The V.P. Debate

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by decadecadeca
I felt VP Cheney came across as an honest, knowledgeable, experienced man with a grasp on the issues and a clear vision of what it takes to succeed at a very tough job.

And Edwards looked like a politician.

Yeah, that's great. It's just a shame that he didn't tell the truth in many of his responses, like the one where he said that he never met Edwards before yesterday or that he said he never said or implied that Iraq or Saddam and the 9/11 attacks were linked in any way, not to mention trying to link Al Qaeda to Saddam and Iraq. Hrmmm....yeah, he was reaaal honest there. They know what to do to combat terrorism but it interferes with the corporate agenda so it won't get done. There's too much money involved to cease or resolve an ongoing conflict. Everyone knows that. Continous war means continous profits and high oil prices.

Edwards looked like a politician? Who gives a fuck what he looked like? It's certainly better than some Gilley's reject from Urban Cowboy trying in vain to act like a president or the fatass corporate lackey sitting across the table from him. LOL.

[ryker77]

Talk is cheap. And both of them are just that, cheap.

One is a proven liar (dick)
the other is a professional liar err lawyer (Edwards)

Thats why I am voting for Nader. At least he would change up the political system. I am tired of the same old BS from the Dems and Republicans.

[Primal Instinct]

I liked some of his solutions but he does not have any weight in mainstream media nor the money to really get more than a nod.

[Cory]

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
I liked some of his solutions but he does not have any weight in mainstream media nor the money to really get more than a nod.

Exactly!! Let's face reality Ryker.

[r_deese]

Our financial situation has been getting better ever since the huge deficit we took for war. war costs money... back when ww2 was going on, they had ration cards for things. we haven't gone to rationing out things yet as they did then. yet when we talk about FDR we talk about him like he was a god. the economy was in shambles his entire tenure. bush faced a war, he did what he should have and showed the world that we weren't to be messed with. in doing so, it cost alot of money and I am more than happy to be in a deficit rather than having building after building blown up on my own american soil. as for healthcare... the reason it's expensive is b/c of lazy ass ppl who refuse to get jobs, sit around living on welfare, get sick, have to go to the doctor. the doctor has to treat them b/c it's the law... therefore the cost goes on to the consumer who CAN pay - that being you and i and other americans who work for a living and are not the trash of america that live off of the democrats' handouts.
i'm as pure republican as it gets... i made the money, i wanna keep it.... as for those that won't work... let 'em die, i don't feel sorry for them

[Gort]

Originally posted by r_deese
Our financial situation has been getting better ever since the huge deficit we took for war. war costs money... back when ww2 was going on, they had ration cards for things. we haven't gone to rationing out things yet as they did then. yet when we talk about FDR we talk about him like he was a god. the economy was in shambles his entire tenure. bush faced a war, he did what he should have and showed the world that we weren't to be messed with. in doing so, it cost alot of money and I am more than happy to be in a deficit rather than having building after building blown up on my own american soil. as for healthcare... the reason it's expensive is b/c of lazy ass ppl who refuse to get jobs, sit around living on welfare, get sick, have to go to the doctor. the doctor has to treat them b/c it's the law... therefore the cost goes on to the consumer who CAN pay - that being you and i and other americans who work for a living and are not the trash of america that live off of the democrats' handouts.
i'm as pure republican as it gets... i made the money, i wanna keep it.... as for those that won't work... let 'em die, i don't feel sorry for them

WWII ended the great depression and was a much larger war.

Welfare medical benefits are a small part of the healthcare problem. Expensive drugs, expensive medical equiptment, for profit hospitals, insurance, fraud, and ageing baby boomers on medicare are bigger costs. Perhaps you would like to bump off everyones grandparents to help reduce costs?

You want to keep your money but Bush gave $10 billion to Iraq in the talked about $87 billion appropriations bill for body armor. Yes, Kerry voted it down. He wanted it to be a loan.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by decadecadeca
Which is what I mean about adding liberal bullshit to a bill knowing it won't pass. That was an attempt to pass more stupid gun legislation by the Dems via sneaking in things they could never propose in seperate legislation. I can smuggle all the plastic composite gun frames I want. But I'll never make it through screening with the metal slide, barrel, sear, springs etc. And since I can't shoot anyone with the frame of a gun it doesn't make much sense does it.

You stated that you can't shoot anyone with just the frame of a gun in a previous post and now here you claim a bill to be a "liberal" attempt to pass a hidden piece of gun legislation via a bill concerning detecting plastic weapons prior to boarding an airliner. Which is it? You have shot (pun intended) yourself in the foot with contradicting arguements.


I own several guns and I wouldn't consider myself an anti-gun ownership person. I do however think that detection of plastic explosives, ceramic weapons, various forms of pepper sprays and certain plastic objects should be screened at airports before boarding begins. Does that make make me <gasp> a liberal? I think not. It makes me a concerned air traveller- which I do a fairly often.


OK, for anyone who thinks plastic weapons detection at airports is a farce or some hidden liberal agenda- here is a link to a website containing the 2003 FBI Guide To Concealable Weapons


Pay particular attention to pages 30, 41 and 42 as examples of what I'm talking about. They are knife type weapons that could easily pass through current airport security stations and are not readily visible to a metal detector or even an x-ray machine. This doesn't take into account items such as pens which house pepper spray pumps and stuff like that like on page 57.


Getting back to my point about the debate and Cheney's voting record in Congress- I stand by my assertation that the plastic detection weapons thing that Cheney voted against was ill advised and not in the interest of national security that he so strongly purports. He also voted against the amendment for banning armor piercing bullets. These consist of ammo made from steel (except shotguns), brass, ammo with teflon coatings, depleted uranium, ceramics, etc...


Also, while fervantly support private ownership of handguns and long guns, I don't support 7.62x39mm chambered pistols that are not competition shooting pistols. What purpose does a 30 shot steel core bullet serve in a handgun? This is not a knock on 7.62 rifles; it's just that a large caliber, steel cored ammo with 30+ in the clip, with a folding or sliding stock pistol certainly has no sporting purpose and is easily hidden. I wouldn't even consider it a defensive weapon, as it's purpose is primarily offensive in nature. That kind of portable firepower available to the general public is asinine. There are just too many stupid and irresponsible people out there to weild such weapons. Yeah, criminals can get banned weapons but people don't start out as criminals do they?


Regulating assault type weapons- I personally consider these to be all full automatics and some semi-automatics of large caliber, high capacity semi-autos that can be adapted to fire at a high cyclic rate (10 bullets in a second) should be enacted. It's not even close to a slippery slope type arguement. It would pobably be more realistic to regulate ammunition for some of these weapons than the actual weapons anyhow- at least in the case of handguns.

[Keiser]

lol I didn't watch it, but heard a bunch of guys talking at work, joking about how bad cheany made edwards look, made him look like a kid, owned him, were laughing about it, etc..... These guys are older definantly conservative.

Then I get on the board and hear how the known democrats of the board are saying edwards owned Cheany.

That tells me people are so bias, they only hear what they want to hear, their minds are made up before hand, so why even watch it? I'm starting to think that we shouldn't let the general public vote on something as large as the presidency. What is the point of these debates? There is nothing bush or kerry or edwards or Cheany could say to sway these old guy's opinions here at work, nothing. So whats the point? This whole presidential election this year is a joke imo and is dividing our nation like none other.

[Primal Instinct]

Not that it even matters but no one owned anyone in that debate. You are so right, Keiser; people already have their minds made up by now. Not much can be done to sway minds in either direction. It's a shame that there is so much divisiveness in our nation today. I'm sick of politicians being on "sides." The only side they should be on is the side of the average US citizen but big money generally makes government policy and the average citizen (even as a collective) doesn't have that kind of buying power. :(

[ryker77]

Originally posted by Cory
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Primal Instinct
I liked some of his solutions but he does not have any weight in mainstream media nor the money to really get more than a nod.

Exactly!! Let's face reality Ryker.

So your only going to vote for somebody because the have money or media pull? :(


All Nader needs and shoud need is for people to vote for him. He will get my vote.

[ryker77]

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
I'm sick of politicians being on "sides." The only side they should be on is the side of the average US citizen but big money generally makes government policy and the average citizen (even as a collective) doesn't have that kind of buying power. :(

check out www.votenader.org you do have a choice

[ryker77]

Originally posted by Primal Instinct

Regulating assault type weapons- I personally consider these to be all full automatics and some semi-automatics of large caliber, high capacity semi-autos that can be adapted to fire at a high cyclic rate (10 bullets in a second) should be enacted.

hmm. I think a law just like you want has been on the books since the mid 1920's. To own purchase or sell an full automatic weapon you have to have a class 3 federal firearms license. Owning the parts to convert an regular firearm into full auto is part of that law.

The Brady Bill was just a joke. Only the dumb think that it was any good. Why? Because they just look at the pictures. Like a two year old reading a book. Just because it looks like a M16 doesn't mean that it is full auto military version.


We don't need more laws. Just the ones that are on the books enforced. :eek: