Almost an hour long speech...

[Columbia]

And not one mention of gun control.

You go, John Kerry!

:thumbsup: :toast: :party: :7

:thumbsup: :toast: :party: :7

:thumbsup: :toast: :party: :7

:thumbsup: :toast: :party: :7

[soothsayer]

1. O'liely told him NOT to go over half an hour (open advice on the radio)

bwa ha ha ha ha!

[FeebMaster]

4. Yeah, but O'Reilly is a gun grabber.

One of the dumber ones too.

[slackmaster]

5. I'll bet he's a crotch-grabber too

At least off camera.

[slackmaster]

2. A mighty fine speech too

So much for accusations that he can't inspire people.

:toast:

[Columbia]

3. Absolutely!

[-..__...]

6. LOL!!

I can't wait for the bug-eyed-knuckle-dragging-foaming-at-the-mouth-spittle explanation (excuse), for this one.

[MrSandman]

7. Wasn't it nice to hear...

Someone sound Presidential.

I wonder what the gun control wing thought.

[MrBenchley]

9. Thought it was a great speech!

Thought it was a disgrace that we've got shitheads who put an imaginary threat to their popguns above the good of the country.

Thought it was a disgrace that one-third of our progun Democrats say they aren't going to vote for him.

Plan to work very hard for him and Edwards...and the platform. And to keep pointing out who's working against him.

[Romulus]

27. nice try

as our Moderator said, the "1/3" is attributable to various disruptors, NOT the pro-gun-owner Democrats who post here . . .

[Wickerman]

36. do you have a link for where the moderator said that?

that would be a rather "liberal" take on what I said, so maybe someone else chimed in?

[Romulus]

39. you wrote it . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=73742#73850


While it would be comforting to believe that many of the votes come from non-gungeonites or that the poll got freeped by someone, the sad truth is that the numbers are consistent with a similar poll conducted in the primaries. The poll isn't, of course, resembling scientific, but is mildly useful for supporting some previously held perceptions.

See, some folks seem to love guns so much that they willfully violate our DU rules and post here even though they are not liberal or progressive in nature. Odd, that conservatives would willfully violate one of their own rallying cries - that of the right to individual ownership. They have no respect for private property.

We have asked them to abide by our rules and respect this site as private property but they self-righteously believe their message is more important than following rules.

Frankly, I have little trust in folks who can't follow a simple request - one that they agree to when they digitally sign their names to gain access to our site. If they are unwilling to follow that rule how can we trust such folks with semi-automatic weapons? Concealed Handguns? Safe gun storage?

Some might argue that they don't agree with our rules so they don't need to follow them - they can come and go on this board as they please. Need I even point out the over-arching problem with that kind of "independent thinking"?

Oh well, at least they give me something to do - they keep me busy turning off their accounts, they remind me of my admitted bias that conservatives, by nature, will go to any means, including lying to achieve their goals, and, most regrettably, they reinforce a similar stereotype of the pro- RKBA crowd. A shame, really - one doesn't know whom to trust nor what part of the gun message should be believed.

[Wickerman]

40. one might pay particular attention to the first sentence, though

"While it would be comforting to believe that many of the votes come from non-gungeonites or that the poll got freeped by someone, the sad truth is that the numbers are consistent with a similar poll conducted in the primaries. The poll isn't, of course, resembling scientific, but is mildly useful for supporting some previously held perceptions."

Yes, we have many stanch Dems here. No doubt. We also have known "infiltrators" who post on a regular basis that manage to avoid having their acocunts turned off for a variety of reasons.

We also have a steady stream of distruptors who come and go.

Some of each of those voted.

[Romulus]

41. interesting line

We also have known "infiltrators" who post on a regular basis that manage to avoid having their acocunts turned off for a variety of reasons.

[Wickerman]

42. Not too much should be read into that

it is simply a matter of time for folks who are neither progressive nor democrats to reach a point where DU no longer needs their services.

That isn't any news, its plainly in the DU rules.

[MrBenchley]

8. Yeah, it was almost like there were more important issues

than whether paranoid gun nuts had to fret that their popguns would be taken away....go figure.

[Township75]

10. To sexually-impaired anti gunners, there isn't a more important issue

they have been insisting we add more gun control for so long, regardless of how many elections it costs us, just so they don't have to see those big guns and be reminded of their small penis

[MrBenchley]

11. Nice to see that on the day when Kerry said "Take the high road..."

town is where he belongs.....

[MrBenchley]

12. By the way...

Guess I missed the part of last night's speech where Kerry said "And I repudiate this draconian party platform and the speakers who came before me. And I plan to work hard to let crazies buy assault weapons without background checks at gun shows."

Want to show us where that is, oh, trigger-happy "pro gun democrats"?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/dems.kerry.transcript/index.html

[Bowline]

13. Have you ever even BEEN to a gun show?

Have you ever bought an assault weapon from a gun show without a background check?

[OpSomBlood]

14. When they say "Gun Show Loophole" they mean "Private Sale Loophole"

If you have a table at a gun show, buyers are subject to Instacheck and the waiting period. I have no problem with requiring private transactions to go through an intermediary broker with access to Instacheck.

[Bowline]

15. You are correct. However, some here refuse to note the difference.

[MrBenchley]

17. Gee, if I went would I find it in the transcript?

Guess not....and I guess that I'll stick with Kerry, who's going to close the gun show loophole.

[Bowline]

18. Kerry can't close a darn thing. The President makes no laws.

He'll have to convince the House AND the Senate to do that. It is unlikely he'll be able to convince them both, especially if the Democrats don't win a solid majority in at least one house of Congress.

[MrBenchley]

20. So I guess that means it's not in the transcript....

But hey, good to see our "pro gun democrats" openly rooting against Democratic candidates....as usual.

[Bowline]

21. You just can't seem to stick to the topic, can you.

The point is that only Congress, not the President, makes the laws. From that you deduce I'm rooting against Kerry? Did you get your detective training from LAPD?

[MrBenchley]

23. I didn't ask you if you'd been to a gun show, did I?

And the President leads and sets an agenda....what does the platform say again?

[Bowline]

16. I thought the speech was quite good, although Edwards' was even better.

At least we can look forward to a President who can pronounce the word nuclear.

[CO Liberal]

19. And No Mention.....

...of eliminating every gun law and letting any brain-dead yahoo get any damn gun they feel like.

You go, John Kerry!

:thumbsup: :toast: :party: :7

:thumbsup: :toast: :party: :7

:thumbsup: :toast: :party: :7

:thumbsup: :toast: :party: :7

[Bowline]

22. Kerry wisely steered clear of any solid position on gun control.

No need to risk pushing any undecided voter over to the other side.

[MrBenchley]

24. He also had much more important fish to fry

and real issues, not whether nutcases feel that their, er, guns are going to be grabbed by Dianne Feinstein....

[Bowline]

25. Ahh yes, we nut cases who demand our rights.

What next, nut cases who demand the right to worship as they wish? Perhaps some nut case demanding to see a search warrant before the police tear through his house? Or maybe the nut case who demands that he not be forced to confess to a crime. What a bunch of lunatics we Americans are.

[MrBenchley]

28. And if you don't have them, make up imaginary rights...

and who pretend that Democrats and liberals are going to seize your pathetic popguns....

and gloat openly about gunning down their fellow citizens...

and try never to miss a achance to stick up for the scum of the earth....

[Romulus]

26. that's right

many, MANY, other more pressing issues for us to tackle . . .

[MrBenchley]

29. Good thing

our pro gun democrats are making such an eloquent case over on those gun owner forums...(oh, that's right...they're not.)

[CO Liberal]

30. I Believe Our Party's Platform Speaks For Itself

Now go tell your fellow pro-gunners to stop spreading lies about all Democrats wanting to go out and confiscate their guns.

[MrBenchley]

31. Are you kidding?

You'll never hear anything but excuses as to why they can't ever say anything pro-Democrat on a gun owner's forum...

[CO Liberal]

32. To Paraphrase The Late Great Harry Truman....

...we'll stop telling the truth about those rabid pro-gunners when they stop telling lies about us.

[MrBenchley]

33. Exactly so....

But if they stop telling lies, they'll have to be mute...

[CO Liberal]

34. All Right By Me......

:-)

[FatSlob]

35. Missed it.

Is there an archive anywhere?

[Wickerman]

37. all the speeches, all the time

http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=130840

[FatSlob]

38. Thank you, dear Sir!

[iverglas]

43. cspan?

It's probably too late now anyhow. We watched the evening festivities this week on the Canadian counterpart, CPAC (Canadian Parliamentary something Channel?), which simulcast the CSPAN broadcasts from the convention. No nattering network heads.

Anyhow, CPAC was rebroadcasting the morning after, so I assume it was a CSPAN feed. I'd thought they were rebroadcasting in the afternoon too, but that turned out to be some boring nattering heads. So my post is pointless.

Except for the chance to express my appreciation of CSPAN while I was in the US for a couple of weeks last year. It carried some international news programs (like CBC's The National, and I think a China news program?), and some interesting interview/panel stuff ... and I'll bet we were the only people in the state of Florida actually watching it. ;)