Republican Rick Santorum Blames Mass Shootings on Single Mothers
On CNN’s State Of The Union this morning, Republican Rick Santorum argued that guns weren’t really the problem when it came to school shootings. The problem was the lack of a father figure in shooters’ lives.
… Gun control is a debate that we need to have. But another debate we need to have is something that’s also common in these shootings, the fact that these kids come from broken homes without dads. And that is not something we’re talking about and that is the commonality… We want to talk about things we can work together on? How about working together to try to see what we can do to try to get more dads involved…
Republicans will say anything to avoid discussing guns, won’t they?
The reason the shooter in Parkland, Florida didn’t have a father in his life is not because the man abandoned his family. It’s because he died in 2004. So I guess Santorum wants bipartisan support on a bill that will legalize immortality. (The shooter’s mother died this past November.)
Both shooters at Columbine came from two-parent households as well. And plenty of kids — dare I say damn near all of them — who grow up without a father aren’t murdering innocent people. It’s almost like there’s another factor that Santorum simply ignores…
And if Santorum’s concern is someone coming from a broken home, you’d think he would get behind same-sex parents who want to adopt children, or making free contraception widely available, or preventing those children from ever having access to guns since he thinks they’re not stable enough to handle them.
You can guess where he stands on all of those issues. You’d be right.
Tags
Who is online
60 visitors
Just think how successful we could be on the mass shooting problem if we outlawed being a widow parent, or a divorcee parent. Apparently there is no bottom to the stupidity of the hard right.
Exceeded only by stupidity of the hard left. They honestly believe that passing a few more laws will end gun violence.
Meh.
They honestly believe that passing a few more laws will end gun violence.
Lol. Who is “they”? I have yet it my entire life time heard someone “honestly believe” that gun violence in the US can be eliminated. Thanks for demonstrating the shallowness of the hard right thought process. Perhaps you should learn how to listen.
Electing who? What country are you in? I can find no country where anyone by that name has won a major election.
Drumpf was a classmate of Barry Soetoro.
What do you expect from a group of so called "adults" who have been in one hell of a temper tantrum for over a year.
Don't forget a few "Gun Free Zone" signs.
Drumpf is not a fake name. It was the original German spelling of the family name. The surname of incoming immigrants was commonly anglicised at Ellis Island.
Do show documentation that Donald J. Trump, the current potus, has ever used that name. Not his grandfather, not his uncle, not his cousin, not some distant relative in Germany but POTUS himself.
The thing is they always got real upset when any one called Obama bArack HUSIEN Obama. His actual name. Go figure.
You misspelled it. However he was never ashamed of his middle name and when he was the President I always typed it out as The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama. I never got angry with anyone who used his middle name as he joked about it, so I never saw the point.
And actually Donald Trump's Grandfather was named Fredrich Drumpf. He actually kept the name for awhile after he moved to America. It's controversial about when he changed it especially since he went back to Germany for awhile. When Donald's father died his father in the obituary in one NY paper was said to be Fredrich Drumpf, so it's possible his Grandfather kept the same name throughout his life and he m]named Donald's father with the new family name.
For some strange reason I haven't yet been able to figure out, Meh is effective used in that way, but Bah, at least in that context, isn't. (BTW Feh is also sometimes effective-- but you have to be careful as to how you use it-- its not nearly as versatile as Meh).
From one serious student of the gentlemanly art of trolling to another
I have always liked to throw in a Feh once in while as it's so unexpected since it's so little used. It's strength comes from it's small amount of usage, IMHO.
So I can't spell sue me. I never said Obama was ashamed of his middle name. I did say there were liberals who got pissed if you did and to the best of my knowledge I never accused you of being one of them.
I also said I didn't care if his grandfather or anyone else used the name Drumpf .I said Donald J .Trump, the current POTUS, has never used that name in 70+ years on this Earth.
Or you could just not have programs that encourage single moms to keep having kids and getting rewarded in free stuff.
That supposed free stuff is to raise the children.
Proof? There's caps on welfare and you can't just keep having kids and expect to keep getting 'rewarded in free stuff'
The kids need that assistance to have a chance at a decent life, or would prefer to punish the children? We could prevent those births with subsidized birth control and education, but you also oppose that policy in favor of a religious-based policy of teaching abstinence, that doesn't work.
The caps on welfare don't kick in until there have been multiple children. Making welfare less attractive would go a long way to discourage people from creating kids they don't want.
That doesn't work in reality. Where is your morality for others? Should the sick and poor children just go off and die quietly for your benefit? Why can't you learn both the basics of human biology/sexuality and macroeconomics? YouTube makes it very easy.
How many minimum wage jobs is a person supposed to work so a corporation can make record profits? When people earn minimum wages that are less than the living or poverty line then we as a society are subsidized the corporation's profits by letting them pay less.
Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
Most policies didn't cover it before the ACA's requirement to do so.
Thanks, that's yet another good argument to keep the ACA rather than unwinding it like Trump and the GOP are trying to do. A real shame that Trump's tax cut for the rich also repealed the health coverage mandate. So now there will be even more poor folks having kids they can't afford, and red states simply don't have the common sense to do what Colorado did.
Why am I not surprised that a liberal thinks it is a good idea to reward the irresponsible. Of course knowing how most believe that they should not be held accountable for just about anything and how they think that the rest if us should be willing to support them, it is no surprise
These "poor people" you seem to know so well--how do they pay for their medical care? With chickens? Do they barter with food stores for groceries?
Again, no one was forced to buy anything. Everyone was free to go without insurance with the understanding that they would be taxed for that choice. This makes perfect sense and is also just: people who are un- or underinsured end up piling up huge debts to public and private entities that they can never repay if they become seriously ill or injured. But your claim is also just plain false. The ADA (passed and signed into law in 1990 under republican President and with overwhelming yes votes in both houses) had requirements that were implemented over time for companies in businesses involving the public to make sure this their businesses provided access for people with disabilities. That required the "purchase" of services from private contractors to make structural changes to huge numbers of offices and stores. I'm sure there are plenty of other situations where adhering to government regulations "forces" individuals and companies to purchase services from private companies. In fact, legions of lawyers and accounts probably depend on that source of income.
The state governments were already regulating the health insurance biz although in the case of your state it was minimally so, much like the lack of zoning which allowed a school and nursing home in TX to be built right next to a massive ANFO bomb. All the ACA really does is apply a common minimum standard but your state is free to increase that standard.
.
Actually you don't actually have to buy health insurance from anyone, much less from any particular company.
.
So.......are you once again whining about the ACA's requirement that even the poor be responsible enough to either have coverage or pay a tax to help cover the public cost burden of providing their health care? I can't figure out whether you're for personal responsibility or vehemently opposed to it, even when that coverage mandate came from a conservative proposal.
And of course thanks to Trump and the GOP that coverage mandate is gone.....because conservatives don't really believe in personal responsibility. Those costs now become a public burden and increase everyone's premiums.
I loved that particular suggestion. Only one of the loonier and clueless Republicans could come up with that one......barter with fowl for your MRIs and cancer treatment. That's why I keep a stock of live chickens in the closet just in case I have an accident and need major surgery.
IOW, any program that helps people afford or even get any health care. I don't think you answered my question earlier as to how those hard working resourceful poor people or the elderly who've worked all their lives you lauded were going to pay their doctor and hospital bills if they get sick or injured. You sure as hell aint gonna do it for them.
And you're against those programs. You seem to be "a bit" confused.
Damn Socialists-- they're everywhere!
They're all over the place I tell you!
Oh the horror-- when will it ever end???
That is no joke. The left has done nothing but incentivize poverty. There is no goal towards being self sufficient. Anyone who can't get by should get the bare minimum, nothing more. Otherwise you'll have what we have now- multi generational takers trapped in liberal dystopias.
We wouldn't have this problem if we followed biblical sharia laws and required widows to marry the brother of their deceased husband or marry their rapist.
Until last month Floriduh did it right by enforcing biblical sharia laws which require a rape victim to marry their rapist, no matter how young the victim.
.
One of these wanton hussies arrogantly objected to Floriduh's sensible child marriage statute, and whined that she was forced to marry her rapist when she was 11.
Even Barak Obama recently said that broken families are a part of the equation with troubled kids. There is no mystery here and Santorum get's to have an opinion too, just like the people we have heard so much from:
David Hogg who now say's he can understand why cops wouldnt go up against a big bad AR-15. Talk about misguided!
It might take someone who's been the immediate target of someone firing an AR-15 to be able to really understand that, vickie. How many times has that happened to you? I wonder what our soldiers would do if all they were handed was a pistol and then sent out to fight against assault rifles.
Are you talking about his comment many years ago that he wished he had known his father better?
That had nothing to do with guns or school shootings, and I really doubt Obama would ever want you to speak for him.
I'm talking about the speech he made in Chicago, 2008, which you may also be referring to:
“Too many fathers are MIA, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes,” Obama said to approving murmurs from the audience. “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”
I'm not interested in the part about his own father
You mean it gave him instant political & social wisdom? I don't grant that to high school kids.
I want to see if he returns to school tomorrow.
I'm sure that will be devastating news to them. There sure has been a lot of hate directed at this particular student. Is it because he's so articulate and well-informed and he's actually been through something that his haters never have? You wouldn't happen to know anyone of his haters that would be sending him death threats, would you, vickie?
MSD Students Death Threats
To disagree with this kid implies hate?
Don't you ever stop trying to destroy the character of everyone who disagree's with you?
BTW, I'm in favor of banning assault weapons, but I'm totally against the methods being used here.
Ah.....you're talking about his Father's Day speech to his predominantly black church about family structure problems in the black community, something which is closely tied to racial injustice in our legal system and domestic violence problems.
That speech had nothing whatsoever to do with guns or school shootings, and besides which the school shooters are predominantly white (even white supremacist like Cruz) and have intact families.
As I said I really doubt Obama would ever want you to speak for him much less misappropriate his words for your purposes.
I left you his words. It certainly has had a devastating effect on the black community - the Moynihan Report proved that - but it also has had devastating effects on the greater society as well. So to my original point - Santorum is only saying what others before him have rightly pointed out.
No need to do that-- just give them all guns. The more people that possess guns, the less gun violence we will have! (And not only parents-- kids need to be armed as well)
(Logical, eh?
)
That makes a lot more sense than blaming pro Constitution groups like the NRA. I don't know about mass shooters but there are plenty of gang bangers that would've been alive and not shooting each other if they'd had stable families at home.
So how does Santorum gonna make fathers stay at home and raise their children?
They wouldn't be fathers in the first place if the mothers had not had their kids. And there wouldn't be so many kids if liberal welfare programs hadn't made living on govt assistance so easy and long term with no incentive to get off it.
So you're advocating for abortion now?
Good for you!
So... Liberal welfare programs like free and low cost contraceptives or, perhaps, not having to travel half way across the state for reproductive health care?
Why should i have to pay for trumps weekly golf trips?
I wish more people would take advantage of the subsided birth control. But if someone wants another kid to get that extra food stamp money or upgrade to a bigger Section 8 apartment all the birth control in the world will do no good.
Did you hear how Santorum's wife had an abortion - by the doctor that his wife previously had an affair with?
And they still don't pay
They wouldn't be fathers in the first place if the mothers had not had their kids
The mothers did not climb on top of themselves and get themselves pregnant. Some men should just keep it in their pants to begin with.
We all paid for Obama's golf trips so why are you complaining about Trump's?
Some women need to keep their panties on an their legs together.
Please stop spreading rumors, Tessy. Most people make use of the Internet to learn facts so they can avoid posting debunked rumors.
Do you not understand what being a member of a very interconnected society means? This is what our tax dollars are meant to be used for.
The use of contraceptives prevents unwanted children or didn't you take sex education? Teaching abstinence doesn't work.
Did you forget that the VA is paid for by taxpayer dollars?
Then stop complaining about paying for more kids on SNAP and TANF if you don't want them to have free or subsidized contraceptive care
I hope the next time you want sex, your partner says "Not tonite, dear, I'm keeping my panties on and my legs crossed"
Do you not understand how tax dollars are spent?
Sometimes the "daddys"'skip out...
When my oldest was two, and my youngest was six months old, my wife (now exwife obviously) packed the car with her underage boyfriend and our dog, and left us to go follow the Grateful Dead. I get really sick of hearing about absent daddies.
I agree with you - the state should be encouraging impoverished people to have more kids. How else are we going to maintain a sufficient underclass to serve the wealthy elite, much less to flip burgers for the rest of us? Generational poverty is the only way to accomplish the important goals which you and I share.
We are paying for Trump's golf trips with tax dollars, or didn't Fox News mention that fact to you? Flying Air Force One and the cost of security isn't paid for by Trump or a PAC
Why do you get to make that decision for others? Is that because you are a male or is this a benefit of being a Republican?
why are you against cost effective solutions?
Because he doesn’t want to be responsible for even one penny of a solution. It’s the Libertarian way.
You didn't seem to mind someone making that same decision for men.
Substitute Trump's name and insert the names of as many previous presidents as one wishes.
Maybe we should keep all presidents and their families locked up in the WH during their tenure so they can't go anywhere and can't spend taxpayer money on leisure activities and business trips! ROFL!
The rightwing, of which you are obviously a member, never stopped bitching about Obama's rare trips home to Hawaii or to Martha's Vineyard for holidays. Shitbag® gets a taxpayer funded golf trip to Mar-a-Lago almost every weekend. He's set an all-time record for rounds of golf after telling you that he'd be working to hard to play much golf when he was running.
Grammar point: You still persist in using a comma where a period is needed.
Despite what conservatives appear to believe are all part of a very interconnected society and must enact and support policies that are for the best of all of us, even if you may disagree. We spend our tax dollars on pragmatic policies that are proven to work to solve the problems of a society even if you do not get a direct benefit from them or disagree with them.
If you cant pay your bills then we must help you get the basics of life. Hope and prayer don't solve problems and neither does ignoring the problem.
Abstinence doesn't work to prevent pregnancy because it ignores a very basic fact of biology. Sex feels good and we are created to breed and reproduce the species.
It is far cheaper to prevent pregnancy with free or reduced cost birth control and accurate sex education than it is to care for a child that cant be supported for 18+ years. The fact that the Earth is currently overpopulated also seems to be lost on you. Humans are quickly becoming a pest species.
When exactly did I do that?
Johnathon Swift agrees with your modest proposal.
You didn't object when someone said men should keep their pants on which was the comment I originally responded to.
Is that what you said the times Obama went golfing at Andrews AFB? Your partisan hypocrisy is showing.
You have got to be kidding. The fact that I didn't comment in your mind means that I am making a positive claim. Your logic is laughable.
But what are we going to do with them? Birth control and abortion might reduce future costs and having even more people who don't try to help themselfs
If you don't like dandelions in your yard you don't let them go to seed
And yet like most conservatives you don't seem to understand that free birth control saves the taxpayers lots of money and reduces the abortion rate.
No need to wait since that's essentially what Colorado did - the state paid for (low or no-cost) long acting but reversible contraception for all low-income women statewide and saved a ton of money by doing that.
But you apparently would prefer that didn't happen because "responsible fucking ADULTS should be able to pay their OWN way in life".....despite the fact that it actually saves you and other taxpayers money in the short term and long term. That's the moralizing and shortsightedness which is the hallmark of the modern conservative.
That's some serious lack of comprehension and/or cognitive dissonance there given that the program helped low-income women avoid having kids they didn't want. Plus it saved the state money. Only a true conservative would object to a win-win.
The funniest part is that you're condemning these women because they're poor and calling them irresponsible, despite the fact that they chose to use a long-acting contraceptive in order to avoid having kids they didn't want and couldn't afford. Sounds like they're really the responsible ones, not you.
are you willing to support tax money going to this?
You have to admit. It's mostly men that take off. That's pretty bad... What the heck kind of a person did you marry?
I think ‘mostly’ is an over statement. I married the girl who I dated for ten years. She was a good wife and a good mom - nobody saw it coming. As my gay neighbor had put it, “it’s like she threw her muffin pan in the air and disappeared.”
If it was any other band I wouldn’t understand.
Maybe because it's cheaper than paying for their children.
It would be a shame if your VA hospital was closed because the hallways were too narrow.
Every time I see the latest sordid, tawdry sex scandal, I'll be comforted knowing that I'll always have that to throw back into the face of sanctimonious garbage like that.
Close but in a different sort of way...
Because we are an interconnected society and we cannot do just what is in our own short-term best interest. If you are out of work there might be a way for your house payment to be made as a way to keep you in your home.
Consider it a small investment to keep future costs and problems lower, Like giving a company a tax break to add jobs
It is just like building a wall only in smaller pieces, and I support both
The point is that poor people have sex. Poor people have always had sex. Poor people will continue to have sex. Poor people, like everybody else, are biologically programed to want to have sex. Preventing pregnancy is vastly more desirable than having unwanted children or abortion. They will NOT abstain.
That too.
How much do you personally pay for other people's contraceptives? I bet it's a LOT less than trumps golf trips!
Most of the mass killers came from what were considered stable, middle class (and overwhelmingly white) homes. It's always telling that you lot are so fixated on the killings by gangs and minorities and seem uninterested in the profiles of the most prolific murderers.
There were 97 mass shootings from 1982 to this year according to this link. 56 were done by whites, 16 done by blacks, 7 apiece done by Hispanics and Asians, etc...
Anymore misconceptions you need me to clarify?
No, you've done a great job of illustrating my point: Whites 3.5x greater than blacks and 8x than hispanics and asians. I didn't even think it was that overwhelmingly white.
And how do those numbers match up with national demographics? Right off the bat I can tell that 16 out of 97 is a lot more than the 13% of the black population. The numbers of the other groups appear out of whack too. Barely more than half of the shooters being white for a group that makes up the majority of the country is an underrepresentation.
No, it means the preponderance.
If.
Reminds me of an olde saying:
If my grandmother had a wheel and two handles she's be a wheelbarrow!
If, if, if....
And yet, he is against abortion which reduces what he says is a problem
Did you hear how Santorum's wife had an abortion - by the doctor that his wife previously had an affair with?
Yes, she did have an abortion - by the doctor she had an affair with previously.
Why didn't she die like Republicans want other women to do when they oppose abortions, even to save the life of the mother or in case of rape and incest.
I don't like hypocrites, religious, political or otherwise. Don't support policies that you don't want to be held to.
She had a medical procedure that led to the death of the fetus.
The hypocrisy....it's fine for my wife to get an abortion but all you other women are murderers and go pound salt.
Because it was okay for her but not for the rest of us.
If Karen had lived in Ireland she'd be dead by now since that country strictly enforces their cult's anti-abortion sharia laws.
Um, yes she did.
I don't mind paying higher taxes if the money is to be used for policies that benefit all of the country. You obviously do not understand macroeconomics. Tax cuts are the junk food and candy of politics and economics. See Kansas, Oklahoma, and Ohio.
Then I am sure you do not take all those nasty deductions you might be eligible for and just pay what ever the government tells you right?
Don't be obtuse. The current tax income is not being used to benefit most Americans.
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that the money isn't going to projects that help the American public as a majority? Trump's infrastructure policy is a joke that doesn't solve the problem of funding.
Where is universal healthcare, college funding for all people, lifelong learning, green energy, A infrastructure plan that doesn't induce laughter and many other ideas? Soon we will have more people than jobs so we must consider universal basic income.
Tell me about the woman whose tax cut amounted to $1.50 a week.....tax cuts were for the rich, the rest of us got the shaft.
Buffet supports a higher tax rate. He obviously understands macroeconomics and morality.Why would Buffet give you his wealth when he isn't willing it to his own kids and grandchildren?
It's probably not going to happen here while the regressives are in charge, but more enlightened and advanced countries are already experimenting with a Universal Basic Income.
When do you plan to illustrate a basic understanding of the concept of economics? Economics is the exchange of money in a society, so the rich do not need more money to spend. The fact that they have as much as they do is the problem that must be addressed so as to balance the scales so the systems work again. Our economy is based on consumer spending but they don't have the money to spend to drive the economy. The poor, retired and middle class do not have the money to spend so to prime the economic pump, we give it to them as a way to make the economy work. Wealth always trickles up so the rich are not in danger.
The economy is doing fine. In fact the Feds are raising interest rates because they are concerned it needs to be slowed to prevent inflation.
Would it be good if the middle class (on down) earned more through higher wages?
Why so we would be less competitive in the global marketplace? Let the free market set the wages.
Of course.
But the question still stands. As a general principle do you think it best for the economic health of the nation if middle-class on down had higher wages - were paid more money for the work they do?
Would you then support lowering domestic wages so as to compete with international workers? That would very much be the free wage market at play.
If earning as much as you possibly can involves oppressing other people and treating them unfairly, then YES, I DO have a problem with you earning the money
Earn (in principle). But the effect of my question is that middle-class on down would be paid more.
I don't know. That is why I am asking my questions - to see what people are actually thinking.
Note my question goes beyond individuals earning as much as they can. The question is about the economy in general. The effect of more earned money in the hands of the middle and lower classes who will in turn spend that money as consumers. Handing out money would not / does not work. My question is about people with jobs earning more for their efforts (productive contributions) and thus having more (albeit incrementally) control of the economy.
Handing out money in general is a bad idea. So my question has nothing to do with universal basic income. UBI is a topic on its own and qualifications need to be established to engage in such a discussion. But that has nothing to do with my question.
Interesting qualification. But my question did not include that. (I am well beyond middle class so this is not a question for myself.)
But given your qualification, the early industrial age was a time when owners oppressed workers as you describe so as to make more money. I presume you consider that bad.
Why would I try to hide the fact that I support socialist economic policies?
I support letting the market set the wages. If a supplier can deliver a good or service for less than another and it is of equal quality and delivered on time buy the cheaper of the two. I believe the market should set the wages not the government artificially inflating the cost of goods and services.
We can see what happens when the union goons raise their clubs and demand to be paid more than they are worth and price themselves out of the global market and lose their jobs to foreign competition.
SAY WHUT?
I understand, that is why I asked the question. If the market truly set wages, domestic wages would go lower. Companies can (and do) tap into cheaper labor markets internationally for the very reasons you suggest - they can get the same work for less money.
A competitive free market setting prices is IMO the best mechanism we have to ensure products and services meet the demand and at fair prices. The wage market, however, is a very different thing entirely. Many US workers (again, talking middle class on down) can (and are) replaced by cheaper labor; a laissez faire labor market would have the effect of lowering their wages. I question whether you truly support that.
That said, the above is now what I was asking. My original question was in principle. Given the domestic middle to lower classes comprise the bulk of the consumer base, would it be good for them to earn more money (since they invariably would turn around and spend it)?
Put forth something other than snark if you wish to be taken seriously.
I believe in the free market setting the wage. Our population in this country has doubled in the last fifty years and that is part of the reason middle class and lower class workers have not seen big increases in their earnings. Supply and demand the supply of workers has increased while technological advancements have decreased the need for more lower class workers. We are also competing against countries that didn’t have the ability to complete in the past. I have no problem with that. I’m fine with our current three percent growth in the economy.
Who might those be?
Understood and I agree with the market being the dominant (but not exclusive) driver for wages (at present), but our domestic wage market is not truly a free market. As noted in my prior comment, if we had a laissez-faire wage market in the USA, many middle-down wages would be lower simply because businesses can get the same work for less money elsewhere.
Note: this was not the question I asked.
Oh, it's just a little matter of Rickie's massive sanctimony (and it seems you approve of it) on this subject. That's all. Oh, there are no "ifs" about it:
How exactly does sending a check directly to you improve my life? Where do you get this nonsense?
How would the allowing the free market determines wages increase those stagnant wages? The free market wants to get rid of the minimum wage because it cuts into the owner's profits, so how would that create higher wages? Your boss would love to pay you the same wages that they pay in India, China, Pakistan and Vietnam if they could but that isn't in your benefit.
Do I need to explain how capitalism works and its goals?
Do I need to explain that a corporation is not the same as the majority shareholder or the owner?
(shrekk knows what I want to say............)
JFCoaS!
Yes, I for one would really like to hear you explain capitalism. Maybe i’ve been doing it wrong for the last 40 years.
He is a fucking dirt bag. Um, the Parkland shooter's father DIED, not like his mother was single on purpose.
This is so off-topic...but your dog looks like she's buried in snow. I just realized that it's a photo of her on the bed.
I thought the same thing, that she was fighting her way through the snow. Turns out that fighting through snow and total relaxation look pretty much alike.
He's laying on my bed.....lolololol.
And then she died just a few months ago. What terrible parents* they were to go off an die.
*Cruz was adopted, so maybe that's what did it./s
So sick of bashing single moms, do some deserve it, probably but to lump ALL single moms to denigrate them is what republicans do best.
I've got to believe, in your case, the Sm stands for Smurfs.
It's called "punching down," and it's the mainstay of rightwingers. Pick a segment of society that they consider "beneath" them (which is also hilarious in a bent sort of way) and constantly heap scorn on them. It's the basics of bullying: weak cowards picking defenseless victims.
So using an avatar that is your anal sex toy is ok, but bouncing boobs... Nope, can't have it. SMH.
Santorum opened, stating that gun control is a debate we need to have. Different topic than Obama was discussing, perhaps, but the issue is still gun violence. Instead of making absurd quips regarding legislation on immortality, or pointing to someone's position on abortion, let's talk about the underlying issues too. A gun ban, without such discussion, isn't going to get to the heart of the matter. Take away the gun, and the problem isn't resolved. I didn't agree with Obama on many issues, but at least he had the gumption to look deeper than the tool used by a person.
Thanks for the link T Rex..
It has sadly been my experience that a discussion/talk cannot take place without first having something to blame and that life is very black, white and one sided - compromise is now a bad word. (So I guess that is not much of a discussion/talk)
Seems that guns are to blame and mental illness is the underlying 'problem' ... even though less than 1% of annual mass shootings are done by mentally ill individuals. To say there may be other contributing factors makes one 'stupid'? .. or so I have read.
Hope your Monday is a good one...
Thanks. It was a great Monday. Basketball season officially ended for my family. On to the best time of the year.
Communication? Discussion? Ha.
But there is a particular preferred "tool" so it's not irrelevant. I can only think of one example in the last, say dozen, mass killings where the murderer used a pistol (Charlotte, SC church shooting).
There is, and its still not an AR-15, or similar type of semi-auto rifle.
Link to a Mother Jones spread sheet, listing mass shootings from 1982 to 2018. Numbers include the high profile, public shootings. It doesn't appear to include other "mass" shootings like familicide or the like. Per the information, which appears to be a good comprehensive list, over the 36 years span, 26% of the shooters brought some form of a semi-auto rifle akin to an AR, AK, etc. In 90%, some other type of weapon was used or brought. There is a bit of overlap. In 20% of these, the shooter had both an AR/AK/MAK etc. and a handgun, shotgun, or some other firearm.
26%, by no stretch, supports an assertion that an AR type rifle is the weapon of choice. Clearly not the weapon of choice in 74% of the incidents. However, let's not fail to recognize the glaring fact here. Of the 97 events, there were only 8 instances in which the shooter carried only an AR, AK, or similar type of firearm. That's roughly 8.25%. Forget a ban, let's pretend that an AR, or similar type rifles, did not exist. You might be able to say that 8 of these events would not have occurred. I think that would be more of a stretch than saying that all would have occurred anyway.
Bottom line, take away the AR, you haven't done anything to resolve the problem. There's an old saying (that I got banned from another site for using)...don't piss down my back and tell me its raining. That's what's going on here. If the left wants a discussion, then they need to get off of the high horse and discuss reality, not some work of fiction.
And yet the fact remains, a significant majority of gun homicides in the US are by handgun and nearly 80% of those are gang related.
A very inconvenient truth for many on the left. Present company included.
Just when I think Conservatives cannot make themselves look any worse, they do it again and again.
It must in part be contagious.....everyone who attends CPAC comes out dumber.
Given what conservative men are like I can see why those women are desperate.
I've been going at them for years and it's always been thus: They can always sink lower.
This is almost as bad as Clapton claiming motherless children have a harder time.
Santorum?
When did he crawl off the ash heap of history? No one listened to him when he was somewhat relevant (if ever) why begin now.
Because he is doing what repubs/conservatives do best.....denigrate women.
Roy Moore is back in the news and endorsed another sexist trogolydte.
Denigrate women, that's the repub/conservative way. Anyone that defends Moore needs help
Beginning with several swift kicks applied to the buttocks to get his attention.
Why is it that conservatives believe that a 15-year-old is old enough to have a consensual relationship with Roy Moore but not old enough to have an opinion on public policy?
Because then they can blame her and not Moore for his actions.
She has the right to control her own body. Why do you care?
You missed the point and probably did it intentionally. The question wasn't about her making relationship decisions but the fact that Roy Moore was dating underage girls when he was over the age of 30.
Heck.....until a few weeks ago Floriduh allowed courts and parents to determine who their minor children should be forced to marry. At the very least those children should be allowed sovereignty over their own wombs.
Get this concept through your head! The teen girls were creeped out by Roy Moore's advances at the mall and elsewhere. Moore was the aggressor and defended the fact that he was pursuing teens when he was 30.
IHSP!
you lose a lot of credibility and respect with silly deliberate misspellings and I do agree with you on many things
It's very intentional given how much time I spend in Pensacola.
Is this your best attempt to save face when your argument goes to hell?
Huh?
Is that like Tantric sex?
Why do you have a problem with me pointing out the GOP hypocrisy about Roy Moore and other perverts? It seems that you agree with Roy Moore.
Oh, he's still there. And he aint goin' anywhere else, either.
feceis?
Try spell check. It will do you good.
I'm sure that Rick "frothy mixture" Santorum could get behind the AFA's claim that posting a sign in schools stating "You shall not murder" will eliminate these violent massacres.
Simple solutions for truly simple minds.
Apparently religious beliefs prevent gunfire, except in churches...
Can someone please explain how the secular government removed the presence of an omnipotent and omniscient god, despite the First Amendment Free Exercise clause that permits students to voluntarily pray. I wasn't aware of an atheist Faraday cage around public schools.
I suspect that Floriduh law will get struck down as an Establishment violation, but it is interesting that the Great Sky Fairy hasn't chosen to stop these massacres or even bother to call the cops shortly beforehand. "Officer Friendly, this is Allah. One of your charges is about to go ballistic...."
Rick probably dreams of santorum, but doesn't dare go there!