I understand it is everyone's right to say what they wish about Bush, but for the life of me I cannot understand why it is so prolific here. It seems like the popular thing to do. One man who was gutsy enough to ask congress not to re-up the Brady bill, who whole heartedly supports our gun ownership rights and the sport of hunting. I know, and hear it from everyone who disagrees with the War in Iraq, that he is such a terrible person and is listening in on everyones conversations <---(not true in fact, unless you are talking to a suspected terrorist overseas, and that's your own dumb fault) Bush is a politician and in many ways no different than other politicians, but he does stand by our right to protect ourselves on our home front and preemptively protect ourselves from growing threats overseas, as well as many other rightsI personally believe in. I know, I know he has not caught Bin Ladin, but if he spent less time defending himself from the outrageous and politically motivated attacks, then he could with advice from his secretaries and military leaders devote more time to the task of rooting terrorists and madmen out of this world. It seems to me...this may not be true in your case, that whenever a Republican is in office, everyliberal democratis up in arms...(not guns of course, they dont like those) But now it is even worse, the liberal media is misleading millions of Americans, Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal, into believing that Bush is a terrible leader and a criminal. I will agree that he is a bad public speaker, but he has every other trait that I would want in a leader of my country. The RANT goes on, but I will save you the time and say no more.
Please if you value your gun rights, and believe in Bush, help me out and defend our leader who is out on a limb ensuring that we and our rights are defended here at home.
KansasHunter, you're right in a lot of what you say. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll get a lot of support on this forum right now. As you say, the Bush-bashing seems to be "in." I have both defended and criticized President Bush. There are things that I like very much about the president, and then there are things that I despise. If he were up for election again, I honestly don't know whether I would vote for him or not. Still, I can't for the life of me figure out 75% of the Bush-bashing that goes on. I'm not sure what the man has done to draw the ire of both liberals and moderates, but I'm quite convinced that the majority of the criticism we are hearing (and reading) now is both redundant and baseless.
You're right on the money with your comment about the liberal media misleading the American public. I've become increasingly disgusted in recent months (and anyone who has read my posts on this forum knows that I am a journalist and defend the news media often) with the media's slanted and often one-sided approach to news reporting as it concerns the president and the GOP in general. In some cases, the reporting is full of outright lies. Just one example from the hundreds out there: I was watching Lou Dobbs on CNN the other night, and Dobbs made the comment that Bush and the Republican-led Congress was discriminating against middle Americans by "passing the law" that requires credit card holders' monthly payments to meet 1% of the debt on the card. Anyone who knows anything about the new way monthly minimums are figured for credit cards knows how outlandish his statement was. It was beyond misleading; it was an outright lie. Maybe Dobbs shouldn't have his feet held to the fire for misleading comments since he's more of an opinionist than a reporter, but this is indicative of the type of reporting Americans are seeing more and more these days.
Sadly, I think we've reached a point where folks can no longer trust the mainstream media to keep them correctly informed of national news. Hopefully, the growing influence of powerful bloggers like Powerline Blog will force some credibility back into the MSM.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
One man who was gutsy enough to ask congress not to re-up the Brady bill, who whole heartedly supports our gun ownership rights and the sport of hunting.
I don't remeber him asking congressnot to reinstitute the brady bill. I do remember him saying he thought it was a good law and that he would sign it. REagan really pushed for this law,and is responsible gor even tougher laws in California.
Quote:
listening in on everyones conversations <---(not true in fact, unless you are talking to a suspected terrorist overseas, and that's your own dumb fault
You must be privy to the secrets of this thing,care to share where you recieved that info? How does anyone know who was listened to, it was a secret,
Bush said in Buffalo,
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.
The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message
Now the Patriot act didn't give him authority to tap with out warrants, and he can tap a phone legally fo 72 hours with out a warrant under the emergency acts under FICA , so tell me again why he didn't get warrants.
Quote:
I know he has not caught Bin Ladin, but if he spent less time defending himself from the outrageous and politically motivated attacks, then he could with advice from his secretaries and military leaders devote more time to the task of rooting terrorists and madmen out of this world
That's a good one.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Attacking Bush's positions and taking his comments out of context does not make for a great arguement. And no, Bush does not support the Brady bill. If you can find me a quote in full context that says he does not I will bow down to your amazing wisdom, But you won't. When it comes to the knowledge i have of the administration's wiretapping, this is what i heard on onw of YOUR liberal news stations. So I may even be wrong, but i assumed since they were reporting something that wasnt completely bashing Bush, that they have no reason to lie.
is what i heard on onw of YOUR liberal news stations.
So I a liberal because I don't have a Bush blow up Doll?
Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.
Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law "” a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.
But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye.
"There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." Mr. McClellan added that the ban was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush "felt it was reasonable." http://www.wmsa.net/news/NYTimes/inyt-030508_awb_nra.htm
From: Gun Owners of America
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 3:31:07 PM
To: Gun Owners of America
Subject: Semi-auto Ban Reauthorization
Thank you for using Gun Owners of America Mail System
Message sent to the following recipients:
President Bush
Message text follows:
Larry Fulmer
Springhill Dr.
Newberry, SC
April 15, 2003
[recipient address was inserted here]
[recipient name was inserted here],
I oppose the Clinton-Feinstein ban on common household firearms.
And that is why I was surprised to hear White House spokesman Scott McClellan say that you support the current ban, along with its reauthorization (Knight Ridder newspapers, April 12, 2003).
I am taken aback for a few reasons. First, you clearly ran on a pro-gun platform in your race for the White House in 2000. As a result, you were elected President because gun owners all over the country went to the polls and voted for you. Most notably, pro-gun voters delivered three key Democratic states into your column -- Tennessee, West Virginia and
Arkansas. Without these three states, Florida would never have been an issue.
Second, former President Bill Clinton has repeatedly stated that passage of the 1994 semi-auto ban cost him control of the Congress. In other words, many Democrats lost their jobs because they voted for this ban.
Gun control is a losing issue politically.
Third, the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban is clearly unconstitutional and outlaws the very guns and magazines that millions of people have relied upon to defend their homes and families. The website of Gun Owners of America gives the statistics showing that these banned firearms are rarely
used to commit crimes or murders -- in fact, more Americans are killed by knives.
I hope that Scott McClellan was in error and that his statement does not represent your views. And so I trust you will be open and honest with me.
Will you OPPOSE the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto ban and OPPOSE its reauthorization?
Please let me know.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Please if you value your gun rights, and believe in Bush, help me out and defend our leader who is out on a limb ensuring that we and our rights are defended here at home.
I guess since you trying to lable me, it's allright if I call you a neocon.
He's out a limbv all right trying to figure wether the constitttion is just a Darn piece of paer or not.
He's done a lot to defend our rights in the Homeland lately hasn't he?
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
It is your right...
