Well, whaddya know...update and further proof of dishonesty...

[beevul]

from CSGV...

Everyone remember this?

"The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down."

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/cincipost5_7_04.cfm


It turns out THE CSGV INSERTED that quote into the article posted at the above link.

Heres a link to the original article.

http://www.cincypost.com/2004/05/07/weap050704.html

Nowhere in that original article does it say :

"The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down."

If thats not bonafide PROOF of the dishonesty, and deliberate propaganda that freely flows from the anti-gun agenda, I don't know what is...

On edit: I can hardly wait to see some of the responses/excuses for this.

[RoeBear]

1. You know what...

...I thought you were jerking my chain with this:

"The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down."

But son of a bitch it was there. Apalling and indefensible.

[MrSandman]

10. Appalling, perhaps...

But indefensible?

Think of the children man. It's for their good.

[slackmaster]

2. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt

It's possible that the Cincinnati Post was alerted to the misstatement and edited their own article to remove the inaccurate information.

There is no evidence at http://www.cincypost.com/2004/05/07/weap050704.html of such an edit, but it is possible that they were bombarded by LTEs from some of the many firearms enthusiasts among their readers, and pulled the sentence to avoid further embarrassment.

So it may be that the CSGV is just misinformed and journalistically irresponsible, rather than having intentionally inserting a LIE into their quotatation of the Cincinnati Post's copyrighted article.

Is the CSGV evil and arrogant or just ignorant and lazy? I can't be sure.

[beevul]

3. You bring up a good point...

one that I hadn't thought of...

I have to admit, it IS possible, however, it does seem unlikely. I did a google search on key phrases and came up with some cached copies, and none of them, or other excerpts on other sites I found contained the offending phrase, except for links to the CSGV.

[slackmaster]

4. If Cinci Post changed their article they should have published an erratum

Newspapers are kind of lax about that in the Web age where a system admin can go on a live site and edit an HTML document in an emergency.

In my most recent job I had god-like powers and was on more than one occasion called on to change something on the company's subscription Internet site quickly, bypassing the usual quality assurance checks.

[CO Liberal]

22. They May Have

Most papers acknowlege their errors - for instance, my local paper (The Pueblo Chieftain) places any corrections on page 2. Orther papers place their errata notices in other places, such as the first page of the second section (which is where the Colorado Springs Gazette places theirs).

However, no paper I know of that maintains a web site provides links between an original article and any errata announcements pertaining to that article. It's not a matter of dishonesty - it's just standard operating procedure.

[slackmaster]

23. I agree about the newspaper, but one problem remains

Thinking about this discrepancy for another day, I can recall several instances where the PRINT edition of one newspaper carried a completely different article about a subject than appeared in the online edition. Web versions do change frequently, as I mentioned earlier.

At the end of the day, the newspaper RIGHT NOW is not displaying the factual error, i.e.

The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down....

but the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence still is.

See http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/cincipost5_7_04.cfm

For honesty,

Cinci Post 1
CSGV 0

On edit: Just to make it a little more "Fair", I am right now composing a message to the CSGV notifying them of their error, in case nobody else has bothered.

Their Contact Us page is located at http://www.csgv.org/contact.cfm

[CO Liberal]

24. If They Picked Up The Original Story....

...they might not have seen the revision. And if they only saw the on-line version, chances are they didn't see the correction.

I mean, how many DU-ers post links to a story one day, and then go back a few days later to check for corections??

[slackmaster]

25. Here's the raw text I just sent to the CSGV

The article titled _Dems Push for Assault Rifle Ban_, quoted from the May 7 Cincinnati Post, contains an egregious factual error that does not appear in the Cinci Post's online edition.

The paragraph that reads "The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down." is completely wrong. Semiautomatic firearms fire only ONE round each time the trigger is pulled. The shooter must completely release the trigger before the gun can be fired again.

If that sentence ever was in the Cinci Post's article, the newspaper corrected their error.

In the interests of maintaining credibility, I suggest that the CSGV do the same. Pro-gun people and groups are keen to pick up on that kind of factual error, and it makes your group appear dishonest or at best misinformed.

I gave my real name and email address. I will follow up here or in another J/PS thread if anything happens.

In response to CO's last comment about the possibility that CSGV may have missed the Cinci Post's revision, I completely agree but that does not let them off the hook. I wouldn't quote in toto an article from ANY source without being sure of the facts contained therein myself. I find it hard to believe that the CSGV posted that turkey without reading it first, and if they did so they are arguing from a position of profound ignorance.

[MrBenchley]

26. You might note

that both the Post and CSGV still stand by their conclusion....one that's shared by a solid majority of voters.

You might also note that some of the people here intimating that it is impossible that assault weapons could ever be converted to auto-fire were just a few days ago trying absurdly to pretend that any wanker could whip up guns out of a few common household objects.

[JayS]

5. Speaking of strange statements...

...is this a misquote or evidence of some sort of anti-NRA Tourette's Syndrome on the part of our Presidential candidate.


******************
Q: Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?
A: I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA. And when I was fighting to ban assault weapons in 1992 and 1993, Dean was appealing to the NRA for their endorsement, and he got it. I believe it's important for us to have somebody who is going to stand up for gun safety in America and make certain that we make our streets safe, our children safe, and not allow people to get assault weapons in America.

Source: CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003
****************
As Posted At: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm

[Columbia]

6. Not a misquote

I watched him say those words.

[JayS]

8. Paging Mr. Edwards, Paging Mr. Edwards. Report to the...

...Nominations Desk, please.

[FeebMaster]

7. Sort of reminds me of some posters here.

So what kind of gun control would you like passed?

NRA! Ted Nugent! Mary Rosh!

[Paladin]

9. Golly, Would You Look At This

A bunch of RKBA types trashing a Democrat here in J/PS. I mean, what are the odds?

"Anti-NRA Tourette's Syndrome." Trips right off the tongue, doesn't it?

Anybody who believes John Kerry poses more of a threat to gun ownership in this country than four more years of John Ashcroft probably shouldn't be trusted with firearms in the first place......

[MrBenchley]

11. When do the gun nuts ever do anything else?

You'll notice they all got nothing but excuses as to why they can't post anything pro-Democrat over on the gun nut forums...but they can hardly wait to run over here with whatever right wing drivel they dredge out of some cesspool.

[RoeBear]

12. Do you or Paladin ever read...

...the General Discussion: 2004 threads here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=534194&mesg_id=534194

Talking crap about our party members is our sport. Wasn't it Will Smith who said- "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. "

Now would either of you like to comment directly on this without the useless personal attacks? Was this a good answer to the question that was asked? Or is it the kind of response that gets politicians labled as slimy?

Q: Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?
A: I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA. And when I was fighting to ban assault weapons in 1992 and 1993, Dean was appealing to the NRA for their endorsement, and he got it. I believe it's important for us to have somebody who is going to stand up for gun safety in America and make certain that we make our streets safe, our children safe, and not allow people to get assault weapons in America.


Edited to mention my oops: It was Will Rogers not Will Smith that I was quoting. :+

[MrSandman]

13. The answer...

would appeal to VPC, but I don't think PETA would be satisfied with it.

[CO Liberal]

27. Not Will Smith - It Was Will Rogers

:-)

[RoeBear]

33. Please note my edit...

...:+

[JayS]

15. Anti-NRA Tourette's Syndrome may have been a bit...

...strong. How about we just call it a brain fart. :)

[Wickerman]

14. So, just what kind of statement from My candidate would have pleased you?

What kind of litmus test must be passed? Abolish all gun control of any type - will it take that? If so, the gun gang is going to be waiting for a very long time for that perfect candidate.

Or, its possible George W. might get scared enough to make that statement, pander totally to the NRA and bang, what luck, 4 more years of Bush and all the young men who love guns will get to use them to their hearts' content - it won't be on US soil, but never mind. Meanwhile, here, Johnny Ashcroft and Tommy T will be busy keeping us terrorized and taking whatever rights we have left.

No thanks. Just what means more? Total freedom in ownership of Guns or some restriction and the other freedoms intact under a Democratic administration?

[RoeBear]

16. Uhmmm Lunabush...

the question posed was: "Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?"

Why should he have even brought up the NRA or the AWB?

[Wickerman]

17. Gotcha

I know that - but my memory is also tainted by the poll down here that a solid 50% of our folk couldn't vote for the Dem candidate due to his gun stance. It was an asinine question in an era of gotcha politics and he used the op to blow the person off and answer to issues he was concerned about.

Unlike other posters down here I am not surprised that many of our members never post anything pro-Dem - I recall the poll. I just want to know what it will take for folks to vote for Kerry. Its simple - until November that is what this board is about, working for Kerry. I'm curious what it will take for folks to come over to his side.

added off, I sincerely doubt Kerry blew the inteviewer - and stop thinking that.

[DoNotRefill]

18. Lunabush....

how is that different from people who will not vote for Kerry because of his IWR vote? He still gets tons of flack for that.

[Wickerman]

20. Yeah, and those that give him flack are incorrect

His position has been stated much more articulately than I can hope to spell out first thing in the morning. I believe your question is rhetorical as I know you read the larger boards, but the essence is that he was in support of the resolution because he was interested in seeing a coalition built, a consensus reached with the larger international community.

When Bush* didn't succeed in gaining that support and unilaterally went on his merry way into Viet... er, Iraq he violated the letter of the IWR. Much hay will be made of this later in the political season - most folks really aren't paying attention.

I believe folks who hold to a steadfast hatred of Kerry due to his IWR are not being entirely honest and failing to consider the political realities - a no vote would've not been viable - it wasn't conceivable that Bush* would act the way he did.

Personally, I am one of the smaller crowd that didn't even support the invasion of Afghanistan - I certainly didn't support Iraq. However, the IWR should've constrained Bush* from a unilateral assault. That it didn't should be examined further.

[beevul]

19. In all honesty...

"I just want to know what it will take for folks to vote for Kerry. Its simple - until November that is what this board is about, working for Kerry. I'm curious what it will take for folks to come over to his side." - LB



If it were anyone else asking the question, I wouldn't even bother answering, however, I respect you LB, and I know I wont be getting any childish remarks from you about my answer.

I have presently, 3 options:


1. A vote for Kerry.

2. A protest vote for a third party.

3. Abstain from voting.

Heres my problem ( its already getting warm in here):

Mr. Kerry has come out and said things like:

"I believe in the Second Amendment in this country,..."

And also gotten into photo ops whilst hunting and making mention of the second amendment in that context.

Thats all fine and good, but lip service of that nature tends to turn me away from supporting the person engaging in it. And, which second amendment does he support?

Individual rights interpretation?

Individual rights with restrictions on a "balanced" basis interpretation?(balanced against truly reasonable societal concerns)

Collective rights interpretation?

Some folks will surely say "big deal", thats just a small part of the issues. Others will surely call me "selfish" or a "gun nut", and truth be told, I really don't give a ****. As many people have forgotten,including and ESPECIALLY many of our elected officials, MY vote is EARNED.

I don't owe anyone my vote.

The fact of the matter, is that the next president, whoever ends up winning, has a likelyhood of appointing for life - the ultimate and final interpreters of constitutionality in this country.

I will not allow my vote to go toward someone who will collectively interpret the second amendment.

I will also not allow my vote to go toward someone who will weaken a womans right to choose, or strengthen the war on drugs.

I can not do either in good conscience.


That being the case, I don't feel the information that its going to take for Mr. Kerry to earn my vote has been offered thus far.

Mr. Kerry has not gone on record as supporting any interpretation. Thats something I feel is a prerequisite to earning my vote. If Mr. Kerry were to do so, reguardless of which he picked, I would know where he stands. In the case of the 2 individual rights interpretations, IF he were to go on the record, and state his position, free of vagueness or ambiguity, and open himself up to political consequences for breaking that word, I would feel alot better. Thats also something I see as a prerequisite for earning my vote. Have the courage to let EVERYONE know exactly where you stand, and go on the record with it.

The fact that he has not, bothers me, and makes me wonder why. Speculation as to why bothers me even more.


Hes going to have to take a stand, and spell out EXACTLY where he stands, free of vagueness or ambiguity and on the record, regarding the second amendment and self defense as well.

The opposition does it, why can't he?

Thus far, he has not done so, and if the election were held as-is, I would choose to uninvolve myself in the form of a protest vote, or simply abstain, rather than vote against my conscience.

[Wickerman]

21. And I won't do you the dishonor of trying to

respond to that while short on time. More later.

[Wickerman]

38. Here is what I found on Kerry and Gun control, at his site

I am sure none of this will be news as everyone has been telling us what Kerry thinks for months.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/

John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1030.html

Kerry Stands Up to NRA's Divisive Agenda in Letter to Blacklisted Americans


October 30, 2003

For Immediate Release
Washington, DC -

Democratic candidate for President John Kerry wrote a letter to the hundreds of individuals, celebrities, authors, religious organizations, and businesses blacklisted by the NRA, to join him in standing up to the divisive agenda of the gun lobby and standing up for gun safety.

In a letter to the many prominent Americans put on the NRA’s publicly advertised “anti-gun” list, Kerry said, “The NRA’s blacklist is the modern day equivalent of Richard Nixon’s enemies list. This blacklist is precisely the politics of division and distortion that have turned too many people away from participating in the process. We can’t let the NRA scare people into silence. I know what it’s like to be targeted by the NRA, and I refuse to sit idly by during my campaign for the presidency while they push their divisive agenda on America and slander those who stand up for gun safety.”
Kerry also promised to continue his fight for gun safety during his campaign for the presidency: “Why should those on the NRA blacklist courageously risk their livelihoods when Democratic candidates for President aren’t willing to stand up against powerful interests and risk their political capital? I believe that standing up for gun safety is important, and I refuse to be a candidate who retreats from the issue out of political fear or one who tries to have it both ways. I’m a hunter and a gun owner, but I’ve never gone hunting with an AK-47. I’ll stand up to the NRA when they call law enforcement officers ‘jackbooted thugs’ or stand in the way of common sense efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons and children. The Democratic Party will never be the choice of the NRA—and I’m not looking to be the candidate of the NRA.”


The Drug War

In order to deal with the problem of illegal drugs in this country, efforts must be focused on keeping drugs out of the country and our communities, as well as reducing demand for illegal drugs. John Kerry supports aggressively targeting traffickers and dealers, as well as making a commitment to sufficiently fund drug prevention and treatment programs.

Violence Against Women

John Kerry was an original cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, which has provided over $1 billion for battered women's shelters, hotlines, and other crucial resources. The Violence Against Women Act also significantly strengthened federal law by including several new federal crimes and enhanced penalties for acts of domestic violence. John Kerry will take this commitment to the White House and support those working to help crime victims and put attackers behind bars.

[JayS]

40. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

QUOTE:
The NRA’s blacklist is the modern day equivalent of Richard Nixon’s enemies list
QUOTE:

Wow! I belong to some environmental groups and we do our own "blacklist" of businesses that we should stay away from. I guess we are evil also.

QUOTE:
“Why should those on the NRA blacklist courageously risk their livelihoods when Democratic candidates for President aren’t willing to stand up against powerful interests and risk their political capital?"
QUOTE:

The blacklist, which is something like twenty five years old, only gets attention from those that don't like the NRA. It is irrelevant to everyone else.

The War On Drugs message sounds just like what we have had for years and years and years.

[Wickerman]

41. Tell me, Jay, just who is your ideal president?

Actually, the list may be 25 years old, but I believe its been extensivley updated as several of the occupants were not born 25 years ago. I believe its been radically expanded.

Blacklisting of businesses or politicians is one thing - blacklisting individuals is entirely different and I think your environmental groups know that.

[JayS]

42. " who is your ideal president?"

Well, I have spent a lot of time looking into Kerry and I should not have done that.; ignorance is bliss...

I'd have to say someone a lot closer to Edwards is who I would pick.

I am sure that the list is maintained but I don't know who is on it. And yes, we do blacklist some individuals but that is because these individuals have their fingers in a lot of bad pies so there is no choice.

[Wickerman]

44. Evil folks like Bruce Springsteen, Bonnie Raitt, Paul Newman?

[JayS]

45. Paul Newman may be evil.

I got really sick on one of his salad dressings one time.

[FeebMaster]

46. More lies and distortion from the RKBA crowd.

Paul Newman makes great salad dressing.

[Wickerman]

49. and his popcorn rules

hard to say anything bad about Paul, actually

[MrBenchley]

43. Really, Jay?

"Wow! I belong to some environmental groups and we do our own "blacklist" of businesses that we should stay away from."
Does it include the NAACP? The League of Women Voters? Hadassah? The PTA? The US Conference of Mayors? You wouldn't like to link to it so we could see what you're talking about, would you?

"The blacklist, which is something like twenty five years old"
Gee, Vinny Testaverde got on it before he even played college football? What did he do 25 years ago?


"only gets attention from those that don't like the NRA"
So even it's own inbred members don't pay attention. That IS funny.

[Wickerman]

39. Ok, now, about your post

This is an important point - I don't want to mistake it or otherwise misinterpret, so, if you would, clarify:

"I will not allow my vote to go toward someone who will collectively interpret the second amendment."

You have strong beliefs - I don't imagine that I am skilled enough or charming enough to sway you in any manner - however, I discourage you from uninvolving yourself from the process. All votes count and frankly, I am not certain should Bush* become the elected president that you will get another chance to vote. Call that extreme, but know also that we have never had an administration with this much power, this much money, and that has demonstrated such single-mindedness to govern against the will of the people.

[beevul]

50. Your right...

I'm sorry it took so long to get back in it...but I got violently sick late last night from something I ate :puke: , and this dry socket is driving me nuts... :grr:

"This is an important point - I don't want to mistake it or otherwise misinterpret, so, if you would, clarify:"-LB

"I will not allow my vote to go toward someone who will collectively interpret the second amendment."-me

Your right, I should have been clearer.

What I should have said, is that I will NEVER vote for anyone who interprets the second amendment as a collective right. Especially in the presidential capacity.

IMHO, someone who subscribes to that interpretation, and has the power to - along with the likelyhood of - appointing supremes to the bench is a dangerous combination. Even with a gridlocked congress. It has the potential for decades, maybe GENERATIONS of negative impact IMHO.

Just the same as I will NEVER vote for someone who opposes a womans right to choose, and and has the power along with the likelyhood of appointing supremes to the bench (again, ESPECIALLY in presidential capacity). Another dangerous combination, even with a gridlocked congress. Again, potential for decades, maybe GENERATIONS of negative impact IMHO.


Theres alot I am willing to compromise on, but those 2 are not and never will be on my list.

I have had alot of folks from both sides tell me how strange they think it is to take both those positions. I have also met alot of folks from both sides tell me they also take those positions. I don't see those positions as incompatible with each other. Shrug...

Mr.Kerry has come out and said things about the supremes he would be willing to entertain appointing in the context of a womans right to choose, but the second amendment has never been mentioned in that context by him. (at least not that I am aware of)


"You have strong beliefs - I don't imagine that I am skilled enough or charming enough to sway you in any manner - however, I discourage you from uninvolving yourself from the process. All votes count and frankly, I am not certain should Bush* become the elected president that you will get another chance to vote. Call that extreme, but know also that we have never had an administration with this much power, this much money, and that has demonstrated such single-mindedness to govern against the will of the people." -LB


Don't take it personally ,LB, because NOONE is skilled enough or charming enough to sway my beliefs. You are of course correct on all counts, and I wouldn't call what you said extreme at all. It IS a genuine possibility. And even if its not true, there exists the possibility that a persons vote is not certain to ever count again under those circumstances.

Between the "election" of 2000, BBV, Iraq, oil, lies...the status-quo is certainly not what I want for myself or my country.

If I look back at the current administration since its inception, beyond waking up in the morning and successfully tying their shoes(and thats a maybe) theres 1 and only 1 thing I can agree with them on. That would be ashcrofts position on the second amendment.

Another poster mentioned the phrase "ignorance is bliss", and I tend to agree (though I mean it in a different context). I got uninvolved from politics for over a decade. I was alot happier then.

This is not easy for me AT ALL, since I stopped being uninvolved. :(

[Wickerman]

51. Well, if you won't listen to reason

I can at least wish you well with the dry socket and sour stomach :P

[beevul]

52. To be sure...

It's not as though I have made any decision...

There is alot of time before the election. Please understand, it's not a matter of me being against Mr. Kerry. It's just a matter of not having enough information as of yet to suit my conscience.

Its kind of like...so far, the position he's taken...is a non position. He's said too much to try to get votes from both sides of the issue. His agenda just is not clear.


I'm pretty sure that the issue is going to rear its ugly head between now and the election, in the context of campaigning, probably in the form of attacks from the other side. During that time, he'll have ample opportunity to take a clear position and declare his intentions a bit better. Very likely, he'll be forced to take a clear unambiguous position, or at least something closer to one than he has so far.

I just hope Mr. Kerry takes advantage of it, and makes some indicative statements on record and some promises in the national eye - for all our sakes.

I think its a no-brainer that the opposition will, and if he doesn't, I believe we are all going to lose.

Not what I want to see happen, but what I believe will. There are alot of uninformed people out there that NEED to be reassured. Our 18 year old is one of them. She says she's voting for * (no, I'm not kidding). No matter how I try to explain it to her, that the evidence thus far does not support her conclusion, her mind won't be changed. Shes convinced that Dems are going to try banning some and/or all guns. She told me today (after she read my post earlier) that if she had to choose between her right to reproductive choice, and RKBA, the would give up choice - which baffles me. I told her she shouldn't have to give up either.

To quote a line from a Don Henley song...

"the more I know, the less I understand"

That particularly rings true with her now days.( I am alarmed that it may partially be an indicator that I am indeed getting old)

After rereading a couple of your posts farther up, and rereading some of the information available on the net, and at Mr. Kerrys website, I am leaning a bit closer to voting for him, as opposed to my other 2 choices, but I am not there yet.

I will say at this point, I have made up my mind that if I decide to go the route of a protest route, I will write in Dr. Dean. No third party for me. Time will tell I guess.


"I can at least wish you well with the dry socket and sour stomach."

Thanks LB. The tummy is fine now, but the socket... :grr:

I have an appointment tomorrow, and they said they are going to pack it with some sort of medical fiber strips soaked in clove oil, so hopefully, that will be the end of it.

[FrontPorchPhilosophr]

30. What Would It Take....

1. Clear and unambiguous recognition that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one.

2. Clear and unambiguous recognition that criminals and the criminal mind set, not the mere existence of firearms, are responsible for crime.

3. Recognition that the world, post 9/11, is hostile to the best interests, or even the existence of the United States, and that military might - judiciously, but forcefully, exercised - is necessary to national survival - and that the U.N., if not hostile, is at best indifferent to American national interests.

4. Recognition that the Assault Weapons Ban was a useless piece of "feel good" legislation that effected nothing in terms of crime reduction, while illegally constraining citizens rights under the 2nd Amendment.

5. Recognition that nuisance lawsuits against an industry that is FULLY compliant will ALL existing federal regulations, and has never deliberately misled or lied to the American public (unlike big tobacco) are the WRONG way to achieve social change - and should be prohibited.

6. Recognition that the War on Drugs, is not the way to achieve social change either, and is counterproductive except in so far as it reduces the flow of $$$ to Al Quaeda and other hostile non governmental organizations (NGO's).

7. Recognition that individuals have free will, and as such have personal responsibility as well. Environment may be a mitigating factor, it is not an excuse. Rights come with responsibilities.

8. Recognition that the acceptance of God, as in the pledge of allegiance, is NOT the same as ESTABLISHING a religion in violation of the First Amendment.

There would be more, but I am tired of typing.... The presidency is a "bully pulpit" - which Clinton squandered, and Bush seems unable to manage. It would be nice if the next guy could "inspire by example." Does that describe Kerry to YOU?!? :shrug:

[Wickerman]

36. Nope, your shopping list doesn't sound like Kerry

and that makes me quite happy.

You and I disagree on much, but for the sake of brevity, what does this statement mean?

"as ESTABLISHING a religion in violation of the First Amendment."

what religions past or present violate the 1st Am?

[MrBenchley]

48. Sounds more like Roy Moore

doesn't it?

[FrontPorchPhilosophr]

53. To the best of my knowledge....

No religions violate the First Amendment:

"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."

Nor does having the phrase "one nation, under God" in the pledge of allegiance violate the First Amendment....

:eyes:

[Wickerman]

56. No, but I fail to see why we need to institutionalize a McCarthy era

addition which is an exclusionary, bigoted statement. Its an argument often waged in the Gungeon - does the exercising of your rights inhibit the exercises of mine?

edited for clarity

[MrBenchley]

47. Tee hee hee.....

"Recognition that individuals have free will, and as such have personal responsibility as well."
Unless their fingerprints turn up on a spent shell at a crime scene...in which case the fingerprints should never have been collected when the ammo was bought.

[Hrumph]

28. Yes.

"... Abolish all gun control of any type - will it take that?"

Well, it's a start.

"If so, the gun gang is going to be waiting for a very long time for that perfect candidate."

Indeed

"Or, its possible George W. might get scared enough to make that statement, pander totally to the NRA and bang, what luck, 4 more years of Bush..."

Fine. So why doesn't "our guy" beat the Christmas rush and be the first to make that pledge (for what it's worth)?

"Just what means more? Total freedom in ownership of Guns or some restriction and the other freedoms intact under a Democratic administration?"Shouldn't we have both?

[Wickerman]

29. I think the reality is there is a wide division over guns in this country

newsflash, huh? Polls posted here indicate that people overwhelmingly support some level of gun control. More on the left than on the right support levels of gun control and more folks might be lost than gained should Kerry attempt to shop early.

[slackmaster]

31. It's become a non-issue for me this election

I'd vote for Peewee Herman over Bush.

[Wickerman]

32. thank you slack

that is the point I have been trying to make. Way too much at stake here to get all idealistic and to have a shopping list.

Besides, PeeWee rocked - I couldn't care less about his peepshow emissions.

[RoeBear]

34. At least Pee Wee would be...

...a hands on president.

[Wickerman]

35. I should ban you strictly on the basis of that bad joke

LOL

[RoeBear]

37. Thank you, thank you...

..I'll be appearing nightly in the lounge, the DU lounge.

[Oaklander]

54. He'd be good at handling sticky situations, eh?

N/T

[slackmaster]

55. He's surely more in touch with himself than any other candidate

n/t