|
15 Sep 04 - 09:46 AM (#1272344) Subject: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce In a recent speech, Kerry said that not renewing the "assault weapons ban" would put military assult rifle on the street. Kerry claims to be a gun owner. Military assult rifles, since the mid 1940's, have been automatic weapons. The Ban was against semi-automatic rifles that LOOKED like military ones. But I guess it is ok for the "right" candidate to lie, without anyone screaming. I quess if we outlaw plastic swords, that will keep people from getting hurt.... |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:52 AM (#1272355) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bobert Ask yer cop buddies how happy they are that the ban is over... While I don't think much of Kerry, he isn't in the same league when it comes to lieing as Bush, who possesses olympic quality skills... Bobert |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:56 AM (#1272359) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce my cop buddies knew the ban had no effect at all. And I just think that this supposedly superior candidate could do better. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:57 AM (#1272361) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Peace Big lies from Bush; little lies from Kerry. It's a no-brainer. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:58 AM (#1272362) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Casual Observer Big or little, a lie is still a lie. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:58 AM (#1272363) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Yes, but Kerry has not even been elected yet, and is already lying. I guess he needs the practice? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:09 AM (#1272373) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Jim Dixon I don't know whether Kerry lied, or made a mistake, or was absolutely right about this. I don't much care. He was not my first choice. I would rather have had Kucinich or Dean. But since Kerry is our only hope of defeating Bush, I'm supporting him. Bush led us into an unnecessary and unjust war. That's about the worst thing a president can do--way worse than any lie. We've got to get rid of him. End of story. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:34 AM (#1272401) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D crap, bruce! There is a huge difference between lying and disagreeing over interpretation of facts! I, also, think that more dangerous weapons (that's 'more dangerous' AND 'more weapons') will now be on the streets, no matter WHAT hairs you split over the exact details of what constitutes 'automatic' and how big a magazine is..........am **I** lying? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:38 AM (#1272407) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,la-la From the quote above, bearded Bruce mentions automatic weapons, not Kerry, Kerry mentions assault weapons which depending on how they are made can be either. BB puts words in Kerrys mouth, what a dick. We can now expect a convoluted display of semantics and nit picking as BB attempts to ensure that his view point becomes the universal truth, regardless. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:40 AM (#1272410) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce They are hardly "more" dangerous- except in superficial appearance. Functionally, they are the same as those allowed under the ban. "automatic" IS precisly defined. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:44 AM (#1272414) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D that has NOTHING to do with what I asked. You are the authority on guns (at least more than I) I asked about the use of the term lying |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:44 AM (#1272417) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive) I'll give a little gold star who can name any politician, of any political stripe, who has risen above the rank of dog catcher without lying. What's hypocritical to me is that Bush, whose lies led to a war in which more than a thousand Americans and ten thousand Iraqis have been killed, is being uncritically supported by the same folks who were so upset about Bill Clinton lying about getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:45 AM (#1272418) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce GUEST, la-la: Try reading my first post. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:49 AM (#1272423) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce BillD: "I, also, think that more dangerous weapons (that's 'more dangerous' AND 'more weapons') will now be on the streets, no matter WHAT hairs you split over the exact details of what constitutes 'automatic' and how big a magazine is..........am **I** lying? " Kerry stated, for his own political gain, that MILITARY ASSULT WEAPONS would be out on the streets. THAT is a lie. You stated your opinion that more dangerous weapons would be there- which I believe to be incorrect, but can be argued ( if the bayonet would make a difference...) Now, which logical flaw have you committed? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:50 AM (#1272424) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,la-la Whats the point, you have already determined what the truth is, as against Kerrys "LIE". Any debate with you is futile. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 10:57 AM (#1272428) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,GI Joe Not so long ago, one of the most popular weapons being imported to the US was the Chinese SKS, this was a semi automatic weapon that had seen service around the globe as an assault rifle, but it sure as shit wasn't fully automatic. So there you have it, an assault rifle that is not full auto! Will this count as nit-picking. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 11:01 AM (#1272436) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: CarolC Yes they all lie (except maybe Kucinich). Yes, I do care, and I wish they would stop. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 11:07 AM (#1272445) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D "THAT is a lie." ...you simply do not know that. John Kerry may just be disagreeing with you, and agreeing with me. Running for office does NOT necessarily make a man a liar. For all practical purposes, the guns that HAVE been on the street and the guns that WILL now be allowed are 'assult weapons'. If you want to win the point, just claim that 'fully automatic' weapons will still be be 'officially' be banned. But if a criminal has a weapon that can use a larger clip, and can be fired 30 times in 5-10 seconds, then I don't wish to be around him. The MILITARY does not give fully automatic weapons to absolutely every soldier, if I understand it correctly. And....if I remember my news, most of those SEMI-automatic weapons which are now allowed can be modified reasonably easily to become fully automatic. It gets kinda tedious to have disputes over minutae being propelled to the top of the Conservative agenda in order to distract and water down the real point. "Kerry wasn't wounded 'badly'" "Kerry voted for, then voted against..." red herrings should not decide an election........ |
|
15 Sep 04 - 11:15 AM (#1272456) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: M.Ted >Yes, but Kerry has not even been elected yet, and is already lying. I guess he needs the practice? Does this mean that you think Kerry will be elected, BB? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 11:29 AM (#1272478) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Charley Noble The real question, BB, is why you would be supporting the re-election of GWB. His invasion of Iraq while militarily successfulis now mired in a country-wide insurrection which ties down our armed forces, bankrupts our economy, alienates major allies, and mobilizes radical Moslems all over the world against us. The Bush administration has made a gross miscalulation in their planning and implementation of this discretionary war. But do you care or even realize what a disastor this misadventure is? Or would you prefer to nitpick? Charley Noble |
|
15 Sep 04 - 11:29 AM (#1272481) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce " The MILITARY does not give fully automatic weapons to absolutely every soldier, if I understand it correctly." You mean like M16s? And I HOPE he is not elected- but it could happen. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 11:47 AM (#1272508) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce And I guess the answer from the any one but Bush group is no, it does not matter. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 12:19 PM (#1272547) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: katlaughing When Bush lied, Americans died, as has been said. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 12:26 PM (#1272557) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko BB does not discuss what the ban entailed - the ban prohibited flash guards, bayonet mounts and the rifle's stock had to be fixed - it was not allowed to fold. The magazine could only hold up to 10 bullets. Even with the ban lifted, semi-automatic or automatic weapons are still banned. The guns that were banned are no longer being manufactured. The 19 weapons that were specifically banned were military-style weapons. Whether you agree or disagree with Kerry, it is hard to call him a liar for his stance. That is using semantics. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 12:28 PM (#1272561) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: katlaughing FWIW, here's what Kerry actually said," "So, tomorrow for the first time in 10 years when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: 'sure,"' he added." BUT, NOT in California, which has its own ban on these types of weapons; has ahd since 1990. Wonder what Arnold thinks of that! |
|
15 Sep 04 - 12:40 PM (#1272575) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: sledge We probably don't want to know What Arnie thinks, some advice I heard from Vienna, Voting for a right wing Austrian is not a good idea, look what happened last time we tried it". Cheers Sledge |
|
15 Sep 04 - 12:52 PM (#1272585) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Don Firth Why would a sport shooter want or need a rifle with a folding stock (one of the characteristics of formerly banned weapons)? Of course, it might be more convenient to carry (like under a topcoat). Why would a sport shooter want or need a rifle with a flash suppressor (another characteristic of the formerly banned weapons)? Unless he wanted to shoot at something (or someone) without giving his own position away (like the Washington. D.C. snipers hiding in the trunk of a car). And pistol grips fore and aft. They make it easier to hold the weapon steady if one is using it fully automatic, or rapid fire as a semi-automatic. And it only takes a modicum of gunsmithing skill to convert a semi-automatic to fully automatic. In most cases, all you have to do is file down the sear-pin. And why in the world would a sport shooter want a thirty-round magazine? I have done a lot of sport shooting, mostly target-shooting with handguns. I own several firearms, so I can hardly be accused of being "anti-gun." I see no rational reason why anyone without criminal intent, or a childish urge to "play war," or paranoia of the "fear of black helicopters" sort would even want a weapon of this kind. And as far a Kerry lying is concerned, what he said was hardly a lie. Not all military assault weapons are fully automatic. And although Kerry was not my first choice. The best reason I can think of for voting for Kerry (or SpongeBob SquarePants for that matter) is the thought of four more years of George W. Bush. Don Firth |
|
15 Sep 04 - 12:53 PM (#1272586) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: artbrooks The US Army's standard issue rifle from shortly after the Korean War until well into the Vietnam War was the M-14. We carried them in Korea in 1969. The M-14 was 7.62 NATO caliber, about the same as the Soviet 7.65 that the Kalashnikov (AK-47/AKM/AK-74) fires. It is semi-automatic but anyone could empty its 20-round magazine in somewhat less than 10 seconds, and it certainly fits anyone's definition of an "assult weapon." The AK, in its various military configurations, includes a selector switch that allows fully automatic fire. The military version of the M-16, while not otherwise similar, also has automatic fire capability. However, both the M-16 and AK are made in a "sporting" model that lacks the selector; any skilled machinist can make a switch and do the internal modifications required to convert the semi-automatic version back to the automatic version. The assault weapon ban did not cover all semi-automatic weapons. This term includes all weapons (including automatic pistols) that don't have to be recocked after every shot. The ban only covered weapons that met a specific definition. All automatic weapons are still banned in the US unless the owner has a special license. All that being said, its a damn shame that the Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't send a renewal forward for signature. Mr. Bush did say he'd sign it if he got it. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 01:26 PM (#1272617) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Ringer To this dispassionate (well, almost) observer from the UK, it seems that most posters here have a visceral hatred of Mr Bush, and that Mr Kerry gets an easy ride, on the basis, I presume, that "any enemy of someone I hate is my ally". Or have I missed the threads about Mr Kerry's adventures in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, Swift Boat Veterans, and fake CBS memos? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 01:32 PM (#1272627) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Joe Offer The "assault weapons ban" is certainly not as far-reaching as I'd like to see. In fact, it's completely unsatisfactory - but it's the best compromise that could get through Congress, and it does make it a little harder for people to get guns that can kill a lot of people quickly. I'll admit it's a complicated, bureaucratic thing that makes a lot of gun owners unhappy - but maybe the gun owners should support this law because it's a lot less that gun control supporters want. So, Bruce, I don't think it's honest to say that Kerry lied. He used verbal shortcuts and failed to give a three-page legal definition when he spoke against the repeal of the ban, but who can blame him? Give the guy a break. Disagree with him on issues - but don't call him a liar, just because he didn't split the hairs quite properly. The issue is that he supports gun control and you don't. It's not a matter of dishonesty, at least not on his part. -Joe Offer- |
|
15 Sep 04 - 01:54 PM (#1272646) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Ands if Bush told what he thought was true, but it turns out was not, HE is a liar? The M-14 was a fully automatic weapon. ONLY the civilian versions did not have the mode select- and they were NOT military assult weapons.... So, If you come in with a Martin D45, you would not correct me if I called it a Vega Banjo? And claimed that outlawing the future manufacture of it would stop blugrass from being played? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 02:00 PM (#1272652) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce BillD: "There is a huge difference between lying and disagreeing over interpretation of facts!" So, you agree that Bush DID NOT lie about the WMD in Iraq? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 04:49 PM (#1272797) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D sure, bruce...I will stipulate that he didn't lie. I will just believe that he was careless in his choice of intelligence data, and used INCREDIBLY bad judgement about what he did. Claiming that "The world is safer with Saddam gone" is hollow posturing to defend a bad decision. I will continue to suspect that he fully intended to invade Iraq no matter what the intelligence showed Can I prove this? Of course not, but he spent months preparing the way for that decision. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:09 PM (#1272803) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko When Dick Cheney said that we have proof of the existance of WMD, and then find that there was no proof - does that make Cheney: a) a liar b) a poor judge of character in the information gathering personnel c) quick to rush to judgement d) all of the above |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:10 PM (#1272804) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce I can live with that... one down, ..... |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:18 PM (#1272808) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce WFDU - Ron Olesko: Have you read the british report that was given the Bush Administration? Did you notice the russian statement to them that Iraq was planning further terrorosm against the US? What would you have done, after the failure to act before 9/11? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:20 PM (#1272812) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce But let us get back to the idea that you are holding Bush to a different standard of truth than you are holding Kerry to. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:26 PM (#1272817) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bobert The problem is than when it comes down to it it is very difficult to *prove* that Bush lies, even though there are millions of folks who have strong feelings thsat he is and continues to do so. But if he actually doesn't make an effort to keep up with facts then, while he may not be lieing, he certainly is not qualified to lead the world's remaininf super power. (Oh, but those facts are so hard to get, Bobert.) Oh? Let's take "No Child Left Behind" for instance. Bush pumps out his chest and talkes about this great achievement on the part of his administartion. Problem is is that the money he asked for and got, he ain't spending? And a visit to just about any inner city school in the bad part of town should be ampl proof that lots kids are being left behind. But if Bush doesn't know this then when he pumps out his chest boasting about "No Child Left Behind", then it's not really a lie. Just ignorance of the facts... During the build up to war there were lots of folks trying to present fact and opinions that differed from the set of facts and opinions held by the folks within the Bush administration. But since Bush made no effort to hear anything except his own "office-speak" he limited himself to just the part of the story that was convient and supported his thirst for arracking Iraq. Did he lie. Well, again, hard to prove. But if he didn't then there can be no other arguement except that he was ignorant of the facts. Looking back at the very reasons for going to war being unraveled almost daily by experts not in the Bush inner circle, Scott Ritter being one, it seems that Bush wanted to be kept ignorant. To me that may not consitute leing but it certainly isn't exactly honest either. So, I'll grant BB the possibility that Bush doesn't lie if he will in turn asmit that if that is the case than Bush is one ignorance feller to have gotten as far as he's gotten... One or the other... And, BTW, BB, I predicted on another thread that someone would jump in say "Well, my cop friends disagree with you, Bobert.." Is BB lieing? Probably not. He just may not know many cops or those he knows are folks who just happen to agree with his point of view. Again, BB may not be lieing. Only he knows. But if he isn't then maybe he's just ignorant on this issue? Bobert |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:33 PM (#1272822) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd ArtBrooks: The US Army's standard issue rifle from shortly after the Korean War until well into the Vietnam War was the M-14. We carried them in Korea in 1969. The M-14 was 7.62 NATO caliber, about the same as the Soviet 7.65 that the Kalashnikov (AK-47/AKM/AK-74) fires. It is semi-automatic but anyone could empty its 20-round magazine in somewhat less than 10 seconds, and it certainly fits anyone's definition of an "assult weapon." BeardedBruce: The M-14 was a fully automatic weapon. ONLY the civilian versions did not have the mode select- and they were NOT military assult weapons.... So now you are saying that Art is a liar about the kind of weapon he carried in Korea, too? Or could it be that he was mistaken? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:33 PM (#1272823) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Or could it be that Bruce is a Liar? Or is HE mistaken? |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:36 PM (#1272827) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Or maybe I know different police officers than you do. It actually depends on what you ask. If you ask " Do you want to be faced with criminals having automatic weapons?" ALL the people responding will say no- but that has no relationship to the Ban. Automatic weapons have been controlled since the 1930's. If you ask them if the strap swivel makes them worry, ALL of them will say no. Maybe you are just ignorant on the issue, Bobert. My point is that Kerry, who claims to be a gun owner, is distorting the truth (lieing) for his own political gain. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:39 PM (#1272831) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Kim C "So, tomorrow for the first time in 10 years when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: 'sure,"' he added." Not if they already have a criminal record. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:46 PM (#1272835) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: katlaughing If ya'll are going to split such hairs, it is spelt lying, fwiw. KimC, I think the assumption was most people would understand he meant would-be killers?! |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:47 PM (#1272836) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko BB - I am not holding anyone to a different standard, no matter what you may think. Any president that would have relied on the British report and ignored our own intelligence gathering (well, maybe that is a good thing) or UNSCOM's report that there was no evidence of existing WMD's and that they had evidence that the nerve gas lost lethality as late as 1991, yes, he should have given it second thought. Lie? In this case, yes. Waiting for the one report that justifies your position when other evidence points to alternate evidence is just wrong. It is more than politics, it is logic. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 05:49 PM (#1272837) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce and not if it is a real AK47 ( they were fully automatic) and not if it is a real military assult weapon of the last 50 years.... Of course, they still need to fill out all the paperwork, prove they don't have a criminal record, are a resident of that state, etc.... and then they can get one that has a strap on it! Unless the local laws prohibit it. Did you know that by the definition Massachusetts uses, the gun on the back of their quarter is prohibited? ..Bayonet, sling, and fires the entire magazine ( of one shot) in one pull of the trigger. Don't want to have any Minute men out there.... |
|
15 Sep 04 - 07:07 PM (#1272889) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Little Hawk To answer your question briefly, BB. Yes. People like yourself who are already opposed to Kerry care if he lies. It works exactly the same way with George Bush. His supporters don't care if he lies. It's the people who are against him who care! Look up any politician one could care to mention...and you will find that this simple and elegant analysis applies! :-) People care when those they are vehemently against lie! They are oblivious to the lies told by those they support. In fact, they generally believe the lies told by people they support... You've just got those old partisan blues, my friend. It's a disease afflicting most people who've grown up in a partisan system involving party politics. Such systems are ludicrous and are highly unlikely to provide good government. A century from now people will look back on this political era the way we presently look back on the era when a royal family had "divine right" to govern. This era is dominated by big money lobbying which controls the parties, and the public has very little to do with influencing or controlling the process. They just rubber stamp it after the fact...after being lied to and given false promises by people who don't really represent them in the first place. I'll tell you something bluntly obvious to a neutral observer: Kerry and Bush both lie, and so do most if not all of their underlings in the system. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 07:34 PM (#1272902) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: freightdawg Ron, we knew that Hussein had the weapons (the gas, anyway) because he used it on the Khurdish people after the first Gulf war. Bush was not the only leader of a nation saying that Hussein had the weapons and was more than willing to use them. What is galling to me is not that we could not find any WMDs. That is disappointing to a point, and reassuring to a point. I do wonder where his stockpile went. Were they destroyed (and there is no evidence they were destroyed) or were they simply moved? What is really galling to me is that Hussein brutally murdered thousands of his enemies with a vicious gas bomb and there is no, none, zip, nada, zero acceptance of that fact in the mainstream media. He did have the WMDs and he used the WMDs. But he won't again. Anyway, sorry for the thread creep. For my two cents on the subject matter, we had better care if Kerry lies, just as we had better care if Bush lies, just as we should have cared when Clinton lied, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon,....... The point is lying reveals a character flaw. It seems to be systemic among politicians, but we should make them pay for it. Will we? Nope. The utterances of our politicians are just our own whispers mic'd through a bullhorn. Freightdawg |
|
15 Sep 04 - 08:30 PM (#1272934) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: artbrooks The M-14 was semi-automatic. In fact, if I recall the mantra correctly, it was a "magazine-fed, gas-operated, semi-automatic shoulder weapon." It had a varient, the M-14A1, with a selector switch and an automatic-fire option. I had one of these for a while in Vietnam, when I was riding convoys and wanted something that would accurately reach out more than 200 meters. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:02 PM (#1272960) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D I will try it one more time....there is a MAJOR difference between LYING and emphasizing those aspects of the facts that you want heard. Most people, including politicians, try to point to things that will best support their position, but calling Kerry a liar ["is distorting the truth (lieing)"] over subtle points about the precise definition of 'assult weapons' is silly! Kerry, I assume, had weapons in Viet Nam that were quite similar to those he is now against being available in local gun shops. Did he or didn't he describe them precisely? I am not the expert, but his point is clear--that high powered weapons that can be fired very fast, with large magazines, do not need to be available to your average hunter or homeowner....or potential drug dealer, etc.**IF** they are purchased 'legally', some will eventually be sold, stolen, converted, etc. in ways which increase the overall danger. I saw 2 interviews with Wayne de LaPierre, chief honcho of NRA, in the last couple days, and he kept insisting that the correct answer is that "existing gun laws should be enforced". Oh, great...sure...right...FINE idea. By whom? By the local police officers who LOVE the idea that the 'enforcment' of those laws just got harder and more dangerous because the wrong people will have the bigger guns! There have been petitions by police officers (who do know a bit about this) all over the country, pleading with Congress not to make their job harder....sorry guys, just hope the bad guys are bad shots.... |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:09 PM (#1272965) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST It's a poor rifle owner who can't turn his semi-auto to a full auto in a few minutes. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:12 PM (#1272968) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D which is what I noted earlier... |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:29 PM (#1272980) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST Sorry, BillD, didn't click. |
|
15 Sep 04 - 09:59 PM (#1273003) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bobert Well said, Little Hawk but... ...BB won't see himself in your scenerio. Bobert |
|
16 Sep 04 - 12:50 AM (#1273100) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: sledge During my time in the Royal Navy (11 years) the standard infantry weapon was known to us as the SLR, it was a variation of the Belgian FN FAL automatic rifle. The SLR however was not issued as a fully automatic weapon, it was only issed as capable of firing single shots. It was in service for around 30 years and was most certainly an assault rifle. It did come from a family of automatic weapons, but this one was one pull of the trigger gave you one shot. Sledge |
|
16 Sep 04 - 01:37 AM (#1273107) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd So now we have two people, Sledge and ArtBrooks, who have testified to carrying weapons available in the last 50 years, which were not automatic weapons, yet were "Military Assault Weapons." Beardedbruce: The M-14 was a fully automatic weapon. ONLY the civilian versions did not have the mode select- and they were NOT military assult weapons.... artbrooks: The M-14 was semi-automatic. In fact, if I recall the mantra correctly, it was a "magazine-fed, gas-operated, semi-automatic shoulder weapon." How come no one cares when beardedbruce lies? Why should we believe anything he says from now on? Sorry, bb. You're hoist with your own petard. Either you have to admit that just maybe you, like Kerry, don't know every detail of every weapon and every detail of the Assault Weapons Ban, and therefore admit that Kerry's mistake is no more foolish than your own... Or you're a low down, dirty liar, just like mr. K! |
|
16 Sep 04 - 10:49 AM (#1273175) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Because all the M14s I have seen were fully automatic. The primary difference between the M1 and the M14 was that fact. The M1, and later the M1A, based on the M14 reciever but made as a civilian model, were semi-automatic. I can get a quad .50 machine gun that is semi-automatic- but the ones the military uses are full automatic. WHy would we handicap our troops by giving them so much less firepower than any opponent? I am sure that the M98 ( that is 1898) Mauser was being used by some countries- that does not make it an assult rifle in the military sense. And if someone chooses to violate the law ( the 1930's law against automatic weapons) how does telling them they can't do it change anything? The ban only affects those who want LEGAL weapons. ANY competent machinist can produce recievers for fully auto weapons- it juts happens to be illegal. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 10:54 AM (#1273185) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce ANd why should anyone care, even if I did lie? I am not running for president.... If Kerry was not running, I would not care how often he lied. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 10:58 AM (#1273191) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D "all Indians walk in single file"...I know because I saw an Indian once and HE was walking in single file. " it juts happens to be illegal." ...so does shooting people with it AFTER it is modified. Why am I not relieved to know this? |
|
16 Sep 04 - 10:58 AM (#1273194) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce BillD "....there is a MAJOR difference between LYING and emphasizing those aspects of the facts that you want heard." And YOU have already said that Bush did not lie ( about the WMD) Now, how about the rest of you out there? |
|
16 Sep 04 - 11:13 AM (#1273208) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Amos Frankly (and aside fromt he point of this thread) I think Bush is so sociopathic that he does not know when he is telling the truth and when he is not; I believe he only knows when he is "getting his way" or "not getting his way". I don't really believe that honesty enters into it at all -- just "trouble" or "no trouble". As for WMD, I think he made stupid conclusions based on slipshod analysis and then spoke as though it were factual. 25 million other people were NOT deluded by his logic, so how come he was? A |
|
16 Sep 04 - 11:23 AM (#1273221) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D I 'stipulated' that Bush didn't lie...that is a technical legal point, like defining types of guns. I actually don't know whether he lied or not. I am just allowing it for the purpose of the discussion, since my major complaint does not depend on knowing. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 11:32 AM (#1273231) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: sledge Bringing in a 100 year old bolt action antique to try and deflect full and frank answers given to demonstrate that not all assault rifles fit your criteria is a bit feeble, smacks of desparation. And just how do "you" Bearded Bruce, know Kerry is lying and not just showing a less than encyclopedic knowledge of firearms. I would like to know, as I am sure would many others. Sledge |
|
16 Sep 04 - 11:39 AM (#1273238) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd "ANd why should anyone care, even if I did lie?" Uh, because you started the thread by claiming that Kerry had lied. And your major evidence that Kerry lied turns out itself to have been a lie, by your own standards. That seems relevant to the discussion, in the sense that the cries of "liar, liar" are all a crock of crap dreamed up by you! |
|
16 Sep 04 - 11:40 AM (#1273239) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce One would think an officer in the armed services would have this elementary knowledge- or do you claim that he got HIS position only by pulling strings, and never completed the training required? My question stands- WHy do you ( those that do) claim that Bush lies, when he is stating what is his best knowledge of a situation, and Kerry does not lie, when he states things that he should know are false? |
|
16 Sep 04 - 11:49 AM (#1273250) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: sledge Yoy may know about those weapons you will yourself use and those you are likely to meet in the hands of the enemy, but not the whole global catalogue of weapons, be realistic. His training also took place 30 odd years ago, do you remeber each detail of your miltary training from whenever it was you served, I sure as shit don't. As for your question on Bush lying, didn't he and his little gang state, as regards WMD in Iraq that "we know where they are". Sledge |
|
16 Sep 04 - 01:39 PM (#1273252) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Nerd: "And your major evidence that Kerry lied turns out itself to have been a lie, by your own standards." Nope. I checked it- the M14 was fully automatic. No lie And I would know enough to check before I made a political speech claiming something- Which Kerry seems not to have. "didn't he and his little gang state, as regards WMD in Iraq that "we know where they are"." And maybe he did, when he said it. But with the delay because of the UN, they could have been moved. No proof yet, either way- so no lie there. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 02:13 PM (#1273281) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Actually, Sledge, that was Cheney, who DEFINITELY lies. There was a great moment on the Daily Show where they juxtaposed some footage of Cheney blatantly denying that he had ever said something, with the footage of him saying that very thing! Now you COULD of course say, "he forgot." Which I think is Bill D's point. It's futile trying to PROVE that someone lied. All you can do is show that they probably knew what they were saying was untrue. On yellowcake Uranium? I think it's probable Bush knew it was BS, so I think he lied. But it's not proveable. On AK-47s? I think it's probable Kerry was not aware whether a modified semi-automatic version of the AK-47 counts as an AK-47 or not. I sure don't know. If such a weapon does not count as an AK-47 anymore, then Kerry said something that was not true. But I doubt he thought it was untrue when he said it. If it does count as an AK-47, he didn't lie because everything else he said was true. As we've seen, there ARE semi-automatic military assault weapons, despite beardedbruce's repeated lies. (They are lies by his own standards. I'm willing to believe he just made a mistake because I'm apparently more charitable than he.) |
|
16 Sep 04 - 02:23 PM (#1273290) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Hi, bb. We cross-posted there because the 'cat was down for about an hour. So you still maintain Art Brooks lies? Not according to the sites here and here and here |
|
16 Sep 04 - 02:36 PM (#1273300) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Nerd: "and it was not as accurate when in full automatic fire at 750 rounds a minute." from your first site... and I would presume that a SENATOR, who is voting on such legislation, would bother to get his facts correct. Maybe that does not apply to liberals. The AK47 and M14 ARE automatic weapons. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 02:44 PM (#1273308) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Nerd: From your second site: "However, the M14 displayed an erratic dispersion pattern, excessive recoil, and muzzle climb when fired as an automatic rifle." From the third site: "Seeking a lightweight replacement for the M1 Garand and the M1918A2 BAR, The Army selected the M14 rifle in 1957. " For those liberals who don't understand, the BAR was the Browning AUTOMATIC Rifle. ANYONE who had any basic training, ROTC, OTC, etc would know about the basic weapons. As a senator, voting on legislation, he really has no excuse for being "incorrect". I would hold an elected representative to a higher standard than you would, it seems. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 02:45 PM (#1273309) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Lies. One of the first things that convinced me that GWB lies was the speech after he reduced the air pollution standards where he said "This will give you clean air." Now, it's possible that he honestly thinks that allowing more dirrt in the air will make it clean, and it probable that bb will say that it's not a lie because he didn't say "cleaner," but to my iggorant Idyho panhandle mind it looks like a deliberate intent to deceive. And a "deliberate intent to deceive" may not be a lie in bb's dictionary, but it works the same and it's every bit as good. clint My dictionary agrees with me -- lie2 n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 02:49 PM (#1273311) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce You would want to elect as president someone who could not even bother to find out the basic facts about the legislation that he was supporting as a senator?????? |
|
16 Sep 04 - 03:02 PM (#1273317) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Clint- You have missed all that I have said- I have NEVER said that Bush has not lied- I merely asked why you did not have a problem with Kerry's lies. "lie2 n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. " Kerry has presented both kinds of lies to the world- and you let them slide by, but hold Bush accountable when he was acting on WHAT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 03:07 PM (#1273323) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Oh, NOW I understand.... Another SRS rule... If a liberal tells something as a "deliberate intent to deceive" , it becomes true. If a conservative tells something true, it becomes a "deliberate intent to deceive" . |
|
16 Sep 04 - 03:07 PM (#1273324) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bobert You would want to elect as president someone who could not even bother to find out the basic facts about (pick as many as you like): 1. WMD 2. Saddam/Iraq links to 9/11 3. Saddam/Iraq links to Al Quida 4. Iraq trying to puchease enriched uranium from Africa 5. Iraq possessing aluminum tubes capable in the manufaturing of nuclear weapons 6. Iraq being avle to arrack the United Sates in 45 days 7. Clint's example4 of the Clean Air Act 8. My previous example of "No Child Left Behind" 9. The tax cuts are working 10. I completed my National Guard duty. etc, etc, etc.... Yeah, I agree with BillD, myself and others that either Bush is woefully *fact challenged* or in Amos's words "a sociopathic liar"... Bobert |
|
16 Sep 04 - 03:09 PM (#1273327) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Oh, NOW I understand. If a liberal says something wrong, it's a lie. If a conservative says something wrong, it's an error. All those websites claimed the M14 was designed as a semi-automatic weapon, and did not work as an automatic one. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 03:16 PM (#1273333) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Nerd, you have not read the sites- they specifically state that the M14 had the capability of automatic fire. FACT LOOK at the quotes from YOUR sites that I stated. If you are not capable of understanding WHAT an automatic weapon is, why are you even bothering to discuss this? Your statement is false- except that ALL automatic weapons have the capability of being semi-automatic. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 03:19 PM (#1273338) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Nerd: Your statement of a falsehood does not make it any closer to true. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 03:25 PM (#1273346) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce "The M14 rifle is a 7.62 mm magazine-fed, gas operated shoulder weapon, designed primarily for semi-automatic fire. The M-14 originally had a M2 bipod for use as a squad automatic weapon. The rifle is considered by many an excellent design. Its drawbacks were that it was heavy for infantry soldiers and it was not as accurate when in full automatic fire at 750 rounds a minute." WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU FIND BEYOND YOUR COMPREHENSION? |
|
16 Sep 04 - 03:31 PM (#1273354) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Nerd: You are in error, for having your facts incorrect, AND you lie, for stating something that YOU YOURSELF have shown to be false. "did not work as an automatic one" |
|
16 Sep 04 - 03:53 PM (#1273380) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Jeri When you say an assault weapon has to have the capability of automatic firing to BE an assault weapon* in disagreement with just about everybody just so you can come up with a 'lie', you're just trying too hard. What I can't understand is why some folks try so hard to NOT see the obvious when it comes to their own guy, then go picking nits on the guy they don't like. *The ban was on 'assault weapons'. Doesn't look like anybody had a problem with the definition back when the ban was put in place. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 04:16 PM (#1273399) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller "Kerry has presented both kinds of lies to the world- and you let them slide by, but hold Bush accountable when he was acting on WHAT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME. " I thiink it was known at the time of the clean air act that increasing pollution in the air does not make it clean. correct me if I'm wrong. clint |
|
16 Sep 04 - 04:20 PM (#1273406) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: artbrooks BeardedBruce, the M-14 issued to the US Army was semi-automatic. I know. I carried one. I would have known if it were capable of automatic fire. The fact that removal of a selector shaft lock, addition of a selector switch and changing an internal part of the receiver converts it into an automatic weapon doesn't mean that all M-14s were automatic weapons. The automatic version was only issued on a limited basis as a squad automatic weapon (SAW). The following is copied from this site: The M14 rifle has been employed as a battle rifle, squad automatic weapon, competition match rifle, grenade launcher, sniper rifle and ceremonial rifle. As a battle rifle, the M14 has seen service from the 1963 Cuban missile crisis to 2002 Afghanistan. In the U. S. military, the selector shaft lock is installed on most M14 rifles so that only semi-automatic fire can be employed. In the U. S. Army infantry squad of the early 1960s the M14 rifle was standard issue. Each ten man infantry squad had two automatic riflemen and two grenadiers. The M14 rifle assigned to the automatic rifleman had an M14E2 stock and sling, stabilizer assembly and M2 bipod. His rifle would have a selector switch and selector shaft spring installed in place of the selector lock. In this configuration, the rifle was designated as the M14E2 in 1963 and redesignated as the M14A1 in April, 1966. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 04:41 PM (#1273433) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd I think bb's point was actually that it wouldn't be a MILITARY assault weapon unless it were fully automatic. I base this on his statement above that Military assult rifles, since the mid 1940's, have been automatic weapons. So BB's claim is that there ARE no "semi-automatic military assault weapons" to be bought. Bb is a funny one. He bases his claim that Kerry is lying on what are in the end extremely arcane details of certain guns, and then browbeats me because he says I am "not capable of understanding them." In fact, the stuff on the M-14 was just a game I was playing with him. The real issue turns on the question of what makes a gun a "military assault weapon", and whether semi-automatic ones exist. So, laying aside the M-14, ARE there semi-automatic military assault weapons? There are according to the Canadian Government. The Canadian Government has legislation that specifically bans them from being sold in Canada, according to the Canadian Criminal Law review, 2000: The new government introduced the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, in 1995. After a highly publicized struggle, the Bill received royal assent on December 5, 1995 and is still in the process of being implemented.15 It includes: ? The ability to prohibit, through order in council, firearms not ?reasonably? used in hunting in an effort to broaden the ability to prohibit semi-automatic military assault weapons ? A ban on short-barrelled and small calibre (.25 and .32) handguns with a grandfather clause ? Licencing of all firearm owners by 2001 (including possession only and possession/acquisition licences) ? Registration of all firearms by 2003 ? Production of the firearm licence in order to purchase ammunition. The law also contained a series of provisions, including the non-derogation clause, intended to accommodate Aboriginal hunting rights. (full article) Okay, you say, but those Canadians are weird. Well, the federal government of the United States recognizes the existence of semiautomatic military assault rifles, in this press release from the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Bureau, who ought to know: Mr. Somerville was arrested on Friday afternoon, October 10, 2003, on a three-count federal indictment for unlawful possession of machineguns, being an unlawful user of marijuana in possession of semiautomatic military assault rifles and the attempted manufacture of marijuana. (full article) The state of California: also bans these weapons that bb claims are non-existant. Even Firearms Central, a pro-gun lobby site, concedes "The bank robbers were armed with multiple fully automatic and semi-automatic military assault weapons." (full article) Quite beyond this, is the question of whether Kerry lied. To be as arcane and technical about language as bb likes to be about guns, Kerry did not lie. He made a prediction. That prediction was that if a killer asked a gun dealer for a semi-automatic military assault weapon, the dealer would reply with the word "sure." Predictions are able to be tested, but if found to be wrong they are not lies but inaccurate predictions. So for example, if Rumsfeld had said "we will find WMD" it would not have been a lie. Too bad he said "we know where the WMD are." That WAS a lie. I suspect bb knows this, which makes him a LIAR! LIAR!! LIAR!!! Okay, just kidding, bb. But you get my point, which is: chill out. You're no better than Kerry, and certainly no more reliable. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 04:47 PM (#1273438) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Thanks, artbrooks. Looks like I'm capable of understanding after all. Was bb mistaken, being misleading, or lying? Only bb knows for sure. But I bet he won't admit to any of the above. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 05:07 PM (#1273464) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce The BATF has defined ALL M14 rifles as fully automatic, and requiring a special permit as an automatic weapon. If one disables the switch, it is STILL and automatic weapon, according to the government- just not functional at that time. The M2 carbine was the fully automatic version of the M1- but posseision of even the bare reciever of an M2 is considered by the BATF to be possesion of a fully automatic weapon. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 05:10 PM (#1273466) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd And what's the definition of "is," beardedbruce? |
|
16 Sep 04 - 05:20 PM (#1273480) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: artbrooks Please provide the specific reference to the US Code that specifically refers to M-14 rifles as automatic weapons. The basic M-14 has no switch to disable. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 05:31 PM (#1273488) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D bruce...there is an entire theme buried in all this detail that emerges....to wit: You would LIKE to paint Kerry as either a liar, a careless speechmaker -("wouldn't you think a Senator would check his facts..") or a **liberal** too caught up in his own agenda to bother thinking clearly...or any other character flaw you can Gerrymander out of the news. You leave no room for the possibilty that he is a good guy with many excellent qualities trying to honestly do his best in public service. You did the same thing in the thread about his wife Theresa; picking on details of her remark to paint her in a bad light. We ALL have flaws, but this endless distraction from the real issues by nitpicking and blowing things out of proportion get tiresome. If that's all I want, I can listen to Joe Scarbourough of Rush Limbaugh 2-3 times a day. You are trying to imtimate that Kerry and liberals get 'breaks' in reporting, while conservatives are held to some more rigid standard, and THAT, my friend, is just plain silly! |
|
16 Sep 04 - 05:56 PM (#1273506) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller I said it before & I'll say it again: '"Kerry has presented both kinds of lies to the world- and you let them slide by, but hold Bush accountable when he was acting on WHAT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME. " I thiink it was known at the time of the clean air act that increasing pollution in the air does not make it clean. correct me if I'm wrong.' How's about it, bb? clint |
|
16 Sep 04 - 06:06 PM (#1273512) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Peace The M14 rifle is a 7.62 mm magazine-fed, gas operated shoulder weapon, designed primarily for semi-automatic fire. The M-14 originally had a M2 bipod for use as a squad automatic weapon. The rifle is considered by many an excellent design. Its drawbacks were that it was heavy for infantry soldiers and it was not as accurate when in full automatic fire at 750 rounds a minute. The M14A1 was called the Squad Automatic Weapon. The M14A1 differed from the M14. It had a pistol grip, a different flash suppressor, and a light bipod. The M14 Rifle is a lightweight replacement for the M1 Garand rifle and the M1918A2 BAR of WWII. The Army selected the M14 rifle in 1957. Production of the M14 rifle was halted in 1964, by which time 1,380,874 had been manufactured. It was the standard service rifle until it was replaced in the late-1960s by the 5.56mm M16A1 rifle. At one time it was the standard issued rifle for Marines. From various sites. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 06:10 PM (#1273517) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce gee, didn't I pull those quotes from the sites that nerd said proved it a non-automatic weapon? |
|
16 Sep 04 - 06:17 PM (#1273526) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller helloo.........bearded bruce? clint |
|
16 Sep 04 - 06:23 PM (#1273532) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Tweety Bird I do! I do! I care when Kewwy wies! Ooooooo! I taught I heard anovver wie fwom Kewwy! Oooooooo! Bad Kewwy! Wait...No, I did'n. It was a wie fwom Bush that time. Oooooo...I taught I heard anovver nasty wie! I taught I taw some WMD's too! Oooooo! Tweety sees a whole bunch of nasty WMDs!!! I wonder if they bewong to Bush...or Kewwy? |
|
16 Sep 04 - 06:30 PM (#1273545) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Clint, I do not defend the Bush administration in all their choices- I just happen to think that Iraq was not a bad decision, based on what was known at the time. I don't know enough details of the clean air act to have a valid opinion. That would be like Nerd talking about automatic weapons... If I thought that we would have a chance of being "safer" under Kerry, I might vote for him, in spite of his obvious problem with gun control. But I do not- nothing I have seen leads me to think we would be any safer, and a lot leads me to believe that we would be in a lot more danger under Kerry. That is my opinion. Sorry if you don't agree- that is why we have elections. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 06:37 PM (#1273551) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce BillD, "You are trying to imtimate that Kerry and liberals get 'breaks' in reporting, while conservatives are held to some more rigid standard, " The problem with what you have to say is that it applies to the comments here ( on Mudcat) about Bush, just as well- but I hear no comment from you about that. HERE there is a definite bias. How many posters here could I make the following claim to? ...there is an entire theme buried in all this detail that emerges....to wit: You would LIKE to paint Bush as either a liar, a careless speechmaker -("wouldn't you think a President would check his facts..") or a **neo-con** too caught up in his own agenda to bother thinking clearly...or any other character flaw you can Gerrymander out of the news. You leave no room for the possibilty that he is a good guy with many excellent qualities trying to honestly do his best in public service. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 06:59 PM (#1273569) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller All you need to know about the Clean Air act for purposes of this discussion is that it allowed more air pollution. The question before the house is not whether you approve of it; it's whether it was a deceptive statement or not. A lie. I'll see if I can find a suitable url. clint. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 07:15 PM (#1273583) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: pdq Clint Keller: If you can explain what benefits we received from MTBE in our gasoline (thanks, Carol Browner) or why it was chosen over ethanol, you will have some credibility in the air pollution game. If not, we do not need to hear your anti-Bush accusation more the the four times you have aleready made made it. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 07:16 PM (#1273585) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Is it just me or does anybody really care whether the M-14 was automatic or semi-automatic or non-automatic? This forum has turned into a bunch of alter kakhers discussing the merits of a weapon that has no business of being in an American home. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 07:24 PM (#1273600) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D "HERE there is a definite bias. " well, if you mean YOU are outnumbered by clear thinking people who are not taken in by the conservative agenda, I guess I gotta agree...*grin* I always assumed 'bias' was having your mind made up before you entered the discussion, then streching arguments to fit. That's not what I generally have seen here in my 8 years....but, maybe I'm biased? I consider myself to be a reasonable man whose 'agenda' is not being pushed into corners by those with agendas FOR pushing...and I will tell you frankly, I see the current Republican administration as going beyond 'pushing' and into 'herding' and 'intimidating' and VERY close to threatening. I did not see that degree of pressure in, for example, the Ford administration, but I saw it beginning in the Reagan administration. I saw smatterings of it in the Bush #1 era, but I never felt like he, personally, was much more than a basic conservative....I did not agree with him on many things, but I sort of trusted him to be doing what he 'thought' was best for the country at large. I do not feel that now....... |
|
16 Sep 04 - 07:26 PM (#1273607) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Peace So, uh, BB, who ya gonna vote for? |
|
16 Sep 04 - 07:32 PM (#1273612) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Peace bruce, That was not meant to be an 'insulting' or 'tongue-in-cheek' question. I figger you're way too smart to vote for Bush; you don't seem to care for Kerry; so . . . . BM |
|
16 Sep 04 - 07:58 PM (#1273646) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller I wasn't clear; I should have said Bush's Clear Skies modification of the Clean Air Act. you can check CNN http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/04/22/churches.bush/ and the Philadelphia Inquirer http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/5091437.htm?1c which says: "Nine states, including New Jersey, filed suit immediately after the Bush administration's new source review rules were issued Dec. 31. Pennsylvania is pursuing a similar, but separate, lawsuit." and "The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection last week sued the federal government over new regulations that would relax industrial pollution standards. Let's hope this action heralds an era of aggressive and sustained attention to federal mischief that could endanger Pennsylvanians' health. The Bush administration's "new source review" rules make it easier for aging factories, mills, refineries and coal-fired power plants to expand or modernize without upgrading pollution controls. They take effect March 3 and apply to 800 industrial facilities in Pennsylvania and 17,000 nationwide. The new standards are so loose that emissions of soot and smog are likely to increase, causing asthma attacks and respiratory disease. Eighty percent of Pennsylvanians already live where air is deemed "unsafe to breathe" by the American Lung Association. The new rules could further spoil air quality - and Pennsylvania would have no recourse against polluters outside its borders." and there's this, from the Sierra Club -- but you can find it lots of other places if you're an anti-environmentalist "Mercury is a dangerous toxin that threatens people and wildlife as a pollutant from coal-fired power plants. The EPA estimates that enforcement of existing toxic air pollution protections in the Clean Air Act will limit mercury pollution to 5 tons per year by 2008. The Bush Administration's plan weakens the limit to 26 tons per year by 2010 – allowing 520 percent more mercury pollution. A new EPA report discusses the ways pregnant women pass mercury on to their babies, causing mental retardation, but why did the Administration sit on the report for more than nine months and only release it after journalists exposed their findings?" My computer's sickly & I've got to go, but I can find you more stuff later, if you doubt me. •pdq: All I said was that the Bush proposal put more pollution (that's pollution in addition to the MTBE) in the air, and that he said this would give us clean air. He misled us about what his administration was doing. I made my accusation once, but had to repeat it four times to get a reply. I didn't get an answer, however. I am not an expert on air pollution, but, like LBJ, I do know chickenshit from chicken salad. *His words did not match his administration's action.* That's my point, not the relative merits of MTBE, mercury and soot. clint |
|
16 Sep 04 - 08:28 PM (#1273665) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: pdq Clint Keller: Most of the Enviromental statements you (=we) see on the internet fall into one of two categories: 1) Factual - based on science and intended to help the public understand a problem. 2) Politically-driven - these sites will always come to the conclusion: that pollution is due to the "fact" that people elected those dern Republicans again. That is the reason every problem in the world exists. If you only visit politically-driven web sites you will always get answers that are fecal in substance. To use some of your words, if you "do not know chickenshit from chicken salad" on a given subject, you will never recognize that you are being fooled. |
|
16 Sep 04 - 10:39 PM (#1273680) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Touche, beardedbruce. I don't know much about automatic weapons. BUT, The BATF, the Canadian Government, the states of California and Minnesota, and even the pro-gun lobby that runs Firearms Central, recognize the existence of semi-automatic military assault weapons, which you are claiming don't exist. Should I trust you or them? Hmm, tough choice...NOT! Also, artbrooks sounds like he knows more about the M14 than you. So...prove that "Military assult rifles, since the mid 1940's, have been automatic weapons." You've made that claim. I see no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it. Your entire case that Kerry is a liar is based on it. So far, you've convinced no one! |
|
16 Sep 04 - 10:49 PM (#1273684) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller pdq Well, ten states thought Clear Skies was a bad idea almost immediately. 20% of the states in the union thought it was bad enough to sue. Or do you think the Philadelphia Enquirer lied? And are you telling me Bush's revision does not relax the emission standards? There are a lot of politically-driven web sites, and so is Mr Bush politically driven. But show me some fact-driven statistics; I can be convinced. clint |
|
17 Sep 04 - 12:22 AM (#1273726) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Well, I let myself get suckered into a nit-picking argument again. I never learn. Look at it this way: 1. When I say Bush lied it's shorthand for "people in Bush's administration, including Bush, lied." 2. I care about his lies because they've hurt people, physically and economically. 3. Kerry's turn will come. clint |
|
17 Sep 04 - 11:52 AM (#1274162) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Yes, politically driven websites like the Philadelphia Inquirer and CNN! You know, Clint, if you're not looking at Fox News it CAN'T be accurate. That's a laugh, pdq. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 12:02 PM (#1274173) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: pdq Nerd - here is your typical logical sequence: I HATE BUSH! > Bush wants to change some pollution standards > BUSH IS LYING!!! |
|
17 Sep 04 - 12:35 PM (#1274194) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Amos Bush wants to change some pollution standards PDQ, your use of the word "logic" is excessive. If Bush wants to change pollution standards, you can be assured it is to lower them (meaning worsen the pollution rates). A |
|
17 Sep 04 - 12:40 PM (#1274200) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Peace The new low in pollution standards has been established by the Bush administration. They have polluted virtually everything they've touched. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 12:40 PM (#1274201) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D pdq...I, personally, know someone VERY high up in the E.P.A. I recently asked him, "so, how's it going...doing any protecting of the environment these days?" his answer..."Nope..." he then explained that HE, a 30 year employee, and director of a major area, had been given to understand that his 'input' on problems that needed to be addressed was not required. Decisions about environmental policy were being made 'elsewhere' and his job was to oversee their implementation and rubber-stamp the paper. This fellow sat thru the Reagan administration, where Ronnie's minions dismantled programs that had taken years to create....but he says now "I have never seen anything like it in my 30 years" (direct quote" The Bush administration has almost totally reduced the EPA's mission to implementing policies that fulfill POLITICAL and economic agendas of the Republicans, and environmental concerns be damned! (I, myself, worked briefly for EPA in the days of William Ruckleshaus, and have met him, and although he was a Republican, HE sincerely wanted progress on pollution and such....there is no evidence there is much beyond lip service to that ideal any longer.) |
|
17 Sep 04 - 01:20 PM (#1274232) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Actually, PDQ, I never said anything about pollution standards, nor did I accuse Bush of lying about them. But YOU said that the Philadelpia Inquirer and CNN were purely politically motivated. I guess your logic must have been I LOVE BUSH>>The Philadelphia Inquirer and CNN criticized Bush>>THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER AND CNN ARE LYING!!! |
|
17 Sep 04 - 01:23 PM (#1274234) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Or how about this one, PDQ I LOVE BUSH>>>Nerd criticized Bush>>>I MUST ACCUSE NERD OF SAYING THINGS HE NEVER SAID IN ORDER TO SMEAR HIM!!!! That seems about your style too. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 01:54 PM (#1274262) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: pdq Bill D. - Your statement is 100% anecdotal, 0% factual. No need arguing with people with closed minds. Fact - Clinton changed environmental standards as part of his 7,000+ pages of "executive orders" that were inflicted on us in the last 24 hrs. of his EIGHT YEARS ( = 70,000+ hours) in office. Many of those standards, such as arsenic in water, were not obtainable without huge and impractical investments in new technology. Those regulations were almost all politically driven, with Environmentalists planing stories about deformed babies and "poor and elderly targeted". Fact - when all was said and done, the 8 years of Reagan resulted in the most ACTUAL progress in environmental cleanup of any presidency. This proves that the job can get done even if the chief executive is not an expert when he takes office. Fact - the Northeastern "rust belt" needs to have slight (to moderate) reductions in standards to protect tens of thousands of jobs (many union) in the manufacturing industries. This will hopefully allow newer, modern factories to be built. The old factories are not being updated due to punitive TAX levels and ARBITRARY and pollution standards. Fact - the greatest environmental disaster in the history of the United States was the addition of MTBE to our gasoline. There were at east 10 choices for an addative, and almost everyone thought that it would be ethanol. Carol Browner, Clinton's EPA chief, chose MTBE, even thought the chemical had already polluted many areas in the country. Once a aquifer is polluted by MTBE, which is water soluble, it is poisoned forever. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 02:05 PM (#1274266) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: pdq Nerd: You are confusing my posts with those of Clint Keller. You claim that "...YOU said that the Philadelpia Inquirer and CNN were purely politically motivated". Not true. Read posts in that time frame to confirm. Clint Keller put words in Presidents Bush's mouth and deserves to be called on it. Environmentalism is one topic were facts can rule the discussion assuming that people are interested in facts. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 02:05 PM (#1274267) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd PDQ thinks that if he precedes wild ramblings with the shouted word "FACT" it will bully us into accepting them. Talk about politically motivated, PDQ! |
|
17 Sep 04 - 02:10 PM (#1274270) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd No, PDQ, it is you who are confusing ME with Clint Keller, claiming that I said something about Clear Skies. But let's just see if I was confused. This is from you Clint Keller: Most of the Enviromental statements you (=we) see on the internet fall into one of two categories: 1) Factual - based on science and intended to help the public understand a problem. 2) Politically-driven - these sites will always come to the conclusion: that pollution is due to the "fact" that people elected those dern Republicans again. That is the reason every problem in the world exists. If you only visit politically-driven web sites you will always get answers that are fecal in substance. To use some of your words, if you "do not know chickenshit from chicken salad" on a given subject, you will never recognize that you are being fooled. Now, the sites Clint had cited were CNN and the Inquirer plus the Sierra Club, and you accused him of "only visit[ing] politically-driven web sites." Thus, you were claiming that CNN and the Inky were politically driven, not factually based. This makes you (more or less) full of it. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 02:15 PM (#1274276) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: pdq Nerd: Read a book. You might get a few facts that way. Take a chill pill. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 02:49 PM (#1274304) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D "Your statement is 100% anecdotal, 0% factual..." well, I'll trust someone who is there on the front lines ....soory I can't sit you down with him for a couple hours of eye opening horror stories, but..."No need arguing with people with closed minds.".......So I see.. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 04:18 PM (#1274392) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: DougR Apparently not, beardedbruce. Democrats are always held to a lower standard on the Mudcat, bb, if you haven't discovered that yet. It's like Dan Rather said on a Bill O'Reilly program two days before 9/11,: O'Reilly asked him if he thought Bill Clinton was an honest person. Dan replied, "yes." O'Reilly pressed, "Even thought he lied about having sex with that woman?" Rather replied that he thought completely honest people might lie about a variety of things, or words to that effect. No need to point out that Clinton is a Democrat, right? DougR |
|
17 Sep 04 - 04:23 PM (#1274400) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd By the way, pdq, your attempts to break the world down into categories so that you can discredit other people's arguments are poorly conceived. Anecdotal and factual are not mutually exclusive categories, despite what you seem to think. Claims can be factual and also based on anecdotal evidence. Also, statements can be politically driven and also factual. You yourself have provided no evidence at all, just a bunch of assertions. Or should I say Fact: Claims can be factual and also based on anecdotal evidence. Fact: Claims can be factual and also made for political reasons. Fact: pdq has provided a series of assertions without evidence. Fact: pdq has followed those assertions by casting aspersions on others' evidence. Fact: Nerd has read many books...possibly too many! Fact: Nerd knows many facts...almost certainly too many! Opinion: this is an obnoxious way to carry on a conversation. I'm swallowing that chill pill right now, pdq :-) |
|
17 Sep 04 - 04:28 PM (#1274406) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Peace "Does anyone care when Kerry lies?" I would think so. However, it seems he hasn't so far. When he does--well, we'll get on him real fast. |
|
17 Sep 04 - 05:52 PM (#1274500) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST well dang,it's nice to see someone in here acknowling that kerry lies to!...but heck,kerry doesnt even care when he lies!!!!!!so,what's the point? |
|
18 Sep 04 - 12:07 AM (#1274743) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller All right, I thought I was quoting Bush but I may have been paraphrasing. In the State of the Union Address 2003 he said " I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. (Applause.)" But according to http://www.savethecleanairact.org/misc/DoingtheMathfinal.pdf "The Bush Administration Air Pollution Plan Doing the Math: More Pollution than the Clean Air Act "Administration spokesmen claim their plan for power plant air pollution would reduce emissions by 35 million tons more than the current Clean Air Act over the next decade. In fact, just the opposite is true: Enforcing the Clean Air Act would deliver far more pollution reduction. Over the next 10 years, the administration plan actually would result in 21 million tons more of the pollution that causes soot and smog than simply enforcing the current law. And the burden of extra pollution only grows over time. "What accounts for this huge discrepancy? The secret is in the White House yardstick. "The administration is comparing its so-called Clear Skies plan to a misleading 'baseline' that expressly assumes the administration does not enforce the Clean Air Act."EPA's top air official calls this the 'the Rip Van Winkle scenario.'The Rip Van Winkle scenario includes only the pollution limits that are already on the EPA books (certain sulfur dioxide reductions already required by the 1990 acid rain program and nitrogen oxide cuts ordered in 19972) and expressly assumes that EPA does nothing more for a decade. "But the Clean Air Act requires much more than that. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to bring our cities and counties into compliance with basic public health standards for soot and smog pollution before the end of this decade..." and so on. Read the document and do the math, like it says. clint |
|
18 Sep 04 - 06:54 PM (#1275180) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: pdq ANOTHER DAY AT THE KERRY CAMPAIGN: "...the shotgun that John Kerry was waving around yesterday to show what a friend he is to hunters was one that he tried to have banned: Kerry co-sponsored S. 1431 last year (The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003) which would have banned a "semiautomatic shotgun that has a pistol grip."? Whoops! Update: The new Kerry rapid response team says that this is a Republican lie: The facts are clear. John Kerry opposes banning this gun and always will. John Kerry was proud to receive this union-made gun at the United Mine Workers Labor Day picnic in Racine, West Virginia. Meanwhile, gun law expert Dave Koppel says, According to the bill, "(42) PISTOL GRIP- The term 'pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Kerry's new semi-automatic gun has a protrusion below the stock, which a person could grip. The protrusion is not a "pistol grip" in the ordinary meaning of the term, but it is a "pistol grip" as defined by S. 1431. Hmmm. Koppel reads the bill that Kerry co-sponsored and concludes that it would have banned the gun. The Kerry campaign just asserts that he didn't without giving any facts or referring to the bill at all. This new rapid-response Kerry is excellent -- for the the Bush campaign. Let's talk about guns for a couple of days. Maybe we can argue about the NRA's rating of Bush and Kerry next. Hunter Kerry should want that, no? As the Kerry release says, John Kerry's opponents are worried because he's the first Democratic candidate to support Second Amendment gun rights and to be an avid hunter. Hey, bring it on!" IF DEMOCRATS HAVE TO EAT CROW EVERYTIME ONE OPENS HIS MOUTH, THE CROW WILL WIND UP ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST! |
|
18 Sep 04 - 07:12 PM (#1275188) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Peace SATURDAY SNEAK...BUSH LIES...Trailers Of Mass Destruction, Part Two..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003 *At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers. --Politex, 08.09.03 (italics ours) Now comes this..."Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say. The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were ["likely used"] for making biological weapons.... The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment." --NYT, 08.09.03 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons." —Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003 "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." —Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003 |
|
18 Sep 04 - 07:15 PM (#1275190) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Peace Anyone looking for more stuff please google bush, lies |
|
18 Sep 04 - 08:29 PM (#1275253) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Gee, I went to all that trouble to document my statements for pdq, and what happens? He changes the subject. I'm hurt. Can't you say thanks, p? clint |
|
18 Sep 04 - 08:42 PM (#1275260) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: pdq I didn't know such sensitive people came from the Idaho panhandle! I'll be real nice from now on. And yes: thanks. |
|
18 Sep 04 - 09:42 PM (#1275289) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller You're welcome. clint |
|
18 Sep 04 - 11:34 PM (#1275341) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd I notice bb also changed the subject as to whether Kerry actually lied, or whether there WERE such things as semi-automatic military assault weapons, as everyone on God's green earth except he seems to accept, even the gun lobby. |
|
19 Sep 04 - 03:18 AM (#1275392) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Strollin' Johnny All Politicians lie, it's a fact of life. Kerry's no different to any other. Just a case of whether his lies, or someone elses, suit or offend your own agenda. |
|
19 Sep 04 - 03:41 AM (#1275398) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: The Fooles Troupe The first thought that occurred to me - not having read the thread closely all the way thru was "Six Feet Under". |
|
19 Sep 04 - 06:03 AM (#1275451) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,no all i care about is when someone i love lies to me. that is the only lie that matters. |
|
20 Sep 04 - 06:19 PM (#1276766) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Nerd: I did not change the subject, I was not on Mudcat to respond... The M14 has been classified as a fully automatic weapone, and thus was banned for private ownership without special permits long before the "Assult Weapons Ban" ditto the AKS. The M1A and SKS are the semi-automatic versions, which in SOME configurations were covered by the ban. Bot proponents and opponents of the ban agree that it was ineffectual. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 02:44 AM (#1277016) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce ASSAULT RIFLE FACT SHEET #1 DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND Recent discussions of so-called "assault rifles" in both the media and legislative arenas have seen imprecise usage of the terms used to describe such firearms. This fact sheet is designed to improve the technical accuracy of future discussions. ASSAULT RIFLE: This term was coined during World War II. It is a translation of the German "Sturmgewehr." Two key characteristics that identify "assault rifles" are full automatic fire and detachable magazines with a capacity of 20 or more cartridges. These weapons were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic fire. While some assault rifles offer an option of semiautomatic fire (i.e., single-shot), all true assault rifles fire at least fully automatic. site A fully automatic weapon (a machine gun) is one that fires a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted. In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun. It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry. To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence. Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 02:54 AM (#1277019) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce btw, Nerd- The BATF is in charge of ENFORCING the law- If they say the M14 is "automatic", it is. End of arguement. No appeal. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 03:26 AM (#1277042) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Bobert: "But if he actually doesn't make an effort to keep up with facts then, while he may not be lieing, he certainly is not qualified to lead the world's remaininf super power." SO, this does not apply to Kerry? Or do you insist on a double standard? |
|
21 Sep 04 - 05:22 AM (#1277115) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST Bearded Bruce Yeah right, to hell with things like the economy, employment and education, lets make sure all candidates know the most trivial details about every gun ever made on the planet, that should impress the electorate. You still have to prove it was a lie, a deliberate mistruth, nothing you have spouted off has shown it to be so, so what do we have a but a never ending dribble of hair splitting irrelavance over one weapon that was issued into, and withdrawn from military service decades ago. YAWN, i shall now take advantage of the beardedbruce effect, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
21 Sep 04 - 07:56 AM (#1277201) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce "You still have to prove it was a lie, a deliberate mistruth, nothing you have spouted off has shown it to be so, so what do we have a but a never ending dribble... " And NO ONE has proved the same about the WMD- So I expect all of you liberals will stop bothering the rest of us about the war in Iraq. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 08:30 AM (#1277227) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: sledge Surely bb since you started this thread with the accusation of a deliberate lie, then the onus of proof is more upon you than anyone else who has posted. Really interested in what you can give us on this subject, and please not more deflections or complaints about liberals. Sledge |
|
21 Sep 04 - 09:52 AM (#1277291) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,TIA What a silly comparison: Kerry's single comment on gun (which it has taken dozens of postings with cut-n-pastings to dissect, with no clear concensus that I can see) are the same as the Bush Administrations myriad strident assertions that Saddam had many ready-to-use W's of MD? BB, you do, in fact, take the cake. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 12:46 PM (#1277453) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd No, BB, it doesn't work like that. The army considered the M-14 a semi-automatic weapon, the BATF an automatic one. I don't know why we have to take the BATF's word. The interpretation of law is decided in court, not by law enforcement agencies. In any case, in the time you've been away we've moved off the M-14 as a specific weapon and moved on to semi-automatic military assault weapons, which you said did not exist. (Well, not exactly. You said military assault weapons were automatic, and that therefore Kerry lied when he claimed that there were semi-automatic ones). But as I demonstrated, the very BATF whose word you accept as gospel says that they DO exist. So the BATF supports MY position, not yours. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 07:00 PM (#1278684) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Nerd, since you can't seem to read my posts, I will have to repeat this one: 21 Sep 04 - 02:44 AM ASSAULT RIFLE FACT SHEET #1 DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND Recent discussions of so-called "assault rifles" in both the media and legislative arenas have seen imprecise usage of the terms used to describe such firearms. This fact sheet is designed to improve the technical accuracy of future discussions. ASSAULT RIFLE: This term was coined during World War II. It is a translation of the German "Sturmgewehr." Two key characteristics that identify "assault rifles" are full automatic fire and detachable magazines with a capacity of 20 or more cartridges. These weapons were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic fire. While some assault rifles offer an option of semiautomatic fire (i.e., single-shot), all true assault rifles fire at least fully automatic. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 08:35 PM (#1278743) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: artbrooks And the quote is taken from this impartial site: GunCite. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 09:45 PM (#1278769) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd bb, It is YOU who fail to read MY posts. On 16 Sep 04 - 04:41 PM, I linked to a press release from the BATF, and several pieces of legislation from the US and Canada that specifically refer to the existence of semi-automatic Military Assault Weapons. Your lame-ass quote from a dubious web site notwithstanding, our Federal government, several US State governments, and the Canadian government all recognize this as a real category of weapon. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:08 PM (#1278781) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Artbrooks- Which I stated ( actually, gave the clicky) in my original pose. Nerd: "In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun." Thus, a machine gun ( automatic weapon) that has been converted to semi-automatic operation, say by removing the mode lever, but which can be converted back is STILL considered a machine gun ( automatic weapon) |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:09 PM (#1278782) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Jeri bb's quote is from this site. If you back up to the main page, you find it's Guardian Angel's Gun Site, which contains a link to What I [the site owner] Believe, including some lovely thoughts such as: "We should repeal ALL national gun laws." "The death penalty is the only effect and fair way to deal with murders. The Commandment is "Thou shall not murder" not "Thou shall not kill." "The IRS is a rogue agency that needs to be completely overhauled, if not abolished. Our tax system is VOLUNTARY, but you'd never know it, as the IRS has been allowed to terrorize us, confiscate property, or even put us in jail for not paying this VOLUNTARY tax!"Oh well. She has a definition of "assault weapon" that Bruce likes. It's all a red herring anyway. Whether one or both told untruths knowingly or not, Kerry made the repeal of the 'assault weapons' ban sound a bit more dire. Other than that, there was absolutely no harm that came from what he said. Bush, on the other hand, is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, including both Iraquis and Americans. It was either a lie or incompetence, neither of which anyone wants from a President. Nit-picking about what is or isn't an 'assault weapon', is just a teensy bit desperate. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:22 PM (#1278787) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Is this more acceptable? Look at 5845b "It was either a lie or incompetence, neither of which anyone wants from a President. " My question still stands- I have read many claims that Bush lied, with far less evidence than I have presented here. But no one seems to question THOSE claims. This seems to me to be indicative of a bias on the part of a number of posters. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:23 PM (#1278789) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd bb- still quoting the same lameass website? You said Kerry lies because he refers to "semi-automatic military assault weapons." I pointed out the the BATF recognizes the same category. You keep bringing in some random person's interpretation. Once again: Federal Government (BATF) State of California State of Wisconsin Government of Canada disagree with your "voice in the wilderness" wehb site. I'm going with them...which means KERRY DIDN'T LIE So, do me a favor, quote another looney gun site at me to prove that Kerry Lied. Put on your tinfoil hat while you're at it. You'll convince a lot of folks that way! |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:23 PM (#1278790) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Peace When the sonuvabitch shooting at you is getting off a few shots per second, that is an assault rifle. Don't really give a rat's ass what the dictionary calls it. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:31 PM (#1278798) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Nerd, Try actually READING a post before you make comments. That "looney gun site " was the BATF ( actually a copy of USC Title 26 posted there). If your comments are the best that liberals can argue, no wonder they are planning to lose the election. Try taking your tin-foil hat off, sometime. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:33 PM (#1278800) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce So, when, before the invasion, did Bush LIE about Iraq? Show me some proof. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:34 PM (#1278801) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Or do you only require proof for claims you DON'T already agree with? |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:42 PM (#1278804) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Sledge, The information I present does not agree with what Nerd wants to believe, thus he invokes the SRS rule, and discards all facts that do not support his viewpoint. Hard for me to make any point at all, when I post a reference to the US Code, and it is dismissed as a "looney gun site ". |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:54 PM (#1278812) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller bb: here's one-- BUSH LIES...Trailers Of Mass Destruction..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, May 31, 2003 more lies *At the time of this statement, the U.S. position was that some analysts thought that the trailers could possibly have been used for menufacturing weapons. --Politex, 06.09.03 But all this is a distraction. Read what Jeri said again-- "Bush, on the other hand, is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, including both Iraquis and Americans. It was either a lie or incompetence, neither of which anyone wants from a President." clint |
|
22 Sep 04 - 11:26 PM (#1278822) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce And if, after 9-11, he had ignored the intelligence he had, the British report, and the warning from Russia that Iraq, a country we were already at war with, was planning to launch terrorist attacks on us, THAT would have made him competent???? |
|
22 Sep 04 - 11:34 PM (#1278827) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bobert Well gol danged, this ain't rocker surgery here... Let's examine the arguments... The NRA: Hey, these rifles were allready available. Bobert, et al: If so, then why are you all burning up so much energy fightin'????? Purdy danged simple... Bobert |
|
22 Sep 04 - 11:35 PM (#1278829) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D bruce--give it up. You BEGAN this thread with an unnecessarily extreme characterization of Kerry's views. When you were called on it, you tried to change the issue to 1) a technical nit-pic over definition of gun types and 2) a hollow, vague claim that "your side did the same to Bush". I don't see anyone here claiming that they can prove Bush actually lied...I certainly didn't! What WE say is that whether Bush EVER actally lied or not, we consider his actions and choices poorly planned and indefensible. We 'could' argue that, but you choose to argue by innuendo, just as you did about Theresa Heinz, saying that 'if a liberal had made that comment, you'd not be dismissing it' -- (I didn't do the search for you exact words, but that thread went on much like this one, with you claiming 'bias' and acting as if the mere assertion proved your point.) It is not usually POSSIBLE to 'prove' a lie or claim about motivation in these situations, about either side...so it's best to stick to opinion and analysis that doesn't leave YOU open to easy pot-shots. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 11:44 PM (#1278834) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce BillD, "In a recent speech, Kerry said that not renewing the "assault weapons ban" would put military assult rifle on the street." Is that an "unnecessarily extreme characterization of Kerry's views. "? Gee, I thought that an actual statement by a person might represent his view. "we consider his actions and choices poorly planned and indefensible." And that is the point that some would argue- The assumption seems to be that all must accept that as given- Some of us feel that the actions and choices were the best possible ones, given the information that was available, and the situation as it existed at the time. Not that they were good choices: just the best that could be made at that time. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 11:45 PM (#1278835) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D Those 'intelligence reports' from Russia hardly said they were 'planning' to attack us! And the British report was flawed and based on weak information... Going to a full scale war without more SOLID evidence merely leads to the suspicion that Bush had **NO OTHER PLAN IN MIND** from the beginning, and was looking for any excuse, and thus gobbled up bad intelligence to justify his intentions.... Don't ask me to 'prove' that, but people who are in even better position to know than I have said essentially the same thing. Bush didn't have to 'ignore' those reports, he could have just checked them out better! Then he would have looked somewhat Presidential, not incompetent.. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 11:48 PM (#1278836) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D "Is that an "unnecessarily extreme characterization of Kerry's views?" that is not a characterization at all, as quoted....calling him a liar IS unnesessarily extreme....which is what started this ...umm...discussion. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 11:49 PM (#1278837) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce "Those 'intelligence reports' from Russia hardly said they were 'planning' to attack us! " Which ones did you read? And the British report was flawed and based on weak information... " I read the report. You are judgeing after the fact- at the time it was presented, it was thought to be valid- and that was what Bush based his decisions upon. Hindsight is 20/20- but he had to deal with what appeared to be a "clear and present danger", from a source that had USED WMD in the past, and refused to account for the stocks that it was supposed to have given up under the ceasefire terms. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:12 AM (#1278844) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller bb: 1. you said "So, when, before the invasion, did Bush LIE about Iraq? Show me some proof." I gave you an example, and cited sources. Proof as good as your info about Kerry. You ignore it. 2. You said 'Hindsight is 20/20- but he had to deal with what appeared to be a "clear and present danger"' I watched Powell's slideshow on tv. He kept saying "Facts, not assertions," as he showed his pictures. I said to my wife, "But all he's giving us IS assertions." I felt bad about that; I have a certain respect for Powell. But that's how it was. And this was supposed to be the justification for war; presumably the administration's *best* case. Now if an elderly country boy from the Idaho Panhandle could see that there was no proof -- without benefit of hindsight --, why couldn't the president of our country? Lying or incompetence, bruce. I see no third alternative. clint |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:17 AM (#1278846) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Clint: "Trailers Of Mass Destruction..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (italics ours) --WP, May 31, 2003 more lies *At the time of this statement, the U.S. position was that some analysts thought that the trailers could possibly have been used for menufacturing weapons. --Politex, 06.09.03 And did you read the last paragraph- "the U.S. position was that some analysts thought that the trailers could possibly have been used for menufacturing weapons." Have your read the (now discredited) British report? After you have, tell me that a competent President would NOT have attacked Iraq. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:19 AM (#1278848) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce Hardly a lie, Clint. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:20 AM (#1278849) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D "Which ones did you read?"...which ones did YOU read saying they were? You made that claim that there was evidence Iraq was 'planning' attacks.....(I have no doubt that 'ol Saddam would cheerfully have done us damage if he could, but NO one had real evidence he could and/OR was planning any) sorry...but the inspectors had tried off & on for years to find serious weapons. If the report was "thought to be valid", it was careless thinking, considering other evidence and NON-evidence. That report justified further investigation, not an $87 billion Vietnam style quagmire and 1000 dead soldiers. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:24 AM (#1278850) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce The Russian government has stated that they gave Bush warnings of a planned terrorist attack on the US by Iraqi-supported terrorists. Have you read the British report? And is the FACT that Saddam refused to comply with the cease-fire terms of no interest to you? We yelled "stop, or I'll shoot!" a lot more than three times. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:27 AM (#1278852) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D "... the trailers could possibly have been used for..." "possibly"??? and for THAT we bombed and killed and turned our reputation inside out? I saw videos of those trailers!,,,they were almost empty shells with almost no way to decide what they once were.....Colin Powell was putting on a brave face and hoping! |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:39 AM (#1278855) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D "The Russian government has stated that they gave Bush warnings of a planned terrorist attack on the US by Iraqi-supported terrorists." buried in that sentence are 4 (four) ambiguous 'maybes'...you do NOT declare a major war on that kind of slippery evidence... "Saddam refused to comply with the cease-fire terms..." so? If he was in technical violation in some way, that is grounds for sanctions and more investigations..NOT, as I have said, full scale war, when there was NO concrete evidence he had any serious weapons!!!!!! The pre-emptive strike business is on really thin ice.....aren't there 5-6 or 10 MORE countries that could qualify under Bush's formula? Wanta see what happen if we do? (I'm going to bed) |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:45 AM (#1278856) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST BillD: "I saw videos of those trailers!,,,they were almost empty shells with almost no way to decide what they once were.....Colin Powell was putting on a brave face and hoping! " You saw these videos BEFORE the attack on Iraq? Or was this more hind-sight? "so? If he was in technical violation in some way, that is grounds for sanctions and more investigations..NOT, as I have said, full scale war, when there was NO concrete evidence he had any serious weapons!!!!!! " There were already sanctions ( being violated by France) and more investigations- Don't you remember the resolution in October, with an attack in, what, March? And did you read the British report? Have a good night. Sleep well. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:48 AM (#1278858) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Sledge And still bb fails to answer the question posed by the title to his own thread, do we see the proof that Kerry lied, no we don't. What we do get is innuendo, obfuscation and evasion, we get nitpicking over the M14 and what agency says what, a qoute from a pro-gun website and a bit of "but your lot said this about Bush" the only thing missing from the last bit is where he sticks his tongue out and goes "Nyeeeer" while making faces. Still we have nothing to back up the assertion that Kerry lied, so thread drift aside, put up or shut up, wheres the proof? And yes I have read all your posts bb. Sledge |
|
23 Sep 04 - 01:05 AM (#1278864) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller "And did you read the last paragraph- "the U.S. position was that some analysts thought that the trailers could possibly have been used for menufacturing weapons." They could "possibly" been used for a hell of a lot of things. Hauling milk cans. "Possibly" doesn't justify killing people and you know it. And the whole damn presentation was a lie. It *was* assertions, not fact. —lie2 v. lied, lying, lies. —intr. 1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving. 2. To convey a false image or impression. clint |
|
23 Sep 04 - 02:45 AM (#1278898) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST Sledge: "a qoute from a pro-gun website " You are talking about the BATF site, I guess... Clint: Have you read the British report? It is too long to post here- and I have put a blue clickey on previous threads. Do you need it again? |
|
23 Sep 04 - 02:50 AM (#1278901) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST —lie2 v. lied, lying, lies. —intr. 1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving. 2. To convey a false image or impression. And isn't this EXACTLY what I have stated that Kerry has done re the Assult Weapons Ban? YOU are agreeing that he lied. The IMPRESSION that he tried to make was that automatic weapons would flood the streets. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 04:01 AM (#1278931) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Guest 23 Sep 04 - 02:45 AM I don't know if I've read "the British Report" or not. If you would kindly post a link, I will. However I am basing my opinions on Bush's actions rather than on what information he had, since that is unknown to me. And ultimately unknowable, since he may not have read every bit of information existing. (I use "Bush's" as shorthand for the whole bloody crew; Cheney, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, etc..) I am supposing that Colin Powell presented the administration's best case -- why would he not? -- and it wasn't convincing at the time. I had expected it to be proof, as was promised, but it was only the assertions that Powell disclaimed. And Bush was obviously intending war with Iraq no matter what the inspectors found, no matter if Hussein were deposed (he admitted that). Well, I'm too tired tonight to go into it. Guest 23 Sep 04 - 02:50 AM I understand there is an upsurge in the sale of "assault rifles" whatever they may be. I don't think it's cause for alarm, the assault rifle ban was mostly a cosmetic ban as far as I can tell. I don't know at what point the typical political bullshit overstatement becomes a lie; you may call what Kerry said a lie if you like, as long as you apply the same standards to everyone, including Republicans. As in "If you're not with us you're aiding the terrorists," which we have heard in many forms, notably from Mr Ashcroft. And all lies are not created equal; lying to compliment a lady is obviously not as sinful as lying to start a war. I hope it's obvious anyway. Like I said, I'm tired, and I can't go any farther tonight. clint |
|
23 Sep 04 - 04:12 AM (#1278938) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce page of reports, including British, on Iraqi WMD |
|
23 Sep 04 - 04:18 AM (#1278946) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce and here is Iran... Since Iran just announced that they will launch a satellite in April of 2005..... |
|
23 Sep 04 - 08:17 AM (#1279035) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST Picture of bb in late-thread form here.... |
|
23 Sep 04 - 09:29 AM (#1279079) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: artbrooks Actually, Title 26 of the US Code has nothing to do with the BATF. Title 26 covers the IRS. BATF is under Title 27. Title 27 does not define "assault weapons," or if it does I could not find it, but it does discuss "semiautomatic assault weapons" at length. The link is here, but you will have to scroll down to the Ss in definitions for semiautomatic. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 11:52 AM (#1279171) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Sorry, bb. We actually cross-posted there (10:22/10:23 PM yesterday). My reference to the "Looney Gun Site" was the one from your PREVIOUS post (Guardian Angel), not the BATF. Your BATF posting was made while I was typing that up. But my point is that the BATF, on other of its sites, DOES recognize the existence of semi-automatic military assault weapons. I have posted the URL, now way down in the thread, and I assume you never looked at it or you would have given up this line of argument. Also, the Canadian Government and several state governments. Remember them? |
|
23 Sep 04 - 04:02 PM (#1279324) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Ha! That huge document bb points out from the BATF turns out to be totally irrelevant. It does not define automatic or semi-automatic weapons. He points to a paragraph that defines what the rest of the document means by "machinegun." Guess what, bb? Kerry never mentioned the word "machinegun." So what the BATF considers a "machinegun" is irrelevant to the question of whether he lied. You are obviously grasping at straws now, bb. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 07:04 PM (#1279428) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce by definition, an automatic weapon is a machine gun- see an earlier post. "In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun." You are obviously grasping at straws now, Nerd. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 07:06 PM (#1279431) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D *Bill D looks in...rolls his eyes at the irrelevant repetition, and sneaks out again* |
|
23 Sep 04 - 10:02 PM (#1279540) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce definition of assult rifle discussion of difference between assault rifles and assault weapons. And Kerry stated that not renewing the "assault weapons ban" would put military assault rifles on the street. 1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving. 2. To convey a false image or impression. Kerry lied. Bush has lied. ... I think my new motto will be " No blood for ketchup!" |
|
24 Sep 04 - 12:09 AM (#1279608) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Okay, bb. You've gotten this down to the difference between Assault RIFLE, which you claim on the basis of some random websites like "your encyclopedia," is always fully automatic (although several posters here have disagreed with you on this) and assault WEAPON, which can be all sorts of things according to these same sites, including semi-automatic rifles and handguns. So Kerry lied because he spoke of assault RIFLES, not assault WEAPONS. Here is the quote from katlaughing's earlier post: FWIW, here's what Kerry actually said," "So, tomorrow for the first time in 10 years when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: 'sure,"' he added." Here is one of your earlier postings: Kerry stated, for his own political gain, that MILITARY ASSULT WEAPONS would be out on the streets. So you yourself have previously admitted that he said "weapons," not "rifles," but NOW the lie he supposedly told hinges on his having used the word "rifle." bb, this is getting embarrassing, man. You need to move on from this point. (by the way, you might be more credible on this topic if you spelled "assault" correctly more than half the time). |
|
24 Sep 04 - 12:33 AM (#1279624) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller Look, I bitch about Bush's lies because he used them to get us into a stupid unwinnable vanity war. Kerry's presumed lies about assault weapons didn't do that. But It ain't the lies that hurt my body; it's the getting us into the stupid unwinnable vanity war when he should have and could have known better. Christ, the Canadians knew better. Most of the world knew better except for Tony Blair. Evn the Turks had to be bribed. And I wouldn't care if he lied about the environment as long as he didn't damage it. But he's damaging it. Same way I wouldn't care about Clinton's lies unless I was Hillary. But he used those lies to hurt the people in my country, and I care about that. And as soon as Kerry uses lies to hurt the people in my country I'll care. clint |
|
24 Sep 04 - 01:30 AM (#1279646) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce "Police officers -- police officers -- begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring the down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47." - John Kerry |
|
24 Sep 04 - 04:20 AM (#1279706) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce btw, Nerd: "Kerry never mentioned the word "machinegun." So what the BATF considers a "machinegun" is irrelevant to the question of whether he lied." You have made another false statement. He did mention machine gun. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 04:21 AM (#1279707) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: beardedbruce (by the way, you might be more credible on this topic if you got your facts right more than half the time). |
|
24 Sep 04 - 10:48 AM (#1279989) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Beardedbruce, My point is that you have reduced this to niggling arguments over technicalities of guns. If that's what you're claiming Kerry lied about, you have to prove he knows all these technicalities that you had to laboriously extract from fifteen different biased web sites in order to argue. Do you REALLY think that, or are you just deperate to claim he was lying? And don't fall back on your deeply stupid repeated claim that Kerry "claims he is a gun owner" so he must know this shit. Unlike Kerry, that dog won't hunt! You also have to show, by the way, that his actual statements are not true, not the statements you claim he made. This is the same argument conservatives use to argue that Bush did not lie about yellowcake Uranium, for example: his actual statement was that "The British Government has learned" that Saddam tried to get the yellowcake; he omitted to mention that then the CIA rejected that learning as probably false. But his actual statement was not false, so he didn't lie, right? So, bb, in your quote, Kerry claimed that police officers are asking for this ban to remain in place because they believe the number of machine guns on the street will increase without it. So disprove THAT, not what you want to claim Kerry said. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 11:18 AM (#1280014) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Nerd Also, bb, here is your initial claim: In a recent speech, Kerry said that not renewing the "assault weapons ban" would put military assult rifle on the street. So, where did he say "Military assult rifle," or even "military assault rifles?" He didn't. He said two things: that cops wanted the ban renewed because they felt it would help keep machine guns off the streets. Even though machine guns were not specifically covered by the ban, this is an arguable position in many ways. For example, shipments of now-legal semi-automatics could be used to hide and therefore assist in the smuggling of still-illegal automatics, since they look essentially similar. In any case, Kerry was making claims about police officers' beliefs, not the actual effects of the ban. Second, he argued that if you tried to buy an "AK 47 or some other military assault weapon" you could do so. We have learned on this thread that the AK 47 can probably be modified into a now-legal gun that only fired in semi-automatic mode. Whether it would still be an AK-47 is a technicality that I don't think Kerry knows. The rest of his statement, that semi-automatic military assault weapons are now legal, is true. So nothing Kerry said is necessarily false. If you want to prove it's false you have to prove that 1) No police officers believed that the ban was helping to keep machine guns off the streets. 2) There are no semi-automatic military assault weapons. We have dealt ad nasaeum with the latter; everyone from the US Government to the Gun Lobby agrees they exist. So what about the former, bb? I also think it's interesting that you began claiming he was lying by 1) lying yourself, by claiming he said "assault rifles" 2) not quoting him directly. And that you then blamed ME for not knowing which part of what you didn't quote you were claiming was a lie. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 04:23 PM (#1280285) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Larry K All politicians lie to some degree. Lets separate campaign promises from lies however. When Kerry promises 10 million new jobs will anyone consider that a lie if it doesn't happen? All politicians make campaign promises which should be ignored. As for Kerry lying: This week he said he has only had one position on Iraq- can anyone say with a straight face that is not a lie? He said he was in Cambodia Christmas 1968 when Nixon was president- two lies for the price of one- He said he was co chair of the intelligence committee when it was actually Bob Kerry When he said that 1 million african americans were deprived there right to vote when all the investigations proved that was blantantly untrue. (In detroit the democrats register dead african americans and non existant people to vote per the Detroit Free Press- Chicago has nothing on us) I could go on and on. Why bother. I don't think it matters. Democrats have lower standards than republicans. You will vote for a Torecelli, Condit, McGreevy, or any other fellon you think can win. When Republican Ryan has a scandal he drops out of the race because he knows republicans won't support him. Could you imagine the reaction if it was Fox news that had forged documents instead of CBS. Their license would have been revoked the following day. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 04:48 PM (#1280300) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: GUEST,Clint Keller "Democrats have lower standards than republicans" Damn right. Spiro Agnew was a Democrat. So was Nixon. And John Mitchell. And all those administration guys convicted when Reagan was president. And all the Enron guys are Democrats; you can tell by looking at where their campaign contributions went. And that twit who won his election by claiming that Max Cleland -- who left two legs and an arm in Vietnam -- was disloyal, he was a Democrat. Why has nobody but LarryK pointed this out? We've been blind fools! Fools! clint (for Larry's benefit: this is actually what they call sarcasm. Look it up.) |
|
24 Sep 04 - 05:10 PM (#1280315) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Bill D CBS did not forge any documents...they were careless. The facts were true---it is just sad that someone cheated and tried to 'enhance' already true information WITH forged documents. CBS oughta have more sense than to bite, but they ain't criminals. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 07:59 PM (#1280429) Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies? From: Little Hawk Thank God...at last a cure for my insomnia. |
