I'll be attending a seminar by Janet Reno this Sunday. There will be a 30 minute question and answer period following. I'd like to ask questions about Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzalez, gun law enforcement, etc., but to tell the truth I'm not as up on these subjects as I could be. I'd like some help with questions. Please keep them serious, this may be an opportunity to get the other side of the story straight from the horses mouth. If I get a chance to ask I'll post her replies. Thanks.
attending Janet Reno seminar
- Thread starter Henry P
- Start date
Just a suggestion: Have two sets of questions, just in case they have someone screening questions, as is usually the case when a Clintonista is in a press conference. The first should be a "softball" question designed to make the responder look good; people who tell the screener they have one of those stand a good chance of making it to the microphone. Then, hit her with the REAL question you'd like to ask.
A real question?
"Ms. Reno, the Second Amendment of the Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Do you believe that "the people" means all of us as individuals, or do you regard it a collective right? If you regard it as a collective right, please explain why "the people" means us as individuals elsewhere in the Constitution, but not here? How does the meaning of "the people" keep changing?"
(Could probably polish the verbage a little, but you get my drift.)
A real question?
"Ms. Reno, the Second Amendment of the Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Do you believe that "the people" means all of us as individuals, or do you regard it a collective right? If you regard it as a collective right, please explain why "the people" means us as individuals elsewhere in the Constitution, but not here? How does the meaning of "the people" keep changing?"
(Could probably polish the verbage a little, but you get my drift.)
Back when she was a prosecutor in Miami she was charged with prosecuting a Hispanic police officer for shooting a black youth with no criminal history. During the trial the black youths picture was published in the paper and the defense received about 20 calls that said this kid had robbed them. He was a criminal, but he just hadn't been caught, hence the lack of a criminal record. The defense wanted to introduce that information to the trial to show that he was not the good kid that everyone thought he was. The judge decided that the information would not be introduced to the jury. Then, in steps Janet Reno. She makes a statement in the court regarding the character of the kid, that he never did anything wrong and the cop killed a good kid. This left the door open for the defense to introduce the information they had to counter the comments made by Reno. Did she do it on purpose knowing that with the introduction of the information to the jury would probably get the cop acquitted or did she screw up and slip.
Henry,
Is this seminar for the public, or a professional group?
Hank may be correct, they may ask for written questions that they can screen beforehand, and they might even have a "moderator" read the written questions to avoid uncontrolled deviations from the script. I'd be really interested to hear your report on how the seminar went.
If Reno is going to retire to the public speaking circuit, will she be confronted by protesters holding "baby killer" signs at each venue? One could only hope.
Is this seminar for the public, or a professional group?
Hank may be correct, they may ask for written questions that they can screen beforehand, and they might even have a "moderator" read the written questions to avoid uncontrolled deviations from the script. I'd be really interested to hear your report on how the seminar went.
If Reno is going to retire to the public speaking circuit, will she be confronted by protesters holding "baby killer" signs at each venue? One could only hope.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Remind her that she has been reported in the press as saying,"I accept full responsibility." in regards to the Waco debacle. In view of that and in light of the fact that she attempts to represent herself as a moral human...I would ask her why she has not committed suicide.
Pave Pilot
New member
karanas, I think she would be better described as the other end of the horse....with apologies to equines, wherever they may be. (there, said it for you)
Ironbarr,
Good point, I guess there's more than one way to interpret my comment. Do two negatives make a positive?
If it had taken the Clinton Admin. 20 nominations before getting a confirmation, would this individual have been a conservative, Constitution-loving, pro-gun Attorney General? This is definitely one of those circular logic situations.
Sub
Good point, I guess there's more than one way to interpret my comment. Do two negatives make a positive?
If it had taken the Clinton Admin. 20 nominations before getting a confirmation, would this individual have been a conservative, Constitution-loving, pro-gun Attorney General? This is definitely one of those circular logic situations.Sub
Well I didn't get to ask a question but it was a very interesting night. She came across as warm and very personable and actually made a few good points about various topics.
The first question that got asked was "Why don't we have more gun control?" She went into all the familiar arguements(NRA thinks "common sense" restrictions will lead to confiscation, the car licensing--gun analogy) but most importantly she said that the right to keep and bear arms is not an absolute right, that new scholarship has placed doubt on that. The second question was about gun control this time from a pro-gun stance. They deadlocked and it boiled down to her claiming she knew his arguments and he knew hers and that they'd just have to disagree. So basically she still supports the position of the Clinton administration.
Although she seemed nice and probably is(I actually left with a higher opinion of her then what I went in with) the fact remains we are at opposite poles in our political beliefs. All I can say is that I am very thankful these people did not win the last election.
It was a packed house with 99% Democrats that think the past administration was the greatest. She appealed to the audience to never give up(though she was not talking politics when she said that). All I can say is that I don't believe these people ever will give up, the battle for the heart and soul of the country continues.
The first question that got asked was "Why don't we have more gun control?" She went into all the familiar arguements(NRA thinks "common sense" restrictions will lead to confiscation, the car licensing--gun analogy) but most importantly she said that the right to keep and bear arms is not an absolute right, that new scholarship has placed doubt on that. The second question was about gun control this time from a pro-gun stance. They deadlocked and it boiled down to her claiming she knew his arguments and he knew hers and that they'd just have to disagree. So basically she still supports the position of the Clinton administration.
Although she seemed nice and probably is(I actually left with a higher opinion of her then what I went in with) the fact remains we are at opposite poles in our political beliefs. All I can say is that I am very thankful these people did not win the last election.
It was a packed house with 99% Democrats that think the past administration was the greatest. She appealed to the audience to never give up(though she was not talking politics when she said that). All I can say is that I don't believe these people ever will give up, the battle for the heart and soul of the country continues.
"... she said that the right to keep and bear arms is not an absolute right ... she knew his arguments and he knew hers and that they'd just have to disagree."
I'm reminded of the Nazi propaganda picture of "the eternal Jew." I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Now step this way for your "shower."
-----
Words, even vulgar words, fail me.
I'm reminded of the Nazi propaganda picture of "the eternal Jew." I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Now step this way for your "shower."
-----
Words, even vulgar words, fail me.
Thanks, henry, for taking the time to give us your feedback. People of like opinions tend to gather on boards like this, its easy to feel empowered. Visiting the "other side" as it were, reminds us we are a minority (w.r.t. the 2nd amendment), we have to stay active to keep from losing out.