• 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]

ksu_aviator said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh my. You're cool with going to war with a regime that had nothing to do with the planning or execution of 9/11.

But, since they are our "ally," you can look the other way with a regime that housed 15 of the perpetrators.

You bought the lie in '03, as did I, but cannot let go of it as I have.

We must be wise enough to learn from these mistakes.
 
StringBean said:
Oh my. You're cool with going to war with a regime that had nothing to do with the planning or execution of 9/11.

But, since they are our "ally," you can look the other way with a regime that housed 15 of the perpetrators.
Click to expand...

Do you have any proof that SA knew of these terrorists and their plot and did nothing to stop them or advise us?

You bought the lie in '03, as did I, but cannot let go of it as I have.

We must be wise enough to learn from these mistakes.
Click to expand...

You are using hind sight when I was talking about point of time. You said you believed in the information at the time.

My point was and is, it is wrong to usurp the rights of the innocent but it is not analogous to invading a foreign country for attacking your country (good or bad info not withstanding).
 
VanceMack said:
No...but your sense of moral outrage apparently fluctuates based on your stance on 'the cause'.
Click to expand...

or, my choosing whether or not to express that moral outrage is.... :2razz:
 
StringBean said:
Oh my. You're cool with going to war with a regime that had nothing to do with the planning or execution of 9/11.

But, since they are our "ally," you can look the other way with a regime that housed 15 of the perpetrators.

You bought the lie in '03, as did I, but cannot let go of it as I have.

We must be wise enough to learn from these mistakes.
Click to expand...

Obviously, we didn't attack Saudi Arabia, as doing so would have brought our economy tumbling down on our heads when the oil supply was cut off ,and would have done the same thing in Western Europe and other places as well. If you think the economy is in the doldrums now, you're right, but just imagine were it would be had we attacked Saudi Arabia! Invading Iraq, on the other hand, was supposed to see US troops greeted as liberators and a modern democracy established in Iraq, as well as an America grateful that the terrorist attack had been avenged and Al Qaeda defeated. What a fantasy!
 
nota bene said:
That's not fair, not fair at all. This is a bereaved parent who is being exploited.
Click to expand...


I agree, so where is the support system for her to prevent this? Where are the "do-gooders", the pontificators, the compassionates?
 
ksu_aviator said:
Do you have any proof that SA knew of these terrorists and their plot and did nothing to stop them or advise us?
Click to expand...

I have the same level of proof you and the Bush administration have that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

That is to say, no proof whatsoever.

To send 100,000 troops into a country with legitimate cause, no proof is simply a joke. Fabricated proof is borderline criminal.

ksu_aviator said:
You are using hind sight when I was talking about point of time. You said you believed in the information at the time.
Click to expand...

Of course, I was deliberately misled by our president. My conservative lean does not preclude accepting this reality.

ksu_aviator said:
My point was and is, it is wrong to usurp the rights of the innocent but it is not analogous to invading a foreign country for attacking your country (good or bad info not withstanding).
Click to expand...

We weren't attacked by Iraq. Please stop buying the lie. My initial analogy was a hypothetical to indicate how Obama is exploiting the parent's tragedy to push his political agenda. Though strained, I feel the analogy was apt on a fundamental level.
 
StringBean said:
I have the same level of proof you and the Bush administration have that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

That is to say, no proof whatsoever.

To send 100,000 troops into a country with legitimate cause, no proof is simply a joke. Fabricated proof is borderline criminal.



Of course, I was deliberately misled by our president. My conservative lean does not preclude accepting this reality.



We weren't attacked by Iraq. Please stop buying the lie. My initial analogy was a hypothetical to indicate how Obama is exploiting the parent's tragedy to push his political agenda. Though strained, I feel the analogy was apt on a fundamental level.
Click to expand...

You aren't getting the point. I'm tired of trying to explain it. Iraq, Sadi Arabia...not the point.
 
Higgins86 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Do you think she called Obama to see if she could make an address to the nation?
 
Grant said:
Both involve the death of children.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. One is protected by law; the other one is murder. BTW, everyone doesn't agree that abortion involves the murder of children.
 
StringBean said:
Oh my. You're cool with going to war with a regime that had nothing to do with the planning or execution of 9/11.

But, since they are our "ally," you can look the other way with a regime that housed 15 of the perpetrators.

You bought the lie in '03, as did I, but cannot let go of it as I have.

We must be wise enough to learn from these mistakes.
Click to expand...

So, how was the Saudi government involved in 9/11?
 
ksu_aviator said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

So your great argument is that we were supposed to give guns to the black slaves despite it being clear they were only meant to go to the militias to hunt them down? Lie I said blind faith has no foundation in reality at all, and thank you for showing us how disconnected it can make you.
 
Texmex said:
Conservative compassion, you got to love it!
Click to expand...

using emotobabbling victims to destroy our rights is perhaps the lowest of low

she goes from being an object of pity to a target of hate and scorn for her being a tool to the great evil
 
American said:
Liberal compassion doesn't exist, except in their minds.
Click to expand...

That's why since we have established there is neither conservative nor liberal compassion, we need governmental assistance to those in need.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I find many of the comments in this thread to be quite disgusting. The fact you are so concerned about your inanimate object you are willing to demonize a mother who lost a child who is trying to help prevent other mothers from losing children, and the President who is giving her a platform to express herself, is appalling to me.

You can disagree with her and the President on gun control. But to demonize them in such a manner for disagreeing with you is something I'll never understand, and to me, just reeks of illogical fear over losing an inanimate object.
Click to expand...

she being used to ramrod idiotic laws through by an appeal to sickening emotion is wrong

you like what Obama is doing because you are a gun banner. YOU don't understand rights but you are right about one thing.

You will never understand freedom
 
Higgins86 said:
wow some cold hearted people in this thread! Some of you need to take a step back and take a look at yourselves, attacking the mother of a child shot down in his school is a disgrace.
Click to expand...


so we should give her a pass for trying to destroy our rights so she can salve her hurt

lets ask this question

lets say that Lanza was black and this mother was being used by some racist group to promote say additional police

restrictions on all blacks you lefties would be rightfully howling at such unfair oppression of a group..
 
Texmex said:
And what does abortion have to do with the Sandy Hook Massacre?

When doctors start shooting fetuses with guns, come back and see me.
Click to expand...

why does an Obama supporter such as you constantly claim you support gun rights too yet you constantly "like" anti gun posts and criticize pro gun positions?

its not about innocent life or public safety to the anti gun left-its all about harassing people who don't buy into the leftist agenda

has anyone seen any conservative posters backing all these idiotic gun control proposals?
 
Higgins86 said:
Only cowards would attack her in my opinion and accuse her for prostituting herself self out or "seeking fame" as some have said in this thread. You can disagree with her but the hatred being thrown her way is well out of line, heaven forbid some tragic happens to any of you and your forced to make difficult choices.
Click to expand...

the cowards are those who try to ramrod stupid laws through using this grim weeper to spew an emotional tsunami designed to flood any logical opposition away
 
tererun said:
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.
Click to expand...

what a silly straw man argument. why do you want obama to take guns away from people who have committed no crimes
 
tererun said:
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.
Click to expand...

that's a silly argument

the proper argument is to say that gun rights should be for everyone, not just the white males your pretend were the only beneficiaries of the constitution.

not to eliminate them for everyone because you want to punish white conservative males for reasons we cannot possibly fathom due to their obvious irrationality
 
Slyfox696 said:
Not really. It allowed me to mostly ignore what you wrote.

I'm not now, nor was I when you responded to my question towards VanceMack.

Rarely do I go barging into a thread to accuse people of lying.

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.

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.

Again with the attack. Could you please calm down?

I've never once did such a thing. Again you're resorting to personal attacks due to a simple misunderstanding.

I have never done anything else. And yes, accusing me of posting dishonestly is attacking my integrity. That is an insult.

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.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Look, I'll make it easy for you.

Respond to me, or don't.

If you do, you'll get what you get. If you don't want that, then don't respond to me.
 
TurtleDude said:
she being used to ramrod idiotic laws through by an appeal to sickening emotion is wrong
Click to expand...
I don't find background checks, something a reportedly high percentage of this country favors, to be an idiotic law.

you like what Obama is doing because you are a gun banner.
Click to expand...
Only certain types.

You will never understand freedom
Click to expand...
I'll never understand how owning an inanimate object at the possible expense of another's life is freedom. On this, we'll agree.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I don't find background checks, something a reportedly high percentage of this country favors, to be an idiotic law.

Only certain types.

I'll never understand how owning an inanimate object at the possible expense of another's life is freedom. On this, we'll agree.
Click to expand...

that's because you don't understand how things work

and you don't understand freedom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom