The NRA's New Low

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Have to agree, the NRA ad mentioning the President's kids was out of line.

    About the same level as the President surrounding himself with little children at his press conference....




    Ending gun violence through reasonable gun control is about children, so I see no problem at all with the president including children at his press conference. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook, at least 15 more children have lost their lives as a result of gun shots. Slate magazine is keeping track.   Why don't you read some of the articles linked by Slate about the horrendous details.


    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    "The President is the President of ALL American kids (even those whose parents hate his guts, like you do).The NRA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the President's kids.

     Get it now??"

    No, I do not "hate the President's guts" as you nastily put it.

    And no,  the fact Obama is President does not give him guardianship over "ALL American kids" . His endess demagoguing in smearing his opponents is nauseating.The message is obvious — if you’re against my measures, you want to endanger children. Adding insult to injury, taxpayers coughed up the transportation costs to have these kids used as props....

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Have to agree, the NRA ad mentioning the President's kids was out of line.

    About the same level as the President surrounding himself with little children at his press conference....

    Ending gun violence through reasonable gun control is about children, so I see no problem at all with the president including children at his press conference. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook, at least 15 more children have lost their lives as a result of gun shots. Slate magazine is keeping track.   Why don't you read some of the articles linked by Slate about the horrendous details.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

     

    The vast majority of gun murders is young adults and black on black violence!

    Why were no black teens in front of him? that seems disrespectful to the black community.

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Have to agree, the NRA ad mentioning the President's kids was out of line.

    About the same level as the President surrounding himself with little children at his press conference....

     




    Ending gun violence through reasonable gun control is about children, so I see no problem at all with the president including children at his press conference. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook, at least 15 more children have lost their lives as a result of gun shots. Slate magazine is keeping track.   Why don't you read some of the articles linked by Slate about the horrendous details.

     


    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

     



    Ding ding ding - We have a winner.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to FaolanofEssex's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Have to agree, the NRA ad mentioning the President's kids was out of line.

    About the same level as the President surrounding himself with little children at his press conference....

     




    Ending gun violence through reasonable gun control is about children, so I see no problem at all with the president including children at his press conference. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook, at least 15 more children have lost their lives as a result of gun shots. Slate magazine is keeping track.   Why don't you read some of the articles linked by Slate about the horrendous details.

     


    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

     



    Ding ding ding - We have a winner.

     

    So typical. Progressives do everything "for the children", dont they? They get a warm and fuzzy feeling from 'government action'. Even though the government action doesnt help the problem.

    Please tell me specifically how any of Obama's gun control ideas would have prevented these "Gun" deaths?
    They wouldnt.

    Many many  "gun deaths" are in Chicago, are they not? Where gun control laws are in effect, which demonstrably do not prevent violent gangbangers from random shootings.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "The President is the President of ALL American kids (even those whose parents hate his guts, like you do).The NRA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the President's kids.

    And no,  the fact Obama is President does not give him guardianship over "ALL American kids" . His endess demagoguing in smearing his opponents is nauseating.The message is obvious — if you’re against my measures, you want to endanger children. Adding insult to injury, taxpayers coughed up the transportation costs to have these kids used as props....

     



    Yes, actually that's precisely what his being elected to the presidency does.  He's president over you, too, though you may not like it much.  That's how our system works.

    What you call demogoguing, most other, sane, unbittered people would call "doing his job as top elected leader of the nation", including personally consoling the parents whose kids were killed and taking some responsibility to at least TRY and make sure they didn't die in vain.  You can bet those parents appreciate the effort even if they end up disagreeing with the result.

    And though you may not like the optics, they are still nothing like what the NRA did in impugning POTUS' motives and publicly embarrassing his children.  There is no "insult" here - except in your mind, and even less "injury"...so spare us the righteous indignation for something that actually warrants it.  Tool.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Have to agree, the NRA ad mentioning the President's kids was out of line.

    About the same level as the President surrounding himself with little children at his press conference....

    Ending gun violence through reasonable gun control is about children, so I see no problem at all with the president including children at his press conference. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook, at least 15 more children have lost their lives as a result of gun shots. Slate magazine is keeping track.   Why don't you read some of the articles linked by Slate about the horrendous details.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

     

     

     

    The vast majority of gun murders is young adults and black on black violence!

    Why were no black teens in front of him? that seems disrespectful to the black community.

     

     



    Obviously he was playing the heart strings of America. 

     



    That's his job.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    Since POTUS is only interested in exploiting correspondence that suits his agenda, conservatives are offering up messages from the inconvenient children:

    ConservativeKidLetters "Dear Mr President, why are you spending my future into oblivion?"

    Mr Prez when you sign Abortion Laws are you going to surround yourself with children as you did with gun laws? #TGDN #ConservativeKidLetters

    ConservativeKidLetters Dear Pres: When you said "if they bring a knife to fight you bring a GUN" did you mean semi-auto or fully automatic?"

    Dear Mr.Obama, why is my daddy's check is $70 less when u said for months u were only after the evil rich ppl? #ConservativeKidLetters

    Mr #POTUS please take this terrible burden off my back. I can't even count to 50K yet, never mind owe you that much. #ConservativeKidLetters

    ConservativeKidLetters Does God like it when you tell me not to cling to him? Should I cling to you instead?

    #ConservativeKidLetters "Dear Mr President, why are you trying to put mommy's favorite store (Hobby Lobby) out of business?

    Dr Mr. Prez, what's "fisting," & why did your "School safety czar" recommend it to middle schoolers? #ConservativeKidLetters

    ConservativeKidLetters "Dear Mr. President, why do you want to give us $9 a mon. for condoms, but taking $60 a mon. away from us in taxes?

    Dear Mr President- Why did your brother in Kenya call Dinesh D'Souza for money when his son was sick? #ConservativeKidLetters (not to mention Obama's aunt and uncle on the public dole for decades)

    I've reached my sick from school absence limit. Can you please mint a trillion day absence coin for me? #ConservativeKidLetters

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    Dear Mr.Obama, I live in Chicago, why haven't u said anything about the gun violence here? Is it bcs we're black? #ConservativeKidLetters

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:


    That's his job. 




    Wow you have drown in the koolaid!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    The vast majority of gun murders is young adults and black on black violence!

    Why were no black teens in front of him? that seems disrespectful to the black community.

    1 guess lol

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    This idea that children of presidents and contenders are off limits is somewhat slanted.  The Bush twins were always the subject of gossip, and Palins children were constantly being skewered in the press.

    that being said, I think that NRA should not have mentioned Obama's girls, and Obama shouldn't be exploiting the children of the little people in his kingdom, either. I mean, parading out children to put the imprimatur of doing this "for the children" is a disgusting form of exploitation.  Obama should be ashamed. But, like all liberals, he is incapable of feeling shame.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    Wow...reading these posts I have to say I am amazed that there are some people who will defend..literally..any bad act.

    The sad thing is that those defending the NRA don't even represent the position of most average gun owners.

    What some people seem to not understand is that we should not be living in a society where the average child should need armed guard protection to attend school. Is that the world you really want to raise your children and grandchildren in? We as the US are supposed to be better than that...we are supposed to be able to find solutions to problems without turning ourselves into some kind of military state where 5 year olds need to be under the protection of armed guards.

    And..further..what no one here seems to be addressing..is where does it end? We have to address the issue of Mass shooting in a different way. Putting armed guards in schools is simply not the answer because then where does it end? Do we also put armed guards at community events, political rallies( the Gabi Gifford shooting)...do we put armed guard in movie theatres (the Aurora shooting)...or do we put armed guards in places of worship ( the Sikh temple shooting)??? The problem isn't the school..or the movie theatre..or the temple..or the community event. The problem is the mentally ill person who has access to a weapon which can kill many people in a matter of two minutes.

    The NRA may want to turn the US into a military state because it's good for their business..but really..we should want better for ourselves and our country.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to FaolanofEssex's comment:

    Its always been an American tradition in political decency ( what little decency is actually left in politics) that the children of President's be declared off limits in political battles.

    This past week the NRA violated that tradition with it's latest television ad.

    If the NRA doesn't understand the difference between the President's family needing secret service protection, and placing armed guards in every school in the country, then they are dumber then I originally thought.

    Besides, if the NRA is really serious about placing armed guards in public schools ( a la 3rd world country), then they should at least offer to foot the bill with their billions in profits collected by gun manufactures.



    I think the NRA was cowardly to put that ad out. It shows how low they have sunk and just how desperate they are. They are the American Taliban.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    Wonder if this is LOWER than Obama parading 6 year olds out to the cameras.

     



    You wingnuts are hysterical. I guess the sight of kids in the White House is just too much for you rightwingers to handle. Well, you are the party of scrooge after all..................

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Wow...reading these posts I have to say I am amazed that there are some people who will defend..literally..any bad act.

    The sad thing is that those defending the NRA don't even represent the position of most average gun owners.

    What some people seem to not understand is that we should not be living in a society where the average child should need armed guard protection to attend school. Is that the world you really want to raise your children and grandchildren in? We as the US are supposed to be better than that...we are supposed to be able to find solutions to problems without turning ourselves into some kind of military state where 5 year olds need to be under the protection of armed guards.

    And..further..what no one here seems to be addressing..is where does it end? We have to address the issue of Mass shooting in a different way. Putting armed guards in schools is simply not the answer because then where does it end? Do we also put armed guards at community events, political rallies( the Gabi Gifford shooting)...do we put armed guard in movie theatres (the Aurora shooting)...or do we put armed guards in places of worship ( the Sikh temple shooting)??? The problem isn't the school..or the movie theatre..or the temple..or the community event. The problem is the mentally ill person who has access to a weapon which can kill many people in a matter of two minutes.

    The NRA may want to turn the US into a military state because it's good for their business..but really..we should want better for ourselves and our country.



    Two points:

    You seem unfazed by Obama's obvious exploitation of other's children, while railing against the exploitation of his.

    When there are more legal guns in the general public, crime goes down.  That's proven.  No need to worry about needing more police when the general population is better armed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to chiefhowie's comment:

     

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

     

    If he cares about the kids that much, what's he going to do about the abortion issue? 

     



    I agree. killing infants is no big deal anymore. I cry when I see the abortion rate.

     

    Maybe owebama should hold a 12 week old infant in his hand !

    The killing fields !

     



    It seems to me that Obama HAS held TWO newborns in his hands. Ever occure to you that the subject of this thread kind of proves the fact? And I'm just curious....have the abortion rates gone down recently?

     

    It is a wonderful thing that he has held his newborns in his hands, while promoting the snuffing out of other newborns.

    Based on Obama's voting record, he is pro-abortion, and pro-partial birth abortion, and pro-post birth abortion.

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    NOT trying to pi55 ya off... I would prefer arming teachers and/or guards over another expensive big government program. Arming folks in the schools would be less expensive, a deterrent and would be effective if there was another incident. It is also race and  income neutral.  

    It's still people that kill, guns do not make decisions.

    "Rich gun manufacturers"  kinda sounds like 'millionaires and billionaires"



    Agree about the arming of schools; the rest is absurd. As someone else said,  If these lunatics had nerf guns, nothing would happen. Let's not forget what the change in gun policy did in Australia, Russia, Scotland, Japan, & China. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The NRA's New Low

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

    In response to chiefhowie's comment:

     

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

     

    If he cares about the kids that much, what's he going to do about the abortion issue? 

     



    I agree. killing infants is no big deal anymore. I cry when I see the abortion rate.

     

    Maybe owebama should hold a 12 week old infant in his hand !

    The killing fields !

     



    It seems to me that Obama HAS held TWO newborns in his hands. Ever occure to you that the subject of this thread kind of proves the fact? And I'm just curious....have the abortion rates gone down recently?

     

     

     

    It is a wonderful thing that he has held his newborns in his hands, while promoting the snuffing out of other newborns.

    Based on Obama's voting record, he is pro-abortion, and pro-partial birth abortion, and pro-post birth abortion.

     

     



    No, he's pro choice. And he has chosen to have his children. He has, however, promoted birth control. Promotion of birth control and sex-ed (in schools) reduces abortions and sexually transmitted disease. You can't have it both ways. You simply can't be anti-abortion and anti-birth control/sex-ed at the same time.

     

    You really do have a little-itty-bitty mind, don't you?




    Pro-choice?  Stop it with the "nuances"  Pro-choice is pro-abortion.  There is no pro-choice, that's just marketing spin.  Here's Obama's stance from a few articles.

    "There were six votes taken related to abortion while President Obama was in the Senate. In two of those votes, Senator Obama voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. In a third vote, Senator Obama voted against additional funding for enforcement of the Child Interstate Notification Act. The fourth vote that Senator Obama participated in involved defining a child for the purposes of SCHIP insurance planning. Senator Obama voted against this legislation. In the two remaining votes, Senator Obama cast a "no vote."

     

    "In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. "

    That's six votes against restricting abortion, and an admamant support of partial birth abortion, youj know, birthing the baby then killing it? And NARAL gives him a sweet 100% rating.  I call that pro-abortion, despite your spin.

     

Share