Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2667
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

8086 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2667 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | » | Last
 
  2007-08-29 08:19:55 AM  
I have a political debate for you guys....

Bush...Everyone calls him a liar....but no one can seem to prove it.

Yes I have seen the videos where he said "Intellegence reports...blablabla"

But I have never seen a single thing about WMD's where Bush said "Yes they have Weapons."

Care to help out?
 
  2007-08-29 12:13:42 PM  
Drakin030: Bush...Everyone calls him a liar....but no one can seem to prove it.

That's the beauty of surrounding yourself with lawyers. Getting your story straight on the American taxpayer's dime/dollar/pallettes of missing money.
 
  2007-08-29 07:59:39 PM  
Drakin030: But I have never seen a single thing about WMD's where Bush said "Yes they have Weapons."

Well in that case here you go, enjoy the following:

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

(This one is particularly outrageous):
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

Unmanned aerial vehicles targeting the US?! Don't remember finding any of those.... do you? What a steaming pile of bullsh*t.

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


Source.
(pops) I am guessing you now agree Bush is a liar?
 
  2007-08-29 09:48:15 PM  
Drakin Yes.

Bush did say that Saddam had WMDs.

But that is not a lie.

Our intelligence said all sorts of things about Saddam including having WMDs.

Quoting faulty intelligence (if it was indeed faulty) is not a lie.

When Clinton/Gore left office our government thought that Saddam had WMDs and was working to get more.

From that time to when we went into Iraq there was no evidence to suggest that anything changed.

So again....

Yes Bush said that Saddam had WMDs but (sorry guys) that is not a lie.
 
  2007-08-30 02:45:48 AM  
The simple fact is that they didn't find anything there, dottedmint.

And while you might protect Bush's lies, I don't. I read the list C-S provided, and it's outrageous. If that isn't lying, I don't know what is.

And yes, the intelligence was forged (p)

I'm going to call a spade a spade. Bush lied to the American people, and used forged "intelligence" already rejected by the UN weapons inspectors. He manipulated Congress.

And if there really is that much disagreement about whether he lied or not, there should be some sort of investigation or hearing.

The truth is, Bush got away with war and will probably get off scot-free because this Congress just as eagerly bought into it.

I can only hope it hasn't done too much damage to our system, and if the next President tries to pull the same kind of deceit in the name of "security" that someone in the checks and balances system would have the decency to stop him.
 
  2007-08-30 07:16:08 AM  
Whidbey: "The simple fact is that they didn't find anything there, dottedmint."

Right. We did not find stockpiles of WMDs.

Of course.... not finding something doesn't mean that it wasn't there....

"And while you might protect Bush's lies, I don't. I read the list C-S provided, and it's outrageous. If that isn't lying, I don't know what is."

UM....

To "Lie" one would be stating (as true) something that they know to be untrue.

IF cops stop someone who robbed a bank at gun point and this person gets out of his car holding what looks like a gun, starts threatening the cops with it, aiming it at the cops it would not be a lie for the cops to say he has a gun because they think he actually has a gun.

I guess if you can show where Bush knew that Saddam had no WMDs and was not working to get WMDs and was not a threat then you might have something with the accusation of lying.

"And yes, the intelligence was forged (p)"

Not by us....


"I'm going to call a spade a spade. Bush lied to the American people, and used forged "intelligence" already rejected by the UN weapons inspectors. He manipulated Congress."

That was one example of forged "intelligence".

There was intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs that was not forged.
 
  2007-08-30 11:32:57 AM  
dottedmint: I guess if you can show where Bush knew that Saddam had no WMDs and was not working to get WMDs and was not a threat then you might have something with the accusation of lying.

He's still not off the hook, even if he gets together with his lawyers and concocts a "I did not lie to the American public" er...lie.

His actions are censurable. The war was unjustified, there was no proof of WMDs or any kind of threat to the United States, and what's more, the war is a colossal failure for all parties involved. That should count for something.

IF cops stop someone who robbed a bank at gun point and this person gets out of his car holding what looks like a gun, starts threatening the cops with it, aiming it at the cops it would not be a lie for the cops to say he has a gun because they think he actually has a gun.

Sorry, bad analogy. The fact is Bush made untrue statements. It's not such a stretch to say he's lying. What if your own sister or brother tried to pull that on you?

To "Lie" one would be stating (as true) something that they know to be untrue.

Like I said, it warrants an investigation.

Right. We did not find stockpiles of WMDs.

Of course.... not finding something doesn't mean that it wasn't there....


This is not an admissable statement.

But of course, if you want this government to waste a trillion or more dollars on assumptions...

I don't.

That was one example of forged "intelligence".

There was intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs that was not forged.


I really seriously doubt it. Source? Better make it a good one.

I really can't believe you're defending these people who've abused their powers to screw you, me, the American people and the international community.
 
  2007-08-30 11:33:51 PM  
Whidbey: "He's still not off the hook, even if he gets together with his lawyers and concocts a "I did not lie to the American public" er...lie."

I know you are having a hard time following this but there actually is a HUGE difference between "lying" and simply being "wrong".

"His actions are censurable. The war was unjustified, there was no proof of WMDs or any kind of threat to the United States, and what's more, the war is a colossal failure for all parties involved. That should count for something."

I strongly disagree with the claim that the war is a failure...let alone a colossal failure.

And as far as "proof of WMDs" there clearly was enough evidence that said he had WMDs.

And as far as "any kind of threat to the United States" wasn't Saddam involved in attempting to kill a US President?


"Sorry, bad analogy. The fact is Bush made untrue statements. It's not such a stretch to say he's lying. What if your own sister or brother tried to pull that on you?"

It is actually a very good analogy.

When a cop thinks someone has a gun, and that person acts like he has a gun it is not a lie for a cop to say he has a gun even if he doesn't have a gun.

The statement would be untrue but it would not be a lie.

"To "Lie" one would be stating (as true) something that they know to be untrue."

IF someone says something that is untrue but they think is true they are not lying.

They are simply wrong.

"Like I said, it warrants an investigation."

Well....I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you....

"This is not an admissable statement."

Cops have evidence that there are drugs in someones house. Before the cops can get there to search for these drugs the person in this house flushes all of them down the toilet.

When the cops finally do search the house they find no drugs even though there were drugs before....

"I really seriously doubt it. Source? Better make it a good one."

Are you honestly going to try to say that every bit of evidence that said Saddam had WMDs, was trying to get WMDs or was a theat to the US was forged???
 
  2007-08-31 12:58:53 AM  
He didn't flush anything. The inspectors told you there were no WMDs. They purpsefully cherry-picked evidence to mislead the congress and the public so they could get their war on.
 
  2007-08-31 02:13:04 AM  
dottedmint: I know you are having a hard
time following this but there actually is a HUGE difference between "lying" and simply being
"wrong"


Bush hasn't even admitted that. No apology to the
American people for his failed foreign policy. Just a stubborn defiance of common sense, as if he's following orders.

I strongly disagree with the claim that the war is a failure...let alone a colossal failure.

Reality disagrees with you. Practically any informational publication will tell you, the generals will tell you. Failure. Not being able to secure Baghdad against suicide bombers that kill many many more than some nut in Virgina? Failure. Colossal.

And as far as "proof of WMDs" there clearly was enough evidence that said he had WMDs.

Did you find a source on that? And why would you not believe the weapons inspectors' reports?

And as far as "any kind of threat to the United States" wasn't Saddam involved in attempting to kill a US President?

Please. You're grasping. Even if there were solid evidence instead of conjecture, it wouldn't justify invasion.

[Whether Bush lied or not] warrants an investigation."

dottedmint: Well....I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you....

You almost sound relieved...:)

dottedmint: Cops have evidence that there are drugs in someones house. Before the cops can get there to search for these drugs the person in this house flushes all of them down the toilet.

Ah, using a mechanism of the failed War on Drugs to
justify invading a country.

Flimsy evidence at best. It would only prove my point that the Bush administration would use some trumped-up charge as the cornerstone of the case.

I dunno, man. I really don't get why you support this war knowing what's really behind it. You might remember me saying that even I decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in 2003, people gave me a lot of crap for that, and knowing what I know now--that we were basically duped by our own government--I cannot support this conflict for the reasons you give. I do not trust this government, I think we need to stop electing people like the key players. Yes, it bodes well for a crooked political strategy to secure international interests, but it also goes against what this country is supposedly founded on.

Are you honestly going to try to say that every bit of evidence that said Saddam had WMDs, was trying to get WMDs or was a theat to the US was forged???

The big stuff? The most convincing pieces? Absolutely.

The rest is speculation. If you disagree, at least post us something that the UN inspectors themselves said that would lead us to believe otherwise.
 
  2007-08-31 02:16:21 AM  
I really gotta learn how to preview. Partial Repost:

[Whether Bush lied or not] warrants an investigation.

dottedmint: Well....I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you....

You almost sound relieved...:)

Cops have evidence that there are drugs in someones house. Before the cops can get there to search for these drugs the person in this house flushes all of them down the toilet.


Ah, using a mechanism of the failed War on Drugs to
justify invading a country.

Flimsy evidence at best. It would only prove my point that the Bush administration would use some trumped-up charge as the cornerstone of the case.

I dunno, man. I really don't get why you support this war knowing what's really behind it. You might remember me saying that even I decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in 2003, people gave me a lot of crap for that, and knowing what I know now--that we were basically duped by our own government--I cannot support this conflict for the reasons you give.

I do not trust this government, I think we need to stop electing people like the key players. Yes, it bodes well for a crooked political strategy to secure international interests, but it also goes against what this country is supposedly founded on.

Are you honestly going to try to say that every bit of evidence that said Saddam had WMDs, was trying to get WMDs or was a theat to the US was forged???


The big stuff? The most convincing pieces? Absolutely.

The rest is speculation. If you disagree, at least post us something that the UN inspectors themselves said that would lead us to believe otherwise.
 
  2007-08-31 05:08:59 PM  
"Bush hasn't even admitted that. No apology to the
American people for his failed foreign policy. Just a stubborn defiance of common sense, as if he's following orders."


But that doesn't change the fact that Bush did NOT lie.

IF you want to claim that the intel was wrong....that he made a mistake....that he made a poor choice that would be a different issue.

The accusation is that Bush "lied".

He didn't.

"Reality disagrees with you. Practically any informational publication will tell you, the generals will tell you. Failure. Not being able to secure Baghdad against suicide bombers that kill many many more than some nut in Virgina? Failure. Colossal."

Then using your standard just about every war that we have ever been in has been a failure.

"Did you find a source on that? And why would you not believe the weapons inspectors' reports?"

1. I do not have a bunch of links to the evidence that was provided.

2. Considering the fact that the inspectors were being 'dinked' around by Saddam I find it hard to trust much of anything they said.

"Please. You're grasping. Even if there were solid evidence instead of conjecture, it wouldn't justify invasion."

"solid evidence"???

dottedmint: Well....I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you....

"You almost sound relieved...:)"

It isn't a case of being "relieved".

I'm just giving some friendly advice but if you really want to hold your breath be my guest.

Bush is out of office in just over a year and Congress doesn't seem willing (or able) to do much of anything.

"Ah, using a mechanism of the failed War on Drugs to
justify invading a country.

Flimsy evidence at best. It would only prove my point that the Bush administration would use some trumped-up charge as the cornerstone of the case."


No?!?!?

I am simply pointing out an example of where there could be accurate evidence of something that may not be found.

Just because something is not found does not mean it was not there.

But back to the origional accusation...

Bush did not "lie".
 
  2007-08-31 05:25:15 PM  
Even if you don't think he was lying dottedmint, the fact remains that the administration broke their duty of trust to the people. If the President is going to invade another country and use the citizenry of the United States in doing so, he better be damn sure that what he's saying is accurate. It was immediately and glaringly apparent that Bush's characterization of Iraq as a haven of WMD's was in fact totally and utterly false. Representing Iraq as an immediate danger justifying invasion was therefore grossly negligent if not completely reckless. This breach of trust to the people our President swore he would honestly and faithfully serve should be unacceptable, but partisanship has unfortunately trumped integrity in the 21st century.

Put it another way, even if you determine Bush's mis characterizations were unintentional, they were not innocent. The utter lack of evidence of Bush's assertions compared to the volume of evidence to the contrary should make it abundantly clear that the scales of intent are balanced squarely on the side of guilt.
 
  2007-08-31 06:04:36 PM  
dottedmint: Considering the fact that the inspectors were being 'dinked' around by Saddam I find it hard to trust much of anything they said

You don't have to trust it, the fact is that their work was the official indicator. They found nothing, and despite Saddam's alleged "dinking," they were definitely looking.

dottedmint: I am simply pointing out an example of where there could be accurate evidence of something that may not be found.

Just because something is not found does not mean it was not there.


Yeah, but again, using such circumstantial "evidence" as the only evidence against somebody is unacceptable. And I might also add that a good lawyer could probably get me off the charge of possession if cops alleged I flushed it down the toilet.

They have no real proof, much like the WMDs. Bush lied to make it seem like there was more than what there was.

dottedmint: Bush is out of office in just over a year and Congress doesn't seem willing (or able) to do much of anything.

Yeah, and the difference is that I think it's a travesty of justice that he isn't being taken to task.

The accusation is that Bush "lied".

He didn't.


Then he needs to publicly defend that position.

I don't see much difference between "lying" and "misled."

You're way too kind to someone who's ultimately screwing our way of life, ignoring and manipulating the Constitution when convenient, and ushering in military conflicts at the drop of a hat.

I do not have a bunch of links to the evidence that was provided.

Well, you're going to have to find something, because the default contention is that there were no WMDs. Nothing uncovered that could have been used against him and certainly nothing urgent enough to justify invasion.
 
  2007-08-31 07:59:46 PM  
bananas and blow
 
  2007-08-31 08:24:22 PM  
whidbey: And I might also add that a good lawyer could probably get me off the charge of possession if cops alleged I flushed it down the toilet.

I'd get you off and then sue them for the damages to your door ;)


/as long as you don't get busted before September 2008 that is
 
  2007-09-01 10:11:53 AM  
Guys...let's try to focus...

The origional accusation was that Bush "lied".

As I've pointed, out in order for Bush to have "lied" he would need to knowingly state something that was not true as being true.

IF Whidbey honestly thought that the Earth was flat and went around telling everyone that the Earth was flat he would not be guilty of lying.

Just because someone is wrong does not mean that they are lying.

IF you guys want to say that Bush was wrong....that he did not have enough evidence to goto war....and whatever else you want to accuse him of .... fine. But those are different issues than saying he "lied".

At this point nobody has provided evidence that says Bush "lied".
 
  2007-09-01 02:22:10 PM  
dottedmint: At this point nobody has provided evidence that says Bush "lied".

Actually there is plenty, the issue is your refusal to believe it. I've provided you such evidence numerous times on this board, IIRC. Here is some more: Remember Curveball? The guy we based Colin Powell's "mobile weapons lab" speech on and god knows what else?

* Curveball's German intelligence handlers saw him as "crazy ... out of control", his friends called him a, "congenital liar" and US officials investigating his claims were surprised that he had a hangover and that he, "might be an alcoholic".[6]

* While there were many reports that Curveball was actually a relative of one of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC) top aides[7][1]. Bush's investigative report while discovering that at least two INC defectors were fabricators, but said it was "unable to uncover any evidence that the INC or any other organization was directing Curveball."[8]

* The Bush administration ignored evidence from the UN weapons inspectors that Curveball's claims where false. Among Curveball's claims was that an Iraqi facility had been redesigned, with a temporary wall, to allow mobile laboratories to slip in and out undetected. "When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on Feb. 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball's statements,"[9]


Yeah right, poor Bush, it's the CIA's fault... Who could have possible known this guy was lying? Hmm I dont know, maybe the German Intelligence handlers who repeatedly told us he was full of crap, and yet we believed him anyway?

This wasn't an honest mistake. This is one example of obviously bogus intelligence doctored up and delivered to the world while knowing it wasn't true. Thus, LYING. There is proof if you bother to look and pay attention.
 
  2007-09-01 11:52:37 PM  
I think its time for some housecleaning in the Politics threads. Malum2K7/AfternoonDelight/Mars232 are ruining them with their insults, bad photoshop spamming, and just general trolling.

Not sure if this is the place to complain about this, but I can't seem to find an admin contact. The trolling is just getting out of hand this past month or so.
 
  2007-09-01 11:57:46 PM  
"Afternoon_Delight: BudTheSpud: Poop, looks I need TF for that.


Ask your mom. She'll probably slip you a fin for TF."

Wouldnt something like this be against the posting rules?
 
  2007-09-02 12:32:00 AM  
dottedmint: Just because someone is wrong does not mean that they are lying.

It's pretty simple.

The article I posted earlier proving that the centerpiece of the case against Saddam was a forgery (p) has a date of March 13, 2003, which means if the public was finally getting wind of it, we're talking old news in the intelligence community.

The invasion took place March 20. Bush had plenty of time to reconsider his decision, he didn't. He went ahead with the plan anyway, despite the damning evidence.

I call his actions lies. That breaking news should have stopped the operation in its tracks.

Again, you're way too kind, because if Bush wasn't out and out lying to launch an invasion, then his actions showed incompetence.

At any rate, I believe he knew the difference.
 
  2007-09-05 09:16:45 AM  
Drakin030: Bush...Everyone calls him a liar....but no one can seem to prove it.

Lie: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt." - GWB State of the Union Address

In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05

Lie: "'We've never been stay the course, George!' - GWB to George Stephanopoulos, October 22, 2006 interview on ABC's This Week.

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/4/05 ]
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course. [4/13/04]
BUSH: And that's why we're going to stay the course in Iraq. And that's why when we say something in Iraq, we're going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

Lie: " "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order ,before (my emphasis) we do so." - GWB 2004 Election trail speech.

Bush made this statement knowing he'd already passed The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the President to seek a warrant up to 72 HOURS AFTER initiating the wiretap.

Lie: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories". GWB - Polish TV, 5/29/03

The Washington Post reported April 12, 2006 a secret, fact-finding team of scientists and engineers sponsored by the Pentagon determined in May 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops were not evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program. The nine-member team "transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003." Despite having authoritative evidence that the biological laboratories claim was false, the administration continued to peddle the myth over the next four months.

Lie: " if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn't tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of the law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn't talk." - GWB on the Patriot Act

The CIA and the FBI could talk and did. As Janet Reno wrote in prepared testimony before the 9/11 commission, "There are simply no walls or restrictions on sharing the vast majority of counterterrorism information. There are no legal restrictions at all on the ability of the members of the intelligence community to share intelligence information with each other. With respect to sharing between intelligence investigators and criminal investigators, information learned as a result of a physical surveillance or from a confidential informant can be legally shared without restriction. While there were restrictions placed on information gathered by criminal investigators as a result of grand jury investigations or Title III wire taps, in practice they did not prove to be a serious impediment since there was very little significant information that could not be shared." (Cassel - Counterpunch 04.26.04)

I could go on (& on) - but point made.

All politicians lie though their teeth, GWB is no different.
 
  2007-09-05 03:15:04 PM  
Nice job and thank you for putting that together moofburger, that was an interesting read.
 
  2007-09-06 07:14:27 AM  
moofburger: "Lie: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt." - GWB State of the Union Address"

A more complete quote of his statement would be....

Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt . If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs."

I admit that bankrupt probably isn't the best choice of words because that suggests being completely out of money and not being able to pay any benefits.

The problem is that if you read the rest of his statement (what you omitted) he doesn't make that claim. He only talks about "severe cuts".

In the end....

IF you look at his ENTIRE statement and not just a not just one part of it there isn't really a lie there.

Nice try....

moofburger: "Lie: "'We've never been stay the course, George!' - GWB to George Stephanopoulos, October 22, 2006 interview on ABC's This Week."

This one needs a bit of clarification....

Bush has always said we are going to stay in Iraq until things are done....

In that context Bush has always been "stay the course"....and he has never denied that.

The problem is that Dems started using that term to suggest that Bush was inflexible when it came to changing situations in Iraq.

In that context it is accurate to say that "We've never been stay the course".

We have always been open to changing course to deal with different situations in Iraq.

When his statements are taken IN context there is no lie there either....

Again....

Nice try....

Now....the next examples are going to be a bit harder to debunk (and maybe I won't be able to) but I am currently out of time.
 
  2007-09-06 10:41:34 AM  
Carrier, Flight Suit, "Mission Accomplished", "Major Combat Operations are over".
 
  2007-09-06 03:14:04 PM  
dottedmint: IF you look at his ENTIRE statement and not just a not just one part of it there isn't really a lie there.

What? He said it will be bankrupt. That is a statement without qualification. In fact the second sentence, the one you claim to be "the context" reinforced it by starting out "if that outcome is not avoided, etc." implying that the first sentence is indeed inevitable. But regardless, the second sentence isn't true either:

From moofburgers post: As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt.

So the second part, mentioning "severe cuts" is also untrue anyway if that source is indeed correct.


In that context Bush has always been "stay the course"....and he has never denied that.

But... he just did. He just denied that there.

Are you essentially trying to say Bush is the only president in history that has never ever lied, ever?
 
  2007-09-06 03:24:40 PM  
We have always been open to changing course to deal with different situations in Iraq.

Stop.

Please.

My sides are hurting from laughing so hard.
 
  2007-09-06 03:39:21 PM  
If only he'd followed his dad's example of prefacing these statements with the phrase "Read my lips!" so we could trust him.
 
  2007-09-06 10:40:55 PM  
snorecriminal: "Carrier, Flight Suit, "Mission Accomplished", "Major Combat Operations are over"."

sigh


1. The "M A" sign was the navy's idea and they were the ones who put it up.

2. The "M A" sign was in reference to the USS Abraham Lincoln's deployment and not to the situation in Iraq.

3. Typically when I think "major combat operations" I think of large bombings like we had at the beginning of the Iraq war. At worse in this case you could say that Bush was wrong but I think it was somewhat accurate to say "major combat operations" were over at that point. Nobody said that combat was over in Iraq.....

4. I'm not sure what you think the jump suit proves but he was at one time a pilot....

C-S: "What? He said it will be bankrupt. That is a statement without qualification."

Here....

"Bankruptcy is a legally declared inability or impairment of ability of an individual or organizations to pay their creditors."

IF a person is only able to pay their creditors 75% of what they owe I would say that would be an "inability or inpairment of ability" to pay their creditors.

"In fact the second sentence, the one you claim to be "the context" reinforced it by starting out "if that outcome is not avoided, etc." implying that the first sentence is indeed inevitable. But regardless, the second sentence isn't true either:"

What?!?!

He never implied that the first sentence is inevitable.

He said,

"If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs."

C-S: "So the second part, mentioning "severe cuts" is also untrue anyway if that source is indeed correct."

So IF your boss told you that you were going to have your pay cut by 25% you wouldn't find that "severe"????

I think most of us would find a 25% cut in our pay very "severe".

me: "In that context Bush has always been "stay the course"....and he has never denied that."

C-S: "But... he just did. He just denied that there. "

Try to follow.....

Bush has always said we need to stay in Iraq until the job was done. In that way yes he has always been "stay the course".

As I said before....

Dems took "stay the course" and started to apply it to military tactics in Iraq...trying to say that he was unwilling to change tactics in Iraq.

In that respect he has never been "stay the course".
 
  2007-09-07 02:08:40 AM  
dottedmint: Bush has always said we need to stay in Iraq until the job was done. In that way yes he has always been "stay the course"

But it's pretty obvious that "stay the course" meant doing that same stupid plan that hasn't worked, despite major criticism and ignored advice from top military. It's obvious somebody didn't think this war through. Bush's stubbornness and unwillingness to admit his mistakes has cost him additional credibility, even to his own supporters.
 
  2007-09-07 01:29:53 PM  
1. The "M A" sign was the navy's idea and they were the ones who put it up.

2. The "M A" sign was in reference to the USS Abraham Lincoln's deployment and not to the situation in Iraq.


Oh my ******* lord! Stop with the talking points already.

The story on the banner has changed more often than the fairy tale reasons for the invasion in the first place.

First it was the end of the Lincoln's deployment and it was the crew's idea.

Then it was the Department of the Navy's idea and they put it up.

Then it was the crew's idea again, but the Administration people put it up.

Later on it did indeed refer to the end of 'major combat operations' according to the administration and they had put it up.

Hell, a month after his flight suit stand-up routine and President Bush is still saying "mission accomplished" in his speeches with regards to Iraq. I guess you'd like me to believe he is still talking about the Lincoln, but that would be untrue. A lie, in other words.

oh, and the flight suit? Just a tacky publicity stunt that was completely unnecessary. Not exactly a lie, but misleading as all hell. Oh wait, that's a lie, too.

The administration (I'll grant it wasn't the President himself) said the carrier was too far away for a helicopter landing but then changed their story to say it wasn't really too far but "well, gee golly, we already had this theatrical moment planned and the reporters are all here so why not go ahead with it anyway? Oh and the President wanted to see how real aviators land since that's important for Presidents of the United States to know." (I bet he clapped his hands together and squealed like a 5th grader on his first roller coaster. "Do it again! Do it again!")

See? That first thing they said about the Lincoln being too far offshore? That would be a lie. The bullshiat about the banner being there to acknowledge the end of a deployment for the carrier? That's a lie, too.

And you can try to back pedal on "Stay the course" all you want, but that statement "We've never been 'stay the course!'" is a lie as well.

You can also try to twist and turn "the end of major combat operations" as if you were trying to unlock a door with a piece of straw, but that one is a lie, too. Soldiers and people die almost every day in combat in Iraq. You'd probably like to say that the occupation phase doesn't count as a major combat operation. While the administration certainly didn't even consider we would be there for a lengthy occupation so they didn't plan for one thus they would agree with you, I'd like you to tell the dead and the maimed that it wasn't a major combat operation that resulted in their current state of health.

And the administration would probably try to do just that, too. Look at the way they treated John Kerry's medals by turning them into purple heart bandaids. Disgusting the way they claim to support our troops and then disgrace the armed services with the stunts they pull. Christ, look at Walter Reed if you want another example.

Lies. Lies told by liars. Your best bet is to switch now to the "all politicians lie" tactic instead of trying to defend the Bush administration. They are on the record as liars of the pants on fire variety.

Mother of God, man! We haven't even touched the lies told regarding the Plame outing or the Scooter Libby shenanigans or the Abramoff scandal.

At this point nobody has provided evidence that says Bush "lied".

It's there. Right in front of you. You just refuse to see it and I don't think I will ever understand why.
 
  2007-09-08 10:16:05 PM  
Bonnie: "The story on the banner has changed more often than the fairy tale reasons for the invasion in the first place."

This is what Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, had to say,

"The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea,"

and

"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment,"

And Scott McClellan said,

"We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

IF you have examples of Bush making the claims that you seem to be accusing him of I guess I'd like to see them.

"Oh and the President wanted to see how real aviators land since that's important for Presidents of the United States to know." (I bet he clapped his hands together and squealed like a 5th grader on his first roller coaster. "Do it again! Do it again!")"

WOW.....

I'm impressed.....

What a childish - pointless little rant ...

Bush was a PILOT.

Bush wore flight suits in the past.

He logged hundreds of hours flying jets.

"And you can try to back pedal on "Stay the course" all you want, but that statement "We've never been 'stay the course!'" is a lie as well."

When Bush made that statement he was talking about the military tactics in Iraq because that is what the Dems twisted it to mean even though that was never the origional meaning.

Every time Bush talked about "STC" he was talking about staying in Iraq until that government was strong enough to defend itself.

He has always been open to changing tactics in Iraq to reach that goal.

"You can also try to twist and turn "the end of major combat operations" as if you were trying to unlock a door with a piece of straw, but that one is a lie, too. Soldiers and people die almost every day in combat in Iraq."

sigh


How many people need to die to be called "major combat operations"?

IF you are actually able to give me a specific number it is nothing more than your opinion.

IF you say 100 dead a month is "major" while I say 200 dead a month is "major" both answers are just opinions and not a lie.

An opinion is not a lie...

"Look at the way they treated John Kerry's medals by turning them into purple heart bandaids. Disgusting the way they claim to support our troops and then disgrace the armed services with the stunts they pull. Christ, look at Walter Reed if you want another example."

OMG....

Kerry was the one who disrespected the troops by telling lies about them.

He is the one who was disrespectful towards his medals by claiming to throw them away when it was politically popular only to use them when they could be to his advantage.

And Walter Reed isn't a situation that Bush created.

It has been screwed up since Clinton was in office...elder Bush was in office...Reagan was in office and probably before him.....

And you blame Bush for that?????

WOW....

What ignorance....

Gee....

Kinda gives you a glimpse at what socialized medicine might bring us....

"Mother of God, man! We haven't even touched the lies told regarding the Plame outing or the Scooter Libby shenanigans or the Abramoff scandal."

Are you talking about the lies told by the Dems????
 
  2007-09-09 03:05:59 AM  
What ignorance indeed!

For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea.

"We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein.


Go ahead. Keep believing that it was the Lincoln's deployment MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The administration's own press secretary finally admits it was the White House who did it. They were trying to celebrate the finding of WMDs...oh wait, they were celebrating an end to terrorism...oh, wait, they were celebrating an illegal invasion of a sovreign nation that had nothing farking at all to do with 9/11.

Ignorance. Ha!


The elephant in this room is your inability to see that this entire war is based on lies. Where are the WMDs? Where are the Iraqi ties to Al Queda?

I used to think that you were worthy of a serious debate.

Sadly, I've lost all respect for you.

So here it is...the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner. Are you going to admit it was the White House or try to keep scapegoating the Navy?
 
  2007-09-09 05:22:12 PM  
Bonnie: "Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea.

"We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein."


ROLMAO....

What's funny about your statement is that the quote that you provided doesn't actually support what your statement says.

Nothing in Fleischer's quote says that the banner was "their idea".

The Navy spokesman that I quoted said the banner was a Navy idea not a WH idea.

And Scott McClellan did say,

"We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

Now....

Did the Navy put it up or did the WH put it up???

Ultimately I don't know if it really matters.

When Fleischer said, "We put it up." he might actually have thought that the WH put it up so there would not be a lie in his statement.

And as far as the "meaning" of the banner I don't know if there is a lie in saying it was to "topple Saddam".

The Navy spokesman said,

"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment,"

and I admit that I could be wrong but wasn't the mission of their deployment to "topple Saddam Hussein".

"So here it is...the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner. Are you going to admit it was the White House or try to keep scapegoating the Navy?"

Well since the Navy said it was their idea and you have not provided a quote from the WH saying that it was the WHs idea I have to say that YES it was the Navy that was behind that banner.
 
  2007-09-10 11:25:59 AM  
Yes. Exactly what I expected from you.

Have a nice life.
 
  2007-09-10 11:01:10 PM  
Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie....

Someone points out that your claims are basically ...well... baseless and you go pouting off in a huff.

Can you say, "childish" ?????

Whenever you guys are ready to discuss issues that MIGHT actually be important let me know.

Taxes?
Social Security?
Health Care?
Gas Prices?

What else?

2ND Amendment?
Church State?

Anything else????
 
  2007-09-11 12:30:35 AM  
There is no discussion with you. I'm tired of trying to discuss things with someone who just repeats talking points.

So have a nice life, parrot.
 
  2007-09-11 02:33:11 AM  
dottedmint: Whenever you guys are ready to discuss issues that MIGHT actually be important let me know.


Pick one, make a point or take a position and I will summarily tell you why you are wrong. ;)
 
  2007-09-11 03:01:25 AM  
dottedmint

I would vote for second amendment. I haven't seen one of those threads in a while.
 
  2007-09-11 07:11:51 AM  
Bonnie....

You are the one who is repeating "talking points".

Not me.

You posted...

"For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea.

"We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein."


....but obviously you didn't bother to actually read what you posted.

I can only guess that you found that statement on some 'Anti-Bush site' that listed examples of 'lies' that Bush told.

The problem with what you posted is that the quote from Fleischer doesn't support the statement that came before the quote.

Fleischer did NOT say that the WH came up with the idea of the banner.

Do us both a favor and look in the mirror before you accuse me of posting "talking points".

IF you are going to continue to deny that YOU are posting "talking points" then simply provide a quote that says the banner was "their idea"(the WH).

IF you are unwilling / unable to do either then I would say the name of "Parrot" would fit you better....
 
  2007-09-11 11:54:48 AM  
dottedmint: Whenever you guys are ready to discuss issues that MIGHT actually be important let me know.

I've still got a problem with your shameless defense of this administration, quite frankly, dottedmint.

Time and again it gets brought to your attention that they did wrong, wronged this country, shat on the Constitution, and you keep doing your damndest to cover for them.

Why?

Iraq isn't about democracy. Iran isn't about democracy.

It is about grabbing power in a region and securing natural resources.

Why do you continue to pretend it isn't?
 
  2007-09-11 01:43:07 PM  
dottedmint: "We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein."

So if the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein, why didn't they leave then? What they "meant" or whose idea it really was has absolutely no bearing on whether the public was in fact misled by their little act that day. And you're forgetting that Bush is the Navy's boss. It's not unfair to say that even if the banner was their idea, Bush has the final say on whether they put it up or not and it's perfectly reasonable to blame him for the inaccuracy.

Regardless of whose idea it was it was a stupid photo-op that went horribly, horribly wrong and is a perfect example of the administration's shortsightedness. "Major combat operations" were not over, we've dropped more ordinance, lost more lives, spent more money, and killed more Iraqis since then. The representation made to the public that day was that our job in Iraq was done, and we had succeeded. What they "really meant" when they put it up is irrelevant.
 
  2007-09-11 10:15:31 PM  
Whidbey: "Why?

Well....

The simple answer is that I disagree with many of the accusations / claims that you make.

C-S: "So if the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein, why didn't they leave then?"

Well????

The "mission" of the USS AL was to topple Saddam.

They accomplished that "mission"....and guess what..... they left.

"Regardless of whose idea it was it was a stupid photo-op that went horribly, horribly wrong and is a perfect example of the administration's shortsightedness."

I would not call it "stupid" or "horribly, horribly wrong" but I do agree that they (whoever) didn't think what the story will turn to.

"What they "really meant" when they put it up is irrelevant."

Hardly....

What was "really meant" is very relevant because that is the only way to determine the truthfulness / honesty of the comments.

As I have pointed out in earlier comments it is possible to be completely wrong about an issue but not be telling a lie.
 
  2007-09-11 10:35:49 PM  
Amendment II: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I think that I (as a law abiding citizen) should be able to legally carry a handgun in my jacket if I feel a need to.

I don't think there is anything wrong with background checks and requiring some sort of training in order to get a permit.

Hopefully that will be enough to get this issue started....
 
  2007-09-12 01:19:30 AM  
*shakes head*

We've discussed gun control before. I think we're basically in agreement.

Guns are in no danger of being taken away in this country. The lies and the manipulations of the Bush administration are a much greater problem to this country's peace and security.

dottedmint: The simple answer is that I disagree with many of the accusations / claims that you make.

I can disagree that the sky is blue, but not when confronted with the facts to the contrary.

Now, we've been discussing this issue for months, and you're still sticking to the hard line and the disinformation despite the very well-presented evidence in here.

What advantage is it of yours to continue believing it?

And if you're not willing to believe that Bush did lie to the American people, why am I not at the very least seeing you question his actions?

With all due respect, that's something a lot more important than discussing guns.
 
  2007-09-12 07:04:29 AM  
Gee Whidbey....

c7hu1hu fh746n requested a Second Amendment discussion.....

You are not going to convince me that Bush lied about Iraq.

And I'm not going to convince you that he didn't.

IF you want to argue that he was wrong....

I wouldn't debate that.

IF you want to argue that he was too eager to go into Iraq.....

I wouldn't even debate that.

But when you claim that Bush "LIED" about Iraq I disagree and don't think you have proven that he did.

Remember....as I've pointed out before to "LIE" a person needs to know that what they are stating as true is actually false.

Now....

IF you could find a letter / memo to Cheney from Bush where Bush said, "I know Saddam doesn't have WMDs but I"m going to say he does" then I would change my stance.

I just think we are at a point with the Iraq "LIE" discussion where there isn't much more to say.

Unless of course Bonnie wants to admit that he didn't post evidence that the banner was "their (The WH) idea".

IF you don't wish to debate the Second Amendment maybe you would rather debate your claim...

...that Bush "shat on the Constitution" because I am somewhat curious what specifically you are thinking of.
 
  2007-09-12 11:46:57 AM  
dottedmint: Gee Whidbey....
c7hu1hu fh746n requested a Second Amendment discussion.....


Sorry. Didn't see that. I thought you were being sly and changing the subject...

But when you claim that Bush "LIED" about Iraq I disagree and don't think you have proven that he did.
Remember....as I've pointed out before to "LIE" a person needs to know that what they are stating as true is actually false.


The problem I'm having is...that seems to be OK with you.

It doesn't seem to bother you that our President manipulated information to initiate military action.

The logical, expected reaction to that kind of behavior is a suspicion that that person is not telling the truth.

This is someone we are supposed to trust. If a valued business partner tried to feed you a line like Bush is doing, would you defend that person if you found out later that what he was saying was a falsehood?

I really don't see the difference between "misleading" and "lying." How do you? How much leeway are you willing to give here?

I just think we are at a point with the Iraq "LIE" discussion where there isn't much more to say.

Well, I know it's a tall order, but I guess what I'm trying to get you to admit is that this administration's plan to invade Iraq was based on misleading information, and that plan should be condemned for that reason alone.

I guess I don't understand how you can accept our government doing business that way.

that Bush "shat on the Constitution" because I am somewhat curious what specifically you are thinking of.

I still have a problem with the "fuzzy math" you use to justify the abuses of the Constitution.

Three areas:

1. The lack of a formal declaration of war.

I don't believe that Iraq was "necessary" enough to warrant side-stepping this important protocol. A War Resolution is not Constitutional, and I really don't understand why you argue against this.

What's more, the individual members of the Security Council are not permitted to carry out resolutions without the agreement of the rest of the Council members. If we had gotten the rest of the Security Council to agree to military action, then Iraq would have been legal under Article VI of the US Constitution.

This didn't happen, and I contend that our invasion was illegal for those two reasons.

2. The wiretapping issue.

Why is this administration so loathe to at least go through the steps of having a judge issue a warrant to allow surveillance of domestic suspected activity? Even after the concession is given to request that warrant after the fact?

You do realize that by insisting on eliminating this step, there is no accountability other than what the Executive Branch says?

3. I find that Bush's "signing statements" are also un-Constitutional. Why has he not been called out on this? Do you agree that our President has the leeway to do this? If so, why?

And what's more, this administration has set an even greater precedent for abuse of power, no matter who's in office.
 
  2007-09-12 03:04:34 PM  
dottedmint: But when you claim that Bush "LIED" about Iraq I disagree and don't think you have proven that he did.

Do you remember any of the evidence I have posted, both recently and weeks ago when we discussed this previously? Such as the evidence regarding Curveball? Allegations the administration intentionally represented untrue and unreliable statements as fact? That is evidence of lying.

dottedmint: What was "really meant" is very relevant because that is the only way to determine the truthfulness / honesty of the comments.

As I have pointed out in earlier comments it is possible to be completely wrong about an issue but not be telling a lie.


As I have pointed out in earlier comments intent is irrelevant when the public is misled by the administration. Whatever the banner "meant" (or what they allege it meant after the fact) doesn't matter, what matters is that the speech and the banner together presented a statement to the public that was false and misleading. Making such a representation to the public, or failing to see what kind of representation that action would make, are both unacceptable and fall far below the level of trust that MUST be expected from any President.

dottedmint: I think that I (as a law abiding citizen) should be able to legally carry a handgun in my jacket if I feel a need to.

I don't think there is anything wrong with background checks and requiring some sort of training in order to get a permit.


I agree. I don't own a gun, don't feel the need to carry one, and don't plan on owning one, but I agree.
 
  2007-09-12 04:03:22 PM  

I don't think there is anything wrong with background checks and requiring some sort of training in order to get a permit.


You've hit on something there that needs to be emphasized more. Everyone talks about background checks and waiting periods and whatever else, but no one seems to talk about training. In general, I trust your average citizen to know when it is appropriate to use a gun in self-defense or defense of others. I generally trust most people have sound judgment when it comes to situations requiring violence, etc. What I do not trust 99% of non-military personnel (and about 50% of military personnel, after a conversation with a sniper who has been in Iraq), to do with a gun is hit the target they are shooting at. I'd rather not be killed or anyone I know be killed because they happened to be on the wrong side of an aggressor. There should be a rigorous training regimen associated with any sort of gun ownership.

(note: my position may be influenced by having been on the wrong side of a deer before.)
 
  2007-09-12 11:05:05 PM  
Whidbey: "Well, I know it's a tall order, but I guess what I'm trying to get you to admit is that this administration's plan to invade Iraq was based on misleading information, and that plan should be condemned for that reason alone."

I see a difference between saying something was "misleading" and simply "wrong".

And I don't think a plan should be condemned based on "wrong" information that we thought was true.

"1. The lack of a formal declaration of war.

I don't believe that Iraq was "necessary" enough to warrant side-stepping this important protocol. A War Resolution is not Constitutional, and I really don't understand why you argue against this."


Ummm....

The US Constitution does not have a "protocol" for going to war. It doesn't even say that a DoW is needed for the use of the military. Nor does TUSC have a template for what a DoW must say.

We've been over this before....


"What's more, the individual members of the Security Council are not permitted to carry out resolutions without the agreement of the rest of the Council members. If we had gotten the rest of the Security Council to agree to military action, then Iraq would have been legal under Article VI of the US Constitution."


I don't have the actual text but didn't the UN pass a resolution saying that Iraq had violated the cease fire agreement that ended fighting with the first gulf war.

IF the cease fire agreement is violated then that means hostilities can resume.

"2. The wiretapping issue.

Why is this administration so loathe to at least go through the steps of having a judge issue a warrant to allow surveillance of domestic suspected activity? Even after the concession is given to request that warrant after the fact?"


Courts have said that a President has the authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain Foreign Intelligence Information.

"3. I find that Bush's "signing statements" are also un-Constitutional. Why has he not been called out on this? Do you agree that our President has the leeway to do this? If so, why?"

Bush did not come up with "signing statements".

He is not the first President to use them.

I'm not aware of any court ruling that says "signing statements" are a violation of TUSC.

I'll tell ya a secret....

When you talked about violating TUSC there was actually one thing that Bush did that came to my mind.

I'm not sure I would say what he did was UNConstitutional because as President he has the authority to sign into law the bills that Congress send to him.

He did sign into law something that I think goes against the basic spirit of TUSC.

IF you can come up with what I am thinking I will gladly "bash" Bush on that issue.

But I'm curious if you can think of it.....

In my issue I can actually quote TUSC and show how what Bush signed into law goes against it....

C-S: "Do you remember any of the evidence I have posted, both recently and weeks ago when we discussed this previously?"

Sure....

I recall your comments.

I just don't think that your comments proved that Bush "lied" about Iraq.

Sorry....

"As I have pointed out in earlier comments intent is irrelevant when the public is misled by the administration. Whatever the banner "meant" (or what they allege it meant after the fact) doesn't matter, what matters is that the speech and the banner together presented a statement to the public that was false and misleading. Making such a representation to the public, or failing to see what kind of representation that action would make, are both unacceptable and fall far below the level of trust that MUST be expected from any President."

But if a statement was not "meant" to "mislead" then there is no "lie".

This is why the intent / the meaning is important.

c7hu1hu fh746n "There should be a rigorous training regimen associated with any sort of gun ownership."

I think there should be training if you intend to carry it in your jacket in public.

IF you just wish to own a gun I don't see any need for training.

Some sort of training is (If I'm not mistaken) required for all CC permits.

There are a handful of states that still do not allow a person to carry a concealed handgun in public.

I think those bans on "concealed carry" are more than just a bit foolish.
 
Displayed 50 of 2667 comments

First | « | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report