate set out for him.

I am still personally thinking that the Bush family legacy will be one term presidents.
i think that the fact that Republicans control the House, Senate and White House will be the biggest factor in a one term presidency. The system is such that it will always gravitate towards a balance of power.

Otherwise, i think that Bushs approval ratings at home and considering that they have remained high since the beginning... through Enron and similar scandals, Economic issues and everything else... to even the Iraq/UN fiasco that he probably will be hard to beat.

i think that more than anything, its just wishful thinking from Opranos only Canadian Liberal Democrat.

the only reason i would vote for Bush again is if i felt there was a threat that needed to be dealt with. I thank God everyday that Al Gore is not President right now.

- North Korea wants to talk and their Nuclear weapons programs are something the world is forced to confront rather than continue to turn a blind eye to as they did for almost 10 years.

- Pakistan proposing to give up their nuclear weapons and arresting terrorists all the time.

- Syria backed down

- Iran backed down and the IAEA is confronting them as well about their possible nuclear weapons programs.

- Saddam Hussein is gone and there is a real chance to build a democracy in a region where it is needed and necessary.

Gore would not have achieved any of that.

Would you care to look at some of your recent predictions about the "bloodiest war in 50 years"... the one that will "probably last through july" and have the Islamic world and Middle East up in arms?

[Almighty Colin]

Alex,

I'm not trying to compare day-to-day. I think that was you when you stated "repeat almost to the day". The question is whether there is much of a comparison at all between Bush I and Bush II other than DNA and fought a war in Iraq. I don't find there to be a strong similarity.

How will Bush be judged?

So far, Bush is a two-war president, a crisis president and created the Office of Homeland Defense. His two big campaign promises were the education bill and tax cuts which he's already pushed through unlike his father who broke his campaign promise and was haunted by his "no new taxes" pledge. Bush is also a strong president, more a leader than a compromiser.

After Gulf War I, Bush I seemed to be tired. Bush II is travelling, pushing his stimulus package and on television every day. He seems energetic and vibrant.

I think it's a little over halfway through his presidency. The economy is stagnant. Which way will it go? How will people perceive that? What other world events will happen?

A presidential race is just that, a race. To answer the question of whether Bush will be a two-term president is greatly influenced by who he runs against and what kind of campaign they run. Who will Bush running against? What kind of campaign will they run? Will there be a
Bill Clinton? Will there be a James Carville? Will they outdo Karl Rove?

[RawAlex]

Colin, it has everything to do with deal well with world crisis, and not having such a good time at deal with the domestic issues. Dad did the same things - working well in the world, being well respected in international circles, but the economy and other domestic issues got him.

Voters look at their lot in life as they go to vote every 4 years. Was I better with "X" or with "Y". International successes show up well now, but increased deficits, increase unemployment, tax breaks for the rich, etc are all issues that really strike home at the ballot box. No solid initiatives on medical malpractice issues, no direct attempts to fix the economy (trickle down always has the problem that it trickles down too slowly to save a sitting president... if it trickles down at all).

His Dad was just about as popular at this point as the son is - but international issues don't get a president re-elected. "It's the economy, stupid"... remember that?

Alex

[RawAlex]

Bush I raised taxes. Bush II cut them.

Dad said no new taxes, and raised them anyway. junior says "tax cuts" and won't be able to do as much as he wanted. He still might have to raise them back to attempt to re-balance the budget.

Bush I fought a re-active war in Iraq. Bush II fought a pre-emptive war in Iraq.

Pre, re... 18 months from now, it will be "fought a war"... most people still don't understand the why... they just enjoy waving the flag while it is happening.


Bush I's administration drafted NAFTA. Bush II placed protectionist tariffs on steel.

Granted. Every time a tarrif has been placed, the WTO has struck it down.


Bush I banned mining and oil drilling the Antarctic. Bush II supports drilling in ANWR.

The son is much more beholden to big energy companies than his dad. He has alot of favors to pay off, I guess. But he isn't having much luck getting this put into action.

Bush I signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Bush II is building a new generation of nuclear weapons.

Both are doing the same thing here, playing to keep the US at the top of the nuclear pile. START isn't very useful anymore, as there are too many mini-nuclear countries, like North Korea, which means an agreement between the US and Russia in and of itself isn't worth alot. Add to that the split of russia and the uncertainty of who controls all the buttons, and well, there ya go.

In the end, the same pattern is there: Good and hard work on international issues, standing up, forming coalitions, and staking the US position in the world. The domestic issues just ain't doing very good - neither of them have shown any great interest or skill in managing issues closer to home.

Easiest way to explain it is this: You can name the key people in defence, in diplomatic affairs, etc... but who does economics? Who does domestic policy? Most people don't know (and I sure don't, not off the top of my head).

Alex

[JR]

Easiest way to explain it is this: You can name the key people in defence, in diplomatic affairs, etc... but who does economics? Who does domestic policy? Most people don't know (and I sure don't, not off the top of my head).

:blink: :blink: :blink:

Didn't you notice the two wars that happened? 9/11 happened? Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda happened? that those issues dominated the media for two years. wouldn't that make sense as to why everyone knows who Tommy Franks, Donald Rumsfeld, Ari Fleischer, Colin Powel and Condaleeza Rice is?

what does "who does domestic policy" mean? what is "domestic policy"? "Domestic Policy" is usually legal, tax and economic packages - which are all things that MUST flow through the House and Senate... not dictated by a General or a single individual. Do you see the difference? What does "who does economics" mean? I thought it was the White House, Congress and Senate and Chairman of the Federal Reserve that "did economics"

Alex, you can prove that apples and oranges "are nearly identical" if you are biased against fruit and are focused on proving that point. same size, same weight, same growing cycles etc etc etc.

[Almighty Colin]

Alex,

The original statement was that the presidency of 43 is following 41 "repeat almost to the day". Then when presented with the fact that they are quite different you are explaining why they are different but why they are bad. So we agree. Bush II is quite different than Bush I. Correct? It's nice for us to agree for once. ;-)

Trying to dismiss those obvious differences by statements of what one hopes might happen in the future is a different ballgame entirely than comparing past events with past events. We're now going to compare future possibilities to past events that have actually happened? Ok. I think everytime one plays the "this MIGHT happen game" based on their hopes and dreams it always turns out a little whacky.

Last time we played this game, Americans were turning sour on the war, turning sour on Bush, and the US was heading into a quagmire in Iraq. What happened?

About people only looking at the economy, forgetting huge international gains, etc. This has nittle basis in history. In fact, that's just using the presidency of George Bush Senior as a catch-all template. Also, it ignores the simple fact that homeland security is a domestic issue. A huge one and everyone is aware of it. Compromising with congress on a budget is normal. Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all did that. How do you turn a normal thing into a negative? No one's going to hit Bush in the campaign for compromising with congress. That's preposterous. That's what politicians are supposed to do. The smart ones do it within the limits of their promises and Bush has certainly done that whereas many others haven't. Compromise and break a promise and you broke a promise. Compromise without that caveat and you're doign your job.

You love the Bush I comparison chart. Not a good comparison. Their presidencies are quite dissimilar. Bush Senior was the rare case of a winning war-time president losing an election. He broke a campaign promise and ran into the Clinton/Carville team which in my opinion was top-notch. Carville is a campaigning genius. How many times did we see the image of the Bush mantra "no new taxes" on commercials? Clinton came out of nowhere in the '92 election. He was a darkhorse. The democratic field at the time was considered weak at the time and then he emerged. Similiar situation today. Will a new horse appear? Will the Democrats put Mondale
II or Clinton II out there?

Most voters do NOT look at increased debts. Take a look at the record. The biggest landslide in history was won by a president with the largest debt when we left office. Clinton and Reagan both had huge four year deficits and each won re-election.

Biggest tax cut for the rich was passed by Reagan. How'd he do in re-election?

I think you're crazy if you think Bush will raise taxes by the end of his administration. What evidence is there he would?

You ask "who does economics" in the Bush administration? Well, in the US monetary and fiscal policy is set by the Treasury Department and the Fed. Do you know the name of the Fed Chairman? Who "did economics" in Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Carter administration?

"Who does domestic policy"? What cabinet position is that?

Medical industry reform? This isn't Europe or Canada, Alex. Recent history shows campaigning about medical industry reform is a way to embarass yourself politically.

I agree with you that the economy will be a very important issue at election time. If the economy were stronger right now, Bush would be even more popular. Will it get stronger or weaker? Even right now, there are signs that point in both directions.

Check the approval ratings. Most people right now in the US are pro-Bush. If the election were today, Bush would win. The conservatives and the middle roaders are pro-Bush. Only the left side of the democrats is not and even some of them are. Where does the approval rating go from here? Depends on what happens in the world. You can skip the Bush I comparison chart. It's not applicable. There are 42 other presidential comparison charts you should check up on. We don't know what the future of the world or the economy will be in the next 500 days.

I myself reserve judgement on the Bush presidency. I think he's had a very strong two years and shows no signs that he's going to slow down. He may. Maybe he'll get lame duck syndrome.

I was watching television closely the past few weeks to see how Bush would emerge from the war. I wondered how we could come out. What I see is that he's on television every day talking about the economy. He's in tune. You have to see that.



Last edited by Colin at May 9 2003, 06:31 AM

[RawAlex]

Actually, I wrote a whole bunch of stuff, and deleted it.

Your right. I am wrong. I am nothing. I will leave now.

Have a nice day.

Alex

[Torone]

Personally, I still wonder what stake Alex has that makes him hate Bush so badly but seem to love that sorry fuckin' P.M. that Canadians elected...

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 9 2003, 06:19 AM
Actually, I wrote a whole bunch of stuff, and deleted it.

Your right. I am wrong. I am nothing. I will leave now.

Have a nice day.

Alex
hehe.. you like to fall back on the one argument that no one can beat.
:rokk:

[PornoDoggy]

Gore would not have achieved any of that.

Upon what do you base this statement, JR?



Last edited by PornoDoggy at May 9 2003, 09:57 AM

[RawAlex]

JR, waste of time having this discussion, I was in error to start in on it. I won't discuss politics with you. Have a nice day.

Torone: Being Canadian doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. Live with it.

Alex

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@May 9 2003, 06:57 AM
Gore would not have achieved any of that.

Upon what do you base this statement, JR?
i had to think about that for a while.
its just my own opinion. after thinking about it, i dont know that there is anything specific to point to that would offer evidence that he would not have taken a tough stance. certainly there is no frame of referrence since 9/11 has never happened before.

what i mean is that i dont think he would have took the same route that was chosen. it was the unpopular route. it was a difficult choice to make and one that was made knowing that it would have meant a one term presidency. i think that weapons proliferation was something that was long overdue to deal with and to deal with agressively. It was time for there to be consequences for those who willfully manipulate the eneptitude of the UN. I think it was time that Syria was put on notice. that Iran was put on notice. that North Korea was put on notice. I dont think Gore would have achieved that either. i dont think he would have chosen confrontation.

i cant say that Gore would have done worse... but i think he is more worried about popularity and opinion polls than Bush. probably most would agree that he would have definately upset less people in Europe. i think that Bush has the speaking ability of an autistic 4th grader but my personal opinion is that the fact that a tough stance was taken against the passivity of the UN in dealing with the issues that it was formed to deal with. there would not have been a Resolution 1441 if there was not already 5 aircraft carriers parked in front of Bagdad. I dont see Gore going that far without fearing the risk of the political backlashes that occurred.



Last edited by JR at May 9 2003, 07:28 AM

[T-Rav]

Originally posted by Colin@May 8 2003, 05:08 AM
Bush is likely going to sign new legislation extending the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons for ten years. The NRA's not happy. Senate Democrats are. So here the Republican president and many Democratic senators are in agreement.

Will this hurt Bush in the elections with the "NRA Vote"?

Do you agree or disagree with the banning of semiautomatic assault weapons? The US founding fathers were quite clearly concerned that one has the right to bear arms to defend oneself against one's own government. As Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." But are we well beyond this now? In what way does the average citizen have any hope of facing the US Army even WITH semi-automatic weapons?
We got off topic...I liked the question and find it interesting.

I do not like it when people take away any of my current rights. I like to hold on to them Filipino hookers, and I don't want to let go until I'm ready and its my choice. Of course, I don't own any semi-automatic weapons right now, and don't plan on it...but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

I have not been a big Bush fan, but I have to admit I like the fact that he's not towing the party line. Even if I don't agree with him or this policy, at least he is doing what he feels is right. I can't believe I just said that...

But fucking A, that Homeland Security Bullshit makes me so pissed I can't see straight. Yes, I know...this is when everyone comes out and says you're just being paranoid, blah, blah, blah...

Back to the semi-automatic weapons...Colin, you asked if we were way beyond wanting the ability to protect ourselves against our government. I say absolutely not. It is very important to be able to defend yourself against your own government, obviously. You are right...I doubt a semi-automatic weapons would help, but I could take a few of those fuckers out with me.

So, what do you hard core Republicans think? MikeAI filled us in, he doesn't like it either. I'm glad to hear that. I was afraid MikeAI might try to defend the president on this one, with some crazy justification :D .

Torone, where do you stand?

[PornoDoggy]

I'm not a big Gore fan myself, although I definitely would have preferred him to Bush. That being said, this kind of discussion - who would have done better - is an absolute exercise in futility.

The hair on the back of my neck tends to stand up when I read a statement like that. Frankly, it would have stood up just as much if the situation were reversed. At the risk of being accused of trying to be the good liberal, that kind of knee-jerk reaction ("My guy would have done better/your guy couldn't do as well") is the stock-in-trade of the blind partisans - Torone, MikeAI, RawAlex, Dig.

The basic problem with this whole scenario is that there is no guarantee that any other Administration - including a McCain or Keyes Administration - would have responded to 9/11 with a focus on Iraq. Even assuming a Gore victory, it is just as possilbe that the tactic of "upset[ting] less people in Europe" could have meant that the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" might have have been more than an Anglo Alliance. I'm not entirely certain that was ever the desire of the Bush Administration, but that's an entirely different discussion.

[RawAlex]

Pornodoggy: Please! ("My guy would have done better/your guy couldn't do as well") - sorry, I don't have "a guy"... I am not a gore fan, or a leiberman fan, or a Clinton fan. I don't suppose or consider that "so-and so" would do better - I only discuss where I see the intended "un-intended" results of laws, actions, and movements within the US government. Please put down your broad brush, your getting whitewash on me.

Some people aren't able to see past their black and white "our team vs the enemy infidel morons on the other side" to understand that "their guy" ain't always right - right sometimes, just like everyone else.

Alex

[Vick]

Originally posted by Colin@May 8 2003, 10:44 AM
39 James Buchanan
38 Warren Harding
37 Franklin Pierce
36 Andrew Johnson
35 JR's favorite Millard Fillmore
34 Richard Nixon

Most controversial presidents were Clinton, Wilson, Reagan, Nixon, and LBJ.
Why do historians continually want to sully the name of the Great Late President Richard Nixon?


Psss that's a rhetorical question :P


Damn it I'm going to write in Nixon for President in 2004
He's tan, rested and dead
What more do you need for a President?
:yowsa:


As for the most controversial presidents ....
We got those answers because we asked live historians and they only named Presidents they remember
Lincoln was very controversial

[Vick]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@May 9 2003, 10:56 AM
I'm not a big Gore fan myself, although I definitely would have preferred him to Bush
Even on 9/12/2001?

[RawAlex]

Vick, as mentioned before, you have no idea what Gore would have done on 9.12.2001.

We don't even know if 9.11.2001 would have been an important date in history, now do we?

Alex

[Vick]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 9 2003, 11:40 AM
Vick, as mentioned before, you have no idea what Gore would have done on 9.12.2001.

We don't even know if 9.11.2001 would have been an important date in history, now do we?

Alex
Alex - just so I don't get confused

Can your statement be construed to say Bush had anything to do with the attacks of 9/11 happening?

Or that we, the USA we're attacked in part because of the Bush presidency?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 9 2003, 11:40 AM
We don't even know if 9.11.2001 would have been an important date in history, now do we?
What do you thinking Osama is thinking? Do you mean the butterfly effect (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ButterflyEffect.html)?

[RawAlex]

Colin. the butterfly effect is certainly part of anything in this sort of discussion. We talk theoreticals on "what gore would have done" or "what the other guy would have done"... we don't know that the 9.11.2001 attacks didn't happen specifically because junior was in the office - much more insulting to the father, no?

WE DON'T KNOW.

Therefore, Vick's comment, "Even on 9/12/2001? " is speculation at it's finest. We don't know what Gore would have done. We don't know that the attack would have happened that day. We don't know what is in the minds and the hearts of the evil men who committed this crime. We don't know if Gore would have had to respond to anything.

WE DON'T KNOW.

We all have opinions.

WE DON'T KNOW.

Except for JR. He's a freaking mind reader. He has amazed me hundreds of times being able to read the minds not only of anyone in the world currently, but able to read their minds in the future and give guidance to the powers that be today so that they can have a successful tomorrow. JR is a rare exception in a sea of unknowing people.

THE REST OF US JUST DON'T KNOW.

Alex

(Edited to fix a typo etc.)



Last edited by RawAlex at May 9 2003, 12:08 PM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 9 2003, 12:07 PM
Except for JR. He's a freaking mind reader. He has amazed me hundreds of times being able to read the minds not only of anyone in the world currently, but able to read their minds in the future and give guidance to the powers that be today so that they can have a successful tomorrow. JR is a rare exception in a sea of unknowing people.

It's true! At night, we hook JR up to a webcam as Swami JR and he makes $15.99/minute. He's dead on and recurrings are insane.

Bpj, contact me if interested. I'll cut you a deal.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Vick+May 9 2003, 11:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ May 9 2003, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@May 9 2003, 10:56 AM
I'm not a big Gore fan myself, although I definitely would have preferred him to Bush
Even on 9/12/2001?[/b][/quote]
In response to 9/11, I don't think it would have made a tinker's damn, and I feel really sorry for anyone who does.

[Vick]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+May 9 2003, 12:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ May 9 2003, 12:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Vick@May 9 2003, 11:23 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@May 9 2003, 10:56 AM
I'm not a big Gore fan myself, although I definitely would have preferred him to Bush
Even on 9/12/2001?
In response to 9/11, I don't think it would have made a tinker's damn, and I feel really sorry for anyone who does.[/b][/quote]
and I really feel sorry for anyone who feels sorry for someone who does :P :D



Edit - p.s. I think/KNOW it makes a HUGE difference who is the leader of a country in a crisis situation



Last edited by Vick at May 9 2003, 12:24 PM

[PornoDoggy]

Alex ... was the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in anticipation of the 2nd Coming of Bush?

[RawAlex]

Was the gas I just passed a result of higher (or lower) tarrifs on kidney beans?

WHO THE FUCK KNOWS?

A;ex

[DrGuile]

Originally posted by JR@May 8 2003, 07:36 AM
i had no idea we had a president named Millard Fillmore or Martin Van Buren. :( I blame public schools.
I did know there was a president called Van Buren.

Thanks to a very popular sitcom

for 5 points, can you name which one ;)

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@May 9 2003, 09:07 AM
WE DON'T KNOW.

Except for JR. He's a freaking mind reader. He has amazed me hundreds of times being able to read the minds not only of anyone in the world currently, but able to read their minds in the future and give guidance to the powers that be today so that they can have a successful tomorrow. JR is a rare exception in a sea of unknowing people.

THE REST OF US JUST DON'T KNOW.

Alex

(Edited to fix a typo etc.)
and here again is the instant replay:

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/control.gif

[JR]

BTW Alex, have you ever used the pen name - Toby Young?

[RawAlex]

Hey, JR, go fuck yourself, asshole.

Loser.

G'bye.

Alex

[T-Rav]

Hey you fuckers...we got off topic again...would somebody please indulge me and answer the question Colin asked at the begining of the thread? I answered, MikeAI answered, and that is it...Colin, as usual you didn't even answer your own question. So, everyone else needs to pony up.

On the other topic that has evolved, I am forced (against my better judgement) to agree with RawAlex. I think it is very possible, and I doubt it is a coincidence that 9-11 happened because George Jr. was in office. There is a very real possibility that it would not have happened had someone else been in office. PD, why do you feel sorry for me for thinking this is a possibility? It is possible and even plausible in my opinion.

As Alex stated, we simply don't know. So, I am entitled to my opinion and you, yours. Let's try and keep conjecture out of it. We will all be better served.

Guilt is the bastard child of the past. Anxiety is the bastard child of the future. I learned that from my counselor, he keeps my shit straight :P

That is all.

[Vick]

Hmmm giving it some thought

It could be said that all Presidents have signed away some of our rights and a few have returned some of our rights (repeal of Prohibition for example)

Never gave much thought to if the tragedy of 9/11 would have still happened if Bush was not President but gave it a bit of thought today and ...

My feeling is 9/11 would have happened regardless of who was President due to the time and planning that went into the attacks

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by T-Rav@May 9 2003, 02:50 PM
On the other topic that has evolved, I am forced (against my better judgement) to agree with RawAlex. I think it is very possible, and I doubt it is a coincidence that 9-11 happened because George Jr. was in office. There is a very real possibility that it would not have happened had someone else been in office. PD, why do you feel sorry for me for thinking this is a possibility? It is possible and even plausible in my opinion.


The people I feel sorry for are the ones who think that a Democratic President would have responded less appropriately than GW did.

I suppose it's possible that the attack occurred because GW was President, but like Vick said, the evidence doesn't support it. The planning and logistics involved in the attack began long before before he was elected. The attack on the USS Cole took place during a completely different Administration.

As far as the original question posed by the thread - considering that Bush hasn't signed ANYTHING, it's a non-discussion.

What Bush has said is that he will sign a bill IF Congress passes one, and IF it doesn't strengthen existing restrictions. Considering that the likelyhood of a bill passing isn't terribly great, and that the bill proposed by three Democrats and a Republican in the Senate already increases the existing restrictions by adding certain types of clips (thus threatening the constitutional right of sportmen to fire 90 rounds at a time), he's already got an out.

[T-Rav]

PD, point taken...and I agree.

Vick, I am not certain whether 9-11 would have happened with a different administration in place, but I do think that it is; if nothing else, a possibility.

That is all for now :ph34r:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by T-Rav@May 9 2003, 02:50 PM
Colin, as usual you didn't even answer your own question.
You're on to me.

I'm sure we have some gun fiends here. What exactly defines a weapons as SEMI-automatic?
I really don't think anyone needs an automatic weapon for self-defense. The concerns of the American founding fathers - that of turning to a tyranny - are indefensible now. I don't think the Band of Southern Brothers militia would do much better than the Iraqi army did against the US army. Where to draw the line? I dunno. Courts decide. I'm cool with it.

To me, the second amendment is symbolic of the importance of liberty. It means that even if it causes harm, that we will hold this concept of liberty with the highest regard. I think this symbolism still moves people. Now I know that is not true for everyone but it is for me. I also believe I have an inalienable right to defend myself. I think we should change the constitution as little as possible and only when it makes the world a better place.

The constitution must reflect the times. The constitution itself provides the methods whereby it may be amended. It was never intended to be an unchangeable document but instead provides a method which makes it difficult but possible to amend. The importance of the supreme court and common law in interpreting the constitution has been key since the early 1800s. So in a sense, if the supreme court deems a law constitutional it is. If a law exists that hasn't reached the supreme court it means there has not been an inconsistency in interpretations in the lower court yet.

My quick summary: The judicial system itself as defined in the constitution and in the famous John Marshall case defines constitutional and unconstitutional and it is subject to amendment. I don't know the particulars but I assume that since the semi-automatic weapons ban has been on the books for ten years, it's passed the tests of the court.



Last edited by Colin at May 9 2003, 04:13 PM

[Vick]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@May 9 2003, 03:39 PM
The people I feel sorry for are the ones who think that a Democratic President would have responded less appropriately than GW did.
I guess that leaves me out of your Pity Party :P

My issue is being more comfortable with Bush handling the crisis than Gore, not Dem vs. Rep

(I know, we don't know how Gore would have responded supposition ad nausem yadda yadda ya)

[T-Rav]

Originally posted by Colin+May 9 2003, 04:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ May 9 2003, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--T-Rav@May 9 2003, 02:50 PM
Colin, as usual you didn't even answer your own question.
You're on to me.[/b][/quote]
I know...it takes one to know one...

And yet you still did not answer. You came back with a bunch of if the courts say its cool, I'm cool with it, rhetoric.

You don't get off that easily. That is the kind of shit I pull and I can see it coming from a mile away.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea, regardless of what the Highest Court in the Land has to say about it?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by T-Rav@May 9 2003, 05:04 PM
Do you agree or disagree with the idea, regardless of what the Highest Court in the Land has to say about it?
T-Rav,

I don't think my next door neighbor should be permitted to have a machine gun.
I'm not sure on "semi-automatic" because I don't know what defines "semi-automatic".

[Almighty Colin]

Of course the cut-off point is arbitrary. I'm pretty sure thought that the world would be better off if Bob, my neighbor, isn't permitted to have hand-grenades, machine guns, or an M1-A1 and i'm not just saying that because he's a Ravens fan [no offense, Vick].

[RawAlex]

Semi automatic means that it is effectively an automatic weapon, except that you have to pull the trigger for each shot. However, the expelling of the previous shell, the loading of the next shell, and the "cocking" of the hammer, as it were, occur automatically.

I have fired a 9mm pistol that is a semi auto. Depending on the loader, you get 10-14 rounds, and you can pull them as fast as you can hit the spacebar on your keyboard repeatedly - basically, 2 per second, I suspect. You can put probably 3 shots into someone before they have really reacted to the first one.

Good for hunting, yessir.

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

I could go either way on the semi-automatic then. Don't really feel strongly one way or another about it.

[Vick]

Originally posted by Colin@May 9 2003, 07:22 PM
and i'm not just saying that because he's a Ravens fan [no offense, Vick].
Hey the Raven's won a Super Bowl with no offense :D


Or did that mean Micheal Vick could be the answer to the Raven's no offense challenges? :rolleyes: he he

[Torone]

Originally posted by T-Rav+May 9 2003, 10:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (T-Rav @ May 9 2003, 10:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@May 8 2003, 05:08 AM
Bush is likely going to sign new legislation extending the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons for ten years. The NRA's not happy. Senate Democrats are. So here the Republican president and many Democratic senators are in agreement.

Will this hurt Bush in the elections with the "NRA Vote"?

Do you agree or disagree with the banning of semiautomatic assault weapons? The US founding fathers were quite clearly concerned that one has the right to bear arms to defend oneself against one's own government. As Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." But are we well beyond this now? In what way does the average citizen have any hope of facing the US Army even WITH semi-automatic weapons?
We got off topic...I liked the question and find it interesting.

I do not like it when people take away any of my current rights. I like to hold on to them Filipino hookers, and I don't want to let go until I'm ready and its my choice. Of course, I don't own any semi-automatic weapons right now, and don't plan on it...but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

I have not been a big Bush fan, but I have to admit I like the fact that he's not towing the party line. Even if I don't agree with him or this policy, at least he is doing what he feels is right. I can't believe I just said that...

But fucking A, that Homeland Security Bullshit makes me so pissed I can't see straight. Yes, I know...this is when everyone comes out and says you're just being paranoid, blah, blah, blah...

Back to the semi-automatic weapons...Colin, you asked if we were way beyond wanting the ability to protect ourselves against our government. I say absolutely not. It is very important to be able to defend yourself against your own government, obviously. You are right...I doubt a semi-automatic weapons would help, but I could take a few of those fuckers out with me.

So, what do you hard core Republicans think? MikeAI filled us in, he doesn't like it either. I'm glad to hear that. I was afraid MikeAI might try to defend the president on this one, with some crazy justification :D .

Torone, where do you stand?[/b][/quote]
I seriously doubt he'll sign it.

[PornoDoggy]

Oh, God ... I'm scared.

I agree with Torone.

[nlphoto]

Originally posted by Torone@May 9 2003, 06:23 PM


But fucking A, that Homeland Security Bullshit makes me so pissed I can't see straight. Yes, I know...this is when everyone comes out and says you're just being paranoid, blah, blah, blah...





Just 'cause you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...


:ph34r:

[JR]

At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you
prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,
Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and
praise him though he slays them.
Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the
citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom
as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when
even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you,
and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a
fulfilment.


You shall be free indeed when your days are not without
a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,
But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you
rise above them naked and unbound.


And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless
you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding
have fastened around your noon hour?
In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these
chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle your eyes.


And what is it but fragments of your own self you would
discard that you may become free?
If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written
with your own hand upon your own forehead.
You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing
the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.


And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his
throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule
the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom
and a shame in their own pride?
And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been
chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.
And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear
is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.


Verily all things move wrthin your being in constant half embrace,
the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished,
the pursued and that which you would escape.
These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that
cling.
And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers
becomes a shadow to another light.
And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself
the fetter of a greater freedom."

Kahlil Gibran
The Prophet.



Last edited by JR at May 9 2003, 10:45 PM