Can someone tell me 5 GOOD reasons why she should even have a chance? I mean...I personally do not like her and think she is more of a liar than everyone else. She shuns questions about her healthcare plan and how she would punish those who didnt sign up for her mandatory plan.
under her plan would you even get to pick your own doctor? why is she so anti-gun? now im not trying to slam her and say the other side is so swell either. just wondering...what HAS she done good that positively effects me? what could i see today?
whats with digging in her own purse for 5 mil? did she run out of money? she must have to have needed to do that. bill? 100mil bill? i heard that is what he has mad so far by talking to people. thats kinda ridiculous to me...hey...pay me 1,000 dollars a plate so you can sit down and listen to me talk about myself.
i know there are some hillary fans out there so what is your opinion on this.
Posted by bdgee on :
Who, other than those that have been trained to hate everything Clinton has said she is anti-gun? Her own statements do not even allow such a consideration and she, in direct answer to a question has stated that she will not try to limit guns.
I am not suggestion that you need to "like her", but I think passing on falsehoods concocted to bring fear and hate is inappropriate.
Clinton would not be my choice, but I will not vote for the liars party, so, if she gains the democratic nomination, I will vote for her. It is not a question of what whoever gets the democratic nomination has done for me, but what the republican party has done to my Country and its Constitution.
Perhaps you should furnish 5 good and provable lies she is guilty of telling, any one of which amounts to even a smidgen of a single one of the ones among the mass of lies the republicans have bathed us in over the last few years? (That was "provable", not rumored by the republican hate machine.)
Now, make sure you get it through your head, I AM NOT A HILLARY FAN. I am a fan of decency and honor in the political functions of the Nation and there is NO republican that shows any interest in truth and honor, just the Party (and that includes the likes of McCain and Paul, so don't start). Instead republicans have and will continue to operate as Party before Country as they have for years.
Posted by Relentless. on :
You are a fan of decency? I guess I can go along with that. But aligning that notion with either party? Come now... Decency has nothing to do with either party as they are two masks on the same face.
Posted by bdgee on :
Of course I align the lack of decency with the republican party. How could anything even possibly starting a war based purely on lies and fictions be anything but indecent? And that is just one issue.
The Party is and has been repeatedly indecent and will again until it is severely punished for being the party of hate and deception and placing Party loyalty before truth and the Constitution.
Posted by glassman on :
actually? McCain has a track record of decency budge.
thing is? he seems so narrowly focused on winning a war that he might just kill everybody to do it...
Posted by glassman on :
as for Hillary not being anti-gun?
i've provided several pages of BS for you to peruse already but you've forgotten quicker than you read it. and don't tell me what she said she'll do or won't do.
Posted by Relentless. on :
And just what has any recent war been started over? Tell me Milosivic was a mass murderer. Or he just didn't want to go along with the plan. Tell me your blinders are still on. Dear god, man have you no idea what world you live on? Have you no clue as to your captor's desires? Who gives a rat's azz what party wins. Who cares what platform they run upon. It will make no difference in the bonds that bind you or I. Do you honestly believe destiny redirects with every moron elected?
Posted by Relentless. on :
Glass, it does seem we disagree most during election years. This would seem to be no exception. McCain is a moron. Has been, is, will be, for the forseeable future. He's a plan "B" for the powers that be.
Posted by glassman on :
LOL. McCain won't win unless he runs against Hillary. people are fed up.
McCain is hated by the social conservatives. they are literally frothing at the mouth about him.
Moron is about right.
Anne Coulter says she'll vote for Hillary before him. that's pretty decent Posted by Relentless. on :
It's all a setup.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: It's all a setup.
that has occurred to me.
but McCain is the one that uncovered most of the Abramoff stuff, that did lead to Tom Delay leaving office and hte GOP losing quite a few seats...
it was not the only thing, but it was important.
i do beleive that both McCain and Romney have spent too much time saying we're at war.
it's the only thing left on their minds it seems...
Posted by Relentless. on :
Minds? Scripts. Both sides. How eager we are to buy into a distraction.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Bdgee im just trying to get a UNBIASED fact finding mission completed with this...that is all. I just dont know much about her other than seeing bill all over the place on her behalf.
Where is the best place to go look for someones voting record? That should sum it all up for me instantly right there without controversy.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Who, other than those that have been trained to hate everything Clinton has said she is anti-gun? Her own statements do not even allow such a consideration and she, in direct answer to a question has stated that she will not try to limit guns.
I am not suggestion that you need to "like her", but I think passing on falsehoods concocted to bring fear and hate is inappropriate.
Clinton would not be my choice, but I will not vote for the liars party, so, if she gains the democratic nomination, I will vote for her. It is not a question of what whoever gets the democratic nomination has done for me, but what the republican party has done to my Country and its Constitution.
Perhaps you should furnish 5 good and provable lies she is guilty of telling, any one of which amounts to even a smidgen of a single one of the ones among the mass of lies the republicans have bathed us in over the last few years? (That was "provable", not rumored by the republican hate machine.)
Now, make sure you get it through your head, I AM NOT A HILLARY FAN. I am a fan of decency and honor in the political functions of the Nation and there is NO republican that shows any interest in truth and honor, just the Party (and that includes the likes of McCain and Paul, so don't start). Instead republicans have and will continue to operate as Party before Country as they have for years.
Well to begin, she has to be smart getting her JD from Yale. Only way bush got through that was his father. If you check out her personal experience it is very impressive.
Well she voted AGAINST partial birth abortion, I dont like that its pretty gross in my opinion.
she voted AGAINST denying illegal immigrants legal status if convicted of certain crimes. anyone else find that bad?
she didnt vote for an iraq withdrawl amendment in december 07
she voted for the homeland security act...which i dont blame her because she kind of had to. however its the biggest waste of money i think because how many federal agencies are out there already that could just beef up what they were doing already?
OH I REALLY DIDNT LIKE THIS ONE:
Key Vote
Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment
Bill Number: HR 5441 Issue: Gun Issues Date: 07/13/2006 Sponsor:Amendment: Sen Vitter, David [LA]; Original Bill: Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5]
Roll Call Number: 202 Amendment Adopted (Senate) How members voted
Read statements made in this general time period.
Official Title of Legislation:
S Amdt 4615 to HR 5441: To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.
---------------------------------------\\\\
guns protected people from looters and criminals in katrina! cmon now!
Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill
Bill Number: S 397 Issue: Gun Issues Date: 07/29/2005 Sponsor:Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID]
Roll Call Number: 219 Bill Passed (Senate) How members voted
Read statements made in this general time period.
Official Title of Legislation:
S 397: A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:
Vote to pass a bill that provides liability protection for manufacturers, dealers or importers of firearms or ammunition products, as well as their trade associations, for harm caused by criminal or unlawful misuse.
-------------------------------------------
how are you going to sue ruger for a gang member shooting a rival gang member over a crack sale?
wow there are so many bills i just threw a few otu there. not saying everything she did was off...because i can see she voted for the right issues and no for some bad things. there is so much info to take in...im going to check out other candidates
Posted by Relentless. on :
Bla bla bla wretched whore bla bla bal wretched whore
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
one thing is for certain on the democrat side....look at hillarys attendance for voting then go look at obama.....he didnt vote for a large number of issues, as opposed to hillary.
Posted by glassman on :
CCM. you'll find that Hillary and Bill are both very intelligent and efficient people.
they get the job done. they hire bright people like themselves that get the job done,
the problem is that they think their brightness makes their opinions more important than others..
how Bush justifies the same attitude i have no idea....
i just don't agree with alot of their opinions or their plans.
i also find that they lie alot. a whole lot.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: CCM. you'll find that Hillary and Bill are both very intelligent and efficient people.
they get the job done. they hire bright people like themselves that get the job done,
the problem is that they think their brightness makes their opinions more important than others..
how Bush justifies the same attitude i have no idea....
i just don't agree with alot of their opinions or their plans.
i also find that they lie alot. a whole lot.
Apparently he's right about Obama voting "present" an inordinate amount of times, though.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Tex thanks for that link it is PERFECT...now I can analyze EVERYTHING IN TRUTH! No media hype now...in fact I like this site so much I posted a bulletin about it on Myspace to all my friends and hope it gets circulated all over the nation through all my contacts which it should. I learned a lot of new things today...and yes even though I have always thought of Hillary as evil she is very smart...and more qualified than Obama when you look at political experience.
how the hell did bush get into office i dont get that...he is such a moron compared to these credentials!
oh wait a min I just saw something kinda scary...check this out when I tried to look at mccain on where he stands on voting issues:
"Senator John Sidney McCain III repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart Vote Smart staff. "
why would he do that if he stands firm in his beliefs? I will have to see what others did too
Posted by T e x on :
lol... good. Glad you liked it.
Scit 'em!
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: as for Hillary not being anti-gun?
i've provided several pages of BS for you to peruse already but you've forgotten quicker than you read it. and don't tell me what she said she'll do or won't do.
You provided absolutely nothing plausible or credible, which is the same sad tale of being a republican for several decades now.
Posted by T e x on :
Beedge,
what do you think of that site I linked for CCM?
Posted by bdgee on :
Looks like a fun site, Tex.
But I must warn you, trying to interpret legislative actions and votes as an indication of a legislators intent or philosophy is not so simple. Most floor votes are a matter of pushing or opposing some amendment added to cloud the issues and a vote that is recorded as pro or con may actually be an effort to destroy an attempt via amendment by some other legislator to undermine the stated purpose or function of a bill, thus controlling the end result. Often in the digestion of legislation, the initial presenter of a bill will be recorded as voting against it, which he or she found necessary to do in order to prevent some terribly distasteful thing that had absolutely nothing to do with the intent of the bill from being forced into law.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Looks like a fun site, Tex.
But I must warn you, trying to interpret legislative actions and votes as an indication of a legislators intent or philosophy is not so simple. Most floor votes are a matter of pushing or opposing some amendment added to cloud the issues and a vote that is recorded as pro or con may actually be an effort to destroy an attempt via amendment by some other legislator to undermine the stated purpose or function of a bill, thus controlling the end result. Often in the digestion of legislation, the initial presenter of a bill will be recorded as voting against it, which he or she found necessary to do in order to prevent some terribly distasteful thing that had absolutely nothing to do with the intent of the bill from being forced into law.
so what's your alternative, better site?
Posted by ohio_trader on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: as for Hillary not being anti-gun?
i've provided several pages of BS for you to peruse already but you've forgotten quicker than you read it. and don't tell me what she said she'll do or won't do.
You provided absolutely nothing plausible or credible, which is the same sad tale of being a republican for several decades now.
“We both knew there would be hell to pay if . . . we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady’s wishes.”
Hillary Clinton's book is titled "Living History," but a quick scan suggests that "Hillary's Lies" would be more appropriate. For example, Hillary was deeply involved in the abrupt dismissal of the entire staff of the White House travel office in May 1993. She says in her book she was stuck with the consequences of an off-hand comment she had made about mismanagement and waste in the travel office. She says that after an audit found the records "were in shambles" Mack McLarty and the Counsel's office decided to fire the staff.
Billy Dale, the veteran head of the office, says there was a review, not an audit. He said he was unable to find some of the records Peat Marwick accountants sought because Catherine Cornelius, who was said to be a relative of Bill Clinton's, had been installed in the office for several weeks and had taken some of the records home. Hillary doesn't mention that they planned to have her take charge of the operation with the expectation that she would steer the travel business to a firm in which their close friend Harry Thomasson had an interest.
David Watkins, the assistant to the president for management and administration, was slow to execute Hillary's wishes. In a memo for the record, Watkins said he told Mack McLarty that "Hillary had conveyed in clear terms her desire for swift and clear action to resolve the situation." The memo says, "We both knew there would be hell to pay if...we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes." The travel office staff was promptly fired and removed from the White House grounds.
Bill Kennedy, one of Hillary's Rose Law Firm partners who was on the staff of the White House counsel, asked the FBI to investigate Billy Dale to find evidence of embezzlement. They found none, but Dale and his family suffered immensely thanks to the FBI and the IRS. Neither agency came up with any evidence that Dale had embezzled or had taxable income that he failed to report.
Hillary says the Justice Department found enough evidence to indict and try Dale for embezzlement. Dale, confronted with legal bills that he could not afford, offered to plead guilty and accept a light sentence, but he said that he would not give up all that he had worked for. He said he would go to jail for three months, but he would not admit stealing any money. He was willing to make that plea in court, but he said he would go out on the courthouse steps and tell the press that he said that to save his home for his family.
His lawyer told him that would only get him more jail time. His plea bargain was offered to the Justice Department, but it was rejected and the case went to trial. With the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing and with Dennis Sculimbrene, an FBI agent who had been assigned to the White House testifying for him, it took the jury only twenty minutes to find Billy Dale not guilty. Independent Counsel Robert Ray questioned Hillary about her role in this case. He reported that her testimony was "factually false," but he declined to prosecute her because, he said, there was insufficient evidence to get any jury to convict her.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by ohio_trader:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: as for Hillary not being anti-gun?
i've provided several pages of BS for you to peruse already but you've forgotten quicker than you read it. and don't tell me what she said she'll do or won't do.
You provided absolutely nothing plausible or credible, which is the same sad tale of being a republican for several decades now.
“We both knew there would be hell to pay if . . . we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady’s wishes.”
Hillary Clinton's book is titled "Living History," but a quick scan suggests that "Hillary's Lies" would be more appropriate. For example, Hillary was deeply involved in the abrupt dismissal of the entire staff of the White House travel office in May 1993. She says in her book she was stuck with the consequences of an off-hand comment she had made about mismanagement and waste in the travel office. She says that after an audit found the records "were in shambles" Mack McLarty and the Counsel's office decided to fire the staff.
Billy Dale, the veteran head of the office, says there was a review, not an audit. He said he was unable to find some of the records Peat Marwick accountants sought because Catherine Cornelius, who was said to be a relative of Bill Clinton's, had been installed in the office for several weeks and had taken some of the records home. Hillary doesn't mention that they planned to have her take charge of the operation with the expectation that she would steer the travel business to a firm in which their close friend Harry Thomasson had an interest.
David Watkins, the assistant to the president for management and administration, was slow to execute Hillary's wishes. In a memo for the record, Watkins said he told Mack McLarty that "Hillary had conveyed in clear terms her desire for swift and clear action to resolve the situation." The memo says, "We both knew there would be hell to pay if...we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes." The travel office staff was promptly fired and removed from the White House grounds.
Bill Kennedy, one of Hillary's Rose Law Firm partners who was on the staff of the White House counsel, asked the FBI to investigate Billy Dale to find evidence of embezzlement. They found none, but Dale and his family suffered immensely thanks to the FBI and the IRS. Neither agency came up with any evidence that Dale had embezzled or had taxable income that he failed to report.
Hillary says the Justice Department found enough evidence to indict and try Dale for embezzlement. Dale, confronted with legal bills that he could not afford, offered to plead guilty and accept a light sentence, but he said that he would not give up all that he had worked for. He said he would go to jail for three months, but he would not admit stealing any money. He was willing to make that plea in court, but he said he would go out on the courthouse steps and tell the press that he said that to save his home for his family.
His lawyer told him that would only get him more jail time. His plea bargain was offered to the Justice Department, but it was rejected and the case went to trial. With the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing and with Dennis Sculimbrene, an FBI agent who had been assigned to the White House testifying for him, it took the jury only twenty minutes to find Billy Dale not guilty. Independent Counsel Robert Ray questioned Hillary about her role in this case. He reported that her testimony was "factually false," but he declined to prosecute her because, he said, there was insufficient evidence to get any jury to convict her.
not a good post...
not saying you're wrong, but you should make it easy for folks to get your point.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
I understood his point quite easily Tex...Hillary is a LIAR.. Does that sum it up ohio?
Posted by T e x on :
maybe it's just me, buck...
i tried to read that post and my eyes went crossed...
will try again tomorrow if you're saying it made sense to you
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Clinton would not be my choice, but I will not vote for the liars party, so, if she gains the democratic nomination, I will vote for her.
That's the problem with US...WE have nothing but lying, deceitful, candidates to vote for....and WE continue to put lying, deceitful politicians in office...
End result, nothing changes for US and WE continue to bicker back and forth about how this party or that party has lied to, and deceived US...
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Looks like a fun site, Tex.
But I must warn you, trying to interpret legislative actions and votes as an indication of a legislators intent or philosophy is not so simple. Most floor votes are a matter of pushing or opposing some amendment added to cloud the issues and a vote that is recorded as pro or con may actually be an effort to destroy an attempt via amendment by some other legislator to undermine the stated purpose or function of a bill, thus controlling the end result. Often in the digestion of legislation, the initial presenter of a bill will be recorded as voting against it, which he or she found necessary to do in order to prevent some terribly distasteful thing that had absolutely nothing to do with the intent of the bill from being forced into law.
so what's your alternative, better site?
It isn't that I know of a suitable alternative (and it isn't that I believe some alternative is either required or feasible).
Evaluating the worth or proper function of a legislator probable cannot be quantized. Attempting to do so is like trying to evaluate in some numerical fashion (or once and for all) whether a Cocker Spaniel is a better pet than a Great Dane.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by ohio_trader:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: as for Hillary not being anti-gun?
i've provided several pages of BS for you to peruse already but you've forgotten quicker than you read it. and don't tell me what she said she'll do or won't do.
You provided absolutely nothing plausible or credible, which is the same sad tale of being a republican for several decades now.
“We both knew there would be hell to pay if . . . we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady’s wishes.”
Hillary Clinton's book is titled "Living History," but a quick scan suggests that "Hillary's Lies" would be more appropriate. For example, Hillary was deeply involved in the abrupt dismissal of the entire staff of the White House travel office in May 1993. She says in her book she was stuck with the consequences of an off-hand comment she had made about mismanagement and waste in the travel office. She says that after an audit found the records "were in shambles" Mack McLarty and the Counsel's office decided to fire the staff.
Billy Dale, the veteran head of the office, says there was a review, not an audit. He said he was unable to find some of the records Peat Marwick accountants sought because Catherine Cornelius, who was said to be a relative of Bill Clinton's, had been installed in the office for several weeks and had taken some of the records home. Hillary doesn't mention that they planned to have her take charge of the operation with the expectation that she would steer the travel business to a firm in which their close friend Harry Thomasson had an interest.
David Watkins, the assistant to the president for management and administration, was slow to execute Hillary's wishes. In a memo for the record, Watkins said he told Mack McLarty that "Hillary had conveyed in clear terms her desire for swift and clear action to resolve the situation." The memo says, "We both knew there would be hell to pay if...we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes." The travel office staff was promptly fired and removed from the White House grounds.
Bill Kennedy, one of Hillary's Rose Law Firm partners who was on the staff of the White House counsel, asked the FBI to investigate Billy Dale to find evidence of embezzlement. They found none, but Dale and his family suffered immensely thanks to the FBI and the IRS. Neither agency came up with any evidence that Dale had embezzled or had taxable income that he failed to report.
Hillary says the Justice Department found enough evidence to indict and try Dale for embezzlement. Dale, confronted with legal bills that he could not afford, offered to plead guilty and accept a light sentence, but he said that he would not give up all that he had worked for. He said he would go to jail for three months, but he would not admit stealing any money. He was willing to make that plea in court, but he said he would go out on the courthouse steps and tell the press that he said that to save his home for his family.
His lawyer told him that would only get him more jail time. His plea bargain was offered to the Justice Department, but it was rejected and the case went to trial. With the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing and with Dennis Sculimbrene, an FBI agent who had been assigned to the White House testifying for him, it took the jury only twenty minutes to find Billy Dale not guilty. Independent Counsel Robert Ray questioned Hillary about her role in this case. He reported that her testimony was "factually false," but he declined to prosecute her because, he said, there was insufficient evidence to get any jury to convict her.
PURE BULL S--T and nothing more!
I said provable, not popular lies from the right-wing extremist conspiracy fabrications and hate files.
Posted by glassman on :
actually budge, that's not pure BS and if you listen to Hillary's speeches she wears her take no prisoners attitude like a badge of courage.
it is much the same attitude Bush has. the main difference being that Bush is not as "clever" by far as either of the Clintons.
Posted by bdgee on :
Sorry, glass..., but it is PURE BS.
Posted by glassman on :
The White House travel office controversy, often referred to as Travelgate,[1] was the first major scandal of the Clinton administration. It began in May 1993, when seven longtime employees of the White House Travel Office were fired, after a brief investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The White House said the action was due to financial improprieties in the office operation. Critics said the actions were done to allow friends of the Clintons to take over the travel business and that the involvement of the FBI was unwarranted. Heavy media attention forced the White House to reinstate most of the employees in other jobs and remove the Clinton associates from the travel role.
Investigations by the FBI and the Justice Department, the White House itself, the General Accounting Office, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the Whitewater Independent Counsel all took place over the subsequent years. Travel Office Director Billy Dale was charged with embezzlement but found not guilty at trial in 1995. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton gradually came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in it.
In 1998 Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated President Bill Clinton of any involvement in the matter. In 2000 Independent Counsel Robert Ray issued his final report on Travelgate, stating that Hillary Clinton had made factually false statements but saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her.
budge, even Mach said that i'm more of a democrat than i realise. he was only wrong in the part about what i realise about myself. i still consider myself a Republican, an Eisenhower Republican.
the Clintons are not good for Democrats. nor are they good for the country. efficiency and intelligence are very important. but not as important as integrity. they lack integrity.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Looks like a fun site, Tex.
But I must warn you, trying to interpret legislative actions and votes as an indication of a legislators intent or philosophy is not so simple. Most floor votes are a matter of pushing or opposing some amendment added to cloud the issues and a vote that is recorded as pro or con may actually be an effort to destroy an attempt via amendment by some other legislator to undermine the stated purpose or function of a bill, thus controlling the end result. Often in the digestion of legislation, the initial presenter of a bill will be recorded as voting against it, which he or she found necessary to do in order to prevent some terribly distasteful thing that had absolutely nothing to do with the intent of the bill from being forced into law.
so what's your alternative, better site?
It isn't that I know of a suitable alternative (and it isn't that I believe some alternative is either required or feasible).
Evaluating the worth or proper function of a legislator probable cannot be quantized. Attempting to do so is like trying to evaluate in some numerical fashion (or once and for all) whether a Cocker Spaniel is a better pet than a Great Dane.
oh, sure it can... let's substitute suitable for better. Then it's simply a matter of a table or checklist: cost of feeding; damage to house; shedding; cost of vet-care; value as watchdog; etc.
By extension, if more voters, in every race, would examine such as CCM proposes, we'd have a much more sophisticated electorate.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: as for Hillary not being anti-gun?
i've provided several pages of BS for you to peruse already but you've forgotten quicker than you read it. and don't tell me what she said she'll do or won't do.
You provided absolutely nothing plausible or credible, which is the same sad tale of being a republican for several decades now.
then you should re-read it. the first thing i proved? i showed how (at least one of) her supporters really feel.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles ... that we are unable to think about reality." -- Bill Clinton, USA Today, 11 March 93, pg. 2A
After receiving the nomination for president, Clinton campaigned against George H. W. Bush, in the fall of 1992. In previous elections, Republicans had garnered success by labeling their opponents as "soft on crime". Democrats had not used gun control in the past as an election issue. Clinton reversed the tide by using gun control as an issue and calling Bush soft on crime for not pushing for the Brady Law or an assault weapons ban.[1] Clinton also strongly endorsed the death penalty.[2] Bush called for " Going after the criminal not the gun owner". Clinton won the 1992 election with 43% of the vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Clinton_Administration
the Clinton Gun ban was titled Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
you don't seem to be offering me any real defense to support your argument that my claims are BS. once again? i will state that this is not really partisan for me. i'm not "afriad" of the Dems, and i definitely don't hate the Dems. they are Americans just like me, and i've grown up with many of them. i assume th eDems win this presidential election by default as of today and i want to see them make the correct choices.
i want change. i am willing to take risks with the devil i don't know over the devils i do...
that IS the American pioneer spirit still alive.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: budge, even Mach said that i'm more of a democrat than i realise. he was only wrong in the part about what i realise about myself. i still consider myself a Republican, an Eisenhower Republican.
the Clintons are not good for Democrats. nor are they good for the country. efficiency and intelligence are very important. but not as important as integrity. they lack integrity.
You continue to make the mistake of accusing me of evaluating the Clintons. I do not. I evaluate the republicans, as they exist today and promist to remain tomorrow, not yesteryear, and reach the absolute conclusion that they are basically dishonest and fascist to the core and anything or anyone is better than any that would receive sanctification by them.
I do not champion the Clintons and never have.
There is no possible evil they might follow that even approximates that which is guaranteed by submission to the fascist doctrine of the republican party.
The democratic party does NOT demand or get the Party loyalty of do or die Party first doctrine that is the republican party, so any democrat in office is better than any republican.
The notion that McCain is honorable is another sham. He may be more honorable than dubya or some others, but championing the invasion by the U.S. of a sovereign nation on the basis of lies that he knows were lies is to dishonor the Constitution and the American people.
Whatever might be some imagined result of whatever scenario in Iraq, the presence there of U.S. troops is an assurance that the world sees the U.S. as dishonored and dishonest and dangerous. McCain demands we remain in occupation of a land we illegally invaded and destroyed and that is simply empire building, an even more dishonorable pass time.
Reality says that voting "for the man" isn't realistic or even has much hope of providing a suitable leader of a nation. (That shallow thinking and propaganda gave us dubya.) Thus, I do not evaluate any candidate as good or bad, only the chance of his party appropriately presiding over the nation. This edition of republicans, which uniformly has declared it intends to remain on the course it is on, has quite disastrously proved it is not willing or capable of leading a non-fascist government of a free people, in honor and without secrecy asa tool to hide the truth.
Posted by bdgee on :
"Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994", was not and is not a "gun ban".
Posted by T e x on :
Holy moly, here's a part of that Act I never knew a thing about:
quote:Urban Recreation For At-Risk-youth Competitive grant program administered by the Department of Interior for localities to provide recreation facilities and services in areas with high crime rates and to provide such services in other areas to at-risk-youth. $4.5 million authorized.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994", was not and is not a "gun ban".
i agree.
BUT?
it was presented as such by the Clintons. and much celebration took place.
for about a month, till they realised how screwed up it was..
what a joke? it banned bayonnetes on guns.. LOL..
when was the last time somebody got killed by bayonnette? WW2?
McCain demands we remain in occupation of a land we illegally invaded and destroyed and that is simply empire building, an even more dishonorable pass time.
i don't think McCain can win unless he runs against Hillary...
i won't vote FOR him myself, but i will vote against Hillary, as will about 10 million others like me... then you have a 50/50 split.. and whoever Diebold picks will win...
Hillary carries too much baggage with her.
and alot of it is not good.
even the media called Slick Willie the Teflon President for a reason....
it isn't because everything thrown at him was BS. it because he somehow escaped all the trouble he DESERVED.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
it banned bayonnetes on guns.. LOL..
Darn! I'm not taking the bayonette off my handgun!
Posted by bdgee on :
Originally posted by bdgee: "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994", was not and is not a "gun ban".
"it was presented as such by the Clintons. and much celebration took place." is false. Neither of the Clintons characterized that act as banning guns and neither proposed to ban guns, then or now.
That act seriously restricts specific fully automatic weapons that have exterior magazines and those that have inboard magazines that hold more than 5 rounds, but even then it is not a strict ban on even those guns.
It was NOT a bill pushed through Congress by or sponsored by either of the Clintons. It is an absurdly impractical and superfluous bill. Maybe the Clintons knew exactly what they were doing in claiming it was effective, as it has quieted the clamor of the anti-gun extreme, who seem, foolishly, to think it accomplishes something toward their dream.
To my knowledge, no one in any federal position that might actually be effective or have influence on the question, has ever proposed a "gun ban". Should some day some such official actually have the foolish gall to so propose, I am certain he would be laughed at, unless there is in the meantime an amendment to the Constitution changing the 2nd Amendment (which is about as likely as casual vacation trips to the dark side of the moon in our lifetime.
Posted by T e x on :
"i don't think McCain can win unless he runs against Hillary..."
lmao...did you hear Coulter say if McCain wins, she'll not only vote for Hillary but also work in the campaign? They're scrambling like rats...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
No, the right is not scrambling like rats. As a conservative, I'm not voting for McCain either. If I can hold my nose long enough, I will vote for either Billary or Barak, if not, then I won't vote for President, but I will vote for other conservatives and for local issues.
I would MUCH rather have the country crash and burn under a socialist like either Billary or Barak, than to have it crash and burn under a President that is PRETENDING to be a conservative.
Posted by bdgee on :
If you vote for Hillary, you will vote for a conservative, even if your interpretation of "conservative" is so childish and limited as to be controlled by the far right-wing hate mongers that don't understand what a "conservative" is and incorrectly, intending to inflict damage, label the Clintons as "liberal", which they are definitely not.
This country, in the sense of responsibility and American values and its tradition of freedom and rights of the people, has already crashed under the directorship (dictatorship?)of those you champion.
(I don't think the implication you spit out, that McCain is not a "conservative" is even slightly viable. The trouble you have is that you fail to understand what a conservative is and that disagreement with the voices of far right-wing evangelical extremist radio talk show mentality neither constitutes a failure to be patriotic or a failure to be Conservative. McCain is and always has been what a true conservative should be and he should be respected for that. A true conservative is NOT a puppet of the radical extremes.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:McCain is and always has been what a true conservative should be and he should be respected for that.
If you like McCain, he couldn't be anything other than a liberal.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "i don't think McCain can win unless he runs against Hillary..."
lmao...did you hear Coulter say if McCain wins, she'll not only vote for Hillary but also work in the campaign? They're scrambling like rats...
Glass?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "i don't think McCain can win unless he runs against Hillary..."
lmao...did you hear Coulter say if McCain wins, she'll not only vote for Hillary but also work in the campaign? They're scrambling like rats...
Glass?
yes i saw her say that. if Anne really is a woman? i'll be surprised. have you checked out her adams apple?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Unless there is a world crisis before the election, the democrats are going to win the Presidency. Millions of Republicans will NOT support the left-leaning John McCain. Why vote for a "republican" that is really a democrat. If the next president is going to destroy the country (they are), I'd just as soon a democrat be leading the way.
After hearing Obama's speech last night, I'm absolutely sure that he will finish the job of bankrupting the United States (George Bush did a very good job of starting this process).
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: it banned bayonnetes on guns.. LOL..
Darn! I'm not taking the bayonette off my handgun!
I know right?
ALSO
What is bad is how are you going to blame weapons for the actions of a human? Seems to be a quick to rush to idea for some. Its like: "Hey! crips and bloods are in a big fight this year...MUST BE WINCHESTERS FAULT!" SUE!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Unless there is a world crisis before the election, the democrats are going to win the Presidency. Millions of Republicans will NOT support the left-leaning John McCain. Why vote for a "republican" that is really a democrat. If the next president is going to destroy the country (they are), I'd just as soon a democrat be leading the way.
After hearing Obama's speech last night, I'm absolutely sure that he will finish the job of bankrupting the United States (George Bush did a very good job of starting this process).
you know what is sad about this statement?
you've already de-coupled yourself from reality. McCain is winning the GOP votes by a huge margin ALREADY so the voters have spoken loudly.
the fact is that the "consrvatives" you speak of are a distinct minority in the US... they occupy about same demographic niche size as the gay population does.
Bush and Rove already HAVE DESTROYED the GOP. it's up to the GOP to figure out how it's going to recover.
whether the US recovers from Bush Rove and Cheney is not really up to the politicians. it is up to the people.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:McCain is winning by a huge margin ALREADY so the voters have spoken loudly.
McCain is only winning by a large margin because Romney and Huckabee split the remaining republican vote. McCain certainly does not have a mandate even from the Republican party, let alone the nation. I would much rather have Billary or Barak than McCain, and I think many conservatives feel the same.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:McCain is winning by a huge margin ALREADY so the voters have spoken loudly.
McCain is only winning by a large margin because Romney and Huckabee split the remaining republican vote. McCain certainly does not have a mandate even from the Republican party, let alone the nation. I would much rather have Billary or Barak than McCain, and I think many conservatives feel the same.
that's BS. Huckabee is a nut, i like him as neighbor, but if you really listen? he's a commie and we don't want him for a president..
Romney changes his colors to match whatever the wallpaper is in the office he wants.
McCain beat them both together add up the votes.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
that's BS.
I don't think so. Did you watch the returns last night. Huckabee won big against McCain in a one to one matchup.
In addition, Tex posted some statistics in another post. That post basically said (I'm not quoting here bdgee) that only 34% of the conservatives voted for McCain.
Posted by bdgee on :
"Did you watch the returns last night. Huckabee won big against McCain in a one to one matchup."
That BS doesn't extrapolate to places that "became republican" only after the civil rights movement began to succeed, i.e., that switched parties in hope to find a "king's-x" from integration.
Clearly, you are confused about what a "conservative" might be.
These votes are pre-convention.....primaries and caucuses....test and experimental votes to PICK a route for the parties to travel, thus, their "demographics" ARE NOT definitive.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:That BS doesn't extrapolate to places that "became republican" only after the civil rights movement began to succeed, i.e., that switched parties in hope to find a "king's-x" from integration.
What in the world are you talking about? I don't recall any question about civil rights or integration. The question was whether McCain is the choice of the (modern day) conservatives and the answer is no. Even Tex's reference showed that.
Posted by bdgee on :
I should have known I couldn't expect you to be able to handle such a terribly difficult thing as a second degree implication.
Accept my sincere apology, please.
(Good thing I didn't open the possibility of considering the effect of voter fraud and racial disenfranchisement too. Hell, that is at least third level.)
Posted by ohio_trader on :
Posted by ohio_trader on :
too much info to post-- but the other clinton, mr's lies are also a part of history
The decades long history of Clinton lies and scandal are well documented. From Charlie Trie to Norman Hsu, from Gennifer Flowers to Monica Lewinsky, to pardons for Marc Rich and Puerto Rican terrorists.
but i will say they are better at lying than bush, they are more honed and skilled at blatant lying, bush lies and his lips quiver
*** we should hookup a high voltaged taser to our president with a lie detector built in***
every lie they speak and ZAP.....
Posted by bdgee on :
I didn't intend to suggest it would be acceptable for you to continue to post slanders and planted rumors from the far right-wing talk show radio waves as if they were credible or even possible. I said present 5 PROVABLE lies she has told. I notice you haven't managed that. Your bias is all you prove with that line of BS and slander.
Posted by ohio_trader on :
can anyone refute all of these.. please attempt to
Including: the savage beating/almost murder of Gennifer Flower’s neighbor (Gary Johnson – 6/26/92), criminal harassment campaigns on Kathleen Willey (1997-98 car vandalism, stole or killed her cat Bullseye, witness tampering), Liz Ward Gracen (who Bill probably raped [1983] while she was Miss America – harassed/threats, 1997), Gennifer Flowers (break-ins, threats, 1992), Sally Perdue (car vandalism, threats, 1992), Bobbie Ann Williams (break-in), Christy Zercher (a flight attendant, groped 1992, break-in, 1994), Patrick Knowlton (extreme harassment campaign Oct. 1995; witness tampering), Suzi Parker (a journalist harassed off Arkansas tainted prison blood scandal 1999, fearing for her life), Connie Hamzy (lying campaign, 1991) and Juanita Broaddrick (raped by Bill 1978, break-in and IRS audit when she went public in 1998). It is not a stretch to say that Hillary, Bill and Buddy Young may have organized the murder of their former contract employee Jerry Parks on 9/26/93 because he knew too much about the Clintons. Hillary and Bill were well on the way to crucifying Monica Lewinsky as an unstable *******, liar and fantasist - – and would have done so if Bill’s semen had not be found on Monica’s blue dress. Hillary’s private eyes were already digging into Monica’s past, when the real story was the Clintons’ criminal track record. Additionally, biographer Roger Morris describes a vicious sexual assault by Bill on a woman (around 1980) on p.238 in his book Parters in Power. Journalist Michael Isikoff details a extremely crude sexual advance by President Bill in 1996 on a lady married to a Democratic VIP on p.162 of his book Uncovering Clinton. Additionally, pervert Bill exposed himself to Paula Jones in May, 1991 and also to Carolyn Moffet in 1979. Other Clinton dysfunctions include Bill’s cocaine addiction as governor, Hillary’s lesbianism and the fact that Chelsea is probably the seed of Webb Hubbell, NOT Bill Clinton. Bill’s only offspring is probably Danny Williams, the product of deadbeat dad Bill’s orgies with (no condoms) drug-addicted street hooker Bobbie Ann Williams and her girlfriends back in 1983-84. Bill paid $200 to Gennifer Flowers so she could have an abortion in Jan., 1978, just 3 months before Bill’s double rape of Juanita Broaddrick on 4-25-78. Bill severely bit Juanita’s lip to disable her during the rapes. Also, wild Bill, brother “Roger the Dodger” and best friend Dan Lasater were partying with high school girls and providing them cocaine when Bill was governor in the early 1980’s. And, of course, there is Hillary’s long and intense affair with Vince Foster who was her emotional husband while Bill was screwing everything in sight. Hillary has a long record of fomenting domestic violence with Bill. The Secret Service, fed up with this insanity, leaked to the press Hillary smashing a lamp during an argument with Bill. Hillary has often thrown objects at victim Bill. Hillary has used criminal tactics such as a secret police and illegal IRS audits to go after both political enemies and Bill’s sex victims and girlfriends. It was probably Clintons’ FBI who put a rotating harassment team of 25 people on Patrick Knowlton, a witness in the Vince Foster investigation, on October 26, 1995, and continuing for a week. What the Clintons did to Patrick Knowlton was Clinton street fascism as well as witness tampering. This was a prelude to the intimidation campaign waged on Kathleen Willey in 1997-98 before her deposition in the Paula Jones case. Paula Jones who Bill exposed himself to, rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, probable rape victim Liz Ward Gracen, and mistress Gennifer Flowers all got audited by Clintons’ IRS in the late 1990’s. Floyd Brown’s offices were burglarized in 1992 and only his Clinton files were stolen. Brown’s private phone conversations were illegally wiretapped by Hillary’s goon Jack Palladino. Another one of Hillary’s thugs, Anthony Pellicano is in jail in LA for the same kind goon tactics he did for the Clintons in 1992. Clinton biographer Emmett Tyrrell also had his offices twice broken into and his NY apartment invaded once. The manuscript of Tyrrell’s book Boy Clinton was stolen when he couriered it to Robert Novak for a blurb. Clintons thugs tried to intimidate 2 of Tyrrell’s researchers in Little Rock. Also, at least one independent counsel in the 1990’s took to carrying a gun after being harassed by Clinton goons in yet another intimidation event.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Ohio Trader,
You can't ask bdgee anything of substance and expect him to reply with anything more than 3rd grade insults. He's said many times that he doesn't have any answers or ideas and therefore can't be expected to give a rational answer to anything.
Posted by ohio_trader on :
i am not defending either bush on here, never have
but the clintons are no better, and probably worse
you can either see the big picture or you can't
you can either put a big puzzle together or you can't
**** the rock band green day( just a dumb rock band,sic...even knows)
American Idiot by Green Day
Don't wanna be an American idiot. Don't want a nation under the new media. And can you hear the sound of hysteria? The subliminal mind**** America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension. All across the alien nation. Everything isn't meant to be okay. Television dreams of tomorrow. We're not the ones who're meant to follow. Well that's enough to argue.
Well maybe I'm the faggot America. I'm not a part of a redneck agenda. Now everybody do the propaganda. And sing along in the age of paranoia.
Welcome to a new kind of tension. All across the alien nation. Everything isn't meant to be okay. Television dreams of tomorrow. We're not the ones who're meant to follow. Well that's enough to argue.
Don't wanna be an American idiot. One nation controlled by the media. Information nation of hysteria. It's going out to idiot America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension. All across the alien nation. Everything isn't meant to be okay. Television dreams of tomorrow. We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
>pure mock of the masses
Posted by bdgee on :
Then stop posting the crap and slander you get off the Limbaugh show and other similar right-wing sources of hate and dishonest propaganda.
It isn't true and, though you certainly have the right to your opinion, the constant posting and reposting of that bunch of insulting and slanderous lies, clearly intended to demean Hillary Clinton and have negative influence on her election hopes, is long passed old.
We know what you think.
ENOUGH! already.
Posted by thinkmoney on :
stop being the idiotic dog yu are bdgee-
it isamusing to watchyou go off on those who ar not the liberal nut you are - too bad you canonly get offthis way - you are the idiot of the left -
and - yu also show what anydecent folk dont eant- yo uactually succeed in painting yourself and the liberal left as lunatics - great job in ya success cause ya instilled a dislike for the left - ya showw how insulting and ugly the liberal left is - in attacking the conservatives consistantly ya show how hateful ya are -lol -
Posted by thinkmoney on :
so keeep insultin cause your true colors come out - insult the conservatives who value family , fight for all the lunatics and the leftie you are- until i saw your posts - i had no opinion of the liberal left- ya proved how idiotic ya are-
Posted by thinkmoney on :
IDIOT Bdgee- lol
the leftie who insults anyone who isnt the leftie he is --
Posted by jordanreed on :
have another drink...
Posted by thinkmoney on :
thanks - he deserves to get back a little of all the ugly he gives --
Posted by ohio_trader on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Then stop posting the crap and slander you get off the Limbaugh show and other similar right-wing sources of hate and dishonest propaganda.
It isn't true and, though you certainly have the right to your opinion, the constant posting and reposting of that bunch of insulting and slanderous lies, clearly intended to demean Hillary Clinton and have negative influence on her election hopes, is long passed old.
We know what you think.
ENOUGH! already.
----------------------------------------------
ok moron, i don't ever listen to limbaugh, i am not a conservative and think you are the biggest jerk on allstocks, as many others would agree
and your intelligence is right up there will a bag of sand
Posted by thinkmoney on :
bdgee's is a scum who always resurts to insults-
bdgee has NP intlligence..is there intelligence in constant insultsand hate?
He was educated, that is true but emotionally abused cause he toally insultsnd abuses -
Bdgee is an example of a man who got educated but no intelligence or awareness and sorry those ya insult didnt ABUSE ya - so get HELP
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Originally posted by bdgee: "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994", was not and is not a "gun ban".
"it was presented as such by the Clintons. and much celebration took place." is false. Neither of the Clintons characterized that act as banning guns and neither proposed to ban guns, then or now.
That act seriously restricts specific fully automatic weapons that have exterior magazines and those that have inboard magazines that hold more than 5 rounds, but even then it is not a strict ban on even those guns.
It was NOT a bill pushed through Congress by or sponsored by either of the Clintons. It is an absurdly impractical and superfluous bill. Maybe the Clintons knew exactly what they were doing in claiming it was effective, as it has quieted the clamor of the anti-gun extreme, who seem, foolishly, to think it accomplishes something toward their dream.
To my knowledge, no one in any federal position that might actually be effective or have influence on the question, has ever proposed a "gun ban". Should some day some such official actually have the foolish gall to so propose, I am certain he would be laughed at, unless there is in the meantime an amendment to the Constitution changing the 2nd Amendment (which is about as likely as casual vacation trips to the dark side of the moon in our lifetime.
budge, i have to say that you have no comprehension of what that bill did.
is specifically by name BANNEDthe manufacture of more than a dozen guns.
it also banned the POSSESION of detachable magazines manufactured after the ban was put in place. it banned the manuf. of guns with the following attributes:
* A folding or telescoping stock * A pistol grip * A flash suppressor * A grenade launcher * A bayonet lug
none of these things matter one way or another when considering the realities of the danger of firearms.
as i said? it was stupid.
the Clintons hand walked the chit thru congress and took credit for it.
Bill Clinton didn't even wait for the ink to dry before he signed it. you should be glad you are not a history buff.
you always seem to want to latch onto simple semantic differences instead of acknowledging that not everybody communicates with the precision of a mathematician. most don't want to even if we CAN because it gets boring and tedious.
lastly. the Clintons did do alot of stuff that you attribute to GOP slander.
slander is only slander if it's a lie.
look it up.
Posted by glassman on :
That act seriously restricts specific fully automatic weapons that have exterior magazines
wrong.
Posted by glassman on :
budgee. here is the law. some of US know this stuff by heart already, but if you want to argu eit? then read it yourself first:
overall: he's hitting the ball pretty well. If I had to bet, right now, he's my bet.
Posted by glassman on :
mine too.
i think he'll make mistakes like the rest, and he won't be able to do most of what he wants or promises, but he represents an opportunity to heal alotof old wounds in this country. and he seems to me to be honest for a politician. -i know that ain't saying much, but it's something...
Posted by bdgee on :
Glass, I know quite well what that act does and did and IT IS NOT A GUN BAN as you claimed it was.
I think the act is absurd, but I know it is not a "gun ban" and I think you know that too, yet keep pushing that malicious propaganda.
Posted by T e x on :
well, of course not. A president really ain't supposed to have a bunch of hands-on power except in emergencies, anyway. It wouldn't kill me to have Bill back--even though he kinda' lucked out on the dot.com deal--cuz I think public dissatisfaction would affect him more than it does Rove/Cheney.
But at this point, sidestepping the Roosevelt-succession dealie is prolly a good move for everybody. I mean, let's face it--if BO gets in too deep? He's not stoopid. He would call whomever...and get the response. Even Bush wasn't able to sell seaport security...
Posted by T e x on :
". . . an opportunity to heal alotof old wounds in this country."
yup, I agree. Historic proportion, there. And even the reddest-necks are sick of the nickel-and-dollaring into daily budgets. So there's some grace-time on "backlash."
Of course, there would be some who would agitate and try to cause trouble, but BO's smart enough not to fall into that trap. I bleeve he would shut that down, post haste.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Glass, I know quite well what that act does and did and IT IS NOT A GUN BAN as you claimed it was.
I think the act is absurd, but I know it is not a "gun ban" and I think you know that too, yet keep pushing that malicious propaganda.
budge, it banned the manuf. of guns. you can say i said what ever you want. the Clinton gun ban banned some guns.. and it banned the possesion of certain gun hardware. that's banning no matter how much you wanna parse words.
as for malicious propaganda? calling it a ban is not propaganda. your defense of the clintons is pitiful. you are in some sort of denial...
Posted by glassman on :
if you listen to this carefully? she even tries to suggest people have been using assualt weapons on civilians recently..
they weren't...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Glass, I know quite well what that act does and did and IT IS NOT A GUN BAN as you claimed it was.
I think the act is absurd, but I know it is not a "gun ban" and I think you know that too, yet keep pushing that malicious propaganda.
budge, it banned the manuf. of guns. you can say i said what ever you want. the Clinton gun ban banned some guns.. and it banned the possesion of certain gun hardware. that's banning no matter how much you wanna parse words.
as for malicious propaganda? calling it a ban is not propaganda. your defense of the clintons is pitiful. you are in some sort of denial...
actually, it should be called sumpin like "attack weapon ban" or "assault gun" ban...
I call you both out, lol...
It *does* restrict stuff we could get before; it doesn't "BAN" what most of us consider household/hunting gear...
And really? As posted perhaps in another thread, what I find PARTICULARLY pertinent: that act ALSO empowered peeps like myself working with at-risk youth.
Jeez...how would I know, until years later...going through this "exercise" ?
That SUX, big time....
Posted by glassman on :
it doesn't "BAN" what most of us consider household/hunting gear..
it did ban personal "protection of household" gear.
an AR-15 is a semi-automtic rifle. technically? it tried to ban the manuf. of them.
in reality? they had to make a few modifications to continue manufacturing them.
the intent of the writers of the bill and the signer of the bill was to score political victory .
of course Hillary won't be going after 2nd ammendment rights anymore, she learned just how much people didn't like that the first time...
i have a student right now who grew up skateboarding and playing b-ball at the local police station as result of that bill...
if you read the bill? you'll notice the gun laws were all very late additions to a bill that took years to write, and were in fact pushed for by the Clintons.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:i have a student right now who grew up skateboarding and playing b-ball at the local police station as result of that bill...
if you read the bill? you'll notice the gun laws were all very late additions to a bill that took years to write, and were in fact pushed for by the Clintons.
Talk to me...explain
You know how I am about at-risk youth.
The bill itself? Doesn't bother me about "late additions" or "years to write"...What's your point?
Posted by bdgee on :
" it banned the manuf. of guns"
FALSE!!!!!!
Moreover, it was not a Clinton bill, as you keep claiming.
You might as well declare the law requiring that new cars have seat belts is a ban on manufacturing cars, because it is exactly the same argument.
Neither is a law that forbids dispensing of paregoric without a prescription a ban on selling or manufacturing pharmaceuticals.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: " it banned the manuf. of guns"
FALSE!!!!!!
i'm beginning to wonder about you budge.
even Bill and Hillary called it their own bill and they even call it a ban.
you seem to be interested in rewriting everybodys hard-drives.
the bill in question was a good bill until they went after the 2nd ammnedment.
it most certainly did infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
as usual you fail to support your claims which is a requirement of a debate so i'll just assume you are rabblerousing and not instersted in discourse.
here is the exact wording of the bill from the LOC ..
you might note that it refers to SEMI-auto no full atuo is mentioned.
i know this law backwards and forwards and have since it was introduced.
i was very involved with shooting sports at the time this law was passed, i even shot with members of the national teams representing the miltiary,
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
those were banned, by name. the ban failed. because it was poorly crafted, but the political intent was not only to ban them, it was to create an atmosphere of actually doing something, and if the people had not spoken up in response to this ban? more intensive bans would have followed. IMO? Bush himself would have added to them if he though it would not be political suicide. everything else he did amounts to political suicide anyway, but most of it was able to be done because people were afraid.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: " it banned the manuf. of guns"
FALSE!!!!!!
i'm beginning to wonder about you budge.
even Bill and Hillary called it their own bill and they even call it a ban.
you seem to be interested in rewriting everybodys hard-drives.
the bill in question was a good bill until they went after the 2nd ammnedment.
it most certainly did infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
as usual you fail to support your claims which is a requirement of a debate so i'll just assume you are rabblerousing and not instersted in discourse.
here is the exact wording of the bill from the LOC ..
you might note that it refers to SEMI-auto no full atuo is mentioned.
i know this law backwards and forwards and have since it was introduced.
i was very involved with shooting sports at the time this law was passed, i even shot with members of the national teams representing the miltiary,
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
those were banned, by name. the ban failed. because it was poorly crafted, but the political intent was not only to ban them, it was to create an atmosphere of actually doing something, and if the people had not spoken up in response to this ban? more intensive bans would have followed. IMO? Bush himself would have added to them if he though it would not be political suicide. everything else he did amounts to political suicide anyway, but most of it was able to be done because people were afraid.
You need to stop eagerly misrepresenting facts!.
Your opinion is one thing and you certainly have a right to them. Also, you have every right to intentionally spread lies, which is exactly what you do with respect to the Clintons and guns whenever you choose. But you need to be careful to distinguish between your opinions and your interpretations and what are the actual facts, which you not only fail to do, but repeatedly, you assign those opinions and interpretations as THE facts they are not.
You have repeatedly cast that bill as the sole proprietorship of the Clintons, neither of whom had ever been in Congress at the time that bill was introduced, evaluated, written and rewritten, voted on, and passed by Congress. The Clintons clearly are not the proprietors of that Act of Congress as your incessant claims say. It was an Act of Congress, and was not a "Clinton anti-gun bill".
Moreover, contrary to what you so eagerly want to have us believe, only a small part of that bill had anything to do with guns and no gun of any kind is "banned" by that bill in that rather small part of the bill which even mentions guns at all.
It is not an "anti-gun bill" any more than the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which declares that bridges, overpasses, and underpasses beneath certain specified dimensions are not allowed, is a federal ban on bridges, underpasses, or overpasses. (Note carefully that that portion of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956which restricts portions of the interstate highway system is only a very small portion o the bill and it would be a gross falsehood to characterize the bill as a "ban on highways.")
Moreover, you have repeatedly and falsely claimed it to be a "gun ban", which it is not and you have claimed it is only a gun bill, which it is not. There really is no way to say it otherwise, you are perpetuating a lie! That bill does restrict severely the manufacture and possession of some very specific guns, but DOES NOT BAN EVEN THOSE GUNS.
Why is it that you choose to believe that your out of bounds irrational hatred of the Clintons grants you license to skew facts and promote lies to alter facts and demean them and their considerations, without challenge?
How does your vicious hatred of the Clinton grant you unquestioned authority to violate the bounds of honor and publish falsehoods in order to pursue another topic which you at least equally and in similar irrationally hold, which is the the claim that anyone that is in a position to do so has ever even suggested canceling the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and taking away your, or my, guns? That claim is ludicrous.
Posted by bdgee on :
By the way, your claim (after cutting and pasting here a list of guns specified in that act), referrfing to that lis, that "those were banned, by name" is not true.
The manufacture of those guns was, after a specified date, disallowed, but the bill goes into very specific detail to declare that any of those guns manufactured before that date are not banned in anyway and even after that date, under certain circumstances, those guns may be owned, held. etc.
Posted by T e x on :
The claim that it is a "Clinton gun ban" and that the Clintons proposed or sponsored the bill is a fiction of the right wing Clinton hate machine. That sort of attack and propaganda is nothing more than a tool in a hateful smear campaign, not a truth. (Set it alongside the demanded false "fact" that Saddam Hussain was the financial backer of the 9/11 attack and the "proof" they gave us that Iraq was full of WMDS at the time of the invasion. You may find thousands and thousands of sites on the net purporting to establish those as fact....they are there, but they are not credible or factual.)
I am not fan of the Clintons (and I don't appreciate being so labeled anymore than I liked being called a communist and unpatriotic and un-American when I pointed out that Saddam did not have the WMD that Bush and crew claimed.), but I am a big fan of eliminating the hate that now pervades and dominates our politic, to the extent that compromise is impossible, thus denying to us the strength and values of a healthy republic.
These insinuations about the Clintons are 99.99% false, promote hate, and distract from appropriate political processes by fomenting fear and, via their constant and repeated promulgation by the right-wing, deny the truth to the public.
That you may find links to internet sources that speak of and publish that "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" is a "Clinton gun ban" is, rather than factual or informative or providing substance, a condition brought falsely to bear in the mind of the right-wing due to the immensity of their hate campaign. They intend you to afraid due to the lie. There is no substance to the lie.
* There is no effort or consideration of the democratic party to "ban guns".
* The Cintoins are not responsible for [i]Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994"
Posted by T e x on :
Seems like news accounts from the era in question would be helpful...
Posted by bdgee on :
News accounts from the era may or may not be helpful.
For months and months after the invasion of Iraq, the prevailing news accounts insisted that the caches of WMDs would be uncovered at any moment.
News accounts from the era were that the Oklahoma City Bombing was carried out and masterminded by foreign infiltrators, principally of left wing credentials and thought.
And news accounts from the era assured us the John Kennedy was shot by Cubans in retaliation for U.S. plots to assassinate Castro.
Posted by T e x on :
Well, we could see what Clinton was saying about it, no?
How about the legislative record?
Posted by Jenna on :
Ron Paul.
Posted by glassman on :
budgee. the CLINTONS themselves claim it as their own, as do their supporters (except you) therefore it is theirs.
end of discussion. you are beating a dead horse.
Posted by bdgee on :
I don't care if you BELIEVE that "the CLINTONS themselves claim it as their own" it is not so!
"as do their supporters (except you)" I have never been a supporter of the Clintons. I am not now.
You are the delusional one, in believing that you May, without correction, publish any brand or amount of lies and slander against the Clintons, based purely on the skewed and illogical hatred you have toward them.
You are spreading vicious lies and slanders, just to smooze your ego and hatred. It is disgusting.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I don't care if you BELIEVE that "the CLINTONS themselves claim it as their own" it is not so!
Quit wasting bandwidth here fudge...If it is NOT SO...then show some proof!
Posted by T e x on :
beedge, Google news search on "clinton gun ban" returns 115 hits:
Go tune in Rush's program so you can live in the world you prefer.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
fudge...
You are a party line democrat POS
If you are going to argue a point...back up your claims with documentation...or shut the eff up!!!
Posted by jordanreed on :
being democratic is good..no?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Is that better JR?
Posted by jordanreed on :
si....good job
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: fudge...
You are a party line democrat POS
If you are going to argue a point...back up your claims with documentation...or shut the eff up!!!
You need to take your own advice and butt out.
Your insinuation into things is not appropriate and not wanted, though, you probably haven't the manners to understand.
You repeatedly post pure bs, adulterated only by publication out of the blue and without basis, via the far right-wing propaganda machine and clearly haven't the where-with-all to know the facts. You are a Party line hack cut and paster of right-wing talking points and nothing else.
Posted by glassman on :
there is no more debate here budge.
when you begin calling your opponent a lier and a slanderer? you've already lost any debate...
Posted by glassman on :
straight from Billary's own website no "propaganda" no "slander",
no lies by me, anyway...
read it and weep budge.
March 2, 2004 Senator Clinton Welcomes Approval of Assault Weapons Ban and Closure of Gun Show Loophole Provisions
Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) issued the following statement upon Senate passage of amendments reauthorizing the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole:
"The vote reauthorizing the assault weapons ban is a vote in support of a public safety initiative that works. According to a report issued by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the assault weapons ban passed ten years ago has resulted in a substantial decline in the use of those weapons in crimes.
Law enforcement officers know this ban has made their work safer which is why so many of them, across the country, lined up to support it. I believe we should put the interests of the men and women who protect us from crime ahead of the interests of the NRA. Assault weapons are designed for one thing – killing people.
Closing the gun show loophole is also a tremendous step forward. That loophole allows people who are otherwise prohibited from buying guns to buy them from unlicensed dealers at gun shows without facing a background check. This includes terrorists and other criminals who are purchasing these guns in order to do violence. Closing the loophole will give meaning and value to our system of requiring background checks for the purchase of guns and will not hinder purchases made by law abiding citizens.
I urge my colleagues in the House to support these provisions and I call on President Bush to ensure they become law."
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Feinstein Amdt. No. 2637 ) Vote Number: 24 Vote Date: March 2, 2004, 11:38 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2637 to S. 1805 Statement of Purpose: To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Vote Counts: YEAs 52 NAYs 47
looks like the facts don't agree with you budge.
Posted by glassman on :
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ...... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." -- U.S. President Bill Clinton, on MTV 3-22-94 In this comment, in addition to declaring the Constitution a "radical document," Bill Clinton is totally ignoring the Fourth Amendment.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." -- William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993.
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step." -- Janet Reno
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." --U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
"The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security." -- Louis Freeh Director of the FBI, 1993
‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.’’ -- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938
Posted by glassman on :
Four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants.
Posted by glassman on :
The first step is to take weapons off the streets and to put more police on them. The Brady Bill, which my husband signed into law in 1995, imposes a 5-day waiting period for gun purchases, time enough for authorities to check out a buyer's record and for the buyer to cool down about any conflict he might have intended the gun to resolve. Since it was enacted, more than 40,000 people with criminal records have been prevented from buying guns. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill people.
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.126 Sep 25, 1996
seems to me that if anybody is "guilty" of lying about the Gun Ban it's well? it's Hillary herself...
as a matter of act? she does that alot... almost as much as Bill does...
i can do this for weeks on end Budge. find the lies.
you don't really want me to keep posting all of them do you? cuz there's literally thousands of their lies in print. i did not have seckshal relations wit doze wimmen ..LOL.
i think Obama is pulling away from her too fast for her to make up enough ground by the convention, but we'll see waht the super-DEAL-egates do..
they'll prolly destroy their own party on the eve of a "gimme" election.... circular firing squad etc....
Posted by glassman on :
banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill people.
like it or not? the constitution was NOT written for sportsmen ...
it was written for the people to be able to kill or maim other people in their own defense...
it says so in so many words...
Militia:
* Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws. * The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
* A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. * A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
* A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
it had nothing to do with the State or the government in it's use...
well regulated meant practiced and efficient....
Posted by T e x on :
"seems to me that if anybody is "guilty" of lying about the Gun Ban it's well? it's Hillary herself..."
What'd she lie about?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
well regulated meant practiced and efficient....
Well I'm good then...I am very well practiced and eeeeextremely efficient with my weapons...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "seems to me that if anybody is "guilty" of lying about the Gun Ban it's well? it's Hillary herself..."
What'd she lie about?
An easier question to answer would be... What HASN'T she lied about?
She will say about anything...if she believes it will secure the most VOTES...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: "seems to me that if anybody is "guilty" of lying about the Gun Ban it's well? it's Hillary herself..."
What'd she lie about?
very simply Tex, according to budge? it isn't even a gun ban, yet she and Bill continue to call it one. that's the first lie. it goes on and on and on... when i get called a liar and a slandereer for repeating their words? i tend to raise the level my assault.
remeber that i began "bashing" the Clintons due to their behaviour after Iowa. a large portion of the Democratic party agreed with my decision that Bill was not good for the party. Hillary herself has obviously told him to tone it down.
Posted by T e x on :
not asking about beedge... are you saying sometime she said it isn't a ban, then later says it is? Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: not asking about beedge... are you saying sometime she said it isn't a ban, then later says it is?
tp my knowledge? neither of the Clintons have ever called it anything other than an assault weapons ban...
which? oddly enough means budge is correct and i agree with him one one point. it was not a ban, and never was.
there is much more tho, it was never about ASSAULT weapons (full auto or select fire "storm troopers" weapons) and these SEMI-AUTO weapons are not ASSAULT weapons.. they are simply semi-automatic weapons that, in most cases, have some "miltary STYLE" features..
these features make them no more or less dangerous than other guns never mentioned in the ban....
Posted by T e x on :
I thought the point was to remove semis that could be easily converted to full, first, and also had "extras" not usually associated with hunting, ie, again "one-step away" from true assault weapons...
Posted by glassman on :
"easily"? converted? none of them are "easy" unless you are a machinist. and then you can make one from any gun...
some are easier than others. but the list of banned guns was not nearly all about conversions...
the ban also did nothing to act upon legally available full auto weapons....
most important? the constitutions said absolutely nothing about hunting and or sportsmen...
in other words? this law showed just as much disrepsect to the constitution as Bush has with his eavesdropping laws and other laws...
here:
read the Supreme courts decision on sawed off shotgus...
the argument FOR the government was that a sawed off has no use to a militia:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use ofa `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees theright to keep and bear such an instrument," wrote McReynolds. By this standard, the Court found that Congress had not violated the Second Amendment by passing the Firearms Act. "Certainly," McReynolds added, "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
McReynolds was also the author of the controversial decision in United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which is the only Supreme Court case that directly involves the Second Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_McReynolds
it's a thin argument, but the govt wants to go both ways in their argument. on one hand? they banned sawed offs because they aren't useful for defense, on the other hand? they wanted to ban military style weapons which BY DEFINTION are used in defense...
by calling them ASSAULT weapons? they make them sound like they are only used to ASSAULT people, but a true assault weapon is a machine gun or a short barreled select fire (full auto) weapon...
simply put? it's just gun grabbing....
banning a gun cuz it has a bayonete lug on it is the epitome of spitting on the constitution cuz a bayonnette is really only as good as a defensive weapon...
Posted by T e x on :
Good points...
on another front--local hospital suddenly shut its doors today, blaming non-paying patients, insurers and the economy in general:
BO crushes Hill in "Potomac Primary."
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
We were at a hospital emergency room on Monday around 4 pm. It was a hospital that also specializes in kids sicknesses. It was packed.
I commented to my wife how busy it was considering the time of day. She stated that a lot of people do not have insurance so they can't go to many of the doctors unless they have the cash. Most hospitals have to take them no matter what.
It really ties up the hospitals and emergency rooms but they have no choice. Sad situation.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: We were at a hospital emergency room on Monday around 4 pm. It was a hospital that also specializes in kids sicknesses. It was packed.
I commented to my wife how busy it was considering the time of day. She stated that a lot of people do not have insurance so they can't go to many of the doctors unless they have the cash. Most hospitals have to take them no matter what.
It really ties up the hospitals and emergency rooms but they have no choice. Sad situation.
Around here, there's designated hospitals. True, no emergency room can turn down an emergency--as far as I know--but then there's interpretations. As in, for example, "we don't expect patient death within one hour."
The problem is, as structured, the system demands payment even if you declare upfront that you're broke, homeless, etc. Well, let's say, the very competent medical staff goes on to provide top care despite your stated inability to repay. Then, later, you're charged, let's say, $112,00.00
on a bill that could've been $15,000 (or less--just trying to keep it real).
And, kids? It happens alla time...
So, no matter what, you gotta dig outta that mess before you can go on to anything major...Sure, you'll have a few months before it shows up on your credit report. But once it does? Well, even apartments do credit checks, now...
In other words, you need to be able to turn that medical emergency around post haste...
Otherwise, if you're marginal...it might be wise to start packing your "street bag."
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I forgot about that part of it.
We know the hospitals bill everyone like they bill the insurance companies. But the insurance companies get them to take a lot less under their contracts.
Real tough for those families to get out of that hole unless they can change their name easily.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I forgot about that part of it.
We know the hospitals bill everyone like they bill the insurance companies. But the insurance companies get them to take a lot less under their contracts.
Real tough for those families to get out of that hole unless they can change their name easily.
Most of these folks are in "insurance limbo," I'm guessing.
To tell the truth? could be you or me...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
It appears by law emergency rooms must see any patient reguardless of ability to pay. I did not know that.
I guess that's why these emergency rooms are such a mess.
Seems like they could figure a better way to take the load off the hospitals and use those emergency rooms for their intended purpose.
They do have a better way just can't seem to get it through congress.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: I forgot about that part of it.
We know the hospitals bill everyone like they bill the insurance companies. But the insurance companies get them to take a lot less under their contracts.
Real tough for those families to get out of that hole unless they can change their name easily.
chicken and egg... In other words, we know hospitals overcharge ($350 for Kleenex, lol--may not be "accurate" but you catch my drift), versus Insurance Companies that deny *everything* ... at least on first-round presenatation.
So... no wonder that hospitals overcharge: They can't get paid by their major insurance providers...
Viscious circle.
It must be stopped...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:It appears by law emergency rooms must see any patient reguardless of ability to pay.
ya, logically, there's no other way.
And I agree. Stabilize the patient: keep 'em alive and healthy and don't spare one drop of magic medicine. Well... maybe a few drops could be spared, once they're stabilizing...
But for Pete's Sake, do *NOT* dogpile the extra bennies as though it's a president or Hugh Hefner...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:The problem is, as structured, the system demands payment even if you declare upfront that you're broke, homeless, etc.
The "system" doesn't demand payment, the hospitals, doctors, nurses, cleaning staff, administrative staff, and everyone else demands payment and they certainly must receive it or they won't be there.
Should a doctor work for free because people don't want to pay for insurance? Should a nurse work free because people are too lazy to work? Should the manufacturer of a cat scan machine sell the machine for free because millions of homeless people choose to be drug addicts? RIDICULOUS.
People need to be responsible for their actions. Health care is NOT a right. It is a product and like any other product, you've got to pay for it.
In my opinion, one of the BIG problems with the "system" is that the government does not require a significant co-pay for people on medicaid. That's why the emergency rooms are filled with medicaid patients who have a cold. It doesn't cost them anything to go to the emergency room, so they go for every little thing. I have very good insurance, but it has a significant co-pay. I think about that co-pay and only go to the hospital when I have a REAL EMERGENCY. When I have a cold, I go to Kroger's and buy cold medicine.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
...Back to the issue of cities not wanting homeless on the sidewalks. In reality, the truth is a little stronger than that. The truth is that many cities don't want the drug addicts, homeless, and other deadbeats anywhere in the city and they are increasingly passing laws to get the deadbeats out.
In Ohio, many cities (including mine) have "nuisance" laws that fine the landlord if the police are called to a rental property frequently. The PURPOSE of these laws is to force landlords to evict the "undesirable" people from the property and therefore the city. Of course, the city won't say that in so many words, but that's the clear purpose for these laws and "off the record" the city council people will tell you so.
I met with our city's nuisance board this week to discuss an apartment building we took over. The building currently contains many druggies, homeless living with the druggies, and other deadbeats. The city had already fined the previous owner of the building repeatedly for having a lot of police calls to this address.
The reality of the situation is that the city is forcing landlords to be the defacto police. Since landlords can't arrest the deadbeats and can't change their behavior, the only thing the landlord can do is evict the tenants. Of course, I would do that anyway. There is no money to be made by housing drug addicts, drug dealers, criminals, and other deadbeats. I'm in business to make money, not house non-paying criminals. My purpose in meeting with the nuisance board was to proactively let them know that I was evicting the problem tenants so that they wouldn't attempt to fine me while I was getting all this done.
Posted by glassman on :
Health care is NOT a right.
if health care is not a right ? then there are no rights.
what you fail to understand is that "universal" health care is in everyones very best interest because it keeps diseases that you can actually catch by breathing the same air at a minimum.
the plague doesn't discriminate, it sure as heck didn't discriminate when it took over a 1/3 of Europe. of course it was transerred by fleas that had fed off of infested rats. got rats in any of your buildings? LOL..
did you know that nobody WON WW1? it was called off early due to a flu pandemic. the flu doesn't discriminate either. and if you want a pandemic? just ignore sick people for a year or two, you'll have one quick.
if you guys would stop providing slums for peopl to live in? they wouldn't live in 'em? LOL...
Bush says he's created plenty of jobs so it must be somebodies fault we have poor people... median household income has dropped under Bush significantly...
Posted by glassman on :
The city had already fined the previous owner of the building repeatedly for having a lot of police calls to this address.
interesting. i wonder why the ACLU isn't defending you guys for being persecuted.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Bush says he's created plenty of jobs so it must be somebodies fault we have poor people...
I'm not sure that we really have any poor people in the United States. Do we have people that are homeless? Yes. Are they homeless because they aren't getting government assistance? No. They are homeless because they CHOOSE to spend their money on drugs and alcohol. In addition, many of these people are mentally ill and should be institutionalized.
I often wonder, if we raised the minimum wage to $20 per hour, would these people still be considered in poverty because they are still the lowest paid people in the country? By almost any standard, our "poor" are NOT in poverty.
quote:if you guys would stop providing slums for peopl to live in? they wouldn't live in 'em? LOL...
I don't provide slums, but I do buy them and convert them to quality housing. Of course, that is probably "mean" because I am taking housing away from criminals, drug addicts, and deadbeats.
quote:The city had already fined the previous owner of the building repeatedly for having a lot of police calls to this address.
interesting. i wonder why the ACLU isn't defending you guys for being persecuted.
Because they are too busy defending all the criminals, druggies, and deadbeats!
Posted by glassman on :
I'm not sure that we really have any poor people in the United States.
LOL... you must be confiscating your tennants smoke and using it yourself...
I don't provide slums, but I do buy them and convert them to quality housing. Of course, that is probably "mean" because I am taking housing away from criminals, drug addicts, and deadbeats.
once again? i ask you point blank why you accept section 8 moneys if it chaps your ass so much..
bottom line? if you are renting to section 8 people then you are involved in the problem up to your neck. you are NOT part of the solution.
i say this as an EX-landlord, an EXreal estate agent (licensed) and an EX repo man (licensed and bonded)...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:I'm not sure that we really have any poor people in the United States.
LOL... you must be confiscating your tennants smoke and using it yourself...
C'mon Glass, you're not going to pull a bdgee on me, are you? You conveniently left out my point. Is someone who is getting government assistance but spending it on crack really poor? Is someone living in Section 8 housing with a big screen tv with cable, plenty of food, and a cellphone really poor? Where would YOU draw the line at "poor"?
quote:once again? i ask you point balnk why you accept section 8 moneys if it chaps your ass so much..
FOR THE MONEY! Accepting Section 8 helps fill up the rentsls. It's that simple - it's all about the money. (I've gotta eat, you know).
quote:bottom line? if you are renting to sectiuon 8 people then you are involved in the problem up to your neck. you are NOT part of the solution.
Tell me what the solution is and I'm on board. My refusing to accept Section 8 would not change anything (except leave a few Section 8 tenants without housing and leave me with a few less dollars). How is that part of the solution?
Posted by glassman on :
find another business.
i did after i realised how bad it was screwing up my Karma to legally steal cars. i loved that work. never a dull momnet.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
You're letting me down Glass?
Here, I'll try again.
Is someone who is getting government assistance but spending it on crack really poor? Is someone living in Section 8 housing with a big screen tv with cable, plenty of food, and a cellphone really poor? Where would YOU draw the line at "poor"?
Posted by glassman on :
apply your skills here:
Habitat for Humanity of Ohio Mission Statement
“To put faith in action by advocating for affordable housing on a statewide basis and partnering with people and organizations to enhance the health and development of Ohio Habitat for Humanity Affiliates.”
Habitat for Humanity of Ohio is an independent, charitable, faith-based housing program dedicated to the elimination of poverty housing by building homes in partnership with families in need. We build simple, decent, and affordable houses and provide interest-free mortgages to families who would otherwise not be able to purchase their own home. The Habitat program is about home ownership and providing a long-term solution designed to break the poverty cycle.
In 2006, Ohio's Habitat affiliates completed 140 new, single-family homeownership housing units valued at more than $16,000,000. To date, Ohio Habitat affiliates have built more than 2,000 new, affordable housing units in the state. Habitat affiliates typically serve households with incomes of 60% or less of the Area Median Income.
God helps those who help others Posted by Propertymanager on :
[quote}...i realised how bad it was screwing up my Karma to legally steal cars. i loved that work. never a dull momnet.[/quote]
It is certainly NOT stealing when you are returning property to the owner after a deadbeat doesn't pay his bill! I don't believe in KARMA!
Posted by glassman on :
Is someone who is getting government assistance but spending it on crack really poor? Is someone living in Section 8 housing with a big screen tv with cable, plenty of food, and a cellphone really poor? Where would YOU draw the line at "poor"?
even a multimillionaire that is addicted to crack is living in abject poverty.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:I don't believe in KARMA!
lol...
There you have it...
quote:. . . it's all about the money.
SHOOT the addicted! Have cocktails with the dealer--he's got plenty of dough...
Posted by glassman on :
i'm always amused about people that want to build jails, but don't believe in karma...
a jail house is Karma smiling at you...
Posted by glassman on :
it's interesting what i find under city nuisance boards in general prop man;
The Raleigh City Code as well as North Carolina state statutes set out the procedures used to control and remove dangers to the public health. Fines are imposed against owners of property who allow these health and safety nuisances to exist on their property. Public nuisances include but are not limited to areas that serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes, rats and other pests; heavy dense growth of grasses or weeds over 8 inches tall; any place of growth of poison sumac, poison ivy, poison oak or other noxious vegetation; and abandoned and nuisance vehicles. Under an ordinance approved by the council last summer, a property owner who abates a nuisance when notified of its existence by the City does not have to the pay a $100 administrative fee unless that owner has had a nuisance code violation within the preceding 24 months. Repeat violators must pay the administrative fee plus a minimum $250 civil penalty assessed by the City.
The City Council's Law and Public Safety Committee recommended the changes to the public nuisance ordinance that the council approved on May 16. The committee also is reviewing Raleigh's probationary rental occupancy permit (PROP) ordinance for possible additional changes that would be considered by the full council. Under the PROP ordinance, a landlord must obtain a probationary rental occupancy permit if he or she has violated unsafe building, minimum housing, zoning or nuisance ordinances at a rental site and has failed to bring the property into compliance by a City-established deadline. Contact: Robert Spruill, 919/807-5180.
no mention of police calls in this code of ordinance... maybe your lawyer should consider fighting these supposed charges.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Glass,
I think this is a link to Cincinnati's nuisance ordinance.
If that link won't work, I'll find another one. There are a bunch of cities that have these ordinances. As I said earlier, it's aimed at forcing the landlord to get rid of "undesireables". Scroll down to section 761, that's the nuisance ordinance where they fine (charge an "excess service fee") to the landlord if the police are called to deal with undesireables. You'll note that the police don't even have to make an arrest (let alone there be a conviction) to identify something as an incident.
Posted by glassman on :
interesting. i see in the topics that they cover alotof stuff like you mentioned:
CMC Chapter 910-7 - Loud noises CMC Chapter 910-21 – Loitering with the intention of committing unlawful drug transaction CMC Chapter 910-23 – Possession of marijuana CMC Chapter 911-27 – Curfew for minors CMC Chapter 1213-7 – Unauthorized possession, sale or discharge ORC 2907.21 - 25 – Prostitution and related offenses ORC 2909.04 – Disrupting public services ORC 2915.04 – Public gaming ORC 2917.11 – Disorderly conduct ORC 2917.32 – Making false alarms ORC Chapter 2925 – Drug Offenses ORC 3743.65 – Unauthorized possession, sale or discharge of fireworks
dang, you all aren't allowed to have any fun there
seriously? that's why i live in the country whenever i can anymore...
it's been a culture shock to go from the Dismal Swamp to Riverside Ca. (just as bad as Cinci) and then to Miss.
it's about quality of life to me.. i'd rather be OK financially then to be rich living in a dumpster.
check out Habitat 4 Humanity. they are a good organisation. maybe a little too "liberal" for your taste (at first), it will reward you in ways you don't expect, but it'll reward you well.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
What's particularly bad about these ordinances, is that the city can force the landlord to get rid of a bunch of questionable tenants even though some of these tenants haven't done anything wrong. Not even one person must be arrested for the property to be declared a nuisance. Since the landlord can be fined for each additional incident, the landlord is essentially forced to evict every tenant that could even potentially become a problem.
The cities call the fine a "fee" so that this is not a criminal case and therefore the landlord does not (and in reality the "undesireable" tenants) get due process. I think the whole thing is unconstitutional, but we won't know until there's a test case.
As you noted, they consider just about anything a nuisance, including disorderly conduct and all that is needed is an accusation (not an arrest or conviction). This is nothing more than an attempt to rid the cities of the undesireable: druggies, homeless, vagrants, etc, and this is the government doing it! The law is set up so that the landlord gets to do the dirty work, since the government and police don't want to do the job.
Where's the outrage? What about it bdgee?
Posted by T e x on :
Outrageous enough for me...some merchants have fought back. Dallas comes to mind, but don't know whether they made any progress. ACLU should be enlisted. Due process is crucial...
Posted by glassman on :
due process is disappearing every where.
they confiscate money and cars from people without it all the time now...
i don't question that it's usually fruit of ill-gotten gains, but they don't have to prove it any more, they make you prove it isn't...
this bill before the House right now will immunize the communications companies from law suits for violating your rights when they agreed to help the government illegally eavesdrop on US.
the way i heard Bush talk about it today? it's even Ex-post facto-- that means it is a retro-active law. of course Bush mispeaks all the time so maybe he's not meaning to say it protects the telecomms that HELPED the government violate our civil rights...
nope, here it is: Senate Authorizes Broad Expansion Of Surveillance Act
By Paul Kane Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 13, 2008; Page A01
The Senate yesterday approved a sweeping measure that would expand the government's clandestine surveillance powers, delivering a key victory to the White House by approving immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that cooperated with intelligence agencies in domestic spying after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
sheesh, thats supposed to be against the constitution too..
the government is going insane IMO, and the Dems and the GOP are BOTH doin' it.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
the government is going insane IMO, and the Dems and the GOP are BOTH doin' it.
That's why I won't participate in the election this year...I refuse to be part of the INSANITY...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
the government is going insane IMO, and the Dems and the GOP are BOTH doin' it.
That's why I won't participate in the election this year...I refuse to be part of the INSANITY...
oh, you BABY... lol
this is our chance to vote against INSANITY...
don't go fetal-position on me, now Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
At least you guy's in Texas have important stuff being voted on. Makes the news even in Ca.
"Texas Ban on Sex Toy Sales Is Overturned" FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- A federal appeals court has overturned a statute outlawing sex toy sales in Texas, one of the last states - all in the South - to retain such a ban....
Posted by T e x on :
ya, originated in Burleson, as I recall...about 20 minutes' south.
kinda like Tuppaware parties
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Tex...
It appears that my choice is going to be limited to:
1. The same - McCain 2. Real change, but actually more of the same - BO 3. A flat out lying, cold hearted, angry, more of the same - You know who
Help me out here...lol
Posted by T e x on :
gotta go with change...
if BO sticks in your craw, at least do a write-in vote for some Green candidate.
that's my 2 cents...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
BO concerns me to no end...WAY too far to the left. I do not like extremists on either side...
Ron Paul is the only one that truly made any sense.
OK, I'm unfetalized now...a write-in for Paul it is...
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: BO concerns me to no end...WAY too far to the left. I do not like extremists on either side...
Ron Paul is the only one that truly made any sense.
OK, I'm unfetalized now...a write-in for Paul it is...
ya, was really sad to see Paul bail...was the only one talking market-sense
Posted by BooDog on :
Found this interesting...
by azrob36_... Member since: 12 Februari 2008 Total points: 117 (Level 1) • Add to My Contacts • Block User Best Answer - Chosen by Asker Yes, Barack Hussein Obama recites the Pledge of Allegiance however, he doesn't place his hand on his heart when he does so and will not stand during the National Anthem.. When he was sworn in as a US Senator from Illinois, he requested that a Quoran be used instead of a Bible. Permission was granted. Please remember that he was taken to Indonesia from Hawaii where he was born when he was 6 years old. His step father was a radical Muslim and enrolled him in a "Whahabi" school in Jakarta. Whahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the present extremist Muslim terrorists. He returned to the U.S. prior to his 18th birthday and later joined the United Church of Christ where he is a member today. • 2 days ago Source(s): William H. Shay, Human Resources Yale University
-------------------
The media would have everyone vote for the dems imo. When the republican party does something the media buries it. just from what I've noticed.
Posted by glassman on :
Obama used a Koran? No, he didn't
By Angie Drobnic Holan Published on Thursday, December 20th, 2007 at 01:23 p.m.
SUMMARY: An anonymous e-mail claims Barack Obama is a Muslim, attended a madrassa as a boy and took the oath of office on a Koran. The Truth-O-Meter says wrong, wrong and wrong.
In December 2007, the Hillary Clinton campaign asked for the resignations of volunteers who forwarded a chain e-mail falsely saying that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim. Those firings are just the latest reverberations from a relentless e-mail that has piled up in in-boxes for at least a year.
boo, my recollection is that a guy from Minnesota used both the Koran and the Bible to be sworn into the US Congress,
i don't have time to look it up right now, but Obama is no the one...
Obama doesn't make me nervous at all. in fact? he may be able to fix the terror problems in the mideast simply by being our president, and not doing much else. it will send a message to the world that we aren't all about reviving the crusades. there's plenty of Muslims that beleive we are(whether we are or not)
i think he'll make some things in this country better, and some things worse. but he represents real change IMO. i would prefer Bloomberg or Ron Paul becuase they are both much more realistic people but obviously i won't get to vote for them.
Posted by BooDog on :
Ob had a pretty good standing in VA - no doubt. Out did billary and macdoodle.
Posted by glassman on :
here we go:
Ellison's Oath On Koran Roils Conservatives by: Abdi Aynte Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 11:36:44 AM
Before he became the nation's first Muslim elected to Congress, Democrat Keith Ellison was called "unfit" for Congress by his Republican opponent. And that was just the beginning.
Ellison is setting yet another precedent in January when he takes the oath of office on the Koran, Islam's holiest book, an event that evoked conservatives to accuse him of deviating his allegiance from the Constitution to Allah.
On Tuesday, conservative radio talk show host and columnist Dennis Prager wrote: "America is interested in only one book, the Bible." Directly addressing Ellison, he added "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
Ellison said that he's not changing his mind about the sacred text he's swearing on.
"The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer," he said in a telephone interview. "And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."
more inside Abdi Aynte :: Ellison's Oath On Koran Roils Conservatives According to Roll Call, the Capitol Hills' newspaper, swearing on a particular sacred text is a symbolic, optional affair for House members who would like a photo-op with the Speaker of the House at the end of the mass swearing-in ceremony, which has no specific religious denomination.
In his scathing article, Prager barely stopped short of calling Ellison a racist, but he said that allowing Ellison to swear on the Koran is akin to allowing a "racist" to choose "the Nazis' Bible for his oath."
And though he suggests that the Bible is the exclusive book, in which Americans should swear on, plenty of elected officials locally and nationally have taken their oath on the Torah.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, who's Jewish, refused to use a Christian Bible in her swearing-in ceremony in 2005. Eventually, she borrowed a Hebrew Bible from a colleague. Others officials, including four U.S presidents have skipped swearing on the Bible all together.
The foray into Ellison's oath on the Koran, led by Prager and a cadre of conservative ****gers, is seen rapacious by Muslims and tendentious by most experts.
"It's a clear double standard in our society," said David Landry, professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. "There's a lot of anti-Muslim bigotry in it."
Rev. Meg Riley, director of Advocacy and Witness Programs at Unitarian Universalist Association, said that "Ellison is swearing on the Koran to uphold the Constitution of this country."
now it is critical to remember that as a true conservative? i would not swear on the Bible either, because, as the constitution CLEARLY states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
and? most importantly? REQUIRING an oath on a Bible is expressly forbidden and UNCONSTUTIONAL
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
so? when all these so-called conservatives start off by telling me how i have to be to be "consrvative"? i laugh...
Posted by cottonjim on :
Followers of Islam, known as Muslims, believe that God (or Allah) revealed his direct
word for mankind to Muhammad and other prophets, including Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Moses, and Jesus. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last of the prophets. Thereby,
his preaching’s for all mankind will last until the day of resurrection (qiyamah). Muslims
maintain that the main written record for the revelation of mankind is the Qur’an, which
they believe to be flawless, un-arguable, and the final revelation of God to humanity.
Muslims believe that other parts of the gospels, though originally divine in their nature,
have been forgotten, misinterpreted, incorrectly edited, or distorted by their followers.
Muslims view the Qur’an as a correction of Jewish and Christian scriptures, and a final
revelation.
The basis of Islamic belief is found in the shahadatan, “There is no god but God;
Muhammad is the messenger of God.” In order to become a Muslim, one needs to recite
and believe in these statements under witness. There is no, half belief in this religion. A
person needs to undergo long periods of self examination before reciting these words and
becoming a Muslim. Backsliding and committing sins against God are often severely
dealt with, sometimes as severely as death.
The Five Pillars of Islam, listed in their order of priority are the profession of faith in
Allah, Prayer, The paying of Alms, Fasting, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. The profession
of faith is reciting of the Shahadah that there is no god besides God. The second pillar is
prayer; there are five daily prayers that need to be recited. The third pillar is the paying of
Alms, or tithing as it is referred to in Christian circles. And lastly the pilgrimage to
Mecca, this is a compulsory, once in a lifetime obligation for all Muslims that are
physically able.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
A little boy goes to his dad and asks, 'What is Politics?'
Dad says, 'Well son, let me try to explain it this way:
I am the head of the family, so call me The President.
Your mother is the administrator of the money, so we call her the Government.
We are here to take care of your needs, so we will call you the People.
The nanny, we will consider her the Working Class.
And your baby brother, we will call him the Future.
Now think about that and see if it makes sense.'
So the little boy! goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said.
Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him.
He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper.
So the little boy goes to his parent's room and finds his mother asleep.
Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny.
He gives up and goes back to bed.
The next morning, the little boy says to his father, 'Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now.'
The father says, 'Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about.'
The little boy replies, 'The President is screwing the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep. The People are being ignored and the Future is in deep schit.
Posted by T e x on :
Obama may not off pleged on the Koran but he did attend a MAdressa...
NO - he will be terrible for this country - he will e nominatedbut again Dems scrwed caus mccainwill win-
what has obama accomplished?
nothing - and - islam is against they ---
I learnd that in college and will remember the hate they - the muslims had for us westerners- took a islam class in college- alot of class were screaming anti west stuff and these was 20 yrs ago --
if anyone thinks moderate muslims will be pro western - ya are in dream world - islam is we against tem- all infedils -
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by thinkmoney: Obama may not off pleged on the Koran but he did attend a MAdressa...
NO - he will be terrible for this country - he will e nominatedbut again Dems scrwed caus mccainwill win-
what has obama accomplished?
nothing - and - islam is against they ---
I learnd that in college and will remember the hate they - the muslims had for us westerners- took a islam class in college- alot of class were screaming anti west stuff and these was 20 yrs ago --
if anyone thinks moderate muslims will be pro western - ya are in dream world - islam is we against tem- all infedils -
Good lord...was the college you attended in the US? I mean english as a second language would explain a good many things from your last post.
Posted by T e x on :
Internet mythology at work: Obamma is Christian and had been seen leading the pledge in the Senate on CNN...
Posted by thinkmoney on :
he is christian only ecause it was politically espediant -
He was raised as a muslim by a muslim dad and an atheist mom - went to a mendrassa in a ,ideast country - at his da went back to kenya- mom married another muslim ---
Posted by glassman on :
LOL...
don't you think it's possible to become Christian by CHOICE?
Posted by thinkmoney on :
but, he became christian by politics-
the dude hardly ever says god bless...
anyways, mccain by defualt is da man
he is a good speaker but that is all -
Posted by T e x on :
Twenty (20) years in the same church? lol, man--are you for real? btw, who *does* say, "God bless"?
The best thing about McCain is he's got the celebricans like Rushie and Annie in a tizzy...
Posted by glassman on :
i never heard McCain say it either.
IMO you have a serious problem with the color of his skin that you won't admit.
Posted by thinkmoney on :
guess glass ya show your true color - I DON TLIKE HIS CHARACTER or the values he has -
he is exteme left - let s all give the victims a dime - thos epoor unfortunate souls - we bettter work for them cause they are incapable thet are victims -
he is to left for me-
Posted by glassman on :
hmmmm...
i'm proud of my true color.
and i never heard him say any of that either...
you're not going to convince me on who to vote for with these kinds of pitiful arguments.
i smell fear.
Posted by thinkmoney on :
and, i dont like hillary - am i a sexist - u r an idiot glass-
i dont like hillary cause i also dont like her character ...
obams is all rhetoric - and i dont support no muslim - wonder what the muslim world will say -\muslims consider anyone a heretic if they wen to a mandressa and no longer ractise - their action is death - look it up if ya dont beleive me- anyone that has attended a mdendressa is muslim untildeath - ot death to them-
Posted by glassman on :
i am totally shocked that any Christian would try to say somebody else isn't Christian because of their parents... it goes against all the teachings.
Posted by T e x on :
and i dont support no muslim
WHAT are you talking about?
Posted by glassman on :
"In Indonesia, I’d spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school." Barrak Obama
i am obviously more aware of Muslim practices than you are, and i am no expert. but i am aware that SOME Muslim countries have the death penalty for people who leave the faith...
they do not expect children to follow this anywhere that i know of tho..
i know many non-Catholics that send their kids to Catholic schoole right here in the US....
Posted by Highwaychild on :
There was also alot of buddhists and hinduism at the school he attended. Maybe he just worshiped cows before he worshiped Jesus. But, 20 years at the same church... He's been a Christian since he's been 25?
Posted by glassman on :
even Fox "News" doesn't spout this crap anymore:
"Fox and Friends" on Monday (January 22, 2007) backtracked on the ridiculous story they aired last week, which claimed that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, attended a radical Islam school while living as a child in Indonesia, but it would be too generous to call what "Fox and Friends" did a "correction." With video.
The story aired Friday was based on an article in "Insight Magazine," published by the conservative Washington Times. Besides insisting that Obama had attended a madrassah, the article also said, based on unnamed sources, that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign was researching Obama's background and spreading the madrassah story.
But Monday morning, "Fox and Friends" distanced themselves from the story. Co-host Brian Kilmeade noted that the Obama campaign "wanted to correct the record" and insisted that Obama had never attended a radical Islam school. Kilmeade added that the Clinton campaign also called and insisted they had no one researching Obama's background.
But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.
He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.
"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."
Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.
"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."
Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. Insight reported that Obama's political opponents believed the school promoted Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam, "and are seeking to prove it."
"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school." Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.
quote:Originally posted by thinkmoney: Obama may not off pleged on the Koran but he did attend a MAdressa...
NO - he will be terrible for this country - he will e nominatedbut again Dems scrwed caus mccainwill win-
what has obama accomplished?
nothing - and - islam is against they ---
I learnd that in college and will remember the hate they - the muslims had for us westerners- took a islam class in college- alot of class were screaming anti west stuff and these was 20 yrs ago --
if anyone thinks moderate muslims will be pro western - ya are in dream world - islam is we against tem- all infedils -
Good lord...was the college you attended in the US? I mean english as a second language would explain a good many things from your last post.
Just to re-iterate....HUH?!?!!?!
Posted by T e x on :
there ya go...much more in depth than those that I posted.
nice post
Posted by thinkmoney on :
anyone can declare they are christian - i do not trust tobama -he can be a chrisitan but i dont support him and i dont care who ya vote fer-
he is rhetoric to me- and his wife is patriotic to - but the left and obama supporters cant see-\ for the FIRST time in my adult life i am proud to be an american- but she can say it and get away with it---lol
wow!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by thinkmoney: anyone can declare they are christian - i do not trust tobama -he can be a chrisitan but i dont support him and i dont care who ya vote fer-
he is rhetoric to me- and his wife is patriotic to - but the left and obama supporters cant see-\ for the FIRST time in my adult life i am proud to be an american- but she can say it and get away with it---lol
wow!
not surprising... it's misquoted:
“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change,” she said. “I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.”
Obama was born in 1964, meaning her adult life began in 1982. Critics quickly seized on the newfound national pride.
what has made YOU REALLY proud of our country since 1982?
i mean REALLY proud...
it's not the same as having pride...
Posted by thinkmoney on :
I have always been proud of this country - been proud as a kid and very proud always as an adult
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by thinkmoney: anyone can declare they are christian - i do not trust tobama -he can be a chrisitan but i dont support him and i dont care who ya vote fer-
he is rhetoric to me- and his wife is patriotic to - but the left and obama supporters cant see-\ for the FIRST time in my adult life i am proud to be an american- but she can say it and get away with it---lol
wow!
another misquote...
look, da 'Net is a great source of information--but if you gobble up every rumor or latch onto every chunk of digibabble, you're gonna wind up taking surveys for a living'...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by thinkmoney: I have always been proud of this country - been proud as a kid and very proud always as an adult
pride of Nation is not the same as being REALLY proud.. it's not that difficult of a question.
i was REALLY proud when we landed on the moon..
of course i wasn't an adult.
i was proud when we landed a remote control vehicle on Mars and sent back pix.. i'd be REALLY proud if we landed a person...
there is an important distinction. and if you wish to try to make it into something it is isn't? you can try.
Posted by bond006 on :
how about throwing saw dust on vomit Posted by thinkmoney on :
i have always been really proud, not for one thing but for all this land stands for -
really isnt difficult to understand -
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by thinkmoney: I have always been proud of this country - been proud as a kid and very proud always as an adult
Well, then...do as JFK said: do sumpin' for your country and do real research and post informed opinion or ask real questions--but please quit adding to yet another Internet hoax.
I could care less--in this sense--who you vote for or don't vote for... but please quit aiding and abetting a very obvious Internet hoax.
Posted by glassman on :
i'm NOT proud when Americans don't bother to VOTE. we have the worst voter turnout in the free world.
i'm even less "proud" when people lie about politicians for political gain... or politicains lie to US for whatever their reasons... (Clinton and Bush) it's always happened, always will, but i have no pride in it at all...
Posted by T e x on :
bugs me when peeps vote for "strategy." For instance, GOP votes some percentage here in critical N. Texas going to Hillary cuz they recognize she's weaker against McCain. Nuthing to do about it, though--otherwise, you'd cut off someone who has a change of mind between now and the real election...
still...bugs me
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'm NOT proud when Americans don't bother to VOTE. we have the worst voter turnout in the free world.
i'm even less "proud" when people lie about politicians for political gain... or politicains lie to US for whatever their reasons... (Clinton and Bush) it's always happened, always will, but i have no pride in it at all...
You are probably NOT going to be very proud of me this year then Glass...although it's not that I won't "bother" to vote...I just can't "bring myself" to vote for someone I don't believe in.
I believe that they are all FOS...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I dont care if Obama went to an African nation and dressed in traditional dress. Hillary is fighting ugly, and she is just making herself look really bad. Its pretty sad actually that she is acting like this.
it shows hillary clinton dressed up in traditional dress, GW in traditional dress, and BILL CLINTON in tradition dress all in other nations. Yet hillary slams obama for wearing traditional dress in another country!
she is SICK! I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt but she is just downright ugly inside and out.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Looks like the "normal" low for billary
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Well there is no question in my mind that the way hillary is acting and the direction she is going she is cleary out of the race. people are sick of hearing the name "clinton" and the way she is going down is pretty nasty. At least go out in grace or on a positive note. She is so power hungry it has given birth to an evil sickness inside her. Hell, Bill was better at carrying himself than she is!
Is it me or does anyone else feel they are being lied to when they watch her give a speech?
Her credentials politically are ones that people would kill for. However....what good are they when you act like she is now?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
CCM...
She has ALWAYS been a nasty, power hungry, cold-hearted, wench...this behavior isn't "new"...
Posted by bond006 on :
Cash I heard you and Billary are dating
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Hey im all about a cougar, but thats just nasty!
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'm NOT proud when Americans don't bother to VOTE. we have the worst voter turnout in the free world.
i'm even less "proud" when people lie about politicians for political gain... or politicains lie to US for whatever their reasons... (Clinton and Bush) it's always happened, always will, but i have no pride in it at all...
You are probably NOT going to be very proud of me this year then Glass...although it's not that I won't "bother" to vote...I just can't "bring myself" to vote for someone I don't believe in.
I believe that they are all FOS...
here's the problem as i see it buck.
we have a runaway govt. the politicians don't respect US citizens anymore. it's plain as day that they beleive they can do whatever they want and get away with it.
they believe they are not accountable.
my only request to EVERYBODY is that you find a way to cast a vote no matter how much yo don't like it.
the reason is simple:
numbers.
the politicians have been looking at voting turnout numbers and deciding they can "risk" doing things that are not in our best interest because they think we aren't paying attention.
even if you vote for Nader knowing your vote won't "count"? it still counts as voter who showed up. they do sit around and wonder WTF you were thinking when you "threw away" your vote....
my goal is not get to people to vote for anybody in particiaular, it is just to get people involved and try to encourage people to make informed decisions instead of voting party lines.
Everyone needs to actually go out and cast the votes that will make the politicians pay attention to voters again...
Posted by bond006 on :
I could not have said it better Glassman. If you don't want a right no matter what it is just stop using it or care about it.
Somebody will take it from you in time.
Why because they will figure you do not care or want it. And they will be right
Posted by Relentless. on :
But Glass, who the hell can we vote for that will send any message that won't be the exact same damned message we've sent every fourth year in the past? These three, now four, are the exact same candidates we've voted for or against every other time.
Posted by glassman on :
i agree the choices are not good.
Turnout among potentially eligible voters in the U.S. in presidential elections is only 50-55%. Turnout in non-presidential years is far lower. By comparison, turnout is 70-75% in Canada and well over 80% in most other democracies. Even many fragile new democracies have turnout levels far higher than ours. Higher voter turnout is an important component towards government truly representing the will of the citizens. http://www.fairvote.org/?page=262
her rants on TV today are degrading. to her..
Posted by Relentless. on :
I think we should all be allowed to nominate and then vote for our dogs for president. Seriously I have a female 15 year old pit/lab mix that beats all four with regard to ethics, dependability, and brains. Can it really be any worse?
Posted by Highwaychild on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: LOL. Hillary is getting desperate.
If I have to listen to that for 4 years, I'd probably blow my brains out!LOL
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'm NOT proud when Americans don't bother to VOTE. we have the worst voter turnout in the free world.
i'm even less "proud" when people lie about politicians for political gain... or politicains lie to US for whatever their reasons... (Clinton and Bush) it's always happened, always will, but i have no pride in it at all...
You are probably NOT going to be very proud of me this year then Glass...although it's not that I won't "bother" to vote...I just can't "bring myself" to vote for someone I don't believe in.
I believe that they are all FOS...
here's the problem as i see it buck.
we have a runaway govt. the politicians don't respect US citizens anymore. it's plain as day that they beleive they can do whatever they want and get away with it.
they believe they are not accountable.
my only request to EVERYBODY is that you find a way to cast a vote no matter how much yo don't like it.
the reason is simple:
numbers.
the politicians have been looking at voting turnout numbers and deciding they can "risk" doing things that are not in our best interest because they think we aren't paying attention.
even if you vote for Nader knowing your vote won't "count"? it still counts as voter who showed up. they do sit around and wonder WTF you were thinking when you "threw away" your vote....
my goal is not get to people to vote for anybody in particiaular, it is just to get people involved and try to encourage people to make informed decisions instead of voting party lines.
Everyone needs to actually go out and cast the votes that will make the politicians pay attention to voters again...
Glass...while I agree that OUR govt. is pompous and out of touch with the very citizens to whom they are "supposed" to represent... I lay far more blame on the "ignorant masses" that continue to believe in, and continue to elect, the same pompous politicians that continue to screw them over...
And the old "I voted for the lesser of 2 evils" crap has got to stop. That makes absolutely no sense at all...because you are still voting for evil.
Either vote for what you believe in...or you will fall for anything...
The PEOPLE are the true problem here....the politicians are just doing what they have always done...We just continue to let them get away with it!
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Isn't everyone going to be glad when this election is over?
Not so much for who wins or loses but just because of endless amount of discrediting one another.
But then again maybe it's what the American public wants, but i do not see how it helps anyones image in a long run including America's.
Is this the best we got?
If we only knew who was telling the truth half the time.
No one tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth, i guess that could be a real killer for any candidate.
How about a lie detector test so we can get a President that has the highest percentage of truths prior to entering office.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Speaking of politics where has Bdgee been?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
For the first time ever, I will be voting the democrat (socialist) ticket in the upcoming primary. I am so fed up with the "republican" candidate being a liberal that I can no longer vote for a republican. My hope in voting for Billary is that socialists will not take too long to completely destroy the country (there's not far to go) and then we can start fresh with a true conservative.
If the republicans can't get a conservative like me to vote for them, they have absolutely NO CHANCE in November. I'm predicting a socialist landslide!
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
WHAT???
Dang PM...there is hope for you yet!
So you will vote Billary on Tuesday. What if Obama ends up with the nomination? Will you vote for him in November?
Posted by bond006 on :
How in the world could anybody view the Democratic party of America as being socialist as socialism can be defined by the modern world.
The government does not own any of our major industry like some other countries.
As Marx said socialism is nothing more than government ownership of industry,class differences,and the incentive of people to operate a small business.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: For the first time ever, I will be voting the democrat (socialist) ticket in the upcoming primary. I am so fed up with the "republican" candidate being a liberal that I can no longer vote for a republican. My hope in voting for Billary is that socialists will not take too long to completely destroy the country (there's not far to go) and then we can start fresh with a true conservative.
If the republicans can't get a conservative like me to vote for them, they have absolutely NO CHANCE in November. I'm predicting a socialist landslide!
is this why? LOL...
McCain disowns radio host's anti-Obama rant
1 day ago
CLEVELAND, Ohio, (AFP) — Republican White House contender John McCain Tuesday condemned remarks at a campaign rally by a right-wing radio host disparaging McCain's potential Democratic rival Barack Obama.
Warming up the McCain supporters in Cincinnati, Ohio, Bill Cunningham repeatedly used Obama's middle name, Hussein, and described the Illinois senator as a "hack" politician who could fall prey to corruption charges.
McCain said he was not present in the hall during Cunningham's tirade and said he had never met the talk-show host, who also attacked Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton.
"A comment disparaging of Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate. I have never done that in any of my campaigns," the Arizona senator told reporters after the rally.
"And I absolutely repudiate such comments and, again, I will take responsibility," he said, describing the two Democrats as "honorable Americans."
"It will never happen again."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton welcomed McCain's disavowal of Cunningham.
"It is a sign that if there is a McCain-Obama general election, it can be intensely competitive but the candidates will attempt to keep it respectful and focused on issues," he said.
In November, McCain was criticized for chuckling when a voter in South Carolina called Clinton a "*****."
i might add that alot of the so-called conservatives would rather run against Billary than they would against Obama...
IMO it is mostly because Obama knows how to deal with infantile behaviour Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I like how the radio host is now saying
"What?...Hussein is his middle name. If you relate that to terrorism or extremism, that's your thing and has nothing to do with me. I was just saying his middle name."
YA RIGHT...
Besides, the name Hussein is renown through Saddam who didn't like America but he was neither a terrorist nor an extremist.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: then we can start fresh with a true conservative.
And who might this true conservative be?
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:How in the world could anybody view the Democratic party of America as being socialist as socialism can be defined by the modern world.
The government does not own any of our major industry like some other countries.
You're kidding, right? The socialists on the left are for universal health care and government seizure of profits from businesses that they feel are making too much money. BIG GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES is exactly what the democrats (socialists) want. Remember what Billary said: "it takes a village"...
Posted by T e x on :
How foolish...
Health care wouldn't be such a problem IF the fix hadn't gone in with insurance companies. Sure, we all know hospitals that charge a buck for a Kleenex--but look at the insurance companies that ROUTINELY deny everything the first time it's filed, then nickel and dime you to death after that... that is, IF someone, somewhere, sometime decides to resubmit in the "code" language that is required.
What a laugh this is:
quote:BIG GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES is exactly what the democrats (socialists) want.
You mean like no warrants, no due process, "omni-tapping," or do you mean gasoline-price everyday-worker crushing policies... or do you mean Hell-sledding the country from a nice surplus to a Faustian deficit?
and, YES! Village enlightenment is MUCH better than empire-centric... Good Lord--even empire-centric is better than what Bush has been doing...is like the "corporate raiders" era, except he's selling off chunks of the country--not just a company.
(Not downplaying the companies that got F'd, btw)
Posted by Highwaychild on :
They were talking $4 by summer about 6 months ago! I heard his speech while I was working today on XM radio. He said something about "putting money on the table" at one point. I never heard that one, maybe putting food on the table, or bringing money to the table...
Also heard, and I expect we all will pretty soon, about Nancy going after him and some of his Boyz very soon.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:and, YES! Village enlightenment is MUCH better than empire-centric...
Village enlightenment - yes, that sounds like socialism to me!!!
My idea is for the government to get the heck out of our way; get rid of every unnecessary regulation; ban all the slimy, scumbag lawyers; and let the free market work.
quote:And who might this true conservative be?
I don't know, I haven't seen one in a while (except while shaving). Got any ideas? What I do know is that I'm sick and tired of having these mamby pamby liberals in the republican party pretending to be conservatives. That's why I'm voting for Billary Tuesday.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Village enlightenment - yes, that sounds like socialism to me!!!
Well, obviously very few care to join your particular point of view, or whatever it is you think you're championing.
Dig it, bro--you could very well be the catalyst for the Reformed Hippie Party (RHP)
aka "I AM LEGEND"
Posted by rimasco on :
Subject: FW: CLEVER COLLEGE STUDENT Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:04:53 -0400 From: Dan.Buchsbaum*TradeWeb.com
Students were assigned to read 2 books, "Titanic" & "My Life" by Bill Clinton. One smart-ass student turned in the following book report, with the proposition that they were nearly identical stories! His professor gave him an A+ for this report:
Titanic:..... $29.99 Clinton :..... $29.99 Titanic:..... Over 3 hours to read Clinton :..... Over 3 hours to read Titanic:..... The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe. Clinton :..... The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe. Titanic:..... Jack is a starving artist. Clinton :..... Bill is a bull**** artist. Titanic:..... In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar. Clinton :..... Ditto for Bill . Titanic:..... During the ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined. Clinton :..... Ditto for Monica. Titanic:..... Jack teaches Rose to spit. Clinton :..... Let's not go there. Titanic:..... Rose gets to keep her jewelry. Clinton :.....Monica' s forced to return her gifts. Titanic:..... Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life. Clinton :..... Clinton doesn't remember Jack. Titanic:..... Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen. Clinton :..... Monica...ooh, let's not go there, either. Titanic:..... Jack surrenders to an icy death. Clinton :..... Bill goes home to Hilary - basically the same thing.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Can someone tell me 5 GOOD reasons why she should even have a chance? I mean...I personally do not like her and think she is more of a liar than everyone else. She shuns questions about her healthcare plan and how she would punish those who didnt sign up for her mandatory plan.
under her plan would you even get to pick your own doctor? why is she so anti-gun? now im not trying to slam her and say the other side is so swell either. just wondering...what HAS she done good that positively effects me? what could i see today?
whats with digging in her own purse for 5 mil? did she run out of money? she must have to have needed to do that. bill? 100mil bill? i heard that is what he has mad so far by talking to people. thats kinda ridiculous to me...hey...pay me 1,000 dollars a plate so you can sit down and listen to me talk about myself.
i know there are some hillary fans out there so what is your opinion on this.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)