During the speech to the National Rifle Association in which he bizarrely took a phone call from his wife, Rudy Giuliani expressed support for the Tiahrt amendment, calling it “a sensible provision” that “gives law enforcement the ability to get information.” A day earlier, Giuliani had suggested he didn’t know much about the 2003 measure championed by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, that blocks access to aggregate gun trace data. Giuliani’s support put him squarely at odds with his successor, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who lost his costly fight earlier this year to overturn the Tiahrt amendment, which he calls “an outrage.”
Bloomberg, who chided Giuliani for disavowing a 2000 lawsuit New York City had filed against gun manufacturers, did praise the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for, “after what they said was overwhelming demand from around the country, starting to give out more information, probably in violation of the Tiahrt amendment.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- preordained1 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
83 Comments
WHAT!!?!?
tiahrt finally got a bill passed?oh, it’s a suck up to the nra bill.
now i get it.
is larry craig still on the nra board of directors?that’s a real pistol totin’ man you want to hang around with isn’t it.
giuliani isn’t the mayor of anything anymore.he’s just another flip floppin politician sniffin around for corporate money.
it’s all for sale.
if rudy was a man he would put a stop to his grassroots fund raising parties where the ticket costs…$9.11
can it get any worst than outright pimping the WTC tragedy ??
Todd Tiahrt loves guns but he voted against the childrens health bill, but he is mister pro-life. Its sad when he keeps voting for more guns and a war built on lies but against the American kids. Fourty one days in Iraq would pay for five years of the Children’s Health Insurance. How can the people of Wichita keep supporting he this idiot.
What’s Hillary stand on guns?
And I had hoped we had finally had enough of the Eagle pimping the BIG LIE about the Tiahrt amendment. Guess not.
Yeesh.
Nice try WE, but this does NOT divert attention from the toddly one’s whiney and weak editorial today. Nothing more than gop talking points, but then, what did we expect?
So WE… how’s that endorsement of tiahrt working out for Kansas?
Nice job.
God guns and gays. Doesnt that just about sum up the total of tiahrt’s interest?}
If it isnt a one of the wingnut trifecta, he really cant be bothered.
God, guns and gays. Just tatoo it on his forehead…
No WONDER values boy wants to ditch the label. Ties him too closely to tiahrt?
One trick pony and a one hit wonder. Send him to Kstreet where he belongs as a corporate shill.
Or maybe he could go to divinity school? Heheheheheheheh!
“What’s Hillary stand on guns?”
Ya want the left wing of the Democratic party’s public position, or the truth?
Public position: We believe in the 2nd amendment, but want “common sense” regulation. (Their version of common sense, however, lacks much common sense.)
Real agenda: Ban all firearms. Period.
What’s Hillary stand on guns?Posted by: YYY
Next, Hillary Clinton answers a couple of my questions:
Henderson: “In your last answer to the last question upstairs, you mentioned the ‘crazed killer’ at Virginia Tech. Do you think this situation has created a renewed environment for the debate about gun control, or is that still too sticky an issue for Democrats?”
Clinton: “Well, I think what it really raises is the need to enforce the laws that we already have and to work with states so that they have the resources and the specific requirements as to what they’re supposed to do. It’s come to light that Virginia hasn’t really enforced the provision in the Brady Bill to put information like being committed involuntarily, as the shooter was, into the database and then have the database effective enough so that it pops up if somebody tries to buy a gun so the first thing we ought to focus on is figuring out what’s gone wrong in actually enforcing all the laws we have and, you know, seeing if we can’t do a better job of that.”
Henderson: “What about the assault weapons ban or restrictions on bullets?”
Clinton: “Well, there is evidence that I’ve read about that the killer had ammunition that would have been illegal under the assault weapons ban. You know, look, I think the balancing act is clear here to everybody. You have to balance Second Amendment rights against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and people who are unstable and that has always been what everyone I know has been seeking to accomplish and maybe this tragic incident will get us to think about how to get back to that balance.”
http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html
Common sense regulation equals ban all guns?
Only in the land of wingnuttia…
There ya have it folks, an insight into the mind of the god, GUNS and gays crowd.
Anyone have the koolaide antidote for gmc? I hate to see him suffer so :(
Hillary on guns:
In 1988, an anti-gun group invented “assault weapons” as a “new issue” to “reinvigorate the [defunct] handgun restriction lobby.” Now, the “issue” is being used to pave the way for bans on other guns. Sens. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Dianne Feinstein co-sponsored S.1431, a bill to ban–as “assault weapons”–every semi-automatic shotgun and semi-automatic detachable-magazine rifle, the majority of which are widely used by sportsmen. Another provision in the bill would have banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns designed for defensive purposes. In some states, anti-gunners now propose banning pump-action rifles and shotguns as “assault weapons.”
WE pushing Tiahrt again, oh well:For those not already informed, below are links to two documents you should read before you make a decision on the Tiahrt amendment. (One being the actual amendment – duh!)
There is nothing in the Tiahrt amendment that prohibits tracing firearms data for a bona fide criminal investigation.
For those who want to peruse gun purchase records for any other reason (like a Bloomberg witch hunt), that is not allowed per both the Tiahrt amendment AND the 39 year-old Gun Control Act of 1968.
1)The Tiahrt amendment.
http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/communications/press_releases/2007/Tiahrt_gun_amd/TIAHRT_amendment_2.pdf
2)The Gun Control Act of 1968http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
“Real agenda: Ban all firearms. Period.”
That is a lie !
Tiahrt is a sheep —- in 14 years has not taken a leadership role on any issue. He (as well as the other members of the Kansas delegation) have voted to reduce funding of the VA, to remove billions from the military personnel budget, thwarted attempts to hold Bush and his war machine via Congessional oversight …….
Ken:
For the Democratic party, officially, no, they do not advocate banning. And no, I don’t think they would propose same; it’s electoral death. They would, however, incrementally move that way, calling each step “common sense” regulation. Of course, all the “common sense” regulation (and more) has already been passed. In that sense, I agree with Hillary’s! statement; enforce the law we have. Whether I believe her is another matter . . .
However, for a number of influental members of that party (Shumer, Feinstein, to name a couple), banning firearms is, in fact, the agenda.
….. show us that agenda
“They would, however, incrementally move that way”
Heheheh. gmc fears someone would rip a page out of the god, guns and gays playbook of the gop and use a little judo.
“Incrementally move that way” is the standard gop play on abortion, because banning abortion in all circumstances would be the gop’s “electoral death”.
The gop fingerprints on the blueprints are the same, no matter whether the issue is god, or GUNS, or gays.
Fear and smear. Incremental erosion of the constitution. Unless of course, it’s the guns. THEN they want the constitution enforced. Selectively.
Jesus WEPT. Same song, different verse. Gmc, the one trick pony called. He AND the shark are tired of your antics….
Oh, and I’m with Ken. Could you PLEASE show us “that agenda” of taking away all your little toys?
“Local police forces last year asked the ATF for help investigating whether an estimated 284,000 weapons were legally sold, officials said Monday.”
So the Tiahrt Amendment did NOT prevent the gun traces needed for police investigations, did it Bloomberg!?!
Bloomberg is a lying SOB!
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/index.htm
Max, you are SUCH an idiot. Your quote here says he ASKED, not that he received. Read much? Was the info he asked for in that data? Do you even know?
But please, continue to spew those mindless talking points. We wouldnt want you to get a headache from actually thinking…
VOTE REPUBLICAN! IT’S EASIER THAN THINKING!
…and IF they are already providing the info…
Why is tiahrt fighting this so? IF they are in compliance, what’s the beef? Just grandstanding? Or is there REALLY info that tiahrt doesnt want released, and THAT is why he’s hanging his hat on this god guns and gays legislation?
Enquiring minds want to know.
How does this keep guns away from “criminally inclined” (politicallo correct for “criminals”?
Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee for Senate, did not mention her Republican opponent, Representative Rick A. Lazio, by name. But she indirectly criticized the congressman’s opposition to handgun registration by re-emphasizing her own position.
”I’m going to reiterate my call for the licensing and registration of handguns,” Mrs. Clinton said, speaking to reporters after a Memorial Day ceremony in front of the Chappaqua railroad station. ”I just think we ought to do everything we possibly can to keep them away from people who are criminally inclined.”http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E0D6163CF933A05756C0A9669C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Clinton,%20Hillary%20Rodham
“Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
This has all been covered before. Bloomberg’s underhanded and I might illegal tactics of sending private investigators into other states to do “sting” operation has still not be prosecuted by the Justice Department.
Bloomberg should be in Federal prison for instigating these stings across state lines.
Hillary Clinton will License and register all handgun sales
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000
http://ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
Clinton Will Renew Brady – and More
Lock up guns; store ammo separately
If you own a gun… make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.
Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999
http://ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
“”I’m going to reiterate my call for the licensing and registration of handguns,” Mrs. Clinton said, speaking to reporters after a Memorial Day ceremony in front of the Chappaqua railroad station. ”I just think we ought to do everything we possibly can to keep them away from people who are criminally inclined.”
And just WHERE did it say big bad hillary will take away your guns?
Licensing and registration equals banning? The slippery slope argument has worn so think it has HOLES in it.
And dont we have licensing and registration now? Having a license and registring your gun prevents you for carrying arms HOW?
Fear and smear. As XXX would say, “you got nothing”.
HEE HEE HEE. And note max’s “sources”. Please, if you have a strong stomach for wingnuttia, go check out his “sources”.
Fear and smear. God, guns and gays. I LOVE the smell of wingnut fear and smear in the morning….
“This has all been covered before. Bloomberg’s underhanded and I might illegal tactics of sending private investigators into other states to do “sting” operation has still not be prosecuted by the Justice Department.”
So… if ALL the DATA Bloomberg wants is already available, why the need for a sting operation?
You cant have it both ways. If the data is available, what he did isnt illegal.
If the data ISNT available, well, then, what does toddly tiahrt have to hide? And why did you lie and say ATF already provides it?
Come on logic boy, we are waiting. Which way is it?
‘Cause it cant be both!
“”I just think we ought to do everything we possibly can to keep them away from people who are criminally inclined.’”
Ooooooh! Scarey STUFF!!!!! BOOGY BOOGY BOOGY!
Keeping guns away from criminals is SUCH a bad idea.
Why do you love criminals? And why do you hate the rule of law?
Farmgirl, you have no clue what Bloomberg did.
Look it up. I’m tired of doing your research.
You criticize my sources, at least I have sources. You cite anything showing how Hillary Clinton will strongly support the 2nd Amendment right of individuals to own firearms?
You cite anything saying she has no gun ban agenda?
It’s really funny how the Liberals refuse to accept the obvious major flaws of their Girl – Hillary Clinton.
Notice their outbursts when they have no defense for their girl!
Hillary will:
Have a record increase in taxes.
Continue exponential spending.
Expand Socialist programs.
Control your health care.
And Yes, Hillary WILL Ban Your Guns.
Vote for Hillary, Turn Guns In at the Voting Booth.
Hillary will Not:
End the Iraq War and Immediately withdraw US Troops.
Bloomberg didn’t want or need the data for law enforcement purposes. He wanted to gather data to use (misuse) it in a big money civil suit against legal gun manufacturers and distributors.
Well first of all, I never claimed anything about Hillary. SO why should I prove anything.
YOU claimed Hillary wanted to ban guns. I asked you to prove YOUR claim. You obviously talked out of your ass and CANT back up what you said.
Spin away, it doesnt change the fact that you let your alligator ass overload your tadpole brain. AND you have a passing aquaintance with the truth.
Just a word of advise for you.
In debate and logic, the one who makes an affirmative claim is the one who is responsible for proving it.
So… WAITING on you to post where Hillary said she will BAN your guns, which is the claim you made earlier.
AND WHY should I prove Hillary “strongly supports” anything? I made no such claim.
Your logic, debate AND research skills are a joke. You doing research for me? NO, I just wanted YOU to show what a dumbass blowhard YOU are.
Facts. They arent just for breakfast anymore.
And since WHEN does common sense regulation, licensing and registration equal banning all guns?
Jesus WEPT!
“Bloomberg didn’t want or need the data for law enforcement purposes. He wanted to gather data to use (misuse) it in a big money civil suit against legal gun manufacturers and distributors.”
outie, real slow for ya now.
The claim was made (complete with “links”) that ATF provides all the data anyway.
IF that is true, what’s the beef? Why is the tiahrt amendment needed if the data is already available.
And if it is NOT available, why not?
What have you and yours got to hide outie?
It either is or it isnt. Which one do you choose?
Giuliani’s taking a phone call from his wife during a speech isn’t bizarre since he’s done the staged act before. Do some fact checking Eagle.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/22/2007-09-22_rudy_giuliani_picks_up_wifes_phone_call_.html
This is the same Giuliani who supported gun control laws as mayor before he decided to make a run for President.
Incrementalism.
Incrementalism in the study of rationality can be seen as a stealthy way to bring about radical changes that were not initially wanted.
ken -
We’ve been through all this before. Just use Google; Shumer and Co.’s agenda is clear as a bell.
Note Max post above: The law now requires a photo ID and insta-check to buy ANY gun; how is this not incrimental “common sense” legislation? And, BTW, just what about it is “common sense?”
Also note HR 1022, a reauthorization (and more broadly written) of the silly “Assault Weapons Ban” that expired in 2004.
Wanna tell me again that there’s no effort to incrimentally ban? P-lease.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022
Who ya gonna believe: KFG or your own eyes . . .
Hee hee hee. Boy the fear and smear machine is hittin’ on all eight today, fueled by lies and unsubstantiated claims.
Max, you pathetic little shit. You have been PROVEN to be a liar about Hillary banning guns.
Wanna be proven a liar AGAIN for making outrageous and untrue claims? Remember logic, where if you make a claim, YOU Have to prove it.
SO.. wanna take a crack at THESE outrageous and unsubstantiated lies?
“Hillary will:
Have a record increase in taxes.
Continue exponential spending.
Expand Socialist programs.
Control your health care.
And Yes, Hillary WILL Ban Your Guns.
Vote for Hillary, Turn Guns In at the Voting Booth.”
So, just like a true repuke, when confronted with your own lies, you just tell MORE and BIGGER lies?
heheheheheheheheh….
A republican vote will get you max logic.
How’s that working for us now?
I detect “arm flailing”.
President Hillary Clinton.
Damn, I like the sound of that just for all the wingnut heart attacks it will cause….
“This is the same Giuliani who supported gun control laws as mayor before he decided to make a run for President.”
So Doug, you mean he was FOR gun banning before he was AGAINST it?
I’m shocked, SHOCKED I say that you would say such a thing about a republican FLIP flopper….
Certainly not gonna believe you ….
Incrementalism
It’s the liberal way.
Whether it is gun control, government controlled health care, or even the coarsening and secularization of society, the idea is to move in small steps so that you don’t notice or don’t bother with objections until it is too late.
“Incrementalism in the study of rationality can be seen as a stealthy way to bring about radical changes that were not initially wanted.”
Duh.
I’d say the wingnut strategy of using incrementalism to bring about the “unwanted changes” in abortion laws is clear.
So, according to outie and gmc:
Incrementalism + abortion = GOOD!!!
Incrementalism + guns = BAD!!!!!
heheheh. GOT IT!
And we got your number too.
Remember when Mayor Nagin had his police go door to door to take away guns from citizens in New Orleans? At the same time the police could not protect the people, somehow the police found time to take guns away from the very people who needed them the most – to defend their own lives.
The Vitter Amendment passed in 2006 to PREVENT a Mayor Nagin type from doing this again!
Guess who voted against Vitter?
Hillary Clinton was one of 16 Senators who voted against the 2006 Vitter Amendment, which prohibits the funding of the confiscation of lawfully-held firearms during a disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Gun_control
Hee hee hee outie. Right on cue. Thanks for making my points FOR me today.
“We’ve been through all this before. Just use Google; Shumer and Co.’s agenda is clear as a bell.”
Uh, no when I google, I dont see that. SO perhaps you could help out a slow witted old lady and POST that agenda?
I mean, if all it takes is the google and all. Affirmative claim, remember?
ken:
Fine. Follow the links. Use Google. Whatever. But the facts are what they are.
You can learn, or you can blindly deny . . . your choice.
“Remember when Mayor Nagin had his police go door to door to take away guns from citizens in New Orleans?”
No, I dont remember that. Please post a link.
And arent you wingnuts always the ones bitchin’ about wiki as a source? Whatever. YOU STILL cant post a link to Hillary proposing to take away your guns.
Vitter? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH. Poopy diapers? HEE HEE HEE HEE!!!!
But he champions guns so his poopy diapers are ok?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
I thought this thread was about gun issues.
GMC, since kfg tried to change the subject to abortion, I’d say that you were right on target!
Oh, and btw, you wingnuts were AFRAID to send law enforcement into downtown New Orleans, and the National Guard was hesitant to go in because… wait for it…
THEY SAID BLACK PEOPLE WERE SHOOTING AT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh but please, a gun in every hand and a chicken and every pot for the rulers of wingnuttia.
Again, max, you cant have it both ways. Were the folks shooting at cops and soldiers LAWFULLY owning those guns?
And those guns, used to ping cops, should NOT have been taken away?
Max, the shark, the one trick pony, AND the GOP elephant are calling for you…
…and outie STILL doesnt tell us why incrementalism is good for some but not for all?
Hypocrasy, thy name is….
And max, if a gun is lawfully owned, but used to commit unlawful acts, you agree with poopy that those same guns should NOT be taken away?
Damn, the shark is HIDING from being jumped so much!
“Wanna tell me again that there’s no effort to incrimentally ban?”
Please answer the question counselor. WHY is incrementalism good for repukes but bad for the dems?
Farmgirl, you have truly gone off the deep end.
You are one perfect example of the ignorant and hysterical left who fears giving the people the right to defend their own lives, yet you somehow trust government more.
And your ballistic outbursts, oh please continue….
…and you of all people, gmc should know, that I dont have to prove a damn thing about incrementalism since I claimed NOTHING about it.
YOU however, claim hillary will ban guns.
Still waiting on you to prove that affirmative claim!
What’s the matter mad max?
Cant answer my questions?
Oh, then please accuse me of going off the deep end.
We STILL see that you CANT back up your wild eyed accusations and arm flailing.
KFG -
This will be my one and only post to you. You have, for me, LONG SINCE passed into ignore territory. I will not respond to you. I find your tactics reprehensible.
We’re done.
farmgirl uses lots of capital letters so I think she wins.
“We’re done”
Yeah, well, when you’ve been show to be an arm flailing alarmist with NO ability to back up those statements….
… you can always do the patented GMC stunt of HUFFING off the blog in righteous indignation.
True to form gmc. You do it every time you get your ass kicked…
hee hee hee hee!
Do you need a bone dig of all the OTHER times you’ve huff off in a cloud of froth?
KFG is on fire this a.m. ^5!, You ROCK, girl.
Thanks, Steven! But they are so DAMN whiney and stupid today it’s just about like shooting fish in a barrel.
After a while, it’s no fun, and the “fish” start to stink…
“This will be my one and only post to you. You have, for me, LONG SINCE passed into ignore territory. I will not respond to you. I find your tactics reprehensible.”
I hope that means he’s going to take his toys and go home.
kfg reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The guy losing the sword fight, having lost his legs and no arms is on the ground yelling something along the lines of: “Don’t you dare run away, you coward! Come back here, I’ll bite your ankle.”
kfg has posted absolutely nothing but rhetoric and challenge questions. She has posted nothing of substance and factual.
Just massive liberal arm flailing, screaming and whining.
Not
One
fact
posted
by
kfg
Really, Steven?
Just what facts has she provided? Any? No. Links? None. She rants on about “flailing arms,” but it appears that if there’s any wild “flailing” going on, she’s doing it.
Yea, brilliant. (eye roll) Yea, Jesus wept all right; Jesus is tired of being used as a prop substitute for something to say.
Heh, the FACT is you wingnuts are LYING and CANT back up your lies?
You’ve posted NO refute of my calling you and your merry band of gun nuts on your lies.
Dont like the truth? Smear the poster.
Play number 10001 from the gop/wingnut play book.
How’s that workin’ for ya troll boy?
When you answer the questions gmc, and back up your WILD claims, you can come back and play.
I made no claims. What FACTS do you want me to post?
The FACT that you made up some fear mongering shit and now you get huffy when called on it?
heh. HEHEH. HEE HE HEEEEEE HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!
Oh yeah… YO MAMMA!
Voters, you have choices.
You can do the research on your own to find the true positions of the Presidential candidates (as opposed to what they SAY their positions are),
Or you can just pull your one party ticket
Or do what you are told to do by your union,
Or read some of the posts on blogs like this and decide which ones are rational, or not,
(The value of this blog in particular varies from day to day, but sometimes you can find some rational debates where information is shared between rational people on the issues, instead you often find emotional rants and raves)
Or believe whatever the newspapers and news mags tell you to do.
I know the public schools have failed to teach most people how to think on their own (you can see at least one example of this in a blogger today), they teach what to think, but I know most of you can make an intelligent decision based on the facts found through your own research.
There are endless resources for research, and here are just 2 examples:
http://votesmart.org/index.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` “60 Minutes”– “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”
Hillary is smart enough to know she cannot overtly reveal her true gun-ban agenda AND get elected.
The Brady Gun Ban of 1994 led directly to the loss of so many Democratic seats that the Republicans took the majority in Congress for the first time in what was it, 40 years.
Since you can’t rely on her current campaign speeches to reveal this, you need to look at what she has Said and what she has Done over the last 10-15 years. (Or back further if you want to know her Alinsky ties and the Social Manipulation strategy she learned from him)
Those who are ignorant of history, couldn’t possibly know this.
Hey Hillary:
Bill Clinton refused to accept political action committee (PAC) contributions in his campaigns of 1992 and 1996. Obama and Edwards are following his example. Why aren’t you?
kfg has posted absolutely nothing but rhetoric She has posted nothing of substance and factual.Posted by: Kansas
She really sounds like someone who didn’t get their medicine today. Just reading back today’s post. Her posts read bizarre.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
KFG -
This will be my one and only post to you. You have, for me, LONG SINCE passed into ignore territory. I will not respond to you. I find your tactics reprehensible.
We’re done.
Posted by: GMC70 | September 26, 2007 at 10:47 AM
GMC, Would you please put me on that same “Ignore” list with KFG?
I too am sick of your rants.
Hey Hillary:
After all the bad experiences you had with Johnnie Chung and Charlie Trie and their campaign donations in the 1996 election cycle, why were you not more careful in vetting the donations generated by Norman Hsu? Didn’t you learn your lesson in 1996?
XXX, whatever disgreements we may have, KFG is a special case, with particular circumstances. If you wish to ignore me, of course, be my guest.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm
” KFG is a special case, with particular circumstances.”
Yeah. I called out your lie and your usual m.o. of huffing off the blog when caught.
Special case indeed.
heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh!
KFG
What exactly did GMC lie about?
I’ve combed through the whole thread and cant find anything that constitutes a lie.
(crickets chirping)
Mohamed Wept!
KFG, don’t forget the part about ripping off the taxpayers.
Hecker,
“Real agenda: Ban all firearms. Period.” This is roughly equivalent to claiming that Bush’s real agenda is to declare himself King-for-Life.
It’s a little too insane to take seriously.
Unless Rage, you review the Clinton’s past.
Unless Rage, you review the Clinton’s past.
Posted by: Max | September 26, 2007 at 07:16 PM
Heh, Max, as Jon Stewart would say, “Go onnnnnnn!”
For those who would blindly serve, you get what you deserve.
The only “big lie” on the Tiarht Amendment is that it would help fight crime! Pull your heads out of the NRA’s behind, and begin to read and think for yourselves for once! The NRA doesn’t stand for safety, it stands for the gun MANUFACTURER’s lobby. And Tiarht doesn’t stand for a damned thing that helps PEOPLE!
Rage:
You didn’t read the entire post, in context. Did I say that was Hillary!’s agenda? No, though I wouldn’t put it past her, given her past acts. I said, and I’ll stand by, that for a number of influential members of the left wing of the deocratic party, it IS their agenda. I use the term Shumer & Co. to identify them. Further, they will continue to attempt to do incrimentally what they cannot do all at once.
Get the story straight.
Several posters here, BTW, would also endorse such an agenda, though certainly not most, even those the furthest left.
Of course, there are a number of nutroots posters here who would indeed claim Bush’s agenda is to proclaim himself “King-for-life;” in fact, they’ve said as much, though not in those terms. JR (sorry, properly titled The Great JR, oh we’re waiting for you oh great one with bated breath . . . ) has claimed that he suspects a coming declaration of martial law and suspension of elections in 2008.
No, I’m not kidding.
And yes, Rage, that is indeed to insane to be take seriously.
And Heck, you’re in for a long wait, I’m afraid.