Students: Too Much Freedom of Press

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

That's like saying the republicans want to revoke the entire bill of rights, but will reluctantly settle for undermining a piecemeal approach by first weakening the right to trial by jury, which they have in several cases. You could believe that, or you could believe that they really think that only in one specific case (fear of terrorism) they should make an exception.

Both parties have stated they would support the assault weapons ban, but also support the right to own a gun. A nonpartisan, non-conspiracy-theory view of that would be that both want to ban some guns and permit others, which is what leaders in both parties have said.

total horseshit. The record is clear. As mayor, Feinstein pushed and passed legislation that banned guns in SF. Proved to be illegal, however, and was killed. Only a liar would say that she is for gun rights, but just interested in banning "assault weapons." (BTW, she doesn't give a shit about the entire bill of rights either) A non partisan would recognize that gun control was one of the issues that cost the Democrats the White House in 2000, and why they've run from the issue as much as possible since then. The party has allowed some of the safe district types to blare out about it some, but that's it.

I haven't figured out why Bush has lied and said he would sign an extension. The GOP certainly does not support such an action - the 1994 passage was a key factor in the GOP taking over Congress. He'll sign that legislation around the same time he'll admit taking down Iraq was a bad move.

total horseshit. The record is clear. As mayor, Feinstein pushed and passed legislation that banned guns in SF. Proved to be illegal, however, and was killed.

Illegal? You mean unConstitutional? Doesn't NYCity have a law against guns withinthe city, or at least handguns? Legality and Constitutionality are different.

Only a liar would say that she is for gun rights, but just interested in banning "assault weapons."

OK, the issue raised is that both parties make moves to revoke gun rights, not that the Dems are for them. I'm not sure if you're trying to sway the issue or just got sidetracked.

(BTW, she doesn't give a shit about the entire bill of rights either)

Ok, what has she done to oppose the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th? Generally, these are protected by the Dems/libs and gone after by the conservs. Conversely, the Dems are more aggressive over the 2nd, but they both legislate and go after the 2nd - examples have been given above.

A non partisan would recognize that gun control was one of the issues that cost the Democrats the White House in 2000, and why they've run from the issue as much as possible since then.

It wasn't the fact that the Governor of Florida was the presidential candidate's brother, Katherine Harris was on the same's campaign and secretary of state of Florida, or the fact that the same US Sup Ct was stcked by Bush1 and Reagan (1 from Noxon too) amidst serious claims of "dirty pool" by the Florida poll workers and the high court ignoring it. No, couldn't be that. A nonpartisan would surely know that. Truth is, aside from Clinton, who really straightened out the economy and general well-being of the US, the Dems have been losing ground since LBJ lost many southern Dems after his signing of civil rights legislation. Also, the religious right and the fiscally conservative right have joined forces to amount to what is a lot of people that the libs/Dems can't overcome.

I haven't figured out why Bush has lied and said he would sign an extension.

What makes you think he lied? His daddy had his card yamked by the NRA for some ofthe same. Wake up and smell the coffee; I did while in college in 97 when I realized I bought into a facade with the Republican Party's smokescreen of liberty. They want to lower wages, revoke rights, especially the 4th, and revoke your right to sue HMO's so they can act irresponsibly, and that's not mentioning shifting social security retirement to private corps so they can gamble with it. What a prime form of Fascism, and corps have proven to be so responsible with our money - Enron, Wordlcom, Lincoln Saving and loan, the list goes on and on...

The GOP certainly does not support such an action - the 1994 passage was a key factor in the GOP taking over Congress.

I think that was 92, wasn't it? There was a lot more than that to do with the Repub takeover in 92. Didn't the Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban have to go through Congress? Well, the Repubs could have objected and Fillibustered if they really objected and tied up the legislation forever. Truth is, they acquiesced and used it for fodder to stack Congress in futer years, but still traded it for seats, right?

He'll sign that legislation around the same time he'll admit taking down Iraq was a bad move.

So you admit he's a liar for stating he would sign future Assault Weapon Bans. Either he's a liar for stating that or that he would sign it and is against unobscured private gun ownership, right? OK, a liar or a rights revoker - fair enough; that's a start. Then he must be lying by not admitting Iraq was a bad move then too, right?

[EricTheRed 0]

There you go again Bill, pretending the world is more than just black and white.

Why confuse people by letting them know about the grey areas? It might actually cause people to have to think about something...

illegible usually

[billvon 3,120]

>total horseshit. The record is clear.

Indeed!

In 1999, 47 out of 55 republican senators voted to increase restrictions on gun show sales.

Again in 1999, 34 of 55 republican senators voted to prevent repair shops and secondhand stores from selling guns without lengthy background checks. This bill was submitted by two republican senators.

There is only one possible explanation in a black and white world - republicans want to take your guns away!

[kelpdiver 2]

geez, there are so many factual and critical errors here, I could spend all day on it.

I'll keep it simple and point out that 1992 is the year the Democrats had a banner year, winning the White House and nearly getting 59 senators (actual 57). 1994 was the rise of Newt and the GOP.

Too much thread drift - if you and bill want to do some fishing, start a new one.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's like saying the republicans want to revoke the entire bill of rights, but will reluctantly settle for undermining a piecemeal approach by first weakening the right to trial by jury, which they have in several cases. You could believe that, or you could believe that they really think that only in one specific case (fear of terrorism) they should make an exception.

Both parties have stated they would support the assault weapons ban, but also support the right to own a gun. A nonpartisan, non-conspiracy-theory view of that would be that both want to ban some guns and permit others, which is what leaders in both parties have said.

total horseshit. The record is clear. As mayor, Feinstein pushed and passed legislation that banned guns in SF. Proved to be illegal, however, and was killed. Only a liar would say that she is for gun rights, but just interested in banning "assault weapons." (BTW, she doesn't give a shit about the entire bill of rights either) A non partisan would recognize that gun control was one of the issues that cost the Democrats the White House in 2000, and why they've run from the issue as much as possible since then. The party has allowed some of the safe district types to blare out about it some, but that's it.

I haven't figured out why Bush has lied and said he would sign an extension. The GOP certainly does not support such an action - the 1994 passage was a key factor in the GOP taking over Congress. He'll sign that legislation around the same time he'll admit taking down Iraq was a bad move.

total horseshit. The record is clear. As mayor, Feinstein pushed and passed legislation that banned guns in SF. Proved to be illegal, however, and was killed.

Illegal? You mean unConstitutional? Doesn't NYCity have a law against guns withinthe city, or at least handguns? Legality and Constitutionality are different.

Only a liar would say that she is for gun rights, but just interested in banning "assault weapons."

OK, the issue raised is that both parties make moves to revoke gun rights, not that the Dems are for them. I'm not sure if you're trying to sway the issue or just got sidetracked.

(BTW, she doesn't give a shit about the entire bill of rights either)

Ok, what has she done to oppose the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th? Generally, these are protected by the Dems/libs and gone after by the conservs. Conversely, the Dems are more aggressive over the 2nd, but they both legislate and go after the 2nd - examples have been given above.

A non partisan would recognize that gun control was one of the issues that cost the Democrats the White House in 2000, and why they've run from the issue as much as possible since then.

It wasn't the fact that the Governor of Florida was the presidential candidate's brother, Katherine Harris was on the same's campaign and secretary of state of Florida, or the fact that the same US Sup Ct was stcked by Bush1 and Reagan (1 from Noxon too) amidst serious claims of "dirty pool" by the Florida poll workers and the high court ignoring it. No, couldn't be that. A nonpartisan would surely know that. Truth is, aside from Clinton, who really straightened out the economy and general well-being of the US, the Dems have been losing ground since LBJ lost many southern Dems after his signing of civil rights legislation. Also, the religious right and the fiscally conservative right have joined forces to amount to what is a lot of people that the libs/Dems can't overcome.

I haven't figured out why Bush has lied and said he would sign an extension.

What makes you think he lied? His daddy had his card yamked by the NRA for some ofthe same. Wake up and smell the coffee; I did while in college in 97 when I realized I bought into a facade with the Republican Party's smokescreen of liberty. They want to lower wages, revoke rights, especially the 4th, and revoke your right to sue HMO's so they can act irresponsibly, and that's not mentioning shifting social security retirement to private corps so they can gamble with it. What a prime form of Fascism, and corps have proven to be so responsible with our money - Enron, Wordlcom, Lincoln Saving and loan, the list goes on and on...

The GOP certainly does not support such an action - the 1994 passage was a key factor in the GOP taking over Congress.

I think that was 92, wasn't it? There was a lot more than that to do with the Repub takeover in 92. Didn't the Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban have to go through Congress? Well, the Repubs could have objected and Fillibustered if they really objected and tied up the legislation forever. Truth is, they acquiesced and used it for fodder to stack Congress in futer years, but still traded it for seats, right?

He'll sign that legislation around the same time he'll admit taking down Iraq was a bad move.

So you admit he's a liar for stating he would sign future Assault Weapon Bans. Either he's a liar for stating that or that he would sign it and is against unobscured private gun ownership, right? OK, a liar or a rights revoker - fair enough; that's a start. Then he must be lying by not admitting Iraq was a bad move then too, right?

Too much thread drift - if you and bill want to do some fishing, start a new one.

Come on, don't run and hide - just answer them all or you will have obviously conceeded