a question Mr. Pelley: "Is it true you're a liar and a fraud?"

[Bill USA]

...or have you always told the truth in your career... playing a journalist on tv?

__ or do you feel that question is just a bit inflammatory?


Scott Pelley, on the CBS Evening News, asked Hillary Clinton: "Have you always told the truth?"

I ask you Mr. Pelley, have you ever asked a question not for it's informative value, but to win approval from the GOP, or your bosses, or to boost ratings?

... what other politicians have you asked: "Have you always told the truth?"... Have you ever asked a Republican "have you ALWAYS TOLD THE TRUTH?"

Let us consider that:

There have been 6 Republican lead committees that investigated the Benghazi embassy attack. Did you ask any of the Republican chairmen of any of these committees if their investigations were to get at the facts of the tragedy or were they partisan exercises to damage Sec. of State Hillary Clinton politically? IOW, were the Republicans telling the truth about the purpose of the 6 Republican lead committees on Benghazi?

Did you ever have an interview with Sen. Mitch McConnell, or Rep. John Boehner where you asked them: "are you telling us the truth about the purpose of the six Republican lead Benghazi Committees?"

When the sixth Republican lead committee investigating Benghazi was impanelled, did you interview and ask either Chairman Gowdy, Mitch McConnell or John Boehner "what is the purpose of a sixth investigation when the previous Republican lead committee investigating Benghazi concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing or nefarious activity on the part of Sec. Clinton, or conspiracy in the White House with Rice over what she said on Sunday "Talk" shows, no "stand down" order by the CIA? So what's the purpose for the sixth Republican lead committee on Benghazi. Is this a search for the truth about Benghazi as you have so often claimed. are you telling the truth?"

Did you ask them: "When you say you have more questions to ask, ARE YOU TELLING US THE TRUTH?????"

___ When Republican Rep. McCarthy let out that the serial Benghazi Show Trial of HRC was just to damage Hillary Clinton politically

........Did you ever ask anybody in the Republican leadership or any of the six Benghazi committee chairmen, if when they previously had vowed the Benghazi investigations were to uncover the truth about Benghazi - were they telling the truth when they made those avowals?

___ When Rep (R) Richard Hanna's statement that the Benghazi show trial "was designed to go after people, an individual, Hillary Clinton"

....... Did you ever ask anybody in the Republican leadership or any of the six Benghazi committee chairmen, if when they previously had vowed the Benghazi investigations were to uncover the truth about Benghazi - were they telling the truth when they made those avowals?

___ When Republican Maj.Bradley Podliska, former staff investigator of one of the Benghazi Committees, who was fired for complaining that the committee was spending too much time on HRC's emails, who stated the Benghazi Committee was a:

"politically motivated investigation targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead of the thorough and objective fact-finding mission"

....... Did you ever ask anybody in the Republican leadership or any of the six Benghazi committee chairmen, if when they previously had vowed the Benghazi investigations were to uncover the truth about Benghazi - were they telling the truth when they made those avowals?

During the time when the Republicans mounted six serial Benghazi investigations committees did you ever suggest to superiors at your station that a report should be done on the serial Benghazi investigations to explore whether there was a poliltical motivation involved in the endless investigations? Was the Republican party out to damage Hillary Clinton politically, if only in the minds of the suggestable and therefor susciptible to McCarthyist tactics (as opposed to those who would wait to see if any evidence of untoward activity by Sec. Clinton was uncovered). In other words interview Republican leadership to find out if they were telling the truth?

Hillary Clinton's use of a personal server to handle her emails has been much reported on by news programs, including CBS Evening News. Did you ever, Mr. Pelley, report on television that an email account on a commercial email provider's server is [font size="+1"]entirely unsecure[/font] because, unlike HRC's arrangement (a Government IT specialist to maintain system security), all email service providers have dozens to hundreds of personnel to maintain security from hackers and malware - AND WHO, IN ORDER TO DO THEIR JOBS MUST BE ABLE TO ACCESS ANY EMAILS IN THEIR SYSTEM. Thus, any Classified Information in a Government email residing on a commercial email service providers server (as the State department reported was the case with Colin Powell's and Condi Rice's personal email accounts, provided by commercial email service providers) is, necessarily, compromised. Or did you not think this was NOT newsworthy?... IF that is your contention, are you telling us the truth NOW?.

Mr. Pelley, as you appear on television presenting yourself as a reliable, legitimate, journalist, reporting only the facts ... are you telling us the truth or are you a fraud, Mr. Pelley?


[hr]

NOTE to readers: the news media has been referred to as "the fourth estate". As such, they hold a public trust to report the truth and to be trustworthy monitors of what government is doing. So, those who present themselves as trusted communicators of what is really going on in the seats of power should be free from bias and above being influenced or bought by those in power.

[tk2kewl]

1. Given how she polls on the issue of trust it's a fair question.

It's a shame how badly Hillary's answer came off.

[Bill USA]

4. it's also a newsworthy question to report on six investigations & whether there is political motives

involved.

The reason her poll numbers are as they are is because of the GOP's relentless McCarthyist campaign against HRC.

It is a fact that no evidence of nefarious activities has been presented.

For those who are persuadable, susceptible to McCarthyist campaigns of guilt by repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered, she is not trustworthy. But for those who want to see evidence of untrustworthiness, their is no basis for saying she is not trustworthy.

To put a technical term to it, saying she is untrustworthy is BULLSHIT... worse, it's Repubican Bullshit. They hate/fear Hillary more than any other Democrat. as McCarthy, Hanna and Podliska have said, the Benghazi Political Trials were to damage HRC politically because they don't want to have to face her in an election.

Anybody who thinks she is untrustworthy is a pathetic boob.

[tk2kewl]

6. Count me as a boob then along with overwhelming majority of DU and the U.S.

I don't trust her one bit.

[Bill USA]

9. your words not mine. You're a good subject for suggestion and group think.

[LiberalElite]

10. Uh - here are your words

"Anybody who thinks she is untrustworthy is a pathetic boob."

[tk2kewl]

12. Whatever you say Bill.

I'd say it's been nice talking with you, but actually you're quite unpleasant.

On edit... Let's go to the video tape:

[Paka]

21. I guess there are a lot of us boobs out there.

I too don't trust her one iota.

[Nitram]

29. tk2kewl, the election will confirm or disprove your contention that..

the "overwhelming majority of the US" is a boob for trusting Clinton.

[tk2kewl]

30. it may... but even if she wins it may simply mean the other guy is less trusted

i was referencing current polling data... we shall see

[MariaThinks]

52. talking to hillary haters is like talking to trump supporters

no focus on issues, they shout charges, don't answer a question with facts, and just hate, hate, hate.

[MariaThinks]

51. you didn't answer the question.

[tk2kewl]

53. sure it's newsworthy

There is a whole lot of newsworthy stuff that doesn't make it onto the teevee.

[Kall]

2. Untrustworthy ratings of 67% are inflammatory.

[Bill USA]

5. see link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016145103#post4

[Kall]

8. She does it to herself

Honest people don't make up war stories about being under Bosnian sniper fire that never happened. Then repeat the lie several times. Then cast aspersions on the comedian travelling with her who says the trip wasn't anything like how she described - until the video comes out. Then say she was sleep-deprived.

You need to stop blaming all her problems on the Republicans. Her problem is that she's tried to take positions every kind of which way depending on when it was politically convenient, which is what people hate about politicians.

[Bill USA]

54. P.T. Barnum is alleged to have said: "There's a sucker born every minute." .. u should read the OP

...although, I'm pretty sure it won't matter. P.T. Barnum was right.


Kevin McCarthy’s silver-plated gift to Hillary Clinton: What his Benghazi blunder reveals about the GOP’s warped priorities
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/kevin_mccarthys_silver_plated_gift_to_hillary_clinton_what_his_benghazi_blunder_reveals_about_the_gops_warped_priorities/

This is an archetypal example of the Kinsley Gaffe: a politician accidentally uttering a truthful statement. Anyone who’s paid even cursory attention to the GOP’s treatment of the Benghazi attacks will likely have already concluded that the party’s interest in the matter is linked to Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions. But it’s still bracing to see one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington come right out and brag about how he and his colleagues set up a taxpayer-funded investigation to damage the political prospects of the opposition party’s leading presidential candidate. It’s downright scandalous, and precisely the sort of political corruption that Republicans argue is at the heart of the Obama administration’s response to Benghazi.

No less remarkable is the fact that McCarthy offered up the politicized Benghazi investigation as an “example” of how he would conduct business as Speaker of the House. He just put it right out there and told Sean Hannity that the McCarthy Congress will be a series of investigations aimed at hurting the Democrats’ chances of electoral success.

He’s also impugned what little credibility Benghazi committee chair Trey Gowdy enjoys, and he’s given critics of the committee all the reason they need to trash the committee as a disreputable and untrustworthy exercise in partisan scapegoating. One Democratic member of the Benghazi committee had already called for the investigation to be shut down, and other Democrats are doing the same in the aftermath of McCarthy’s remarks.

The Benghazi committee has always been wrapped in obvious fictions that provide its members and supporters with the barest minimum of plausible deniability as to its true purpose. We were told that the committee was necessary because dang it, we still just don’t know what happened in Benghazi (just ignore the half-dozen or so official investigations that preceded it). Committee chair Trey Gowdy frequently asserts that he is concerned only with information that is relevant to the committee’s mandate (as he’s expanded the investigation to areas that, by his own admission, are outside the committee’s purview and have little or nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks). Gowdy also insists that he’s running a professional investigation that has no interest in partisan politics and is committed to learning the truth about the events that led to the deaths of four Americans (as it leaks at every given opportunity, feeding often misleading information about Clinton’s emails to reporters).
(more)

Fired Ex-staffer: Benghazi committee pursuing 'partisan investigation' targeting Hillary Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/politics/benghazi-committee-investigation-political-hillary-clinton-brad-podliska-lawsuit/

A former investigator with the House Select Committee on Benghazi is accusing the Republican-led panel of carrying out a politically motivated investigation targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead of the thorough and objective fact-finding mission it was set up to pursue.

Maj. Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve who describes himself as a conservative Republican, told CNN that the committee trained its sights almost exclusively on Clinton after the revelation last March that she used a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. That new focus flipped a broad-based probe of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, into what Podliska described as "a partisan investigation."

Podliska, who was fired after nearly 10 months as an investigator for the Republican majority, is now preparing to file a lawsuit against the select committee next month, alleging that he lost his job in part because he resisted pressure to focus his investigative efforts solely on the State Department and Clinton's role surrounding the Benghazi attack. He also alleges he was fired because he took leave from the committee to fulfill his military service obligations, which would be an unlawful firing.
(more)

Another GOP congressman says Benghazi panel meant to hurt Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee/

Another Republican lawmaker says the House Select Committee on Benghazi is meant to go after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Rep. Richard Hanna, R-New York, said Wednesday on New York's' WIBX 950, "Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth."

"This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton," said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee. "After what Kevin McCarthy said, it's difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that's the way Washington works. But you'd like to expect more from a committee that's spent millions of dollars and tons of time."
(more)

[Bill USA]

55. Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages

[font size="+1"]
Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages[/font]

[font size="3"]The historical significance of this moment can hardly be overstated, and it seems many Republicans, Democrats and members of the media don’t fully understand the magnitude of what is taking place. The awesome power of government—one that allows officials to pore through almost anything they demand and compel anyone to talk or suffer the shame of taking the Fifth Amendment—has been unleashed for purely political purposes. It is impossible to review what the Benghazi committee has done as anything other than taxpayer-funded political research of the opposing party’s leading candidate for president. Comparisons from America’s past are rare. Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy’s red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army. [font color="red"]But the modern McCarthys of the Benghazi committee cannot perform this political theater on their own—they depend on reporters to aid in the attempts to use government for the purpose of destroying others with bogus “scoops” ladled out by members of Congress and their staffs. These journalists will almost certainly join the legions of shamed reporters of the McCarthy era as it becomes increasingly clear they are enablers of an obscene attempt to undermine the electoral process[/font].[/font]
[font size="3"]
The consequences, however, are worse than the manipulation of the electoral process. By using Benghazi for political advantage, the Republicans have communicated to global militants that, through even limited attacks involving relatively few casualties, they can potentially influence the direction of American elections. The Republicans sent that same message after the Boston Marathon bombing, where they condemned Obama for failing to—illegally—send the American perpetrators to Guantánamo, among other things. They slammed the president because federal law enforcement agents read the failed underwear bomber his rights after they arrested him in 2009. Never mind that federal agents did the exact same thing under President George W. Bush when they arrested the failed shoe bomber years earlier. Republicans even lambasted Obama when he spoke about ISIS decapitating journalists, saying the president did not sound angry enough.[/font]
[font size="3"]
But there is an enormous difference between politicizing tragedy and using the levers of government to achieve that goal. Put simply, the transformation of the Benghazi attacks into a political drama now serves as one of the most dangerous precedents in American history, one whose absurdity and irrationality can be seen just by reviewing the past. This single Benghazi committee has been “investigating” the attack for longer than Congress conducted inquiries into Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Iran-Contra, Watergate and intelligence failures in Iraq.[/font]

Worse still, Congress convened 22 hearings about the 9/11 attack that killed almost 3,000 citizens working in the World Trade Center in downtown Manhattan; this week, Congress will be holding its 21st hearing about an attack that killed four people working in Libya, with many more sessions left to come. Do Republicans actually think that terrorists killing four agents of the government who willingly assumed the risks of residing in one of the most dangerous places in the world is more important than terrorists murdering 3,000 unsuspecting civilians who were working at their offices in New York City?
[font size="3"]
In fact, no previous assault on a diplomatic outpost has received this kind of relentless expression of congressional outrage. There weren’t investigations that were anything on this scale about the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 (63 killed), on the U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut in 1984 (24 killed) or on the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, in 2008 (18 killed). Republicans didn’t believe these exact same scenarios that took place under Republican presidents merited similar zeal to dig down to some unexposed, imaginary “truth.” [/font]
(more)

[font size="3"]

This is the story I pointed out in the OP that the Corporate media, including Mr. Pelley, dares not investigate. This is the basis (or part of it) for the accusation of fraudelence I leveled at the media in the OP. As is stated above, the ramifications of the GOP's perfidy are enormous, not just for a secure Democracy but also for our national security.[/font]


[font size="+1"] The Rabid Right constantly shouts the evils of "Big Government", but are only too happy, when they are in a position to, to use the power of the Government, against those who oppose them.[/font]

[Kall]

57. If you think you're going to bury people in a blizzard of words

about partisanship about Benghazi to avoid explaining Hillary Clinton's well-documented and self-inflicted struggles with the truth like made-up stories of being under Bosnian sniper fire (and repeating the lie multiple times) there is indeed a sucker born every minute, but it's not me.

[Bill USA]

59. "blizzard of words"? IT's called relevant information. It's required reading to avoid being a sucker

... and being an informed voter (some would say being informed should be required to be a voter. But, unfortunately, this is NOT a requirement to vote.)


[font size="3"]Republican Super-PACs have spent $5 million attacking Clinton (from the left) boosting Bernie[/font]

America Rising, a Republican political action committee, reacted with glee on social media on Tuesday to a CNN/WMUR poll that showed Mr. Sanders with a large lead over Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire, sharing the news with “BREAKING” qualifiers and links to news stories.

Karl Rove’s American Crossroads recently created an ad parroting Senator Bernie Sanders’s critiques of Mrs. Clinton’s ties to Wall Street, made repeatedly last week in the days before Sunday’s debate.

~~
~~

All of it, of course, is intended to get under Mrs. Clinton’s skin and promote the Democratic candidate they believe would be weaker in a general election. Republican groups and super PACs have spent nearly $5 million targeting Mrs. Clinton so far this cycle. They’ve yet to spend a dollar on advertising attacking Mr. Sanders.
(more)

What would you call saying you can get Single Payer passed when it has been tried (by much more capable people than Bernie) and it got nowhere. I like Bernie Sanders. I agree with most of what he says. But, some of the things he says he can get done would require a miracle whipped up by Jesus Christ to pull off. Also, most importantly, he claims he can get elected. Like the Republican Party is gonna give him a pass and they won't demonize him with scary tales that he will build a Kremlin on the Hudson and take away your wealth (e.g. that pick-up truck on blocks beside the house). IT's bullshit, but McCarthyism works .. Sanders supporters provide the proof of that with all the Bull Shit (courtesy of the GOP) about HRC they believe like kids listening to a summer camp ghost story.

[Kall]

61. It's called not being relevant

to her honesty problem and record of making things up. If you think you're going to distract people with a litany of complaints about Benghazi while Republicans are highlighting her dishonesty in easily understood video clips of her just lying through her teeth multiple times about being under Bosnian sniper fire, and that people won't extrapolate that she'll lie when it's less flagrant too, you're crazy.

How's she going to explain it convincingly? Oh right, she's not. Because she can't.

[noretreatnosurrender]

3. Corporate Media

We were told in a thread the other night that only Bernie supporters go after the corporate media. I guess not.

[Bill USA]

7. you were told that by Bernie supporters. They think they are the only ones who care for the

little guy. Democrats, and HRC, have cared for the little guy for years.

[LiberalElite]

11. .

Democrats cared for the little guy for years - and then Bill Clinton got elected. There went that.

[tk2kewl]

13. Was Hillary thinking of these 5 "little guys" when she supported a coup in their country?

Or when she said they needed to be deported to send a message?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511311927

[Bill USA]

17. 80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped on Journey to The U.S. - HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html

As the number of Central American women and girls crossing into the U.S. continues to spike, so is the staggering amount of sexual violence waged against these migrants who are in search of a better life.

According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report.

This year alone, immigration authorities expect more than 70,000 unaccompanied minors to come through the United States unlawfully, the majority of whom are from Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The number of unaccompanied Central American girls caught at the Southwest border has rapidly outpaced the number boys, according to a July Pew Research study.

Through May, the number of unaccompanied girls younger than 18 caught at the US-Mexico border increased by 77 percent.
(more)

we can quote individual cases as infinitum

But to actually help people you have to get elected.


Republican Operatives Try to Help Bernie Sanders: "We'll win every state if Bernie's their nominee"

[tk2kewl]

18. Therefore once they get here we must deport them?

You're something else Bill.

[Bill USA]

22. Hillary Clinton: Bernie Sanders voted against Brady bill five times- PolitiFact: TRUE

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-voted-against-brady/

1. In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

2. The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In November 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

3. After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five-day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version twice in the same day, but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time).

4. He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.

5. The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

(more)

Sanders first vote against background checks was in 1991.

from 1999 through 2015 519,000 people died by gunshot in the U.S. (on short notice could not find figures for 1991-1998)

[font size="+1"]How many of that half a million people would be alive today if we had had background checks since 1999?

THANKS BERNIE!!!
[/font]

[tk2kewl]

26. Do you really want to get into counting who has more blood on their hands?

Here is sanders voting record on gun legislation that earns him a D- from the NRA

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

Year
Legislation
Sanders’ Vote
Result
1993
Imposes a five-day waiting period and background checks on firearm purchases, part of the Brady Bill
Nay
Passed
1993
Imposes instant background checks instead for firearm purchases, part of an amendment to Brady Bill
Yea
Passed
1993
Imposes an interim five-day waiting period while while waiting to put a instant background check system in place, part of Brady Bill conference report
Nay
Passed
1994
Bans semi-automatic assault weapons
Yea
Passed
1996
Repeals the semi-automatic weapons ban
Nay
Passed
1998
Increases minimum sentencing for gun crimes
Yea
Passed
1999
Creates "instant check registrants" and narrowly defines "gun shows," part of the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act
Nay
Failed
1999
Imposes three day waiting period for guns purchased at gun shows, part of an amendment to the Gun Show Act
Yea
Failed
2002
Allows pilots and flight personnel to carry firearms in the cockpit
Yea
Passed
2003
Prohibits lawsuits against firearm makers for unlawful misuse of a firearm
Yea
Passed
2005
Prohibits lawsuits against firearm makers for unlawful misuse of a firearm
Yea
Passed
2006
Prohibits funds from being used to enforce trigger locks on guns
Nay
Passed
2006
Increases the burden of proof for the AFT to penalize law-breaking gun dealers, as part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reform bill
Yea
Passed
2007
Prohibits foreign aid funding restrictions on U.S. gun ownership, as an amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008
Yea
Passed
2008
Prevents the use of funds for anti-gun programs as an amendment to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
Yea
Passed
2009
Gives the District of Columbia seats in the House of Representatives and repeals the district’s ban on semi-automatic weapons
Yea
Passed
2009
Allows the use of firearms in National Parks
Yea
Passed
2009
Allows concealed and carry across state lines
Nay
Failed
2009
Allows firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains, as an amendment to the congressional budget
Yea
Passed
2009
Prohibits higher insurance premiums for gun owners, as part of an amendment to the Affordable Care Act
Yea
Passed
2013
Prevents the U.S. from entering the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, as an amendment to the congressional budget
Nay
Passed
2013
Allows concealed and carry across state lines in states where the practice is not prohibited
Nay
Failed
2013
Lists all people prohibited buying a firearm in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Yea
Failed
2013
Bans high-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds
Yea
Failed
2013
Bans assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines


The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for would-be purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks.


Shall we move on to deaths as a result of each candidate's war votes now?

[Bill USA]

37. Hillary Clinton: Bernie Sanders voted against Brady bill five times- PolitiFact: TRUE

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-voted-against-brady/

1. In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

2. The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In November 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

3. After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five-day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version twice in the same day, but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time).

4. He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.

5. The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

(more)

Sanders first vote against background checks was in 1991.

from 1999 through 2015 519,000 people died by gunshot in the U.S. (on short notice could not find figures for 1991-1998)

[font size="+1"]How many of that half a million people would be alive today if we had had background checks since 1999?

THANKS BERNIE!!!
[/font]

[tk2kewl]

38. we already had that discussion

I thought we were moving on to war votes

[Bill USA]

43. neither war nor gun votes is relevant to this thread, but when did BS people stick to the point?LOL

[Bill USA]

50. Hillary Clinton’s claim that Bernie Sanders voted for the ‘Charleston loophole’:factchecker - TRUE

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/14/hillary-clintons-claim-that-sanders-voted-for-the-charleston-loophole/

While Sanders did not specifically vote for a three-day period, he did vote for an even shorter one-day window. As a result of the amendment he supported in the House, the seven-day window was erased by the instant background system and the time allowed for extensive background checks that emerged from House-Senate negotiations [font color="red"]was just three days[/font]. Then Sanders ended up voting against requiring any background checks at all.

Clinton earns an elusive Geppetto Checkmark.

[hr]

The Geppetto Checkmark

Statements and claims that contain “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” will be recognized with our prized Geppetto checkmark.

[tk2kewl]

58. You seem quite persistent Bill, so I'll tell you what I think about gun control

Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:16 PM - Edit history (2)

I don't particularly like guns. I think we should have background checks for all gun sales and I think assault weapons should be illegal. I think ammunition should be heavily taxed and magazine sizes need to have legal limits. I would love to live in a society where police do not have reason to be armed.

I have some personal experience with gun violence. A family member was threatened with a gun in one instance and another was murdered Ina separate instance. In both cases the weapon was a shotgun - no one is going to make shotguns illegal.

I grew up in Mineola on LI. A HS friend of my brother's was among the people killed by Colin Ferguson on the LIRR. I've met Caroline McCarthy on a few occasions and I approve of her work on gun control.

I also have two friends who live in Sandy Hook. One a PA at the hospital and another a reporter for a local paper. My son is the same age as the children who were murdered. Even though my connection to that crime is somewhat removed, its effect on people I know and the thought of those children left a scar on my soul.

Sanders' position on gun control, however, is not as troubling as some would like to make it. His objections were due to liability issues, and based on some good logic. Guns are made to kill, so it's not the same thing as someone selling you a medicine that kills or telling you a cigarette isn't going to harm you. I wouldn't expect Stanley to be liable for my smashed thumb if I hit it with a hammer.

As I said, I am aware of Sanders' voting record on guns, and posted it earlier. I trust him to make well informed and thoughtful decisions on the issue. I find it funny that many Clinton supporters decry liberal purity tests for so many other issues but latch onto guns and attempt to hold Sanders to a purity test on the issue when his record is by an large a good one.

Finally, Sanders actually has a voting record on gun control that we can examine - Clinton no so much. All we really have to go on is her campaign record, which as with many other issues is not entirely consistent: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/4/1427635/-Hillary-Clinton-s-2008-position-on-gun-control-wasn-t-what-it-is-now


So, you want to talk about deaths as a result of war now?

[polly7]

16. Or how about this little guy?

In part because of her purposeful and disastrous decisions re Iraq, Libya and Syria, arms sales to SA destroying Yemen as well, there have been many more just like him. Millions forced from their homes, facing unimaginable horror and trying to flee. The majority of the refugees - children. Little guys and little girls, literally.





Or are you restricting her caring to only inside the U.S.?

[Bill USA]

19. sorry you've failed. the Bushter created the chaos in MidEast. your remark is straight

from GOP propaganda factory.

[polly7]

20. No. You need to do even just a little reading. It's all right at your fingertips. nt.

[Bill USA]

23. the chaos in the midEast was caused by Bush's invasion of iraq and deposition of Saddan Hussein

this is understood by all rational people.

[polly7]

25. As I said, try a little reading like most rational people already have.

It hurts at first, but once you harden yourself to the truth and ugliness of it all it gets easier.

[Bill USA]

35. parroting GOP propaganda re HRC doesn't indicate the critical thought necessary for grasp of reality

And showing pictures is not making an argument. If you hope to convince anybody - other than fellow GOPers and BS followers - you need to be able to articulate a case. It's an indication of the capacity for rational thought.

[polly7]

36. I've 'made my case' with hundreds of articles here I've read, researched and followed up on.

I don't care one fucking bit about educating you. You're a big boy/girl, you should already know what most rational people do about all of this.

[Bill USA]

44. ah, trying to insult me is not making a valid point, even if it makes you feel less intimidated by

he who you have failed to convince since you have not made your case.

and I don't give a 'fuck' (to use a term you introduced) about what you allege you have posted before. You have to make your case here, to me, if you think you can. So that I can see it. (If what you posted before is anything like you have posted here, it is a poor excuse for making a point) It should be easy. copy the posts where you made your case and paste here.

can you do that -- without adolescent attempts at 'levelling the playing field' by trying to insult me. (no doubt since you are a sanders supporter you'll alert me for responding with the word you used. [font size="+1"]Sanders people can use off-color language but anybody who disagrees with you cannot. You will take you ball and go home, crying. Refusing to play, cuzz the other kids are treating you unfairly. LOL![/font]

[polly7]

45. Awww. nt.

[Recoverin_Republican]

62. still no links to any coherent arguments? Just curious, since you haven't provided any.

[Nitram]

31. Gosh, polly, you sure love that photo.

I've seen you post it before.

[polly7]

33. Does it bother you?

Good.

[Nitram]

39. Yes, I find it very disturbing that you have turned it into a personal fetish.

I'd suggest healthier pursuits in future.

[Bill USA]

47. Do you think this will impress grown-ups?

[polly7]

49. Nah. Just an honest response to an ugly accusation.

Do you honestly think I CARE about impressing ANYONE?

[Bill USA]

56. you're devoted to that end.

[Bill USA]

40. isolationism is not a feasible foreign policy for the U.S. We can't withdraw from the World.

[Bill USA]

46. Even Peter Rabbit realized he had to come out of his burrow sometime during his little bunnie life.

[noretreatnosurrender]

27. I know what I saw I don't need your help

I am a Democrat and a Bernie supporter.

[onecaliberal]

14. It's about time they treat her like they treat him.

[MisterP]

15. well, and how did she answer?

[tk2kewl]

24. I'm sure you've seen her answer, but for those who didn't:

Last edited Thu Feb 25, 2016, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)

[Bill USA]

42. She could have given him a very 'political' answer and said: "Never" Like most people in Politics

would have done.

[world wide wally]

28. I liked the OP, then it was turned into a very Republican sounding thread

That seems to happen a lot around here these days.

[Nitram]

32. "Republican sounding" has become the Bernie supporter's dog whistle code for...

..."Clinton supporter." Funny how proud his supporters are of Bernie's reluctance to make personal attacks, but his supporters do it all the time.

[world wide wally]

34. Far more anti-Hillary than pro-Bernie

And I am a Bernie supporter.
I just see Republicans as far more of a threat than Hillary is.

[Bill USA]

48. you are a Republican propagandist's dream

[world wide wally]

60. And you are a naive child