|
|
#16
10-17-2006, 06:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 We have been wandering a little, haven't we?!? Like Andy L has said, there simply isn't a viable 3rd party right now. Any talk of "Non of the above!" or "Let's show them we mean business!", is nothing but a sure win for the liberals. I really don't believe that the >majority< of Americans will elect the Democrats back into power....I truly think that it's all "Smoke & Mirrors" in the media. The races for the House & Senate just are not as close as the media has been making them out to be. In the last elections (Come-on! it hasn't been that long!) EVERYONE in the media had been so "Sure" that Kerry & Edwards were going to take the white House with a huge lead.....Well..We all know how that turned out! The largest voter turnout EVER! and a H-U-G-E majority of them voted for Bush & the Conservatives. Now, we are hearing the same old "Song and Dance" (Love that song!) from all of the usual suspects & their friends in the media....."The Democrats are going to be back in Power!"..."The Republicans are done!" ...... Blah!, Blah!, Blah!  The Dems have been whining since, what?...1992? The Media have been >Loudly!< joining the shouting match! And yet, the liberals have been loosing, and loosing ground the whole time.......The "People" aren't buying what they are saying....and instead of looking at themselves for the trouble in their message(s), they just keep saying the same old drivil...they Just say it LOUDER! Tall Shadow 
|
|
#17
10-18-2006, 08:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am caught in the same dillema as always. I don't like a lot of the Democratic party stands for, however they will look out for the working man, which would be me. The Republican party looks out for their friends in big business, the people that back them. Bush has been ten times worse than Clinton ever was, I would vote for Bill again tomorrow. The republicans are supposed to be the "morality" party, well morals are about more than sex scandals. Morals mean dealing fair, not taking kickbacks and dealing under the table, then when you get caught saying you didn't know about it, or thought it was alright. The thing with Foley has nothing to do with when the Democrats knew about it, it is about when the Republicans knew about it, and why did they not do something, again, "well we didn't know". I dont know who I will vote for yet. Here in Va. we are electing a senator this year, George Allen or Jim Webb, dont know which I will vote for, a clone of Bush or a Democrat that may fall in with the gun ban groups. I have noticed that nobody is talking about crime and gun violence this time around. The Democrats know that is a loser for them. Even with me.
|
|
#18
10-18-2006, 10:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The race in Virginia for that Senate seat is horrible. Just the ads are horrible. The issues that they raise in their advertising have almost nothing to do with their stance on the issues. It makes me sick to know that they think the citizens of Virginia are that shallow/stupid.
__________________
The pond, waterfowl, and yellow labs...it don't get any better.
|
|
#19
10-18-2006, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Wow!, just Wow! I still find it hard to believe that my fellow hunters, shooters, and/or any sane person would even say that. What exactly are you missing that Clinton Did do? He wasn't responsible for the economy during his time (Reagan was). His administration is why we have the little North Korea problem. His down right treasonous actions are why China was able to leap-frog 50+ years of nuclear technology basically overnight. And, when, my good friend, has growing government, taxing you more, and government intruding into you life at every step been a "good thing"? Quote:
When a sicko, who happens to be a RINO (Republican In Name Only), only talks about sex with underlings, it's the worst crime in the world?!? Quote:
Or should I vote for those guys who aren't Conservative enough for me.......but are the only ones who are heading in that direction? Yep, that's a tough choice.....  Get off your high horse, there is only one choice....seriously! Tall Shadow
|
|
#20
10-18-2006, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clinton had adulterous sex with a consenting adult underling. Foley was dealing with children, that is a big difference. I am not going to get into an argument here, no opinions will be changed on either side, I have learned that in the past. Everyone should make their own decisions. That is what makes this a great country.
|
|
#21
10-18-2006, 04:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes, Clinton and Foley are not comparable as far as the sex stuff goes. What I find a little tough to swallow, no pun intended, is that the entire Republican party is being implicated with Foley's issue, but the whole Democratic party wasn't implicated with Clinton's matter.
What bugs me about Clinton is that he lied under oath and then went on TV and lied to the entire American public. Does he really think we are complete morons? Granted, Bush might or might not have lied to the public, because lying takes actual knowledge that what you are saying is false. Clinton knew what he did with Monica because he was actually there. Yeah, Clinton was for the "working man", but what exactly did he do for the working man? Bush has given more tax cuts to the working man than anybody I know of in recent history, with maybe the exception of Reagan. Also, Bush made it so the "working man" could start his own business with the tax cuts that he gave them. I know because I have a bunch of clients that took advantage of those tax cuts to start their own business, me included. It is really easy to say that Democrats are for the "working man" and/or the poor, and that Republicans are for big business. It is also too easy to say that Democrats are against the Second Amendment and Republicans are for the Second Amendment. Too easy to say Democrats are pro choice and Republicans are pro life. Let's work on electing honorable, knowledgeable, and common sense people to office. People that will pass common sense laws like English being the primary language in the US. Just finished downloading a Form W-9 from the IRS website for a client of mine and noticed that it is offered in Spanish. The entire reason I need the form is because 11 1099's for subcontractors that my client uses were not able to be matched up to SSA records for the social security/tax ID number. Guess what, all the names are Spanish/Hispanic. How about electing some officials that take a common sense approach on immigration. We don't need people that are completely for or against anything, because then nothing gets done. Why is it so hard to elect decent politicians? We should change the Constitution to add a clause wherein people running for office have to go through a lie detector regarding specific questions of moral turpitude. If politics didn't disgust me and I actually thought I could make a difference, I would run for office. Don't see that ever happening though.
__________________
The pond, waterfowl, and yellow labs...it don't get any better.
|
|
#22
10-18-2006, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can agree with most of that fabsroman, The democrats had 50+years in power to "Fix" the "Ills" of the country, All that has happened is the decline of Our once great socially, Record Taxes, Failing Schools, Record Illiteritcy, Hugely overgrown goverment, And the disullision of the American Family.
Yes!, More!, Please! A small side note is that acording to the "Page" in question himself (Watched him on TV interview myself), he was 18 at the time of the "insident"..and no longer a "Page" at the time... I'd say the whole "Child Abuse" thing is a moot point. Not that that will stop the "News Reporters" wailing about it. Tall Shadow
|
|
#23
10-18-2006, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I thought I'd add this little tidbit I just found...Enjoy! T.S.
THE LEFT WING’S PLAN FOR GUNS (Elections) by Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America October 16, 2006 It’s time to remember what the Democrat party generally seeks regarding guns and gun rights. The list below was widely circulated while Clinton was in power. The democrat-backed Brady group and similar outfits have been quiet about guns because they want to win the election, and get to impose their goals on your rights -- THE FIVE YEAR PLAN: 1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases. 2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners. 3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms. 4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition). 5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00). 6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more than 200,000). 7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns. 8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot inspections). 9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000. 10. Banning all military style firearms. 11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun. 12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other. 13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer, installation) except barrel, trigger group. 14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list. 15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62x54R and .303). 16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession.. 17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945). 18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition. 19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one time. 20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo. 21. A National License for Ammunition. 22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components. 23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers. 24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing. 25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000. 26. Special Licensing of ranges. 27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person). 28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges. 29. Banning Gun Shows. 30. Banning of military reenactments. PLUS: Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets. Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship. Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including "air soft" and paintball). The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from government programs, the gun manufacturers. Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society. The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber. While it’s true Republicans haven’t done very much to defend your gun rights (OK, they have done a little) in six years of control, they offer little support for the anti-rights disarm-the-public plans the left wing will impose on you if they gain power in the next election. It’s your choice. Do you stay home and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend them at the ballot box? Tell your friends. If you took the bait and voted early, instead of rising up as a whole and voting on election day like you’re supposed to, this message is too late and you got screwed. Thanks for reading. Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America
|
|
#24
10-18-2006, 09:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I only got half way through that and it is rather insane.
As far as the current Republicans not doing anything to help our gun rights, I think they did plenty. The ban on assault style weapons was allowed to fall into the sunset. They passed legislation that prevents frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which prevents the liberals from suing the manufacturers into non-existance/bankruptcy. In Maryland, which is a pretty liberal state, this past legislative session there was an assault weapons ban bill in the General Assembly and it didn't get passed. I was pretty thankful about that one and am trying to buy my AR-10 and AR-15 before the next legislative session. Heck, I am about to write my current state senator and ask him what his position is on gun control. He is a democrat, but he takes the position that his style is not a party affiliation one, but a common sense one. He is originally from Michigan, he was in the reserves, he works for a law firm that I am pretty familiar with, and he is 34 years old, so who knows what his position is.
__________________
The pond, waterfowl, and yellow labs...it don't get any better.
|
|
#25
10-18-2006, 10:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I hear Bill and Hillary are trying to make ammends. I think this pic proves it
__________________
USAF Retired  Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. Theodore Roosevelt Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things
|
|
#26
10-18-2006, 11:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What bugs me about Clinton is reading articles about him that state he is a great guy. I think the last article I read about him was in Fortune and it was about how smart he is and how charismatic he is. It dealt with how he was helping a non-profit hospital in Africa beat AIDS and how he was doing it only with his personality and charisma. He wasn't donating money, but he was encouraging people to donate money to the cause.
My issues with that article are: 1) Why isn't he donating some of his own money? I love how a columnist can put a spin on something and make him seem like a great man; and 2) Why isn't he doing things in the US to help the poor and the working man? Why do US citizens feel the need to help others overseas when we have so much to do here helping our own?
__________________
The pond, waterfowl, and yellow labs...it don't get any better.
|
|
#27
10-19-2006, 06:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 The articles you mention, sound like the stuff you hear the sheep saying about Oprah. Like... "Oh look at how great she is!", "Wow! What a generous person she is!" When she gives someone, something...not supplied by her, but in fact provided to her free of charge. While at the same time she is one of the highest paid, richest "celebrities" in the world......but never spends "Her" money. It's always someone else's "bill".......Just like a typical liberal. Spend "Anyone's" money, but you own, on trying to fulfill your "Liberal Utopian" dreams. Bill Clinton (And his beast of a wife) are just the leaders of the bunch. Most of their buddies in the media will fall over themselves to fawn over his, or any other liberals, "Greatness". It's sicking!  Tall Shadow
|
|
#28
10-19-2006, 07:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I dont have time to say much yet, but here goes.
1966, I would be willing to bet you come from a long line of democrats. You may not be that strong, but your daddy, grand daddy, ect.... are/were. Am I right? The reason I say that, I come from a democrat family. They almost say verbatim what you posted and its all bunk. They are still thinking of the old democratic party that was like that fifty years ago. I hear people around my parts talking like that all the time and when you start pointing out what Clinton actually did compared to what Bush has done, they walk away with a new light and some even study for themselves. Not just voting the way daddy would like it. I dont mean this in a mean way. But this aint your daddys democratic party. They changed big time since the Fifties. Dont fool yourself into thinking they are for the working man. Theres more old money blue blood in the liberal party than the conservatives ever thought of. Kennedy, Heinz, Rockerfeller, just for very few quickies. You look where liberal senators came from and compare to where conservative senators came from and tell me they are for the working man. I gotta go. Im in a AZ motel room and it gets daylight shortly. Gonna go call some coyotes.
|
|
#29
10-19-2006, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Andy L, actually I don't come from a line of Dems, I haven't even always voted that way. I voted for Reagan in his second term, and for Bush senior. That was all back when the only issue I looked at was the gun thing. I was working a minimum wage job and Reagan raised the minimum wage .25 cents or so, and the NRA said he was a great man, so I believed it. Then I got a union job that paid decently. Contract time came around and the company was demanding big wage and benefit cuts, said we were about to break them. This is a Fortune 500 company, a major railroad, record profits every year. Negotiations drug on and finally we went on strike, for about a day. Then Bush senior ordered us back to work. After what Reagan did with the air traffic controllers, we had little option. we were assured that a presidential emergency board would be appointed to see that all were given a fair shake. Long story short we were handed the railroad deal verbatim, no changes, not one of our issues adressed. Job cuts, wage cuts, benefit reductions, the whole deal. That was the last time I voted Republican. I assure you. No mean intent here, and as I said I am not trying to start an argument. Just explaining my view.
|
|
#30
10-19-2006, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
More food for thought.....
NRA-ILA SPECIAL ELECTION ALERT 10/11/06 PRO-GUN VICTORIES IN THE 109TH CONGRESS-- Gun Owners’ Victories Since the 2004 Elections Elections matter. Precisely because of our work and success in the 2002 and 2004 elections, we were able to lay the groundwork for the victories that you will read about below. Now the question before us is, “What will the future hold?” Two years from now, will we be reporting on more victories in our quest to protect and preserve the Second Amendment? Or, will our update contain bad news for gun owners? Election Day -- Tuesday, November 7 -- will be when the next chapter in the history of the Second Amendment will be written. Your work in the coming weeks will be what spells the difference between pro- and anti-gun candidates on Election Day. Thus, you will write the future legislative history of the Second Amendment. Following is a list of the major federal victories we have seen during the 109th Congress: · Enactment of the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act.” Within a year of Hurricane Katrina hitting the Gulf Coast, Congress passed the NRA-backed H.R. 5013, sponsored by Representative Bobby Jindal (R-La.), by an overwhelming 322-99 vote. This bill amended federal emergency laws to prohibit federal, state, and local authorities from confiscating lawfully-owned firearms during emergencies or disasters. Senator David Vitter’s (R-La.) amendment to prohibit the use of funds appropriated under the Homeland Security appropriations bill (H.R. 5441) for the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms during an emergency or disaster passed the U.S. Senate by an historic 84-16 vote. The Jindal bill was substituted for the Vitter amendment in the conference committee and President Bush signed it into law on October 4. · Enactment of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” President Bush, marking the culmination of six years of hard work by NRA-ILA and gun owners nationwide, signed “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (S. 397) into law on October 26, 2005, thus ending the campaign of politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers. The Senate passed S. 397 by a 65-31 vote on July 29, 2005 and then by the House by a 283-144 vote on October 20, 2005. · Enactment of the “Tiahrt Amendment.” This amendment protects gun owners’ privacy by prohibiting the release of firearm trace data to any entity except a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation involving the firearm. · Enactment of a tax exemption for custom gunsmiths. During the same week the Senate passed S. 397, NRA-ILA helped win an important but less-publicized victory for small custom gunsmiths. A massive highway construction bill (which President Bush promptly signed into law) contained an amendment that exempts manufacturers of fewer than 50 firearms from “manufacturing” excise taxes. · House Passage of H.R. 5092. The NRA-backed “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act,” by Representatives Howard Coble (R-N.C.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.), passed the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bi-partisan 277-131 vote. H.R. 5092 was drafted in large part to address BATFE abuses at Richmond, Virginia area gun shows last year, which were detailed in three oversight hearings by the House Crime Subcommittee this spring. The measure will help curb BATFE’s efforts to revoke dealers’ licenses for minor paperwork errors, establish new guidelines for BATFE investigations, and improve the appeals process for dealers. It will also provide more accountability and much-needed reform to this federal law enforcement agency. · Enactment of critical hunting and conservation legislation. Sportsmen and wildlife scored a critical victory when House and Senate negotiators approved a provision in the 2007 Defense Authorization Act that will save the herds of elk and mule deer on Santa Rosa Island (the second largest of California’s Channel Islands) from court-ordered eradication. With encouragement from NRA-ILA, this Congress correctly determined it is in the public interest to maintain this sanctuary for these two remarkable species of animals. Clearly, the past two years represent one of the most successful congressional sessions that gun owners have ever had. But make no mistake--all of our hard work and vital victories must be protected! This year’s elections are critically important, as their outcome will determine whether our hard-fought gains will stand or fall. The House Judiciary Committee has just sent several important pro-gun reform bills to the floor, but if control of the Congress changes hands, the new chairman of that committee would be John Conyers of Michigan—the only House member still serving who voted for the Gun Control Act of 1968, voted against the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, denounced crime-fighting proposals (such as Project Exile) that to his way of thinking “unwisely place a great emphasis on enforcement programs,” and has repeatedly called for a national ban on handgun ownership and possession! And while many bills start out in Judiciary, they must all pass through the House Rules Committee before they go to the floor. The Rules Committee is a nearly all-powerful body that sets the ground rules for how a bill will be debated on the House floor—and on the amendments that can be offered. In line to fill that gate-keeping role: Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). Rep. Slaughter is a persistent cosponsor of anti-gun bills, including a bill to ban .50 caliber rifles, and another to reverse the Bush administration’s policy of destroying instant check records on law-abiding gun buyers. Of course, the last check on this anti-gun attack would be the House leadership itself. But don’t look for much hope there, because would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi also has a decades-long anti-gun track record. Pelosi, a close ally of fellow San Franciscan Dianne Feinstein, co-chaired the 1992 Democratic platform committee that endorsed gun bans, gun licensing, and gun registration, and joined Conyers in opposing expansion of Project Exile enforcement programs against violent criminals. Pelosi’s sorry record on Second Amendment issues was underscored by one of her first acts on joining her party’s leadership; when she was elected House Minority Whip, she hired a former Handgun Control, Inc. spokesman as her communications director. None of these pro-gun victories would have been possible with Pelosi, Conyers and Slaughter in control of the U.S. House of Representatives. The message for gun owners and sportsmen is obvious. Elections matter, and votes count. We cannot take our past victories for granted; we must continue the fight. Pro-Second Amendment candidates can only win if NRA members lend their support to those who support our gun rights and hunting heritage. Please refer to the previous two Grassroots Alerts for activities you need to undertake to ensure victory on November 7--registering to vote, contacting your EVC, volunteering on pro-gun campaigns, etc. NRA-PVF grades and endorsements are now available online at www.NRAPVF.org. (I am a hunter too)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
