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

ChezC3 said:

and if you allow yourself to be used in that manner than you deserve as much scorn as those who are pulling the strings. If you (generally speaking you, not you you)take up "the cause" attempt to deny me and mine the right because the loss of yours than you and I have a problem.

Click to expand...

Private citizens, grief, and causes. Honestly...theres really nothing to attack there. You dont think someone like Cindy Sheehan is a tragic figure worthy of at least empathy?

Politicians on the other hand...

VanceMack said:

Please help by passing universal background checks. If only background checks had been in place in Connecticut, this horrible tragedy would have been prevented.

Mindless emotional pleading...what a great way to 'lead' a country.

Click to expand...

Then Flying them to Washington DC so they can lobby the Senators. Doesn't get any more blatant than that. But now People just need to call Obama out on that Abuse with the Children. It is clear in the DCFS definition of Child Abuse that Exploitation of Children for ones personal gain is indeed Child Abuse. So that needs to keep getting throw up into the Media.

People need to be calling News stations and Newspapers complaining about his abuse of these Children. Making it a loud Ringing. See Obama does have those big azz ears on the side of that Head. But if he cant listen.....then his pathetic azz can surely read. So says the teleprompter. :shock:

VanceMack said:

Private citizens, grief, and causes. Honestly...theres really nothing to attack there. You dont think someone like Cindy Sheehan is a tragic figure worthy of at least empathy?

Politicians on the other hand...

Click to expand...

Nope, when you go in front of a camera and say "Look at me, look at my pain, do as I ask, please, please, please" you're not a private citizen grieving any longer.

Cindy Sheehan is a different story, she was trying to end a War. Big difference than trying to prevent me from having the right to defend myself as I see fit or forcing me to be put on government watchlist.

Muhammed said:

That was just wrong.

Every day people lose their spouse to violence. Should the taxpayers be obligated to make all of them millionaires?

Click to expand...

Of course not. This was done to protect the airlines (and their insurance companies) from taking the civil liability hit after 9/11. It should be noted that no public funds have been used (so far) for rewarding the Sandy Hook victim's families.

Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....

ChezC3 said:

Nope, when you go in front of a camera and say "Look at me, look at my pain, do as I ask, please, please, please" you're not a private citizen grieving any longer.

Cindy Sheehan is a different story, she was trying to end a War. Big difference than trying to prevent me from having the right to defend myself as I see fit or forcing me to be put on government watchlist.

Click to expand...

ah... So the level of tolerance you have for a grieving parent extends only to the extent in which you agree or disagree with their 'cause'. I see. Can't help but wonder where that places you on the spectrum with grieving parents and explosive politicians.

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.

polgara said:

Good Morning, MMC.

Excellent post!

Every mother that has lost a child understands her grief, myself included. This was a horrible tragedy, indeed, but guns cannot be blamed for this any more than you can blame a car that was driven by a drunk driver who caused a child's death.

The mentally sick person who did this is at fault here, and we must not forget that! He killed his own mother first! We should mourn for her, also. To attempt to destroy our Constitution and Bill of Rights because of the acts of those who do not obey the law is wrong! Our efforts should instead be concentrated on getting the mentally ill among us the help they need, to ensure that this does not happen again!

Click to expand...

Mornin' Lady Polgara! You are correct.....and Obama also knows it. Considering he had LE's up to the WH so that they could give him their ideas. He was told then it was the Mental Health Issue. Not background checks or bans. Moreover all Le's told him they would like to see guns taken out of the hands of the bad guys criminals. But that background checks and bans would not do that.

He refuses to Listen to them.....and it is clear now his ego wont allow him to lose on the issue. Which means he is putting himself before the Nation but only for himself, politically. it would appear that is more important than the Constitution and the Rights of the people. Plus as Ttwtt stated it allows him to expand more government and more government control.

Slyfox696 said:

I find many of the comments in this thread to be quite disgusting.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Here's what you would call an "extremist" comment if I said it to you.

But I guess it's OK for you to do it, as long as you have a pat excuse for putting me on ignore when you can't substantively refute what I say.

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.

Click to expand...

Spare us the crocodile tears. No one is exempt from criticism, and if you can't see the obviousness of the stunt pulled by Obama, that's not on anyone else.

One does not have to refrain from criticism of a policy -- or obvious political tactic -- just because it's being spouted by a grieving parent.

To think one DOES is to give in to mob rule, not reasoned discourse.

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...

"Inanimate object," which you keep saying, is your own heated rhetoric. At least pull your pants up before you start pointing fingers at someone else.

Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....

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...

I would never demonize the mother. The politician that would exploit grief for gain...that's another matter. The playbook is familiar though isn't it. This issue. Parading out hikers non am emotional appeal to pass a health care law that no one bothered to read. Trotting out Sandra Fluke and her mythical dying 'friend' that had no access to birth control (except of course ms fluke admitted she DID have access to birth control, even at the Jesuit university she attended).

Emotional appeals is a pathetic way to lead a government. Luckily for them, there is no shortage of willing participants in the charade. Of course...it helps when the participants are already full on enmeshed with the ideology.

VanceMack said:

ah... So the level of tolerance you have for a grieving parent extends only to the extent in which you agree or disagree with their 'cause'. I see. Can't help but wonder where that places you on the spectrum with grieving parents and explosive politicians.

Click to expand...

No, I don't care what the "cause" when you decide to turn your grief into a "cause" you open yourself up to public scrutiny. I thought and think Sheehan is a quack personally, but there is a significant and clear difference between turning your grief into a "cause" to end a BS war and turning your grief into a "cause" to strip me of what is my right.

My place in other people's view can be where ever they'd like to put me. These things don't bother me. I'm not in politics, my convictions don't rise and fall with opinion polls...

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...

All private property is comprised of inamimate objects, and yes the citizens should have a say concerning that issue. Can you explain how the NICS BG check system (current or with the proposed changes) would have had any impact on the Sandy Hook mass shooting? Is it sad that we have crime victims? Yes. Is expanding the federal control of "legal" gun sales going to decrease crime? No.

Of over 72,000 "illegal" attempts (1.2% of the total) to buy guns, in 2010, exactly 13 were prosecuted for that crime. The bill contains ZERO funding for any increased enforcement of those that lie, and thus fail the NICS BG check, yet will assess fees for 98.8% of all legal gun sales (those that pass the NICS BG check). The Sandy Hook shooting involved no "shady" gun sales, straw buyers or any other situation addressed in the proposed "universal BG check" legislation.

The current occupier of the White House excels at MMD's (Methods of Mass Distraction) The entire gun control conversation is a Method of Mass Distraction. The "gun show loophole" is a fallacy. Background checks themselves are simply a means of "control". Go to a gun show, buy a firearm, (You will undergo a background check because non FFL holders selling firearms at gun shows are RARE), now turn around to the next booth and buy another firearm. Guess what, you undergo another background check. This makes "sense" to WHOM?? I can hear the low information voters now, but what about criminals and the mentally ill. Uhm, lemme break it down for you, "criminals" aren't buying guns at gun shows. As for the mentally ill, let's pose a REAL question, what's more dangerous, a car or a gun? Do we require a "background check" to get a driver's license? Do we limit the mentally ill from driving?

As a society, we have enjoyed our freedom and liberty for so long without truly UNDERSTANDING same, that we allow it to be removed without even thinking. The convoluted "logic" proffered in most issues should make freedom loving humans afraid!

The challenge regarding Sandy Hook will NEVER be solved with "gun control". The REAL challenge is, as a society we have no "respect for life". Think I'm wrong? Here's a test. How many humans died that day in Sandy Hook, CT?

Some of you said 20.

A few of the MORE awake and informed said 26.

I hope there are a few who are still using their intelligence and respect for human life who said 27.

The retentive ones, but those who comprehend the real challenge we face, said 28.

The equivalent of Sandy Hook happens 46 times EVERY day as per figures released by planned parenthood for 2010. Currently there is an abortionist on trial for killing babies and mother's in his office. Were you even aware?

The criminal shooter at Sandy Hook, choose the school SPECIFICALLY because he knew he would face no resistance. He was playing out a "video/computer" game hallucination of gaining as many "points" as possible by killing people. He ended up killing himself because, if the "cops" shot him he'd lose points.

Now, seriously, tell me something, what does an "assault weapon" or rounds a magazine can hold, or background checks, or any one of the myriad of EXISTING laws this criminal broke not being enforced, have to do with "preventing gun violence"?

Why do politicians use emotional appeals to get their agendas passed?

It works, that's why.

Why don't politicians use reason and logic to sway public opinion?

As homer once said (more than once, actually):

Booorrrrriiiinnnnnggg!

Dittohead not! said:

Why do politicians use emotional appeals to get their agendas passed?

It works, that's why.

Why don't politicians use reason and logic to sway public opinion?

As homer once said (more than once, actually):

Booorrrrriiiinnnnnggg!

Click to expand...

Yes but is there anything stopping the American people from letting them hear about? What do you think would happen with Obama if every news media station was reporting on his abuse of children? Do you think Obama then would stop and STFU?

Wouldn't it make for TV ratings and barrels of Big time money?

I find the use of human shields despicable. Obama this is obvious and wrong, anyone who falls for this is a fool.

MMC said:

Yes but is there anything stopping the American people from letting them hear about? What do you think would happen with Obama if every news media station was reporting on his abuse of children? Do you think Obama then would stop and STFU?

Wouldn't it make for TV ratings and barrels of Big time money?

Click to expand...

Is using children to make an emotional appeal to the public "abuse of children" in your opinion?
If so, then the media certainly is reporting his "abuse."

and sure, it is making for better TV ratings and barrels of big time money, no doubt about that. The weeping mother talking about how we must pass gun control measures that have nothing to do with the causes of the Sandy Hook massacre no doubt helps pump up viewership as well.

Why do it? Would a rational discussion of the causes of this disaster and the best way to respond to it increase viewership?

Boooorrrriiiinnnnggg!!!!

Dittohead not! said:

Is using children to make an emotional appeal to the public "abuse of children" in your opinion?
If so, then the media certainly is reporting his "abuse."

and sure, it is making for better TV ratings and barrels of big time money, no doubt about that. The weeping mother talking about how we must pass gun control measures that have nothing to do with the causes of the Sandy Hook massacre no doubt helps pump up viewership as well.

Why do it? Would a rational discussion of the causes of this disaster and the best way to respond to it increase viewership?

Boooorrrriiiinnnnggg!!!!

Click to expand...

Well according to DCFS exploitation of Children for ones Personal gain is an abuse. Which someone had posted up before. So they know what they have in the DCFS Booklet and their All their various forms with descriptive terminology. So it is like forms can be shown on Camera.....that there is President using Children and Tragedy and has brought it back up into the Media after the issue was being laid to rest. With more current events that were coming along.

So the constant harping about it would have to force Obama to change tactics. Since then he could not play on the kids or that tragedy anymore. Which means no more tears and crying out for Emotional rescue.

As is the MSmedia is reporting every gun shooting they can and trying to embellish upon all said events. Its way over the top......last night in Chicago these morons reported someone shot a dog. No Suspect......just a dog found dead that had been shot. Nothing else. No witnesses, no perp. Nothing. But lets report it as news anyways.....Right? Yeah.....and that's what they did.

Be great if they saw someone shooting the dog and all that.

The Other point is Obama isn't even having to have what he calls a fair and equal debate about it.....as it stands now. He talks and talks. But Don't have to listen. That needs to be changed in any way it can.

ChezC3 said:

No, I don't care what the "cause" when you decide to turn your grief into a "cause" you open yourself up to public scrutiny. I thought and think Sheehan is a quack personally, but there is a significant and clear difference between turning your grief into a "cause" to end a BS war and turning your grief into a "cause" to strip me of what is my right.

My place in other people's view can be where ever they'd like to put me. These things don't bother me. I'm not in politics, my convictions don't rise and fall with opinion polls...

Click to expand...

No...but your sense of moral outrage apparently fluctuates based on your stance on 'the cause'.

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.

Oceandan said:

The equivalent of Sandy Hook happens 46 times EVERY day as per figures released by planned parenthood for 2010. Currently there is an abortionist on trial for killing babies and mother's in his office.

Click to expand...

And what does abortion have to do with the Sandy Hook Massacre?

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

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...

Then she shouldnt be out there. If she wants to inject herself into the middle of a highly charged political issue, then she need to be prepared for the scrutiny that will follow. But that is the reason the left dragged her out there in the first place--so they could label any disagreement with her as just being hateful rhetoric from meanies on the right. Since the left cant win on facts and reason, they are trying emotion. But that is all leftism is anyway.

Fletch said:

Then she shouldnt be out there. If she wants to inject herself into the middle of a highly charged political issue, then she need to be prepared for the scrutiny that will follow. But that is the reason the left dragged her out there in the first place--so they could label any disagreement with her as just being hateful rhetoric from meanies on the right. Since the left cant win on facts and reason, they are trying emotion. But that is all leftism is anyway.

Click to expand...

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?

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...

that's usually what happens when folks abuse the sympathy extended to them...especailly when they abuse it in the name of politics/public policy agenda.

Im sorry she lost a child ... i'm not gonna remain silent while she , and the administration, use that to push a political agenda I oppose though.... not gonna happen, nor should it happen.

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Way to milk these grief stricken people for all the political capital you can gain President Obama.

Thrilla said:

that's usually what happens when folks abuse the sympathy extended to them...especailly when they abuse it in the name of politics/public policy agenda.

Im sorry she lost a child ... i'm not gonna remain silent while she , and the administration, use that to push a political agenda I oppose though.... not gonna happen, nor should it happen.

Click to expand...

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.