i looked at it. i looked at many of the bills. you gave me "proof" with votes she made in the house. and then when i said none of her votes were on banning concealed weapons, you said that i was switching it up on you. that you said "lobbied". so where is proof of

Quote :

"Pelosi has strongly lobbied to get rid of concealed carry permits for any and all citizens"

?

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:16 PM. Reason : and these ad hominems really are helping your case. i promise]

1/9/2007 2:15:22 PM

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H0222103&type=category&category=Gun%2BIssues&go.x=9&go.y=9

how many links do i have to post that say she voted (not just lobbied, but VOTED) against concealed carry permits? i mean you ask for links, i post them, and you deny they exist...wtf


and i'm sure constantly requoting the same question is helping your cause, when its been answered

but Mr. Semantics, you probably wouldnt be satisfied unless the bill has the words "any and all citizens" because all you do is argue semantics

FUCKING TROLL
[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 2:18:02 PM

it hasn't. none of those bills show ANY support of taking away concealed carry permit for any and all citizens. in fact the only "yes" vote on the last link was for a waiting period issue.

1/9/2007 2:20:14 PM

wow you can read a half dozen bills in 30 seconds, you are the fastest reader in the history of mankind

1/9/2007 2:21:21 PM

all of those were in the link from yesterday. when i did read it.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:22 PM. Reason : and it was 2 mins. but i shouldn't expect you to be able to subtract, i guess]

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : subtraction is just semantics]

Quote :

"FUCKING TROLL"

you're the one who has resorted to name-calling and making fun of my looks completely unprovoked

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 2:21:41 PM

Quote :

"all of those were in the link from yesterday. when i did read it."

Quote :

"TreeTwista10 Cash Rules 41528 Posts user info edit post even though i said lobbying and not voting...among others http://www.gunlawnews.org/Representatives/Nancy-Pelosi.html im more surprised nobody has asked me for proof that she has a CCP...her stance on guns is no secret [Edited on January 8, 2007 at 7:21 PM. Reason : .] 1/8/2007 7:20:49 PM"

Quote :

"sarijoul All American 5295 Posts user info edit post the only vote (after an admittedly quick searchdealing with concealed weapons she voted for (allowing retired police to have broader concealed weapon rights) 1/8/2007 7:23:47 PM "

Quote :

"wow you can read a half dozen bills in 30 seconds 3 minutes, you are the fastest reader in the history of mankind"

maybe you should admit to yourself that your search was TOO quick



[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 2:28:20 PM

and then i read more of the page. your point?

i mean if you know this stuff, then you shouldn't have a problem producing any evidence to back up your claim of:

Quote :

"Pelosi has strongly lobbied to get rid of concealed carry permits for any and all citizens"

i mean i could conceivably read forever and not find evidence of your claim if it's not true. but since you've already made the claim, it would seem simplest for you to just give some evidence of it. unless of course you're just making it up to exaggerate your case for pelosi being a hypocrite.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 2:29:40 PM

my point? my point is you asked for a link, you got the link, you didnt sufficiently read the link, and now you keep harping over one sentence i put on Page 2 of this thread even though your question has BEEN answered...holy shit you are even dumber than you look



[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:32 PM. Reason : /]

1/9/2007 2:30:43 PM

all you've given are voting records, when you SAID you weren't talking about voting records.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:34 PM. Reason : as much as you want me to, i'm not going to sink to your level]

1/9/2007 2:32:23 PM

yeah god forbid you sink to my level of reading links and caring more about content than exact wording

let alone im not the moron with my same name on every fucking site i visit

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 2:40 PM. Reason : sarah]

1/9/2007 2:39:58 PM

is treetwista salisburybot or has he just been reading all of his posts for tips on arguing?

1/9/2007 4:18:00 PM

I remember some left leaning tdubbers telling me just a couple months ago that "no democrats want to take away your guns or gun rights"


I lolled

1/9/2007 4:27:37 PM

^^yep...no fallacies in sarah's argument...harping over the same verbage over and over again without any thoughts about the overall subject...just obsessing over one quote and ignoring everything else

or maybe i should argue like you...again ignore the point (pelosi is anti gun yet she has a CCP) by dismissing the possibility her anti-gun stance would result in anything since "3/5 of both houses would refuse to vote for more gun control"

when you're picking someone to fight your battles for you, i guess it doesnt surprise me that you would pick someone who argues just like you...nitpicks details while being ignorant of the bigger picture

at least EarthDogg understands such a simple concept


^BUT THEY PROBABLY CANT GET ENOUGH VOTES TO PASS ANY LEGISLATION SO THEREFORE WE CAN JUST IGNORE THEIR STANCES ON ISSUES

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 4:31:04 PM

almost everyone of the anti gun liberals in DC have CCPs or armed bodyguards


their safety is more important than the citizens


and the anti-gun people have been pissing on the 2nd amendment since 1938

a soldier can go off and fight in a war but is not allowed to own the very weapons he carried to defend his "freedom" loving country (2nd amendment be damned)

^ yeah no shit, it's ok their cool, they'll never get enough votes for it so it's ok that they are hipocrites and would deny the very citizens which put them in office the right to defend themselves or their family against danger


[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 4:33:55 PM

Quote :

"harping over the same verbage over and over again without any thoughts about the overall subject..."

i was harping over your verbage, let me remind you. but you're unwilling to ever concede a point. so instead of actually producing evidence to support your claim (pelosi wants to get rid of ccp for any and all citizens) you change the subject. so call me a troll all you want. but you're the one who's resorted to name-calling and not added any substance to your dubious claim.

1/9/2007 4:56:48 PM

why dont you address any of my other posts except for "pelosi wants to get rid of ccp for any and all citizens"

is it because you know i'm right?

the fact that you would even imply that pelosi is NOT anti-gun shows just how warped your perception is

let alone, how you can convince yourself that anyone who pretty much votes anti-gun on every applicable bill might somehow not have a problem with concealing those same guns is beyond me

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:05 PM. Reason : sarijoul paraphrased: "Pelosi may be anti-gun but concealed guns are different!"]

1/9/2007 5:00:52 PM

Quote :

"the fact that you would even imply that pelosi is NOT anti-gun shows just how warped your perception is"

i did not claim that. all i am doing is questioning your claim. a claim which you have yet to deny or to support.

and waiting periods and assault weapons are far different from concealed handguns.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 5:09:55 PM

So let me get this straight

You are not denying that Pelosi is anti-gun

But you are questioning whether or not she is anti concealed-gun?

Its like trying to reason with a brick wall

1/9/2007 5:12:16 PM

all i've questioned THE WHOLE TIME was the dubious claim that YOU made. i have not been unclear at all in this question. you've just failed to respond to my question. whether or not pelosi is anti-gun is an entirely different issue. so, do you have any support for your claim that

Quote :

"Pelosi has strongly lobbied to get rid of concealed carry permits for any and all citizens"

1/9/2007 5:14:47 PM

forgive me

for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were smart enough to google "pelosi concealed carry"

my bad

1/9/2007 5:16:07 PM

so no support?

ok.

i'll just assume your claim was made up.

1/9/2007 5:17:14 PM

no support?

http://www.gunlawnews.org/Representatives/Nancy-Pelosi.html
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H0222103&type=category&category=Gun%2BIssues&go.x=9&go.y=9
http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3784&Itemid=83

hey do you trust wikipedia?

Quote :

"Pelosi has voted to limit the ownership of firearms and concealed weapons"

im still shocked you assume she has a CCP which I dont have proof of...you just dont know the right questions to ask i guess

its also funny you say I can't concede a point, when you have done absolutely nothing in this thread except obsess over one quote

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 5:23:10 PM

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: almost everyone of the anti gun liberals in DC have CCPs or armed bodyguards their safety is more important than the citizens"

That's gotta be bullshit. Either you're straight making shit up, or you've been lied to.

1. Stop trusting people's "facts" just because they agree with you.
2. Consider the fact that even if "almost everyone of the anti gun liberals in DC have CCPs or armed bodyguards," that wouldn't change people's opinions. If you wanna persuade others to your side of the guns issue, talk about guns and facts about guns--don't just attack the people whose opinion you oppose.

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: and the anti-gun people have been pissing on the 2nd amendment since 1938 a soldier can go off and fight in a war but is not allowed to own the very weapons he carried to defend his "freedom" loving country (2nd amendment be damned)"

Since you've never served in the military, I'll give you a by on this one.

1/9/2007 5:24:09 PM

so no support still?

ok.

i'll assume you made it up.

1/9/2007 5:24:33 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi

Quote :

"Pelosi has voted to limit the ownership of firearms and concealed weapons"

learn to read you fucking troll

you assume she doesnt oppose CCP but you assume she definitely has a CCP rofl

here's what your argument breaks down to:

ME: Bob is anti-abortion. He also performs abortions.

YOU: GIVE ME PROOF THAT BOB IS ANTI-ABORTION.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 5:25:33 PM

^that quote isn't from that wikipedia article

i decided to focus on the part of your claim that seemed ridiculous: that she would want to get take away ccp permits for any and all citizens. it seemed absurd to me. and i'm guessing i was right in doubting since you've produced no proof to back it up.

but of course you won't concede that you were wrong and move on, you just keep changing the subject and personally attacking me.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 5:30:30 PM

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:KRDD3yiw-qcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi+pelosi+concealed&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

here's the cached article since they took it down once the Dems won the house

feel free to make another bullshit comment on the validity of the article or the wording of the quote...since now your only stance in this thread has been at least somewhat debunked

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 5:31:28 PM

its source is the same link you keep sending me with eight links to bill votes -- none of which have to do with ccp. it also has nothing to do with lobbying. which you harped on me about to begin with. but apparently that's no big deal to you now.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:34 PM. Reason : it was eight bills]

1/9/2007 5:33:47 PM

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:KRDD3yiw-qcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi+pelosi+concealed&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

so you trust your own guessing and assuming more than you trust wikipedia with cited articles?

k

your entire admitted reasoning in this thread was stuff you assume i said was false...or stuff you guess is true...yet when a cached wikipedia page has links to a page youve already visited, and havent been able to find anything about CCP because you either:

- didnt read the linked articles/bills

or

- dont know the right search terms to put in the Ctrl F box of your browser

you just dismiss it as bullshit? i wonder why? maybe because you've been trolling me the entire time because i dissed on your girlfriend pelosi?

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 5:34:09 PM

how did i guess? i looked at the source. the same source that you keep posting. the project vote smart thing.

if i missed something then by ALL means, point it out. i'm guessing i've read more about this stuff than you at this point.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 5:35:26 PM

how did you guess?

Quote :

"and i'm guessing i was right in doubting since you've produced no proof to back it up."

so you trust your own guesses more than wikipedia and a non-partisan voting website

k

Quote :

"i'm guessing i've read more about this stuff than you at this point."

LMAO

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2007 5:37:34 PM

the non-partisan voting website shows no bills that actually have to do with ccp.
i've read the linked article that wikipedia cited.

you still haven't presented any actual proof. so keep changing the subject.



[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:41 PM. Reason : until then i'll assume you made up the claim]

1/9/2007 5:40:41 PM

Quote :

"the non-partisan voting website shows no bills that actually have to do with ccp"

you're either illiterate or trolling

1/9/2007 5:41:58 PM

well then present me with a quote from one of those bills that has to do with ccp.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:49 PM. Reason : can't do it? i'm calling your bluff. you made up the claim.]

1/9/2007 5:42:24 PM

If they don't live up to their promise to cooperate, Bush should veto most of their agenda.
The Democrat minimajority isn't enough to override the Republican veto.

1/9/2007 6:16:37 PM

first of all, i already responded by saying "if its true." You then spent 20 posts saying "haha no one has questioned my claim."
second, her position isnt important if over 1/3 of her party and 95+% of the opposition doesnt support her position. It does matter in the question of whether or not she is a hypocrite. Assuming she is being hypocritical on this issue, which you havent proved she is, why does it matter?

1/9/2007 6:42:54 PM