Kerry
- Thread starter Junkpile
- Start date
mingez
New member
Those are funny!!! Kerry's Face looks like a melting wax candle. What happened to him?
But if you want to laugh at George Bush, just listen to him talk:
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."
But if you want to laugh at George Bush, just listen to him talk:
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."
LadyJeepFreak
New member
Kerry's face reminds me of a horse. Bush's of a little boy, he has babyish features.
Bush's speaking manner sucks for sure. I would never run for president if I couldnt' stand public speaking or wasn't good at it. lol Poor dude.
His Ummmm's, Ahhhhh's, and Errrrrr's should have been counted last night. Oh and lets not forget the blank pauses as he thinks of the next word.
Lady
Bush's speaking manner sucks for sure. I would never run for president if I couldnt' stand public speaking or wasn't good at it. lol Poor dude.
His Ummmm's, Ahhhhh's, and Errrrrr's should have been counted last night. Oh and lets not forget the blank pauses as he thinks of the next word.
Lady
Special_K
New member
I have to be fair and admit that Kerry's face is rather awkward. I think Conan O'Brian compared him to a tree on the Wizard of Oz (the talking trees with faces)...that's one of the first things that comes to mind when I look at him.
As for bush, funny pics Mingez!!! :lol: Here are few more of my favorite Bushisms:
"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004
"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—May 25, 2004
"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than—I say more Muslims—a lot of Muslims have died—I don't know the exact count—at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004
"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." Date Uncertain
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
"There may be some tough times here in America. But this country has gone through tough times before, and we're going to do it again."—Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002
"Our nation must come together to unite."—Tampa, Fla., June 4, 2001
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" --Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
And not to forget the ohhhh so famous one:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
Sadly (or funny) enough, the list goes on and on...
As for bush, funny pics Mingez!!! :lol: Here are few more of my favorite Bushisms:
"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004
"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—May 25, 2004
"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than—I say more Muslims—a lot of Muslims have died—I don't know the exact count—at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004
"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences." Date Uncertain
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
"There may be some tough times here in America. But this country has gone through tough times before, and we're going to do it again."—Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002
"Our nation must come together to unite."—Tampa, Fla., June 4, 2001
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" --Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
And not to forget the ohhhh so famous one:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
Sadly (or funny) enough, the list goes on and on...
Bush is a horrible speaker. Kerry is a great speaker, but he kinda changes his position on things EVERY TIME HE SPEAKS. I'd rather have a guy who can't do public speaking (like most people in this country) than someone who tells you what you want to hear and then screws you once he gets in office. My favorite has been Kerry's "pro 2nd amendment" stance which doesn't wash with anybody because he voted for EVERY GUN CONTROL law that has been put before him. He voted to ban semi auto shotguns with a pistol OR semi pistol stock. That means my grandad's browning a5 that was made in the 30's would be banned. This guy is just scary. The sad thing is he has a chance of winning because people will vote for him just because they don't like Bush. At least Bush isn't scared to take a stand; Kerry just says whatever today's crowd wants to hear and then changes positions for the next crowd who wants to hear something different. How can you vote for someone when you don't know where they stand on the issues? If you hate Bush fine, vote for one of the other people, but if you're pro gun, Kerry's voted for all the gun control laws, and if you're anti gun, Kerry's said he "is pro 2nd amendment". You don't know where he stands on the issues. Once he gets in office nobody knows what he'll do because he's made contradicting promises to both sides on every issue. That just scares the crap outta me.
Special_K
New member
A few thoughts...
Kerry has held some very nuanced positions and has made some blatantly bad explanations of his positions at times, but when you look into the details of his position and logic, you find that his positions are typically very reasonable and responsible...whether or not you agree. Nuanced positions are not necessarily bad, but they don' t make for good sound bites and are easily manipulated. This is what the Bush campaign has taken advantage of and blown WAAAAAAY out of proportion. Unfortunately, the perception sticks with some people.
KERRY'S GUN CONTROL RECORD
For the record, Kerry's voting history does not indicate that he's some "scary" sociopath who's out to ban everyone's guns as some might have us believe. Futhermore, some of the underlying implications made by his opponents make Kerry's votes seem much more prohibitive and ominous than they really are. When you look at Kerry's voting record at Project Vote Smart you find that he's only voted for a firearm ban ONCE...and that was on semi-automatic assault weapons. All other votes of support were for very responsible, rational gun control bills often supported, if not introduced, by Republicans such as the Brady Bill (requiring a waiting period before taking possesion) and other bills requiring a background checks (for violent criminal activity) before buying a gun.
I spent a minute (or 90) doing a little research to verify this before I made the claim. The one firearm ban bill that Kerry voted for was S.1607/H.R.3355 in late-1993/early-1994. Here is a link as well as a summary of that bill with some of my comments:
H.R. 3355 (S. 1607)
SEC. 4502. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
- Section 4502 of this bill, as the title suggests, restricts the manufacture, transfer and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. But the bill also had several restrictions...
SEC. 4503. EXEMPTION FOR FIREARMS LAWFULLY POSSESSED PRIOR TO DATE OF ENACTMENT.
This section exluded anyone who possessed an affected firearm before the date the bill was passed.
SEC. 4504. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN HUNTING AND SPORTING FIREARMS.
3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
``(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the
firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such
firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
``(B) any firearm that--
``(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or
slide action;
``(ii) is an unserviceable firearm; or
``(iii) is an antique firearm;
``(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a
detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of
ammunition; or
``(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than
5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.''.
SEC. 4505. EXEMPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL USE.
- Reasonably self-explanatory.
WM69: Section 4503 would have certainly excluded your grandad's firearm, if not section 4504 as well, and that's provided that it came under the restrictions of Section 4502 in the first place.
I think many accusations that are often innocently repeated and passed along by Bush supporters (or should I say, Kerry-haters) are <u>half-truths</u> originated either by the campaign itself or other more rabid supporters who disregard facts and details since they have the intent of making the opponent look worse than he actually is. This happens in both parties, but this practice appears much more extreme with Bush (which is why I'm weighing-in to counter here).
BUSH & FLIP-FLOPPING
As for flip-flopping, Bush can "flip-flop" with the best of 'em. To quote a few factual sections from a WP article instead of my own words (for convenience):
"In 2000, Bush said he would include carbon dioxide on a list of air pollutants requiring federal oversight, a stand he abandoned within weeks of taking office. A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush's spokesman said the president believed a homeland security department that Democrats proposed was "just not necessary." A year after that, Bush had switched course and was lashing some Democrats for not moving quickly enough to approve the agency.
While Bush professes himself a strong free-trader, most other free-trade proponents said he bent on principle in March 2002 when he ordered tariffs on imported steel -- a move that resonated politically in electorally important industrial states such as Pennsylvania. Facing an escalating global trade dispute, he lifted the tariffs at the end of last year. "
And often when his position remains the same, his reasons "flip-flop". Again, a factual section from a WP article:
"He supported tax cuts in 2000 because he said they were affordable in a time of large government surpluses, and once in power he supported them amid rising deficits because he said the economy needed stimulation. The president's principal rationale for the Iraq invasion was to end Baghdad's suspected mass-weapons program and links to international terrorism. In the absence of compelling evidence of these, the main post-invasion rationale has been to rescue Iraq from a tyrant and support democracy in the greater Middle East. "
In cases where someone's position remains the same and their reasons for that position change substantially, whether in government policy or in one-on-one dealings, it is typically that they're pushing a pre-determined position and the facts are being manipulated to make a case for that position. Combined with the fact that many key components of our foreign policy (and some much more subtle ones) precisely follow a disturbing foreign policy outline published by this administration in Sep 2000 is one of many major problems that I have with the Bush adminsitration.
I am not blinding myself with Kerry love but I do think a disproportionate number of mistruths, half-truths and lies being spread are against Kerry and are being perpetuated by certain rabid Bush supporters then naively passed along by others. Most arguments I hear against Kerry are simply based on sound bites...repeated over and over as one loose/distorted accusation is presented in more factual and/or extreme sense than most evidence actually supports...few of those accusations seem to hold up to detailed scrutiny. The crtiques that do remain (and there are some...as there would be with anyone) pale in comparison to the real issues I see with Bush. While I consider Bush's lack of certain cognitive and speaking skills sad, embarrassing, and pitiful for a President, that, in and of itself, is relatively minor among my list of reasons why I think he's been an overall poor--if not dangerous--president over the last four years.
But that's just my 2 cents worth.
Kerry has held some very nuanced positions and has made some blatantly bad explanations of his positions at times, but when you look into the details of his position and logic, you find that his positions are typically very reasonable and responsible...whether or not you agree. Nuanced positions are not necessarily bad, but they don' t make for good sound bites and are easily manipulated. This is what the Bush campaign has taken advantage of and blown WAAAAAAY out of proportion. Unfortunately, the perception sticks with some people.
KERRY'S GUN CONTROL RECORD
For the record, Kerry's voting history does not indicate that he's some "scary" sociopath who's out to ban everyone's guns as some might have us believe. Futhermore, some of the underlying implications made by his opponents make Kerry's votes seem much more prohibitive and ominous than they really are. When you look at Kerry's voting record at Project Vote Smart you find that he's only voted for a firearm ban ONCE...and that was on semi-automatic assault weapons. All other votes of support were for very responsible, rational gun control bills often supported, if not introduced, by Republicans such as the Brady Bill (requiring a waiting period before taking possesion) and other bills requiring a background checks (for violent criminal activity) before buying a gun.
I spent a minute (or 90) doing a little research to verify this before I made the claim. The one firearm ban bill that Kerry voted for was S.1607/H.R.3355 in late-1993/early-1994. Here is a link as well as a summary of that bill with some of my comments:
H.R. 3355 (S. 1607)
SEC. 4502. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
- Section 4502 of this bill, as the title suggests, restricts the manufacture, transfer and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. But the bill also had several restrictions...
SEC. 4503. EXEMPTION FOR FIREARMS LAWFULLY POSSESSED PRIOR TO DATE OF ENACTMENT.
This section exluded anyone who possessed an affected firearm before the date the bill was passed.
SEC. 4504. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN HUNTING AND SPORTING FIREARMS.
3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
``(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the
firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such
firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
``(B) any firearm that--
``(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or
slide action;
``(ii) is an unserviceable firearm; or
``(iii) is an antique firearm;
``(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a
detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of
ammunition; or
``(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than
5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.''.
SEC. 4505. EXEMPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL USE.
- Reasonably self-explanatory.
WM69: Section 4503 would have certainly excluded your grandad's firearm, if not section 4504 as well, and that's provided that it came under the restrictions of Section 4502 in the first place.
I think many accusations that are often innocently repeated and passed along by Bush supporters (or should I say, Kerry-haters) are <u>half-truths</u> originated either by the campaign itself or other more rabid supporters who disregard facts and details since they have the intent of making the opponent look worse than he actually is. This happens in both parties, but this practice appears much more extreme with Bush (which is why I'm weighing-in to counter here).
BUSH & FLIP-FLOPPING
As for flip-flopping, Bush can "flip-flop" with the best of 'em. To quote a few factual sections from a WP article instead of my own words (for convenience):
"In 2000, Bush said he would include carbon dioxide on a list of air pollutants requiring federal oversight, a stand he abandoned within weeks of taking office. A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush's spokesman said the president believed a homeland security department that Democrats proposed was "just not necessary." A year after that, Bush had switched course and was lashing some Democrats for not moving quickly enough to approve the agency.
While Bush professes himself a strong free-trader, most other free-trade proponents said he bent on principle in March 2002 when he ordered tariffs on imported steel -- a move that resonated politically in electorally important industrial states such as Pennsylvania. Facing an escalating global trade dispute, he lifted the tariffs at the end of last year. "
And often when his position remains the same, his reasons "flip-flop". Again, a factual section from a WP article:
"He supported tax cuts in 2000 because he said they were affordable in a time of large government surpluses, and once in power he supported them amid rising deficits because he said the economy needed stimulation. The president's principal rationale for the Iraq invasion was to end Baghdad's suspected mass-weapons program and links to international terrorism. In the absence of compelling evidence of these, the main post-invasion rationale has been to rescue Iraq from a tyrant and support democracy in the greater Middle East. "
In cases where someone's position remains the same and their reasons for that position change substantially, whether in government policy or in one-on-one dealings, it is typically that they're pushing a pre-determined position and the facts are being manipulated to make a case for that position. Combined with the fact that many key components of our foreign policy (and some much more subtle ones) precisely follow a disturbing foreign policy outline published by this administration in Sep 2000 is one of many major problems that I have with the Bush adminsitration.
I am not blinding myself with Kerry love but I do think a disproportionate number of mistruths, half-truths and lies being spread are against Kerry and are being perpetuated by certain rabid Bush supporters then naively passed along by others. Most arguments I hear against Kerry are simply based on sound bites...repeated over and over as one loose/distorted accusation is presented in more factual and/or extreme sense than most evidence actually supports...few of those accusations seem to hold up to detailed scrutiny. The crtiques that do remain (and there are some...as there would be with anyone) pale in comparison to the real issues I see with Bush. While I consider Bush's lack of certain cognitive and speaking skills sad, embarrassing, and pitiful for a President, that, in and of itself, is relatively minor among my list of reasons why I think he's been an overall poor--if not dangerous--president over the last four years.
But that's just my 2 cents worth.
Special_K said:Kerry's voting history does not indicate that he's some "scary" sociopath who's out to ban everyone's guns as some might have us believe. you find that he's only voted for a firearm ban ONCE...and that was on semi-automatic assault weapons. All other votes of support were for very responsible, rational gun control bills often supported, if not introduced, by Republicans such as the Brady Bill (requiring a waiting period before taking possesion) and other bills requiring a background checks (for violent criminal activity) before buying a gun.
First of all, there are no reasonable, rational gun control laws being voted on anymore. It's illegal for crimanls to buy a gun, and machine guns have been illegal for decades. If the laws already in place were enforced instead of spendin all the effort enacting new laws there wouldn't be a problem. The assault weapons bill was, and always will be a huge farce that did nothing but lose the democrats votes and drive up the price on the guns "banned". Of course you DO know they never left the shelves because the definition of an "assault weapon" was defined by a bunch of folks who wanted to ban anything that looked scary to them. Take a couple of cosmetic features off and sell the same gun legally.... easy because the idiots definition of "assault weapon" had nothing to do with the mechanics of the guns, only the appearance.
I look at the same voting record you linked and I see that he voted for the bills holding the gun manufacturers responsible for gun violence. This is retarded. Are you going to hold a drunk driver responsible for killing someone, or the maker of the car? That's a vote for gun control. The liberal far left has changed thier tactics to taxing and sueing the firearms and ammuntion industry out of business. That'll keep guns out of folks' hands just as much as banning them will.
Banning internet sales of more than 10 guns.... same thing, stop the sales rather than ban them. He voted to ban large capacity clips. You're gonna say no one needs them, and I'm gonna say no one needs 4x4's, cigarettes, and liquor, but we do have the right to have them. I don't guess you consider it voting for gun control unless it flat out says "ban".
The brady bill is gun control. Like it or not it is. The NRA supported instant background checks. That not serve the same purpose. You get a waiting period in place and then lengthen the waiting period to "whenver we get around to processing your application" and law abiding people are kept from getting guns. That's gun control.
I'm sorry, he didn't vote for the ban on the semi auto shotguns such as the Browning A5, he sponsored it......
S.1431, "The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003" which bans any "semiautomatic shotgun which has a pistol grip." That includes every semiauto shotgun I've ever seen. It doesn't say "a protuding pistol grip" is says "a pistol grip". This guy is a threat to personal freedom in this country. He reminds me of Bill Clinton when he speaks. He's very charismatic and quick, which is usually easy for compulsive liars......
Special_K
New member
I did overlook S.1431 which is a very recent and actually a current issue (i.e. the expiration/renewal of the assault weapons ban). But I still don't feel compelled to rail against it at this point. I see the S.1431 list of banned weapons is much more comprehensive than the older version, but it also includes the grandfather clause and certain exemptions.
On the one hand, I can appreciate the desire to limit certain types of weapons. This is being pushed by non-violence groups, etc. more so than the some mysterious dark extreme far-left conspiracy.
On the other hand, I would not support a bill that overzealously and needlessly restricts certain weapons. I agree that it shouldn't ban "anything that looks scary" and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the only criteria that allowed some of the models to make the list. But sometimes groups of moms who've lost kids to weapons (or anyone passionate about their cause...on both sides) can overreact.
I see it as legitimate issue that needs to be addressed without throwing the baby out with the bath water...so to speak. Likewise, I don't think it's irresponsible to support such a law, but I think that there is room for compromise as to how aggressive and extensive the ban is.
As for the gun manufacturers and lawsuits, I don't think his vote on this was at all irresponsible. To be precise, his vote was not to hold the gun manufacturers responsible, rather it was to disallow the dismissal of all lawsuits against manufacturers except for negligence and illegal marketing/sales. To me this doesn't say, "I'm holding you responsible for gun-related crime" it says "I'm not giving an blanket pass, or a get out of jail free card, on every legal issue except these few...you have to prove your case like every one else".
Sure there will be some frivolous suits--unfortunately--and I can't stand them or the people who push them. Tighter legislation directed at them might even be appropriate. But I strongly dislike the notion of giving an industry a blanket pass on a wide spectrum of legal accountability issues with the exception of a defined few. I'd bet the farm that, if put in place, situations would arise that would confound the intent of the law and end up disallowing some cases when the manufacturer was clearly and legitimately wrong and culpable. Gun manufactuerers aren't angels in this case. They and their lawyers, as does just about any industry, would play every card they can to deny responsibility and avoid or minimize any legal exposure and accountability...regardless of whether they really were at fault. I don't think manufacturers should be sued for every gun-related crime, but in this environment, such blanket passes give too much of an advantage to the manufacturers' lawyers.
Same thing with the fast food industry. I think it's abosultely stupid of someone to sue McDonalds, et. al. because they ate too many Big Macs and got morbidly obese. But I was glad that the fast-food industry didn't get blanket protection against all lawsuits except a certain subset of pure negligence cases as they were seeking. Corporate irresponsibility would creep in...guaranteed.
I see this is an issue you're definately passionate about while I'm somewhat ambivalent...in either case, I still don't see Kerry's positions as horrendously wrong. I suppose that's a matter of perception though.
On the one hand, I can appreciate the desire to limit certain types of weapons. This is being pushed by non-violence groups, etc. more so than the some mysterious dark extreme far-left conspiracy.
On the other hand, I would not support a bill that overzealously and needlessly restricts certain weapons. I agree that it shouldn't ban "anything that looks scary" and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the only criteria that allowed some of the models to make the list. But sometimes groups of moms who've lost kids to weapons (or anyone passionate about their cause...on both sides) can overreact.
I see it as legitimate issue that needs to be addressed without throwing the baby out with the bath water...so to speak. Likewise, I don't think it's irresponsible to support such a law, but I think that there is room for compromise as to how aggressive and extensive the ban is.
As for the gun manufacturers and lawsuits, I don't think his vote on this was at all irresponsible. To be precise, his vote was not to hold the gun manufacturers responsible, rather it was to disallow the dismissal of all lawsuits against manufacturers except for negligence and illegal marketing/sales. To me this doesn't say, "I'm holding you responsible for gun-related crime" it says "I'm not giving an blanket pass, or a get out of jail free card, on every legal issue except these few...you have to prove your case like every one else".
Sure there will be some frivolous suits--unfortunately--and I can't stand them or the people who push them. Tighter legislation directed at them might even be appropriate. But I strongly dislike the notion of giving an industry a blanket pass on a wide spectrum of legal accountability issues with the exception of a defined few. I'd bet the farm that, if put in place, situations would arise that would confound the intent of the law and end up disallowing some cases when the manufacturer was clearly and legitimately wrong and culpable. Gun manufactuerers aren't angels in this case. They and their lawyers, as does just about any industry, would play every card they can to deny responsibility and avoid or minimize any legal exposure and accountability...regardless of whether they really were at fault. I don't think manufacturers should be sued for every gun-related crime, but in this environment, such blanket passes give too much of an advantage to the manufacturers' lawyers.
Same thing with the fast food industry. I think it's abosultely stupid of someone to sue McDonalds, et. al. because they ate too many Big Macs and got morbidly obese. But I was glad that the fast-food industry didn't get blanket protection against all lawsuits except a certain subset of pure negligence cases as they were seeking. Corporate irresponsibility would creep in...guaranteed.
I see this is an issue you're definately passionate about while I'm somewhat ambivalent...in either case, I still don't see Kerry's positions as horrendously wrong. I suppose that's a matter of perception though.
TwistedCU
New member
Special_K said:
That about sums up all gun laws. The majority of the liberals who want to put laws on gun ownership and restrict our constitutional rights would be tickled pink if all guns became illegal.
The only laws that should exist for guns are penalties for misusing them.
I saw a lady driving a Civic Hybrid today. She had a Kerry/Edwards sticker, a Barbara Mikulski sticker, and a sticker with a circle and line through the word "guns". I thought to myself - "God I hope that woman doesn't have offspring" :lol:
Similar threads
