22 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: St. Paul, MN
Joined: 02/07/2004
Posts: 90
Kerry or Bush

You are right, I did not come across the way I wanted to. A case can be made that he's right on those issues but I was merely going from the recent polls and reports from independent groups. A slim majority believes he is wrong. As for the effect on us hunters, a Kerry Presidency could potentially be trouble. Its starting already :
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/18/opinion/18kristoff.html?hp
(hope this link works)

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Kerry or Bush

I hate to digress, but I can't accept the premise it's obvious Bush was wrong on Iraq. People accuse him of lying because he believed solid intelligence reports from the US, Russia, and Great Britain, plus documented evidence that Saddam possessed and used WMD in the past. That's reasonable.

Imagine if you had witnessed methamphetamine being sold out of a house down the street. Then awhile later you had reports that the dealer was still doing it. Cars were coming and going, lookouts were posted, and people were coming out behaving differently than when they went in. People have been seen carrying cans of chemicals into the house, and reports have come in saying those people have been buying Sudafed by the bagful downtown. Two of your neighbors have independent reports all saying the same thing -- it's a meth lab. You call the police and they attempt to check it out, but the neighbor blocks the door and refuses entry -- despite the search warrant. Do you A) get a swat team, kick the door in, and investigate, or B) take the neighbor at his word and leave him alone? Those who say Bush was wrong would chose Option "B."

Turns out there's no meth in the house. Which is more plausible: A) My neighbors and I made it all up; B) All the photos, phone intercepts, and witness statements were wrong; or C) The dealer's buddies took the drugs out the back door or flushed them down the toilet while the cops were discussing the warrant at the front door?

Saddam had every diplomatic opportunity to demonstrate he had no WMD. We gave diplomacy 12 years to work and it didn't happen. Think we were wrong? Tell that to the families of all the people Saddam butchered during his tenure.

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
Kerry or Bush

Here's my take on the "Bush lied" nonsense. If Bush lied that means he knew the WMDs weren't there. He knew it despite all of the other people who said they WERE there. That means Bush is smarter than...

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, John McCain, Teddy Kennedy (well, yeah, okay, we knew that all along), EVERYONE at the CIA, EVERYONE at the FBI, the British, the French, the Germans, Saddam's own generals...

GEEZ! We must have one awfully BRILLIANT President to have known what almost no one else knew!

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Kerry or Bush

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!

Offline
Joined: 06/18/2004
Posts: 66
Kerry or Bush

Donmillon:

"If he lied this means he knew more than all the others . . ."

Very good point. I heard Kerry say once that if he were president he would listen to what his generals told him and do what they said. I take this to mean he would consult experts and follow their guidance rather than being a cowboy and shooting from the hip. It seems this is precisely what Bush did in the case of WMD, but he is getting beaten up for relying upon the guidance of experts in this case. Bottom line, Bush's opponents will use everything available to him to paint him in a negative light. It doesn't have to be reasonable or logical, they just have to be able to make him look bad. Of course, this is just hard ball politics, but that doesn't make it any more welcome.

Getting back to the main thread, it still looks to me like Kerry is much worse for hunters than Bush because of his strong anti-gun voting history.

I read an interesting old article in a magazine last night (maybe an old American Rifleman) that suggested that liberal/democrats are anti-gun because they are vulnerable on crime. Because they favor lighter sentences, early release, no death penalty they can be attacked as weak on crime. By fighting to ban guns they can claim to be fighting crime by attacking guns. The article's point was that attacking guns was not synonymous with attacking crime, far from it. Many crimes -- rape, burglery, sexual molestation of children, name your own -- typically do NOT involve guns at all. Remember how Michael Dukakis said he would NOT support the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife (I THINK these were the conditions, but I reserve the right to have a failed memory on this one)? His lieutenant governor was John Kerry.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Kerry or Bush

John Kerry has the ringing indorsement of both the Sierra Club and the HSUS -- and that's from their web pages. HSUS considered Kerry one of the "heroes" of the 107th Congress.

That ought to say it all about how friendly Kerry would be to sportsmen if elected.

Offline
Joined: 06/18/2004
Posts: 66
Kerry or Bush

Here is a link to Kerry's anti-gun voting record:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=161

The second item on this list -- something about voting to outlaw centerfire ammo -- refers to Kerry voting to add an amendment to US senate bill 1805
back in early March 2004. The amendment would make illegal ammo that can pierce police body armor. As I understand it, most centerfire ammo will indeed pierce the common light police body armor. Rounds that were specifically identified as falling under this umbrella were .30-30, 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester), and 5.56 NATO (.223 Remington). If these three rounds qualified to pierce police body armor, I have to think my .243, .25-06, and .30-06 would have qualified to piece police body armor also and hence been outlawed.

Offline
Joined: 06/18/2004
Posts: 66
Re: Kerry or Bush
deergrower wrote:
Which one of these men are going to help the hunters and sportmans the most in the next 4 years?

Just yesterday Bush added access to new hunting lands, per AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration said Monday it will give people who hunt and fish new access to hundreds of thousands of acres of lands and streams within 17 national wildlife refuges and wetlands.

The decision as the Republican National Convention was opening in New York was announced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Asked if it might help President Bush's re-election efforts, the agency's director, Steve Williams said, "This is just another example of the president's commitment to sportsmen."

"By law, Congress directed the service to consider and provide opportunities for hunting and fishing where it's compatible on the refuges. We take that quite seriously," Williams added.

Both Bush and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry have cast themselves as sportsmen in campaigning for votes among hunters and conservationists. Groups that promote hunting and fishing rights or habitat for fish and game - such as the Boone and Crockett Club, Ducks Unlimited and the National Rifle Association - claim millions of members.

Hunting and fishing, along with observing and photographing wildlife, have long been allowed in the 95-million-acre refuge system. That includes 544 national wildlife refuges and thousands of small wetlands and other specially managed areas.

Currently, more than 300 wildlife refuges and about 3,000 small wetlands are open to hunting, and more than 260 wildlife refuges are open to fishing.

Monday's decision opens another 243,500 acres as of Sept. 1, wildlife officials said.

Federal officials opened to hunting and fishing four more national wildlife refuges: Mountain Long Leaf in Alabama, 3,300 acres; Cypress Creek in Illinois, 100 acres; Red River in Louisiana, 2,700 acres, and Waccamaw in South Carolina, 10,500 acres.

Also opened were six more wetlands management districts: Devils Lake in North Dakota, 56,000 acres; and in South Dakota: Huron, 11,000 acres; Lake Andrews, 20,000 acres; Madison, 38,500 acres; Sand Lake, 45,000 acres, and Waubay, 4,400 acres.

Seven refuges where officials added to the land and marshes available for hunting are Savannah in Georgia and South Carolina, 2,000 acres; Big Oaks in Indiana, 10,000 acres; Big Branch Marsh in Louisiana, 6,000 acres; Crescent Lake in Nebraska, 5,000 acres; Cross Creek and Tennessee in Tennessee, 24,000 acres, and Trinity in Texas, 5,000 acres.

Officials said the agency was not adding money to the budget to help with managing the additional activity in the newly opened areas.

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
Kerry or Bush

Kerry is a liar and hypocrite, and it's that simple.

Offline
Joined: 08/27/2004
Posts: 1964
Kerry or Bush

I think they are both idiots but im from canada so what i think dosent really matter i also think my government blows too but we always have too protect our rights as hunters look at all the bullshit rules they are comming up with lately soon they are gonna try and take it away from us we cant let that happen thats all and thats that if ti were my choice tho bush wasnt really wrong people no matter who says he was he was right taking that pice of shit out of commission i cheered that day he got caught good for the &*^&&* look how many people he killed over the years it would add up to a small city i guarantee it everybody should have been glad and helped take him out i hated our government when we didnt jump right in but im just some shmoe and just like there our government do what they want.
God Bless the troops

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Assault weapons ban down for the countbitmasher409/17/2004 21:40 pm
Bush Talk - Bailout PollCVC009/24/2008 19:14 pm
My early morning buckrambo511/16/2005 20:41 pm
If George W. Bush was an idiot...cowgal2410/26/2009 18:11 pm
Cheney, Bush numbers risingexpatriate605/22/2009 09:43 am