Scalia-Thomas Twins Would Multiply in Bush Presidency

My, my, my. You have said all that, and it's quite a mouthful.

However, I still haven't heard the names of these judges that Bush has allegedly appointed.

In a state, yadda, yadda, yadda. You know the rest.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 15, 2000).]
 
Randy,

Read my post again. I did not say that YOU were a Democrat Party infiltrator. I said that some Bush detractors on this post most certainly are. I have no way of knowing what is in your heart and mind. However, you do seem to know what is in the heart and mind of Gov. Bush, despite his record and statements to the opposite.

I do find it interesting that you seem to have "identified" yourself with my description though.

What I did say is that when commenting about Gov. Bush, you typically make alegations and never give evidence supporting your alegations. You have continued to do that when you responded to my post.

As for personally liking Gov. Bush, that matters not the least to me. I don't look to our President to be my buddy, I want an effective leader.

You state that you will continue to post articles pointing out Gov. Bush's "shortcomings". The past two that I have read have been anything but critical in my opinion. You posted a Salon article about how Gov. Bush is reaching out to minorities and a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial about how President Bush would appoint more justices like Scalia and Thomas.

In my mind, only a racist (this is NOT an accusation to anyone here) would find Gov. Bush's outreach to minorities a "shortcoming". I will object if he PANDERS to minorities, as with any group, but I find it great that he is reaching out to minorities and wishes to convert them to more conservative beliefs. A liberal who erroneously believes that all conservatives are a bunch of ignorant bigots, probably thinks that a forum of gun owners would become outraged by this outreach.

As for appointing more justices like Scalia and Thomas, HALLELUJAH; every Supreme Court Justice should share the Constitutional opinions of Scalia and Thomas. If this were the case, we would be on the fast track back to the Constitutional principles of our founding fathers.

Randy, you post an editorial that you apparently feel is critical of Gov. Bush's proposed appointing of more justices like Scalia and Thomas, then you state in a following post that he will NOT appoint conservative justices. Which one is it?

Please Randy, continue to post such critical articles pointing out Gov. Bush's "shortcomings".
 
Cactus: Personally, I want an effective leader who agrees with me; If he disagrees with me, I'd like him to be INeffective, to minimize the damage.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cactus:
Randy,

Read my post again. I did not say that YOU were a Democrat Party infiltrator. I said that some Bush detractors on this post most certainly are. I have no way of knowing what is in your heart and mind. However, you do seem to know what is in the heart and mind of Gov. Bush, despite his record and statements to the opposite.

I do find it interesting that you seem to have "identified" yourself with my description though.

What I did say is that when commenting about Gov. Bush, you typically make alegations and never give evidence supporting your alegations. You have continued to do that when you responded to my post.

As for personally liking Gov. Bush, that matters not the least to me. I don't look to our President to be my buddy, I want an effective leader.

You state that you will continue to post articles pointing out Gov. Bush's "shortcomings". The past two that I have read have been anything but critical in my opinion. You posted a Salon article about how Gov. Bush is reaching out to minorities and a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial about how President Bush would appoint more justices like Scalia and Thomas.

In my mind, only a racist (this is NOT an accusation to anyone here) would find Gov. Bush's outreach to minorities a "shortcoming". I will object if he PANDERS to minorities, as with any group, but I find it great that he is reaching out to minorities and wishes to convert them to more conservative beliefs. A liberal who erroneously believes that all conservatives are a bunch of ignorant bigots, probably thinks that a forum of gun owners would become outraged by this outreach.

As for appointing more justices like Scalia and Thomas, HALLELUJAH; every Supreme Court Justice should share the Constitutional opinions of Scalia and Thomas. If this were the case, we would be on the fast track back to the Constitutional principles of our founding fathers.

Randy, you post an editorial that you apparently feel is critical of Gov. Bush's proposed appointing of more justices like Scalia and Thomas, then you state in a following post that he will NOT appoint conservative justices. Which one is it?

Please Randy, continue to post such critical articles pointing out Gov. Bush's "shortcomings".
[/quote]


Cactus,

I can see now why you are confused about my posts regarding Bush. My apologies.

My posting articles that seem to show Bush in a "good" light, are posted to show fellow gun owners and TFL readers what the Left-wing fascists are reading about Bush.

This does NOT mean that I agree with the articles at all.

I have been hoping that someone who knows more about Bush's track record in approving Texas judges would be clarified by someone here, but to date that has not occurred.

As for Bush's reaching out to minorities, he is failing in that as well. Most Blacks that vote don't trust Republicans as a general rule, never have, and do support the Democrat sponsored gravy train of "free" benefits (medicare, SSI/SSDI, free paid abortions, welfare, food stamps, ect.)

So do most so-called illegal "migrant workers", read Mexican, and other minorities whose offspring become instant American citizens at birth, enabling even more givaway money (W-I-C programs, Planned Parenthood).

Do not misunderstand me. I hold not ill will towards those who cross the border illegally to obtain free American welfare $$ and other goodies.

That is OUR fault for allowing these programs to exist in the first place. They, like all humans will do what they think is in their best interests.

No one can blame them for that.

But, you see, Bush is not going to get much support from these people anyway, as they are going to vote Democrat anyhow, if they vote at all, so why does he ignore American Republican gun-owners, who do vote, so much?

Simple: he and his political machine
know full well that most of you will vote for him no matter what he does IRT welfare giveaways and other "outreach" programs.


That is because most of you will not support a political party that promises, as part of the plank, to eliminate free government handouts and welfare, while eliminating unconstitutional gun control laws.

This whole idea that firearms are the be-all, and end-all of freedom is nonsense.Of course they are necessary, but so is educating those who take over the reigns after we are to old to fight and pass on into history.

We are losing the fight because the younger generations are being indoctrinated in the public schools to think more big government is better, sex with multiple partners is good, and guns are "bad". Bush will only make that worse, not better, IMO.

Our time is very short and may already be well past, but I digress...
 
Eh, Didn't Geaoge W. Make it possible for CCW in Texas?

------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swatman:
Eh, Didn't Geaoge W. Make it possible for CCW in Texas?

[/quote]

Since when did paying the state of Texas,
so that you could exercise your God given, Constitutionally recognized right to keep and BEAR arms, make DUHbya proponent of American liberty?

I have some great news for you, swatman.

You do not have to PAY the state for a right granted by the Creator and protected by the Constitution.

That, IMHO, makes it a privilege, not a right.

One that can be revoked at any time, by the whim of those same politicos who "gave" you the "right" in the first place.

Free _and_ packing in the PRK.
 
Yeah it sux that it's a privelege and all.

But from a self-defense while not going to jail standpoint it is better than the way it was.

Yes, some of you carry where illegal. Those of us who carry where it's legal still worry about printing and all; but if the trained eye (on a cop) catches you at least there's that permit.

Anyone illegally carry a fullsize?


Battler.
 
Originally posted by Randy Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

As for Bush's reaching out to minorities, he is failing in that as well. Most Blacks that vote don't trust Republicans as a general rule, never have, and do support the Democrat sponsored gravy train of "free" benefits (medicare, SSI/SSDI, free paid abortions, welfare, food stamps, ect.)
[/quote]

This is largely not GW's fault. The Republicans cannot blame GW for the shortcomings you cite above. They go waaaay back.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
...if they vote at all, so why does he ignore American Republican gun-owners, who do vote, so much?

Simple: he and his political machine
know full well that most of you will vote for him no matter what he does IRT welfare giveaways and other "outreach" programs.


That is because most of you will not support a political party that promises, as part of the plank, to eliminate free government handouts and welfare, while eliminating unconstitutional gun control laws...
Randy; get over it. This is a very rich country. "Free handouts" are a reality. There's no reason we have to tie gun control to paternalism.

This whole idea that firearms are the be-all, and end-all of freedom is nonsense. Of course they are necessary, but so is educating those who take over the reigns
(sic, spelling would help your credibility, here, Randy) <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> after we are to old to fight and pass on into history.

We are losing the fight because the younger generations are being indoctrinated in the public schools to think more big government is better, sex with multiple partners is good, and guns are "bad". Bush will only make that worse, not better, IMO.

Our time is very short and may already be well past, but I digress...

You digress, and you confuse the good guys with the bad. Bush may not be the White Knight riding in on his silver steed to save humanity, but he's a damn sight more likely to help us in 2000 than Don Quixote (a.k.a Harry Brown) limping in on Rosalinda to tilt at your windmills.

At the risk of repeating myself, get over it.

P.S. Whomever asked about the liberal USSC Justice appointed by Ike, it was Earl Warren.

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited July 16, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by SAGewehr (edited July 16, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SAGewehr:
Originally posted by Randy Davis:
You digress, and you confuse the good guys with the bad. Bush may not be the White Knight riding in on his silver steed to save humanity, but he's a damn sight more likely to help us in 2000 than Don Quixote (a.k.a Harry Brown) limping in on Rosalinda to tilt at your windmills.

At the risk of repeating myself, get over it.

P.S. Whomever asked about the liberal USSC Justice appointed by Ike, it was Earl Warren.
[/quote]

The only thing DUHbya is going to help is himself...to more of your tax dollars spent much of which will go to people who choose not to work.

Is that what you want?

If you are expecting a real change in government from the likes of Bush, you are only fooling yourself, IMHO.

Republican Party/Democrat Party= two sides of the SAME coin. Business as usual.

As for any spelling mistakes I may have made, pointing out minor mistakes like these is the last refuge of someone that cant make a valid argument in a forum debate.

P.S. I didnt say a thing about Ike or Earl Warren. You must have me confused with someone else, SAGewehr.
 
Originally posted by Randy Davis
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
"That is because most of you will not support a political party that promises, as part of the plank, to eliminate free government handouts and welfare, while eliminating unconstitutional gun control laws... "
[/quote]

Response posted by SAGewehr

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Randy; get over it. This is a very rich country. "Free handouts" are a reality. There's no reason we have to tie gun control to paternalism.
[/quote]

Well then, SAGewehr, you had better get the good news about how very rich this country is, to those who fought for it; all the military veterans who are getting a royal screwing by the Veterans Administration for healthcare services and other true entitlements that they earned and were promised by our "rich" country.

Yes, and all the while, deadbeats slackers and illegal aliens from all points of the globe seem to be entitled to every US government sponcered giveaway program the liberal facists can dream up, while the politico's take thier junkets and line thier pockets with money badly needed by those who served this country. :mad:


But, once again, I digress.....
 
Randy,

Next time your post an article favorable to Gov. Bush, maybe you could attach an editorial comment of your opinion of it. That would save me, and maybe others, much confusion. However, I would like to say that it is very fair-minded of you to post these favorable articles about Gov. Bush even when you obviously don't agree with them.

I still find it courious though, that you alone seem to know what is in the heart and mind of Gov. Bush.

Liberal commentators continue to write editorials about how dangerous Gov. Bush is to the liberal agenda. Liberal womens groups tell everyone how Gov. Bush will send women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Anti-gunners tell how the streets will run red with blood if Bush is elected President. The NAACP tells how blacks will be relegated once more to second class citizen status under Bush appointed judges.

On the other side of the spectrum, the NRA tells us that a Bush Presidency will result in the most gun friendly administration in decades. The Rev. Robertson and other abortion foes tell how Bush will work to help the pro-life cause.

Despite Gov. Bush's record and statements, despite the writings of all these involved and interested parties, you seem to know that Gov. Bush is a charlatan, an imposter. Gov. Bush has only governed the way he has and stated the positions he has to fool us all and further advance the liberal Democrat agenda once elected President.

Despite a lack of public record to base his positions on, you take Harry Brown at his word for his agenda. Considering the fact that Gov. Bush has a public record to look at, a pretty decent one I might add, how about giving him the same benefit as you extend to Harry Brown. As one who has shown such fair-mindedness, wouldn't that be the fair thing to do?

Since you state that Gov. Bush's passage of a concealed carry bill has transformed a right into a priviledge, I can only assume that you are opposed to any such legislation in your home state. Let me ask you a few questions if I may. Do you carry concealed without a permit, or maybe even openly? Have you stated to the police that you do so since it is your right? If not, maybe you should consider it! When you are arrested, you can take it all the way to the Supreme Court as a test case.

If you choose to do this, and I would encourage you to do so as you feel so certain about it, I can only hope that it is a Supreme Court dominated by justices appointed by President G.W. Bush and not President AlGore!
 
Back
Top