Republicans think "PORN" is more dangerous than "GUNS".

[Wry Catcher]

I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.

First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?

This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.

5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.

My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?

I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.

Really? In the 21st. Century, which party supported:

• Civil Rights
• Gay & Lesbian Rights to marry & serve in the military
• The Equal Rights Amendment for Women
• The Lily Ledbetter Act
• The voting rights act
• Environmental protections
• Children's health Insurance Program
• Health care reform

And which party has opposed them?

Is it your contention that all of the people were in favor of each of those things?

Of course not. It was the policy of the Democratic Party, and I supported each of these bullet points. The GOP opposed all of them, but not all R's or D's agreed with each one. I did.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.

First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?

This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.

5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.

My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?

I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.

Really? In the 21st. Century, which party supported:

• Civil Rights
• Gay & Lesbian Rights to marry & serve in the military
• The Equal Rights Amendment for Women
• The Lily Ledbetter Act
• The voting rights act
• Environmental protections
• Children's health Insurance Program
• Health care reform

And which party has opposed them?

Exactly. In the TWENTIETH century the gop gave the needed votes for public accomodations in civil rights. They supported Schips. Until the tea party was organized by the wealthy who don't want to pay taxes, some supported HC reform. They supported clean air and water acts. But now they must march in lockstep or be primaried

Nixon signed environmental protections, opened doors with China, and did a number of things for which he would be characterized as liberal by today's Republican Leadership.

 

[Kosh]

I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.

First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?

This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.

5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.

My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?

I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.

Really? In the 21st. Century, which party supported:

• Civil Rights
• Gay & Lesbian Rights to marry & serve in the military
• The Equal Rights Amendment for Women
• The Lily Ledbetter Act
• The voting rights act
• Environmental protections
• Children's health Insurance Program
• Health care reform

And which party has opposed them?

Exactly. In the TWENTIETH century the gop gave the needed votes for public accomodations in civil rights. They supported Schips. Until the tea party was organized by the wealthy who don't want to pay taxes, some supported HC reform. They supported clean air and water acts. But now they must march in lockstep or be primaried

Nixon signed environmental protections, opened doors with China, and did a number of things for which he would be characterized as liberal by today's Republican Leadership.

And yet you far left drones still reject what real "liberals" stand for. But it is ok, we have watched you far left drones support much worse than Nixon. Like Obama and Hilary!

Even JFK would not fit into the (D) party of the today..

But the irony impairment of you far left drones is legendary!

 

[Tilly]

Well deanrd
The left believes in regulating "sugary drinks" but not marijuana and other drugs deemed less addictive than sugar! The left argues the choice of reparative therapy should be banned as more dangerous than the choice of abortion. That Christian prayer and expression is imposing on people in schools, but not LGBT policies that are also faith based and a personal choice.

The left passed laws banning and punishing the free choice of how to pay for health care, requiring insurance as the only choice, but refuses govt regulations on the choice of abortion.

As for porn, the cure for the addictions related to porn, to drugs, and for mental and criminal illness is found in spiritual healing.
which can be proven medically to effectively diagnose and cure the causes of both mental and physical ills.

So why isn't the left demanding research into cures for cancer, for criminal addictions, and other mental illness as provided by spiritual healing? This would make medical and mental care affordable and accessible to the public by reducing the cost of diseases and crime that taxpayers are wasting billions on through failed prisons and mental health systems that don't cure anyone.

If the left wants health care for all, the solution is to invest in free programs through medical R&D studies and outreach in spiritual healing.

That solution would also work for problems with guns, porn, sexual and drug abuse/addictions, and causes of all kinds of illness, crime and abusive disorders and conditions.

Sources: www.christianhealingmin.org
www.healingisyours.com
Books and studies on spiritual healing by
Dr. Francis MacNutt, Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Dr. Scott Peck

Being gay a choice? You could choose that? So did you? If not, do you still dream about it?

Yeah, it is a choice. Nowhere else do we see this abominable abhorrent behavior.

You mean besides everywhere in nature?

Been reading Pink News again?

 

[bendog]

5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.

My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?

I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.

Really? In the 21st. Century, which party supported:

• Civil Rights
• Gay & Lesbian Rights to marry & serve in the military
• The Equal Rights Amendment for Women
• The Lily Ledbetter Act
• The voting rights act
• Environmental protections
• Children's health Insurance Program
• Health care reform

And which party has opposed them?

Exactly. In the TWENTIETH century the gop gave the needed votes for public accomodations in civil rights. They supported Schips. Until the tea party was organized by the wealthy who don't want to pay taxes, some supported HC reform. They supported clean air and water acts. But now they must march in lockstep or be primaried

Nixon signed environmental protections, opened doors with China, and did a number of things for which he would be characterized as liberal by today's Republican Leadership.

And yet you far left drones still reject what real "liberals" stand for. But it is ok, we have watched you far left drones support much worse than Nixon. Like Obama and Hilary!

Even JFK would not fit into the (D) party of the today..

But the irony impairment of you far left drones is legendary!

Well he sure as hell wouldn't be a republican with his n. 1 priority of enriching the 1%.

 

[deanrd]

I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.

First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?

This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.

5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.

My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?

I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.

Really? In the 21st. Century, which party supported:

• Civil Rights
• Gay & Lesbian Rights to marry & serve in the military
• The Equal Rights Amendment for Women
• The Lily Ledbetter Act
• The voting rights act
• Environmental protections
• Children's health Insurance Program
• Health care reform

And which party has opposed them?

The NRA now speaks for the Republican Party.

Wayne LaPeirre called Obama "Demographically symbolic", before that, Dana Loesch said we aren't white nationalists but we believe in Anglo Saxon values.

They insulted the former president, blacks, the country and those Americans not white nationalists.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Florida Republicans Believe Porn Is More Dangerous Than Guns

The state's House of Representatives approved the resolution by a voice vote on Tuesday. The resolution states a need for education, research and policy changes to protect Floridians, especially teenagers, from pornography.

Republican Rep. Ross Spano says there is research that finds a connection between pornography use and mental and physical illnesses, forming and maintaining intimate relationships and deviant sexual behavior. Spano is also a candidate for attorney general.

The most twisted part of this is the demands by Florida Republicans to research the public health impact of porn, while the CDC is implicitly banned from doing research on gun violence. The 1996 Dickey Amendment specifically blocks the CDC from using its budget to "advocate or promote gun control," and since objective, peer-reviewed, scientific studies consistently show effective gun control would reduce gun violence, there's no research the CDC can do that won't sacrifice its funding.

-------------------------------------------------------

Yea, that's right. Republicans want to study the damage caused by porn but not the damage caused by guns.

And yet, they follow a guy who not only dates porn stars, they want him to be a role model for their children.

What is with these people?

Derp....

 

[Montrovant]

I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.

First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?

This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.

5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.

My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?

I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.

Really? In the 21st. Century, which party supported:

• Civil Rights
• Gay & Lesbian Rights to marry & serve in the military
• The Equal Rights Amendment for Women
• The Lily Ledbetter Act
• The voting rights act
• Environmental protections
• Children's health Insurance Program
• Health care reform

And which party has opposed them?

Is it your contention that all of the people were in favor of each of those things?

Of course not. It was the policy of the Democratic Party, and I supported each of these bullet points. The GOP opposed all of them, but not all R's or D's agreed with each one. I did.

Then why list those things in response to my post in which I said I don't consider any national politicians in touch with the people? What you do or do not support isn't really relevant to my post.

For that matter, some of those subjects are really too vague to have much meaning.

If one party were in touch with the people while another was not, you would expect the in touch party to win the vast majority of elections. That isn't the reality.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I saw this on CNN.com. It was as ridiculous there as it is in GQ.

First, there is no connection between the two things. A legislature can vote on one bill unconnected to another bill.
Second, the "assault weapon" debate sounds as if it was going to be about banning all semi-automatic weapons.
Third, disagreeing with a weapons ban does not mean one considers gun violence unimportant. It means one does not consider a gun ban to be a good idea.
Fourth, the strange comparison between the actions of the Florida legislature and the federal government makes no sense. Did Florida prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence? What is the connection between Florida wanting to do research on the public health impact of porn and a federal agency not being allowed to research gun violence?

This is trying to score points rather than make a substantive argument.

5th and more importantly, Republican Pols are out of touch with We the People, they fear any vote to control guns will jeopardize the donations (aka bribes) they receive from the NRA. They count on the social conservative vote.

My question is, do most social conservatives fear porn or guns are the greatest danger to their children and grandchildren?

I don't consider any national politicians particularly in touch with the people, regardless of party.

Really? In the 21st. Century, which party supported:

• Civil Rights
• Gay & Lesbian Rights to marry & serve in the military
• The Equal Rights Amendment for Women
• The Lily Ledbetter Act
• The voting rights act
• Environmental protections
• Children's health Insurance Program
• Health care reform

And which party has opposed them?

The NRA now speaks for the Republican Party.

Wayne LaPeirre called Obama "Demographically symbolic", before that, Dana Loesch said we aren't white nationalists but we believe in Anglo Saxon values.

They insulted the former president, blacks, the country and those Americans not white nationalists.

In a word, he was DIVISIVE!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes, O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america.

Thanks once again for sharing, your opinions are always entertaining as well as telling.

Q. Do you wear your flour sack hat and white robe when posting

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes, O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america.

Thanks once again for sharing, your opinions are always entertaining as well as telling.

Q. Do you wear your flour sack hat and white robe when posting

Well, you're welcome. Now, why don't you spew out some more venomous partisan rants for all of us to enjoy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america.

Thanks once again for sharing, your opinions are always entertaining as well as telling.

Q. Do you wear your flour sack hat and white robe when posting

Well, you're welcome. Now, why don't you spew out some more venomous partisan rants for all of us to enjoy.

"rants"? Oh, I get it, this,, "O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america" wasn't a rant, in your opinion. Got it, thanks so much for the edification, I don't know how I ever thought it was a racist post by an ignorant bigot.

Mea culpa.

[sarcasm alert]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes, O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america.

Thanks once again for sharing, your opinions are always entertaining as well as telling.

Q. Do you wear your flour sack hat and white robe when posting

Well, you're welcome. Now, why don't you spew out some more venomous partisan rants for all of us to enjoy.

"rants"? Oh, I get it, this,, "O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america" wasn't a rant, in your opinion. Got it, thanks so much for the edification, I don't know how I ever thought it was a racist post by an ignorant bigot.

Mea culpa.

[sarcasm alert]

It wasn't a rant. That was all truth. But again, thanks for your heartfelt concern. It just warms up the forum.

 

[Seawytch]

Repeating dumb questions that were already answered isn't arguing, it's dementia.

Wishing that gays were relegated to the fringe is a nice fantasy for you...how's the reality working out for ya?

Be glad the gays are there to adopt all the kids y'all straight folks don't want. Look at that, an evolutionary reason for gays...

1 percent....yes, that's the fringe.

Does that also help your personal fantasy to lie to yourself about how many gays there are? What ever gets you through the day, cupcake.

Even if gays did only compromise 1% of the population (and that's ludicrous), that is also the percentage of people who volunteer to serve in the military. Guess they are "fringe" too?

Sorry, SW. Its nothing emotional or fantasy. LGBTQ is less than 4 percent total of the population. That's fringe. Suppose this number moved to 60 percent. How would the species continue to propagate besides surrogates? We know that it takes a male and a female to produce an offspring.

So you've counted them? Such talents you have there, Rainman

The actual estimates are 4-10%. There has always been a percentage of the population that is gay and we are not having any low population crisis anywhere.

Suppose aliens flew down and shot us all with S&M rays but didn't tell us the safe word? Your supposition is no less ridiculous.

Well, that hasn't happened yet but as you said, there has always been a small percentage that was gay so I was just going with a theory of something that is known. Do you think aliens have an LGBTQ community?

Right, it is known that a percentage of the population has always been gay. 60% of the population is never going to be gay just as aliens aren’t going to shoot you with an S&M gun.

Obviously gays are not antithetical to the continuation of a species. Humans are the perfect example of that fact.

 

[bendog]

Yes, O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america.

Thanks once again for sharing, your opinions are always entertaining as well as telling.

Q. Do you wear your flour sack hat and white robe when posting

Well, you're welcome. Now, why don't you spew out some more venomous partisan rants for all of us to enjoy.

"rants"? Oh, I get it, this,, "O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america" wasn't a rant, in your opinion. Got it, thanks so much for the edification, I don't know how I ever thought it was a racist post by an ignorant bigot.

Mea culpa.

[sarcasm alert]

It wasn't a rant. That was all truth. But again, thanks for your heartfelt concern. It just warms up the forum.

I hope this helps you

Definition of RANT

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes, O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america.

Thanks once again for sharing, your opinions are always entertaining as well as telling.

Q. Do you wear your flour sack hat and white robe when posting

Well, you're welcome. Now, why don't you spew out some more venomous partisan rants for all of us to enjoy.

"rants"? Oh, I get it, this,, "O was divisive, bigoted, racist, prejudiced and hated america" wasn't a rant, in your opinion. Got it, thanks so much for the edification, I don't know how I ever thought it was a racist post by an ignorant bigot.

Mea culpa.

[sarcasm alert]

It wasn't a rant. That was all truth. But again, thanks for your heartfelt concern. It just warms up the forum.

I hope this helps you

Definition of RANT

Thanks bendog. I'll direct that to WC.

 

[Montrovant]

1 percent....yes, that's the fringe.

Does that also help your personal fantasy to lie to yourself about how many gays there are? What ever gets you through the day, cupcake.

Even if gays did only compromise 1% of the population (and that's ludicrous), that is also the percentage of people who volunteer to serve in the military. Guess they are "fringe" too?

Sorry, SW. Its nothing emotional or fantasy. LGBTQ is less than 4 percent total of the population. That's fringe. Suppose this number moved to 60 percent. How would the species continue to propagate besides surrogates? We know that it takes a male and a female to produce an offspring.

So you've counted them? Such talents you have there, Rainman

The actual estimates are 4-10%. There has always been a percentage of the population that is gay and we are not having any low population crisis anywhere.

Suppose aliens flew down and shot us all with S&M rays but didn't tell us the safe word? Your supposition is no less ridiculous.

Well, that hasn't happened yet but as you said, there has always been a small percentage that was gay so I was just going with a theory of something that is known. Do you think aliens have an LGBTQ community?

Right, it is known that a percentage of the population has always been gay. 60% of the population is never going to be gay just as aliens aren’t going to shoot you with an S&M gun.

Obviously gays are not antithetical to the continuation of a species. Humans are the perfect example of that fact.

To be fair, I don't know how good an example humans are of sexual behaviors. Most animals don't seem to have relationships the way humans do, or treat sex the way humans do. Our intellect changes the way sex works for our species.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Does that also help your personal fantasy to lie to yourself about how many gays there are? What ever gets you through the day, cupcake.

Even if gays did only compromise 1% of the population (and that's ludicrous), that is also the percentage of people who volunteer to serve in the military. Guess they are "fringe" too?

Sorry, SW. Its nothing emotional or fantasy. LGBTQ is less than 4 percent total of the population. That's fringe. Suppose this number moved to 60 percent. How would the species continue to propagate besides surrogates? We know that it takes a male and a female to produce an offspring.

So you've counted them? Such talents you have there, Rainman

The actual estimates are 4-10%. There has always been a percentage of the population that is gay and we are not having any low population crisis anywhere.

Suppose aliens flew down and shot us all with S&M rays but didn't tell us the safe word? Your supposition is no less ridiculous.

Well, that hasn't happened yet but as you said, there has always been a small percentage that was gay so I was just going with a theory of something that is known. Do you think aliens have an LGBTQ community?

Right, it is known that a percentage of the population has always been gay. 60% of the population is never going to be gay just as aliens aren’t going to shoot you with an S&M gun.

Obviously gays are not antithetical to the continuation of a species. Humans are the perfect example of that fact.

To be fair, I don't know how good an example humans are of sexual behaviors. Most animals don't seem to have relationships the way humans do, or treat sex the way humans do. Our intellect changes the way sex works for our species.

Some animal species mate for life, some humans do too. Some humans engage in sexual relationships with same sex partners, some animals do too. Some animals are hermaphrodites, so are some humans.

 

[Montrovant]

Sorry, SW. Its nothing emotional or fantasy. LGBTQ is less than 4 percent total of the population. That's fringe. Suppose this number moved to 60 percent. How would the species continue to propagate besides surrogates? We know that it takes a male and a female to produce an offspring.

So you've counted them? Such talents you have there, Rainman

The actual estimates are 4-10%. There has always been a percentage of the population that is gay and we are not having any low population crisis anywhere.

Suppose aliens flew down and shot us all with S&M rays but didn't tell us the safe word? Your supposition is no less ridiculous.

Well, that hasn't happened yet but as you said, there has always been a small percentage that was gay so I was just going with a theory of something that is known. Do you think aliens have an LGBTQ community?

Right, it is known that a percentage of the population has always been gay. 60% of the population is never going to be gay just as aliens aren’t going to shoot you with an S&M gun.

Obviously gays are not antithetical to the continuation of a species. Humans are the perfect example of that fact.

To be fair, I don't know how good an example humans are of sexual behaviors. Most animals don't seem to have relationships the way humans do, or treat sex the way humans do. Our intellect changes the way sex works for our species.

Some animal species mate for life, some humans do too. Some humans engage in sexual relationships with same sex partners, some animals do too. Some animals are hermaphrodites, so are some humans.

Those things are certainly true, but human relationships are not the same as most, or any, other animal relationships. It's just a byproduct of our intelligence. I am in no way trying to disparage or trivialize same sex relationships, I just don't know how accurate it is to directly compare a homosexual human couple to animals having homosexual sex.