A mothers rant regarding the Newtown Tragedy

[Luissa]

Social anarchism, seriously? Tell me the truth, somebody made that category up because they didn't want to call themselves socialists.

The only reason government is in the marriage business at all is so they can tell people who can, and cannot, get married. Anyone that really wants the government not to be able to tell people who they can marry would be calling for the government not to be involved at all. You support government sanctioned marriage, that makes you pro big government.

I not only want drugs to be legal, I want them to be available without a prescription. You think the government needs to regulate drugs to keep them safe despite abundant evidence that unregulated drugs are perfectly safe. That makes you pro big government.

You want to impose your morality on everyone, that makes you pro big government.

You assume that the only way to provide armed guards at schools is through government intervention. Their is an entire state that allows any school employee to carry weapons on school grounds, and doesn't pay for any of it with taxpayer funds. In fact, they actually make money because everyone that carries a gun has to get a license to do so. If you were really a social anarchist you would be cheering Utah on, and trying to get your own state to allow the same thing. Unfortunately, you are actually pro big government.

As I have just demonstrated, it is not your support for those things that makes you big government, it is your demand that the government be involved at all that makes you pro big government.

I believe in government sanctioned marriage? Got a link to that? No I am for people getting the same rights as everyone else, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. If the government is in the business of marriage, they shouldn't define it, that is all I have stated.
And I want to impose my morality on everyone else? How so? Please explain. Do I want my religion in public schools, do I allow my religion to tell you what you can do with your body or with your life in general?
You are an idiot, and have no clue what big government actually means.

The only "rights" in a marriage are the ones created by government through taxes and estate laws, I can get those same rights by making a will, or by specifying ownership through a private contract. The fact that you are trying to argue with me about that without pointing out the simple option proves you support government sanctioned marriage, alleviating me of the obligation to find another post where you support it.

We have been over the morality thing before. Your moral position is that life does not begin at conception, despite the abundant scientific evidence to the contrary. You are so insistent on your moral superiority in this that you demand that the government force everyone else to accept it. You also insist that the government force people to take care of the poor, even if they don't share your moral imperative to do so. I could probably think of other examples if you like, but I am quite sure that you will never admit that what you are doing is morally wrong. No one that thinks they are good ever thinks anything they do in the name of good is wrong.

A gay spouse cannot get the same federal rights regarding social security, and taxes as a heterosexual couple. Fact!
And when I think life begins has no bearing on my belief on abortion, and your belief shouldn't either. It is a women's choice, it is her choice to decide on how she feels on the subject, that is my stand. My opinion on abortion, when life begins etc has nothing to do with what someone should be allowed to decide for themselves. THAT IS THE POINT.

And you got me on the poor, that is the only thing. SO there you go....But that is probably because I take care of the poor elderly that other's feel they do not need to take care of.

And I really don't get what you mean by me admitting I am morally wrong, and thinking I am good. I do think I do more good in one days work, then you will do in a year, but that is another subject. Your whole post is judging me by your own moral code, and you are too much of hypocrite to realize it, along with being too much of an idiot to realize it.

 

[Jarhead]

You brought up seat belts, smart one.
and your bring up fire drills and you say I am going off the tracks?

Teaching your child to be prepared for a fire, doesn't equate to having a armed guard.

You still continue to imply that I was comparing seat belts to armed guards even though I pointed out to you that the analogy was about not being
concerned about putting fear in your child as it pertains to car accidents but concerned about putting putting fear in his eyes as it pertains to bad people.

That speaks volumes to me as to how insecure you are starting to feel about your position.

So I will make you feel even MORE insecure.

What do you say to yoiur child when he sees a police car patrolling his neghborhood?
What do you say when he sees an armed guard at a Brinks truck?
A cop on the beat?
What kind of negative affect did it have on society when they had air raid drills?
How many schools were hiot by bombs from the air over the past...I dont know....200 years?
What kind of negative affect did it have on our children when we had big yellow signs with arrows that said "bomb shelter" throughout the schools?

Many cops live in my neighborhood but don't patrol it, they do set up speed traps every once in awhile, but I live in a safe neighborhood.
And you are lecturing me on going off the tracks?

The fact that you say it is going off the tracks, again, implies you are insecure with your position.

You claim you do not want armed guards in your school as you do not want to create fear for your child where fear should not take place.

So my questions are valid....

What do you say to your child when he sees a police car patrolling his neghborhood?
What do you say when he sees an armed guard at a Brinks truck?
A cop on the beat? (dont answer this one becuase you already used it as a diversion to the question itelf)
What kind of negative affect did it have on society when they had air raid drills?
How many schools were hiot by bombs from the air over the past...I dont know....200 years?
What kind of negative affect did it have on our children when we had big yellow signs with arrows that said "bomb shelter" throughout the schools

 

[Jarhead]

You still continue to imply that I was comparing seat belts to armed guards even though I pointed out to you that the analogy was about not being
concerned about putting fear in your child as it pertains to car accidents but concerned about putting putting fear in his eyes as it pertains to bad people.

That speaks volumes to me as to how insecure you are starting to feel about your position.

So I will make you feel even MORE insecure.

What do you say to yoiur child when he sees a police car patrolling his neghborhood?
What do you say when he sees an armed guard at a Brinks truck?
A cop on the beat?
What kind of negative affect did it have on society when they had air raid drills?
How many schools were hiot by bombs from the air over the past...I dont know....200 years?
What kind of negative affect did it have on our children when we had big yellow signs with arrows that said "bomb shelter" throughout the schools?

Many cops live in my neighborhood but don't patrol it, they do set up speed traps every once in awhile, but I live in a safe neighborhood.
And you are lecturing me on going off the tracks?

The fact that you say it is going off the tracks, again, implies you are insecure with your position.

You claim you do not want armed guards in your school as you do not want to create fear for your child where fear should not take place.

So my questions are valid....

What do you say to your child when he sees a police car patrolling his neghborhood?
What do you say when he sees an armed guard at a Brinks truck?
A cop on the beat? (dont answer this one becuase you already used it as a diversion to the question itelf)
What kind of negative affect did it have on society when they had air raid drills?
How many schools were hiot by bombs from the air over the past...I dont know....200 years?
What kind of negative affect did it have on our children when we had big yellow signs with arrows that said "bomb shelter" throughout the schools

I need to go....but my point is...whereas there may be good reaons to not want armed guards in the school, YOURS is not one of them.

For if it were, then we should not have armed personnel ANYWHERE your child may be.

 

[Luissa]

You still continue to imply that I was comparing seat belts to armed guards even though I pointed out to you that the analogy was about not being
concerned about putting fear in your child as it pertains to car accidents but concerned about putting putting fear in his eyes as it pertains to bad people.

That speaks volumes to me as to how insecure you are starting to feel about your position.

So I will make you feel even MORE insecure.

What do you say to yoiur child when he sees a police car patrolling his neghborhood?
What do you say when he sees an armed guard at a Brinks truck?
A cop on the beat?
What kind of negative affect did it have on society when they had air raid drills?
How many schools were hiot by bombs from the air over the past...I dont know....200 years?
What kind of negative affect did it have on our children when we had big yellow signs with arrows that said "bomb shelter" throughout the schools?

Many cops live in my neighborhood but don't patrol it, they do set up speed traps every once in awhile, but I live in a safe neighborhood.
And you are lecturing me on going off the tracks?

The fact that you say it is going off the tracks, again, implies you are insecure with your position.

You claim you do not want armed guards in your school as you do not want to create fear for your child where fear should not take place.

So my questions are valid....

What do you say to your child when he sees a police car patrolling his neghborhood?
What do you say when he sees an armed guard at a Brinks truck?
A cop on the beat? (dont answer this one becuase you already used it as a diversion to the question itelf)
What kind of negative affect did it have on society when they had air raid drills?
How many schools were hiot by bombs from the air over the past...I dont know....200 years?
What kind of negative affect did it have on our children when we had big yellow signs with arrows that said "bomb shelter" throughout the schools

And you are missing the point completely, it isn't what I am telling him, it is what others will tell him. It is what people like you will tell him, it was is what some over scared teacher will tell him as to why there is some armed guard at school, it is the questions he will ask as to why there is the need to have armed guards at his school.
And if there is a cop in my neighborhood I don't say anything, why would I?
And what was the point of air raid drills, and duck and cover? Duck and cover wasn't going to save you from a nuclear bomb. So we created a whole generation to live in fear for what reason?

 

[Luissa]

I am not insecure about my opinion. My son's school doesn't need an armed guard, therefore they shouldn't have one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe in government sanctioned marriage? Got a link to that? No I am for people getting the same rights as everyone else, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. If the government is in the business of marriage, they shouldn't define it, that is all I have stated.
And I want to impose my morality on everyone else? How so? Please explain. Do I want my religion in public schools, do I allow my religion to tell you what you can do with your body or with your life in general?
You are an idiot, and have no clue what big government actually means.

The only "rights" in a marriage are the ones created by government through taxes and estate laws, I can get those same rights by making a will, or by specifying ownership through a private contract. The fact that you are trying to argue with me about that without pointing out the simple option proves you support government sanctioned marriage, alleviating me of the obligation to find another post where you support it.

We have been over the morality thing before. Your moral position is that life does not begin at conception, despite the abundant scientific evidence to the contrary. You are so insistent on your moral superiority in this that you demand that the government force everyone else to accept it. You also insist that the government force people to take care of the poor, even if they don't share your moral imperative to do so. I could probably think of other examples if you like, but I am quite sure that you will never admit that what you are doing is morally wrong. No one that thinks they are good ever thinks anything they do in the name of good is wrong.

A gay spouse cannot get the same federal rights regarding social security, and taxes as a heterosexual couple. Fact!
And when I think life begins has no bearing on my belief on abortion, and your belief shouldn't either. It is a women's choice, it is her choice to decide on how she feels on the subject, that is my stand. My opinion on abortion, when life begins etc has nothing to do with what someone should be allowed to decide for themselves. THAT IS THE POINT.

And you got me on the poor, that is the only thing. SO there you go....But that is probably because I take care of the poor elderly that other's feel they do not need to take care of.

And I really don't get what you mean by me admitting I am morally wrong, and thinking I am good. I do think I do more good in one days work, then you will do in a year, but that is another subject. Your whole post is judging me by your own moral code, and you are too much of hypocrite to realize it, along with being too much of an idiot to realize it.

Survivor benefits are not rights, they are entitlements foisted on us by idiots that think government has a say in marriage. End of this conversation and more proof that you are pro big government.

The point is you insist that government encode your position in law. It is my choice whether I accept the fact that my neighbor is an annoying asshole, or to kill him. The fact that that is my choice does not magically remove society's choice to accept my actions, or punish them. The difference between people who understand freedom and the moral responsibility it brings and those who think moral responsibility is imposed by society is so vast that the latter are not even aware it exists.

By the way, I never said you admit you are morally wrong. In fact, I specifically argued that I don't believe you ever will because you think you are good, and being good means you are not morally wrong, even when you are. I can judge you by whatever moral code I chose to use, and still come out on top of you, because I don't think the government should impose my moral code on you. I let society make up its rules, and then do whatever I think needs to be done. I suggest you ponder the first quote in my signature, you might actually grow up if understand it fully.

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not insecure about my opinion. My son's school doesn't need an armed guard, therefore they shouldn't have one.

Most places that have armed guards don't need them, until they do.

 

[Luissa]

And tell me why it was needed at her school? Did they have a gun problem there, was it a bad neighborhood, was there a shooting there?

It was Bridgeport Connecticut, that great liberal bastion of tolerance.

Bridgeport is 95% a bad neighborhood. Even with 4 guards and metal detectors, both the younger kids saw guns in the school.
I remember whe the kids were in kindergarten and first grade, they got visits from cops who were called "Officer Friendly". My kids were always comfortable around Law Enforcement. Then, their mother and I didn't smoke dope.

Why do you feel the need to bring up me smoking pot anytime we get in an argument? I hardly bring it up and it's my business. Does it make you feel morally superior?
Oh! And I forgot, my son is named after a Cop, my uncle.

 

[Luissa]

I am not insecure about my opinion. My son's school doesn't need an armed guard, therefore they shouldn't have one.

Most places that have armed guards don't need them, until they do.

What a stupid statement.

 

[Luissa]

The only "rights" in a marriage are the ones created by government through taxes and estate laws, I can get those same rights by making a will, or by specifying ownership through a private contract. The fact that you are trying to argue with me about that without pointing out the simple option proves you support government sanctioned marriage, alleviating me of the obligation to find another post where you support it.

We have been over the morality thing before. Your moral position is that life does not begin at conception, despite the abundant scientific evidence to the contrary. You are so insistent on your moral superiority in this that you demand that the government force everyone else to accept it. You also insist that the government force people to take care of the poor, even if they don't share your moral imperative to do so. I could probably think of other examples if you like, but I am quite sure that you will never admit that what you are doing is morally wrong. No one that thinks they are good ever thinks anything they do in the name of good is wrong.

A gay spouse cannot get the same federal rights regarding social security, and taxes as a heterosexual couple. Fact!
And when I think life begins has no bearing on my belief on abortion, and your belief shouldn't either. It is a women's choice, it is her choice to decide on how she feels on the subject, that is my stand. My opinion on abortion, when life begins etc has nothing to do with what someone should be allowed to decide for themselves. THAT IS THE POINT.

And you got me on the poor, that is the only thing. SO there you go....But that is probably because I take care of the poor elderly that other's feel they do not need to take care of.

And I really don't get what you mean by me admitting I am morally wrong, and thinking I am good. I do think I do more good in one days work, then you will do in a year, but that is another subject. Your whole post is judging me by your own moral code, and you are too much of hypocrite to realize it, along with being too much of an idiot to realize it.

Survivor benefits are not rights, they are entitlements foisted on us by idiots that think government has a say in marriage. End of this conversation and more proof that you are pro big government.

The point is you insist that government encode your position in law. It is my choice whether I accept the fact that my neighbor is an annoying asshole, or to kill him. The fact that that is my choice does not magically remove society's choice to accept my actions, or punish them. The difference between people who understand freedom and the moral responsibility it brings and those who think moral responsibility is imposed by society is so vast that the latter are not even aware it exists.

By the way, I never said you admit you are morally wrong. In fact, I specifically argued that I don't believe you ever will because you think you are good, and being good means you are not morally wrong, even when you are. I can judge you by whatever moral code I chose to use, and still come out on top of you, because I don't think the government should impose my moral code on you. I let society make up its rules, and then do whatever I think needs to be done. I suggest you ponder the first quote in my signature, you might actually grow up if understand it fully.

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

This whole post is pure bullshit, so I won't bother responding to most of it. As for your first paragraph? Huh?
All I stated was heterosexuals get certain benefits and that homosexuals couples do not. I am not sure how that translates me being for big government. I was stating a fact not an opinion.

 

[Luissa]

The only "rights" in a marriage are the ones created by government through taxes and estate laws, I can get those same rights by making a will, or by specifying ownership through a private contract. The fact that you are trying to argue with me about that without pointing out the simple option proves you support government sanctioned marriage, alleviating me of the obligation to find another post where you support it.

We have been over the morality thing before. Your moral position is that life does not begin at conception, despite the abundant scientific evidence to the contrary. You are so insistent on your moral superiority in this that you demand that the government force everyone else to accept it. You also insist that the government force people to take care of the poor, even if they don't share your moral imperative to do so. I could probably think of other examples if you like, but I am quite sure that you will never admit that what you are doing is morally wrong. No one that thinks they are good ever thinks anything they do in the name of good is wrong.

A gay spouse cannot get the same federal rights regarding social security, and taxes as a heterosexual couple. Fact!
And when I think life begins has no bearing on my belief on abortion, and your belief shouldn't either. It is a women's choice, it is her choice to decide on how she feels on the subject, that is my stand. My opinion on abortion, when life begins etc has nothing to do with what someone should be allowed to decide for themselves. THAT IS THE POINT.

And you got me on the poor, that is the only thing. SO there you go....But that is probably because I take care of the poor elderly that other's feel they do not need to take care of.

And I really don't get what you mean by me admitting I am morally wrong, and thinking I am good. I do think I do more good in one days work, then you will do in a year, but that is another subject. Your whole post is judging me by your own moral code, and you are too much of hypocrite to realize it, along with being too much of an idiot to realize it.

Survivor benefits are not rights, they are entitlements foisted on us by idiots that think government has a say in marriage. End of this conversation and more proof that you are pro big government.

The point is you insist that government encode your position in law. It is my choice whether I accept the fact that my neighbor is an annoying asshole, or to kill him. The fact that that is my choice does not magically remove society's choice to accept my actions, or punish them. The difference between people who understand freedom and the moral responsibility it brings and those who think moral responsibility is imposed by society is so vast that the latter are not even aware it exists.

By the way, I never said you admit you are morally wrong. In fact, I specifically argued that I don't believe you ever will because you think you are good, and being good means you are not morally wrong, even when you are. I can judge you by whatever moral code I chose to use, and still come out on top of you, because I don't think the government should impose my moral code on you. I let society make up its rules, and then do whatever I think needs to be done. I suggest you ponder the first quote in my signature, you might actually grow up if understand it fully.

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

I will ask this....Where have I ever said I was good?
I did say I do more good in one day, then you will do in a day but other than that where have I ever said I was good?
And I am not the one who uses their religion to act morally superior on a regular basis. But what can you do? I already know you are an idiot, and really pull most of what you post out of your ass. So there is that.

 

[Nole]

I think it would be best to have a Hunger Games style duel for all the right wing gun lovers. That should thin the herd.

 

[Luissa]

I think it would be best to have a Hunger Games style duel for all the right wing gun lovers. That should thin the herd.

Good idea.

 

[Luissa]

I think if they want armed guards etc at their school, they should create their own schools with tall fences, and every security measure they can think of, with every teacher having a gun. You want guns in the classroom, create your own school.

 

[Luissa]

I mean, you guys hate public schools, this is perfect and here is your chance.

 

[Nole]

asking a teacher, who already is more than likely in debt and hampered with large classes with unruly spoiled brat children to train and carry a fire are is almost unfathomable.

If anyone is truly convinced this is the remedy to this school shooting problem needs a PET scan of their brain, you have screw's loose.


I have a child on the way come June this year, god willing. I do not want your or anyone one's guns around my child, not now, not ever. I grew up in a house with no guns, Just big ass Boxer dogs. No one died, never got robbed, we are all fine and healthy. I do respect your right to cream your undies over guns, it is your right and I want it to stay that way just keep your fucking guns and religion out of my tax payer funded schools. TYVM.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not insecure about my opinion. My son's school doesn't need an armed guard, therefore they shouldn't have one.

Most places that have armed guards don't need them, until they do.

What a stupid statement.

The only thing that makes it stupid is the person reading it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A gay spouse cannot get the same federal rights regarding social security, and taxes as a heterosexual couple. Fact!
And when I think life begins has no bearing on my belief on abortion, and your belief shouldn't either. It is a women's choice, it is her choice to decide on how she feels on the subject, that is my stand. My opinion on abortion, when life begins etc has nothing to do with what someone should be allowed to decide for themselves. THAT IS THE POINT.

And you got me on the poor, that is the only thing. SO there you go....But that is probably because I take care of the poor elderly that other's feel they do not need to take care of.

And I really don't get what you mean by me admitting I am morally wrong, and thinking I am good. I do think I do more good in one days work, then you will do in a year, but that is another subject. Your whole post is judging me by your own moral code, and you are too much of hypocrite to realize it, along with being too much of an idiot to realize it.

Survivor benefits are not rights, they are entitlements foisted on us by idiots that think government has a say in marriage. End of this conversation and more proof that you are pro big government.

The point is you insist that government encode your position in law. It is my choice whether I accept the fact that my neighbor is an annoying asshole, or to kill him. The fact that that is my choice does not magically remove society's choice to accept my actions, or punish them. The difference between people who understand freedom and the moral responsibility it brings and those who think moral responsibility is imposed by society is so vast that the latter are not even aware it exists.

By the way, I never said you admit you are morally wrong. In fact, I specifically argued that I don't believe you ever will because you think you are good, and being good means you are not morally wrong, even when you are. I can judge you by whatever moral code I chose to use, and still come out on top of you, because I don't think the government should impose my moral code on you. I let society make up its rules, and then do whatever I think needs to be done. I suggest you ponder the first quote in my signature, you might actually grow up if understand it fully.

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

This whole post is pure bullshit, so I won't bother responding to most of it. As for your first paragraph? Huh?
All I stated was heterosexuals get certain benefits and that homosexuals couples do not. I am not sure how that translates me being for big government. I was stating a fact not an opinion.

They only get benefits if they engage in a government sanctioned relationship, what the fuck is your point again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A gay spouse cannot get the same federal rights regarding social security, and taxes as a heterosexual couple. Fact!
And when I think life begins has no bearing on my belief on abortion, and your belief shouldn't either. It is a women's choice, it is her choice to decide on how she feels on the subject, that is my stand. My opinion on abortion, when life begins etc has nothing to do with what someone should be allowed to decide for themselves. THAT IS THE POINT.

And you got me on the poor, that is the only thing. SO there you go....But that is probably because I take care of the poor elderly that other's feel they do not need to take care of.

And I really don't get what you mean by me admitting I am morally wrong, and thinking I am good. I do think I do more good in one days work, then you will do in a year, but that is another subject. Your whole post is judging me by your own moral code, and you are too much of hypocrite to realize it, along with being too much of an idiot to realize it.

Survivor benefits are not rights, they are entitlements foisted on us by idiots that think government has a say in marriage. End of this conversation and more proof that you are pro big government.

The point is you insist that government encode your position in law. It is my choice whether I accept the fact that my neighbor is an annoying asshole, or to kill him. The fact that that is my choice does not magically remove society's choice to accept my actions, or punish them. The difference between people who understand freedom and the moral responsibility it brings and those who think moral responsibility is imposed by society is so vast that the latter are not even aware it exists.

By the way, I never said you admit you are morally wrong. In fact, I specifically argued that I don't believe you ever will because you think you are good, and being good means you are not morally wrong, even when you are. I can judge you by whatever moral code I chose to use, and still come out on top of you, because I don't think the government should impose my moral code on you. I let society make up its rules, and then do whatever I think needs to be done. I suggest you ponder the first quote in my signature, you might actually grow up if understand it fully.

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

I will ask this....Where have I ever said I was good?
I did say I do more good in one day, then you will do in a day but other than that where have I ever said I was good?
And I am not the one who uses their religion to act morally superior on a regular basis. But what can you do? I already know you are an idiot, and really pull most of what you post out of your ass. So there is that.

In response I will ask, where the fuck did I say you said you are good?

 

[Luissa]

I have a five year old who goes to Pre School at a public school, I was a senior when the school shootings started to happen, I was a sophomore when a middle school student came to school and shot up his classroom killing his teacher, and it was only two hours from where I lived. I was in school when they started locked downs due to school shooting. I watched the news all day long at school my senior year when Columbine happened. I was also at school when we had to go into a lock down because right wing loons set off a pipe bomb six blocks away from school.
My son has a better chance of dying in a car wreck than being killed by a gunman at school. I am sorry I am being rational, and caring about him not living in fear, then teaching him to be scared of the boogey man.

You're absolutely right. Your boy has a much better chance of dying in a wreck caused by a drug using liberal than of being shot at school. But as the parents of 20 kids in Newtown found out, it is possible. I'm sure they would rather there had been an armed guard at the school despite how traumatized the kids would be from having their lives saved.

Are you trying to say I use drugs while driving my child? If so you might back the fuck off asshole.