G.W. Bush the Ultimate Threat to Our Nation.

Great Debates
61

Ex-Tank said, a long time ago:

That’s not what I believe. I don’t want to ban guns from the country. And, as someone else already pointed out, that’s not the ACLU’s position either. I want to regulate them so that guns get into the wrong people’s hands less often. My comments earlier in this thread stated that Bush only cared about the second amendment (which was, I hope, anyway, a hyperbole).

Just by making waiting periods and trigger locks would not infringe on anyone’s right to bear arms. The reason I am against the NRA being in a President Dubya’s office is because they have an extreme position on guns. They believe that there should be almost no legistlation that bans any type of gun or requires more gun safety.

62

To me George W. Bush represents these things: less women’s rights, less gun control, no freedom for me to practice my very peaceful Pagan religion, more war…wait a minute, do the Republicans want the U.S. to be more like Bosnia???Seems like it. I hate G.W.B. and anyone who is ignorant enough to support his politics. :eek:

63

[hijack]

I don’t want to turn this into yet another gun control debate but…

I don’t wan to ban free speech from the country…I want to regulate it so that bad ideas get into the wrong people’s heads less often.

Don’t you see that speech is far more dangerous than a gun could ever be? With a gun I can kill a few people, maybe a dozen. With speech, I can incite thousands of people to kill for me. By spreading hate I can cause impressionable people to blow up buldings. By convincing people the source of their problems is those people over there, I can justify mass murder.

As has been said, Hitler, Stalin and Mao didn’t kill with guns, they killed with words.

[/hijack]

gEEk

64

(bolding mine)

More war??? Where have you been the last 8 years? Clinton is the one sending our troops all over the world. Dubya has made it known he would be much more reluctant to use our military in these types of skirmishes.

I’d welcome you to the board, but seeing that you already hate me and consider me ignorant :rolleyes:, I think I’d be wasting my keystrokes.

Listen, calling people “ignorant” because they have a different political view as you is a cop-out to avoid any real debate. You know, I bet you are one of those that thinks other prople are narrow-minded and bigoted. Oh, the irony.

65

No harm done ExTank. I imagine we all get over-enthusiastic in political discussions one time or another. I know I have.

66

I would love to debate you on this VZ, but I have gone to great lengths to debate this issue on at least three other threads. And it is a complete hijack.

If you want to debate constitutional law and the 2nd, start another thread. But you may want to answer this first: If individual ownership of firearms does not contribute to the militia, how are “these men <snip> expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves.”?

Miller discussed what the test was to determine if a certain type of arm was protected. As the army does not use sawed off shotguns, it was not protected.

I agree with the others. The 2nd is “anachronistic” and therefore obsolete. If so, then the whole damn constitution is. Goodbye freedom of religion, we don’t need to worry about that anymore.

67

LOL, gEEk. In a way, (maybe stretching it a bit) felons do not have freedom of speech. (They forfeit their right to vote.) Background checks and waiting periods provide the same thing, IMO.

But that’s just MO. Sorry, Zenster, for helping push a hijack along.

68

IMHO NONE OF YOU ARE HIJACKING THIS THREAD!!!

Bush’s proponency of gun ownership makes this all quite pertinent. I WILL say that it is polite of all of you to admit to swerving the thread a little, but that’s fine by me. Allow me to quote a few of my favorite phrases on gun control:

Gun control means using BOTH hands.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

At all times the American public must have the firepower necessary to take back their country by force if needed.

Guns don’t kill people, bullets do.

But seriously folks, elimination of Saturday Night Specials (any suggestions on how to do this Constitutionally?), harsh prison terms for “straw buyers”, and stiff penalties for improper storage would go a long way to reducing the gun related problems that we experience. The gun control debates will go on a lot longer than Gore OR Bush, so I feel that they belong here as central issues to the threat of Bush’s ascendancy.

Speaking of the threat of Bush’s ascendancy, what about his push for school prayer? Is this not most outrageous? It is why I label him as being for a state religion. Once the separation of church and state begins to erode, there is opportunity for a tyranny of the majority. This we must fight at all costs.

69

I disagree that the Supreme Court is the most important issue in this election. The court doesn’t have the cajones to overturn Roe v. Wade; and even if it does, Congress certainly doesn’t have the stones to withstand the public outcry that would ensue.

A lot of people think this is a very drab, nothing election cycle. But to me, it is one of the more interesting.

At a time of unprecedented prosperity, we have two schools of thought. Gore says it’s our obligation to use this prosperity to bolster programs and add new programs to help people. Bush thinks more along the lines of, “If we can’t ease Americans’ tax burden in times like these, when will we ever be able to?”

Both sides have their points.

For those of you knee-jerking to say Bush’s tax plan only helps the rich and Gore’s is the tax plan for you, are you aware of the complicated, convoluted formula Gore uses to make his plan appear to offer more of a tax break for ‘average Americans?’ You have to jump through a lot of qualifying hoops - have kids, student loans, etc., or Bush’s plan is probably as good or better.

And what, exactly, is wrong with an across-the-board tax cut? The wealthy are our enemies, right? We often hear people railing that the tax code is too complicated. To them I say, take a look at Gore’s tax plan.

What’s frustrating me about both of them is the incredible lack of specificity they are spewing at every campaign stop. I’ll really get mad if this continues in the debates.

My personal bias against Gore stems from seeing him more than once look straight into the camera and, on a very specific and tough question, do the thing I despise in career politicians: Talk for 60 seconds and say nothing, addressing the question not at all. Perhaps Bush does this too, but I haven’t seen it to the extent that I have with Al.

It’s all generalities, buzz words and imagery. Al has to soul-kiss Tipper at every camera op. We get the point – your’s isn’t a marriage of political convenience like the Clintons, OK? It disgusts me how contrived it is.

Who are the idiots out there making it so people can’t just be themselves and say what’s on their mind?

Someone tried to stir something up earlier this week with videotape claiming to prove that George W. Bush may have been drinking an alcoholic drink at a wedding reception of a friend’s 8 years ago, before he was in politics. He may have even been tipsy. Gasp!

70

Well of course any tax cut is going to benefit the rich more than the poor. WHy? the poor hardly pay any taxes. As far as income tax goes, the top 6% are paying the large majority of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay something like 5% of all taxes.

You can’t save someone $2000 in taxes if they are paying $1000.

As one of the people in the 37% tax bracket I resent Gore’s tendency to paint people who make more than $70,000/year as a household as not needing their own money.

Bush realizes that the surplus is the taxpayers’ money. Gore thinks it belongs to him.

71

I believe the calculations are done in percentages.

Gore thinks that more should be done to help the taxpayers when they are retired or ill. Bush thinks he should help mainly the top bracket (read: his campaign supporters) and use up the surplus so that he can say he cut taxes to get reelected.

Note: I’m neither a Bush supporter or a Gore supporter. I just happen to agree with Gore more often.

72

I’m ashamed of you Jello (especially considering your user name). That’s like saying I’m neither a Hitler supporter or a Mussolini supporter. I just happen to agree with Mussolini more often.

73

Mr. Z,

Since we have permission from the thread’s papa to discuss this, and since we’re so far into the debate that a new thread would spend a day or two going over old ground, I’m just going to try to prove my point here with one (maybe 2) more post(s). You quoted Miller as follows:

Amazingly, the one word you “snipped” from the text is the most important (you’ve done this before, too; you’re supposed to omit the part that isn’t relevant to the argument). Had you wanted to accurately portray what the court wrote, you would have said, “. . . then how come ‘these men were expected to appear bearing. . .’” The paragraph is part of a history lesson intended to show how anachronistic a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment is. In 1939, as today, no one was expected to report for the National Guard or the Army with their own weapons; indeed, it would be forbidden (sp?).

It did a lot more than that. It has been taken as axiomatic by every court for 61 years that the second amendment does not protect the right to individual gun ownership. Some examples (taken from http://www.nra.org, actually):
. . . the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to effectuate Congress’s power to “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,” not to provide an individual right to bear arms contrary to federal law”); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1942) (“The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution.”); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973) (“It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.”); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106-07 (6th Cir. 1976) (“We conclude that the defendant has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.”); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971) (“There can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.”); Ouilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir. 1982) (“The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.”); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992) (“The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon.”); United States v. Tomlin, 454 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1975) (“There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.”).

The Supreme Court has consistently refused to hear appeals of these circuit court decisions. So what is protected in the year 2000? Well, I don’t think that there are any precedants for this, but I’m sure that gun manufacturers would be protected from blanket bans on gun production, and that Congress would not be allowed to force police forces to abandon their handguns (a lá the UK).

The circumstances of religious freeom, political debate, etc. have not fundamentally changed and never will. The circumstances of the militia and the common defense of the nation have.

Gotta run, post more later.

74

Well I could make good arguments that the circumstances of religious freedom, political debate and so forth have changed. But, you are right. It is even more important for individual citizens to be able to keep and bear arms now then it was when the bill or rights was written.

75

C’mon Jello, you can’t be that dense. Does someone really have to spell it out for you?

The point Mr.Zambezi was making was that of course a “rich” person will receive more in tax relief than a poor one, because the poor person didn’t pay much to begin with! Like this:

Person ‘A’ pays $20,000 in taxes.
Person ‘B’ pays $1,000 in taxes.

Tax rates are cut across the board, bringing person A’s taxes down to $18,000, and person B’s down to $800.

Gore looks at it like, “Hey, that’s not fair that the poor guy doesn’t get the same tax break as the rich guy.”

But person B can’t get a $2000 tax break, because he was only paying $1000 to start with.

That’s where the class warfare of the Democrats comes in. Person B is saving $200, and he’s made to feel like he’s being ripped off somehow.

76

Jello said,

Assuming the surplus is real and substantial, where do you think it came from? It didn’t just magically appear, you know. The government collects taxes in order to fund its expenditures. If collections are outpacing expenditures (by trillions, if projections are to be believed), it is because we taxpayers are being overcharged.

Democrats (generally) would like to spend the excess on existing programs, or create new programs (refer to Gore’s speech for a sample list).

Republicans (generally) would like to give this money back from where it came. That’s you, me, and every other Tom, Dick, and Harry that paid the taxes to begin with.

Bush, being a Republican, tends to go along with the latter. (He doesn’t seem to be adamant about it as I would like, however. I’m waiting to see just how much fight he has in him.) Regardless, this is a fiscal philosophy. You know, to let people have control over more of their earnings? Who knows better how to spend your income, you or the government? It is not an excuse to pay off cronies who voted for him or as a ruse for reelection. To suggest this is, in my opinion, unfair.

77

Note: Written while very Drunk. Take w/ a grain of salt.

No, you couldn’t. Arguments? Yes. Good arguments? No.

No, it isn’t. This is essentially rhetorical nonsense, and, more imporatantly, you know it. Answer to the debate with meaningful replies.

We do have a debt,you know. If econonmists are to be believed, it would be foolish to pay it off, but it is a debt nonethelesss.

They may give lip-service to this, but it’s bullshit. At least the Democrats admit they’re gonna waste your money on social programs. The Republicans give half to Mr. Ferrari and half to the Pentagon, while claiming their gonna give it all to you. Vote Libertarian if you’re that serious about it. Speaking of Tom, Dick, and Harry:

"A man walks into a bar w/ three slugs. The bartender, knowing a set-up for a joke when he sees one, says nothing. Eventually, the man goes to the bathroom. The bartender goes to the first slug and says, “So how was your day, stranger?” The slug says “I’m Tom, and I was in and out of puddles all day. It was great.” The bartender goes to te second slug and asks the same question. The slug says, “I’m Dick, and I was in and out of puddles all day. It was great.” Finally, the bartender goes to the third slug and says, “So I guess your name is Harry.” The slug says, “No, my name is Puddles. Don’t even ask me how my day was.”

Later.

78

oldscratch said:

And divemaster said, among other things:

I would now like to officially bow my head in shame.

…

All done. Note to self: Check for blatant idiocy during posting. Check for blatant idiocy during posting. Check for blatant idiocy during posting.

You’re both right, and I apologize. Thank you for helping fight ignorance. I stand chastised and corrected.

79

The very title of this thread continues to baffle me.

Look, you on the left, in case you’ve forgotten, the USA elected Ronald Reagan in 1980. When that happened, I heard EVERY possible (no, make that every IMAGINABLE) dire prediction! When Ronald Reagan was President, I heard…

  1. That trigger-happy cowboy was going to launch an all-out nuclear war the first chance he got.

  2. Lunch counters would be resegregated.

  3. Social Security would be abolished, and poor grandma would starve to death, or have to live in a cardboard box and eat Alpo.

  4. Jerry Falwell was going to be picking the Cabinet.

Well, even if you didn’t like Reagan, I think you’ll have to concede that he DIDN’T blow up the world. We’re all still here, aren’t we? Even when the conservative’s conservative was President, he didn’t do a FRACTION of the things his enemies feared (and his supporters hoped) he’d do. And George W. Bush is NOT the conservative’s conservative.

80

Good points, Astorian. I think the title of this thread is a personal attack.