I can only hope that everyone on here IS an NRA member.  If not, I would suggest you become a member now.  It's not only my duty to fight for what is right.........it is yours also.

Amen Brother!  Sportsmen don't need Obama!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That's funny...I hear this everytime a Democrat is elected and it is rediculous.

Garrett,

What's ridiculous - Obama's voting record concerning gun legislation in Illinois and in the Senate?  His comments about the 2nd Amendment?  The record and stated positons of his apointee for Attorney General?  His seeking support from such animal rights organizations as HSUS (Humane Society of the United States)?  Frankly when you consider Obama's stated positions and his various actions our continued rights as gun owners and hunters are not in sound hands.

And, if you look objectively at history our last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, was no friend of the 2nd amendment either.  Some of the highjinx his administration tried to pull with instant background checks, assault weapons bans, and other back doors to gun registration might have been successful had we not had a republican-controlled congress.  In fact, legislation to reintroduce the Assault Weapons ban Clinton signed has already been introduced, and from what I understand Obama said he will sign it if given to him to do so.

If you want to discuss let's stay with facts, not rhetoric.  If I understand what you said correctly history does not support your statement.

"I hear this everytime a Democrat is elected"

Am I mistaken? Wasn't Clinton the last elected Democrat? In fact there have only been two Dems elected for pres in the past 30 years.  Bill Clinton, well as David mentioned above we all know what he did for gun owners.The other, Jimmy Carter, well I can't remember what his stance on gun contrl was. Didn't pay too much attention to that kinda stuff when I was an 8yo. For arguments sake lets say that Carter wasn't for gun control. Lets see....that comes out to .....yep 50%. One half of the democrats elected to president in the past 30 years tried to take away our guns. That again is assuming that Carter didn't want to take them away. So yeah, I guess I can see where gun owners might say this when a Dem gets elected. In reality though even if you heard this every time a dem gets elected (just guessing that your not much older than me) that could be at the most, counting LBJ, three times. But hey, as I always say...."Don't confuse me with the facts, My mind is made up"

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

Dana,

For grins I checked-up on Carter, and here's what I found.  Check reference here:

"It is not well known that President Jimmy Carter and his people wanted to push a major gun control law through Congress in the late '70s. They decided that the best way to accomplish this would be to have an exhaustive scientific study conducted which, in the end, would proclaim that gun control laws were effective in reducing crime. Two highly respected, pro-gun-control professors from Massachusetts, James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, were hired to conduct the study. Wright and Rossi spent four years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever undertaken. In 1981, they published the results of their research: an exhaustive, three-volume work entitled "Under the Gun." Their findings, and I quote co-author Wright: "Gun control laws do not reduce crime.""

Looks like Carter would have moved to pass control laws had he gotten the proper ammunition (all puns intended) from his researchers.  Thankfully, these folks, although they had their biases, were at least honest.  Likely many that hold their views today are not so.

So, based on this information I'd say we were 0-2 in the Democratic president department since LBJ.  I can't answer about LBJ, but I know Kennedy was a NRA life member.

Garrett - care to respond?

David,

I think it would be a pretty safe bet that LBJ was a pro-gun president. But around the time of Kennedy, into the LBJ era is where the parties did their flip-flop. If we all had been voters 40 years ago most of the THF members would have been Democrats.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

Dana,

I wouldn't quite go that far, but I do agree that the Democrats had a decided policy change in the '60s, almost a 180° turn when it came to gun control.  Perhaps it was the rise of the 'new generation' of Democrats...those who had been exposed to the tenets of socialism and/or Communism (remember that John Kerry used to pal around with the president of the American Communist Party and at one time was actually under surveillance by the CIA).  Don't want to sound like Eugene McCarthy or anything, but when you look at a number of today's leading democrats that influence is unmistakable. 

I would agree that today's average hunter would have much more in common with many of the old line democrats, of which I would put LBJ and perhaps JFK.  What happened to Teddy's political philosophy I haven't a clue. 

I personally hold no fear that Obama is going to come take my guns but then again I don't own the type of guns in question. What guns did Clinton ban...the military style weapons which are designed in all reality for killing people and you can't deny this fact. Do you kill people with your AR...no, I'm sure you don't. Do the people who shoot competition with these guns shoot regular targets? No, the targets are a silhouette of a man. Do you have the right to own this type of weapon...Hell Yes! I don't really want to see any gun rights taken away but it is part of how things have been going for the last 8 years. We should be used to losing our personal rights by now... look at the Bush Administration's take on our personal rights, our international moral position,our right to free speach and our right to privacy removed with the Homeland Security Act just to mention a few. If you lose some of your gun rights blame yourself for electing Bush for a second term. He did such a bad job that any Democrat, no matter how Liberal, that was to run against McCain was going to win. As far as Clinton being the last elected Democrat in the past 30 years this may be true but Lets look at the prosperity the Country saw during his Administration. He took over during a recession that was left behind by Bush Sr. sending all the manufacturing jobs to Mexico. He balanced the countries budget and eliminated our national debt for the first time and only time during those 30 years. (Hmmm...something to think about right there!) It took Bush Jr. just one year to put our country back into debt which is now larger than it has ever been. I will giveup my machine gun to be able to feed my daughter because I can protect myself with my 6-gun.  I would rather have a good job than a machine gun. There are millions of americans out there without a job who can't afford the ammo for their machine gun or a house to store it in. Americans elected Barak Obama because they want to be able to feed and house their families not buy machine guns or feed Iraqi families. I understand that like hunting, we must stand together on our right to own guns but like I said, all rights are the same and we should not be losing any of them. Like you were willing to let some of our personal rights go with Bush you will have to let some of your gun rights go with Obama. I don't and I know you don't like this but like many times during the last 8 years you will have to live with it...sorry. Sad but True!!! Will I like it...no, will I fight it yes. Will we win...NO! Something to remember, every action has it's consequences.

Is it ridiculous, as you initially said, to be concerned when Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and a number of leading Democrats have gone on record that their aim is to ban ALL firearms ownership? I think not. The 'military style' gun argument doesn't apply here and never has - the second amendment addresses the right of self-protection, and that right is not limited to the ownership of sporting arms. Read what the founders have to say about it and stop listening to CNN.  And, some of your attitudes over the loss of our rights is very reminiscent of the mindset that led to what happened in England several years ago.  See what they have to say about their earlier decisions now.

OK, I'll bite on this tactic of changing topics...though what you're saying isn't really germaine to the original post.  So, after you misrepresent the 2nd Amendment now you want to make this a fragmented party-line discussion going beyond gun control?  George Bush did this...George Bush did that.  Don't you guys ever get tired of putting all the blame on Bush, who is a firm supporter of 2nd Amendment rights? Tell me what gun rights we lost under Bush!!! And, if you really want to talk about loss of rights, who wants to try to implement the Fairness Doctrine again? Who passed the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, where there is now a 60-day blackout period for 'electioneering communications' before federal elections? It wasn't Bush.  I admit he signed the bill...which was entirely wrong...but remember that this little treasure originated for John McCain and Russ Feingold. My point is if you're going to assign blame, Congress is just as culpable for our loss of freedoms - Republican or Democrat. And the Homeland Security Act? While much of your objections likely come from media spin there are some issues this law that make portions of this it very, very troubling. On this one point we can agree, though for potentially different reasons.

BTW, were there any Democratic-Republican comparisons in any of my posts? My comment alluding to Obama's party affiliation, and Clinton's, and Carter's, was only to refute your assertion that I was against Obama simply because he is a Democrat. I'm not. Its just that I'm against most of his (and Clinton's and Carter's) policies, gun rights being among them, and these happen to be a stated position of the Democratic party or a position held by the majority of Democrats. I'm not mincing words here...its about policies. If a Democratic candidate held solid positions on key issues, and he was qualified for the position, I'd vote for him in a minute.

Now, lets talk about Clinton. You assert that "He took over during a recession that was left behind by Bush Sr. sending all the manufacturing jobs to Mexico. He balanced the countries [sic] budget and eliminated our national debt for the first time and only time during those 30 years". What about the recession that Clinton left for Bush Jr? If you look at it objectively there is a cyclical history in any economy and recessions will happen - some are aggravated by current events, or even bad policy decisions, but they happen often independent of the president in office.  Let's also talk about the national debt under the Clinton administration. Clinton did not eliminate the national debt, even liberal sites prove that.  He just cut military spending, and most of those decisions were fleshed-out by Bush Sr.'s administration. That, in effect, balanced our budget.  If we're going to talk about those good economic times don't forget that Clinton also had a Congress that, for once, made a promise to the American people ("Contract With America") and kept it.  They should get some of these 'attaboys' too, even though the majority of that boom was related to a massive tech-web business expansion which Clinton or Congress had nothing to do with.  But, it also had a significant downsizing at the end of Clinton's term which led to the recession that Bush Jr faced in his first days in office.  And, if you are referring to NAFTA on the "jobs to Mexico" comment, that law actually became effective in 1994 while Clinton was in office.

Your comments about Obama are misleading. No candidate that I saw during the past elections wants their constituents to starve. THAT'S ridiculous. Every candidate I saw wants their constituents to have a job too. The stark difference (and unfortunately its not near as stark as it used to be) is that one mindset, which Obama holds to, thinks government has all the answers and the other one doesn't. And, added government involvement always requires higher taxes. I challenge you - tell me what country has taxed itself into prosperity? As well, tell me what government program has been run effectively...Social Security? The Postal Service? Medicare? Gimmie a break!

There are several other points I could make about your post but I will close with this one. You made a comment "I would rather have a good job than a machine gun". I will let founding father Benjamin Franklin answer this in his own words (or at least many attribute this quote to him): "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". 'Nuff said.

You know I wrote a huge response to this but I decided to go with a simple response.

Get use to losing your rights...you should have gotten used to it over the past 8 years.

I will support this President no matter what his policy just as you did with Bush Jr. If he wants to go to war for some personal reason I will stand behind him as you did with Bush Jr. When you complain I will write "Get Used To It, You Should Be By Now"

Do I think you are going to lose your guns...No! Heard this with Clinton...didn't happen. The hunting and shooting sports are a multi-billion dollar industry and are not going anywhere. This is the only cry I hear when a Democrat is in office. Don't seem to hear too many cries for jobs, or lack of housing or why is gas $4 per gal when the Dems are running things.

Ultimately, my gripe with the Bush Jr. administration is that they were doing nothing to help turn the economy around.

I guess that was the short response.

Unfortunately Garrett you threw-up a big fog of issues and claims in your earlier post that in order to get to the facts demanded a detailed response.  You did that here too somewhat...but sadly it appears you are not interested in facts.  You've been listening to the media too much, and have taken the standard 'its all Bush's fault' position.  Now, when your assertions are refuted you go back to Bush-bashing.

Its very unwise to blindly follow an elected official.  Frankly I strongly opposed Bush on several things, spent time on Congressional websites, wrote and called the White House, and emailed and faxed my Congressmen and Senators when I disagreed with Bush or them.  Obama will be no different.  I ask you...what did you do?  Did you seek out the facts yourself or just believe CBS/NBC/CNN?

You're living in a dream world if you think you won't lose your gun rights.  In fact, we've already BEEN losing our rights for the last 70 or so years!  The only reason we have any gun rights at all is because folks fought for them.  But, you have every right to stick your head in the sand and pretend the problem's not there.  Britain and Australia thought the same thing - and where are they now?  Did you watch that film clip I linked to?  Between how this administration, Congress, court precedents, and the UN are shaping-up the results could be disasterous.     

For the record, as a citizen of this country I will NEVER get used to losing my rights, and will use every legal and moral option to fight what is curently happening.  Lord willing, there will still be a United States as we know it left for my children...but its going to have to be up to Him.

"weapons which are designed in all reality for killing people and you can't deny this fact"

 "I can protect myself with my 6-gun"

Just what exactly do you think your 6-gun was originally designed to do?

Yes remember well the prosperity under Clinton. I remember Soldiers E-4 and below were making wages below national poverty level, having to get on foodstamps to feed their daughters. I will never forget the day I opened the newspaper and saw the Berry's World cartoon of a Soldier in full battle dress, standing on a corner holding a sign which read "Will defend country for food". Oh yes, I remember it well.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

Dana,

Good point...although I wasn't in the service I do remember that time, and it was a shame.   

Im not living in a dream world. I really don't care if there are some gun laws put into action in the US. Take my 6-gun too just make sure Americans have some kind of job prospects so they can feed nad house their kids.

Did Iraq attack us in either of the wars? Do any of you know why Iraq attacked Kwait in the first Gulf War? I can tell you...Kwait was stealing oil using horizontal drilling techniques to drill under the border to Iraq Oil Deposits...and Bush Sr. supported the Kwait Thieves instead of the side that was in the right. Can anyone tell me how much money has been spent on helping the Iraqi people this second go around?  

Dana...awwwwwh did the military guys have to suffer...so are millions of americans. Are these the same guys that were in the military during the first Gulf War who were quoted saying, "I didn't join the military to go to war"? But I know it's a Republican administration so point to the last Dem admin when it comes to problems.

Fact 1 in 10 homes are in foreclosure. Bankruptcy is at an all time high. Wages are falling when Americans can find jobs. Business failure at an all time high.

Bottom line...you guys elected an IDIOT MORON for two terms and now you have to suffer the consequences along with millions of americans...period...end of story. You lose your guns...blame yourself for electing bush the second time and allowing him to do such a bad job that McCain didn't have a chance. Thats That!!!! We need gun control so you guys don't shoot yourself in the foot again and the rest of America.

If you voted for Bush in 2004 then you didn't learn from all that reading and writing you say you did.

Obama is the president now and he will do as he sees fit and I will support him as you all did for Bush.

Like I said before...get used to it because you should be by now.

Obama In The House...The White House!!! And things are going to change back to good for this country.

You are absolutetly correct about the "fact" that Iraq claimed it attacked Kuwait due to oil theft. Even though when the accusations started several groups from other nations investigated it and found the claims to be unfounded. The reason Iraq attacked Kuwait is because Kuwait wouldn't just wave off the $40 billion debt that Iraq incurred while borrowing from Kuwait to fight the Iranians. Then Iraq tried to raise OPEC oil prices to make the money to pay back the debt to Kuwait. Kuwait increased oil production to stop this from happening. So this is when the accusations began about Angle drilling.

Yes, the poor soldiers who at least were trying to do something with their lives, trying to do the right thing, had to suffer while a few million lazy fat ass professional welfare recipients collected the money America was "saving" due to the military cuts. By all means lets take away from the peole who are trying to better themselves and give to the fully capable, who want to sit around in their HUD house and only leave it to drive their new Cadillacs and Ford Dually to the bank. Help those who won't help themselves, what a great policy.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

Honestly Garrett I feel sorry for you...this isn't a dig, its the truth.  You initially make a lot of grandiose claims but can't back them up, then you land on the Bush-bashing routine because you can't justify what you say any other way, because apparently you don't know, or won't check out, what you are talking about most of the time.  A sad way to live life.

The problem with your military comments is that on one hand you have a military man putting his life on the line to defend his country and getting underpaid while the others suffer for either bad personal decisions on finances (i.e. mortgages) or simply not wanting to work.  Not much a real unbiased comparison there. 

Now, before you jump on what I just said there are people out of work, who want to work, but can't.  And arguably some of those loss of jobs can be attributable to wrong, and perhaps unlawful business decisions.  I think everyone would agree that those who have broken the law need to go to jail.  I ask you...what about the politicians had potential conflict of interests and did not practice proper oversight (BTW, some of these execs have been connected to Obama's pre-election team)?  They should go to jail too.  And, a number of them are Democrats (Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd are two that come to mind).  I could care less - Republicans, if guilty, should get jailed too.

The bottom line is should government get involved?  You would say yes.  But, the Constitution begs otherwise.  The Federal government was initially set-up to oversee a standing army and regulate commerce - that's about it.  But, and Obama would agree, there are those that feel that all of us should have a Government 'nanny'.  But, in the final analysis all that encourages is personal irresponsibility and slothfulness.  And, throwing money at things (YOUR money by the way) may have some short-term impact, but it should be intuitively obvious that it can't be good for the economy or the taxpayer long term when government takes more of your income.  Considering government's record on running businesses (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Postal service, et al) these AREN't the guys I'd feel comfortable with looking out for me.  But for some reason you feel otherwise.

Again I challenge you - name a country that has taxed itself into prosperity.

And to add to what Dana said, as far as your Kuwait invasion comments go, while it is true that Iraq made these claims about horizontal drilling (and they are still making them), all the Iraqis have to do is demand to see directional reports from the individual Kuwaiti wells they claim are on their land (if that's truly their claim).  If the wells are indeed horizontal, the Kuwaitis had to keep a record of what direction they were drilled in order to track their progress.  What I suspect Kuwait is doing is drilling horizontal wells on Kuwaiti land, thereby producing more oil than an average Iraqi well.  That's not necessarily illegal.  The sad thing about all this is that you believe the news report claims without finding out the facts.  Once again, its the big, bad oil companies routine...another media talking point.

All you've done here on your last few posts is rant against Bush, and your reasoning (or lack of it) follows media talking points almost to a tee.  Facts should determine action.  And, all you're doing now is repeating yourself, without facts. 

Your sit back and take it attitude, reminds me of the quote that single handedly lost the election for Clayton Williams. Any Texan old enough will remember what I'm talking about. If not then look it up cause I'm not going to post his stupid filth here.

There is one true fact here. Just to pick on one subject as an example. Do you have hard proof that Kuwait was Angle drilling (which was the claim, not horizontal drilling). NO, you don't. Do I have hard proof that they weren't. NO, I don't. So the truth is that what's getting argued here is a bunch of hear-say. Either side can twist the facts around to fit their agenda. No one here is going to convince the other he is wrong.

I may be wrong in this and I can be a cold heartless bastard at times. Some of you may think less of me for what I'm about to say. I am not willing to give up any of my rights just so other people can have a job. I KNow this is selfish but I don't want the Government running every tiny aspect of my childrens adult lives. If they have to eat Spam for a while to keep that from happening so be it. It will protect them in the long run and only make them stronger.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

Big bad oil companies made record profits this past year(mind you the only companys to show record profits during the past 8 years while we paid $4 for gas)...hmmmmmm...if oil was so high how did that happen?

There was a question above...don't forget to answer.

hmmmmmm...which lobbyest did BJ take money from during his election?

Which lobbyest did Obama take money from?

Well I took some time to write a very indebth response but my connection to THF dropped and I really dont have any more time to waste rewriting the entire response.

How is our country after 8 years of your beloved Republicans?

Why did we attack Iraq after 9-11?

Is there a conflict of intrest for Halliburton, Dick Cheney's company, getting the contracts to rebuild Iraq when he lead the charge to go to war with them?

As for Clayton Williams...I did a search for him on google and amazingly the first 10 links were about how Clayton was tied into the 2008 McCain campaing...good thing McCain didn't get elected or we would have to deal with that kind of sit back and take it attitude for 4 years. I think that must have been Bush's attitude towards our rights, just sit back and let me take your 1st Amendment rights to free speach. You can't say what you want but you can have a gun to kill eachother...brilliant.

I have copied all of your's and Dana's questions and answers and will put in word doc...make response so you can see and read them next to each other so there will be no doubt that I answered all your questions. Then I will paste it in a response. I will add a couple of really good questions for you to answer and no skirting the questions to try to make me change my mind on your questions...just answer what I ask as I will do for you and your questions. I will even number them so you wont miss any. Please start with the questions above. In fact I may do a nice side by side...year by year comparison of successes and failures for all to see what President Clinton and President Bush accomplished during their 8 years. This should make it simple to see which party does more for the country and the people and which does more for foreign countries and big business.

Now don't forget to answer the questions above because I have asked them before and somehow they are never in your response.

In my quest to respond to your many questions I had to take some time to read the original post here again and it is the biggest pile of crap. If you believe what this document says you do not have the ability to think on your own or reason. Come on it came with his renewal notice. It's kind of like the terrorist warning system we had for a couple of years after 9-11, there to instill fear and make people without the ability to think on their own act like someone else wants. Can you say sheep...BAAAAAAAAH...follow the leader and give us your money.

This is by far the funniest part.

"Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide
           complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever
           lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has
           been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."

If you actually believe Obama put that in a document...well I don't have to say anymore as to why Bush got re-elected in 2004.  That is a joke...that would be posted everywhere for us to see and use against Obama and he is much smarter than that. Don't accuse Obama of being a stupid as Bush...Obama did finish school, can speak the english language(can't say that for Bush the Yale Grad...did daddy pay his way out of college and the military...Don't forget Bush was a deserter.), and is too smart to do something that Bushlike.

Give us money to renew your membership and we will save your guns because Obama is going to come take them. RETORIC!

Don't worry, large response still to come.

Please do Garrett. I just re-read all of your statements and, up until your last post, there is only one question in any of them that was not asked in a rhetorical sense. So don't try to use the length of the post to confuse people into thinking we skirted any questions. The one question was did Iraq attack us before either war, the answer to that in my opinion is no. I'll take that one step further. Are there other countries that should have been in line in front of Iraq in this? Yes. I don't believe this discussion started out being about anything but gun control and you have turned it into a bash Bush tirade. I personaly wasn't all that fond of alot that Bush did. But nowhere in any of my posts did i defend or say anythin about Bush. Althouh, I too strayed from the original post. I took the bait you laid out and got off subject too. I read all of my posts again too. I was just wondering what questions I asked. The only question I asked was about the six-gun. So please post my questions because I would love to see them.

I guess I can argue with you on the point of rights, because as I said I am pretty cold hearted when it comes to things like that because deep down I don't care what happens to most other people as long as I know I did what was neccesary to take care of me and mine. Which is exactly what I did. I got out, busted my ass, dug ditches, cleaned toilettes, and anything else it took to make it happen. Those who do not do what it takes are more aften than not the ones who just figured "hey if I don't make it I can always count on the government to support me". You might can make someone who was born with the siver spoon, so to speak, feel guilty about it but not me. I fought for everythin I have and if people wont do that for themselves then Oh Well. Personally I'm not sure what "suffering" I have done in the past eight years. Please feel free to point out to me my plight. Because I seemed to have misplaced it.

I already have "answers" to several of you statements (note: statements not questions) so re-post them and please this time if you want answers, ask questions, don't word them as statements. Feel free to address any issue because I will answer them honestly whether it be good or bad.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

And no I didn't answer the question in the above statement. I will wait for you Q&A post for that.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

Garrett,

I've already addressed your Bush-bashing.  Its the same old same old media talking points, and besides its not really germaine to the original post, or to your original response.  For some reason you live for this(and when I say bashing I mean making a bunch of statements with few hard facts), and its really sad you have to go to this depth to justify what you've said.  You'll find I might agree with you on some of the things you've brought out, but Bush, the Iraq war, Halliburton, Cheyney, et al were not the issue in this post and never were.  Let's move on. 

I will bring something to your attention before leaving the oil companies.  Unfortunately you didn't check your facts about the  bruhaha over oil prices because any cursory, unbiased review of oil pricing will find that U.S. domestic oil companies don't control oil prices...other things do like NOCs (National Oil Companies), supply and demand, and to some degree speculation.  Funny thing about all this is that Congress already knows what you don't.  Here's a link to the U.S Department of State website where you can get a copy of report RL34137, prepared for Congress, that deals with this very subject.  But, as your posts indicate once again, I don't think you're really very concerned about facts. 

Besides, where is it criminal for ExxonMobil to make a profit?  If there has been a crime committed then why doesn't Congress go after them?  I'm all for prosecuting crime.  But, all we hear is a bunch of posturing and another call for a Windfall Profits Tax above what the 40-45% oil companies pay now.  THAT'S criminal...and Congress wants what's best for our economy?  How can that tax lower fuel costs?  It'll just get passed on to the taxpayer (again). 

By the way I wasn't talking about Obama (even though his ties to Tony Resco are a bit intriguing) or Bill Clinton (we never did get a chance to hear about that Buddist temple and their Chinese connections)...I was talking about Barney Frank et al.  Please read the articles attached to the links before you start deflecting.

I might answer your questions (the ones I haven't already answered but you don't want to read) when you answer mine, especially this one, and  I'll ask it now for the third time: What country has ever taxed itself into prosperity? 

All these diatribes are getting a bit much because this thread started about the Second Amendment.  And, you can't back up your positions with any hard facts about what you've written about that.  And, when confronted with hard facts you either don't take the time to read them, you ignore them, or you try to pull the direction of this thread towards a topic where you think you're on firmer footing.  And, if you start asking all the standard talking point questions about the Iraq invasion, WMDs, Bush lying to the public, all that media-inspired garbage that was intented to inflame, I'm not going there just so you can attempt to justfy yourself. 

You are losing your gun rights because this is the kind of guy Republicans will put in the White House time and time again. America and our younger generation has now spoken they want a change and change is coming.

THE GREAT myth about the United States is that we live in a "meritocracy," where the "best and brightest" will rise to the top, and anyone can make it with intelligence and hard work. The slightest examination of the Bush family tree proves that all this is a lie. The Bush saga--from George W. Bush in the White House today to the great grandfathers on both sides of the family--is the story of four generations amassing their fortunes and achieving the heights of power through the cronyest of crony capitalisms.

-THERE ARE no think-tank theorists or college professors, no surgeons or artists among the Bush men. From root to branch, the Bush family's rise to power and wealth has gone hand in hand with the fortunes of the oil industry and the military-industrial complex.

If Presidential family connections were theme parks, Bush world would be a sight to behold. Mideast banks tied to the CIA would crowd alongside Florida Savings and Loans that once laundered money for the Nicaraguan contras. Dozens of oil wells would run eternally without finding oil, thanks to periodic cash deposits by old men wearing Reagan-Bush buttons and smoking 20-dollar cigars."

To paraphrase Karl Marx, the Bushes truly came to us dripping from head to foot with blood and dirt. The Bushes claim an ancestry that goes back to British royalty. But the rotten modern house of Bush began with George W. Bush's maternal great-grandfather, George H. Walker.

Walker was president of Wall Street-based W.A. Harriman & Co. He made his fortune as a war profiteer, working alongside the House of Morgan in purchasing billions in armaments for Britain and France during the First World War. In a foreshadowing of things to come, Walker got a taste for the emerging importance of oil as the engine of profits and war when he oversaw the rebuilding of the Baku oil fields after the war in the 1920s.

At his peak, Walker was the director of 17 corporations and maintained homes around the country--including a 10,000-acre hunting preserve in South Carolina, where according to his granddaughter, "We were waited on by the most wonderful Black servants."

Dubya's other great grandfather, Yale graduate Samuel Bush, was the president of the Ohio-based Buckeye Steel. Like Walker, Samuel Bush made his fortune during the First World War by producing material for small arms. Of course, it helped that Samuel became head of the Ordnance, Small Arms and Ammunition Section of the federal government's War Industries Board in 1918.

Not unlike a virus, each generation has produced a deadlier strain of Bush. George W. Bush's grandfather was Prescott Bush. He became his father-in-law's heir apparent at the merged firm of Brown Brothers Harriman. Prescott Bush handled the "German work" for Brown Brothers in the 1930s, raking in a fortune by rearming Hitler's Germany.

Brown Brothers set the pace for a 49 percent increase in U.S. investment in Germany during the 1930s--while investments declined throughout the rest of Europe. But this profiteering in the country that would become a U.S. enemy during the Second World War didn't prevent Prescott from sitting on two boards that "covertly" provided material for the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb.

Like other U.S. rulers who had kept a financial and political finger in Germany during the 1930s, Prescott Bush got in on the ground floor in Germany after its defeat in the Second World War. He helped the notorious Dulles brothers in establishing the OSS, the predecessor of the CIA--thus, getting the Bush family into the spy business.

George H.W. Bush--Prescott's son, and Dubya's father--was born with a siliver foot in his mouth. A Yale University alumnus like his father and grandfather, he gravitated to the oil industry through family connections and made a fortune.

Viewed as "intellectually light," George Bush Sr. couldn't win elected office before he became Ronald Reagan's vice president--beyond a seat in Congress as representative of an oil-rich Texas district with the country's highest number of Rolls Royces per person. Instead, "Poppy" held just about every non-elected post that the Republican Party could arrange for him. He was chief of the Republican National Committee, head of the CIA, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, where he was famous for writing "thank you notes" to political donors during sessions and debates.

After losing in the 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries to Reagan--during which Bush Sr. coined the phrase "voodoo economics" to describe Reagan's proposals for tax cut giveaways to the rich--he joined the ticket and became vice president. During the Reagan presidency, his connections as both a former spymaster and an oil industry crony made him the point man for the administration's funneling of dollars and weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

At the same time, Bush helped with the scandalous deal with Iraq's arch-enemy Iran--where the U.S. illegally sold weapons and used the profits to support the brutal contra guerrillas fighting to overthrow the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Bush managed to win the presidency in 1988.

He is best known as the "butcher of Baghdad," responsible for the deaths of some 200,000 Iraqis during the first Gulf War in 1991--which was dominated by the most intensive aerial bombardment in the history of war. After the war, Bush had an approval rating of nearly 90 percent.

But this support melted away in the face of the early 1990s recession, and Bush got only 37 percent of the popular vote in 1992, one of the lowest-ever results for a sitting president. His campaign wasn't helped by a photo op where he appeared surprised by a supermarket's scanner system--and the high price of milk.

How to succeed in business by failing

BUSH SR. must wonder how his son, George W. Bush, did it--the idiot son who followed his father's footsteps into the White House. Dubya spent many years under the influence. This included the use of influence to avoid the Vietnam-era draft and get into the Texas Air National Guard--where Bush got himself transferred to Mississippi, and eventually chose not to show up at all.

Then Bush Jr. tried to use his family influence to make a fortune in oil. He should have been a colossal failure. His company Arbusto--nicknamed Ar-Busto in the industry--lost $3 million.

Fortunately for him, a Cincinnati group that included a Yale classmate bought him out. The son of the then-vice president became chair of the newly constituted Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. Yet once again, no success for Dubya.

But as Britian's Observer newspaper put it, "Whenever he struck a dry well, someone was always willing to fill it with money for him." Harken Energy bought out Spectrum 7, and Bush was put on the board of directors and given 16 percent of the stock.

Asked why he wanted to buy a failed company, Harken's founder said, "His name was George Bush." Harken was also losing money hand over fist, yet it concealed its losses. Only a few weeks before the bad news broke and Harken's share price tumbled, the fortunate George Bush Jr. sold off two-thirds of his stake, for $848,000.

An internal Securities and Exchange Commission memo concluded that Bush had broken the law by trading on inside information, but no charges were filed. This, everyone insists, had nothing to do with the fact that his father was president of the United States. All records of SEC investigations into Bush's insider trading and bankrupt companies are sealed--and unavailable to the public.

Blood on both their hands

THE STORY of the latter-day Bushes returns again and again to Iraq. As head of the CIA in the mid-1970s, George Bush Sr. inherited the agency's covert history of support for Saddam Hussein's rise to the top of the Iraqi regime.

As vice president under Ronald Reagan, one of his chief tasks was to oversee the administration's support for Iraq. "It is increasingly clear that George Bush, largely operating behind the scenes through the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into an aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy.

Bush and other Reagan administration officials facilitated transfers of intelligence, military supplies, and even the components for advanced chemical and biological weapons. When Saddam Hussein stepped out of line with the invasion of Kuwait, which threatened the flow of Middle East oil, Bush organized the first Gulf War.

After killing as many as 200,000 people during the seven-week war, Bush urged the Iraqi people to rise up against the regime. But when Kurds and Shiites did rebel, the Bush White House decided they were better off with Saddam's Ba'ath Party in power--and allowed the regime to repress the rebellions. Thus, Bush Sr. bears direct responsibility for the  "mass graves of Iraqi Shiites" discovered by U.S. forces after Bush Jr.'s invasion.

Much has been made of the idea that Bush Jr. was "finishing the job" in Iraq that his father started. But it would be a mistake to see the second Gulf War as a matter of family revenge.

The second Bush administration, backed up by a host of right-wing fanatics led by Donald Rumsfeld, was determined to remake the Middle East, and Iraq being the first stage.

It is true, however, that history has repeated itself--and another George Bush is responsible for the deaths of masses of Iraqis. Like his father before him, the post-war scrutiny of the bloody invasion of Iraq lead to Bush Jr.'s undoing, too.

Nasty Stuff!!!!!

This is what you elect time and time again and now wonder why America has turned its back on the Republican party. http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/bush_crime_family.htm Don't complain about Obama until he does half as bad a job as your boys. You should start revamping that Rep. party and maybe you will have a chance in 2012. It's time to take out the trash.

Garrett,

You're sounding like a broken record.  I've read this stuff before, and they cite little, if any, sources so I have some serious doubts as to its accuracy.  Anyway, the Bushes are not relevant to this thread...but they are, unfortunately, to your rants.

Wow...really? Your going to take this as far as attacking someones Great Grandfather. You must really really hate Bush. You must have had a pretty bad eight years. 

I've stated how I feel about loafers and mooches. Now lets bring in the rest of the fold. Lets talk about one of your other points. People elected Obama cause they want him to get them out of the messes they got themselves into. People who went out and bought houses they couldn't afford. People blame the banks for lending the money to people they knew couldn't afford it. I'll tell you right now, a person comes to me that makes $35,000 a year and says I want to buy your 300,000 dollar house. Damn right I would sell to them too. Knowing full well that they will try to pay for a while then when the inevitable happens and they cant continue payments I got paid for a while and still own a house. Its not the banks fault people want to live above their means. People trying to live higher than their station is what happened to the housing market. Not to mention all these same people thought they could afford a $50,000 dollar car or truck to park in the driveway of the same house. Then Ran up 10 to 20,000 dollars worth of debt on their credit cards figuring to live by paying just the interest.

These are the two groups that I find hate Bush the most. Which one (if any) do you fit into. Like I said I had a great eight years, so I didn't see this suffering you speak of first hand.

As for your attack on the family, no family is without reproach. But to answer one of your claims.  Prescott's involvement with Nazi finance is more complicated. Though Thyssen had been an ardent backer of the Nazis in the early days, he broke with them in 1938 after the Kristallnacht pogrom against the Jews. He fled to Switzerland the following year, and Hitler confiscated his fortune and stripped him of his citizenship. In I Paid HitlerThyssen confessed his role in financing the Nazis and denounced the Führer. Arrested in Vichy France, he spent the balance of the war as an Axis prisoner. Prescott Bush, for his part, owned a single share of stock (of 4,000) in UBC, the Thyssen bank. Hardly financing the Nazi Army now isnt it.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

Oh by the way here is a copy of the questionnaire in question. The full one not just a clip from a form someone claims exists. Did it actually originate from where people are saying? Can't make that claim. I for one am going to try not to make accusations I cant prove. So I have written an email to the Obama offices to see if they will answer that for me. I'll let you know what I find out.

• 
  Click here to download this file.
  

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

Dana,

Neat stuff...let us know what you find out.

You've been right on here, but after we've waxed this guy six ways to sundown on 90% of his claims he's going to try to continue to maneuver us into this Bush black hole...and I about guarantee you it will eventually end up with 'questions' on the Iraq war, WMDs, Bush lying, ad nauseum.  Its not that I'm concerned about dealing with that, its tedious but doable. But, even if you present him with facts, like you just did, unfortunately I don't think it matters...if he doesn't try to check out ludicrous stories like the one he just posted (and I think I know the source of this jibberish) he's not going to believe you either.  He apparently is simply eaten-up with this stuff. 

I'd just let him rant.  If anyone's really interested in the facts there should be enough on this thread to keep them busy for at least a few weeks.

While we wait for an answer on that issue lets address a couple of other "facts" brought up here.

The claim: Clinton Balanced the budget.

The way I see it.

 Clinton White House fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged Media scare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."

             The claim: Bush is responsible for high gas prices.

Ok, other than the obvious absurdity of this. (and the fact that we would be tapping a huge oil reserve if not for a bunch of tree hugging hippie liberals)

Prices started going up in 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and only briefly, as Operation Desert Storm, the American-led counter-offensive against Iraq, freed Kuwait and led to a resumption of oil production in both countries. Prices collapsed again as the world was awash in oil, with barrels selling for as little as $10

In 1986, China consumed 2 million barrels of oil per day (com pared with about 16 million barrels per day in the United States at the time.) By 2006, China was consuming more than 7.4 million barrels per day, according to the U.S. , and rising. In April 2008, reported that China’s oil consumption had jumped another 2.5% over a year earlier.

In India, oil consumption has risen from just over 1 million barrels per day in 1990 to 2.63 million barrels per day today. And let’s not forget the United States, which consumes more than a quarter of the world’s combined energy products. Energy demand is growing there, too, despite an economic slowdown in 2008, to 20.63 million barrels of oil per day in April 2008, compared with 19.6 million barrels per day in 2000.

Worldwide, year-to-year demand for oil has increased by over 1 million barrels per day on average every year since 1991. The increase was especially steep in 1999 (when demand increased by 1.7 million barrels) 2004 (2.6 million) and 2007 (1.7 million).

Supply and demand my friend, Supply and demand.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

David, I know what your saying but sometimes I just can't help myself. We both (and most others) see this for what it is. Someone had a bad go of it, and needs someone to blame.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

No doubt about supply and demand is the key.  The only thing I'd add is that National Oil Companies can have a dramatic effect on product prices because their overall operations (do not operate on market principles, efficiency, political motivations) affect supply.  If you get a chance download the report I linked to above and just read the executive summary and conclusion.  This was presented in 2007, but much of the information was available before then.  Congress should have seen this price spike coming, they knew who was generally behind it, and they blamed Exxon-Mobil et al for it anyway. All for political posturing and 'face time' in front of the cameras.

BTW, I don't blame you for getting steamed...I do too (and was talking to myself as much as you about the need to let it go).  You put a lot of work into your posts on this and I hate to see you do all that when the person you want to try to convince doesn't want to listen to the truth.  Maybe Garrett did have a hard go of it - we did in '86, and you're in the military.  But, you know and I know even in tough times you don't check your brains at the door. 

As if we didn't need any further confirmation of Holder's positions... check link here:

Gman,

You really need to do your research.  The info is out there.  You've listened to all the rhetoric and bought into it hook, line and sinker.  Clinton built up the economy artificially.  First, he took the position that ALL AMERICANS DESERVE TO BE HOMEOWNERS.  He then implemented policies to allow the kind of lending that has led to all the foreclosures.  I blame Bush for not undoing Clintons debaucle here. 

Secondly, Clintion implemented policies that allowed the Gov't make low interest loans to banks who in turn made higher interest loans back to the government.  People (Banks) were simply making money on money.  They offered no product or service.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this scheme will eventually play out.  Again, I blame Bush for not undoing this nonsense. 

You also allege that we've lost rights under Bush.  I haven't lost any rights.  I can say or write pretty much anything I want and nothing will happen to me.  You've listened to all the BS and accepted it for the truth but really you have no proof of it. 

I don't care who is the President, I will never accept the loss of any of my rights.  And I will never "get used to it".   You shouldn't either.

It is not the governments responsibility to see to it that you feed your family and have a house to live in.  That is YOUR responsibility.  It is your responsibility to get the education you need to procure the job that will allow you to provide these basics needs.   The folks that think that the government is responsible for their well being will always be disappointed and behind the 8 ball regardless who is in power.   If you can't feed a family then you shouldn't have one.  If you can't afford to buy a house then don't buy one. 

O'bama is not the Great Black Hope.  He is not some god and he is not going save the planet as so many Dems seem to believe.  And he ain't getting my guns..any of them.

I don't care who is the president, this recession will play out and prosperity will return to the country as it always does.  It will do it regardless of the Dems or Reps.  That's what happens in a free economic society such as ours.  But the Dems will take credit for it as if Obama will actually have something to do with it.

You are lost in the BS my friend.  Educate yourself.  The info is out there. 

You guys are a joke. Funny how it is retoric when it is about the america destroying republicans. But all true when it is about democrats.  

BTW - Obama signed a tax cut of 275 billion......hmmmmmm, taxing us into prosperity. I don't think so...he is just cutting the money Bush was stealing for his personal war.

You guys elected a crook and now you will deal with what it takes to cleanup his mess.

Live with it if you lose your guns.

BTW - Mike you are a racist...nobody even mentioned race here...just you. Were you wearing your hood when you made that comment?

No, the bush's are not relevant here but that is a great example of the kind of people that republicans will put in the white house to destroy this country.

FYI - I have one job and own my own company so say what you want as to my financial position but I am only fighting for America while republicans concentrate on destroying it.

You are right...educate yourself before you attempt destroy america in 2012 with your vote.

I think you guys are a  bunch of sore losers...and you better get used to it.

One more question...Why is the Republican National Party asking Obama for a Pardon for Bush and Cheney if they are innocent of any wrong doing?

Lastly, your lack of answering my question on the Iraq war only strenghens my position.

Garrett,

So if Bush is not relevant here, then why is pratically everything you post laced with tirades against him?  He's no longer president...let's move on.  This is supposed to be a discussion about the 2nd Amendment.

But, I will touch on this Obama Tax Plan business, because I don't think its accurate.  Here's another view.  And another.  And another. 

The basic fallacy to these ideas is that the previous tax cuts are only given to the 'wealthy'.  Its the definition of 'wealthy' that's erroneous...these 'wealthy' also pay the vast majority of taxes, so whatever rebates the folks that don't pay taxes get amounts to a freebee. 

The whole thing boils down to another money redistribution plan.

So our not answering your Iraq questions (which I did) strengthens your position on gun control? That's what this thread is about is it not?

Now, because I disagree with President Obama's views on gun control  (again, I'm pretty sure that was the subject here wasn't it) that means I don't support him. That is what I'm being accused of here isn't it? That is your stance on this? The with us or against us theory. I believe that President Obama has some great ideas and will do alot of good things. I'm one of those 'confused' moderates. I am very liberal on some issues, and very conservative on others. I don't believe that any administration has been without their faults. Just as all others before him President Obama will have his shortfalls also. I hope they are few and far between. Because when there are true bad mistakes made everyone suffers. Do I believe he will take all of our guns? Nope. Do I believe he will try to infringe on our gun rights? Yes, to an extent. It just scares me when any gun legislation happens because they can sometimes slip a word or two in there that leaves it open for interpretation, plus it gets their foot a little farther in the door. I don't fear that I will lose my guns. Its just one of the issues that I disagreed with him on.

Now on the issue of Iraq. I did not agree with it at first. I felt the same as many others that we had no business being here. But I changed my mind the more time I spent here. The things I have seen. The nationals I have spoken with. It all made me come to believe that we have done way more good here than we have done harm. Innocent people die in wars. Always have, Always will. I'm not one of those who say "if you haven't been here, then shut up" that would go against what I believe in. You have your right to an opinion same as the next person. But to me personaly the opinion of someone who hasn't been here really means nothing. And before you go into the WMD thing just let it be known that CNN failed to mention that in the past 5 years we have found over 500 caches of chemical weapons. Plus its not Iraqis we are fighting now. The one setting the bombs and such are Insurgents. Other country nationals who are here trying to disrupt what we and the Iraqi government are trying to accomplish. The changes that have been made here since I was here a little over two years ago are unimaginable to someone who hasn't experienced it first-hand. I never dreamed back in early '05 that this type of change was possible so quick. So do I feel that we were justified in what we did, by first hand experience I say yes. What do you base your opinion on Garrett, CNN, Time magazine?

So my answer to all of this is yes, I do disagree with President Obama's views on gun control. But I hope God will bless him during the next 4 years, to be the best he can. Personaly I hope he is the best president the U.S. has ever had. I wish that after every election.  I don't care what party is in the White House. If he does a good enough job I'll vote for him in the next election.

I've said what I have to say on this, this will be my last post on this thread. I feel that I have stated my position as thoroughly as posible.

Guns don't kill people....Its those pesky little bullets making lots of holes that all the blood leaks out of.

I'm not going into a long reply here, as I think David, Dana, and Mike are saying what I think very well. I have 1 thing to respond to...."Obama is the president now and he will do as he sees fit.."

NO, he will NOT do as HE sees fit, his job is to do as WE see fit! He is President, not King Obama! Whether he likes it or not, his job was given by the people, and the people can take it away. A president is a leader, not a ruler! I can only hope we only have to survive 4 years of this.

How many of your guns were removed from your house during Clinton's administration?

None...this is just republican retoric. Republicans you don't have a leg to stand when you complain about Obama because of the last 8 years of destructive leadership. Waaaaaaa they're gonna take my guns...Take your medicine boys you did it to yourself.

Kes...you will bow down and take what Obama does weather it continues us down the road that Bush left or is the start of our recovery. If you don't like it I'm sorry, you should be used to that kind of leadership based on your vote in 2000 and 2004. If you lose everything and your family is on the street then blame your voting history. Our country is in such bad shape that the only time in history it was this bad was 1930. Way to go Republicans...you regressed our country 80 years back in time and you worry about what Obama will do....hahahaha...you will take it...like it or not.

Obama 2012.

"I think you guys are a  bunch of sore losers...and you better get used to it" WOW!  Is this how you treat the other team when you win? I guess that you consider yourself a gracious winner?  Did you really even vote?

"bow down and take what Obama does "  Is "bow down" all you did during your hated Bush administration years? If so, shame on you.  I have rights, and I will fight for them. It sounds as if you will agree with everything god, oops, I mean Obama says or does whether it be right or wrong. You are in a very sad place if this is the case.

From the amount of bitterness I'm hearing from him. I would say bent over would be a better description than bowed down.

Garrett,

Here we go again (again) - same tired rhetoric, different day. No guns were taken out of households because people were willing to fight for their rights. There is plenty of evidence that there were those in the Congress who would have completely eliminated our right to keep and bear arms if possible. And, there's already plenty of proof in England and Australia that guns bans there didn't start off quickly, they were gradual.  If you're honest, you'll admit that Clinton and his administration had their sights on a very restrictive gun control measures - here's a link to back-up that statement if you're interested.  Anyway, if you look at it realistically, in light of all this your question about confiscation is moot - there is documented intent to restrict or ban gun ownership on a number of fronts, evidence in submitted (and approved) bills by Congress, and a record of historical movement in that direction.  Again, if you're honest you will admit that we've been losing our right to bear arms for over the last 70 years.  Go back to the automatic weapons ban of the 1930s.  The only way you can have an automatic weapon now is with a Class III license and a lot of money to pay the taxes.  Plus, that weapon is registered with the government so they can confiscate it at any time.  Doesn't sound anything like the "Shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd Amendment to me. 

Don't forget that at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights citizens had the most modern, up-to-date weaponry the government had.  Where do you find in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that Government has the right to restrict what weaponry its citizens can own?  Do I really want an F-16, Abrams tank, or 155mm howitzer?  Nope...no place to park them.  Do most other citizens?  Nope.  But, when government tells us what we can and can't have, imposes its will on the citizens of this country against the original intent of the Constitution which it has pledged to uphold, and particularly when it enforces a government-dictated limit on what is supposed to be a unalienable right, then there has been a very decided, and troubling, change in the attitude of our government towards its citizenry.  Remember that Bush was president for only 8 of those 70 years, so when it comes to gun control it can't be all his fault so let's not beat the drum again. 

What most of us object to with Obama (related to this thread) is not that he won the election.  Its the opinion he has about the 2nd Amendment.  This is especially brought out in his attorney general nominee, Eric Holder, who doesn't even believe that there is an individual right to own a gun!  That should bother you Garrett.  I'm concerned that it doesn't.  Is your desire to be 'right' so important to you that you'll flush your rights down the toilet just to justify your position?  You're completely ignoring facts here and logically grasping for straws. With what you've tried to say thus far, when it comes to Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment, you don't have a leg to stand on.  In fact, the "Its all Bush's fault" argument is totally irrelevant in this discussion, because this is Obama's Administration, and unless you're telling me that Obama wants Bush as his AG there's not a reason to mention it. 

Say what you will about Bush (and you've said plenty)...as we've discussed before he had plenty of help from Congress for his Patriot Act mess.  And frankly I can't see ONE 2nd Amendment right we lost under him.  Can you?  And, again that is the subject of the thread so let's try to stay on-track here.

As objectively as I can, after reading through all the posts here, its you that has continually complained...and rarely with any kind of substantive facts or even argument to back them up, much less that are even germane to this thread.  The guy isn't even in office any more - please give it a rest! 

Read about the kind of rights your america destroying republicans left behind.    

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-airline-felonies20-2009jan20,0,5468299.story?page=1

Here you can read about the fallout of electing republicans. I bet these guys are ready to fight Obama for their guns....NOT! I bet they would really like to have a job to feed their family.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_bi_ge/economy

Way to go republicants.

Obama 2012

Now we have to spend so much time and money to clean up the republicant mess.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090126/ts_nm/us_obama;_ylt=AsQ6eAp34V3HU0xnOm9el4x34T0D

Republicant idea of a free America below. These laws will all have to be changed or modified in some way which will cost time and money. It took us getting a Democrat elected to start getting our rights back so you can get your machineguns back when you get another republicant elected.

Freeman is one of at least 200 people on flights who have been convicted under the amended law. In most of the cases, there was no evidence that the passengers had attempted to hijack the airplane or physically attack any of the flight crew. Many have simply involved raised voices, foul language and drunken behavior.

Some security experts say the use of the law by airlines and their employees has run amok, criminalizing incidents that did not start out as a threat to public safety, much less an act of terrorism.

Like I said twice now, and what other people have said too, the Patriot Act was and is a mess.  But Bush isn't the only guy to blame - Congress passed it.       

But, for the umpteenth time we're talking about the 2nd Amendment here on this thread, and you've talked all around the issue that Obama wants much more restrictive gun control, just like Clinton before him.  Those are the facts, they're verifiable multiple places, and repeatable.  The links are on this thread prove it  That's the reason for the post and that's why you can't refute it - its the plain and simple truth.  

Facts are hard to argue with...I think that's why you're trying to divert the direction of this thread onto some other inane argument, like the Democrat-Republican "Bush did it all" angle that's been worn into the ground.  Its not relevant to the topic. 

That's also why you can't answer any of the questions that I or any of the others have asked you concerning the claims you have made that are germane to this post because it appears you have no relevant answers that you can back-up.

GMAN,

What rights have YOU lost in the last 8 years?

"It takes 32 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, but only 3 for a proper trigger pull."

One more thing G-man, Was what Milosevic did in Serbia an atrocity? ...yes? then I will remind you of Saddam's role in genocide: http://www.kdp.se/old/chemical.html ...no? You are all heart. So you say it's not our business...who do you think caught Milosevic? It wasn't the Yugo secret police as it was reported.

"It takes 32 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, but only 3 for a proper trigger pull."

Garrett,

Are you kidding?  One of these links you have is about Global Warming (01/26/09 9:10 PM)?  Somehow now global warming is Bush's fault?   

This isn't the place for it, but if you really feel that strongly start your own thread about it.  But be ready with facts without the Al Gore Corps because I'd just LOVE to talk to you about the merits of global warming 'science'.  Or is it climate change now?  Better hurry before these GW scientists change their data again and it becomes global cooling like it did 30 some odd years ago.

You are a joke.  It wasn't to long ago you chastised me on my stance on Global Warming. You said that it was nothing but a giant unsubstantiated scientific farce. But now that your man, Obama, is on the wagon you are ready to go along for the ride. Pick a side for once and stick with it.

Right or wrong, black or white, fact or fiction mean absolutely nothing to you.  You just want to argue. The horse is down, but you better hit him one more time because he may not be dead.

The amazing thing to me in all of this is that you used to be one of the first people to stand up and say noone would ever get your guns. You would protect what was yours even if it meant using force. I am pretty sure this is why you got your CHL.  Hunting anything that was in season is your passion. Now you sound like your are willing to just give it all away.

All anyone has been saying here is that the push is on in Washington for sweeping changes in our gun owner rights. If you can't see it, it is only because you don't want to.  Believe it or not, Obama will have some issues that you won't believe in. Hopefully when he does, you will stand your ground.

I would aslo really like to see you answer the question presented by bigmike.

"What rights have YOU lost in the last 8 years?"

For the umpteenth time I'm telling you to blame your vote in 2000 and 2004 if you lose your guns. You did it to yourself. Do you guys watch the news? Have you seen the fallout that is a direct result of your vote? We are talking about an entire generation that could lose the chance to go to college because the economy is sooooo bad their parents can't afford college anylonger.

Now on the Yugoslavian war...

Did that war destroy the American Economy?

Are we still in Yugoslavia rebuilding?

Did Clinton and Gore take all the contracts to rebuild that country?

How long did we operate militarily in Yugo?

Did we have support from the UN and the rest of the world? 

Are there billions of barrels of Oil to be stolen in Yugo?

Why didn't anyone here respond to the link for the 50,000 americans that were laidoff on monday? I will tell you, your beloved republicants are directly responsible and you want to skirt that subject.

txhuntr, You are the joke for not reading the first paragraph. It's not about global warming its about your republicant administration stopping the Auto industry from producing fuel effIcent cars so Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the rest of the Republicants could profit from oil revenues stolen from Iraq. Yes, I am ready to give it all away as I said before, I would rather and I am sure that the majority of Americans stand with me on this other than the extreme minority on this board, have a good job and prosperity for America than have my guns....Funny how people can change and an administration as crooked as your beloved republicants/bush/cheney debacle can facilitate that change. I stand here and say I will stand behind the decision if it is what Obama thinks will help America, just as you stand behind the republicants, their illegal war and the raping of America.

 "U.S. President Barack Obama began reversing the climate policies of the Bush administration on Monday, clearing the way for new rules to force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient and less polluting cars."

More reasons why you will lose your guns...because this is the kind of scurge that represent the republicants and your personal views.

http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html

One more question...and this speaks volumns to most Americans who want to better this country, not just keep their guns.

Why are the republicants asking for a pardon for Bush and Cheney if they did nothing wrong?

Here is a graph of the national debt starting from Bush Sr and ending in 2006. Way to go Republicants.

What? Are you really that stupid?

Quote: "Are we still in Yugoslavia rebuilding? "

Not sure how you missed it but YES, we are still in Kosovo. By the way its not Yugoslavia any more. Hasn't been for over a decade. My unit was in Kosovo in 2006 and we still have personnel there. Wow, can't believe you missed that one. Just proves you spew out any stupidity that comes to mind without worrying with piddly stuff like FACTS.

"Did we have the support of the UN and the rest of the world." Again you prove your fact finding skills. As far as the UN goes thats an easy one to answer....Who cares? As for the did we have the support of the rest of the world. There are 27 countries with troops still present in the Iraqi theater. Many others have already left as we started with 43 present. Yep, we were in it all alone.

Could you please post the source for your 'Fact' about the republicans asking for a pardon for Bush. I have scoured the internet for info on that and amazingly found nothing but a bunch of lip-erals (ooo look I can make clever words out of your party too) calling for a pardon for him to make him look guilty of something. So please, again, post your source for this so we can all bask in the wealth of info you seem to be the soul holder of. President Obama getting elected is not going to get you your house, car/truck and whatever else you lost back. You lost those due to bad financial descisions on your part. Quit trying to blame someone else for your own stupidity. So when Obama starts taking Guns or anything else you be sure to bend over and take it like the little, "can't do anything about it, so might as well take it"  B***H you keep making yourself sound like. I for one will not go down without a fight.

Please post the proof you have that oil has been stolen from anybody. Again you seem to be the sole holder of that evidence also.

On the cleaner more fuel efficient cars...Yes lets make it even more expensive for the already defunct auto industry to produce vehicles. Yeah, that'll create jobs out the yin yang.

And for the umpteenth time please answer the five or six people who have asked you what rights you lost in the last eight years. (other than you right to live in a house and drive a car that were too expensive for you)

Garrett,

You're ranting...this is irrelevant and you're skirting the issue here, which is the second amendment.  Tell us what gun rights you have lost since 2000.

Anyone with a lick of sense and that's done a modicum of research understands that Obama is big trouble on the 2nd Amendment.  You simply won't admit it because you voted for him.  Period.

Is that the only basis on which to judge a presidential nominee?  Certainly not.  And, I don't think anyone is saying that.  But, that's what you're implying because it's about the only thing you can say and save face.

No one is denying that there aren't other problems in this country to address.  But, you made a bunch of claims that you cannot support and when challenged, you're trying to do everything you can to justify yourself on THIS ISSUE by bringing-up a bunch of garbage that at best have marginal value to THIS ISSUE.  We're talking about the second amendment, and admit it, you have absolutely no leg to stand on.

Garrett,

One other thing...you've tried your best to drag the topic of this thread in another direction, one you (incorrectly) assume will justify your position on Obama and indrectly your vote for him.

Give us all a break.  If you want to talk about Bush, Clinton, Iraq, whatever, start your own thread on that subject.  But here, please stay on task.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

These rights have already been lost! Whether individual Americans have been personally subjected to the resultant tyranny or not doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms! This fact, alone, should be enough for any studious lover-of-liberty to be outraged.

That good citizens are compliant and unconcerned regarding G.W. Bush's propensity to trample constitutional freedoms bespeaks a great ignorance or a great apathy, or both.

Now Im going to make sure you know all that you have lost during Bush administration.

If you’re going to be around a while, clip this column and see if I’m as far-seeing as Nostradamus or Jules Vern (his 1905 Invasion of the Sea had Islamic terrorists against Western technocrats), or a Howard Dean, who once told a reporter “I’m the world’s worst prognosticator. I wouldn’t put any stock in what I told you at all.”

I predict that in 30 years history writers will say George W. Bush’s eight years were America’s Lost Years Presidency.

Some may note that Gov. Linda Lingle called Bush one of our greatest presidents before she poofed into nothingness.

George Bush, the accidental president. Bad war, bad economics, bad science, bad vision.

* Failed the test of federal preparedness at New Orleans.

* Asked us to appoint as Supreme Court justice a friend who’s never been a judge, let alone an appellate judge so we can assess her judicial worth.

* A deficit-spending binge financed by the Bank of China.

* In-your-face appointment of the contentious John Bolton as U.N. ambassador during a Senate recess.

* A “No Child” education policy that’s made blue and red states mad over money and government intrusion.

* A policy of let’s allow more sulfur emissions by power plants rather than less.

* Encouragement of the notion that society, not individual women, owns the rights to a developing life-form in a womb. And that new-line stem-cell research is bad.

* Making the word “values” part of the neocon and red state vocabulary. Values aren’t some commodity you pluck out of thin air; they are things entwined in our complex culture.

New York University Law School professor Noah Feldman summed up the man as not a critical investigator of facts. “The President believes what you tell him,” Feldman said.

Global warming. I can’t say with certitude what’s causing it. It could be a cyclical event. Most smart people would lean to the let’s-play-it-safe side and suspect fuel emissions. Not George. He’s not intimidated by university types who never spent a day clearing mesquite wood in a red state.

“You know, look, there was a debate of Kyoto, and I made the decision - as did a lot of other people in this country, by the way - that the Kyoto treaty didn’t suit our needs. In other words, the Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy, if I can be blunt,” said George, bluntly.

“My hope is to move beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner, and that we have the economic and national security that comes from less dependence on foreign sources of oil.”

The Kyoto Protocol took effect last February after ratification by 141 countries - every industrialized nation except Australia and us. It aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to about 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

A recent Wall Street Journal full-page ad sponsored in part by local GOPers Michael Aki, George Cole, Laverne De Luz, Gloria Paet and Donald Tagawa said Bush is “working to win the war on terror, protect the home-land, pass an energy bill and strengthen Social Security.”

On all counts, he gets a grade of miserable failure.

I have to think that all but the most rabid, see-no-evil Republicans wish the party had offered up somebody better.

You don’t hear Lingle touting the man as the country’s savior any more, do you?

Losing eight years of American momentum is a darn shame.

Facing mid-term elections, both houses of Congress adopted the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in September, permanently repealing habeas corpus for non-citizens and giving the president complete discretion to use whatever interrogation techniques he sees fit – short of murder and rape.

Unfortunately, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and some human rights groups appear to have been hoodwinked into retroactively legalizing some methods of torture in return for meaningless promises. While the bill says that torture is illegal, in reality, very little is prohibited. Human Rights First stated in a press release that waterboarding is now prohibited and considered a war crime. But in fact, the new law says that acts constitute torture only if they are “intended to cause extreme physical pain through the infliction of bodily injury.” Waterboarding is a psychological technique and would therefore likely be permitted.

Defining what constitutes torture was delegated to the executive. This way, the administration preserves its right to use undisclosed “alternative interrogation procedures.” An amendment requiring the CIA to submit to congressional oversight was defeated, as was a five-year sunset clause. An amendment by Democrats to restore access to the courts (habeas corpus) for those held at Guantánamo was defeated 51-49.

The new law also serves as a vehicle for the administration to retroactively immunize CIA and army interrogators against prosecutions under the War Crimes Act. Previously, violations of Geneva Article III were felonies, punishable by life in prison or death if the prisoner dies. There was no statute of limitations or pardon for war crimes. Now the definition of offenses is narrowed to make them much more difficult to prosecute. In addition, this portion of the Military Commissions Act was made retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001, so that even the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib are amnestied.

President George W. Bush’s aim in proposing this legislation was stated on Sept. 6 when he told a group of 9-11 widows, “Some of our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and interrogating terrorists could be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act, just for doing their jobs.” The CIA was so concerned about liability for the routine use of torture at secret prisons that it ordered its personnel to stay away from the sites of the worst abuses. There is much irony in the fact that the greatest skeptics of the infamous Justice Department memos justifying torture turned out to be the CIA. Four years after administration lawyers said “it’s not torture unless it causes lasting physical injury or organ failure,” the CIA demanded and received legal immunity for its officers.

The worst feature of this new law is that the President will now be able to designate anyone – even a U.S. citizen – an unlawful enemy combatant (UEC). Taking up arms against the U.S. is no longer required. The new definition extends to anyone who has “purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” We have already seen Lynne Stewart and her translators swept up in this definition. The designation of UEC can be made by any “competent tribunal,” to be appointed by the Secretary of Defense.

The new law allows the U.S. government to take away the Geneva protections from those to whom they were designed to apply. The new law says, “No unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at his trial by military commission.”

The Bush administration has also achieved the suspension of habeas corpus for all those held as enemy combatants or unlawful combatants, effectively putting Guantánamo beyond the reach of the courts. This is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said in June in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that it could not do. Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, said, “Congress has not given the Executive a blank check.” Sadly, it has now.

The first challenge to the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act has been filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of a man held for three-and-a-half years in a secret CIA jail. He is one of the 14 prisoners transferred to Guantánamo upon the eve of this bill’s passage. This hasty transfer to Gitmo from a black hole was apparently made to deny him the possibility of a trial in a country that still follows the Geneva Conventions.

A TYRANT BY ANY OTHER NAME

The Bush Administration has consistently sought to expand the authority of the executive branch over the past six years. Some of the new powers that Bush gained from the Military Commissions Act of 2006 are:

¦ The power to designate anyone living inside or outside of the United States an “unlawful enemy combatant” and have them detained indefinitely without being able to go before a judge or challenge their accusers in a court of law.

¦ The power to decide which “alternative interrogation procedures” are torture and which are not.

¦ The power to use evidence obtained through torture in trials before military tribunals if such testimony is thought to be “reliable.”

Don't whine when you lose gun rights if you didn't whine when you lost these.

Oh...and lose your double standard...its destoying America.

It's not only the U.S. attorneys who are threatened by partisan politics. Since Day One, the Bush administration has been quietly dismantling the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

The U.S. attorneys scandal shows that the Bush administration was mistaken in its belief that it could politicize the nation's top federal law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, with impunity. The attorney general's chief of staff and the director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys have both had to leave their jobs, and Congress has begun grilling DOJ leadership. But having decimated another entire sector of the DOJ in plain sight for six years with little consequence, is it any wonder the Bush White House figured nobody would miss a few prosecutors?

Since George Bush took office, his administration has been not so quietly dismantling the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, which is responsible for enforcing the nation's civil rights laws, and doing it for the same reason the eight federal prosecutors were fired: to use the enforcement power of the federal government for Republican gain. Instead of attending to the Civil Rights Division's historic mission, addressing the legacy of slavery by enforcing anti-discrimination laws, the Bush administration has employed the division to advance the political agenda of a key GOP constituency, the Christian right and also, quite literally, to get Republicans elected.

Accomplishing these goals required a drastic change in personnel, which necessitated dismantling the hiring system, forcing out or silencing career (nonpolitical) staff, and replacing them with people without civil rights expertise but with demonstrated ideological and partisan loyalties. It was a project that took years to execute because several checks on such a scenario had long been in place, checks that earlier administrations of both parties had respected.

As it was happening, current and former employees tried to alert the outside world, with little success. But with the spotlight on the department and its attorney general, momentum may finally be building. Last week, a House Judiciary subcommittee held oversight hearings on the Civil Rights Division, and witnesses testified to the changes the Bush administration had effected there.

A principal witness at Thursday's hearings was Joe Rich, a 37-year veteran of the division and former chief of the Voting Rights Section, who left in 2005. In his testimony, Rich charged that under the Bush administration, "the essential work of the division to protect the civil rights of all Americans is not getting done." He also said that the connection between the current prosecutors scandal and what happened to the division should not be minimized, telling senators, "The political decision-making process that led to the questionable dismissal of eight United States attorneys was standard practice in the Civil Rights Division years before these recent revelations."

The Civil Rights Division was established in 1957 by an act of Congress, with the mandate to enforce the nation's few federal civil rights statutes. With the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act, the division suddenly had a lot more work to do. Since 1957 and before the election of George W. Bush, there had been four Democratic and four Republican presidential administrations (counting Nixon-Ford as one).

The division is composed of 11 "sections," eight of which do litigation: Housing and Civil Enforcement, Employment, Education, Disability, Special Litigation, Criminal, Appellate and Voting Rights. The division's 700 employees, half of them lawyers, are spread out across several buildings in Washington. Long gone are the days when the whole Department of Justice and the FBI could fit into the art deco building on Pennsylvania Avenue known as Main Justice.

The leadership of the division -- known as the Front Office -- has always been appointed by the president. Most of those appointees have not been experts in civil rights law, says Brian K. Landsberg, a former division section chief and the author of "Enforcing Civil Rights: Race Discrimination and the Department of Justice." That lack of expertise was compensated for by the core of the division, its career attorneys who have the sophisticated understanding of the law that civil rights enforcement requires, says Landsberg, now a law professor at the University of the Pacific. "Even if the political appointees did have that expertise, there aren't enough of them to do the background work." In addition to career attorneys providing the political appointees the expertise they might lack, the dialogue, partnership and mutual respect between the two have been credited with keeping the division above the partisan fray.

The Bush administration's actions over the past six years seem almost prima facie evidence that it does view civil rights enforcement -- which had traditionally been on behalf of African-Americans, women and other racial, ethnic and religious minorities -- as a partisan matter. In perhaps a case of projection, it seems to have also expected career people to abuse their power on behalf of partisan goals.

Thus the administration sought to recast the division in its own image, by minimizing outside input, getting rid of career people and hiring loyal Bushies. Simply choosing John Ashcroft, a religious fundamentalist and political conservative, as the attorney general immediately indicated that Bush's promises to heal and unite the nation after the 2000 election did not translate into Cabinet choices that would reflect the divided political mood of the country.

In an e-mail to his 125,000 employees on his first day on the job, Ashcroft promised to guarantee "rights for the advancement of all Americans." But actions were soon speaking louder than words. Regular meetings of the division's section chiefs and the political leadership were virtually discontinued. In a tradition dating to the 1950s, presidents have asked an American Bar Association committee to provide a confidential rating of the qualifications of judicial candidates before the nominations are sent to the Senate for confirmation. Ashcroft and then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales met with the ABA and then terminated the ABA's advisory role. Once Ashcroft began hiring his own choices, career attorneys noticed that many of the new hires were members of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. Ashcroft himself was called an active supporter of the Federalist Society, and several of the top legal positions throughout the administration were all held by Federalist Society members.

Then, much the way some companies go green, DOJ under Ashcroft went Pentecostal. In correspondence, use of the word "pride" was forbidden because the Bible calls pride a sin; employees were also asked to never use the phrase "no higher calling than public service." Ashcroft instituted prayer meetings, leading a Bible study at 8 a.m. sharp each day, some days even in his office, on others in a conference room at Main Justice. All department employees, regardless of their religious affiliation, were invited to attend, but in reality few did.

Against this backdrop, in the fall of 2001, the first real showdown between the Front Office and the division as a whole took place, over a little-known lawsuit against the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which runs metropolitan Philadelphia's mass transit system. For four years the division's Employment Litigation Section had been pursuing charges that SEPTA's hiring practices discriminated again women applicants by requiring results on a physical performance test that the division argued had little relevance to what was required by the job. Without talking to anyone involved with the case, the Front Office jettisoned it, citing a need to divert resources to the war on terrorism.

Though the Employment Section voiced objections, it carried out orders and withdrew from the case. But in what came to be seen as retaliation for voicing that dissent, the Front Office stripped the section chief, her deputy and the lead counsel of their duties and exiled them to a newly created task force in the Civil Division with no real responsibilities. The retaliation was so unprecedented that the other section chiefs, out of fear, stopped their informal monthly meetings, which they had long used to keep the components of the far-flung division connected.

In the past, disagreement between career attorneys and the Front Office, whether under a Democratic or Republican administration, was not unexpected. Dialogue between the permanent staff and the political appointees served as a check and balance between the political goals of any one administration and a goal that was not regarded as political -- the enforcement of federal civil rights laws. By the end of 2001, it was clear that the old give-and-take between the staffers and their politically appointed bosses was now viewed as unforgivable insubordination.

Career staffers began to leave. As their ranks thinned, and as the survivors were effectively neutralized, the Bush administration, in its effort to minimize any resistance to its agenda for the DOJ, sought to replenish the division with loyal hires.

Hiring decisions had always been subject to political staff's approval, but the judgment of the career core of the division had historically been trusted. The Front Office stopped consulting the careerists. Résumés had once flowed up from the sections to the Front Office; now the flow was reversed. The divisions, starting under Ashcroft and continuing under Alberto Gonzales, were told whom they could hire and whom they could promote.

The numbers show what has happened to the division's staff since 2001. A Freedom of Information Act request in the summer of 2006 by the Boston Globe for the résumés of successful applicants since 2003 also showed that among the new hires were people who had worked for prominent conservatives, belonged to the Republican National Lawyers Association, had volunteered for the Bush-Cheney campaigns, and had limited civil rights experience. The résumés showed that only 42 percent of lawyers hired since 2003 have civil rights experience, compared to 77 percent in the two years prior, when career attorneys were primarily responsible for hiring. Almost half of those new hires with "civil rights experience" had gained it by either defending employers against discrimination suits or by fighting against affirmative action policies.

Career lawyers say the new hires are increasingly white males with Federalist Society or Christian Legal Society credentials, even though many of them are shocked to find themselves in the Civil Rights Division. Richard Ugelow, a former employment deputy chief who now teaches at American University, says his students who ranked other divisions in the Department of Justice as their preferred choices for placement found themselves called to interview in the Civil Rights Division. One thing about those students' résumés stood out: They were members of the Federalist Society.

What was this newly conservative incarnation of the Civil Rights Division being asked to do? From the beginning, part of the Bush administration's purpose was advancing the Christian right's agenda, and one element of that agenda was the erosion of the wall between church and state. At the same time, in a five-year period beginning in 2001, the division brought no voting cases on behalf of African-Americans and only one employment case on behalf of African-Americans.

John Ashcroft, devout son of a Pentecostal minister, became infamous for demanding modesty of a statue in the Main Justice building. The attorney general spent $8,000 in taxpayers' money on a dark velvet curtain to completely hide the naked marble breasts of the "Spirit of Justice." (After 9/11, the DOJ staff also received copies of the lyrics to a jingoistic song that Ashcroft had penned himself, "Let the Eagle Soar." He asked staff to sing it at the beginning of the work day at his prayer meetings.)

But less overtly, the administration was harnessing the power of the division's Appellate Section on behalf of certain religious groups, under a doctrine developed by the Front Office called "Viewpoint Discrimination." One career attorney in the section, speaking anonymously, describes the doctrine as intended to "defend the rights of Christian Evangelicals to proselytize in public forums, like school."

A former deputy section chief, also speaking on condition of anonymity, says that the administration has a very specific litigation strategy, and that is to "try to lower the wall of separation between church and state." The former deputy section chief says, "These aren't discrimination cases. These are free speech cases, at the end of day. They want to be able to wear T-shirts with religious messages and hand out fliers about church meetings at schools." Under the Bush administration, the DOJ was suddenly suggesting a moral equivalence between protecting minorities from discrimination and enabling nonminorities to proselytize in public forums.

Meanwhile career lawyers in Appellate were blocked from working on civil rights cases. Instead, attorneys were given dockets with deportation orders of illegal immigrants to occupy their time. When they did write a civil rights brief, they were told to weaken their arguments by citing the opinions of conservative judges, even when those opinions were dissenting opinions, and by ignoring authoritative Supreme Court precedents.

"Instead of legal briefs," says one current employee, "they want to file policy papers."

Promoting the Christian agenda was meant to help the GOP at the ballot box. Often, however, the division was used to help Republicans win elections more directly. It was in the Voting Rights Section, which Joe Rich had headed from 1999 to 2005, that the Bush administration clearly saw a valuable tool for partisan gain. In his testimony last week, Rich charged that "the priority, indeed obsession, of this administration was not to protect the rights of American voters but with ... politically charged pursuit[s]."

After each census, voting districts are redrawn to account for population changes. In the case of states with a history of voter discrimination, those states must submit their redistricting plans to the Voting Rights Section of the division, as per Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Given the nation's history of racial discrimination at the ballot box, the question the section must consider in deciding whether to "pre-clear" any plan is, will this harm black voters?

First in Mississippi and then in Texas, the Front Office facilitated or directly approved redistricting plans that created net gains for GOP candidates, patently disregarding the recommendations of the analysts and lawyers of the Voting Rights Section. Though in both instances they counseled the Front Office that the law required the opposite actions, they carried out the Front Office's orders.

Then, after Rich's departure from the division, and under new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the section's power was again used to the advantage of Republicans. A new law in Georgia required voters to present a government-issued picture ID in order to vote at the polls on Election Day. Staff had prepared a detailed and comprehensive memo analyzing the information provided by the state and other interested parties, and had concluded that the change would have a discriminatory effect on minority voters -- they recommended that the law not be pre-cleared. The next day, the Front Office ordered pre-clearance of the Georgia law. After that case, the Front Office barred the Voting Rights Section's staff attorneys from offering any recommendations on any cases.

Later it was exposed that a political hire in the Voting Rights Section, Hans von Spakovsky, who played a central role in approving the controversial Georgia voter identification program and who had been in charge of setting the section's substantive priorities, had anonymously authored a law review article that endorsed the kind of system Georgia sought to enact. His attempts to hide his views may turn out to have violated Justice Department guidelines. Von Spakovsky left the division for the Federal Election Commission as a recess appointment. Similarly, the person who had been named as the senior counsel for voting rights in the section was a defeated Republican candidate for Congress.

In the past two years, as reporters for both Salon and the Washington bureau of McClatchy Newspapers have noted, the DOJ has dispatched ideologues from the Civil Rights Division to become U.S. attorneys. Alex Acosta, the current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Miami, left the Civil Rights Division after serving as its assistant attorney general. Another former political appointee in the office of the assistant attorney general for civil rights, Matt Dummermuth, was nominated to be U.S. attorney in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Most notably, Gonzales, as attorney general, appointed Brad Schlozman, former principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, as interim U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri late in 2006. While deputy head of the Civil Rights Division, Schlozman had overseen the redistricting of Texas and Mississippi. He had also personally reversed the career staff's recommendation that the Georgia voter ID law be challenged. In fact, he had penned an opinion piece for the Atlanta Journal Constitution supporting the law.

As U.S. attorney in Missouri last fall, Schlozman brought voter fraud indictments a week before the midterm elections against four individuals associated with a group registering poor and minority voters in Kansas City. Such timing contradicted Justice's policy, Joe Rich told Salon in an interview, of waiting till after an election to bring indictments, lest an investigation unnecessarily affect the outcome of the vote. It was perhaps not irrelevant, though, that Nov. 7, 2006, promised to be hard on Republicans, and that the Republican senator, Jim Talent, was in a close race, and that Kansas City was full of Democratic voters.

Talent lost his seat to Democrat Claire McCaskill on Nov. 7, and the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. Not long thereafter, the Bush administration finally lost its free pass to politicize the U.S. attorneys, the Civil Rights Division and the rest of the Department of Justice. The decision to fire eight federal prosecutors, most of them highly rated for their performance, attracted the attention of the new Congress. Six years into the Bush era, investigations have, at last, ensued.

History books will likely not be kind to the Bush administration. The consequences of the administration's actions, however, extend far beyond the fate of any one elected official.

Optimists believe that once this administration's term comes to an end in 2008, the division may once again be able to enforce the nation's civil rights laws without regard to partisan motives. Others, like Joe Rich, are more pessimistic. "They can try to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again," Rich told Salon, "but you've lost career people with the institutional memory to do that." In his testimony on Capitol Hill, Rich asserted that only "vigilant oversight" would restore the Civil Rights Division and the Department of Justice to their historic role of leading the enforcement of civil rights and protection of equal justice under the law.

Similarly, if the Bush administration is not penalized by the voters or their elected representatives for treating the Department of Justice as a political tool, there is nothing to stop successive administrations -- whether Republican or Democrat -- from doing the same when it's their turn in power.

This is just the tip of the iceberg...just wait till I really get warmed up...

Anyone got some more questions or need more facts as to how you destroyed America?

Need more proof just ask, Bush makes it easy to slam Republicans.

When you lost these did you complain?

Under Bush We Have Lost:

The World Trade Center, one Space Shuttle, New Orleans, Oldsmobile, the birthplace of civilization: Iraq, countless lives as a result of war, electrical power to the entire northeast section of the United states for a full day, a legitimate electoral process (and with that our democracy), 50 years of environmental protection legislation (this one should concern all the socalled sportsmen on this site), a great deal of our polar ice caps, countless animal species, science, our ability to afford housing/education & health care, student loan programs, heating assistance programs, hunger assistance programs, the division in the CIA that was searching for Bin Laden(WTF), Paul Wellstone, our right to eminent domain and to feel safe in our homes, our right to eat foods that were not genetically altered, our jobs, $billions of unaccounted for dollars given to military contractors (Do I need to give you all the names of these contractors again?), workers rights protections, whistle blowers protections, our right to hold corporations accountable for their crimes against us, our right to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for killing or harming us, countless officers who resigned from the military, countless intelligence professionals who have bolted from the current insanity, respect for America in the eyes of the world.

We have gained: A presidential administration that acquired power by electoral coup and has broken more laws than one can imagine, a global nuclear arms race, a rise in global racism, unprecedented levels of global warming, powerful hurricanes with no help from FEMA, government sanctioned hatred (anti-gay even though Cheney's daughter is a Lesbian...there is that doublestandard), a lifestyle and economy designed to keep us in constant fear, a wider gap between the rich and the poor, four million more Americans living below the poverty line, six consecutive pay raises for Congress and an American population that knows more about the trials of Scott Peterson than they do of the trials of Dick Cheney.

Thanks to the American news media the nation does not realize what we have gained or lost. Can you imagine what this list is going to look like when I really start to do some research? Think about it! This is going to get nasty.

You wanted to know what we lost...anymore questions luke...txhuntr?

Would you like to know more facts about the economy? Well here you go.

So who cares about your 2nd amendment right...I certainly don't if this is what you will put in office.

Garrett,

You haven't been able to back-up one tenth of what you've put on this thread from the beginning, and now all of a sudden you've thrown 12 posts with disorganized, unreferenced, disjointed information at us and expect us to believe it?  All you're trying to do is muddy the waters, worse than when you got on the "bash Bush" tactic. 

You know better than this, because I've read some of your older posts...like this one on 03/25/2003 when you said:

"Regardless of how you feel about the current "war" situation or the

President of our country....it is a shame to our country, it's leaders,

and/or it's servicemen when individuals use their position of celebrity to belittle those persons who are giving their best in those capacities to protect and serve us. I do not think the Dixie Chicken had any idea what she started when she slammed our President and said she was ashamed he was from Texas. The following is a letter from a serviceman. Maybe he has the right idea....

And to think that the D.C.s (Dumb Chicks) are coming to Austin for a concert in the near future.

[when speaking of a cartoon of Saddam and Natalie Maines] What a great pair they make, a couple of traiters/losers."

My question to you is - aren't you doing the same thing as Ms. Maines, whom you earlier called a traitor?  Maybe a smaller forum, maybe a different time, but you're still "slamming" a president (and now former president) of these United States like she did.  And yet when you do it its somehow OK?

Let's face it...you're whole tack in this and other related threads is rooted in the idea that you got mad at Bush, I think because you believed the media and now you're trying to justify yourself.

And Frankly I care a lot about the Second Amendment, because after free speech all the others stack behind it.  And, historically those who have opposed the 2nd amendment have had warts with the other portions of the Bill of Rights as well.  The second amendment is the context of this thread.  Wanna talk about any of these other things?  Great.  Post a thread and let's go.

Again, WOW. You copy and paste all of this off of Liberal propaganda sites and call it FACTS.

 To quote you "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

Wait, I have some facts for you. They must be true cause I copied and pasted them off of internet web sites.

Here's a fact:

 A remarkable UFO was seen and filmed in China by an entire squadron of fire-fighters in Liu Pan Shui City in the province of Guizhou through a camera with a 700X zoom capability. One of the fire-fighters, Wang Jia Wei, noticed an odd looking, brightly flashing star moving in a south easterly direction and went inside the fire-fighters barracks to get a camera. Luckily for Wang he was able to find a Panasonic camera used by his comrades to record damage caused by fires that allowed him to zoom in on the mysterious object seven hundred times. At that point Wang could see that the object was in fact two rotating spinning top shaped crafts or halves of a whole craft joined at a their bases. They were flashing a multitude of colours: Purple, red, blue, orange, white and gold. Wang then called his eight fellow fire-fighters out and they observed the slow moving craft for almost an hour until the craft suddenly vanished. Twenty minutes of footage was recorded and have been showed to Chinese reporters. The firemen approached the Liu Pan Shiu meteorological bureau two days after the sighting to seek some answers. Surprised staff members working for the bureau were shown the footage but were unable to identify what the object might be, declaring that it is indeed a UFO.

 Here's another FACT:

Anderson County Texas Palestine, 75801 "On August 5, 2001 at 0313 CDT, on US Hwy 287, which is 31 miles west of Palestine, Texas, I was traveling westbound at 65 mph when I saw what looked like a bear cub or a very large dog sitting in the middle of the road. I slowed down to 15 mph; I hit my high beams and stopped about 20 yards away from the animal. I put on my 4-way flashers, turned on my interior spotlight. As I looked up I saw a huge bipedal creature that I will call Bigfoot. It walked from the soft shoulder of the road to the animal in the road. As he (I am pretty sure it was a male) walked in front of my tractor he shielded his eyes, not seemingly out of shyness, but more as an effort to protect his eyes from the bright lights. I reduced my headlights to low beam, but decided not to turn them off as I was in the middle of the highway. I was doing my best to protect them by blocking the road with my tractor-trailer. The big male went over to what I realized was a 'toddler.' "He" grabbed its shoulder and attempted to grab the little one's arm. The little one "scooted" away like a child trying to get away from a parent that wants the child to go somewhere and the child doesn't want to go. The little one had greater agility than the big male. The little one squirmed, scrambled, and scooted further up the road from where they were. Then something caught my eye and ear directly next to my driver's window. I casually looked over and within two feet of my face was a female. No doubt female, she had "nursing breasts" (extended nipples). Her eyes were almost even with my eye/level. I measured from where the top of her head came up to my mirror; it was 7' 4" tall. The male was at least one foot taller than her, plus some. She had a "gamy" smell but didn't stink. Immediately upon seeing her, I smiled with all the teeth I have. From the interior spotlight, which was pointed down toward my lap, I am sure she was able to see me clearly. I certainly saw her clearly, so clearly I could smell and feel her breath. I particularly noticed the volume of air that she breathed. Not out of breath, or even heavy breathing, just a large volume of air with each breath. I again smiled at her and asked, "Is the baby okay?" She slowly "smiled" back at me. I noticed a dental anomaly...either she had a double row of teeth or the crowns of her teeth were split on the top center to give the impression of two rows of teeth. She then reached into the tractor and stroked my beard (like I do when I'm thinking). My beard is mid-chest length and multi-colored. It was then I realized the large male's head was identical to mine, although his beard was shorter. The female had thin facial hair on her chin. The rest of his hair/fur was dark brown with traces of gray/white on his shoulders, back and chest. She was a mixture of brown and reddish-brown hair/fur, mostly reddish-brown. As she took her hand off my beard, and took her hand out of my tractor, I extended my hand out to her. She sandwiched my hand between her two hands, her hands were 2x-3x larger than mine. Her hands felt like roughneck work gloves (rough leather). At this point she gave me a "soulful" look. From her facial expressions and her watery eyes, I took it that she was saying, "thanks for not running over my baby". The eyes were not dead eyes, they were bright and moist, just very dark brown, not black. The large male had the "child" under his left arm like a sack of potatoes. He never looked directly at me as I watched him walk back into the treeline. I noticed at least 3 more (I suspected even more) at the treeline. They ranged from the height of the female to slightly shorter, but none came close to the size of the male. **Please do not use my name. I have no objections to your use of this report, but please do not use my name. As I told you on the phone, I am not a fan of the paranormal (UFO's, Aliens, Time-travel, etc.). I had no belief in what I saw, until I saw it. I had no fear of these creatures (as I explained on the phone). ** I believe any use of deadly force would have been borderline homicide (no doubt in my mind). Twenty-one years of investigating experience teaches you to observe, remember as much as you can, and immediately write it down. That's what I have done. The encounter ended at 0317. I have thought of ten million things that I coulda/woulda/shoulda done, if given the opportunity again. I know, however, this was a once in a lifetime event." Use this report, I don't care how, just please don't use my name. I'm not seeking publicity or monetary gain from this experience.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sorry could resist a second good laugh. Keep up the good work if nothing else your very entertaining.

Another of my favorite is the one you got off of TVNewslies.com.  Just a few posts above. It actually is blaming Bush for the Space shuttle that blew up, and the power outage in the northeast.

I'm just picturing Pres. Bush with his finger on a toggle switch in the white house saying, "I wonder what this does?" Oops.

I am not going to get too far into this, but I would like to point out one thing to gman.

Why don't you take a look at our economy under Bush (the entire 8 years). You will notice that things were going pretty well until the Dems took majority in Congress. You can bash Bush all you want, but the truth is that the President does not control the economy as much as people think.

This is typical of what we've seen throughout all his posts on this and several other threads.  He's also contradicted his own earlier statements and opinions.

Certainly Bush had his problems, but to blame all these economic woes on him is ridiculous.  The gradual slowing economic trend we're seeing has been coming a long time - I think Garrett's GDP numbers, wherever he got them and assuming they're even accurate, reflect that. 

These guys have the White House, Senate, and House in control now so there's no one else to blame.  Oh, they'll try all right.  Their ideas simply don't work - Jimmy Carter proved that.  And, they'll not want the same standard applied to them as when they yelled at Bush Sr and Jr when recessions came...or don't go away fast enough. 

I think all of sudden reality is setting in and this economy, and the American people, can not be able to stand-up under Obama's "tax-and-spend" mindset.  

But I digress....

"This is just the tip of the iceberg...just wait till I really get warmed up..."

Don't you mean "wait till I find more stuff to copy and paste on here with out having to come up with a single imaginative thought of my own."

"The meltdown of the housing market has already led to record rates of foreclosures and multibillion-dollar write-downs at the country's leading financial institutions. But this is just the beginning. The current double-digit rate of house-price decline will destroy between $2 trillion and $4 trillion in additional housing wealth over the course of the year. In short, it looks like President Bush will go out with a real bang."

I really thought that you would be more informed on the housing/mortgage problems. Especially since this is the industry that you choose to make your living. If you had done your homework you would know that most of the problems are rooted from the policies that were put into place during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration tried on many occasions to reform and regulate the policies, but were stiff-armed by the Democrats. Interesting to also see that your boy was right there pushing it along

It is very long, therefore I will not cut and paste it here. It is a great opportunity to educate yourself with facts.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html

 HMMMMMMM......

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.  This only applies to wire-taps and planting people inside..undercover. But make no mistake; the CIA,FBI, and the NSA are not going to waste their time at at my church and probably not yours either.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.This is patently not true otherwise half of my day would be free at work! 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. This has always been true, particularly when a GAG order has been issued. But seriously what subpoenaed information is going to be kept at a library. But that is not the definition of free speech either.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

I think this is a dang good idea! Particularly knowing most of the lawyers in this land are dirtier than the scum they represent!

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. Wrong again! State law regarding search and seizure is applied not only by the State and local Police but also the Fed's. Any evidence obtained without following serch and seizure laws is considered the "fruit of the poisionous tree" and not admissable in court.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Wrong again! Prisoners are held longer for multiple reasons. One being the system is overloaded. Two: the criminal attorneys drag out these trials as long as they possibly can waiting for a witness to die or an officer to retire or to wait for a Liberal Judge to take seat who makes his own laws instead of enforcing the ones that are in place

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. Only 72 hours! But they didn't get to that point by being a boyscout!

It is apparent by all of your posts that you do not have one single original opinion or thought. All of your dribble is cut and paste from some other site,probably violating copywrite laws.

How about giving us an original thought of your own?

Realizing that most of your opinions are not your own, the only thoughts that you can formulate seem to be personal attacks, such as calling Mike a racist and asking if he was wearing his hood when he wrote that, or calling everyone on here a joke.We have all had great chats about hunting and fishing for years and now you have ruined the circle of friends that we had by turning a harmless posting into an attack session.  If I had not seen your previous postings through the years I would believe you are a Classic Sociopath. But I don't think that is true, I just think you have permitted the media to invade your rational thought process which latched on to your deep seeded anger towards Bush, because your business is slow. Now you have lashed out at people that would have called you "friend" and alienated yourself from an environment of inclusiveness, GOOD LUCK in the future!

"It takes 32 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, but only 3 for a proper trigger pull."

Luke this is not about my imagination...it's about facts. txhuntr, I read your link and will say it was interesting but find it hard to believe the Democrats could block all those bills without the majority in the house and Senate. I guess some of the Republicans must have voted with the Democrat minority to cause all these problems. Here is the recent history of the House and Senate and who had power. Kind of looks like the Republicans have had power for some time to make changes but didn't get it done. Now who needs the education? Senate Control In 1980, the Democrats lost control of the Senate and it went Republican, with Democrats retaking control in 1986. Republicans retook control in 1995, with Democrats regaining it on Jan. 3, 2001, until Jan. 20, 2001. Thereafter, Republicans were in control until June 6, 2001. Democrats again retook control until Jan. 7, 2003, and Republicans have been in control continuously thereafter. So from 1995 until 2007 the Democrats blocked every bill while only having control for a little over 1 1/2 years...hmmmm...somehow that just dosen't seem possible. House Control The 1994 congressional elections gave the Republicans control of the House for the first time since 1954. The Republican party also won control of the Senate. Strong showings by Republican candidates in the 2002 and 2004 elections enabled the party to expand its majority in the House. Democrats regained a majority for the first time in 12 years in the 2006 midterm elections. Polls showed that dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq played a major role in the Democratic victory. When the new Congress convened in January 2007, and Nancy Pelosi of California became the first female Speaker of the House. In the 2008 elections the Democrats increased their majority in the House. So the Democrats had control for 2 out of the last 14 years and vetoed all those bills without the majority...hmmmm...seems a bit fishy to me.

Out of all I said the only thing you chose to address was the imagination part. OK i'll retract the imagination part. (because I was obbviously wrong, you have a VERY active imagination. Lets move to something else.

Ok Gman, It's about facts. So i'll ask a point blank question. Why did you leave that one, and only one, paragraph out of the copy and pasted thread earlier.

In fairness, Bush, like all presidents, does not deserve all the blame (or credit) for the economy's performance under his watch. By the time that President Bush took office in 2001, recession was already in the cards given the collapse of the stock market bubble. The economy would have faced rough sledding regardless of who was in office. Similarly, the country was facing a large and growing trade deficit in 2001 because of an overvalued dollar.

Seems like your "facts" needed a little help there. So if the facts back you on this why go out of your way to delete an entire paragraph? You like to put questions out there and demand answers. Lets hear yours.

Luke...ever heard of Bait, Bait, Bait...You are as easy as catching a hungry largemouth bass on a minnow. I knew you were searching the internet for my information and wanted this one to be its own post so we can show the performance of republican policies as compared to Democrat Policies during a recession. Now I'm telling you to get back up there and find the other information that I left out before I run out of AMMO. Then I can get my ruler out and whack the republicans on the pee pee again.hahahahahahaha.

I believe we addressed the issue above that there was a small recession when Bush took office but we needed to know a couple of things. What did bush do with it? Why were we in a recession in the first place???? Who had the political power in Washington in the late 90s to approve or veto bills and make changes? Here are your answers. If you will refer to my post about power held in the House and Senate you will find that the republicans had gained a majority in both after 1995. Hence, the republicans with the majority in the House and Senate blocked the Democrats from fixing the recession so they could make the Dems look bad. Then blamed the whole thing on Clinton having sex with Monica so Bush Jr. could illegally steal the election in 2000, start ripping off America and start a war with Iraq to cover the rip-off instead of going after the guilty.

The republicans did nothing after they took power in 2001 but make it worse, thus showing the incompetence of republicans to help this country with their policies. So to fix the problem Bush jr took the national surplus of money left from the Clinton administration and wasted it trying to help Dick, Don and himself to money and oil in Iraq as well as stealing from America with the Cost Plus contracts that were given to their private companies.

Wow, do you really expect us to believe that you planned that.

The old "I meant to do that" defense, after getting caught in something stupid. Its ok though don't feel too bad my 7 year old daughter uses that one too.

Garrett,

You've skirted another of my questions (again). So, I'll repost the majority of what I said, and asked, earlier:

You haven't been able to back-up one tenth of what you've put on this thread from the beginning, and now all of a sudden you've thrown 12 posts with disorganized, unreferenced, disjointed information at us and expect us to believe it?  All you're trying to do is muddy the waters, worse than when you got on the "bash Bush" tactic. 

You know better than this, because I've read some of your older posts...like this one on 03/25/2003 when you said:

"Regardless of how you feel about the current "war" situation or the

President of our country....it is a shame to our country, it's leaders,

and/or it's servicemen when individuals use their position of celebrity to belittle those persons who are giving their best in those capacities to protect and serve us. I do not think the Dixie Chicken had any idea what she started when she slammed our President and said she was ashamed he was from Texas. The following is a letter from a serviceman. Maybe he has the right idea....

And to think that the D.C.s (Dumb Chicks) are coming to Austin for a concert in the near future.

[when speaking of a cartoon of Saddam and Natalie Maines] What a great pair they make, a couple of traiters/losers."

My question to you is - aren't you doing the same thing as Ms. Maines, whom you earlier called a traitor?  Maybe a smaller forum, maybe a different time, but you're still "slamming" a president (and now former president) of these United States like she did.  And yet when you do it its somehow OK?

Let's face it...your whole tack in this and other related threads is rooted in the idea that you got mad at Bush, I think because you believed the media and now you're trying to justify yourself.

I'd also be interested in your address to Mike's points as well.   Your apparent about-face, in light of the quality of the information provided for that apparent change, is at the least troubling.  That's because most reasonable people know why they do things. 

We're waiting for a reasoned reply.

Letter from my 94 year old grandmother received 1-29-2009.

Dear L and G,

"I hope this helps. I know you work hard. I am glad that we got rid of the worst president in this country's history."

Then there was personal stuff I won't write here.

In closing she states.

I hope George W. Bush will burn in hell for what he has don't to his people

                                                                        Love, Grandma.

Now that alone speaks volumns from someone who has seen more Presidential Administration that all of us.

Garrett,

While I appreciate you have a 94 year old grandmother I'd also like to think you have a mind of your own.

You're still skirting giving a reasonable answer as to why you've done a virtual 180° turn on something that at one time you accused another person of being traitorious for doing.  Calling someone a traitor is not a small thing and I'd like to think that you wouldn't take accusing someone of that act lightly.  If you're going to tell me you've looked at the facts about Bush and changed your mind, the vast majority of what you've posted here about him consist of shallow accusations that don't hold-up to scrutiny and simply won't hold water.  Something just doesn't add-up. 

C'mon, don't drag grandma into this. She has been a Dem. for 94 years. What do you expect.

Did he really just bring Grandma into this??? Please let us know what the rest of your family thinks as well. I am just dying to know...

We haven't had further any responses on this topic for about the last week, and if I understand the situation correctly one of the resulting takeaways here is fairly significant. 

We have been (and will continue to be) bombarded by an increasing amount of propaganda by the media and related talking heads, and with that continual drum beating we're going to have to keep our heads screwed on straight.  Don't know about you, but at times that isn't always easy.  If we're not careful, while we won't believe all of it, we'll believe enough where we start a slow slide to where we don't ultimately want to go.  And, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, if we are not vigilant the results will be no different.  Garrett can answer for himself, but it appears that in a period of 5-6 years his worldview and attitudes changed.  And frankly if we're not careful it could easily happen to any of us.

Check out the 'facts' yourselves.  Obviously you can't believe everything you hear these days and on the other hand you can't get so cynical that you just throw your hands up in the air either.  The one path leads to being led around like a 'sheep' and the other ultimately leads to a feeling of helplessness.  And, get involved.  Write your Congressman and the President.  Let them know that you care, that you are watching, and that you're not going away. 

There are fundamentals that never change.  Those of you that are Christians should know this concept well.  A number of those fundamentals concerning government are expressed in our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers quotes, etc).  Know what they say and be able to articulate the principles.  If we take our eyes off of them and listen to media 'spin' we'll lose our bearings for sure. 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

You still haven't answered my question Garrett.

And you still need to check out your facts.  Barack Obama was on the Annenberg Foundation's board (specifically a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge), and Annenburg primarily funds Factcheck.org.  No tie or potential conflict there that might affect their judgement? 

And, Factcheck.org's discussion on Obama-NRA was not accepted as accurate by a number of people:

National Review article

David Kopel's (Cato Institute) opinion

Fox News article (link not functioning at this time)

And there are others as well.  

Judge for yourself.  I know personally that Factcheck's article is not accurate.  If you listened enough to Obama before the election rhetoric got cranked-up you'd learn pretty quickly where he stood from his own mouth on the 2nd Amendment, as well as from his voting record.  Pretty open and shut case to me.

Once again, it pays to do your own research and do it with an open mind, as opposed to just grasping for something that justifies your opinion.

Garrett,

Dana, myself, and many others are soldiers that fought for your rights to have free speech, to include discussions - - that are sometimes based upon rumor and false allegations.

I will state my primary concern with Democrats in general, I believe that there is a substantial number who have a liberal agenda of turning the United States of America into the United Socialist States of America. There are members of Congress who are on record as being in favor of nationalizing oil companies, banks, health care, etc. etc. This has not worked anywhere it has been tried. Likewise, every country that has invoved stricter gun controls has seen crime go up, not down. I meet people from England, Canada, Australia, etc. and all warn us not to follow down their socialist path. We should learn from the mistakes of others, rather than insisting that we, somehow will be different.

Despite my two cents worth thrown in above, I don't think that this is the proper forum for this discussion. Once we got off of gun control, it think we got into a political discussion best conducted elsewhere.

Garratt, I think that your views are way off base, but I have, and will, defend to your death the right to have them, and to speak or write them. (Which incidentally is not something that the Democrats want to allow to conservative views, and intend to stifle them via the "Fairness Doctrine".

Please let's return to discussions of hunting and fishing!

"Waidmann's Heil" (Hunter's greeting in Germany!)

Ken Jayne "Bald Eagle"

Typical Republican Attitude...everything you post is true. Reality Check. Who cares...if you lose your guns blame your vote in 2004. David, Answering your questions means jack to me...I really don't care about your distorted fairyland personal view. Basically your original post is crap just like all the crap I posted. Don't post no crap, won't see no crap posted...Get it? I have been nice enough not to unleash all my liberal friends on this board out of respect for the rest of the folks that enjoy true topics. I can send out a link to all and then their will be a flood of people with my views posting all over this board, to every post in every topic, and they will enjoy annoying the hell out of you all. Best to shutup now.

Garrett,

As far as most hunters are concerned the Second Amendment is a 'true topic', and its very important to a number of us, and worth debating...its certainly not the only thing in this life by any means, but it is important.

Its a cryin' shame that you feel like you have to threaten or intimidate folks on this board because they don't agree with you.  Frankly, I thought better of you than that.

gman u r a dumb ass.