In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Yes or No ? Will You vote to Re-ellect Bush?

drobsdrobs Member Posts: 22,533 ✭✭✭✭
edited December 2002 in General Discussion
Obviously we don't know who is going to run against him but the question stands.

Regards,
************************
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart throws a sword at you!
«13

Comments

  • Options
    bhayes420bhayes420 Member Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Right now...YES.

    Taxation WITH representation isn't so hot, either!
  • Options
    alledanalledan Member Posts: 19,541
    edited November -1
    Boy! this is a hard qoestion at this time! If there is no one better then I guess i will have to vote for the one who will save some of my rights. I can't say it it's Bush tho!

    anim0447.gif
    Ageless cosmic rocker!
  • Options
    rldowns3rldowns3 Member Posts: 6,096
    edited November -1
    Currently undecided. I just know that for damned sure in the last election it wasn't gonna be Al Gore I was voting for, so thankfully he said he's not gonna try for 2004. I thought Bush Jr started his office fairly strong but I think he has lost his wind.

    Well, here's to wishful thinking that the next candidates are at least 2nd amendment supporters.
  • Options
    elect1mikeelect1mike Member Posts: 4,585 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    most likley but will have to see who runs against him

    bull.txt
    col elect1mike Illinois
    volinters RRG
    O give me a home where no democrats roam
  • Options
    outdoortexasoutdoortexas Member Posts: 4,780
    edited November -1
    Who else is there? If, Bush wasn't running who would be?
  • Options
    Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Right now, I am leaning toward NO, but I will wait and see what he does about the 2004 "assault weapon" sunset as well as seeing how certain anti-terror / foreign policy strategies play out. The alternative would be to vote Libertarian as a protest. I have the luxury of knowing that my vote for President matters not a whit because I live in NY State. If NY State is even close to voting for the Republican Electors for Bush in 2004, to where my vote might make a difference, it would be a landslide almost everywhere else.
  • Options
    beachmaster73beachmaster73 Member Posts: 3,011 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    yes. Only Democrat worth a damn is Kerry of Nebraska and unfortunately he won't run for the job. I think he feels he has too many VietNam skeletons in his SEAL closet. Too bad.Beach
  • Options
    AlpineAlpine Member Posts: 15,051 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Absolutely YES.

    "If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."
    ?The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.?
    Margaret Thatcher

    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
    Mark Twain
  • Options
    RembrandtRembrandt Member Posts: 4,486 ✭✭
    edited November -1
  • Options
    offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Assuming his opponent IS A DEMOCRAT -- of course, what are you, kidding? [8D]


    Life NRA Member

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
  • Options
    dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    Though I am very disapointed with some of his actions, and happy with others, I don't see anyone that would run against him that I would rather see in office. Unless something changes, Yes.

    The NRA is on our side!
  • Options
    offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The thing is, any Democrat gives Schumer, Feinstein and Brady an "E" ticket to start screwing with new gun (and ammo) control legislation. This is a case where if you dislike what Bush & Ashcroft are doing, you'll HATE what Hillary and company would do.... Sorry, sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. Maybe we'll get lucky and Gorski will get the Supreme Court to look at the 2nd Amendment...~! (think positive)


    Life NRA Member

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
  • Options
    Mr.PissyPantsMr.PissyPants Member Posts: 3,575
    edited November -1
    I am quite certain I will be supporting Bush in the next election. He has done a good job in my book, and while I wish he was a 2nd Amendment fanatic, he isn't half as bad as the rest out there. Plus he is a self professing Christian, and that says a lot about his character and policies.

    I feel he has demonstrated strong leadership given the situations he found himself in, and I will continue to support his efforts and pray that God will continue to guide his steps.
  • Options
    HAIRYHAIRY Member Posts: 23,606
    edited November -1
    Because of his dilution of the separation of church and state provisions of the Constitution, I'll have to say not only No, but 'ell NO.

    It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!
    Resident Pyrrhonist
  • Options
    Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hairy, there is no "separation of church and state" provision in the U.S. Constitution. If you are talking about the 1st Amendment, it only states that Congress cannot establish a specific religion (meaning make it the official religion):

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    I'm more concerned with Bush's going along with the CFR bill which in my opinion is a clear violation of the freedom of speech part of the 1st Amendment.
  • Options
    JudgeColtJudgeColt Member Posts: 1,790 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I cannot believe any gun owner would vote for anyone but Bush, no matter who runs against him (unless somehow Teddy Roosevelt is the candidate). A vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for more gun control. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the Democrat and more gun control. Thanks to the idiot gun owners who voted for Perot in 1992, we got Klinton and the 1994 Crime Control Act. Thanks to those environmentalists who voted for Nader in 2000 instead of Gore, we got Bush. Thank you Greens!

    If you don't like Bush, you will hate anyone else. (Just think if Gore were president now. We would be having sensitivity training about terrorists and seeing what we could give them so they would not hurt us.)

    In 2004, the elected president will be either a Republican or a Democrat, not some third party candidate who is strong on guns. Gun owners will be less burdened by a Republican congress and president than by a Democratic congress and president. The 1994 Crime Control Act passed by one vote of a Democrat, Al Gore, who could never have been in the position to cast that vote if so many idiot gun owners had not voted for Perot. A Democrat WILL introduce legislation to extend the 1994 Crime Control Act, which is set to expire in 2004, and it is vital that we have a congress in place that will not extend it.

    Vote Republican for president and congress, unless you KNOW a particular Democrat will vote with gun owners and to confirm conservative judges and vote against abortion. (There are a very few Democrats who are gun-firendly, and they deserve our support unless their Republication challenger is equally strong on the issues, then take the Republican.)

    Vote for Bush (hold your nose if you must) and a Republican congress in 2004. We will have to get as much done as possible (or stop bad legislation) before 2008 when Hillary will run. (Can you believe she is the most admired woman in America? Is that a scary thought or what? That is the sickness we are up against. Think what damage a President Hillary and a Democratic congress could do!)
  • Options
    dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    Salzo, we need you here! Where are you?

    PS, well said Judge Colt.

    The NRA is on our side!
  • Options
    ruger270manruger270man Member Posts: 9,361 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Definitely Bush. He even has a redneck accent, you can't go wrong.

    ________________
    Heston for prez.

    rifle.jpg
  • Options
    interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    What will be the other option, HILLARY? Oh yeah like I am gonna vote for that skank.[xx(]

    "If your gonna be stupid, go find a democrat."
  • Options
    salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Absolutely not.(Sorry Dheffly, I dont have the stomach for this right now[:)] )

    "Sometimes the people have to give up some individual rights for the safety of society."
    -Bill Clinton(MTV interview)
  • Options
    dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    Salzo,

    We need you to weigh in on Hairy and Gordian Blade's argument in the above replies. I lean on you as my forum expert on these matters.

    The NRA is on our side!
  • Options
    whiteclouderwhiteclouder Member Posts: 10,574 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    salzo:

    You are going to look odd without a nose.

    Clouder..
  • Options
    TrinityScrimshawTrinityScrimshaw Member Posts: 9,350 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yes.

    I live in a State that has Billary & Chucky as their Senators. I have wintnessed first hand what is going to happen if anyone else get's in office. And so will you if anyone other then a Republican is elected.

    Trinity +++

    "Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."(Proverbs 22:6)
  • Options
    airborneairborne Member Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yes, without any reservation.

    B - BreatheR - RelaxA - AimS - SightS - Squeeze
  • Options
    beachmaster73beachmaster73 Member Posts: 3,011 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Judge Colt.....wonderfully well said!!!! I think you completely eliminated the Libertarian argument with a couple of strokes of the pen. As we say in the Navy...BRAVO ZULU! Beach
  • Options
    salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Dheffly- I am hardly an expert on these matters, but I agree with Gordians sentiments. I would add, that not only is congress prohibited from establishing a religion, they are also prohibited from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
    "Seperation of church and state" is nowhere in the constitution-as a matter of fact, it is unconstitutional. The church and state dogma was created by the Supreme court, becaue the courts assumed the role of doling out and deciding what rights we can enjoy. The intent of the bill of rights, was to prohibit the federal government from legislating in those areas mentioned. The bill of rights was unecessary, because the main body of the constitution does not give the federal government the authority to act in those areas mentioned in the bill of rights anyway. The bill of rights was created as a sort of double protection.
    But all of that has changed. Now, the federal government has assumed the role of deciding how and what rights we can enjoy(exactly the opposite intent of the bill of rights). The amendment reads that Congress cant establish, and congress cant prohibit. In other words, the federal government is to stay out of ALL religious matters. Seperation of church and state places in the hands of the federal government the "authority"(and I use that term loosely)to decide what is religiously "appropriate". Seperation of church and state is anti constitutional, cause it allows the federal government powers that they are clearly prevented by the constitution from having. RELIGIOUS ISSUES ARE MATTERS FOR THE STATE OR THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE!
    I do agree with Hairy on Bushs "faith base" initiatives-but for different reasons. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the Federal government can raise and collect taxes, and then dole them out for the purpose of charity.
    The question is not whether or not the Feds can give money to religious organizations for charitable purposes, the question is why is the federal government giving ANY money to any organizations at all.

    "Sometimes the people have to give up some individual rights for the safety of society."
    -Bill Clinton(MTV interview)
  • Options
    PrebanpartsPrebanparts Member Posts: 465 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So long as Rumsfeld stays with him, if not I will vote for Rumsfeld..
  • Options
    He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 50,953 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think anyone I would be willing to vote for would have too much integrity to run.[:(] I do not think much of Shrub and I don't like his opponants either. I am gonna write in Salzo.[:p]
  • Options
    4GodandCountry4GodandCountry Member Posts: 3,968
    edited November -1
    Sense the setting president is a shoe in for the incumbant party the answer is yes. I would pick Bush over any Democrapic candidate that will run for the office. The good dems won't be allowed to participate. It will be Lieberman, Dashle and Gephart for the dems and I can't stand any of them. Hilary Cluntin would never pass muster, she may run in the 2008 campaign but not 2004. Maybe her bull dike buddy Janet Reno will run as her vice president and Hairy's dream will come true.
  • Options
    dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    Man, it's hard to argue with Salzo's statement. I always admire his ability to explain the bill of rights and constitutional matters with such eloquence.

    Thanks Salzo!

    The NRA is on our side!
  • Options
    kissgoodnightkissgoodnight Member Posts: 4,064 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    YES! Unless there is another Republican he is the only way to go.
  • Options
    VarmintmistVarmintmist Member Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It always has been, and always will be the lesser of two evils. Even if you agree 100% with a canidate, I may have reservations about him/her. You vote for the one that most represents your veiw, and the one that you think will be able to protect what you hold dear more.

    So, as the current lineup sits, Bush, yes.

    Those people who see nothing but grey areas, no black and white, are lost in the fog.
  • Options
    v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    When he runs against Hillory? Certainly.
  • Options
    mudgemudge Member Posts: 4,225 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Varmintmist......I fully agree with your "vote for the person who most closely represents you views." I would add one more caveat, however.
    That would be "and has a chance to be elected." That pretty much rules out the 3rd party types. I've said it before and I'll say it again, (and stand back for the broadsides)...a vote for any candidate other than Republican or Democrat (GAG..GAG..WRETCH..BARF) is a wasted vote,
    regardless of how "good" it makes you feel or the "message" you think you're sending.
    In Presidential elections, I've never voted anything but Republican and I ain't gonna' start now.

    Mudge the stubborn

    ps. Clouder.....VERY DROLL. I loved it.[:D]
    I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!<BR>
  • Options
    mballaimballai Member Posts: 1,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'd vote for Bush in a heartbeat. Granted that he's not hit all the notes to my liking, he's probably the first president I've ever felt I could sit down and have a beer with (yeah I know he's not into that anymore and neither am I but you know what I mean) and at the same time salute him.

    Three Precious Metals: Gold, silver and lead
  • Options
    chunkstylechunkstyle Member Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Depends on how he handles the Iraq war. If he lets Hussein off the hook, he should be fired, period.

    Iraqi: "Is it true that only 13% of American kids can find Iraq on a map?"
    American reporter: "Yes, but all 13% are Marines"
  • Options
    Evil ATFEvil ATF Member Posts: 1,195 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    No.

    I'll write in Mickey Mouse before I cast a vote for that traitorous dog a second time.

    Bush a Christian. Hmph. Lots of people claim to be Christians these days. It's almost a trend, such as the half-hearted Patriot Lite that emerged immediately after September 11th and was gone by November 1st.

    Show me the money. It talks and Bush walks.

    Stand And Be Counted
  • Options
    Big Sky RedneckBig Sky Redneck Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Without a doubt I would. While he has "issues" I still think he is doing a good job.

    I can't wait to see EvilATFs take on this.[:D]


    If you need a gun larger than a .243 to kill a deer, you need to give up
    redneck1314@pennswoods.net
  • Options
    mkirklandmkirkland Member Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have to say that I will have to vote for Bush. Any other vote is giving the anti gunners victory. Third party votes are great, but the presidency is too crucial to our rights. Last election proved that we need every vote and third party voting is a waste of a vote when it comes to the presidency..
  • Options
    Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't think Bush is an evil man, nor stupid, nor insincere about his faith. I think he is a pragmatist with a limited respect for the integrity of our individual liberties. This is best exemplified by his comments about CFR. I'm cutting him a little slack because (a) he's putting tax cuts at the center of his plan to get the economy moving, (b) he's moving to install an anti-missile shield against a "rogue nation" limited strike, and (c) he is in a better position than I am to know what is needed to counter national security threats. I won't make my final judgment on him until 2004.

    What worries me most about Bush is that I get the impression that when it comes down to a choice of sacrificing a lot of liberty for a small increment of increased security, he will pick increased security. But when it comes to sacrificing a little PC for a lot of security, that's a non-starter for him.

    As Exhibit A, I give you my experience last summer of being frisked "at random" (ha, ha) four times out of six flights during a round trip from NY to CA. That was after passing through regular security cleanly. Oh, did I forget to mention that on one occasion the security screeners were speaking Spanish to each other while doing the "random" search?

    As Exhibit B, I give you the new system for tracking everyone's credit card purchases in a giant database. Just wait until the next Democrap administration gets their hands on that!

    I'm tired of politicians on both sides of the aisle deciding that the solution to every problem is to take more of my liberty or more of my money or both.
Sign In or Register to comment.