On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:52:19 -0800, Lowell C. Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good evening, Tim! > > > > Lowell > > > > > In fact, a few of them even accuse the President of secretly > > > telling Congresscritters to make sure the bill didn't reach his > > > desk. > > > > > Had he done so, it would not have violated his promise to > > > "sign the bill." And, so far as I know, he has not denied that > > > he did so. > > > > This does not seem good to me. > > I don't know why. > > > > After 8 years of parsing Clinton, "if it gets to my desk, > > > I'll sign it" is a model of clear political speech. > > > > Clear? Hardly if it allows Bush to go against the bill. > > Remember, Bill Clinton was telling the truth when he said "I did not have > sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." You see, he did not consider the > things he did with her to be sex. We had 8 years of Bill Clinton saying > stuff like that (regarding his scandals, his policies, his actions, his > intentions, his ... you get the picture.) EVERY time Bill said something, > you had to look at every word and ask if there was some meaning to the word > that could give him an "out" of some sort or make it possible that the > sentence meant something entirely different than most people would think.
Yeah, we remember. But the point he was making has nothing to do with Clinton. You see we are not talking about democrats, we are not talking about bill clinton, so please do not use them to try and distract from the fact that the republicans are no good. yes we know democrats suck as well. That is not in question. It is like we are trying to say that that the atlantic ocean has alot of water in it and you are saying, "no the pacific ocean has alot of water in it." Which is correct it does, but no one here is disputing that the pacific ocean has alot of water. Now in the point above, it obviously is not clear political speech if 'I will sign the bill if it comes to my desk' actually means he was actually opposed to it as you seem to suggest he was. > Compared to that, Bush's promise might not be the most straightforward of > statements, but you don't have to "re-interpret" any words to say that he > did not break his promise if he put some pressure on people to keep the bill > off his desk so that he wouldn't have to completely fulfill his promise by > signing it. No. it appears it is his supporters who are lying when they say he supports the second amendment. "Shall not be infringed" Travis > > I do not know the full context but it sounds to me like > > Bush was implying a neutral position on the bill, prior to > > it getting to his desk. > > The context is this. In 1994, Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed the > "Assault Weapons Ban" into law. In order to get it through Congress, a > sunset clause was added. It would expire in ten years. So, unless another > law was passed, on September 13, 2004 (the 10-year anniversary of Bill > Clinton's signature), the law would cease to have any effect. In September, > 2000, during the campaign, Bush was asked about this law and whether he > supported renewing it. His reply was (this may not quite be a quote) "If it > reaches my desk, I'll sign it." > > Personally, I think that everyone who was interested in the issue understood > at the time that this was a classic fence-straddle. He wasn't committed to > pushing it, but he wasn't going to publicly oppose it either. It was > essentially saying "I don't care either way--go bug someone else about this > issue. > > Lowell C. Savage > It's the freedom, stupid! > Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Libnw mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw > Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw > _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
