Props

[woodchip]

I don't know what is worse, the left using the deaths of little children to push their anti-gun dreams or the president of the United States using little children as background props to present his anti-gun fiats. We have here, over the years, always been suspicious when some political group uses the hackney phrase, "It's for the children" to get something passed. Once again we will see it used today as Obama trots out a line of little kids and uses them to accentuate his first step to disarm the American populace. None of what he is going to propose will stop another school shooting (unless of course he mandates all schools have armed guards...you know, like the one where his kids go). Perhaps he will rejoice that only 15 kids were killed and not 20 because the shooter could only bring 2 pistols to the party. Heck, with all the stores sold out of AR-15 rifles, somewhere there is a mental case that will get hold of one and use it for another massacre. So "props" to Obama for doing feel good executive orders that will, in the end, do nothing to cure the problem

[callmeslick]

todays ObamaHate hit parade!! w00t!

[woodchip]

Nothing to do with hate, everything to do with style

[callmeslick]

I don't see the least problem with the style, insofar as having little kids on stage to emphasize what concern drives the entire debate. I suspect the vast majority of Americans don't have a problem. YOU, woody, have a problem, because YOU, woody, have an Obama hard-on that just won't go away.

[woodchip]

Your obvious fascination with hard-ons seems to indicate a certain sexual orientation no?

[callmeslick]

no,but would that be an issue with you, and why?

I'm just waiting for you to start suggesting that maybe the whole Elementary School massacre was a fake. You know, to use 'little kids' as an excuse....

[woodchip]

no,but would that be an issue with you, and why?

I'm not the one fascinated with erections

I'm just waiting for you to start suggesting that maybe the whole Elementary School massacre was a fake. You know, to use 'little kids' as an excuse....

Actually it was liberal mind control agents the forced the shooter to do what he did so gun control can become issue one

[callmeslick]

hell, what other type of mind control agents are there, right?

[callmeslick]

another use of children to ponder:
http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/0 ... ebate?lite

[woodchip]

Old news slick. It's already been commented here that Obama's kids go to a school where armed guards are yet he isn't in favor of arming everyone's schools

[Will Robinson]

I don't see the least problem with the style, insofar as having little kids on stage to emphasize what concern drives the entire debate. ....

Why doesn't he have 20 gang bangers from Chicago and Oakland, etc. on stage since they churn out the carnage at a rate of probably 800 to 1 compared to the school shooters?

What drives the debate is symbolism and since the real symbols of our gun problem look too much like his supporters that he has done nothing to save he takes a different tactic. Like you said, it's style, he wears it proudly. I say the emporer has no clothes.

[callmeslick]

I don't see the least problem with the style, insofar as having little kids on stage to emphasize what concern drives the entire debate. ....

Why doesn't he have 20 gang bangers from Chicago and Oakland, etc. on stage since they churn out the carnage at a rate of probably 800 to 1 compared to the school shooters?

because the theme would seem to be surrounding himself with concerned kids, who are potential victims, not putting together a collection of shooters?
Just seems that way to me, wouldn't you agree? Oh, that's right, you just wish to toss out silly smokescreens to avoid the reality of public opinion.

What drives the debate is symbolism and since the real symbols of our gun problem look too much like his supporters that he has done nothing to save he takes a different tactic. Like you said, it's style, he wears it proudly. I say the emporer has no clothes.

given your attempt at making an analogy above, I'd say you have no clue.

[Will Robinson]

I don't see the least problem with the style, insofar as having little kids on stage to emphasize what concern drives the entire debate. ....

Why doesn't he have 20 gang bangers from Chicago and Oakland, etc. on stage since they churn out the carnage at a rate of probably 800 to 1 compared to the school shooters?

because the theme would seem to be surrounding himself with concerned kids, who are potential victims, not putting together a collection of shooters?
Just seems that way to me, wouldn't you agree? Oh, that's right, you just wish to toss out silly smokescreens to avoid the reality of public opinion.

What drives the debate is symbolism and since the real symbols of our gun problem look too much like his supporters that he has done nothing to save he takes a different tactic. Like you said, it's style, he wears it proudly. I say the emporer has no clothes.

given your attempt at making an analogy above, I'd say you have no clue.

I have a clue that you are buying into the politics but it is your team so its expected of you to carry their water right?

There is a theme but it has nothing to do with reality, the theme is a calculated political tactic.

The realty is that our number one gun violence problem is gang bangers killing as if they were in a video game. Statistically school shooting victims are a tiny tiny blip, Chicago thugs alone kill a Newtown school full of kids almost every week!! Then there is Oakland, L.A., NYC, etc. etc.
Add to it that nothing Obama has suggested would have saved the kids from Newtown and I get a little annoyed that he's infringing on my rights so he can pose for pictures and pretend to give a rats ass about us and then harvest some more political hay with the cheering approval of people like you.

The problem is it doesn't tug at the hearts of Moms and Dads to talk about thugs in the inner city shooting themselves up so they wait for a school shooting to give them enough emotional investment on the voters part to nudge the country a little closer to the end goal of all guns being banned or at least so tied up in the governments control that they become ineffective. Meanwhile the thugs are going out again tonight to kill some more people.

If he really wanted to put a big damper on gun violence he would send manpower into the streets of all the high gun violence areas and keep his boot on their necks until they were all dead or in jail all the while spending his political capital on curing the cultural cancers that create those danger zones. But he would piss off a bunch of supporters that way so instead he tells them it is the fault of whites/repubs/business/Bush/gun nuts/capitalism/rich people/Bush/talk radio/whatever/whatever and goes home to his safe house and keeps banking those donation checks that his 'service' earns him.

If there is another crazy aiming to kill a school full there is nothing Obama has done in the last month that will stop it. He has been busy working on it though....er...I mean he has been busy working out how to benefit from it.

I haven't read all he has just announced he intends to do but a lot of it is stuff we already do and a few things that I agree with but his biggest effort is politics as usual at the expense of every one else. Like turning the CDC into a tool of the anti-gun effort.

[callmeslick]

I'll wait, Will, for you and others to read the whole summary of todays proposals and orders. Then, in another thread, I will ask for specific objections.
You seem to have an issue, for instance with CDC study of gun deaths or mental illness? I don't know, but don't reply here....it will just further take the OP's topic off the rails.