Are you saying that Durbin’s motive was to hand your enemies ammunition for propaganda? Because that’s what Rove is saying. I doubt that was Durbin’s motive. Descriptions of what goes on in these prisons may well hand your enemies ammunition for such propaganda, but I don’t get the impression that was Durbin’s motive. I think Durbin’s motive was to elicit shame and disgust at things taking place in these facilities. If you don’t like the fact the U.S.'s actions make the U.S. look bad, maybe you should lobby for those actions to cease.
He didn’t compare them, as he didn’t actually talk about things Hitler or Pol Pot did. What he said was that the human rights violations taking place in these prisons are more worthy of totalitarian regimes like those of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot than good ole freedom lovin’ good guys like the Yew Ess of Ay.
How this is more offensive than falsely accusing someone of treason - and not just one person, but all people of a particular political stripe because of one person - because they’ve dared to offer criticism escapes me, but suit yourself.
So your argument is that Kerry is not a liberal, he’s just incompetent, is that it? He missed every single vote on social and foreign policy issues??? Are you serious? What the fuck are the people of Massachusetts sending him to DC for, Chinese takeout? At least with that they’d get a good meal.
Disclaimer: I am a Lifetime NRA member. I say this because I’m about to defend Senator Kerry on the gun issue, and a new reader may conclude I harbor some anti-gun bias here. Far from it. I’m a recreational shooter and long-time hunter myself.
Debaser’s cite says:
That comment occured more than ten years before the election - and it was in the context of discussing then-Senator Moynihan’s idea to heavily tax “dum-dum” (mushrooming) bullets. From the context, it’s not at all obvious that Senator Kerry was referring to ALL ammunition, period, but all SUCH ammunition.
Er… yes, sorta. Of the nine votes, six were in favor of the same bill: the assault weapon ban. The three other votes were in 1990, on an omnibus crime bill that included, as one of its many provisions, an attempt to ban specific weapons - sort of a precursor to the assault weapon ban. In any event, Senator Kerry NEVER voted to ban ALL semi-auto firearms - just those misleadingly called “assault weapons”. I agree this was a foolish position for him to take, but it wasn’t nearly as extreme as the quote you offer would have us believe.
Absolutely untrue. The Kennedy amendment would have banned "…a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability , that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.’’ That does NOT cover normal hunting rounds; to fall into the ambit of the amendment, it would have to be “designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability.”
Highly prejudicial language. Kerry voted to require such sales to be conducted with background checks, just as dealer sales are.
Now this is a good example of a knee-jerk reaction.
It’s very common for Senators to miss many Senate votes while on the campaign trail – returning only for votes where their single vote is likely to make a difference.
I think I’m going to faint! Bricker defending John Kerry!. But he’s right ::feels faint again:: … guns were one area where he didn’t really have a problem…
It is very common, yes. Missing votes like this isn’t the mark of a good senator, though, and isn’t what the people of Massachusetts sent Kerry to Washington to do.
I note that Bob Dole, when faced with similar circumstances in 1996, chose to resign his Senate seat, concluding that he couldn’t be an effective senator and a presidential candidate at the same time.
Yes, I am aware of this. I’ve always thought that it stinks to begin with, these man and women were elected by the people of their state to represent them in Washington, not to be campaigning on the rubber chicken circuit. I always personally felt that a Senator who wants to run for President should resign first, but I realize that I would be tilling at windmills to advocate such a thing. Missing all of the votes on social and foreign policy issues, however, seems unusually lax to me, even considering it was an election year. How did Bob Dole do on his votes in '96? Maybe it’s just my perception and it’s not that unusual after all.
As in, a full year before the New Hampshire primary, and nearly two years before the actual election?
And, technically, it’s actually not very common for Senators to miss a lot of votes while on the campaign trail because generally the Senate isn’t in session during the heaviest parts of the campaigning season, for the very reason that at least a third of Senators are going to be too busy on the campaign trail.
I think you’re way off base on this one. Here is the full quote of the exchange:
The interviewer clearly asks him about regular bullets after asking him about the mushrooming bullets. He clearly responds that he thinks you ought to tax all ammunition more, and that you should tax guns.
This isn’t taken out of context at all.
Banning SOME semi-auto firearms is better than banning ALL of them, but only in degree. Banning ANY of them is stupid, and any polician who votes on banning ANY of them deserves to be called out on it. The wording of the NRA doesn’t say ALL or SOME, so maybe it’s slightly misleading.
You’re wrong here as well. Most normal hunting rounds are capable of piercing armour. This is just a fact, due to the high velocity that these rounds are capable of. It would not be hard if this legislation were passed for some savvy lawyer to argue that since the ammo of a common hunting rifle is capable of penetrating armour that it must indeed be “designed as having armour piercing capability”. It’s entirely reasonable to characterize the proposed legislation as a danger to the legality of most common hunting rifles. It was an extremely poorly worded law, and Kerry is anti-gun for having voted for it.
The language might be prejudicial, but it’s true. Many gun shows only last a single day. By requiring background checks that take time, you are effectively banning gun sales at these shows.
It seems that you are willing to bend over backwards to give the bennefit of the doubt to all this poorly worded and ill-conceived proposals on banning guns. I do agree that many of them do not blatantly have the intentions in them that the NRA says they do. For instance, the mushrooming bullets law is not intended to ban all hunting ammo IMO. But, it could be interpreted that way! That makes it completely unnacceptable for any politician who wants my vote to be in favor of it. Gun owners have learned over time that we need to be extra vigilant in protecting our second ammendment rights. Lawmakers have shown over time that they are completely inept at knowing anything about the guns which they are passing laws about. We’ve got good reason to be cautious.
I hate to break it to you, but choosing between libertarian and republican candidates does not make you the proverbial “swing voter”.
Based on your posts here, I’d say you are not a good candidate for “conversion to the Democrats”. Even disregarding the usual NRA kneejerk vote dealbreaker element (I believe fellow NRA member Bricker has refuted your claims re Kerry).
“Independent” is not an ideology. IIRC, Kerry won the majority of the “independent” vote, and the latest polls show “independents” being more closely aligned to the views of Democrats. What can we learn from that, if anything? (that’s a sincere question, btw)
Here’s the real problem with your argument: You claim you cannot bring yourself to vote for a pol who is beholden to “radical, hate mongering” elements (i.e. MoveOn and Dean, Pelosi, et al). But the truth is you have no real reservations about voting for a pol who is beholden to “radical, hate mongering” elements (i.e., Dobsons Focus on Families and Bush, et al), even though you do not agree with those positions.
Maybe you’re not a conservative on all issues. But based on your posts here, you are a liberal basher. I mean, you are predisposed to react negatively to any perceived “liberal” candidates, regardless of their actual positions (or your own!). This “liberal bashing” tendency has nothing to do with conservative views - I know a lot of conservatives who are not kneejerk liberal bashers. It’s not a necessary element element of the ideology. But the current Republican party makes good use of it as a tactic.
I don’t want to assume anything about you personally because I don’t know you. But I’ve seen this same argument presented time and again: “If only the Democrats blah, blah, blah, then I might consider voting for them.”
IMO, it is bullshit. It is a waste of time for a Democratic candidate to actively try to appeal to a voter like you, and in fact, they only come off looking like spineless apologists who “don’t stand for anything” when they do. IMO, this is the big mistake many Democratic pols make. Your perception of Kerry is only one example of this mistake in action (notice I said “actively try” - I hope you understand the distinction).
My point was simply that the National Journal poll was inaccurate and that calling Kerry incompetent for missing votes is inane. Changing the subject to something you think you can win proves nothing and is really annoying. Whether or not missing the votes made him selfish or a bad campaigner is an entirely separate issue on which I have no strong opinion. Show me a missed vote where his presence would have made a difference and you might have a case that he wasn’t fulfilling his duties.
I would also just note that comparisons to previous campaigns are false comparisons: in the last 10 years, the length of what is considered “campaign season” has significantly increased. I point this out not because it necessarily absolves Kerry of his responsibility to show up to votes, but because all three of you surely knew this but conveniently ignored it in your above arguments.
How could you possibly think that that is what I said?
I specifically listed a bunch of important issues where I disagree with the Republicans and agree with the Democrats. I also pointed out that I am an indepentant. That is what makes me a possible swing voter, if only the Democrats would move back towards the center.
I’ll answer sincerely: I don’t know. Maybe democrats are moving over to be independant out of differences they have with the party? I’d actually like a cite that Kerry won the independent vote because I haven’t heard that before.
I have no idea who “Dobsons Focus on Families” is. Bush is many things, but he is certainly not a hate monger like Dean is. Who else do you mean when you say “et al”? Sure, there are some hate filled, venemous elements of the Republican party, but they aren’t running the party like Howard Dean is for the other side! If Ann Coulter was made head of the RNC then you might have a point.
Well, yes, I’m being critical of liberals in this thread. If that’s what you mean by “liberal bashing” then you are correct. BTW, polls show that about 40% of the population is conservative while less than 20% is liberal (cite). So, simply being a liberal at all means that you are subscribing to a philosophy that is in disagreement with most of the country. I’m simply pointing out that out of that 20%, you can see that the farthest left elements of them are the ones holding most of the power in the Democratic party right now. This is a bad thing.
You are wrong. By ignoring the middle and letting themselves be led by the loony elements of the fringe left the Democratic party is headed for disaster.
Even if I concede this point… it was a throwaway line on an interview news show in 1993, ten years before his presidential campaign. It is hardly the stuff from which you can draw serious policy conclusions from.
It may not have been worded well, I agree. But the simple fact remains that the jump you envision is not supported by the plain language of the proposed law. “Capable of” is not the same as “designed to”. No matter how savvy the lawyer in question is, he would have to show that there was a design effort to pierce armor, NOT simply an ability. YOu may well argue that Kerry is anti-gun for supporting even this measure; you may NOT argue that the measure would have endangered ammunition for everyone who owns a .30-30.
I saw you palm that card. Who says background checks take time? In Virginia, I get an authorization back from the state police within minutes of handing in my paperwork, every single time. Where are background checks taking time?
Perhaps so. But “cautious” is not the same as “deceitful”. Kerry’s positions on guns are not “far-left” or “fringe”. He may not be the biggest friend to the Second Amendment, but he is not a nutter on the subject. And that’s how this discussion started: refuting the proposition that Kerry is “fringe” or “far-left”. If you’re now arguing that he’s not bestest buddies 4evah with the gun lobby, I agree.
I’d just like to say that it’s so cute when all the liberal posters pat a conservative on the head whenever he posts something they agree with.
I just can’t bring myself to do it. Not that I have a problem agreeing with liberals from time to time. That’s not it. It’s just boring. There’s a thread right now on Bush pushing intelligent design in schools. I think that’s dumb of him. But, what’s the point of going and posting that? 99% of the SDMB is in agreement with me on that point. Having a pile on with no opposition is boring.
Now, if there were a bunch of fundamentalist posters in here arguing for it, then I’d be there in a second.
Shodan, you did indeed miss my point regarding your right to wax philosophical on the elections. Of course you may do so; but unless you’re secretly Karl Rove, your opinions on why the Republicans won carry no more weight than my opinions on why the Republicans won.
I’m not saying it is a huge issue, or something that we can draw policy conclusions from. It’s one line in a list of many items. It’s part of a trend.
I absolutely may argue that. It would be endangered. Passing a law like that would make it easy for a lawyer to make that argument. That would endanger it.
You make it sound difficult for a lawyer to argue that the ammo was designed to do something that it is indeed capable of doing! If I can shoot a whole in a bullet proof vest with my 30-06, that is fairly solid evidence for me to argue that the gun may have been designed to penetrate armour. I don’t think I’m off in tin foil hat land to conclude this. It seems very reasonable, and that makes this law extremely dangerous.
It was my understanding that they do. Maybe I’m incorrect, but I seriously doubt that all 50 states have the technology capability of having instantaneous background checks available, or that all the vendors of all the gun shows are able to do them. It doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to say that requiring backround checks would stop some (at least some, if not many) of the sales currently occurring at gun shows.
Oh, I’m not saying Kerry’s gun record is a great example of him as a fringe liberal. It’s fairly typical for a democrat. If anything, he’s tried to be pro-gun and just isn’t very good at it. Like a player friend of mine used to say “I’m a virgin, I just really suck at it!”
The whole thing with Kerry and guns simply came up because I mentioned Kerry made efforts to appear less liberal and more conservative and used as an example him duck hunting. I then got challenged on his hunting credentials and challenged again on his gun record. This hijack really has nothing to do with the main point of him being a far left liberal. His voting record overall is a much better illustration of that. You know how the SDMB is, you get asked for a cite you provide it, even if it’s a hijack of the main thread. You’ll get eaten alive if you don’t.
