• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

you can disagree with her but you can still respect her as a person and a grieving mother which many people in this thread have neglected to do.

You mean like Obama's doing by using her for his political gain?
 
I decided to remove you from my Ignore list, at least temporarily, because I thought this post was reasonable.

If I were on your ignore list, you could not have read it to make any such determination. Or, you chose to read it without knowing its content.

Which, of course, confirms to me that the whole "Ignore list" drama was bogus all along, and you simply want some kind of excuse to be selective in which posts you decide to address.

I'm afraid you didn't understand the context of my question. I understand what you're saying, which is Obama is getting a face to the legislation he supports. But that's not really what I meant.

I'm afraid that you gave no indication of this "context" -- again -- and it is not reasonably discerned from your post. You keep doing this. Occam's Razor says you are not be believed.


Let's say certain aspects of gun control pass. What is Obama getting from having gun control pass?

There doesn't need to be any further benefit here than he gets help in passing the legislation he wants. As to what he thinks he "gains" from it, you'll have to ask him. I certainly don't need to justify it.
 
why wouldn't she want to help him on this?

That's not the right question. The right question is, how would this have changed Newtown and if it was so important, why not do this sooner? The answers are, it won't and because they didn't have anyone to exploit for their gain.
 
Seems the gun nuts hate it when you use an emotional argument to counter their emotional argument on why they need guns to protect them from obama.
 
Seems the gun nuts hate it when you use an emotional argument to counter their emotional argument on why they need guns to protect them from obama.

I'm wondering what day in time people that support the Constitution went from Patriots to Radicals?
 
I say it because it's true. Are you denying there are people who criticize Obama because he has a D behind his name? Do you deny there are people who criticize him because he's black?
No, you say it because you are intellectually lazy and it is easier to smear your opposition with bogus charges of racism than it is to engage them directly. But, if you have names of anyone who criticizes Obama simply because he is black, by all means lay them out there.
 
If I were on your ignore list, you could not have read it to make any such determination. Or, you chose to read it without knowing its content.
I occasionally click on where it says "view post" to see if you've quoted me. Every once in a while I'll even read it if you've quoted me, though not very often. This was one of those times.

Which, of course, confirms to me that the whole "Ignore list" drama was bogus all along, and you simply want some kind of excuse to be selective in which posts you decide to address.
It wasn't. Why do you always post with such negativity?

I'm afraid that you gave no indication of this "context" -- again
Which is why I explained it further.

You keep doing this. Occam's Razor says you are not be believed.
And again, you insult. Why are you always so hostile?

There doesn't need to be any further benefit here than he gets help in passing the legislation he wants.
But why does he want it? What benefit does passing gun legislation bring to him?

As to what he thinks he "gains" from it, you'll have to ask him. I certainly don't need to justify it.
I didn't ask you to justify it, you jumped into the question I asked VanceMack.
No, you say it because you are intellectually lazy and it is easier to smear your opposition with bogus charges of racism than it is to engage them directly. But, if you have names of anyone who criticizes Obama simply because he is black, by all means lay them out there.
I never said it was definitely because he was black, I said it was because he was a Democrat or because he's black. Most times it is one or the other. I know plenty of people against Obama because he's a Democrat who are not racist.
 
Last edited:
If George Bush gave a speech in front of victims' families from 9/11, and said "we need to go to Iraq to avenge these peoples' loss," the clamor from the left would never end.

This situation is no different folks, Obama's using the victims of tragedy to pass a political agenda. That you support his cause makes it no less shameful.
 
If George Bush gave a speech in front of victims' families from 9/11, and said "we need to go to Iraq to avenge these peoples' loss," the clamor from the left would never end.

And the Right would have pounded the table and said, "Yes, absolutely, even though Iraq had nothing at all to do with the attack, let's go and avenge it by attacking them!"

Really?
 
I occasionally click on where it says "view post" to see if you've quoted me. Every once in a while I'll even read it if you've quoted me, though not very often. This was one of those times.

Which shows the whole pomp and circumstance you put on in "ignoring" me was indeed bogus.

It wasn't. Why do you always post with such negativity?

Why do you pretend you don't? In fact, you post exactly like I do in terms of tone. I don't get offended by it. But you make a big spectacle out of it. I wouldn't comment on it at all if you didn't.

Which is why I explained it further.

After saying I "failed" to understand it. Yes, we've been through this before. You post something; you pretend you meant something else, but have to explain the "context," because it wasn't there, and somehow, it's always MY fault for not following the "context" you admit you had to provide later. "No, I didn't provide any context, but you FAILED for not somehow following it anyway." :roll: And you have the nerve to say I'm the "hostile" and "dishonest" one.

The evident reality: you just made it up the new "context" on the fly. This has happened more than once, so the benefit of the doubt is gone.

Keep in mind -- all you had to do was respond to me. You didn't have to go into your dog-and-pony show about taking me off ignore, etc. You opened all of this up. If you get to comment about how I post, then turnabout is fair game. It would be quite juvenile to say otherwise. You wanna play, then we play.

And again, you insult. Why are you always so hostile?

Why can't you just post honestly? And by the way, that wasn't an "insult."

But why does he want it? What benefit does passing gun legislation bring to him?

I told you -- you have to ask him. But he wants it, and this helps get it. That's his "gain."

I don't have to explain why he wants. Insisting that I do is (again! shocker!) dishonest.

I didn't ask you to justify it, you jumped into the question I asked VanceMack.

So?
 
If George Bush gave a speech in front of victims' families from 9/11, and said "we need to go to Iraq to avenge these peoples' loss," the clamor from the left would never end.

This situation is no different folks, Obama's using the victims of tragedy to pass a political agenda. That you support his cause makes it no less shameful.

Well, but there is also a big difference between avenging a tragedy and usurping rights.
 
I'm wondering what day in time people that support the Constitution went from Patriots to Radicals?

The same day we realized the people who wrote the constitution were racist,sexist, slave owning hicks who never intended gun rights for everyone. Also some of us recognize the constitution was never a perfect document incapable of being wrong. Sorry, but blind faith is stupid when you do it for a religion, or when you do it for a document like the constitution written by fallible and greedy men.
 
I wouldn't call it scrutiny I would call it disdain on the border of hatred but I mean how dare this women who lost her child in a shooting massacre do something she see's as constructive with her grief. Its interesting though how yourself and many other posters like to make out that she is being dragged into the public eye. Any links or facts to back up the assumption that the Obama administration is forcing her into this?

She actively taking part in the restricting of the rights of the people. She deserves whatever she gets for taking part in such despicable behavior.
 
The same day we realized the people who wrote the constitution were racist,sexist, slave owning hicks who never intended gun rights for everyone.

Well, as long as you have a string of insults at least 4 in length, you must be right.

And they did intend for everyone to have guns. They actually said "the people". Not some people.

Also some of us recognize the constitution was never a perfect document incapable of being wrong. Sorry, but blind faith is stupid when you do it for a religion, or when you do it for a document like the constitution written by fallible and greedy men.

Ah, yes, but the Constitution has a mechanism for making adjustments. Until that mechanism is utilized, the rule of law is the Constitution as written and amended today. The mechanism was put into place so that radicals can't change it. The only way changes can be made is if they are blatantly necessary. Since whatever changes you want can't be made, we can only conclude that they are not blatantly necessary.
 
And the Right would have pounded the table and said, "Yes, absolutely, even though Iraq had nothing at all to do with the attack, let's go and avenge it by attacking them!"

Really?

Well, somehow or another we ended up sending 100,000 troops to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. And nearly all Americans thought Saddam was involved in the attacks at the time.

That certainly takes some fine PR work.

ksu_aviator said:
Well, but there is also a big difference between avenging a tragedy and usurping rights.

So it's okay to exploit tragedy when it's a political cause you agree with it?

(btw, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no vengeance to be sought)
 
So it's okay to exploit tragedy when it's a political cause you agree with it?

(btw, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no vengeance to be sought)

We know that some of AQ trained in Iraq. Don't forget that.
 
Well, somehow or another we ended up sending 100,000 troops to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. And nearly all Americans thought Saddam was involved in the attacks at the time.

That certainly takes some fine PR work.

Yes, we did.
And yes, it does.

If you ask people at random, they'll still say that we invaded Iraq because of the attack of 9/11, and yet the only connection was our own government using it as an excuse for something they wanted to do all along.
 
We know that some of AQ trained in Iraq. Don't forget that.

None of the perpetrators were from Iraq. Nearly all (15 out of 19) were from Saudi Arabia.

Yet somehow, Saddam was the one hanged and the crown prince regime remains one of our closest allies in the region.

Don't forget that.
 
Which shows the whole pomp and circumstance you put on in "ignoring" me was indeed bogus.
Not really. It allowed me to mostly ignore what you wrote.

Why do you pretend you don't?
I'm not now, nor was I when you responded to my question towards VanceMack.

In fact, you post exactly like I do in terms of tone.
Rarely do I go barging into a thread to accuse people of lying.

After saying I "failed" to understand it.
I did not use the word failed. In fact, I said that I was afraid you misunderstood, at which point I went on to try and clarify.

You post something; you pretend you meant something else
No, I post exactly what I mean. But you do not follow what I mean. Whether that's my fault for not explaining it better and/or in more detail, or your fault for simply not understanding what I consider to be a simple statement, either way I meant what I said. I cannot completely control what you interpret from what I say.

And you have the nerve to say I'm the "hostile" and "dishonest" one.
Again with the attack. Could you please calm down?

The evident reality: you just made it up the new "context" on the fly. This has happened more than once, so the benefit of the doubt is gone.
I've never once did such a thing. Again you're resorting to personal attacks due to a simple misunderstanding.

Why can't you just post honestly? And by the way, that wasn't an "insult."
I have never done anything else. And yes, accusing me of posting dishonestly is attacking my integrity. That is an insult.

I told you -- you have to ask him. But he wants it, and this helps get it. That's his "gain."

I don't have to explain why he wants. Insisting that I do is (again! shocker!) dishonest.

So?
Let me see if I have this correct. You interject yourself into a question I ask of another, answering the question you mistakenly thought I asked, and yet, when I clarify what I truly asked and assume you have an interest in the question due to your previous interjection, I'm the dishonest one? That does not make sense at all.
 
Last edited:
If you ask people at random, they'll still say that we invaded Iraq because of the attack of 9/11, and yet the only connection was our own government using it as an excuse for something they wanted to do all along.

Kinda like saying the current gun control legislation would have prevented Sandy Hook. Which is an obvious lie to sell a political agenda.
 
None of the perpetrators were from Iraq. Nearly all (15 out of 19) were from Saudi Arabia.

Yet somehow, Saddam was the one hanged and the crown prince regime remains one of our closest allies in the region.

Don't forget that.

Really? Should we invade ourselves because we've had multiple mass shootings from Americans? There is something to be said for diplomacy when diplomacy is viable. Do you think diplomacy was viable with Iraq? Saudi Arabia isn't a perfect ally, but they are an ally. Iraq was never an ally.
 
Well it is hard for Obama to talk about budget matters, the wonders of Obamacare implementation delays or jobs so he sets the stage for diversion to "emergency" issues. The $800 million gun control bill is absolutely needed, never mind that it simply expands federal control (unconstitutionally?) to require that all "legal" private gun sales now go through federal gun nannies (for new fees, of course) and provides some additional (unspecified?) federal aid to local schools.

Adding more federal power, control and spending is important, just ask Obama. Not that any connection between this newest gun control bill and preventing the Sandy Hook school shooting can be shown, but it does expand the federal gov't - so it must be good for us, as a nation. If you intend to add federal funding for local schools then it makes perfect sense to attach that to "gun control"; or am I getting that backwards?

Never let a crisis go to waste.
 
Conservative compassion, you got to love it!

I have no compassion for anyone that is trying to use the death of their own child to strip away my civil rights.
 
Kinda like saying the current gun control legislation would have prevented Sandy Hook. Which is an obvious lie to sell a political agenda.

Good analogy.
This one is unlikely to result in hundreds of billions in expenses and thousands of American soldiers dead, but yes, that's how political agendas tend to be sold.
 
Back
Top Bottom