out of touch republicans

Bentleyspop

aerial wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Do you think that this past election would have still been a landslide if republicans didn't turn their backs on women? They lost a lot of support from the women vote, and rightfully so.

So you believed the propaganda " War On Women"? What is the War on Women? is it because they kill there babies? They want that right? Were is the democratic compassion for the babies? I can see if it is a matter of life or death for the mother.
Everyone on here needs to think about ......What if your mother aborted you? and what about the fathers right to let his child be born? are Dem. anti men?
Personally I believe in the right to choose.....and let God be the judge in the end.
Like someone said on here before the government should stay out of peoples business and stop legislating peoples lives.

Our Civil Servants in the White House no longer work for the people. They are all self serving.

As Romney said they have binders full of women!!!

mikepegg44

Jeanwah wrote:

I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:

just hoping you can explain this in a way that doesn't cause a lock,

what about my saying that calling someone who is anti abortion, anti woman is helpful and constructive to a discussion about the original topic of abortion after rape being allowed or not?

you haven't really addressed my point. How am I in denial? I am not a republican. I could care less about the GOP and their success/failure. They are as much a problem in Washington as anyone else and maybe more so because they have no identity and seem to grasp at straws. I just get very irritated by the distraction of the pro / anti type categorizing.

The whole argument reminds me of when Michelle Bachmann said that we should investigate members of congress to find out if they are pro america or anti america...what does that even mean?

I am surprised you are this against that concept, you must be pro demagoguery (just a joke, tone is hard in emails)...

gimmesometruth27

is this guy really serious??? santorum??? take the country back to what it was 20 years ago????

did this man not pay attention the the last election where he wasted over a million bucks trying to get santorum elected???

this guy is not just out of touch, but he is living in a bubble....

he gets the godzilla facepalm...




Standing by his man: GOP millionaire Foster Friess wants Santorum in 2016

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-playe ... 16973.html

Wealthy conservative investor Foster Friess is best known in Washington, D.C. for helping fund Rick Santorum's presidential campaign. And the multimillionaire says he would support the former Pennsylvania senator again if he runs in 2016, even likening Santorum to Ronald Reagan.

"If people let him out of that box of social conservative, and appreciate how much more he brings to the table, I think he's still one of my favorite candidates," says Friess.

Friess spent well over a million dollars on Santorum's campaign, and says SuperPACs -- specifically the injection of large amounts of cash in elections -- were not really anything new in the 2012 cycle.

"People forget that the SuperPACs are just the reiteration of the 527s," says Friess, referring to independent groups that are allowed to raise money for political activities and issue advocacy.

"George Soros and Peter Lewis gave, what, $14 million and $20 million to make hard times for Bush and no one seems to talk about that," adds the conservative multimillionaire.

Since the November election, the Republican party has been in hand-wringing mode, trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. But Friess says he sees nothing in need of fixing.

"I believe we have an opportunity now to lift up a whole new group of young Republicans, and young new faces that are going to change our country back to where it was maybe 20 years ago," says Friess.

But the country's demographics are a far cry from what they were 20 years ago, and there has been talk of the Republican party's need to change in order to survive.

"I think the smartest thing the Republican party can do is stick to the principles that Republicans stand for -- limited government, respect for the constitution and free markets," says Friess. "If you stick with that, there's no way we're not going to win."

cincybearcat

Jeanwah wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

John Boehner: Ending Abortion Is 'One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals This Year'

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'


Did you read the OP??

Thanks for proving my point

how is this anti women? it is certainly anti abortion, anti choice, but how is it anti women? Was this bill proposed to punish women or protect the unborn fetus?

I don't think the authors of the bill got together and said, I really hate women, what can I do to be against them today? So if the goal of the legislation was to make it illegal to perform this abortion, why would we call it anti women? pro-fetus, anti women... not constructive to any debate.

I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:

I find the stupid war on women rhetoric to be for the simple minded.

gimmesometruth27

GOP war on women is real

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... en-is-real

If there are any female voters out there still thinking about voting for Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans, I have a binder for you. Not the one Romney mentioned during last week's presidential debate at Hofstra University. No, my binder is full of examples of why the GOP war on women is real.

If you consider each of them on a stand-alone basis only, then you'd be right to conclude the Republican track record on women's issues is merely pathetic. However, when they are lumped together, one after the other, they should make make a grown woman blush or angry. Or both.

Here are the unvarnished facts:

Back in February, one of the most conservative board members of the Susan G. Komen Foundation wildly applauded the organization for cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood. That was until public opinion swamped Komen and the board member in question resigned.

Shortly afterwards, a GOP Indiana state lawmaker publicly attacked the Girl Scouts, claiming that organization was a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood. Wow. I'll bet the millions of former scouts, many of whom are lifelong Republicans, never dreamed they were doing anyone's political bidding when they were 12.

These are the same mothers who, for the last decade or longer, have encouraged their daughters to play Little League baseball. Should that organization be worried?

A little less than two months ago, Rep. Todd Akin, the GOP Senate candidate in Missouri, made his indefensible, reprehensible comment about "legitimate rape." He hardly finished his sentence before leaders in his own party, including House Speaker John Boehner, urged him to quit from the race. His opponent is incumbent Claire McCaskill.

Sadly, several prominent conservatives, like Jim DeMint, Roy Blunt, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, have stuck by Akin. It makes me wonder, how could a Romney-Ryan-Akin ticket possibly help women?

Lastly, Republican Joe Walsh (Ill.) inaccurately announced last Thursday that abortions are "absolutely" never necessary to save the lives of pregnant women.

"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance," Walsh said. His opponent is Tammy Duckworth.

As these examples demonstrate, the Republican attacks on women are not isolated, one-of-a-kind events. They are national in scope. What's clear is this: These chilling attacks are meant to demonize women, regardless of age, ethnicity or geography. Is this really a winning strategy? If it is, who's next ... Barbie?

Women make up more than 50% of the electorate. When you consider how close the race for the White House is right now, the GOP clearly needs them to vote Nov. 6. Given all that's happened in 2012, I'm pretty sure women will. Only trouble is, I don't think they will vote Republican. Why should they?

First, one of the nation's leading sources for breast cancer research was dragged into the mud. Then, young girls selling cookies were viciously attacked. The GOP platform from this summer's presidential nominating convention makes it clear where the party stands on abortion. So do Reps. Akin and Walsh.

No, these attacks are not random kid games. To a certain breed of Republican, they are a matter of national pride or divine intervention. To the rest of us, they are politics gone wild.

Are there any women voters out there who need an extra binder?

A former congressional staff assistant, Freidenrich is the founder of First Strategies consulting in Laguna Beach, California. Follow him on Twitter @freidomreport

gimmesometruth27

The Republican War on Women is a Compelling Narrative

http://www.redstateprogressive.com/2012 ... lling.html

When 31 male Republican senators vote against the Violence Against Women Act, it becomes more difficult for them to claim that the war on women of which they are accused is made up by Democrats. This is a perfect example of a policy decision that fuels the narrative that the Republican Party has declared war on American women.

Is the Republican Party at war with American women? It certainly looks like it when one examines their policies. Here's how Jobsanger recently put it:

They oppose the right of a woman to control her own body. They oppose giving women equal pay in the workplace. They oppose free and easy access to contraception for women. They oppose healthcare reform (Obamacare) which outlaws higher insurance premiums for women. They want to defund Planned Parenthood (which provided need health care for poor women). And they want to slash social programs (where the majority of participants are single women with children).

Any one of these policy positions looks bad in isolation. When combined with each other, they look downright despicable. This is precisely the sort of narrative that could do real damage to the Republican Party in the 2012 elections.

Jeanwah

mikepegg44 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:

just hoping you can explain this in a way that doesn't cause a lock,

what about my saying that calling someone who is anti abortion, anti woman is helpful and constructive to a discussion about the original topic of abortion after rape being allowed or not?

you haven't really addressed my point. How am I in denial? I am not a republican. I could care less about the GOP and their success/failure. They are as much a problem in Washington as anyone else and maybe more so because they have no identity and seem to grasp at straws. I just get very irritated by the distraction of the pro / anti type categorizing.

The whole argument reminds me of when Michelle Bachmann said that we should investigate members of congress to find out if they are pro america or anti america...what does that even mean?

I am surprised you are this against that concept, you must be pro demagoguery (just a joke, tone is hard in emails)...

Explain what? How abortions are directly linked to women via their reproductive organs? How legislatures that are in need to make laws about abortions are directly affecting the decision-making power of women in the entire country? How making a woman carry to term a baby that is the result of a rape is now considered law in New Mexico? What about how it was REPUBLICANS who REFUSED to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act?

gimmesometruth27

The War on Women Is a Perfect Portrait of GOP Denial and Projection

By: Adalia Woodbury May. 11th, 2012

http://www.politicususa.com/the-war-on- ... ction.html




From Mitt Romney’s blasé declaration that he would just “get rid of” Planned Parenthood to Sally Kerns’ claim that women don’t work as hard as men there are volumes of examples that the War on Women does exist and it is being waged by the Republican Party.

Of course, if you watch Fox you might hear the denials before the projections. Republicans have denied that there is a war on women. Then they denied that reproductive rights were about women’s rights, but rather about religious freedom, according to Darell Issa and his all male panel . Their denials turned to embarrassment when it came to equal pay, as Jason Easley reported on May 1.

When the denials failed, Republicans turned to projection.

Here’s an example from TPM:
“On Tuesday, Romney surrogate Bay Buchanan, former treasurer to President Reagan, pushed back aggressively in a call with reporters, suggesting that the “real war on women” is reflective in President Obama’s handling of the economy. The impacts of his policies, she said, have been “frightening,” “unsettling” and “an outrage.”

It’s clear his policies have failed women miserably,” Buchanan said. “It has set women in the workplace back 20 years and we certainly can’t afford it, nor can the children of these women, afford to continue in this direction.”

Try as they might to deny they have a war on women, their words and policies betray them. Whether they identify themselves as Republicans or members of the Koch Brothers’ Tea Party; Conservatives have said the darndest things about women in the recent past.

If there was a conservative man, who epitomizes the attitude reflected in Republican it would be Reverend Jesse Peterson – proud Tea Party member and friend of Fox’s Shawn Hannity.

When TRS reported on the Reverend’s encounter with Kirsten Powers’ confrontation with Reverend Peterson during the Hannity Show, their report offered a little taste of the Reverend’s attitude toward women:


“I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote,” Peterson says. “We should’ve never turned this over to women. And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.”

“And this probably was the reason they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman,” he adds. “They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen.”

That pales in comparison to Peterson’s other comments during a Sermon called: How Women are Building a Shameless Society, published on youtube on March 5, 2012.

Here are just a couple of little nuggets of Peterson’s rational thinking about women.


“My America is gone… and short of God intervening, I don’t see any turnaround… I realize that one of the primary reasons… that it is over for America is because women are taking over… Most cannot (make sound decisions).

One thing I know for sure, without a doubt, women cannot handle power. It’s not in them to handle power in the right way. They don’t know what to do with it.”

Maybe these comments are not meant to be about a war on women. Maybe, the good pastor is auditioning to be president of Rush Limbaugh’s Fan Club. We all know how classy Rush during his commentaries on women.


“Rush Limbaugh called her a slut (Sandra Flute) and she didn’t realize that she looked like a slut sitting there making that type of confession…

How did we get to a point where women think we should pay for them to have sex?

They want to force us to buy them birth control.

No one’s saying, ‘Where’s your shame, woman?’

Rush Limbaugh called her… “a whore and a slut” and I agree with him. And I heard this morning that he had apologized for it… Men would have stood with Rush on this. But the women, because they’re so emotional and they don’t know how to handle things, they don’t want to hear any truth about anything.”

Don’t you just feel the logical analysis and good old fashioned manners in that tirade?

Peterson’s comments sound like something right wing politicians would say if they thought they could get away with it. Republican politicians may not use the fire that comes with Peterson’s hateful rhetoric toward women. The Republican War on Women, or as Peterson puts it, men being tough, is reflected in statements and policy enacted in state and national legislatures. Unlike Peterson’s sermons, you can’t just turn to another video or read a book to make these policies go away.

Hrafnkell Haraldsson’s Dirty Thirty post gives an idea of the sheer volume of radical laws through which the Republican Party is waging its war on women’s reproductive rights. It doesn’t end with social policy. As Rmuse explains, the Republican War on women includes cuts to programs that benefit women, as well as the poor and anyone other that the GOP’s corporate sugar daddies.

The legislative war on women’s reproductive rights is radical with rhetoric to match.

Indiana State Rep. Eric Turner claimed that women lie about rape and incest in the name of getting an abortion.


“I just want you to think about this, in my view, giant loophole that could be created where someone who could — now I want to be careful, I don’t want to disparage in any way someone who has gone through the experience of a rape or incest — but someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they’ve been raped or there’s incest.”

Chuck Winder, State Senator for Idaho shares Turner’s concerns. Nope, there’s nothing disparaging at all about suggesting that women lie about rape or incest to get an abortion.

In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett gushed about his state’s transvaginal ultra-sound bill, a.k.a. state sanctioned rape. But hey, you’ll be glad to know that this doesn’t mean a woman will be forced to look at the monitor directly in front of her while she is undergoing this humiliating process. As the Governor points out women can “just close their eyes”.

Something just tells me he and Reverend Peterson would get along just fine.

Further evidence of the Republican Party’s war on women is reflected in their opposition to women being paid the same as a man for doing the same job.

Here is Peter Hockstra on the Ledbetter Act:


Will, you know, will repealing it be a priority? If you came back and said, you know, that’s really the thing that’s hurting my business the most. My guess is there are other things that we can do that have a higher priority in terms of what I, what I believe might need to be done. I think you know we need to create — that thing is a nuisance. It shouldn’t be the law.

Republican opposition to the Violence Against Women Act amounts to a nod and a wink to domestic violence. If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic violence, you just might get some comfort out of knowing that House Republicans have proposed their own version of the VAWA because they are so very concerned about violence against women, unless the woman is a Native American, an undocumented immigrant or a member of the LGBT community. According to Lamar Smith:


Fraud and abuse in the U.S. immigration system must be stopped,” Smith said. “Immigrants who perpetuate fraud in order to get visas or U.S. citizenship devalue U.S. immigration laws and hurt legitimate victims who are the intended beneficiaries of the generous programs we have established.

The Republican War on Women is real. No amount of spin or denial will change that. Their policies and rhetoric speak as loudly, if not louder than their denials.

mikepegg44

Jeanwah wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I find people who are in denial as much as you are, laughable. :lolno:

just hoping you can explain this in a way that doesn't cause a lock,

what about my saying that calling someone who is anti abortion, anti woman is helpful and constructive to a discussion about the original topic of abortion after rape being allowed or not?

you haven't really addressed my point. How am I in denial? I am not a republican. I could care less about the GOP and their success/failure. They are as much a problem in Washington as anyone else and maybe more so because they have no identity and seem to grasp at straws. I just get very irritated by the distraction of the pro / anti type categorizing.

The whole argument reminds me of when Michelle Bachmann said that we should investigate members of congress to find out if they are pro america or anti america...what does that even mean?

I am surprised you are this against that concept, you must be pro demagoguery (just a joke, tone is hard in emails)...

Explain what? How abortions are directly linked to women via their reproductive organs? How legislatures that are in need to make laws about abortions are directly affecting the decision-making power of women in the entire country? How making a woman carry to term a baby that is the result of a rape is now considered law in New Mexico? What about how it was REPUBLICANS who REFUSED to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act?

I didn't know that the GOP not voting on the VAWA renewal means they are anti woman. I thought it meant they were FOR domestic violence. It gets hard for me to keep it straight.

Hell the ACLU didn't want it passed the first time around. They have since changed their tune, but does that mean in 1994 the ACLU was anti-women?

I am anti drug war, which of course means I am PRO Heroin use and drug overdoses. Got it, I am getting good at this denial thing.


They certainly don't have a pro specific women's rights agenda. That is clear. If anything, their actions tell me the GOP is anti-'getting votes in elections'. But that doesn't mean they are anti women

JonnyPistachio

As much as I don't like a lot of the Republican's ideas, I really do despise the term "war on women" and anti-woman. If they're anti-abortion, can we please just use anti-abortion, instead of adding all that rhetoric? I dont think they sit around hoping to simply control women and have the desire to take rights from them, no matter what they are. Isnt it possible that they have genuine concern for fetuses?

JimmyV

JonnyPistachio wrote:

As much as I don't like a lot of the Republican's ideas, I really do despise the term "war on women" and anti-woman. If they're anti-abortion, can we please just use anti-abortion, instead of adding all that rhetoric? I dont think they sit around hoping to simply control women and have the desire to take rights from them, no matter what they are. Isnt it possible that they have genuine concern for fetuses?

I agree with this. I think too much rhetoric on any issue, regardless of your position, cheapens that issue. Pro-choice and pro-life are sound bytes too. I am in favor of abortion being safe, legal and rare. I am not pro-choice.

gimmesometruth27

JonnyPistachio wrote:

As much as I don't like a lot of the Republican's ideas, I really do despise the term "war on women" and anti-woman. If they're anti-abortion, can we please just use anti-abortion, instead of adding all that rhetoric? I dont think they sit around hoping to simply control women and have the desire to take rights from them, no matter what they are. Isnt it possible that they have genuine concern for fetuses?

what about them opposing the violence against women act?

what about them not favoring equal pay for equal work?

what about them being forced to have ultrasounds before abortion?

what about them defunding planned parenthood, which gets most of it's business from things like mammograms and std testing and only a fraction from abortion?

what about them opposing obamacare and trying to repeal it when it is single mothers who would be most impacted by repealing it?

it is an ideology, and there is really no denying it.

what about people like phyllis schlafly who feel that women belong in the home popping out babies? she is influential in the gop.

what about them demonizing sandra fluke for simply asking for her birth control pills be covered under her student insurance policy?

i could go on, but i think you all get the point.

Jeanwah

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

As much as I don't like a lot of the Republican's ideas, I really do despise the term "war on women" and anti-woman. If they're anti-abortion, can we please just use anti-abortion, instead of adding all that rhetoric? I dont think they sit around hoping to simply control women and have the desire to take rights from them, no matter what they are. Isnt it possible that they have genuine concern for fetuses?

what about them opposing the violence against women act?

what about them not favoring equal pay for equal work?

what about them being forced to have ultrasounds before abortion?

what about them defunding planned parenthood, which gets most of it's business from things like mammograms and std testing and only a fraction from abortion?

what about them opposing obamacare and trying to repeal it when it is single mothers who would be most impacted by repealing it?

it is an ideology, and there is really no denying it.

what about people like phyllis schlafly who feel that women belong in the home popping out babies? she is influential in the gop.

what about them demonizing sandra fluke for simply asking for her birth control pills be covered under her student insurance policy?

i could go on, but i think you all get the point.

Are people really not paying attention? (not you gimme) But, JimmyV, JonnyPistachio and Mike Pegg. Have you read this thread? Because the rhetoric about "not getting it" that the GOP are indeed anti-women is glaringly obvious and is in all of the articles that have been posted.

JonnyPistachio

Again, I cannot stand most of these policies and the republicans motivations, but I just like to try to understand what they are doing, rather than just chalk it up to, “republicans hate women” War on women, and anti-woman. It really serves no purpose, and the dems were able to vilify them for it, costing them a heck of a lot of votes. I agree their policies suck, but I just prefer not to spin things..

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what about them opposing the violence against women act?

From what I’ve read, republicans are in opposition to this act, because they disagree with additional provisions that would accommodate same-sex couples and undocumented immigrants. They say it also fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. Hey, I might not agree with them, but my point all along is that, shouldn’t we wonder what their motives are? Will they ever benefit from simply wanting to suppress women? I don’t want to believe that is their only goal. I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe, even though their other motives might be ridiculous, we must try to understand their purpose, not just assume they want to suppress women. What does that even achieve? (aside from losing half of the voting pool?)

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what about them not favoring equal pay for equal work?

Republicans and many business groups are opposed to the bill, in large part because it threatens penalties for different wage scales that might be legitimate and have nothing to do with the gender of the employee. So is their goal to really keep women underpaid? What does that even accomplish? I just can’t settle on an assumption that they just want them to make less, and do this for no other reason. Maybe I’m gullible, but shouldn’t we try to see if there are other reasons other than simply that they want to suppress women?
Some republicans say the Paycheck Fairness Act is another job killer-- It’s another reason for businesses not to want to hire, since each new hire—particularly of a woman—is another potential lawsuit. Businesses worrying about litigation or bureaucrats thumbing through their employment records have less time and money to dedicate to expanding. The Paycheck Fairness Act would be another anchor dragging down economic growth, which is exactly what our economy—and American women—don’t need.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what about them being forced to have ultrasounds before abortion?

Falls under the abortion argument. The republicans will do anything to go against it.. always have, always will… not a good argument for a “war on women.” Maybe a war on killing fetuses. I’m pro-choice by the way.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what about them defunding planned parenthood, which gets most of it's business from things like mammograms and std testing and only a fraction from abortion?

This is just a stupid republican move to show their support against abortion maybe? Trust me, I agree its stupid, but is this really a strategy to wage “war on women?”

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what about them opposing obamacare and trying to repeal it when it is single mothers who would be most impacted by repealing it?

Not a good argument… I think they simply have it out for Obama (there are a lot of things wrong with Obama care), in my opinion, you cant call opposing this a “war on women.”

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

what about people like phyllis schlafly who feel that women belong in the home popping out babies? she is influential in the gop.

Not a good argument… There are a lot of old people like that, dems and republicans. Are you saying that Phyllis Schlafly wants a “war on women?”

gimmesometruth27

you really can't make this shit up :fp:


Dan Brown, Missouri State Senator, Wants Gun Education In First Grade

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/3 ... 85217.html

A Republican state senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make gun safety a mandatory part of the first-grade curriculum.

State Sen. Dan Brown (R-Rolla) told a Senate committee Tuesday that the course would teach first-graders what to do if they found a weapon, to prevent them from shooting themselves or someone else, the Associated Press reported. Brown's legislation specifies a curriculum -- which includes cartoons -- designed by the National Rifle Association. The legislation was filed a day before December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children -- many of them first-graders -- dead.

"I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate," the Associated Press reported Brown as saying.

Eli Yokley, the editor of PoliticMO.com, tweeted that Brown used a press conference on Wednesday to indicate that the legislation was not about a gun safety course, but rather "a gun safe course." PoliticMO.com noted that Brown said guns would not be brought into first-grade classrooms in order to demonstrate gun safety.

The legislation also includes training for teachers on handling a shooter who enters a school building.

Brown's legislation comes as legislators around the country grapple with a similar legislation. In Oklahoma, state Rep. Mark McCullough (R-Sapulpa) proposed legislation that would crosstrain teachers as reserve police officers to provide school security and allow them to carry guns. McCullough has said that the bill will make it easier for teachers to respond to incidents of mass murders.

In Montana, state Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) introduced legislation that would make it easier for students to carry a gun into a school. Under O'Neil's plan, students cannot be disciplined if they store the gun in a locker, a locked car or with school officials during the school day. The Montana bill would also allow for students to bring guns to school when the gun is needed as part of the curriculum.

Better Dan

Idaho Republican Compares Obamacare to the Holocaust

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/01 ... ?mobile=nc

aerial

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

you really can't make this shit up :fp:


Dan Brown, Missouri State Senator, Wants Gun Education In First Grade

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/3 ... 85217.html

A Republican state senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make gun safety a mandatory part of the first-grade curriculum.

State Sen. Dan Brown (R-Rolla) told a Senate committee Tuesday that the course would teach first-graders what to do if they found a weapon, to prevent them from shooting themselves or someone else, the Associated Press reported. Brown's legislation specifies a curriculum -- which includes cartoons -- designed by the National Rifle Association. The legislation was filed a day before December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children -- many of them first-graders -- dead.

"I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate," the Associated Press reported Brown as saying.

Eli Yokley, the editor of PoliticMO.com, tweeted that Brown used a press conference on Wednesday to indicate that the legislation was not about a gun safety course, but rather "a gun safe course." PoliticMO.com noted that Brown said guns would not be brought into first-grade classrooms in order to demonstrate gun safety.

The legislation also includes training for teachers on handling a shooter who enters a school building.

Brown's legislation comes as legislators around the country grapple with a similar legislation. In Oklahoma, state Rep. Mark McCullough (R-Sapulpa) proposed legislation that would crosstrain teachers as reserve police officers to provide school security and allow them to carry guns. McCullough has said that the bill will make it easier for teachers to respond to incidents of mass murders.

In Montana, state Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) introduced legislation that would make it easier for students to carry a gun into a school. Under O'Neil's plan, students cannot be disciplined if they store the gun in a locker, a locked car or with school officials during the school day. The Montana bill would also allow for students to bring guns to school when the gun is needed as part of the curriculum.

Armed guards do help save lives....just like they help save the life of all the other people that hire Armed Guards.....The Children need to be Guarded......

Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief
By KATE BRUMBACK | The Associated Press
First Published Jan 31 2013 12:58 pm • Last Updated Feb 01 2013 09:34 am


http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=5444

Atlanta (Salt Lake City Tribune) • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown around 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.

Bentleyspop

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

you really can't make this shit up :fp:


Dan Brown, Missouri State Senator, Wants Gun Education In First Grade

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/3 ... 85217.html

A Republican state senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make gun safety a mandatory part of the first-grade curriculum.

State Sen. Dan Brown (R-Rolla) told a Senate committee Tuesday that the course would teach first-graders what to do if they found a weapon, to prevent them from shooting themselves or someone else, the Associated Press reported. Brown's legislation specifies a curriculum -- which includes cartoons -- designed by the National Rifle Association. The legislation was filed a day before December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children -- many of them first-graders -- dead.

"I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate," the Associated Press reported Brown as saying.

Eli Yokley, the editor of PoliticMO.com, tweeted that Brown used a press conference on Wednesday to indicate that the legislation was not about a gun safety course, but rather "a gun safe course." PoliticMO.com noted that Brown said guns would not be brought into first-grade classrooms in order to demonstrate gun safety.

The legislation also includes training for teachers on handling a shooter who enters a school building.

Brown's legislation comes as legislators around the country grapple with a similar legislation. In Oklahoma, state Rep. Mark McCullough (R-Sapulpa) proposed legislation that would crosstrain teachers as reserve police officers to provide school security and allow them to carry guns. McCullough has said that the bill will make it easier for teachers to respond to incidents of mass murders.

In Montana, state Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) introduced legislation that would make it easier for students to carry a gun into a school. Under O'Neil's plan, students cannot be disciplined if they store the gun in a locker, a locked car or with school officials during the school day. The Montana bill would also allow for students to bring guns to school when the gun is needed as part of the curriculum.

Armed guards do help save lives....just like they help save the life of all the other people that hire Armed Guards.....The Children need to be Guarded......

Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief
By KATE BRUMBACK | The Associated Press
First Published Jan 31 2013 12:58 pm • Last Updated Feb 01 2013 09:34 am


http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=5444

Atlanta (Salt Lake City Tribune) • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown around 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.

There were 2 armed guards at Columbine

aerial

Bentleyspop wrote:

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

you really can't make this shit up :fp:


Dan Brown, Missouri State Senator, Wants Gun Education In First Grade

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/3 ... 85217.html

A Republican state senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make gun safety a mandatory part of the first-grade curriculum.

State Sen. Dan Brown (R-Rolla) told a Senate committee Tuesday that the course would teach first-graders what to do if they found a weapon, to prevent them from shooting themselves or someone else, the Associated Press reported. Brown's legislation specifies a curriculum -- which includes cartoons -- designed by the National Rifle Association. The legislation was filed a day before December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children -- many of them first-graders -- dead.

"I hate mandates as much as anyone, but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate," the Associated Press reported Brown as saying.

Eli Yokley, the editor of PoliticMO.com, tweeted that Brown used a press conference on Wednesday to indicate that the legislation was not about a gun safety course, but rather "a gun safe course." PoliticMO.com noted that Brown said guns would not be brought into first-grade classrooms in order to demonstrate gun safety.

The legislation also includes training for teachers on handling a shooter who enters a school building.

Brown's legislation comes as legislators around the country grapple with a similar legislation. In Oklahoma, state Rep. Mark McCullough (R-Sapulpa) proposed legislation that would crosstrain teachers as reserve police officers to provide school security and allow them to carry guns. McCullough has said that the bill will make it easier for teachers to respond to incidents of mass murders.

In Montana, state Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) introduced legislation that would make it easier for students to carry a gun into a school. Under O'Neil's plan, students cannot be disciplined if they store the gun in a locker, a locked car or with school officials during the school day. The Montana bill would also allow for students to bring guns to school when the gun is needed as part of the curriculum.

Armed guards do help save lives....just like they help save the life of all the other people that hire Armed Guards.....The Children need to be Guarded......

Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief
By KATE BRUMBACK | The Associated Press
First Published Jan 31 2013 12:58 pm • Last Updated Feb 01 2013 09:34 am


http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=5444

Atlanta (Salt Lake City Tribune) • A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

Multiple shots were fired in the courtyard of Price Middle School just south of downtown around 1:50 p.m. and the one boy was hit, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner said. In the aftermath, a teacher received minor cuts, he said.

There were 2 armed guards at Columbine

In the case of the Columbine tragedy, the facts of the case disprove the conclusion that an armed guard did not help. At the time of the shooting, 11:19 a.m., Gardner was eating lunch in his car in the parking lot on the far side of the campus, away from where the shooting occurred. His parking space was near an area known as the "Smoker's Pit," and he used his lunch time to make sure students weren't in the area smoking during their lunch period.

The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, chose that time for the attack because they knew a number of students would be in and near the school cafeteria. They placed two bombs inside the cafeteria timed to explode, which they thought would force students to evacuate outside, where they were waiting. However, the bombs did not go off.

After the bombs failed to detonate, Harris and Klebold began shooting students eating lunch outside. Deputy Gardner was notified of the shooting by a custodian within three minutes of the first shot, and had to drive around the campus to enter the parking lot where the shooting took place. It took him two minutes to arrive. He confronted the shooters in the parking lot, about five minutes after the first shot was fired. Deputy Gardner exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold, which stopped the pair from firing at students. Gardner's actions allow teacher Patti Nielson and student Brian Anderson (who were both shot at and injured) to escape and survive.

Even though Deputy Gardner exchanged shots with the pair, he was over 60 yards away, and the two ducked into the school without being hit. Gardner called for backup on his radio before taking a position outside as more officers arrived. Gardner did not follow the pair, as he helped dozens of fleeing students coming from the building..

Later, Gardner again exchanged gunfire with the pair as they shot from windows into the parking lot. He then saved the lives of 15 students in the line of fire as they hid behind a car. One at a time, he escorted them from cover to safety. About 45 minutes after the shooting began, both Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the school library. All of their victims were killed within the first 15 minutes of the shooting.

The contention that Gardner's presence did not make a difference is not supported by the facts. He not only briefly stopped their assault on students, he made it possible for an untold number of students to escape the cafeteria and get to safety.

Gardner also never got a good chance to shoot either gunman, as they were never closer than 60 yards from him at any time. Officers who arrived on the scene also did not immediately enter the school, which allowed the gunmen to kill several more students. The Columbine incident changed how officers respond to school shootings; instead of waiting to assess the situation, officers now immediately enter the school.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

aerial wrote:

In the case of the Columbine tragedy, the facts of the case disprove the conclusion that an armed guard did not help. At the time of the shooting, 11:19 a.m., Gardner was eating lunch in his car in the parking lot on the far side of the campus, away from where the shooting occurred. His parking space was near an area known as the "Smoker's Pit," and he used his lunch time to make sure students weren't in the area smoking during their lunch period.

The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, chose that time for the attack because they knew a number of students would be in and near the school cafeteria. They placed two bombs inside the cafeteria timed to explode, which they thought would force students to evacuate outside, where they were waiting. However, the bombs did not go off.

After the bombs failed to detonate, Harris and Klebold began shooting students eating lunch outside. Deputy Gardner was notified of the shooting by a custodian within three minutes of the first shot, and had to drive around the campus to enter the parking lot where the shooting took place. It took him two minutes to arrive. He confronted the shooters in the parking lot, about five minutes after the first shot was fired. Deputy Gardner exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold, which stopped the pair from firing at students. Gardner's actions allow teacher Patti Nielson and student Brian Anderson (who were both shot at and injured) to escape and survive.

Even though Deputy Gardner exchanged shots with the pair, he was over 60 yards away, and the two ducked into the school without being hit. Gardner called for backup on his radio before taking a position outside as more officers arrived. Gardner did not follow the pair, as he helped dozens of fleeing students coming from the building..

Later, Gardner again exchanged gunfire with the pair as they shot from windows into the parking lot. He then saved the lives of 15 students in the line of fire as they hid behind a car. One at a time, he escorted them from cover to safety. About 45 minutes after the shooting began, both Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the school library. All of their victims were killed within the first 15 minutes of the shooting.

The contention that Gardner's presence did not make a difference is not supported by the facts. He not only briefly stopped their assault on students, he made it possible for an untold number of students to escape the cafeteria and get to safety.

Gardner also never got a good chance to shoot either gunman, as they were never closer than 60 yards from him at any time. Officers who arrived on the scene also did not immediately enter the school, which allowed the gunmen to kill several more students. The Columbine incident changed how officers respond to school shootings; instead of waiting to assess the situation, officers now immediately enter the school.

I did not know any of this. wow. makes one think........