Is Kerry a Liar?

[ColoradoJeff]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

The bottom line is that the Fraternal Order of Police is AGAINST Kennedy's cop killer bullet ban. Check out their letter to Sen. Craig.

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

I'll admit that I know a lot more about a lot of things than I know about ammunition. I'll admit that I have little interest in learning any more. But, I have a couple of questions. I seem to remember they were talking about a specific type of round when the question was being debated; I recall that it was teflon-coated, and that it had properties that non-coated bullets did not have. I don't know what those qualities were, but people who are smarter than me said they were dangerous, and they were not needed in the "normal" use of a weapon.

Further, there has been a lot of talk in this thread about hunting rounds being able to pierce normal police vests, but I don't think that's the issue. It was stated that normal pistol rounds will NOT penetrate vests in most cases. If I recall correctly, the "cop killer" ammunition was a teflon-coated PISTOL round that could be used in the most common handguns used by crminals. After all, few of them carry hunting rifles on the street, and they're somewhat difficult to conceal.

So, if the ban was on a specific type of unnecessary pistol ammunition that could penetrate normal police vests yet still be easily carried and concealed, it seems kind of logical to me that no one except a potential cop killer would ever use it, and it seems kind of logical to make them illegal to purchase and use. Even if it were possible to obtain them from some source, and still use them, the law would be valuable because it would provide another level of charges to be applied to the bad guy to keep him off the street longer, if he's caught.

As I also recall, the NRA is against that and any other law that has anything to do with any guns, even if the laws are reasonable and logical. That's why I call them fanatic nuts. If they would compromise on things like teflon-coated pistol rounds with no earthly use other than penetrating law enforcement vests, people might be more willing to listen to some of their other points. But, when they are such radical, unbending, illogical and unreasonable opponents to anything about guns, I have no respect for them or anyone who supports them.

 

[DaveNay]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

...I have no respect for them or anyone who supports them.

That's a pretty broad statement to make, and not indicative of your usual well thought opinions.

 

[ColoradoJeff]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

I'll admit that I know a lot more about a lot of things than I know about ammunition. I'll admit that I have little interest in learning any more. But, I have a couple of questions. I seem to remember they were talking about a specific type of round when the question was being debated; I recall that it was teflon-coated, and that it had properties that non-coated bullets did not have. I don't know what those qualities were, but people who are smarter than me said they were dangerous, and they were not needed in the "normal" use of a weapon.

Further, there has been a lot of talk in this thread about hunting rounds being able to pierce normal police vests, but I don't think that's the issue. It was stated that normal pistol rounds will NOT penetrate vests in most cases. If I recall correctly, the "cop killer" ammunition was a teflon-coated PISTOL round that could be used in the most common handguns used by crminals. After all, few of them carry hunting rifles on the street, and they're somewhat difficult to conceal.

So, if the ban was on a specific type of unnecessary pistol ammunition that could penetrate normal police vests yet still be easily carried and concealed, it seems kind of logical to me that no one except a potential cop killer would ever use it, and it seems kind of logical to make them illegal to purchase and use. Even if it were possible to obtain them from some source, and still use them, the law would be valuable because it would provide another level of charges to be applied to the bad guy to keep him off the street longer, if he's caught.

As I also recall, the NRA is against that and any other law that has anything to do with any guns, even if the laws are reasonable and logical. That's why I call them fanatic nuts. If they would compromise on things like teflon-coated pistol rounds with no earthly use other than penetrating law enforcement vests, people might be more willing to listen to some of their other points. But, when they are such radical, unbending, illogical and unreasonable opponents to anything about guns, I have no respect for them or anyone who supports them.

Now that is the real problem, isn't it. You are just not interested in learning. You make assumptions and generalizations, all of which are wrong. Why don't you go read the bill and think about what it means...Oh that would take time...Here is the link.

You will find no mention of pistol vs. rifle or caliber or teflon. BTW: There was never any such thing as a teflon coated bullet....That was an invention of gun grabbers.

 

[TINGUY]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

ColoradoJeff

Another group comes to mind to classify as "radical, unbending, illogical and unreasonable" ACLU. Tell me how do feel about them?

I have read the bill and do not agree with much. But the point is that a Bill such as this is designed to be negotiated and compromised on. It takes a none radical bending approach to do so. The question still remains is there no compromise worth taking that may save a life!

 

[Melensdad]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

I'll admit that I know a lot more about a lot of things than I know about ammunition. I'll admit that I have little interest in learning any more.

Now that is a problem, because if you want laws passed to regulate things then you better become an expert in them or you will end up in a situation full of unitended consequences.

But, I have a couple of questions. I seem to remember they were talking about a specific type of round when the question was being debated; I recall that it was teflon-coated, and that it had properties that non-coated bullets did not have. I don't know what those qualities were, but people who are smarter than me said they were dangerous, and they were not needed in the "normal" use of a weapon.

Those bullets didn't and do not exist. But there are some teflon like additives that increase the lubricity of bullets as they travel down the rifle barrel, they are typically used by single shot 'black powder' shooters in antique style "flintlock" or "caplock" style rifles, but it doesn't do anything like what you are referring to. The bullets you are referring to are a myth. The terms were invented by anti-gun politicians and anti-gun groups for the purpose of banning ammunition as a defacto way of banning guns.

Further, there has been a lot of talk in this thread about hunting rounds being able to pierce normal police vests, but I don't think that's the issue. It was stated that normal pistol rounds will NOT penetrate vests in most cases. If I recall correctly, the "cop killer" ammunition was a teflon-coated PISTOL round that could be used in the most common handguns used by crminals. After all, few of them carry hunting rifles on the street, and they're somewhat difficult to conceal.

Don you are confusing myth and reality again. As stated 'cop killer' bullets as you describe do not exist. However, as written by the anti-gun politicians, a 'cop killer' bullet was simply a typical rifle bullet. BTW, the 'cop killer' bullet ban had/has nothing to do with concealed carry, so there is no need to bring that issue up, it is simply confusing the subject. But back to the topic, the 'cop killer' bullet ban was a blatant attempt to force a defact gun ban without actually banning any weapons. By outlawing the ammunition, the guns become useless. Funny thing, but the people who supported the 'cop killer' gun ban the strongest were the anti-hunting groups.

So, if the ban was on a specific type of unnecessary pistol ammunition that could penetrate normal police vests yet still be easily carried and concealed, it seems kind of logical to me that no one except a potential cop killer would ever use it, and it seems kind of logical to make them illegal to purchase and use. Even if it were possible to obtain them from some source, and still use them, the law would be valuable because it would provide another level of charges to be applied to the bad guy to keep him off the street longer, if he's caught.

Interesting that you want to add more laws to the books that the government won't enforce. Back when the 'cop killer' bullet ban was being debated, Janet Reno's justice department was not charging criminals with federal gun laws. In fact, under Reno, federal gun prosecutions went down!

As I also recall, the NRA is against that and any other law that has anything to do with any guns, even if the laws are reasonable and logical. That's why I call them fanatic nuts.

Well I don't consider myself a fanatic nut, but I guess I would rather be informed about what you are trying to outlaw than be ignorant. Because ignorant voters who support things they choose not to understand are destined to be subjects, not citizens.

Another group comes to mind to classify as "radical, unbending, illogical and unreasonable" ACLU. Tell me how do feel about them?

I have read the bill and do not agree with much. But the point is that a Bill such as this is designed to be negotiated and compromised on. It takes a none radical bending approach to do so. The question still remains is there no compromise worth taking that may save a life!

TINGUY you keep asking people to compromise, but why should the ludicrus be compromised upon when it is not even based on fact?

FOR EXAMPLE: How about I propose to take your property giving you no recourse? You want to compromise on that? No, obviously you would not. But that is what you ask me to do. You know your property would make a nice park, I think you should give it up. With no compensation. Oh, and by the way, there is a park across the street that is in perfect condition and goes unused. I think that is reasonable to take your land even if there is no need for it. I'm sorry you don't think my proposal is reasonable but I can find a lot of people who do. So obviously you not agreeing with me and my friends is unreasonable.

 

[TINGUY]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

OK, well let me state that I do not know the exact number of police officers killed with common hunting rifles or common hunting rounds, however I am williing to bet the number is lower than the number of cars that kill police officers and the number of knives that kill police officers. Using your absolute arguement, we would save far more police officers if we outlawed cars and knives.

Let me also clarify the 5% and 1% statistics above. Of all firearms crimes, less than 5% are committed using rifles, it does not mean a rifle was ever dischared during the commission of the crime. As for the 1% statistic, it is not that police officers encounter someone with a rifle 1% of the time, it is that of the small % of times that a police officer encounters someone with a firearm, only 1% of those occurances find them face to face with a rifle. Consequently many officers spend their entire careers and are never faced with anyone who has a rifle at all. An even small % actually discharge the rifle.

So we are dealing with MINISCULE numbers.





First, the statistics are neither contractory, nor are they saying it is OK for a police officer to be killed. They simply say that almost no police officers are killed by hunting rounds.

You need to take the context of real life and apply the facts to what is actually occuring. If you do that, you will see that I am not being dishonest with my arguemetn, I am simply stating what actually is occuring. In theory a criminal gang can buy some Winchester hunting bullets, in theory they can shoot them right through police cars and kill police officers, but the fact is that is not happening. The context of real life shows that the bullets are used for their intended purposes greater than 99.99% of the time. It is hard to get better than that.

Basically you are setting a standard of ABSOLUTES and that is not attainable. But to be intellectually honest, you would have to go back to cars and knives and ban both of those long before you even considered the possiblity of banning hunting ammunition. Oh and add baseball bats to the list too.

Yes you are correct the Statistics are not contradictory but they along with the statements are. So the argument stands are they not saying some is death is all right as long as you do not infringe on my right to have something cool! but unnecessary ! I would classify most Knives and all Baseball bates as necessary to there intended use as designed. I also believe that designing cars and roadways to be safer is something you support? In other words are you not willing to compromise to make Cars safer with your wallet. Is this not because it is protection for you?

 

[Melensdad]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

Yes you are correct the Statistics are not contradictory but they along with the statements are. So the argument stands are they not saying some is death is all right as long as you do not infringe on my right to have something cool! but unnecessary ! I would classify most Knives and all Baseball bates as necessary to there intended use as designed. I also believe that designing cars and roadways to be safer is something you support? In other words are you not willing to compromise to make Cars safer with your wallet. Is this not because it is protection for you?

No, you keep saying what is untrue. The statistics say that ALMOST no police officers are killed by huniting ammunition. I do not follow that up by saying that it is OK to kill police officers. What I say is that the risk to police officers is virtually non-existent and is lower than many other factors. Is the risk 'acceptable' risk? I suspect that for society as a whole it is because the vast majority of American's support the rights of hunters, even non-hunters. And they did not support the 'cop killer' bullet ban, so when there was time for compromise, the issue was defeated simply because it was so badly flawed, illogical and unworkable that compromise was unnecessary.

As for your arguement that knives, cars & bats are "necessary to there (sic) indended use as designed" the exact same can be said about hunting bullets. When used for their intended use, they perform as intended. How is a criminal with a baseball bat or knife any different than a criminal with a gun when the criminal (armed with any weapon) is killing you with it in a back alley? Or your home? Or running you over in a parking lot? Either way you die. And in any case, the knife/gun/car/baseball bat is being used by a criminal and is NOT being used for its intended purpose.

 

[TINGUY]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

No, you keep saying what is untrue. The statistics say that ALMOST no police officers are killed by huniting ammunition. I do not follow that up by saying that it is OK to kill police officers. What I say is that the risk to police officers is nirtually non-existant and is lower than many other factors. Is the risk 'acceptable' risk? I suspect that for society as a whole it is because the vast majority of American's support the rights of hunters, even non-hunters. And they did not support the 'cop killer' bullet ban, so when there was time for compromise, the issue was defeated simply because it was so badly flawed, illogical and unworkable that compromise was unnecessary.

As for your arguement that knives, cars & bats are "necessary to there (sic) indended use as designed" the exact same can be said about hunting bullets. When used for their intended use, they perform as intended. How is a criminal with a baseball bat or knife any different than a criminal with a gun when the criminal (armed with any weapon) is killing you with it in a back alley? Or your home? Or running you over in a parking lot? Either way you die.

So you agree then the fact is just a few die and it could be stopped with a slight compromise. When this statement applies to any consumer product I.E. with a slight compromise it could make things safer do you not support it?

Although I did not want to get to details because I feel that is when the argument gets its most dishonest I am forced to ask is Teflon necessary to the design? It seems that big game have been brought down without it in the past.

Tell me what do you believe is the motivation behind the Bill? Do you believe that the politician on the other side are driven by some sinister cause?

 

[Melensdad]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

So you agree then the fact is just a few die and it could be stopped with a slight compromise.

You have two statements there. So I do agree that just a few die, I indicated that many times. I do not agree that it can be prevented with a slight compromise. I simply have not found ANY compromise proposal in anything you have written, nor was the defeated proposal a 'slight' compromise, it was an outright ban on 90+% of all hunting ammunition. That is not slight. You can say it is slight, but you are simply wrong.

Although I did not want to get to details because I feel that is when the argument gets its most dishonest I am forced to ask is Teflon necessary to the design? It seems that big game have been brought down without it in the past.

Teflon, if you have been reading any of the stuff above, is simply not used the way you seem to think it is. It does not do what you seem to think it does. It is not a component of the vast majority of bullets than can easily shoot through any police officer's vest. It is used to reduce friction and lead fouling in antique style black powder 'caplock' and 'flintlock' single shot rifles. It does nothing to enhance the ability to pierce a police officer's vest. The entire concept, and again this was stated before and apparently you didn't read it, was a creation of anti-gun groups/politicians.

Tell me what do you believe is the motivation behind the Bill? Do you believe that the politician on the other side are driven by some sinister cause?

I've already said, as have others, that the motivation was to ban guns and hunting by way of eliminating the ammunition they use. Folks who believe in banning guns and/or hunting are not stupid people. They are logical and realize the best way to achieve their goals in by using a tactic of 'divide and conquer' so they go after bits and pieces, and they frame their proposals with emotion to make them easy for the intellectually lazy to support; but they write their proposals to effectively outlaw things that the supporters don't even realize they are supporting. Sinister? Yes.

As for the pro-gun crowd, are we sinister? Well let me answer that by asking what I have done in this debate that is sinister? I have shined the light of truth on lies. I don't see that as sinister.

 

[OkeeDon]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

We've gone a little astray from the original subject. The subject was specifically directed to me, and it asked me, and only me (I don't see anyone else's name in the subject line) a question. I answered that question a long time ago.

I don't know how this got on to the subject of cop killer bullets, and, as I said below (above, for you who are seeing this in the old-fashioned way), I really don't care.

I have to say, I really wasn't happy to see my name in the subject line -- I consider that a form of baiting. I don't remember who started it, but in the future, ask your question of anyone, and if I feel like it, I may answer.

 

[TINGUY]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

We've gone a little astray from the original subject. The subject was specifically directed to me, and it asked me, and only me (I don't see anyone else's name in the subject line) a question. I answered that question a long time ago.

I don't know how this got on to the subject of cop killer bullets, and, as I said below (above, for you who are seeing this in the old-fashioned way), I really don't care.

I have to say, I really wasn't happy to see my name in the subject line -- I consider that a form of baiting. I don't remember who started it, but in the future, ask your question of anyone, and if I feel like it, I may answer.

Don,



I apologize as I did not consider these facts when I furthered the post. I just considered its placement in the Debate Forum.

 

[Melensdad]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

Don, no question you were baited. Perhaps we can ask the moderators to edit the subject line for this and future debates where 'baiting' seems obvious?

As for the whole cop killer bullet issue, you essentially brought that up when you stated the following : There is not one shred of evidence anywhere, in any form, that Kerry would have "taken your guns away". That's just so much bullcrap and any intelligent person knows it. I think your post opened up the entire can of worms to look at his hunting and gun policy.

While not specifically referring to the cop killer bullet issue, there is ample evidence that Kerry is so blatantly anti-gun and pro-gun-ban that the discussion morphed into a genuine study of what he really stands for, and how he uses lies to promote his adjenda. The reality is he may not have voted for an absolute confiscation of guns, which supports the absolute statement you wrote in your reply, but most people can make the reasonable correlation between his actions and the ultimate outcome of where they will lead.

The point is clear, if someone says something out of ignorance then they simply don't know the truth. But after the truth is clearly and factually laid out, if the person still repeats the same statements then they are simply liars.

Hitler used the tactic of repeating a lie so often that it eventually became accepted as truth, no question in my mind that the gun ban crowd learned something from his tactics.

 

[bczoom]

Even if it were possible to obtain them from some source, and still use them, the law would be valuable because it would provide another level of charges to be applied to the bad guy to keep him off the street longer, if he's caught.

I believe that's the issue. As I believe Bob and possibly others noted, if the judicial system will just utilize the current laws and actually incarcerate criminals, we wouldn't need another 1000 laws on guns and ammunition. If I recall, there's something like 19000 current laws on guns and ammo. Think we could actually just use some of those???

BTW - I changed the subject. Not sure, but I think anyone can do it. When you're posting a reply, the Title can be edited.
EDIT - ??? The change may or may not have taken place. In some places, I see the new title "Is Kerry a Liar?", in others, I see the old title.

 

[Dargo]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

Well, each person can decide if Kerry is a liar based on facts. I see positively no reason to believe that Kerry's Vietnam record is anything but a complete staged series of events to give Kerry photo ops and to pad his resume. His own crew members and those who served around him classified him as "some rich guy in politics who needs to have some sort of service record to further his career". Every receipient of the Purple Heart that I've ever spoken with who has mentioned Kerry has had much less than favorable comments about him. There obviously is, without a doubt, much dispute about the circumstances surrounding the Purple Hearts Kerry received. Kerry's service record itself reflects that his "service" was a sham. I certainly do not have a Purple Heart and do not deserve one. Kerry falls into that same category.

Kerry thinks that gun manufacturers should be liable for illegal use of their products. Gees, I can think of a few thousand items that, when used not as intended, they kill people. The auto industry would be in big trouble! Mr. Kerry has played both sides of this fence, but voted to hold manufacturers responsible for illegal use of their products.

Of course, we all know that Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it. Every person has the perogative to change their mind based on new facts, but Mr. Kerry won't say that. He kept spinning assorted BS until he couldn't recognize the truth when it was written on his teleprompter. If he keeps up his record, he may be able to challange ole Kennedy for the title of who thinks the American public is the dumbest. They both play the general public as being uneducated morons. However, as Clinton has proven, they just may not be too far off on this mark.

I don't have the time nor desire to go into the hundreds of "flip-flops" (read; lies) by Kerry, but I think I have a firm grasp on the answer to the question of whether or not Kerry is a liar.

And, no, I'm not Don. But, this thread is in the "debate and discussion" area.

 

[Doc]

OT (Off Topic) for sure.
I've tried changing titles. It allows you to edit it and when reading the thread the title inside it is changed. However the first title assigned to the original message that is the displayed thread title never changes. I have not found a way to do that.

 

[bczoom]

OT (Off Topic) for sure.
I've tried changing titles.

I think I got it changed now.

 

[Doc]

Thanks BC. Good job!

 

[TINGUY]

Now that Don's name is taken out I feel compeled to cary on

You have two statements there. So I do agree that just a few die, I indicated that many times. I do not agree that it can be prevented with a slight compromise. I simply have not found ANY compromise proposal in anything you have written, nor was the defeated proposal a 'slight' compromise, it was an outright ban on 90+% of all hunting ammunition. That is not slight. You can say it is slight, but you are simply wrong.

I agree the Bill contained no compromise in any way but that the situation asks for a compromise from your side. I will offer no compromise I believe the Bill requests a solution and your sides response was NO!. Could it not have been not in that language. I think the ball is in your court. Were is the reasonable flexible response from your side. Were is the attempt to answer the request in a spirit of compromise Has the Pro Gun side in congress offered a Bill in response? Is not the 2 party systems based on compromise?

Teflon, if you have been reading any of the stuff above, is simply not used the way you seem to think it is. It does not do what you seem to think it does. It is not a component of the vast majority of bullets than can easily shoot through any police officer's vest. It is used to reduce friction and lead fouling in antique style black powder 'caplock' and 'flintlock' single shot rifles. It does nothing to enhance the ability to pierce a police officer's vest. The entire concept, and again this was stated before and apparently you didn't read it, was a creation of anti-gun groups/politicians..

The reason I did not want to get to the details as there is no point until there is even a glimmer of hope of a compromise to discuss the details. Why bother with the details if we are not considering a change in them in the first place. Is an open minded approach to problem solving that frightening to your side. The question is can we agree to compromise or not. Can you see no solution or is it that you want no solution?

I've already said, as have others, that the motivation was to ban guns and hunting by way of eliminating the ammunition they use. Folks who believe in banning guns and/or hunting are not stupid people. They are logical and realize the best way to achieve their goals in by using a tactic of 'divide and conquer' so they go after bits and pieces, and they frame their proposals with emotion to make them easy for the intellectually lazy to support; but they write their proposals to effectively outlaw things that the supporters don't even realize they are supporting. Sinister? Yes.

The question was not what they want to accomplish that is evident and I agree there are extreme and moderate motivations from the ANTI side. The question is why I.E. motivation not outcome. The question is designed so that you may consider there point of view without the thought that they are all nuts. There is a moderate majority of Americans that would like to see something done. The extremes are preventing it.

As for the pro-gun crowd, are we sinister? Well let me answer that by asking what I have done in this debate that is sinister? I have shined the light of truth on lies. I don't see that as sinister.

I have never accused you of being sinister. You have done nothing in this debate in any way I would describe as sinister. It appears this may have moved from the debate stage to something else for you. I respectfully submit that I want only a friendly debate on the issue.

 

[Dargo]

It appears this may have moved from the debate stage to something else for you. I respectfully submit that I want only a friendly debate on the issue.

Nah! Bob's a master debater. I did say "de"-bater, right? I only take it that Bob disagrees with you and has rather succinctly laid out his reasons why.

 

[bczoom]

but that the situation asks for a compromise from your side.

Can you see no solution or is it that you want no solution?

There is a moderate majority of Americans that would like to see something done.

Tinguy,
I'll go back to what's wrong with actually using all the laws that are currently on the books?

That would be my compromise and solution and I believe many other Americans feel the same.

 

[Doc]

Yep. This American feels the same.

If we outlawed any particular ammo only the outlaws will have it. Then there will be a market for the empty casings, and reloaders will sell it for 3 times what is costs now .....and law enforement would not be able to enforce this new law in that respect. The laws we have in place could work if agressively pursued by law enforcement and the courts.

 

[TINGUY]

Tinguy,
I'll go back to what's wrong with actually using all the laws that are currently on the books?

That would be my compromise and solution and I believe many other Americans feel the same.

I don't think existing laws would address all the issues. But I concede if they were better enforced it would help. I also believe this is no reason to turn your back on further initiatives. This approach suggests that we need no new laws about anything if they would only enforce the existing. It infers things don't won't change. Not a argument based on reality as things do change and in fact the particular Bill brought up is based on new technology to some degree.

 

[BoneheadNW]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

I see positively no reason to believe that Kerry's Vietnam record is anything but a complete staged series of events to give Kerry photo ops and to pad his resume.

Now why didn't I think of that? I'll go to Iraq, stage a few events, and then come back (hopefully alive) with a medal so that it would look good on my resume!

I don't have the time nor desire to go into the hundreds of "flip-flops" (read; lies) by Kerry, but I think I have a firm grasp on the answer to the question of whether or not Kerry is a liar.

Let's see, I'm trying to think of any lies that our president has told, but I just can't think of ANY! I guess we elected the right man! :stroke: eace:

Bone

 

[TINGUY]

Nah! Bob's a master debater. I did say "de"-bater, right? I only take it that Bob disagrees with you and has rather succinctly laid out his reasons why.

I fully agree. He is one of the best on the board!

 

[TINGUY]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

Now why didn't I think of that? I'll go to Iraq, stage a few events, and then come back (hopefully alive) with a medal so that it would look good on my resume!

Let's see, I'm trying to think of any lies that our president has told, but I just can't think of ANY! I guess we elected the right man! :stroke: eace:

Bone

A lying politician who'd of thought? I think people need to understand that politicians by nature in order to represent there constituants must lie. In order to do there job correctly they may have to push an agenda they do not believe in but is representative. Is it really a big surprise they take it to far? Is this not arguing the obvious. If in fact the worst you can say about a politician is he lied well he must be doing a lot of things right!

 

[Melensdad]

I don't think existing laws would address all the issues. But I concede if they were better enforced it would help. I also believe this is no reason to turn your back on further initiatives. This approach suggests that we need no new laws about anything if they would only enforce the existing. It infers things don't won't change. Not a argument based on reality as things do change and in fact the particular Bill brought up is based on new technology to some degree.

You obviously are not reading what people are writing. The "particular Bill" is not based on new technology it is based on lies and emotion. Nothing more.

So your version of addressing the issue is to ignore the facts, to continue to support an orchetrated series of lies, and then to suggest that since the lies are more important that we need to change the laws.

I believe the truth stands up in this thread and that you are simply arguing nonsense. Further illustrated when you suggest in your reply to Bonehead that : I think people need to understand that politicians by nature in order to represent there constituants must lie. In order to do there job correctly they may have to push an agenda they do not believe in but is representative.

To argue that people must buy into lies is absurd.
To argue that politicians must tell lies to repesent their constituants is absurd.

I will give you an in the absurd, but I will give your posts no further consideration.

 

[Dargo]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

Now why didn't I think of that? I'll go to Iraq, stage a few events, and then come back (hopefully alive) with a medal so that it would look good on my resume!

Let's see, I'm trying to think of any lies that our president has told, but I just can't think of ANY! I guess we elected the right man! :stroke: eace:

Bone

Let's see, on the first, I do know a son of a Congressman who is currently doing the same thing in Iraq. No poopy! His Brigadier General has made it clear to all of the subordinate officers that this guy is "hands off", and he is to get assignments that topically appear to be noble, but if any serious harm comes to his health, careers will be ruined. Certainly I'm not the first person to tell you that this has happened in the past and continues to happen. And, unless I'm very wrong, this soldier will definitely return with some sort of medals. I also don't need to tell you what his fellow soldiers think of him.

If you can't think of anything that our current president has said based on incorrect information he was provided that some interpret as a lie, I can help you with that one too.

Oh, for the record, do I really thing that "W" was actually in harms way? I think you know the answer to that, so I'm not trying to play it like he was some war hero more so than Kerry. Kerry is just a fraud. Would you like to debate whether George H. W. Bush was a true war hero? And, you know, the best I can tell, I think JFK also served very respectfully as well.

 

[TINGUY]

You obviously are not reading what people are writing. The "particular Bill" is not based on new technology it is based on lies and emotion. Nothing more.

So your version of addressing the issue is to ignore the facts, to continue to support an orchetrated series of lies, and then to suggest that since the lies are more important that we need to change the laws.

I believe the truth stands up in this thread and that you are simply arguing nonsense. Further illustrated when you suggest in your reply to Bonehead that : I think people need to understand that politicians by nature in order to represent there constituants must lie. In order to do there job correctly they may have to push an agenda they do not believe in but is representative.

To argue that people must buy into lies is absurd.
To argue that politicians must tell lies to represent their constituants is absurd.

I will give you an in the absurd, but I will give your posts no further consideration.

I am sorry if my opinions have offended you in some way. That was not my intention in debating the mater. I guess it is not possible to be P.C. in a debate.

And yet is a debate not about an exchange of opinions to some degree? I will respect your wishes and no longer debate the issue with you. If you feel compelled to not respond to my posts in the future that is your option and yet I do not agree with your opinions and feel no such animosity.

 

[BoneheadNW]

Re: For OkeeDon - Is Kerry a Liar?

Let's see, on the first, I do know a son of a Congressman who is currently doing the same thing in Iraq. No poopy! His Brigadier General has made it clear to all of the subordinate officers that this guy is "hands off", and he is to get assignments that topically appear to be noble, but if any serious harm comes to his health, careers will be ruined.

Dargo, believe what you want on this one but if I was 18-22 years old and my butt was on the line (literally) patrolling the streets of Iraq and someone told me "nothing is to happen to this guy", I would make sure that he would be on the enemy side of me all the time. I don't believe that most of these guys are as worried about their career in the military nearly as much as they are about getting themselves and their buddies out of there in one piece. I have been fortunate never to have served in battle (no offense to those who have, I guess I am a woosie), but like many hazerdous jobs you rely on your partners for survival. Do you really think that someone would risk going to war and depend on other soldiers to make sure nothing happens to them just to pad thier resume? I want some of what you have been drinkin (respectfully, please )

If you can't think of anything that our current president has said based on incorrect information he was provided that some interpret as a lie, I can help you with that one too.

So all of our presidents "untruths" (i.e. things he said that were not true) can be explained by incorrect information that he was provided? Do you REALLY believe that?

Oh, for the record, do I really thing that "W" was actually in harms way? I think you know the answer to that, so I'm not trying to play it like he was some war hero more so than Kerry. Kerry is just a fraud.

Even if what you say is true about Kerry deliberately going to Viet Nam to pad his resume (which I don't believe for a minute as stated above), why is it that he is a fraud and the younger Bush was just "not in harms way"? Isn't he a fraud too? While we are on the subject, why do some Republicans point to Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc. and call them frauds, criminals, etc but refer to members of their own party (Bush, Delay, etc.) as being "misinformed" or having made a "mistake". I think that the same standards should be applied to any of these people, regardless of party. How about you?

Bonehead