BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 09:12 PM

which is what I noted earlier...

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 09:29 PM

Sorry, BillD, didn't click.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 09:59 PM

Well said, Little Hawk but...

...BB won't see himself in your scenerio.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: sledge
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 12:50 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 01:37 AM

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!

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:49 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:54 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:58 AM

"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?

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 10:58 AM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:13 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:23 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: sledge
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:32 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:39 AM

"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!

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:40 AM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: sledge
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 11:49 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 01:39 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 02:13 PM

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.)

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 02:23 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 02:36 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 02:44 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 02:45 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 02:49 PM

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??????

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:02 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:07 PM

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" .

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:07 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:09 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:16 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:19 PM

Nerd:

Your statement of a falsehood does not make it any closer to true.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:25 PM

"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?

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:31 PM

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"

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 03:53 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 04:16 PM

"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

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 04:20 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 04:41 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 04:47 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 05:07 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 05:10 PM

And what's the definition of "is," beardedbruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 05:20 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 05:31 PM

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!

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 05:56 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:06 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:10 PM

gee, didn't I pull those quotes from the sites that nerd said proved it a non-automatic weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:17 PM

helloo.........bearded bruce?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: GUEST,Tweety Bird
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:23 PM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:30 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:37 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 06:59 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: pdq
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 07:15 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 07:16 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Does anyone care when Kerry lies?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 04 - 07:24 PM

"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.......