Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm against lobbyists period. That was one promise Obama failed to keep..to kick the lobbyists out of DC.
Wow, you really thought Obama was so powerful that he could single-handedly get rid of lobbyists in Washington? And Conservatives claim that liberals think Obama is a god??? It sounds like you are the one who believes he has unheard of powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Victims testifying to Congress is one thing but a lobbyist testifying is quite another.
Lobbyists serve one purpose and that is to push an agenda.
Money and power corrupt.
So you were equally upset when Wayne LaPierre testified, right?
The Democrats' shameless politicizing of the Newtown tragedy- and Gabby Giffords' pandering for the "feel sorry for because me I'm a victim" vote -is so tasteless and offensive that I guess I'm not surprised the liberal media gives them a free pass on it.
But if this were done by the Republicans, well, you know the headlines drill- "Cold, heartless Republicans exploit tragedy for their own benefit..."
You say "politicizing" the Newton killings. No. It's apparent that what is going on is in response to enormous PUBLIC OUTRAGE over that shooting. There is a difference. Most of the public wants tighter regulations regarding the selling of guns. When our government RESPONDS to the PUBLIC when the public makes clear it is outraged by the many loopholes in gun laws/regulations, it is NOT politicizing the issue when the government RESPONDS
Obviously you had not noticed that guns were not on Obama's list of things to do prior to Newtown and prior to the public demanding that something be done.
Yes I care, and she has more right to express her opinion than most of us, but I have to disagree with her. The Constitution is clear and we have inalienable rights that must be defended at all costs, and there are costs.
Now this right here is a rational statement about why this poster disagrees with Gabby Gifford. Notice he is not comparing her to a drooling idiot like the OP.
Statements like the above I can respect and understand.
Reading thru this thread and it's clear that the liberals and democrats are driven by the raw emotional roller coaster, while conservatives are driven by logic and reason.
Gabby Giffords was the victim of a violent act from a crazy person, same with those poor children in Sandy Hook. The problem is not whatever these crazy people used to harm others, they are the problem because they are sociopaths.
Banning guns because of these insane people, is like banning cars, because then bank robbers would not be able to elude the police, or banning the internet so hackers could not steal personal date from a million credit card customers.
The democrats are using Giffords, and the parents and their dead children from Sandy Hook to keep people in a emotionally charged state, so they will do anything to stop the heartache. This way congress can pass whatever they want, pad the law with pork, and other unethical amendments, and criticize any person who opposes badly written law, as a heartless, cruel...fill-in-the-blank. I've seen people in this thread make essentially the same comments, for anyone that offers a different view.
I personally abhor the use of victims of crimes or disasters, as emotional props, in order to add weight to a politician's agenda, as they try to pass law, especially when the law being passed will regulate, and possibly infringe on our basic constitutional civil liberties.
Reading thru this thread and it's clear that the liberals and democrats are driven by the raw emotional roller coaster, while conservatives are driven by logic and reason.
Gabby Giffords was the victim of a violent act from a crazy person, same with those poor children in Sandy Hook. The problem is not whatever these crazy people used to harm others, they are the problem because they are sociopaths.
Banning guns because of these insane people, is like banning cars, because then bank robbers would not be able to elude the police, or banning the internet so hackers could not steal personal date from a million credit card customers.
The democrats are using Giffords, and the parents and their dead children from Sandy Hook to keep people in a charged emotional state, so they will do anything to stop the heartache. This way congress can pass whatever they want, pad the law with pork, and other unethical amendments, and criticize any person who opposes badly written law, as a heartless, cruel...fill-in-the-blank. I've seen people in this thread make essentially the same comments, for anyone that offers a different view.
I personally abhor the use of victims of crimes or disasters, as emotional props, in order to add weight to a politician's agenda, as they try to pass law, especially when the law being passed will regulate, and possibly infringe on our basic constitutional civil liberties.
Yes, it's clear from reading this thread that the emotional maturity of most posting conservatives is around 11.
Do you understand that the Gifford's have their own agenda? Their OWN reasons for making a statement?
Remember when Michael J Fox testified about Parkinson's? Nancy Reagan about ALZ?
yeah..a super-PAC is just fine when they are on your side but evil creatures of the 1% when they are on the other side. Sorry to say the 1% fund the evil super-PACS on the left as well.
Like I posted earlier, the PEOPLE don't know what they want. The lobbyists are the ones telling the people what they want which always goes back to someone's political agenda.
The guy behind Gifford's PAC is a slimy Texas lawyer who hides behind numerous PACs
"People" KNOW that they want better laws regulating the sale of guns. NOBODY, including a lobbyist, has to tell them what they want. We have seen public outrage since the slaughter in Newtown. The NRA bought and paid for POLITICIAN is the one who added language to the current laws which rendered ATF powerless to enforce those laws. "People" are logically supporting the laws on the book and the closing of loopholes which benefit the gun dealers. NOBODY is working toward a Constitutional amendment in re the 2nd Amendment.
Btw, what is so "slimy" about the one lawyer you know of who donated to the Gifford PAC? You keep saying he's so slimy, so tell us WHY you think that.
Using people to further their agenda. Nothing new for the Democrats.
USING people??? How can you be ignorant of the spontaneous outrage from "the people" following the slaughter at Sandy Hook? People are simply demanding a reasonable response to that incident.
I am not sure why this Gayle Trotter was selected for the hearing, claiming that women need to have assault rifles for self defense.
Quote:
WASHINGTON -- Lawyer and gun rights activist Gayle Trotter gave vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee at a Wednesday hearing on gun violence. Trotter, a senior fellow at the conservative Independent Women's Forum, argued that a proposed ban on assault weapons would "disarm" vulnerable women and "put them at a severe disadvantage" in fights with multiple criminals
.................................................. .................................................. ......................
Despite her strong emphasis on the need to prevent violent crimes against women at home, Trotter is an outspoken opponent of the Violence Against Women Act, a law designed to aid women faced with domestic violence. In 2012, she wrote on the Independent Women's Forum's blog that VAWA infringed upon the rights of men who were falsely accused of domestic abuse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
