• 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!

Another mass shooting and another Democrat, Obama supporter kills.

It's a legitimate news story first reported by CNN and is being picked up by other news sources.

As the saying goes, don't attack the messenger, attack the message if you can't handle the truth
.




As the saying goes, anyone who passes on a lie is just as big a liar as the person who first used that lie.
 
You realize that's just as bad, if not worse, than the OP?

Read post 17 and then we can talk I do recall seeing what you posted about the poor and minorities voting for Dems. You are just a guilty as the rest of them. What is the saying eye for an eye. To bad to many liberal politicians don't call out the right wing nut jobs in the House/Senate when they glorify the rest of the bastards like you and your buddies in this thread. I certainly will not turn the other cheek.
 

Sorry, I made an accurate statement, read what I said. >"If you look at all of the mass shootings over the past decade that those shooters who were registered to vote, were registered as Democrats."<

Those who were registered to vote. I didn't say that the majority of all mass shooting shooters were Democrats. I said those who were all ready registered to vote were likely to be Democrats. It's a fact. It's public record. Anyone has access to a county of register of voters records. If one of these shooters were have been registered as a republican it would be nothing but 24/7 for two years of being reminded that the shooter was a Republican.


And it's true that the majority of professional criminals don't vote. But if they did, you don't think they are going to vote for a Republican who want stiffer penalties and would like our prisons to be comparable to the Yuma Arizona Territory Prison of the 1800's.

No, they would vote for the Democrat who will put a liberal judge on the bench who will only slap the wrist of a felon or the Democrats who would rather empty the prisons instead of building new prisons (California being a perfect example). Dems want our prisons to be more like Club Med. Liberal Democrats actually believe in this thing of rehabilitating felons. You would have to search for a long time trying to find a convicted felon who believes he can be rehabilitate.
 
Sorry, I made an accurate statement, read what I said. >"If you look at all of the mass shootings over the past decade that those shooters who were registered to vote, were registered as Democrats."<

Those who were registered to vote. I didn't say that the majority of all mass shooting shooters were Democrats. I said those who were all ready registered to vote were likely to be Democrats. It's a fact. It's public record. Anyone has access to a county of register of voters records. If one of these shooters were have been registered as a republican it would be nothing but 24/7 for two years of being reminded that the shooter was a Republican.

You apparently didn't bother to read the link I posted. What you posted was sheer nonsense. It's NOT an accurate statement. It's FALSE. It is a LIE.

And it's true that the majority of professional criminals don't vote. But if they did, you don't think they are going to vote for a Republican who want stiffer penalties and would like our prisons to be comparable to the Yuma Arizona Territory Prison of the 1800's.

No, they would vote for the Democrat who will put a liberal judge on the bench who will only slap the wrist of a felon or the Democrats who would rather empty the prisons instead of building new prisons (California being a perfect example). Dems want our prisons to be more like Club Med. Liberal Democrats actually believe in this thing of rehabilitating felons. You would have to search for a long time trying to find a convicted felon who believes he can be rehabilitate.

More twaddle.
 
Read post 17 and then we can talk I do recall seeing what you posted about the poor and minorities voting for Dems.

Are you arguing that they don't vote for Democrats or that there aren't any politically motivate liberals?

You are just a guilty as the rest of them. What is the saying eye for an eye.

Exactly. If someone on the other side does something, you should criticize them for it and then do the exact same thing. Eye for an eye is terrible advice for things like this.

To bad to many liberal politicians don't call out the right wing nut jobs in the House/Senate when they glorify the rest of the bastards like you and your buddies in this thread. I certainly will not turn the other cheek.
 
Exactly. If someone on the other side does something, you should criticize them for it and then do the exact same thing. Eye for an eye is terrible advice for things like this.

"an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind" ghandi
 
"Eye for an eye" doesn't mean what many people think it means. Some seem to think it basically means "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," that it justifies retaliation under the guise of "he started it!" Under Hammurabic law, it was actually a restraining measure designed to prevent overly harsh retribution. It was "Eye for an eye," rather than "run through with a scimitar for an eye."
 
Sorry, I made an accurate statement, read what I said. >"If you look at all of the mass shootings over the past decade that those shooters who were registered to vote, were registered as Democrats."<

Those who were registered to vote. I didn't say that the majority of all mass shooting shooters were Democrats. I said those who were all ready registered to vote were likely to be Democrats. It's a fact. It's public record. Anyone has access to a county of register of voters records. If one of these shooters were have been registered as a republican it would be nothing but 24/7 for two years of being reminded that the shooter was a Republican.


And it's true that the majority of professional criminals don't vote. But if they did, you don't think they are going to vote for a Republican who want stiffer penalties and would like our prisons to be comparable to the Yuma Arizona Territory Prison of the 1800's.

No, they would vote for the Democrat who will put a liberal judge on the bench who will only slap the wrist of a felon or the Democrats who would rather empty the prisons instead of building new prisons (California being a perfect example). Dems want our prisons to be more like Club Med. Liberal Democrats actually believe in this thing of rehabilitating felons. You would have to search for a long time trying to find a convicted felon who believes he can be rehabilitate.

Ok, let's start with the most recent mass shooting. Prove Ritrovato was a registered Democrat...

<♫ theme from Jeopardy ♪>
 
You apparently didn't bother to read the link I posted. What you posted was sheer nonsense. It's NOT an accurate statement. It's FALSE. It is a LIE.



More twaddle.

I went back and reread it. Very selective. Going back over twenty years and coming up with less than two dozen shootings. Even including an Al Qaeda terrorist attack as being a typical in Clinton words, a law enforcement issue. Or as Obama called it, violance in the work place.

And not one mention of the shooting in Tucson where Gifford was shot Why is that ?

Why isn't there any links or sources provided ?

In fact there's no name of the author of the article.

Who wrote the article ?

Any Tom, Dick or Suzey Rotten Crotch can start his or hers own Examiner.com website. But you're suppose to provide sources for what you publish and at least put your name to the article.

My statement is still accurate and you provided someones partisan crap who couldn't back his crap up with anything.

Conclusion, just another leftist anti gun website hiding behinde Examiner.com.
 
I went back and reread it. Very selective. Going back over twenty years and coming up with less than two dozen shootings. Even including an Al Qaeda terrorist attack as being a typical in Clinton words, a law enforcement issue. Or as Obama called it, violance in the work place.

And not one mention of the shooting in Tucson where Gifford was shot Why is that ?

Why isn't there any links or sources provided ?

In fact there's no name of the author of the article.

Who wrote the article ?

Any Tom, Dick or Suzey Rotten Crotch can start his or hers own Examiner.com website. But you're suppose to provide sources for what you publish and at least put your name to the article.

My statement is still accurate and you provided someones partisan crap who couldn't back his crap up with anything.

Conclusion, just another leftist anti gun website hiding behinde Examiner.com.

Giffords shooting was mentioned.

And when your premise is shown to be BS, you simply handwave away and demand people prove a negative.
 
I think Fox news has reached singularity and manifested itself into a quantum metaphysical form as Apacherat. Somebody pull the plug before it releases hordes of carbon fiber clones of Glenn Beck to invade every living room in this country with hybrid neo McCarthyism.
 
Back
Top Bottom