What’s with expecting whoever you think ‘us’ is to agree with me?
I don’t expect you to agree. I expect you to defend what you can based on facts and reason.
Such as those on your side, such as Absolute.
I had asked in the original post "Is it that these grieving parents are on the political stage **‘only’ **because Obama put them there - as ‘objects’? –Ntfldbw
The first response was this anwer to that question:
Yes. -Absolute #002 04-17-2013 11:12 PM 107p1112.
There is no way I expect Absolute to agree. Rather I am pointing out the weakness of the various arguments of those who agree with Senator Paul.
I just made the point that using people who agree with you as props is proper and it is nothing people like Senator Paul should be dissapointed about.
Will I get a reasonable and intelligent response or counter argument that using props is not ok?
Apparently not from you.
I got that you want to make a personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you as ‘easily offended’.
Why not make an argument for why your side is correct?
It is not incoherent but it is politispeak. Here’s my translation:
Mr. President,
My heart bleeds for these poor parents but I have constituents that feel strongly about the issue at hand. I was elected to represent them and that is what I will do. Using such tragically sympathetic figures as these grieving parents in an orchestrated effort to publicly embarass me (and others) is a cheap and cynical stunt.
That is a little better, but he could be stetching it a bit by claiming Kentuckians agree with him and not President Obama.
And since no legislation takes away the right to own firearms except from those who should not have them… There should be no issue on at least standing for a straight up or down vote were 51 US Senators could pass the law instead of needing sixty.
And I continue to challenge the notion that Obama ‘used’ anybody since even Rand Paul admits the family members came forward voluntarily.
Do you have any family members that you can cite that feel they were used by President?
I was going to ask if they chose to do those things with the President of the United States, does that make them bad people?
If so it supports my position that Senator Paul made a derogatory smack at the victim’s parents when he suggested that Obama ‘used’ them as props.
I would hope Human Action is taking note that many on the anti-regulation side do regard victim family’s activism as inappropriate because it is insincere. It is somehow sinister as Tollhouse’s next statement confirms.
And Tollhouse confirms it. These particular families who came forward, first in Connecticut to get needed regulations passed there, do not have minds of their own, they were simply bought to be used as props according to Tollhouse and I believe Rand Paul thinks that too.
Or at least Rand Paul is appealing to people like Tollhouse to think in these terms.
And I’d like to ask John Mace if you agree with Tollhouse’s assessment of these grieving families motives? I don’t expect to ever see Tollhouse agree with me and others who think like me.
…well that didnt take long…“these grieving families motives”
The fact that they are grieving seems to somehow be used ad infinitum, as if the fact they are in grief should wave off any legitimate questions.
And this and any sympathy eliciting facts are milked for all its worth in order to try to elicit a guilt response in anyone who dares asks a question.
The top sympathy props are continually whipped out when convenient…for example, on a show about a university professor who questioned some of the events of the shooting and how it was handled, the shows host made sure to tell the audience that the kids were “getting ready to make gingerbread houses for Christmas later that day”…although this had no bearing of thr discussion, it was of no more relevance than what color shirt the shooter wore, yet it was trotted out as a means of evoking as much sympathy as possible, to imply nobody should dare ask questions because look after all, those parents are sad, and their kids were going to make a gngerbread house.
Useful word, “constituents” because to the politician it does not necessarily mean “voters”.
The “It’s Not Fair” to need 60 votes argument is only necessary because they can’t get the 4 they need from their own side of the aisle. To insiders, I’m guessing that’s embarassing - but clearly those 4 have what they believe to be reasons to “stick to their guns”.
Finally, I don’t think “used” or “prop” are necessarily the pejoratives you do – he wasn’t calling the parents dupes - either witting or unwitting. I do think he was suggesting that their appearances were, on a political level, calculated to serve the purpose of orphans on late night infomercials. Not that there was anything false or fabricated about their grief or the sincerity of their testimony. I don’t think anyone questions the parents’ sincerity or their willingness to accept that position, either.
No, you are simply repeating the same tripe over and over again. You have demonstrated nothing except your dislike of Rand Paul and your unwillingness to correct yourself when it is point out, repeatedly, that you are misquoting him.
We should really have a reasoned debate about smoking, free from images of disease. The CDC should put ads on TV that present facts and statistics, maybe in Excel spreadsheets, so the human toll caused by smoking can be made in a way that avoids seeing the human toll caused by smoking.
I have cited at least two posters here on the Pro-Rand Paul side who do question the parents’ sincerity on the basis of them being ‘used’ as ‘props’ coming out of Rand Pauls mouth.
So "used as props’ is a perjorative to some here who might agree with you on the Gun Rights issue itself.
How does that happen if those words are not perjorative? It is not just me is the clue you should be examining.
What is wrong with using’ orphans’ to raise money for orphans if the money raised goes to the orphans being ‘used’ or as you put it ‘calculated’?
It’s not hard to spot the fundamental disagreement here. Based on this:
…and your constant references to: precious loved ones, grieving, slaughtered children, and lethal mass killing firearms, it’s clear that you’re fine with emotional appeals taking center stage on this issue, with the victor being the one who makes the best emotional appeal.
Please understand that there is another way to look at the political process, which is one of reasoned debate and fair compromise. In this view, a grieving parent can add little to the discussion. We are aware of gun deaths, after all, and Newtown in particular. I’m sure people who have been personally affected by this or that policy or tragedy have the strongest drive to speak about it, so this practice will no doubt continue.
Fotheringay-Phipps is right that this is common, basic political strategy, and BobLibDem is right that the Democratic Party holds no patent on emotional appeals. But, unless Rand Paul has personally engaged in similar human-prop tactics, he’s well within his rights to decry the practice.
Human action, dont forget about the gingerbread houses, when coupled in the same sentence with the descriptive grieving parents, it is almost like someone dreamed up what the most emotionally loaded picture could there be?
I am ambivalent about the legislation and I am no Rand Paul supporter. Nor do I think the use of orphans or aggrieved parents is categorically odious, though it is most certainly calculated.
My point is, and has been, that Paul’s statement was not an attack on the parents or their motives or their right to be there. Even if you or the Paul supporters here think it is, I don’t. It was Paul saying that he thought the use of “orphans” was cynical. (The last time Obama got called on this - even by some of his supporters - was surrounding himself with “first responders” for one of his sequester speeches.)
It’s not the Orphan’s fault if the money doesn’t end up where it should.
I remember quite a few people years ago being disgusted by the way President George W. Bush used the families of 911 victims in photo ops to push for bills and policies he supported(including at least one teenage girl he used in re-election ads) and who accused him of using them as “props”.
I’m surprised to find out that NFBW thinks we were all assholes insulting bereaving families.
By the time John Mace wrote Post #8 five posters had already figured out what the debate was about and commented on it.
So according to John Mace what Rand Paul said might not be politically wise. I agree with that.
{C} And then TriPolar wrote, if Rand Paul, “thought there was **something wrong with the victims **at Sandy Hook coming to see him he should have told them,” to which John Mace said:
Isn’t saying there is ‘something wrong’ like saying the Sandy Hook Parents coming to see Rand Paul to lobby their cause means their actions are 'inappropriate?. Look at the title of this thread. On April 18 at 10:01 AM John Mace appears to agree that Rand Paul is saying that the victim’s families coming to the Senate is inappropriate. It is written right here. John Mace wrote that Rand Paul told the parents of Sandy Hook victims did something wrong.
{D} Next Sitnam wrote, “If there is one thing grieving parents need it is to be told how to behave by politicians.” To which John Mace replied:
{E} I agree with John Mace that Rand Paul said Obama ‘used’ the victim’s families as props or mindless objects.
{F} And I agree with John Mace that Ron Paul is kind of kooky, but it is here where John Mace begins to turn the discussion into some kind of jousting about the personal mannerisms of his percieved discussion opponents. When he brings up ‘exploding heads’. See it here:
{G} As it is a fact that my head has not exploded, I continue to pursue the truth and the facts of the matter of discussion, leaving out the personal diversions as I make my point:
Note that I address undisputed fact that Rand Paul said Obama 'USED" the families of the gunned down school kids.
{H} I wrote “They would have to be mindless objects to be used as mindless objects” and John Mace replied by accusing me of playing word games without explaining why it is a word game or why he is arguing a point with which JM and I agree. It is the matter that the families were ‘used’ by Obama. I do not take exception to that, but here is the road JM chooses to debate:
With no facts or basis JM says my argument is not ‘reasoned’ but I assume he means that his is.
{I} Then I made this point, “I say we get closer to the truth being that this round of mass gun violence has caused the victims parents and others close to the dead and wounded to realize they have stood by silently when it happened to someone else, and now enough is enough.”
To which JM replied, again arguing against a point that I do not disagree with JM on. The parents are driven by the most base of human emotions, having lost a child to senseless carnage having sent their kids to school and they did not come back alive. Of course they are driven by emotion. But JM goes here:
{J} Here I left out the negative… “NOT” which I have inserted in parenthesis.
“They found that there is a President now in office who also believes enough is enough. In this case like minds have come together. Why don’t you explain why you think the president could [Not] be a prop for the parents?”
So JM responded:
Here it must be noted again that I have not argued against the fact that Rand Paul accused the President of using them as props. I am trying to make the point that the Rand Paul’s thinking on this matter is flawed because it is equally possible that the families are using the White House and all its trappings as the props. That is why I said this:
“That shows why Rand Paul is no where’s near being factual with his biased and unreasonable accusation.”
To which JM replied to something else that I do not disagree with:
{K} And then Truman Burbank added an interesting point to the discsussion, “I don’t see them as props, I see them as examples of the consequences of our choices, putting a face on what would otherwise be cold statistics.”
JM rolls into authoritarian mode as is often the case by stating what the definition of prop is without citing anything other than himself.
{L} But here again, JM asks a similar question that I have asked. I have also argued the same point that using props is not necessarily a bad thing; But Rand Paul is insisting that when the President does it, it “is” a bad thing. Rand Paul said he was ‘disappointed’ that props were being used.
But what to make of JM agreeing once again with me on this aspect:
{M} When I asked, “Why can’t the families have a vote on a bill? Why don’t they deserve it?” JM disparages the family’s position with a reply that signals that the families don’t deserve a vote because it is inappropriate just to make them feel good.
{N} JM slams several posters personally by calling them and me ‘bitchers’…sort of in line with the exploding heads comment earlier.
I responded with a fresh new first time point that:
To which JM does not address the point made about the Rand Paul side using 2nd Amendment highly emotional fired up constituents to back up their case. He simply declares without presentation of facts:
{P} By Post #100 JM has gone totally into personal attack:
{Q} And now at Post #108 John Mace brings us this:
{R} The record clearly shows that much of John Maces positions are in agreement with my ‘tripe’. But when the ability to stick with the discussion on a point by point or fact by fact or reason by reason basis, John Mace must go down the road of personal attack and complaints about ‘repeating same old ‘tripe’.
I know of no other way to counter such behavior on a forum such as this except to lay the record straight with actual words used in the course of this thread.
If you have read this far, you can see what has transpired based upon exactly what is written. –
Do you think Rand Paul (or like-minded people) have a concern with the NRA’s (past?) practice of printing anecdotes in its magazine about people who use firearms in self-defense to avoid attempted robberies, rapes, assaults, or murders?
How did you “find out” any such thing based upon anything I’ve written or asked on this thread?
I recall Bush’s approval rating shooting up over 40 points immediately following the 9/11 attacks. The first major response to those attacks was to send the Special Forces into Afghanistan to pursue al Qaeda and to topple the host government there. Over Ninety percent of Americans were supportive of that endeaver with or without props of victims’ survivers, I believe.
And If you could stay and defend your comparison to the 9/11/01 attacks for the debate we are having today; please do so.
Is there an NRA lobby organization that lobbies support for use of Airliners to be less or unchanged regulated just because some terrorists used them to kill several thousand people and destroy billions worth of property and loss of economic activity. Remember that commercial passenger aircraft was the weapon of choice by the terrorists for that attack.
I know of no political battle lines drawn where a major group of citizens stepped emotionally and dramatically forward to stop any measures Bush/Republicans proposed to regulate passenger use, airport restrictions, or Airline Industry ownership of commercial aircraft.
Ordering impassible doors between the cabin and the cockpit for instance. Did anyone besides the usual cranks possibly object to that?
So could you be more speciific if you wish to carry this line of argument further?