Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » A question for all you liberal democrats

A question for all you liberal democrats

+3
2seaoat
Sal
Hospital Bob
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

When a Christian crazy goes to killing abortion doctors,  you say it has everything to do with their being brainwashed by a gutter religion.
And I fully agree with you,  it has everything to do with the gutter religion.

BUT,  when a muslim crazy goes to slaughtering, not one like the abortion doctor killer,  but FIFTY innocent homosexuals,  you say it has nothing at all to do with his religion.  

I'm trying to understand this mindset.  Is it because you liberal democrats have decided that muslim is the good religion and christian is the evil religion?
Or what exactly?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Silence is not an answer, kids. Silence is an admission that you're fulla horse shit.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

By the way, if one of your own was here, and his name is Bill Maher, he'd be asking you exactly the same question.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

This is what Sal wrote in one post...

"The religion of this lunatic is for the most part a distraction."

And this is what Sal wrote in a different post...

"Violent homophobes almost always arrive at that point through religion".

So which is it,  Sal?  
This reminds me of when Donald Trump told Bill O'Reilly he was in favor of tax cuts.  And then said he was against tax cuts.  And all in the same sentence.  lol

Sal

Sal

Of course, religion can compel violent lunatics into action.

But, lots of other things can too.

We can't rid our society of motivators.

But, it certainly seems possible that we could reduce the ease of access to weapons of mass destruction to violent lunatics.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Salinsky wrote:Of course, religion can compel violent lunatics into action.

But, lots of other things can too.

We can't rid our society of motivators.

But, it certainly seems possible that we could reduce the ease of access to weapons of mass destruction to violent lunatics.

A ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles would prevent SOME nutters from doing the mass shootings using semi-automatic rifles.  That's because SOME nutters would not be smart enough to obtain semi-automatic rifles except through legal purchases.
So if it deters one nutter from going through with a mass killing,  I say enact the law,  I have no objection.  

But it's just wishful thinking to believe this will have a significant impact on preventing mass killings.
That's because some nutters will obtain the weapons even if made illegal.
And even the ones who cannot obtain these weapons,  will opt for other weapons,  like explosives.  We already know by his own admission that this nutter was inspired in part by the Tsarnaev brothers.  It's very likely that if the semi-automatic rifle had not been available to him,  he would probably have emulated his heroes the Tsarnaev brothers.  And when you detonate a bomb (or bombs) inside a night club,  the same carnage results.

As I said,  you have my blessing,  go ahead and ban the sale of these weapons.  Just don't kid yourself into believing this will prevent as much as you believe it will.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Boy is this ever gonna give voice to the tinfoilers that all these mass killings were perpetrated by the government as false flags to convince the public we need to allow them to take our guns away from us.  
The tinfoilers even maintained the Boston Massacre was also a false flag to convince us to take our guns away from us.  And that's even though guns were not even used to do the mass killing in Boston.  And I never understood that.  I would think if the government wants to create a false flag to convince us to take our guns away,  it would commit the false flag with guns.  Not pressure cookers.  I mean how big a threat could a government be which is silly enough to design a false flag like that.  lol

But,  I repeat,  this one is really gonna give the tinfoilers ammunition for their theory.  Because as a result of this one,  we are now hearing a giant chorus say we should take the guns away from us.

2seaoat



I think blaming this on religion is like blaming it on the shooter having dark hair. A human being has multiple components which allow himself to be in a dance club killing people. Problems in his marriage, problems at his job, problems with seeing men kiss, problems with what has happened to his parents home country......etc etc etc., yet you pull out religion and fail to understand that fighting modernity is probably more important than a theological basis of the attacks. When a person kills an abortion doctor, is it the religion which is driving him, or a cultural belief that abortion is murder.......slavery was justified because it was in the bible, but to say that slavery was caused by religion is wrong. The culture of the south which had slavery and religion as important parts was a mix of many traditions and views which were challenged by modernity, and which is still being challenged. You conveniently try to scapegoat religion for the shooting, but an agnostic who had never been to a church could find two men kissing unacceptable from a cultural view and still done the killing. I think much more must be disclosed about this individual to determine the components of motivation, but the political need to answer this shooting can give the quick answer.

Sal

Sal

If it's not the easy access to weapons of mass destruction, what is it about our society that makes these sorts of widespread peacetime mass killings pretty much the exclusive domain of the United States?

I think there may be other variables at play, but the firearms are the constant.

RealLindaL



Salinsky wrote:If it's not the easy access to weapons of mass destruction, what is it about our society that makes these sorts of widespread peacetime mass killings pretty much the exclusive domain of the United States?

I think there may be other variables at play, but the firearms are the constant.

It sure seems that way to me, too, Sal, and has for a long time.

RealLindaL



P.S. I'm not a Democrat but a left-leaning Independent. I hope I was allowed to speak. Smile

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Many people agreed with your kind of thinking in the past,  that if we banned the sale of alcohol,  that would provide the solution to the drinking problem.

But banning the sale of alcohol prevented drinking about as well as banning the sale of guns would have prevented the mass killing at the Boston Marathon.

Why am I comparing alcohol with guns in regard to this?  Because we are an alcohol culture and we are a gun culture.  We always have been.  
And banning either won't change that.  That experiment has already been conducted with very little success.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

A major sporting event is on the radar for one of these attacks at some point in the future+. 85,000 people packed into a football stadium presents a choice target.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

RealLindaL wrote:P.S.  I'm not a Democrat but a left-leaning Independent.  I hope I was allowed to speak.   Smile

I'm not bds. I have never had any desire whatever to prevent anyone from saying anything he or she chooses to say. You can say I'm the biggest asshole and know-nothing who ever lived, and I will still have no desire to stop you from doing so.
Why? Because that's the ONE thing I valued about the internet version of social media to begin with.
Unlike the social media which came before it (talk radio), everyone participating is absolutely equal in stature with as much right to say anything as anyone else. With no radio host to hang up on any of us.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote: A human being has multiple components which allow himself to be in a dance club killing people...(such as) problems with seeing men kiss.

When a person kills an abortion doctor, is it the religion which is driving him, or a cultural belief that abortion is murder...

Firstly,  the only reason "seeing men kiss" is bad enough in someone's mind to "allow himself to be in a dance club killing people",  is because his religion teaches that men kissing is the ultimate sin,  even more sinful than murdering innocent people in a dance club.

When Paul Hill killed an abortion doctor,  he told us in no uncertain terms what the reason was for why he did it.  He said it was because his "god" wanted him to do it. And because the Bible taught him to do it.
The belief that abortion is murder,  is a religious belief. And yes in every case of an abortion doctor killing, it was religion which drove them to do it.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:Many people agreed with your kind of thinking in the past,  that if we banned the sale of alcohol,  that would provide the solution to the drinking problem.

But banning the sale of alcohol prevented drinking about as well as banning the sale of guns would have prevented the mass killing at the Boston Marathon.

Why am I comparing alcohol with guns in regard to this?  Because we are an alcohol culture and we are a gun culture.  We always have been.  
And banning either won't change that.  That experiment has already been conducted with very little success.

Australia had a very similar "gun culture" to our own.

They had a couple of these mass shootings, and they responded with heavy restrictions and confiscations of firearms.

The massacres stopped.

No one in the United States is proposing anything close to those sorts of draconian measures.

But, a little less insanity would be nice.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Salinsky wrote:
Bob wrote:Many people agreed with your kind of thinking in the past,  that if we banned the sale of alcohol,  that would provide the solution to the drinking problem.

But banning the sale of alcohol prevented drinking about as well as banning the sale of guns would have prevented the mass killing at the Boston Marathon.

Why am I comparing alcohol with guns in regard to this?  Because we are an alcohol culture and we are a gun culture.  We always have been.  
And banning either won't change that.  That experiment has already been conducted with very little success.

Australia had a very similar "gun culture" to our own.

They had a couple of these mass shootings, and they responded with heavy restrictions and confiscations of firearms.

The massacres stopped.

No one in the United States is proposing anything close to those sorts of draconian measures.

But, a little less insanity would be nice.

As I already said,  I do not object to a ban on semi-automatic rifles even though I don't think it would be the solution you think it would be.  

The 2nd Amendment was enacted for one reason. To give the populace a means to defend itself from a tyrannical government.
Today's populace is powerless against the government,  regardless if they possess handguns or if they have handguns AND semi or fully automatic rifles.
The only way the populace can challenge today's government,  is if the populace is permitted to possess nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and nuclear aircraft carriers and fighter jets and fighter bombers,  and I haven't heard anyone say he or she supports that.  Not even the NRA.  lol

Markle

Markle

Bob wrote:When a Christian crazy goes to killing abortion doctors,  you say it has everything to do with their being brainwashed by a gutter religion.
And I fully agree with you,  it has everything to do with the gutter religion.

BUT,  when a muslim crazy goes to slaughtering, not one like the abortion doctor killer,  but FIFTY innocent homosexuals,  you say it has nothing at all to do with his religion.  

I'm trying to understand this mindset.  Is it because you liberal democrats have decided that muslim is the good religion and christian is the evil religion?
Or what exactly?

How many abortion doctors were killed by that "crazy" Christian?

How many infants are killed each year by abortion doctors?

RealLindaL



Bob wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:P.S.  I'm not a Democrat but a left-leaning Independent.  I hope I was allowed to speak.   Smile

I'm not bds.  I have never had any desire whatever to prevent anyone from saying anything he or she chooses to say.  You can say I'm the biggest asshole and know-nothing who ever lived,  and I will still have no desire to stop you from doing so.
Why?  Because that's the ONE thing I valued about the internet version  of social media to begin with.
Unlike the social media which came before it (talk radio),  everyone participating is absolutely equal in stature with as much right to say anything as anyone else.  With no radio host to hang up on any of us.  

C'mon Bob, I was kidding!! I knew nobody including you (OR Boards) would try to stop me because I wasn't a Democrat. LOL Still, I'm glad I provide you a platform to speak your mind on the subject.

Sal

Sal

Markle wrote:

How many infants are killed each year by abortion doctors?

This is just the sort of incendiary and false rhetoric that incites violence.

Markle needs another timeout.

RealLindaL



And isn't it amazing how it's almost always the MALE of the species who wants to tell us females what we can and can't do with our bodies, and who wants to condemn or even murder our abortion doctors??   If only men had the slightest inkling of what it's like to carry a fetus for nine months, go through horrific labor and delivery pain, and then (most often) take prime responsibility for that new life with all that entails....there would be a helluva lot fewer of them crying murder when we decide to abort, I guaran-blanking-tee you.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Salinsky wrote:
Markle wrote:

How many infants are killed each year by abortion doctors?

This is just the sort of incendiary and false rhetoric that incites violence.

Markle needs another timeout.

I agree with Sal. If Markle is opposed to abortion, he needs to be banned from posting on the internet.
Because by asking the question "how many infants are killed by abortion doctors", he will probably convince someone reading this to murder doctors. Probably seaoat.
lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Markle wrote:

How many abortion doctors were killed by that "crazy" Christian?


I have two problems with this reply.

One,  when you put "crazy" in quotes,  that's akin to telling us it's a sane act to murder doctors.   If you think that's a sane thing to do,  then I misjudged you.

Two,  when someone murders a single person,  that someone has still committed murder.  It doesn't require that he or she kill more than one person.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Oh and since abortion has become a topic in this thread,  I'd like to clearly state my position on it.

Not only do I have no objection if a pregnant woman decides to abort an unwanted fetus which will become another unwanted child if born,  I actually encourage aborting it.
And if adoption is your answer,  that falls on deaf ears to me.  I've personally known three unwanted children who were run through foster homes before becoming adopted and each and every one of them was a horror story for both the child and for the adoptive parents and for society.

Signed,

The same person who is always accused of sitting on the fence. lol

2seaoat



I am so easily swayed by illogical arguments

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » A question for all you liberal democrats

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum