Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terroris

[CEF1959]

washington county district David Wu who has twenty (20) staffers at the cost of $276,500 to help him with his duties, still cant read any of the bills he votes on. He freely admitted in a town hall meeting, "i cant read all the bills". why not?

this does not include his salary of $174,000

so with annual costs of $450,500, what does he do if he cant read a bill?
(he could afford a tutor to teach him to read or have it read to him)

its hard to believe after he has also spent $34,000 on 13 trips paid for with another $29,000 in trips approved.

why does he need to go to china to be a good representative of beaverton?
why does he need to go to san juan puerto rico on retreat on our exspense?
why doe he need to go to ft. lauderdale and harvard for health care conferences when they are available on line?

I used to work with David Wu 25 years ago before he got into politics. He was a joke then, still a joke.

 

[Stomper]

I used to work with David Wu 25 years ago before he got into politics. He was a joke then, still a joke.

You mean you were a Klingon back then too?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Let's remember that GWB was pretty good on Second Amendment rights. He was just really selective in the rights he thought were important. In that regard, he was like so many on the left who worship the First and Fourth Amendments but want to pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist.

Just what pro-gun legislation did the Bush administration get through congress? I seem to remember a report on MSNBC a couple of months ago suggesting that more pro-2A legislation has been proposed since the end of the Bush administration than there was during the six year republican reign.

Letting th AWB expire does not count since polls showed that would have happened even with democratic rule.

 

[Monkeyman]

I used to work with David Wu 25 years ago before he got into politics. He was a joke then, still a joke.

He spent $2.1 million on his last campaign. $1.5 million came from outside Oregon. Anyone get to his town halls?

Back to guns. Bush didn't prove his 2A bona fides because he didn't have to. Reps. controlled Congress for 6 years of his administration, and the 2 years the Dems were in control they had better things to do than give him an anti-gun bill.

I believe he would have signed one. He caved on everything else.

 

[USMC1911]

Letting th AWB expire does not count since polls showed that would have happened even with democratic rule.

You really have to be kidding....

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You really have to be kidding....

Nope, that is the truth. the AWB had become unpopular even with most democratic candidates. If letting it expire is all someone can say positive about the Bush administration's support of gun rights then they have a pretty weak case.

So I will ask again...what did the Bush administration do to help gun owners during their six year uncontested reign?

 

[capdek]

Bush was not anti-gun per-se, nor was he pro-gun in my opinion. He was neutral on the issue like he was on Heller (Cheney on the other hand was pro on Heller). The one thing GWB did do positive for gun owners in my opinion was appoint John Bolton. There is no doubt about John Bolton's support for the second in his position at the UN. I do thank GWB for John Bolton!

 

[Jamie6.5]

There is no doubt about John Bolton's support for the second in his position at the UN. I do thank GWB for John Bolton!

I think John Ashcroft was a good appointment for Bush and Gun rights too. Charlie Schumer and Dianne Feinstein sure hated him.

And as far as the dems letting the AWB expire? I seriously doubt that. Biden, Schumer, Feinstein et.al were patting GW on the back as long as they thought he was going to push to reinstate. (and he was early on)

I would say have a look at how the Brady people rated Bush, Clinton and now Obama.
The better they like someone, the less inclined I would be to vote for them!

 

[cameronhu]

I think John Ashcroft was a good appointment for Bush and Gun rights too.

Disagree on this one (Surprised? ). Ashcroft was **** bent on overturning Oregon's assisted suicide law. To me, that puts him firmly in the anti-states' rights and anti-personal freedom camp.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Disagree on this one (Surprised? ). Ashcroft was **** bent on overturning Oregon's assisted suicide law. To me, that puts him firmly in the anti-states' rights and anti-personal freedom camp.

Not to mention the fact that he was a draft dodging ninny who was so insecure that he couldn't stand to see fake breasts on a classical statue...or that he never met a personal freedom he didn't think the President couldn't override.

 

[Trlsmn]

You really have to be kidding....

I'll add another "You really have to be kidding...." no way the Dems would have not extended the AWB.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I'll add another "You really have to be kidding...." no way the Dems would have not extended the AWB.

Well, you would be wrong in that assumption. At the time the bill was set to expire the majority of seated dems and those running for office had distanced themselves from the AWB and even denounced it. They saw signing onto an extension of the bill as political career suicide. It was very well addressed in both printed and TV media.

 

[Trlsmn]

Well, you would be wrong in that assumption. At the time the bill was set to expire the majority of seated dems and those running for office had distanced themselves from the AWB and even denounced it. They saw signing onto an extension of the bill as political career suicide. It was very well addressed in both printed and TV media.

They distanced themselves because of the situation being it was advantageous to do so, under my example aka AWB sunset under democrat controlled ruled congress and WH would have been a different scenario.

You are taking Apples and Oranges and arraigning them to fit your purposes. In fact the Dems did put up an amendment (AWB extention) to the gun industry lawsuit preemption act and passed (in the house) legislation to extend the AWB and it was defeated in the senate, this under a GOP controlled congress, had it been a Democrat controlled congress it would have passed.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

They distanced themselves because of the situation being it was advantageous to do so, under my example aka AWB sunset under democrat controlled ruled congress and WH would have been a different scenario.

You are taking Apples and Oranges and arraigning them to fit your purposes. In fact the Dems did put up an amendment (AWB extention) to the gun industry lawsuit preemption act and passed (in the house) legislation to extend the AWB and it was defeated in the senate, this under a GOP controlled congress, had it been a Democrat controlled congress it would have passed.

No, they distanced themselves because public opinion had shifted away from the bill due to recent events and court cases. It was clear that even the "liberal" courts were falling more on the side of pro-2A issues and not with the far left. That was a clear indicator of things to come and the dems wanted to not be caught on the wrong side of the issue. It was simple good career planning. Just as GOP candidates pretend to love their guns to rally the base, Dems saw the winds changing and realized the strength was in the middle ground and they had to switch their allegiances to strengthen their chances for re-election. They realized they could not win be appealing to the far left base and had to win the middle of the road people who did not support the ban. This was one time they beat the GOP to the stick.

 

[Trlsmn]

No, they distanced themselves because public opinion had shifted away from the bill due to recent events and court cases. It was clear that even the "liberal" courts were falling more on the side of pro-2A issues and not with the far left. That was a clear indicator of things to come and the dems wanted to not be caught on the wrong side of the issue. It was simple good career planning. Just as GOP candidates pretend to love their guns to rally the base, Dems saw the winds changing and realized the strength was in the middle ground and they had to switch their allegiances to strengthen their chances for re-election. They realized they could not win be appealing to the far left base and had to win the middle of the road people who did not support the ban. This was one time they beat the GOP to the stick.

Did you miss the second paragraph of of that last quote? Because you didn't touch it.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Did you miss the second paragraph of of that last quote? Because you didn't touch it.

I did see it. I just did not think you would want your gross misunderstanding of the facts discussed publicly. I was about to PM you but will instead post it here.

First, you are confusing a bill to require background checks with the AWB. You are also misinterpreting the measure to force the bills to be enter twined (which was also supported by several GOP senators) with supporting the bill. The vote to push the bills together was a measure to ensure their failure. The actual vote was 8-90 with the majority of dems falling on the side of opposing the bill. They wanted a public vote so they could be on record as condemning it.

 

[Trlsmn]

I did see it. I just did not think you would want your gross misunderstanding of the facts discussed publicly. I was about to PM you but will instead post it here.

First, you are confusing a bill to require background checks with the AWB. You are also misinterpreting the measure to force the bills to be enter twined (which was also supported by several GOP senators) with supporting the bill. The vote to push the bills together was a measure to ensure their failure. The actual vote was 8-90 with the majority of dems falling on the side of opposing the bill. They wanted a public vote so they could be on record as condemning it.

I'm not confusing anything, Fienstien attached an extension of the AWB to a differing piece of legislation.

You are also making an irrelevant point in so far as the GOP support and my not holding the GOP in contempt for there actions as I do, but with a democratic super majority in power they are not relevant at this time. This discussion is about the dems not the GOP. There really aren't many anti GOP original topic threads here to comment on so naturally any anti Demo stance could be (wrongfully) construed as pro GOP

By all means tell me how the Demos introducing legislation to extend the AWB equals the Dems not introducing legislation to extend the AWB? And tell me how introducing such, equals not supporting such.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

By all means tell me how the Demos introducing legislation to extend the AWB equals the Dems not introducing legislation to extend the AWB? And tell me how introducing such, equals not supporting suc

It does not take a majority to introduce legislation. In fact it is often the minority that does so. Sometimes it is beneficial to let such legislation run it's course in a manner as to ensure it's defeat than it is to try and prevent it from seeing the light of day. You seem to not be grasping that concept. I would suggest taking a polisci class and then researching the progression of S. 1805 and how it was defeated.

 

[Trlsmn]

It does not take a majority to introduce legislation. In fact it is often the minority that does so. Sometimes it is beneficial to let such legislation run it's course in a manner as to ensure it's defeat than it is to try and prevent it from seeing the light of day. You seem to not be grasping that concept. I would suggest taking a polisci class and then researching the progression of S. 1805 and how it was defeated.

That last sentence does nothing but self aggrandize and attempts to lower me below you, which in itself shows an insecurity in not being able to deal on a level stance, aka let the relevant facts show the truth.


OK back to reality, I'm not speaking of, nor did i quote SB 1805. you did and are, if you will look up you will see I'm speaking of the House equivalent that was passed........

And BTW I did research SB1805 and how it was defeated before I originally posted about the attempt to stick the AWB extension on the HB.

 

[Jamie6.5]

S.1805 had nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, SB2498 had everything to do with it. Sponsored by Feinstein and co-sponsored by Chuck Schumer, it died a quiet death in the Republican controlled Senate.
Much like CIFTA ratification did in the late '90s.
I seriously doubt a dem supermajority would allow the same thing.

Verified here:
<broken link removed>

Dems wanting the AWB to sunset is akin to Alaskans wanting Eric Holder for their governor.
Pure fantasy, seasoned with hypnotic rhetoric.
Sleeep nooww conservative,.... All is well,.... Your rights are not in jeopardy,...

Here have some more kool-aide,... And smile!