I am sure his views are hardly biased..... rrriiggght. :rolleyes:

Your previous post was very good. I am glad that you noted when the majority of the evilness in our political process started, in the Bush years. And here we are.

I do not condone violence, not even upon people I hate.
However, when certain people die of natural causes, "When that day comes I shall futterwacken... vigorously."

;)

No, she said she started to notice it as an across-the-ponder, during the Bush years, not that it started then.

I guess I was sort of agreeing with her because that is when I noticed it the most. It goes back over 100 years in our national politics. It just seems to really have peaked at that time in my life. To be honest most of us in the military don't pay that much attention to it when you are just taking your marching orders on a day to day basis. But if we look at the Vietnam era you could almost say it was actually much worse in the late 60's and early 70's.

I noticed it with Clinton.

I was too young to remember, but was there a lot of hate directed at Carter? I know he wasn't liked or respected.

Carter was, and still is, despised by the Republicans because the oil crisis happened on his watch.

Maybe there were also some hard feelings about Carter's boycott of the Moscow Olympics in response to the Russians invading Afghanistan.
(It's strange how what goes around, comes around !)

But I don't recall any "violence" attached to all that, probably because Carter provided the nation a much needed respite after the Nixon debacle.

I thought the oil crisis was in 1973 and Jimmy Carter wasn't president until 1977.

He probably meant the Iran Hostage Crisis.

Maybe he was talking about the Iranian Oil Lube Hostage Crisis, aka as the Crisco Crisis.

Sexabon, I do apologize for resurrecting a dead horse.:dedhorse:
But this came to my attention just a few minutes ago, and I think it is a remarkable coincidence.

It turns out that there actually was a man at the Tuscon shooting scene carrying a loaded gun.
The interview with him is remarkable because it appears he is very creditable, level headed, and honest.

I really regret the interview took place on MSNBC's Ed Show,
because Ed is an extremely liberal talking head, and often is over the edge.
(The remainder of his show is NOT my reason for this posting.)

But please watch at least the portion of the show starting around
the 1:15 minute mark and up through this man's very last remark
about who he was prepare to kill.

Fortunately he was in control of himself, and was stopped by some bystanders.

If he failed to shot the shooter, he failed.

Funny, the interview lead me to believe he was completely responsible and did exactly the right thing.

But then maybe you watched a different interview.

Vietnam brought about a great divide (my father and myself :blush:), but the violence at Chicago, and Kent State were more the exception than the rule. But after 9-11, the violent political rhetoric seemed to ramp up considerably, for me. Just before the 2000 election, I noticed the big money, and their lobbyists, who used to try to maintain a low profile, coming out of the shadows and asserting their muscle. I think this was encouraged by the Rove/Cheney duo.

Carter was despised by republicans because he used words, negotiations, and reason to resolve issues, instead of military force.

I think he was despised by Republicans because he was a Democrat.

;)

Its all about the economy stupid. Clinton was spot on. Carter did something that would hurt everyone in the short term, be necessary for the long term, and would cost him the office. He (and Volker) pushed interest rates to above 20%. We literally had to punish all Americans in 1978 so pay for what Nixon did in 1968 and 1970. Ford, at first, wanted to do it. But backed down - not enough backbone. Carter did it. It so hurt all Americans (and was absolutely necessary) that lesser event such as an energy crisis, a failed rescue attempt, decreasing quality in American products as engineers were no longer doing the designing, no jobs, etc were then also blamed on Carter.

Carter was just too damn nice and got chewed up and spit out by the less-than-nice. I think he's shown since what a wonderful diplomat he is: he just isn't evil enough to make it in Hollywood....er, um, I mean Washington.

Think about it, in your lifetime, is there a Democrat president that the Republicans didn't hate?

You can reverse the question too, but I don't think many Democrats hated Ford or Bush 1. Nixon was hated, Reagan was hated, Shrub was hated. But not Bush 1 and Ford.

Ummmm. In my lifetime, Eisenhower was loved by everyone.
(OK, there was some ambiguity about which party he, himself, favored)

Reagan was not hated. He and Democats routinely worked deals together.

She's so mean but I don't care
I love her eyes and her wild wild hair
dance to the beat that we love best
heading for the nineties
living in the wild wild west
the wild wild west

Lamp,

There are moral, ethical, and even liability concerns surrounding use of force and its escalation along the spectrum of force continuum up to and including the use of deadly force. Even within lawful parameters there's personal flexibility. I'll use deadly force to save my own life. I'll use deadly force to save the lives of those who would use it to save themselves regardless of whether or not they would use it to save me. I'll use it to save those who lack the legal capacity to make that decision for themselves (e.g. children, mentally impaired, and those who are incapacitated and unresponsive). When these variables are unknown, I choose to err on the side of saving their lives as my personal experience is that people generally want to live rather than die. I'll take my chances that they won't change their minds afterwards to be PC, make money; or, gain fame. Others who are capable of intervention may not choose this course of action and that's just fine with me. To each his own, live and let live or live and let die, no one lives forever.

That said, I won't knowingly intervene to save those who are their own responsible party and wouldn't use deadly force to save themselves. I won't intervene to save those capable of saving themselves, even if they would want me save them, if they refuse to first possess an available means with which to save themselves. I won't intervene on behalf of someone who's not their own responsible party if the person legally responsible for them tells me not to.

The rationale for my decisions is too complex to regurgitate here; however, I will say that my personal code of conduct for the use of deadly force is very similar to what I would do under Good Samaritan laws to save life through medical intervention since I'm skilled in trauma management. Also beyond the scope of this post is how the intrinsic capabilities (e.g. physical, mental, and skill sets) of specific individuals factor into a use of force intervention decision. They are more situation oriented.

Can you give me an example of this scenario? A hypothetical situation?

I'm imagining all sorts of things, like you standing on a dock when someone who never bothered to learn to swim falls in, and they are in need of rescuing but you let them drown. Rather than let my imagination run wild, can you give an example of this? I know we're talking about guns. Is it that you wouldn't save an unarmed person because they should have been armed?

Sexobon saves.

I'd rather let your imagination run wild. Please post more of your imaginings here for evaluation.

Sure. I'll get right on it.

I have heard it said that Jimmy Carter is the only person to have used the office of President of the United States as a stepping stone to greatness.

So did Billy. :haha:

I've read and heard that he was considered a naif in Washington.
He was supposed to be a new broom but not enough people owed him favours to allow him to govern effectively.
To be powerful in politics you need to have greased the wheels for a while, so you can broker cross-party support.
Politics is compromise, not individual ethics or true representation.
He was hated in the UK. But then so was our elected leader, Thatcher.
When deals are done, you'll usually find both participants are considered to be in bed with the devil.

He certainly has been a better "Former President Carter" than he was a "President Carter"

It's my conviction that we would be having fewer issues with North Korea, specifically,
had one or more of his successors used Carter's good offices instead of trying to isolate him.

Carter did many things useful. But does not get credit for it. Including deregulation of trucking and airlines. Forced completion of many highway projects stalled by nonsense and left wing extremists. Moved towards a more balanced budget when the economy made that virtually impossible. Addressed the reality of an energy shortage.

But his greatest triumph was never understood at the time. Interest rates went to 20+%. He knew that could adversely affect his reelection when he did it. Carter was not playing the political game. Instead, he was 100% about working for America. That means harming every American to finally fix the economy. So that the resulting upturn could start years later - at the start of Reagan's third year.

Never for one minute deny what makes more jobs. Less money to the rich. More money to the common man. Balanced budgets. Avoiding wars. And making the spread sheets honest. Any president that does these things will be hated while president. And gets credit for these accomplishments when apparent - after that president has retired.

George Sr said no new taxes. Then realized that to create jobs, he had to raise taxes - to balance the budget. He (and Clinton) were hated for doing what was necessary to create jobs. And so the question - do you understand what George Sr did to make America great? Do you realize that Carter sacrificed his popularity and relection to make America great? Most don't.

It did amaze me how Republicans turned on George Sr after his
"Read my lips" campaign followed by his ultimate decision to raise taxes.
From what I knew (or thought I knew) at the time, I thought he was doing the right thing.
And then the GOP became Devil-Mom eating her offspring.

:lol2: Hey, from his presidency he could only go up.

At the time, I thought he was doing the wrong thing. I thought he should have been cutting spending - including getting rid of many of those 600 Navy ships faster.

Well either you raise taxes or cut spending. George Sr proved that either can work. But the most irresponsible act any government can do is to maintain or increase spending while enriching the rich with tax cuts. That guarantees less jobs - and so many other economic destructions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,7041106.story

The paranoid schizophrenic makes a video 3 months ago. Enjoy his descent into a complete retreat from reality. It's actually fascinating, in a weird way.

For bonus points, assign his ramblings to the American left or right. To make it easier for you, here are his talking points:

- The Afghanistan war is illegal under the Constitution... due to US currency.
- A student says hi and he rambles that he "lost his freedom of speech to that guy." (ETA: possibly his teacher who gave him a B)
- Pima Community College gave him a B for Freedom of Speech.
- Pima Community College will make him homeless.
- Pima Community College students are illiterate.
- Pima Community College is selling books that are illegal under the Constitution.
- We are censored by our freedom of speech because government controls the grammar.
- Police action at Pima is full of illegal activity.
- Pima Community College teachers are paid illegally, by illegal authority under the first amendment, which constitutes genocide.

So retreating behind a notion that he was just having a bad hair day was never an option.

Which takes use back to posts early in this thread. How did nobody notice? Why did (or could) nobody do anything? The Pima County Sherriff noted how we dump the mentally ill onto the streets. Is this an example? Or was he able to keep his condition unknown to others?

Oooooh look everybody!

Ted Kaczynsk speaks!

Where you sending your next bomb? I heard you wanted to take out Pelosi?

I think I should call the SS.

From disjointed facts, apparently the Pima CC had seen this tape three years ago. They required Loughner to obtain psychiatric help before he would be permitted back. He was known to police five times for disturbing classes including math and biology.

The powers that be did know. So the question is what could they have done? A question we also should have been asking after Ford, Lennon, and Reagan were shot. And we (as a nation) did not.

Three months ago... he made the tape Sept. 23.

Now if I can only remember which news source provided that erroneous fact so as to avoid them. Three months makes more sense.

Nice.... Who are they going to blame for this one?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41094534...me_and_courts/

From that cited LA Times article of 14 Jan 2010:
Apparently that is all they can do. What power and responsibility does a father have?

Maybe someone did notice, but they were afraid that if they said anything, he'd shoot them. In hindsight, they may have been right.

Oh good, it's working.:p:

They touched on that on 60 Minutes last night: the school did all they were able to do (and only after he posted a video he made of him walking around campus ranting and raving...his class disruptions and disjointed contributions in class were not enough for action)...which isn't much. A co-worker often reminds us our middle name is Community, but sometimes it seems we're sitting ducks in a community that draws all sorts of people, and is about diversity and freedom, is idealistic and trusting by choice if not by nature.

Exactly. He's not criminally insane. He's social norm-challenged.

He was suspended from school by a task force of four policemen who told both him and his father that he required treatment. They did not phone. Four cops personally delivered the message.

As I understand it, schizophrenics typically are not threats. IOW I am answering my own question for lack of a better response, without sufficient facts, and to only prime the pump for hard facts. This would be the exception. Therefore no one had expectations of a threat.

I do believe this nation may eventually define mental illness with the seriousness that was applied to drunk driving and healthy eating. For example, four cops delivered the message. At what point should family take responsibility? A question that a public really should have answers for. Currently, most everyone cannot answer that question, in part, probably because we don't have answers even at the highest levels of government.

Aaaand this is what it's come to: CNN apologizes after a guest use the word "crosshairs".

CNN has come a long way from the days of "Crossfire"
Too bad.

PC gone wild. First they all need to note that none of the discussions or statements by talk radio, or anything any person in the political spotlight, or by any of the extremes on the political right or left were a cause of of this violent or in anyway contributed to it. Then we can get back a sense of sanity. It is funny to see them react this way when all the evidence is to the contradicition.

They need to work harder, like Bill O's producer accosting poor dumb old Snooki to find out her opinion on Obamacare.




What a bunch of morons.

:lol2:

Another wacko joins the list...


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...#ixzz1BS9WkLbX

So this Fuller guy ... does he have a gun? Just wondering.

After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, we (Australia) made it a law that crazy people aren't allowed to have guns. I haven't checked really closely, but I can't recall a crazy-person-with-gun incident since. Sure, they can get knives and stuff and still be dangerous, but they're much less dangerous.
Not sure if it would work in the USA, though.

Zen let's look at that idea with a cellar example. We can all agree that UG is insane, now who is going to disarm the bastard?

:D

In this country the problem is to define crazy... Bipolar? History of Depression? PTSD? Any thing at all, or should it be defined?