- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 7,676
- Reaction score
- 2,850
- Location
- Your Head
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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.
I decided to remove you from my Ignore list, at least temporarily, because I thought this post was reasonable.
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.
Let's say certain aspects of gun control pass. What is Obama getting from having gun control pass?
why wouldn't she want to help him on this?
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.
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 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?
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.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.
It wasn't. Why do you always post with such negativity?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.
Which is why I explained it further.I'm afraid that you gave no indication of this "context" -- again
And again, you insult. Why are you always so hostile?You keep doing this. Occam's Razor says you are not be believed.
But why does he want it? What benefit does passing gun legislation bring to him?There doesn't need to be any further benefit here than he gets help in passing the legislation he wants.
I didn't ask you to justify it, you jumped into the question I asked VanceMack.As to what he thinks he "gains" from it, you'll have to ask him. I certainly don't need to justify it.
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.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 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.
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.
It wasn't. Why do you always post with such negativity?
Which is why I explained it further.
And again, you insult. Why are you always so hostile?
But why does he want it? What benefit does passing gun legislation bring to him?
I didn't ask you to justify it, you jumped into the question I asked VanceMack.
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.
I'm wondering what day in time people that support the Constitution went from Patriots to Radicals?
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?
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.
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?
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)
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.
We know that some of AQ trained in Iraq. Don't forget that.
Not really. It allowed me to mostly ignore what you wrote.Which shows the whole pomp and circumstance you put on in "ignoring" me was indeed bogus.
I'm not now, nor was I when you responded to my question towards VanceMack.Why do you pretend you don't?
Rarely do I go barging into a thread to accuse people of lying.In fact, you post exactly like I do in terms of tone.
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.After saying I "failed" to understand it.
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.You post something; you pretend you meant something else
Again with the attack. Could you please calm down?And you have the nerve to say I'm the "hostile" and "dishonest" one.
I've never once did such a thing. Again you're resorting to personal attacks due to a simple misunderstanding.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 have never done anything else. And yes, accusing me of posting dishonestly is attacking my integrity. That is an insult.Why can't you just post honestly? And by the way, that wasn't 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.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?
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.
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.
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?
Conservative compassion, you got to love it!
Kinda like saying the current gun control legislation would have prevented Sandy Hook. Which is an obvious lie to sell a political agenda.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?