- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,746
- Reaction score
- 32,386
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This is one of my favorite songs ever. It's supposed to be serious but it's funny as hell.
Pointing out selective outrage and the complete triviality of this is not an appeal to tradition. Nice try though.
I hate when I see kids at rallies holding signs... kids in the 2 to 3 yr old range. These kids have no clue regarding anything the sign says. I especially hate it when the sign is worded specifically as if the kid had written it.When I see kids at TEA Party rallies, I groan.
When I see kids at Occupy Wall Street rallies, I groan.
When I see kids being used as a median for any political message, I groan.
Leave the poor little bastards out of it.
Agreed.It wasn't appropriate, but pretty much all politicians appeal to "but think of the children!" type stuff when they campaign for something. It plays on the emotions of the weak and makes partisans further cast their guys in some kind of sainthood light fueled by benevolence. No one should let themselves get played like that.
Agree with this, also. Just think of how many kids we can save if we ban vehicles... and swimming pools... and swing sets... and wrap them in bubble wrap. I mean, it's all about saving kids, right?Its the "if we can save just one child" tripe that pisses me off. So many died so that we could be free, you do not betray that by giving up liberty for the hope of saving lives.
Its "live free or die", not "live at all costs."
I don't care either way. It's been done in the past and nothing makes Obama's use of children any worse than Reagan's, Bush's, or Chavez's.
remind me what laws RWR and Bush signed that were designed to take away the rights of honest Americans while surrounded by children?
"Politicians have been using children as long as there have been politicians"
Those are your words, Redress. That was the logic you used to bolster your claim that the issue of politicians using kids is unimportant. If that's not an appeal to tradition, then what is? You're saying the reason the action is OK is because the action has always been OK.
What is conservatism but an appeal to tradition?
I found it amusing that a patent liberal would have a knee jerk reaction to the story that was conservative.
So you're selectively pointing out the selective out-rage of only the right? :mrgreen:
Huh? Where are left wingers showing selective outrage in this thread?
Admittedly I tend to not red liberal posts since they are either just stuff I agree with anyway, or painful. At least gun nut posts are painful but hilariously stupid, like claiming that it is somehow terrible to have kids who expressed an interest in the issue be present. Oh how they are so harmed. Right now gun nuts are the best thing that could happen to the democratic party, as we just stand aside and let them make us look good by comparison.
Naw, left wingers would never do it in any thread, ever. Lol.
Fine, but don't start hedging on what you mean by "gun nuts". I take that to mean pro gun rights people. You really have been selectively reading if you think all of the anti gun dip****s are making you look good. There was one thread the OP abandoned because he got caught in so many lies. Lol.
Never claimed that. You should know better than to try that kind of straw man with me.
Gun nut: Some one irrational in their support of gun rights. If you are talking armed revolution, you might be a gun nut as one example. You can support gun rights and not be a gun nut.
Never claimed that. You should know better than to try that kind of straw man with me.
Gun nut: Some one irrational in their support of gun rights. If you are talking armed revolution, you might be a gun nut as one example. You can support gun rights and not be a gun nut.
So are you saying that many gun rights advocates are not making the Democratic party look good? How about the dishonest anti gun nuts (I'll totally give you examples if you want to see them). Do they make the Republicans look good?
What if I feel I should get to keep the guns, including one particularly mean looking rifle, that I bought legally? What if I'm amazed that people who supposedly support the right to privacy and supposedly support the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure seem perfectly fine with the idea of entering someone's house and confiscating legally obtained property?
20 young children were senslessly murdered by gunfire and those children are the REASON Obama is doing this. It is totally appropriate that they be front and center in this fight. Whether you know it or want to admit it, those children are the owners of the future we give them. They have every right to be involved in it too.
No, those are my words that subtly suggested selective outrage. I then explained my feelings on the issue, which is that it is trivial.
I agree that there is selective outrage on this issue. I am also convinced that if the tables were turned, if it were a Republican using kids to garner the sympathy vote,
I agree that there is selective outrage on this issue. I am also convinced that if the tables were turned, if it were a Republican using kids to garner the sympathy vote, Democrats would behave exactly the same way.
Selective outrage is a reality of partisan American politics. Neither side has a monopoly on sanctimonious bull****. It's the American way.
The NRA used Obama's kids in an advertisement to gain support for their position.
Kinda sorta. The add failed on just about every level, factual and logical, but the referencing of kids in the add was not really inappropriate to my mind.
While I don't see that much sentimental value in this incident, you sure put a nice spin on it.
Did not claim they are not any, but they are much quieter on the whole, nor are they threatening revolution.
Can you show me where Obama or congress is threatening to take guns away? I just read the proposal Obama put forth, and it does not do this. Obama on curbing gun violence: 'Now is the time'. Notice the problem? Hyperbole is exceeding the facts in a big way.
And if democrats gave Obama a pass on this but condemned conservatives for doing it, it would be selective outrage. Me personally, I don't see any one harmed so don't care when any one does it. That is called consistency.