DiscussMormonism.com

...should be ashamed, and those who support them should be embarrassed for being such political chumps.

As if the 14+ million surplus from the campaign was not enough...

"Team Obama still raising money--off Sandy Hook shootings

..In email from chief campaign advisor David Axelrod that
urges supporters to watch President Obama's moving address
to the community of Newtown, there are two links that open
a page with a video player featuring the president's speech
and two donate buttons asking for $15-$1,000 for his
campaign"
http://teachers.net/mentors/politics/to ... 04.04.html

"Jeryl Bier wrote, "Not one, but two buttons - two opportunities to donate to the Obama campaign. Not to the Red Cross, or to a memorial fund for the children and adults killed in Newtown. How hard would it have been to shift the focus, disable the buttons, for just one email, just one blog post? But the show must go on."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/team-obam ... NDGtG80V8G

subgenius wrote:...should be ashamed, and those who support them should be embarrassed for being such political chumps.
As if the 14+ million surplus from the campaign was not enough...

Great, the newest manufactured outrage being promoted by the right wing media.
Thanks for passing along the news. Good to know what annoying the nutty right these days. They are so easily offended.

Jaybear wrote:Great, the newest manufactured outrage being promoted by the right wing media.
Thanks for passing along the news. Good to know what annoying the nutty right these days. They are so easily offended.

The only manufactured outrage being produced at this point is that by the Democrat party and its journalistic wing against the inanimate objects asserted to be the "cause" of the mass murders in Conn.

Droopy wrote:The only manufactured outrage being produced at this point is that by the Democrat party and its journalistic wing against the inanimate objects asserted to be the "cause" of the mass murders in Conn.

The Democratic Party has no issue with inanimate objects. Their concern is with human beings. Some human beings deliberately use certain objects for the intended purpose of those objects: to efficiently kill large numbers of other human beings.

The question is one of balance. On the one hand, certain people have a pathological desire to own objects that were designed to kill—despite the fact that such objects pose a huge danger to themselves and their family. Allowing them to own a gun is like allowing them to take their kids for motorcycle rides without helmets—we demand the right to do stupid things that are dangerous to ourselves and our families.

On the other hand, Democrats believe that in the cases of psychopaths who want to killing large numbers of innocent people, society shouldn’t assist them by making it easy for them to acquire the inanimate objects they need to accomplish their psychopathic objectives.

So we need to come up with smart laws that balance this out. Who should we have more sympathy for? Folks with a pathological desire to own things that are very dangerous to themselves and to their families? Or folks who don’t want psychopaths to have easy access to the tools required in order to massacre innocents?

Droopy wrote:
The only manufactured outrage being produced at this point is that by the Democrat party and its journalistic wing against the inanimate objects asserted to be the "cause" of the mass murders in Conn.

You are actually asserting that the Democratic party is engaged in "manufactured outrage" after this massacre of babies.

You have officially jumped the shark of shamelessness.

Droopy wrote:


The only manufactured outrage being produced at this point is that by the Democrat party and its journalistic wing against the inanimate objects asserted to be the "cause" of the mass murders in Conn.

Every nuclear family should own a nuclear weapon. They are simply inanimate objects.
After all, nuclear bombs don't kill people. People kill people.
Don't we all have the constitutional right to have personal ballistic nuclear weapons to protect us against the tyranical government?

Help Protect our rights;
Please donate to the NABA (National Atomic Bomb Association)

Analytics wrote:The question is one of balance. On the one hand, certain people have a pathological desire to own objects that were designed to kill—despite the fact that such objects pose a huge danger to themselves and their family. Allowing them to own a gun is like allowing them to take their kids for motorcycle rides without helmets—we demand the right to do stupid things that are dangerous to ourselves and our families.

horrible metaphor/simile...fail

Analytics wrote:On the other hand, Democrats believe that in the cases of psychopaths who want to killing large numbers of innocent people, society shouldn't assist them by making it easy for them to acquire the inanimate objects they need to accomplish their psychopathic objectives.

huh?
you mean like kitchen knives? baseball bats? cars? rat poison? rope?

Analytics wrote:So we need to come up with smart laws that balance this out. Who should we have more sympathy for? Folks with a pathological desire to own things that are very dangerous to themselves and to their families? Or folks who don’t want psychopaths to have easy access to the tools required in order to massacre innocents?

Timothy McVeigh killed almost 200 people...19 of which were children.
over 400 went to the hospital....83 had to be admitted
he used
a panel van
fertilizer
racing fuel

your argument is lame

Anders Behring Breivik set off a car bomb in Oslo and then killed 77...mostly children
he circumvented various "gun controls" in order to succeed.

your argument is lame

China has vigorous gun control...
Zheng Minsheng murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping, Fujian province
Chen Kangbing at Hongfu Primary School wounded 16 students and a teacher with a knife in Leizhou, Guangdong

and many more in China...without guns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_att ... %80%932011)

Prof. Joshua Miller, chair of Social Welfare Policy at Smith College, attributed the attacks to stress caused by "rapid social change, mass migrations, increasing disparities in wealth and weakening of traditions."




So, once again, making events like Newtown about "gun control" will, as usual, do little to solve the actual problem. So, while people run around like sheep with their baa baa about guns or baa baa about bullets...

...but thanks to Axelrod and Obama, it will be a great fundraising opportunity!

Tarski wrote:

Droopy wrote:


The only manufactured outrage being produced at this point is that by the Democrat party and its journalistic wing against the inanimate objects asserted to be the "cause" of the mass murders in Conn.

Every nuclear family should own a nuclear weapon. They are simply inanimate objects.
After all, nuclear bombs don't kill people. People kill people.
Don't we all have the constitutional right to have personal ballistic nuclear weapons to protect us against the tyranical government?

Help Protect our rights;
Please donate to the NABA (National Atomic Bomb Association)

ironically if people and government adhered to the constitutional intent of the "right to bear arms"...nuclear weapons may not exist at all...government would be afraid to produce weapons that others could possess freely.
Obviously you are one of these people that are quite content in their stall being trough fed and milked by the government, or whoever....just as long as you do not have to have too much control over your own life.
So, while i appreciate the facetious nature of your post..it is the logical conclusion, as it was meant to be. Our founding fathers new well what it meant to be afraid of their own government, and they had hoped that we would never experience that fear again...yet you seem to want to embrace it....under the guise of "my government would never..." - geez - talk about blind faith!

Tarski wrote:
Every nuclear family should own a nuclear weapon.

If the struggle for intellectual seriousness and logical relevance has become this difficult, Tarski, you might want to consider taking a few years off.

They are simply inanimate objects.

Well, that's hard to disagree with.

After all, nuclear bombs don't kill people. People kill people.

Quite true.

Don't we all have the constitutional right to have personal ballistic nuclear weapons to protect us against the tyranical government?

No.

beastie wrote:
You are actually asserting that the Democratic party is engaged in "manufactured outrage" after this massacre of babies.

You have officially jumped the shark of shamelessness.

1. What's the post-Roe convenience abortion on demand massacre total at this point, Beastie?

2. The inanimate objects used to commit this outrage have, of themselves, nothing to do with the actual crime, and the thousands of pages of laws controlling gun purchases, licensure, and usage that already exist did not stop this one, isolated horror, nor could they, or any conceivable body of gun laws save those that could only be associated with a fully mature police state have prevented it.