On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:07:19 -0800, Lowell C. Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So you really beleive he would have signed it had it reached his desk? > > If yes, then i apologize for misinterpretting your comments. > > Yes. Even without his explicit promise to do so. After all, you can't name > the bill he's vetoed. So if you truly beleive he would have signed the bill, then how do you not consider his oath of office not a lie. Are you suggesting that he does not beleive that such a law is a violation of the 2nd amendment? > > > (2) You raised the "Bush lies" as part of a statement about his track > > > record. Usually that means you are referring to "lies" other than any > > > involving the topic at hand. > > > > His lies have been pretty well documented in the news, but the most > > important one is often ignored... > > > > > So. I ask again. What lies has Bush told? > > > > The most important was the first sentance he said while taking office. > > > > "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of > > President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, > > preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." > > Yeah, yeah, whatever. On that score, Badnarik would have become a liar the > moment he took the oath, too. What was he planning to do that you think is unconstitutional? Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
