Team Obama...

[_beastie]

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

That you assert people who support Roe V Wade (which is only so-called "convenience abortion on demand" for the first trimester) are not able or justified to have REAL outrage at this massacre of children is more reason to view you with contempt. You've got to be a troll, someone impersonating a conservative Mormon in order to mock and humiliate LDS. Actually, the truth is more likely that you're a crank, someone who in "real life" is tolerated with eye-rolls and polite attempts to extricate from conversation. It's only the internet that gives you voice.

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.

Yeah, that's why the nut in China who attacked school children with a knife killed them all. Right?

[_bcspace]

One has to ponder on the abject mentality and ignorance it takes for someone to vote for Obama or any Democrat for that matter. They took their money, their jobs, and yes, even their Twinkies and they STILL voted for them.

[_Droopy]

One has to ponder on the abject mentality and ignorance it takes for someone to vote for Obama or any Democrat for that matter. They took their money, their jobs, and yes, even their Twinkies and they STILL voted for them.

First they came for the Jews, and no one said anything. Then they came for the definition of marriage, family, and gender, and no one lifted a finger to stop them. Then they came for the public schools, and no one spoke up. Then, they came for the Twinkies, and there was no one left to resist.

Next, the entire fast food industry will be destroyed (along with the coal, petroleum, natural gas, and fracking industry).

Isn't it all just wonderful?

[_Droopy]

That you assert people who support Roe V Wade (which is only so-called "convenience abortion on demand" for the first trimester)

It is called "convenience abortion on demand" from the moment of conception to the entering of the child into the birth canal, when it is, in fact, convenience abortion on demand (lifestyle abortion) which is approximately 94% (and has been as high as 96%) of all abortions performed since Roe.

are not able or justified to have REAL outrage at this massacre of children is more reason to view you with contempt.

I'm not sure I see a moral equivalence between a single, isolated mass murder involving less then 30 people and the legal infanticide (only a tiny percentage - 4% to 6% - of which ever had anything to do with the life of the mother, or rape or incest, or severe deformation of the fetus) that has claimed the lives of tens of millions of unborn children since the hip, swinging seventies baby YEAH...

You've got to be a troll, someone impersonating a conservative Mormon in order to mock and humiliate LDS.

No, I'm just morally conscious, while you are a leftist.

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.

Yeah, that's why the nut in China who attacked school children with a knife killed them all. Right?

I'm sure you're not aware of it, but you've just made an argument for the banning of all silverware from retail departments stores and the licensing of all knives, forks, and spoons with the BATF.

Next, of course, will have to be all landscape and gardening implements (which, following the logic of this argument, will only be the beginning).

[_beastie]

The Chinese knife-wielder didn't kill a single one of his victims.

[_beastie]

by the way, I think your attempt to divert the discussion to abortion is desperation. Your assertion that people who support Roe V Wade have no moral right to object to this massacre of school children is grotesque, immoral, and pathetic.

If you sincerely believe that abortion - even of a blastocyst - is the equivalent of the killing of these children, I assume you must be opposed to abortion in ALL cases, even if the mother's life is in danger. After all, would you kill a child to save its mother?

But I doubt there is any sincerity in your position at all.

[_Droopy]

The Chinese knife-wielder didn't kill a single one of his victims.

So then, knives are not deadly weapons?

[_lance peters]

...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

Yeah, cool story bro, it looks like you've still failed to change your failure quote in your signature panel. I guess it takes a very long time to fix internet foibles and mistakes, you should know.

[_Analytics]

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

No.

Why not? If one adheres to what the Constitution plainly says through the clear lens of original intent, the Constitution does in fact guarantee that the government will do absolutely nothing to infringe the right of the people to bear the arms needed to defend themselves.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 28 that the reason people are granted the right to bear arms is so that they can keep the federal government in check: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense.

The only way the people can defend themselves from a tyrannical government is with arms sufficiently powerful to defeat that government: if the government has hydrogen bombs it could use against its people, the people have the Constitutional right to bear hydrogen bombs to use against the government. Anything less is an infringement on this right.

[_Droopy]

Your assertion that people who support Roe V Wade have no moral right to object to this massacre of school children is grotesque, immoral, and pathetic.

People who support the legal infanticide of tens of millions of unborn human beings, for purely subjective, personal reasons of lifestyle interference of to circumvent the consequences of irresponsible sexual activity have, certainly, a limited moral stake in such an occurrence, but at a deeper level of logical consistency, are engaging in moral selectivity, based to a great extent on the emotional intensity of the act itself.

If you sincerely believe that abortion - even of a blastocyst - is the equivalent of the killing of these children, I assume you must be opposed to abortion in ALL cases, even if the mother's life is in danger.

If I were to assert that the killing of a single bastocyst was the equivalent to the killing of all these children - even were I to believe that a blastocyst was, for moral purposes, the equivalent of a grade school are child, or a fully adult human, for that matter, - I would be asserting that the killing of a single human being is the moral equivalent of the killing of thirty; that its no worse, from a moral perspective, to kill one innocent person than to kill a room full of innocent persons. From this you could extrapolate to a claim that the killing of one blastocyst is morally equivalent to the the killing fields of Cambodia.

I of course, made no such argument. My contrast was not between the murdered children and "a blastocyst," but between the murdered children and tens of millions of unborn children, from between the first and last trimester, killed, not for any legitimate medical or extenuating psychological/mental health reasons, but as a form of birth control.

Neither you nor any other leftist can run or hide from the moral hypocrisy (and especially those who continue to support partial birth abortion) of being selectively outraged over some kinds of unjustified killing, but oh so very solicitous of others forms - those forms that provide a clean, dispassionate, technical circumvention of the consequences of lifestyle choices and the means of preserving them while ignoring moral questions relative to those choices altogether.