A ban bush could reverse...but WON'T

[Al Norris]

Warning: Thread Veer ahead.

I'm curious, why do you capitalize Clinton and not gwb?

Elimentary my friend, elimentary! GWB ant got nothing to capitalize. Its difficult to capitalize the negative and thats all he has gave this country, in the past 5+ years.

Actually, judging from the way you write, it is nothing of the sort. It is merely laziness on your part.

I base this on how often you capitalize the beginnings of your post or other sentences. How often you capitalize, or not, others user names when you mention them in your posts. How you don't even try to separate your paragraphs... Analysis from this thread alone. Should I widen my search?

Your wording and writing comprehension tells me that you know the language you are communicating in, but are just being lazy in presenting your written argument. I refer you to rule #4:

4) Mangling of the English language whether thru ignorance, age, sloth or intent diminishes and embarrasses each of us. Posts which are indecipherable due to inability to translate thoughts into coherent written statements will be deleted without explanation. Recidivists will be removed.

Now it may be that you hold Bush in such low esteem. That is certainly your right. But in doing so, you are either mangling the written word or you are lowering yourself to the level you attribute Bush to be.

Which is it?

Why do I ask? Because at the time you signed up, you agreed to the Terms of Service. There was an Announcement by Rich Lucibella (stickied to every forum here - ya couldn't miss it, unless on purpose) about a recent Policy change in the rules. There was also a very long thread, that was also stickied (in the General Forum), on just that subject: Raising the Bar, as it relates to posting here, at TFL.

Now, I'm raising this issue with you publicly, because another member asked you a public question and your public response was far from satisfactory in my view, as I've laid out my case, above.
[/thread veer]

 

[DonR101395]

And you have done this in the past 5 years????? Get real man. What action of the gwb administration allowed you this personal gain? Dam sure was not investing in the stock market.

Nope it's called saving and getting pay increases. I lived so long under Clinton that I learned to live like a hermet and when the GWB administration increased pay it helped having eight years of living on peanuts from Clinton that taught me I better save for the next of his kind.

Was your pay cut during the Clinton years--NO! He did cut the military budget, made a lot of folks mad as hell. I had a cousin who was about 45 years old who had over 25 years in the military and had to retire, in 1996. Lord it pissed him off to no end. Now he has an Outdoors equipment store and a cattle ranch in Arkansas--happy as a pig in slop.

It also wasn't increased to keep up with the economy. When you have an E-4 in the military qualifying for welfare there is a problem. Clinton didn't care.

Keep in mind my friend, there are a lot of us older military folks who are now dealing with the VA whose budget has been cut by the gwb administration at a time when our numbers are growing because of HIS war.

Thank your buddy Bill for the military medical benifits cuts and the switch to Tricare that we are stuck with at the time. That all happened on his shift. He closed military hospitals, outsourced medical treatment, and caused an overload in the VA system. You couldn't understand that the military isn't a business and you can't operate it like a business. It will never make money, only cost money and to be run correctly it will cost alot of money.

 

[loggerhead]

Original by Antipitas; Actually, judging from the way you write, it is nothing of the sort. It is merely laziness on your part.

You are right in that I do not like GWB and I see absolutely nothing to "capitalize" him on, or to even try. I believe that the questionier was able to decipher and translate into coherent statements, the words that I presented. If not, I apologize.

I am obliged to agree that I am a lazy writter. I am a retired Chemical Engineer with a triple minor in math, physics and chemistry(obtained under the GI Bill). The 25 years prior to my retirement I was an Engineering Consultant to one of the worlds largest industries. In this capacity I authored many studies and reports, several of which were published in national technical journals. I will admit that I provided the knowledge but the writers were responsible for the gramatical aspects of the finished product.

I don't know what your educational background is but I strongly suspecion that while you were studying Grammer I was in another room studying Phisics and Chemistry. I certainly missed that part that said one must seperate paragraphs.

I apologize for butchering the language and I will do better in the future.

 

[loggerhead]

First of all, Bill is not my buddy and he never has been and I never voted for him in any election. However, with only a few exceptions, I would prefer Bill as a buddy compared to GWB.

Secondly, I do not recall any VA hospital closings or cuts to the VA under Clinton. There could have been some but I do not recall them. Now in the past 5 years there have been several cuts to the Veterans programs by the GWB administration. In the past 3 years VA co-pays have increased twice to over 60% more. Most of his budget cuts have been cuts to the needy while increasing benefits to the wealthy.

I was not aware that anyone had ever tried to run the military like a business. Give me a link, please. When I was in the service we at least were require to appear to be watchfull of our equipment care (cost).

 

[alan]

Re Jager 1's somewhat longish but informative post, well done.

Concerning the firearms related foibles of the Clinton administration, as I recall, Rahm Emanuel, now a congressman from the Chicago area offered, in regard to an anti gun executive order issued by then President Clinton, "stroke of the pen, law of the land, kind of cool". I did not agree, but nobody asked my opinion.

As to other aspects of the thing, President Bush is not my favorite president however respecting our gun rights, Clinton was a lot worse on a holiday, than Bush is on a working day, or so it appears.

I believe that, early in his first term, he could have vacated existing anti gun executive orders, some of which were issued by his father. Unfortunately, he failed to avail himself of this opportunity, and I believe that absent congressional action, it's to late now. Looking at existing situations, I doubt that he could get congress to go along with such action on his part today.

 

[DonR101395]

Secondly, I do not recall any VA hospital closings or cuts to the VA under Clinton.

To partially quote you from above....I don't know your educational background, but while you were studying physics and chemistry, I was probably in the next room studying reading.
I never said their were any VA hospitals closed under Clinton. I said military hospitals. When they outsourced the healthcare coverage they didn't "need" as many hospitals. That caused the military retirees who had previously used these hospitals to go to the VA hospitals which then became overloaded. The reason for the increased co-pays is the tricare system is broke. It was a broke system when Clinton started it, it's a broke system now. Just like every other govt program, it won't be ended because some senator has a stake in seeing it stay. Either a lobbyist feeding him, a lifelong friend, or it's big business for his state.

I was not aware that anyone had ever tried to run the military like a business.

What would you call cutting military jobs and filling them with civillians. Cutting medical personal because it's not profitable to have them. In the 90's General McPeek put out a memo that no one in the Air Force should work more than 40 hours a week. We've had total quality management (TQM) courses that were based on a business model. That sounds like a business to me.

When I was in the service we at least were require to appear to be watchfull of our equipment care (cost).

Nothing has changed there. I have no problems with taking care of equipment. The problem was the time between Bush 1 and GWB. (Clinton era) It was easier to take care of new equipment because there was no new equipment. You made due with what you had from the Bush 1 and Reagon era.

 

[Fal 4 Me]

Please don't take this to be a flame, it is simply an honest question. I understand that the president proposes a budget, but congress has to approve of the budget. If republicans thought Clinton was doing so bad, especially with military funding, why didn't they fight harder to increase the funding in these areas? Considering that for the majority of Clinton's presidency, 6 years, Republicans controlled congress, they could've/should've done more, if Clinton "destroyed" the military like so many believe. The president only has so much power,

THE TIMETABLE OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

Title III of the Budget Act establishes a statutory timetable for the congressional budget process*:
On or before: Action to be completed:
First Monday in February President submits his budget
February 15 Congressional Budget Office submits report to Budget Committees.
Not later than 6 weeks after the President submits budget Committees submit views and estimates to Budget Committees.
April 1 Senate Budget Committee reports concurrent resolution on the budget.*
April 15 Congress completes action on the concurrent resolution on the budget.
May 15 Annual appropriation bills may be considered in House.
June 10 House Appropriations Committee reports last annual appropriation bill.
June 15 Congress completes action on reconciliation legislation.
June 30 House completes action on annual appropriation bills.
October 1 Fiscal year begins.http://www.rules.house.gov/rules%20-%20upto0401/bud_procres.htm

From this it appears that congress has a decent ammount of power for the budget process, and the Republicans in congress could've done more to increase the military's budget during Clinton's term.

 

[Rimrock]

orig post by Fal 4 Me

From this it appears that congress has a decent ammount of power for the budget process, and the Republicans in congress could've done more to increase the military's budget during Clinton's term.

Great post and excellent question. I'd like to hear the answer to that myself. When folks don't get answers to these kind of questions they have a tendency to adopt a "throw the bums out" mentality. Looks like it's already started as the incumbent group in Congress is looking to distance themselves from this current regime. When one party controls it all they better hope it goes well or there'll be no place to hide and nobody else to blame. Were about to see some bright sunshine for the first time in 12 years. Some call it transparency....Got a feeling the sale of sunblock's about to go up in DC.
The "hurt" finally got to those in trenches....not a particularly forgiving group when bashed this badly!


Rimrock

 

[Al Norris]

In case anyone's really wondering, despite any budgetary Acts, proposals or joint budget resolutions, all budgets MUST originate in and are the sole responsibility of the House.

Art I Sec. 7 clause 1: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The "Budget" is the process by which Revenues are raised and dispersed.

Regardless of any claims of who cut the military, all budgetary items are the sole responsibility of the House. Neither the President nor the Senate nor the Judiciary has the power to present a budgetary bill. The House is not required to give the Presidents or the Senates "requests" any weight whatsoever. The House may, if it should decide, shut down the entire Federal Government, should the Senate or the President disagree with its budget.

That's the short answer. It is of course, more complicated than that. Yet it doesn't have to be.

 

[DonR101395]

One question, Who was the Commander in Chief of the military 1992-2000? The commander is responsible for his troops, first, last, and foremost.

 

[Rimrock]

Thanks Antipitas! I think your post should be helpful to all here. Under Clinton and the Republican Congress the Country put the deficit on the front burner. The results were rather amazing as a surplus was finally achieved. When one party is in Congress and the other is in the White House it has an effect of keeping one another in check. The Congress was particularly stingy because the party "in power" was their opposition. In this case Clinton wasn't getting any real money to spend.
Under the existing Administration the Congress gladly spends and grants money. It's up to the President to say NO sometime through the veto process.
This President has never exercised the veto in his five years. I believe that is some kind of modern day record. Hence the cupboard is bare and the IOU's to our children and theirs are overwhelming. As Americans it's past time to say ENOUGH! I don't care what party it is or who did what to whom, it's got to stop for the good of our posterity. It's certainly no secret I and many others here have little or no respect for the current White House resident. I didn't feel that way about Bush "41". That man possessed competence of which the son seems void. My concerns extend to this deficit's draining effect on the dollar and the necessity to sell off parts of this land to those not considered friends just to pay a portion of what is owned them.
Our concern for this country must come before any person or party.
Thanks!

Rimrock

 

[Silver Bullet]

SO WHAT! We survived that and it is six year old history. Why do you keep referring back to Clinton?

Well, here's some info Bartholomew Roberts posted regarding the RKBA accomplishments of the present administration.

From post #24 of this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=185019

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush signs lawsuit preemption bill

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks

7. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed

8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the "http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp] Tiahrt Amendment that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Bush instead sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

10. Sponsored a few pro-gun bills in the 109th Congress.

11. Lawsuit preemption bill declares Second an individual right incorporated under the 14th Amendment. Might be useful in front of SCOTUS?

12. House votes for repeal of D.C. gun ban.

13. Signed exemption for gunsmiths from manufacturing taxes for creating custom firearms.

14. Twice "filled the tree" as suggested by GOA on legislation in order to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for an AWB (once in July 2004 on a tort reform bill and again during S.397). I can't find another instance on any bill where the Senate has taken this action for any other group.

15. Bucked public opinion showing 68% of American supported renewal of assault weapons ban (including almost a third of NRA members) to kill ban not once; but three times.

A few of the links (2, 3, 4) are no longer valid.

 

[loggerhead]

Does anyone on this thread, besides me, sence that anything bad that has happened in the past 13-14 years is the direct responsibility of Bill Clinton while nothing bad that has happened in the past 5-6 years is the fault of GWB.

The "GWB regardless, radicals" squeel like pigs about the "Bush bashers" while bashing Clinton with every breath. Sort of like, perhaps they have an inferiority complex. They bash the "liberal" press when, in the opinion of most, had the liberal press not displayed the Swift Boat groups unfounded lies GWB would not have been re-elected.

 

[loggerhead]

original by DonR101395:One question, Who was the Commander in Chief of the military 1992-2000? The commander is responsible for his troops, first, last, and foremost.

Clinton Commandr and Chief: Number Killed in needless war = 0

GWB Commander and Chief: Number killed in needless war = 2500 and rising

Way to go Bushie Boy, you are doing a great job!

 

[pipoman]

Clinton Commandr and Chief: Number Killed in needless war = 0

I remember something about Somalia???

Though I don't consider the initial purpose of the Somalia incident "needless", it was made that way by "cut and run", which I believe has cost countles American lives since.

 

[DonR101395]

Clinton Commandr and Chief: Number Killed in needless war = 0

Check your facts. You remember Bosnia, Somailia, Kosovo, Kenya, Tanzania. All of which were were far worse a death than war. We were there playing policeman for Bill I ain't got a clue Clinton. And in everyone of the above except the two embassy bombings his administration hamstringed the military. We spent more time going around playing policeman to the world instead of killing the root of the problem until the root grew into a forest and then it's GWB's fault Clinton was a pu*** and preferred to sit by send in his police force, occasionally shoot a missile and hope for the best. You're right I have no use for Clinton. I'm not thrilled with everything GWB does, but at least he does something other than sit on his ass and hope we don't get attacked on our own soil again.

 

[loggerhead]

Seems like GWB is strutting around like a young game chicken hoping for a fight and inviting um to "bring it on." Reasonable phylosophy for a real "Chicken Hawk."

 

[Fremmer]

Arguments about the budget, Iraq, etc.? I thought this Thread was about firearms legislation/regulations.

With regard to the original Thread topic: I do wish that I could buy a Norinco, and that President Bush would correct this.

But President Bush is much better than the alternative Democrat; take your pick -- Kerry, Gore, and/or Hillary. I don't think that even the avowed "Bush bashers" in this Forum can assert that things would be better concerning firearms laws and regulations if a Democrat had been (or will be) elected as President.

For example, an important piece of legislation that the President recently signed into law was The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This legislation put a halt to the frivolous lawsuits that were being prosecuted against gun manufacturers for the criminal acts of...well, criminals. The majority of the mayors who were authorizing these lawsuits were...Democrats. Wonder why guns cost so much? Well, try being sued by a City some time; they have full-time lawyers in house, whose wages are paid for with tax dollars. The gun manufacturers had to pay their own way. Pretty good scheme, right? Sue handgun manufacturers to the point that they have to either quit making guns, or they have to charge so much for a handgun that the average citizen can't afford one. Thanks to President Bush, these lawsuits are preempted by an Act that prohibits them. How did Senator Kerry vote on that Act? He voted against it. So did Senators Clinton, Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, etc.

Another conspicuous example of how elected Democrats view firearms -- and the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens -- was recently demonstrated in New Orleans. There, the Mayor (a Democrat) ordered the N.O Police to confiscate all firearms that were legally owned by law-abiding citizens. The firearms have not been returned to the citizens -- despite a Court Order mandating the same.

Look, I'm neither asserting that all elected Republicans are always perfect concerning firearms legislation and/or regulation, nor that every elected Democrat wants to end the lawful possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. But to assert that the current crop of elected Democrats would do better than President Bush concerning firearm legislation and/or regulation is simply absurd.

 

[Silver Bullet]

The "GWB regardless, radicals" squeel like pigs about the "Bush bashers" while bashing Clinton with every breath.

Sore loser.

We kicked your butt last election, and we're going to kick your butt next election.

 

[Rimrock]

What's really sad is watchin' the GWBzers kick their own butt!
Some of the sharpest Republican stratagists in the country are bewildered, horrified and embarrassed.
He said he'd unite this country and finally after five years he is doing it!
You say hello...and Bush says Dubai!

In a farewell speech in New Delhi, Bush ran into trouble when he praised Pakistan as "a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world." The White House hastened to correct Bush's reference to Pakistan as an Arab nation, and said he meant to say Muslim AP
Anyone really wondering why this "Iraqi project" and other sacreds are a little scratchy?

Rimrock