Wild West Politics?
This is terrible news.
"Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, 40, has been shot at a public event on Saturday in her home state. There are conflicting U.S. media reports about whether the congresswoman and several others who were rushed to the hospital following the shooting spree in Pima County, Arizona, survived. Authorities are reporting the suspected gunman was taken into custody.
FBI agents were rushed to the shooting scene near a Safeway grocery store in northwest Tucson where Democratic Congresswoman Giffords was hosting a public event to speak with her constituents.
Witnesses say a gunman ran up and fired off 15 to 20 shots. They say the young man shot the congresswoman in the head, before trying to run off.
But witnesses say he was tackled by a bystander, and taken into custody.
President Barack Obama released a statement at the White House saying the shooting was a senseless and terrible act of violence that has no place in a free society.
Right before the shooting, the congresswoman for Arizona’s 8th congressional district had used the micro-blogging site Twitter to write that her first so-called “Congress on Your Corner” event was starting. She asked people to let her know what was on their mind.
Giffords was re-elected to her third term in November. Her office was among the politicians whose offices were targeted with vandalism and threats during the health care debate in 2009. "
This saddens me. I don't know what else to say. This country is nuts.
Why doesn't anyone shoot insurance executives?
Hope you guys don't mind that I used my moderator secret powers to merge your two threads ... they are in order of posting.
This is a thoroughly fucked up situation. I can't say anything else about it.
Initial reports were that she was dead, as of 1600 hours foxnews.com is saying critical condition and in surgery.
No info is being released about the suspect as yet.
Why doesn't anyone shoot insurance executives?
Because for now there is unemployment benefits, welfare and medicaid. But keep whittling away at those and who knows how the poor unwashed masses will respond.
Namecalling isn't particularly productive.
It's about 4 hrs after the event and the hospital reports are
that Rep. Giffords is out of surgery and is still alive.
Of course the talking heads are putting a political spin on this,
but since it's an "on-going investigation" the LE people
are less than satisfying in what they are willing to say.
So, maybe it's immigration politics, or an premeditated attack on a federal judge,
or maybe it's a simple robbery gone wrong. I don't know.
Whatever the motivations, the political gurus are already making the most of it to their own ends.
thanks for the merge, wolf.
Her 75 year old father was asked what, if any, enemies she had and he said, "the entire tea party,"
I wonder how Sarah Palin feels about her line, "Don't retreat, RE-LOAD!" now?
Even though she wasn't the Tea Party's Candidate, Ms. Gifford was pro-gun and supported the Arizona immigration laws.
If the attribution on this video is correct, the boy was crazy.
[YOUTUBE]nHoaZaLbqB4[/YOUTUBE]
more....
A lone gunman, described by witnesses as being a white man in his late teens or early twenties, fired into a crowd gathered for a "Congress in your Corner" event outside a supermarket.
Her father Spencer Giffords, 75, wept when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.
"Yeah," he told The New York Post. "The whole tea party."
Miss Giffords had been named in March as a political campaign target for conservatives in November’s elections by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin for her strong support for the health reforms of President Barack Obama.
Thanks for changing that Bri I think Elvira would have been offended ;)
yeah, I likes me some Elvira. :)
Giffords may have been targeted by conservatives... but this particular shooter was against "mind control," and had invented a new currency for the US. He was a nutjob.
I am disappointed that this was moved from the politics forum. If there was ever a topic that needed to be seen in there this is it. :neutral:
I only merged, I didn't adjust the forum.
it's 50/50 Politics vs. Current Events.
Wasn't it merged into the thread with the first post?
I made the first post and it was in the Politics forum where this IMO belonged. I erased my comments because they are not really about CURRENT EVENTS
Yep. Nirvana's post was earlier than Brianna's.
In retrospect, although this is about a political figure, it really is a Current Event, IMO.
The Arizona congresswoman shot today outside a Tucson Safeway, was featured on Sarah Palin's infamous 'crosshairs' map, which targeted legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill. Remember? The map that was criticized as an incitement to violence?
NOW can we muzzle and hog-tie SP?
NOW can we muzzle and hog-tie SP?
I dunno can we talk about politics in the current events? ;)
Nivana, I dont see why you cant have it put back in politics, if you want it there.
I knew this would involve political discussion that is why I put it there in politics. I had hoped for civil discussion since people died but it matters not I already erased my posts because they were not pertinent to a current events thread.
I am mad as hell that some people put no value on human life and make political websites or FB pages wishing people dead on both sides of the political spectrum. These people are no better than the extremists that crashed into the twin towers. They are homegrown terrorists. SP included.
Her opponent did something similar this June.
From the Arizona Star...
Jesse Kelly, meanwhile, doesn't seem to be bothered in the least by the Sarah Palin controversy earlier this year, when she released a list of targeted races in crosshairs, urging followers to "reload" and "aim" for Democrats. Critics said she was inciting violence.
He seems to be embracing his fellow tea partier's idea. Kelly's campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."
The Arizona congresswoman shot today outside a Tucson Safeway, was featured on Sarah Palin's infamous 'crosshairs' map, which targeted legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill. Remember? The map that was criticized as an incitement to violence?
NOW can we muzzle and hog-tie SP?
Is the implication here that Palin intended this as an outcome? Are you suggesting that, absent the crosshair map, the shooter would have decided to write a sternly-worded letter to the editor instead?
Please, spell this out for me. How is there ANY moral responsibility on Sarah Palin for this incident? Vaguely gesturing at a map with crosshairs won't do, explain it to me like I'm an idiot.
Because, if you can't, then you're endorsing the worst kind of idiotic brainless hysteria.
I don't think you can make a plea for reasonableness here Smooth. This rocket will go to the moon. And it wont matter that there is little connection between the killer and the campaign strategy used... their choices were that irresponsible. Both SP and Jesse Kelly have just scrubbed this stuff from their websites.
I made the first post and it was in the Politics forum where this IMO belonged. I erased my comments because they are not really about CURRENT EVENTS
Whoa, weren't the comments related to the subject of this thread? If so, there's no reason to erase them. It doesn't make any difference what forum it's in, it could be in Home Base for that matter, comments relate to the subject, not the forum.
Is the implication here that Palin intended this as an outcome? Are you suggesting that, absent the crosshair map, the shooter would have decided to write a sternly-worded letter to the editor instead?
Please, spell this out for me. How is there ANY moral responsibility on Sarah Palin for this incident? Vaguely gesturing at a map with crosshairs won't do, explain it to me like I'm an idiot.
Because, if you can't, then you're endorsing the worst kind of idiotic brainless hysteria.
Her intention was to make political hay, for sure. I doubt this was her intended outcome, and if it was, it couldn't be proven.
We're walking a fine line here, with freedom of speech, political or not, and ridiculous calls for revolution that only nutballs would act on. Unfortunately there are nutballs out there, and calls to "take back our country",(to 1850), have consequences. It's neither responsible nor productive, it rhetoric and counter productive.
Is the implication here that Palin intended this as an outcome? Are you suggesting that, absent the crosshair map, the shooter would have decided to write a sternly-worded letter to the editor instead?
Please, spell this out for me. How is there ANY moral responsibility on Sarah Palin for this incident? Vaguely gesturing at a map with crosshairs won't do, explain it to me like I'm an idiot.
Because, if you can't, then you're endorsing the worst kind of idiotic brainless hysteria.
SM, of course there is no direct, explicit connection between SP and anything else,
including whatever motivations
might be associated with this shooting event.
At this point we still have not heard anything from the authorities about his motivations.
Personally, I'm not yet willing to guess what motivated this fellow.
But there is something to be said for the responsibilities of leadership,
both right/left, liberal/conservative,... or whatever,
to NOT bring the bugs out of the woodwork.
Over the past 2 years, SP has managed to do this.
Did she intend there to eventually be a shooting ? Almost certainly not.
Did she intend to stir up crowds ? Of course.
But could some event like this one or another be expected ? Some people do think so.
It's ironic that you and I just tonight posted about an important song
devoted to what happened when some leaders pushed out too far.
But this shooting does show that
words do matter.
Everyone wants a reason or someone to blame, and it was predictable that SP
would be discussed based on her leadership style in campaigning words and ads.
Of course we do not know SP's motivations or whether she, herself,
feels any moral responsibility derived from her earlier campaigns.
This is absurd in the extreme. Should we blame J.D. Salinger for what a handful of nut-jobs did after reading his work?
The rhetoric of politics as war is at least as old as Pericles, and it has been used by every party, in every election, in every country in the world. This time, there happened to be a graphic.
Should politics be more civil? Maybe, although it never has been. But that's not what this discussion is about. That is a red herring. This is about one radical violent person who did something abhorrent, and to make political hay out of it is sickening.
The fact that you aren't seeing it and actually fighting it so hard is pretty sickening, SM. In fact its really scary. AND you are actually poo-pooing violent right-wing rhetoric as simply par for the course. I think it got really out hand these last two elections.
It's kind of early to determine if the shooter's motives were political or not.
But that doesn't keep me from thinking Palin's rhetoric is wrong.
One thing I do know, Lamplighters saying it could have been a simple robbery gone wrong, is the best laugh I've had in a week.
I was thinking about what a left wing proxy for the map would be. It is imperfect but the omnipresent Che t-shirt carries the same implied message of violence if things don't go "our" way. I haven't seen leadership wear the things though. I don't think we should limit speech and one positive of that is the Democrats can now beat the Republicans over the head with their own stupid graphic. It remains to be seen if the Dems will "wave the bloody shirt" or try to ease the tension.
...explain it to me like I'm an idiot.
You're welcome.
Sarah Palin is a brunette Ann Coulter.
does that help?
I was thinking about what a left wing proxy for the map would be.
It will turn out the lad is paranoid schizophrenic.
Both SP and Jesse Kelly have just scrubbed this stuff from their websites.
And daily Kos removed this:
It will turn out the lad is paranoid schizophrenic.
The fact that you aren't seeing it and actually fighting it so hard is pretty sickening, SM. In fact its really scary. AND you are actually poo-pooing violent right-wing rhetoric as simply par for the course. I think it got really out hand these last two elections.
That is a ridiculous notion. As Griff rightly pointed out do we blame anarchists uprisings and violence during the G-8 meetings and around the world on his writings? Left-wing rhetoric gets a pass?
Stop blaming the politicians like Palin and Bush for everything that is screwed up in our nation and how individuals decide to act when becoming violent. Sort of like blaming the US government and our actions in the world for 9/11.
all this reminds me of Terry Gilliam's film The Fisher King.
Both SP and Jesse Kelly have just scrubbed this stuff from their websites.
Incorrect. According to a source on CNN this am, The Dept. of Homeland Security did that.
[COLOR="Blue"]Furthermore he was, according to a friend on CNN, a radical LEFT Wing extremist.
She also said that he had become more unstable over the last few years. [/COLOR]
This all matters naught. Political extremists have and always will exists. Some who believe everything on the "other team" as being horrible and not worthy of
anything simply because they are on the "other team" have existed since the beginning of politics.
There are many here who believe such rhetoric. Look at yourselves first. SP is a guilty in this as you or I - NOT AT ALL.
I don not like the woman at all and think she is completely unfit to lead anything more than a girl scout troop, if that, but to blame her for the actions of this idiot is unconscionable. You should be ashamed.
I'm embarrassed for those of you who saw this as nothing more than another chance to attack those who's ideals you differ with.
Wolf, EXCELLENT job putting this in Current Events. That's what this is. This kid is severely mentally unstable and THAT is what caused this tragedy.
Stop blaming the politicians like Palin and Bush for everything that is screwed up in our nation
It really is hard not to. Those types have created so many problems and then openly encourage hate.
A trend is obvious. Unstable people are encouraged to own automatic guns with extra large clips. Multiple death massacres are now increasing because an underlying attitude common in Congress, on the radio (Limbaugh), and openly encouraged even by extremists inspiring the most easily deceived.
Why did Christine O’Donnell set new records for campaign contributions? What stable person would contribute so much money to a witch? She even advocates more religion in government (did not even know the 1st amendment to the Constitution). Hate inspires these supporters who know only due to emotions.
We should blame Muslims for a mosque on sacred ground in Manhattan next to whore houses and betting parlors? Blame immigrants for our less educated population. Blame evil Tarp on Obama when George Jr created it. Blame ... well who do we blame next month? Aliens? All examples of hate. Too many people have voices in their heads rather than facts. And those voices listen to messages of hate. Including package bombs in Washington and bombing government buildings in Oklahoma. Hate always works to promote wacko extremism. Nutjobs simply lead the charge. A precursor to what can get worse.
This gunning will only encourage more to think extremist. To hear hate. Knowledge inspired by emotion. Limbaugh, Hannity, etc are on the radio promoting mockery and hate daily. Likud also called for the assassination of Rabin to destroy the Oslo Accords. And so some nutjob did what they wanted.
What do we expect from the least stable among us? He did exactly what public extremism and ignorance encourages. Complete with automatic weapons that we should all have. Hate says we should all have even more destructive weapons. Nutjobs are the first to follow these encouragements. They are why extremism works.
Its not about left verse right wing. That is extremists promoting their agenda. It is extremist anti-Americans verse patriotic moderates. Which is why America requires every citizen to be educated. So that anti-Americans called extremists (and their nutjob activists) will be less in numbers.
Additionally Smoothmoniker, Bruce and UT are spot on - as usual.
Those types have created so many problems
well who do we blame next month?
The dog has caught its own tail -- and is now eating it.
Blame evil Tarp on Obama when George Jr created it.
The successful one?
Kill Rupert Murdoch. :p:
You better hope nobody does, or you'll be held morally responsible, apparently.
And so it goes...xoB feels the need to one-up the discussion.
People are making so many assumptions that fit with their own point of view.
Even a day later, there is NO information that points to the motives of this shooter
Instead, the only information the news media has come up with
is pointing towards pre-existing mental problems.
NY Times
Arizona Suspect’s Recent Acts Offer Hints of Alienation
By ERIC LIPTON, CHARLIE SAVAGE and SCOTT SHANE
Published: January 8, 2011
No quotes from me, just read the article to see if you can find any political motivations.
If one just has to find a political motivation, there's a closer tie in to a different victim... Chief Justice Roll.
His decision in a recent immigration case ran seriously counter to the prevailing mood in Arizona .
NY Times
Amid Shock, Recalling Judge’s Life of Service
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
John M. Roll, the chief federal judge in Arizona, was fatally wounded
in the attack near Tucson on Saturday that killed five others and wounded at least 18 people,
including Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
So far, the prevailing assumption is that the shooter went to the scene with premeditation.
No one has even posited that the shooter was in the store by coincidence,
and came outside to the confusion of flags and people around him, and then just went off his rocker.
I know my senario is not likely, but I use it to point out the lack of information at this point in time.
For all this to lead a discussion for a call to kill someone else is beyond me.
The pen[keyboard] is mightier than the sword[gun] ..
Temperance is a forgotten virtue.
Well the M.O. of a paranoid schizophrenic, and wolf put your two cents in, is that he hears voices in his head giving him various motives to kill, or becomes otherwise delusional, psychotic, and separated from reality.
Now it turns out the kid shot the Congresswoman first, and then went down the meeting line of people waiting to greet her, shooting them one by one.
Yeah.
They are saying the police are looking for a person of interest that was with the suspect. It would not be the first time that things were done using a mental deficient to do the dirty work. Is that one of the voices in his head? He showed up on the shopping mall videos.
A few comments from some who apparently knew him.
from whatever this place is ... T
he Jawa Report.
and from Time
What is not clear is what role politics — and, in particular, the red-hot rhetoric of the mid-term elections — played in the shooting. Descriptions one of Loughner's high school classmates posted on Twitter only added to the mystery. "He had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical," @caitieparker tweeted. "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy." And, most ominously, "He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was 'stupid & unintelligent.'"
Read more:
Of course it didn't take some extremists long to blame the other side.
MSNBC's Olbermann blames Republicans for Tucson shootingDeflect all you want guys, its just not going to matter how bat-shit insane the killer is, politicians who use gun terminology in their rhetoric ("don't retreat - reload!" from Palin, “ Second Amendment remedies” from Angle, and "Armed And Dangerous" from Bachmann) are acting dangerously irresponsible and this tragic event it is putting their behavior front and center.
Look at what is considered safe to express nowadays because of their rhetoric...
Deflect all you want guys, its just not going to matter how bat-shit insane the killer is, politicians who use gun terminology in their rhetoric ("don't retreat - reload!" from Palin, “ Second Amendment remedies” from Angle, and "Armed And Dangerous" from Bachmann) are acting dangerously irresponsible and this tragic event it is putting their behavior front and center.
Bullshit. Let's ban Airplanes because of 9/11.:rolleyes:
Look at what is considered safe to express nowadays because of their rhetoric...
Man that First Amendment is a bitch ain't it? :rolleyes: They must be responsible for all the violence in America.
No, lets ban those people who talk about using those airplanes (guns) violently to affect change.
Man that First Amendment is a bitch ain't it? :rolleyes: They must be responsible for all the violence in America.
The bitch is people who don't use their first amendment rights sensibly.
It's just not going to matter how bat-shit insane the killer is, you will apply your narrative to it anyway.
No, lets ban those people who talk about using those airplanes (guns) violently to affect change.
Is that the First Amendment you want to squash for people you disagree with?
The bitch is people who don't use their first amendment rights sensibly.
Measure "Sensibly", quantify it.
It's just not going to matter how bat-shit insane the killer is, you will apply your narrative to it anyway.
The problem is BOTH sides will blame the other and the rift continues and the violence will escalate :(
It's just not going to matter how bat-shit insane the killer is, you will apply your narrative to it anyway.
Yeah, their rhetoric is the fucking elephant in the room after an event like this.
Measure "Sensibly", quantify it.
How 'bout examples of seriously not sensible...
Yelling fire in a theater, proposing gunplay as a way to solve political problems.
The problem is BOTH sides will blame the other and the rift continues and the violence will escalate :(
Why do you think the violence will escalate. To date there is no evidence this act was purely politically motivated. Sounds more like a mental illness issue.
How 'bout examples of seriously not sensible...
Yelling fire in a theater, proposing gunplay as a way to solve political problems.
Gunplay? That is a strange description.
The problem is BOTH sides will blame the other and the rift continues and the violence will escalate :(
I would hope that it would contribute to ending the hostile and violent rhetoric in politics.
Gunplay? That is a strange description.
why
I have seen no example of anyone playing with guns in any of those pictures you posted.
D'oh...semantics schemantics. :rolleyes:
Looks like nothing more than people exercising their First Amendment rights and saying what they believe. No harm in that.
So you are Ok with using the threat of violence as a First Amendment Right.
So you are Ok with using the threat of violence as a form of civil discourse. Duly noted.
I think those who were completely against where this government used the historical precedent of overthrowing a government by the use of force if that what it took to get the changes they wanted. Hell now we we have wacko's like Olberman saying it happened because of the Tea Party and Bush, now there is part of the problem.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302352So you are Ok with using the threat of violence as a First Amendment Right.
Why did you alter your post?
It's just not going to matter how bat-shit insane the killer is, you will apply your narrative to it anyway.
Interestingly, my narrative IS that the killer is bat-shit insane.
CooCoo for Coco Puffs.
There aren't going to end up being any reasons that a reasonable person would understand, if the postings on youtube are correctly attributed to the shooter.
You caught me mid-change in my post, merc. I'm not entirely understanding your reply. Terrorists use force to try to get changes they want.
So you are Ok with using the threat of violence as a First Amendment Right.
Since you changed it I will answer this one too. Actually I believe that is a crime in most states if you can prove that the fear of violence is real.
Why did you alter your post?
Because I type as I am thinking. Why doesn't your name show up in the member list at the bottom of the Cellar front page?
You caught me mid-change in my post, merc. I'm not entirely understanding your reply. Terrorists use force to try to get changes they want.
Yea, and we shoot drones at them. I am completely ok with a response to such acts.
Why do you think the violence will escalate. To date there is no evidence this act was purely politically motivated. Sounds more like a mental illness issue.
Keep your eye on the news. By those signs Pico posted there seems to be allot of mental illness in this country. Pretending you don't see doesn't mean it isn't so...
I think those who were completely against where this government used the historical precedent of overthrowing a government by the use of force if that what it took to get the changes they wanted
Terrorists use force to try to get changes they want.
Yea, and we shoot drones at them. I am completely ok with a response to such acts.
So those people and politicians who use rhetoric involving threats of violence to change this government could be considered possible terrorists?
Keep your eye on the news. By those signs Pico posted there seems to be allot of mental illness in this country. Pretending you don't see doesn't mean it isn't so...
Ok. I will watch for it. But I don't believe that because we have "allot of mental illness in this country" that it is an indication that we are suddenly going to see people running around shooting more Congressmen and Women.
Many of his friends admitted/tweeted and said in interviews that he was LIBERAL, not conservative.
How is it that the liberals are still trying to blame this on the GOP?
No matter how badly you want to blame this on those you disagree with,
ignoring the facts will not change them.
Since you changed it I will answer this one too. Actually I believe that is a crime in most states if you can prove that the fear of violence is real.
Ya know...then in that case, if someones says they have a gun and will use it, they need to be taken seriously...the fear of violence is there.
So those people and politicians who use rhetoric involving threats of violence to change this government could be considered possible terrorists?
Not when they are American Citizens in a public place holding a sign during a protest. No. And no I don't believe that politicians are using "rhetoric involving threats of violence". Because people put a bulls eye on a state to indicate a target for political action or change is not a "rhetoric involving threats of violence". Politicians have been using bulls eyes in political discourse for years.
Ya know...that's a really fine line and total bullshit. If someones says they have a gun and will use it, they need to be taken seriously...the fear of violence is there.
Yea, that is why you should call the police if someone says that to you so you can have the threat documented and file charges agains the person who is threatening you. If you don't, it is on you.
I really don't consider it a "fine line and total bullshit".We have less than 2% seriously and persistently mentally ill (off the top of my head).
About 10% of people have some diagnosable form of mental illness over the course of their lives.
No. And no I don't believe that politicians are using "rhetoric involving threats of violence"
Merc, what do you suppose saying 'second amendment remedy' means? Or saying 'armed and dangerous' in the same sentence with 'Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing'.
We have less than 2% seriously and persistently mentally ill (off the top of my head).
About 10% of people have some diagnosable form of mental illness over the course of their lives.
Are they republican or democrat? ;) :D
Ok. Time for me to take a breather from this.
Even if he hadn't shot all those people, even if it never happened, posting on-line rifle cross-hairs over "target" election sites and political opponants like Palin did was stupid, provocative and dangerous.
She and her spokesperson can claim it was never meant to represent rifle crosshairs but only a complete moron could think they were anything else.
Oh they were cross hairs, but to claim that she meant it as a way to incite a violent act is BS.
Merc, what do you suppose saying 'second amendment remedy' means?
Sounds like someone co-opting and perverting their perception of what the Second Amendment actually says in an effort to add emphasis to a point of protest. Do I believe they are actually carrying a gun or are going to try to overthrow the government using armed force? No.
Or saying 'armed and dangerous' in the same sentence with 'Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing'.
Sounds like people who are using their First Amendment right to make the point that historically, if TJ actually said such a thing, that they are willing to support armed revolt if the government continues down the path they disagree with. Do I think they would do it? No. They are doing what many people do with signs at political rallies, they are drawing attention to their point of view.
There's no way you can convince me this guy isn't making a threat, that he isn't trying to intimidate anyone that opposes him.
Personally, I don't take the threat seriously, because he, even with a hundred buddies, can't do it. Not with a thousand, not with a hundred thousand. The government, no matter which party is in charge, would crush them like grapes.
Besides, I know this is all a diversion, a dog & pony show. Something to distract you from what's really going on, while Big Money, through Karl Rove and the lobbyists, subvert our system in a meaningful, probably irreparable way.
:lol: You forgot to mention Haliburton....
Actually I believe that is a crime in most states if you can prove that the fear of violence is real.
Post a threat here to kill the president and see how much proof the Secret Service really needs. Your 1st Amendment rights are worth trampled beans if you also do not use it responsibly.
Meanwhile, history says the nutjobs come from everywhere once extremists start promoting hate. But then Likud really did not mean to have Rabin assassinated. Likud were just calling for it repeatedly and it accidentally happened. That is your logic. And I guess you are sticking to it.
We have less than 2% seriously and persistently mentally ill (off the top of my head).
Wow. Vaccinations did that much damage?
... posting on-line rifle cross-hairs over "target" election sites and political opponants like Palin did was stupid, provocative and dangerous.
Nonsense. It was intentional. It is how nutjobs are inspired. It was not stupid. It was intentional. Extremists love promoting that kind of hate. And, like Likud, then deny that was their intent.
Mafia godfathers wish they could get people killed that easily. But then the mafia only does it for money. Extremists do it for hate.
How many automatic weapons are required to take out the Westboro Baptist Church. And its not my fault when it accidentally happens.
One bullet to the head of Fred. If talking about it caused this to happen, he would be a dead man long ago and would continue to be dug up and shot every few weeks.
No bullets, they're all lawyers, just pour salt on 'em.
From the Washington Post of 9 Jan 2011:
Gabrielle Giffords battles for her life; shooting casts grim light on U.S. political discord
"Gabby did tell me that she was concerned," Moran said, using Giffords's nickname. "She did say it's really bad out there, particularly in a district like [hers]. She was very much troubled that Sarah Palin put her in the crosshairs." ...
The sheriff for the county that includes Tucson, Clarence Dupnik, expanded on statements he made the day before decrying the virulent rhetoric directed at many government officials. ...
Giffords was included on a controversial map of targeted Democrats issued by former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who urged supporters: "Don't Retreat - RELOAD!"
How strange. The same rhetoric was preached by Likud. And then Rabin was assassinated. Oh. But that was just a coincidence. That both parties calling for murder were extremists. And that both got nutjobs to do what they wanted.
Has Sarah Palin put Manhattan Muslims on her schedule yet?
Maybe I too could get on Palin's enemies list. Nixon wouldn't have me.
Of course, the tea party has given a whole new meaning to this phrase: The Hit Parade.
all this reminds me of Terry Gilliam's film The Fisher King.
I was thinking the same thing.
Except, I don't see anyone expressing any pangs of conscience over their dangerous and provocative words.
Is it a sign of the apocalypse when TW sounds like the sane one here? :eyebrow:
Interesting link that Dailykos had up...
Good local article here ...
Alleged Shooter in Attack, Described by Classmate as "Left-Wing Pothead"
A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as "left wing" and a "pot head" in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon.
Caitie Parker did not immediately respond to our request for an interview, but her "tweets" in the hours after the shooting paint a picture of Jared Loughner as a substance-abusing loner who had met Giffords before the shooting. She says, Loughner described the congresswoman as "stupid and unintelligent."
We've confirmed that Parker and Loughner went to school together at Mountain View High School in Tucson and that both attended Pima Community College, so her claims of knowing Loughner seem to be legit.
Parker "tweets" that she and Loughner were in the band together and were friends until 2007 when he became "reclusive" after getting alcohol poisoning and dropping out of college.
She describes him as "quite liberal" and as a "political radical."
Below is a log of "tweets" posted by Parker beginning around the time of the shooting.
pot is often used by schizophrenics who are attempting to self medicate
Pot is used by lots of people to self medicate :)
He was also a rabid grammar nazi, and we know how ruthless they are.;)
He was also a rabid grammar nazi, and we know how ruthless they are.;)
[LIST]
[*]Especially when it comes to bullet points
[*]Now I'm really in trouble, aren't I?
[*]Tasteless
[/LIST]
And what Mr. McGahee described as a pattern of behavior by Mr. Loughner, marked by hysterical laughter, bizarre non sequiturs and aggressive outbursts,
-nyt
I guess the parents were highly aggressive too.
Free speech has a price tag in this case it was too high. Think freedom of speech is really free? Try yelling bomb while you are being groped by the TSA.
Bullshit. Let's ban Airplanes because of 9/11.:rolleyes:
Not to worry. The TSA is gradually taking care of that.
So let's assume this is just a nutjob with a gun.
How in the hell did he get a gun?
I think if we want to continue allowing responsible people to own guns, then we've got to be much better at keeping guns out of the hands of the unstable.
It's interesting that while the Congresswoman advocated (according to reports) concealed carry in a State that permits it, neither the Congresswoman nor anyone in her entourage appears to have availed themselves of this means of protecting themselves; or, their constituency! While the element of surprise would have still kept the Congresswoman from being saved from harm, the others who were injured and killed might have been spared if someone, anyone, had been in a viable position to respond to a lethal threat without having to wait for the perpetrator to stop and reload.
Everyone knows that such public gatherings enhance the targetability of those attending; so, it appears that the Congresswoman simply didn't consider personnel security to be her duty even though she had the right to own it. If she and her entourage had been known to exercise that right, this incident might not have occurred. I suppose it's like when people who have the right to vote just don't want to bother with getting out and voting; or, otherwise rationalize leaving the outcome to others. They just don't consider it to be their civic duty.
So people who don't carry guns are bad citizens?
The price of the freedom of gun ownership is that occasionally somebody gets one who is mentally unfit.
Just because you allow that some may have rights to carry, doesn't mean you want to be one of those people.
But we always fall back on that: if someone had a gun it would have been much less worse! Everyone, and Annie, GET YOUR GUN.
I contend that the nutjob wouldn't have hurt so many people if nutjob had access to only sticks and rocks. :cool:
The price of the freedom of gun ownership is that occasionally somebody gets one who is mentally unfit.
More than occasionally, prolly.
So people who don't carry guns are bad citizens?
I admire your skill with rhetorical questions.
It's interesting that while the Congresswoman advocated (according to reports) concealed carry in a State that permits it, neither the Congresswoman nor anyone in her entourage appears to have availed themselves of this means of protecting themselves; or, their constituency! While the element of surprise would have still kept the Congresswoman from being saved from harm, the others who were injured and killed might have been spared if someone, anyone, had been in a viable position to respond to a lethal threat without having to wait for the perpetrator to stop and reload.
<snip>
This is a traditional posit in such situations.
But it's just as easy to suggest that if one or several people start firing,
the neither the crowd nor the authorities will know
the good guys from the bad... a circular firing squad.
That's like saying that plainclothes law enforcement officers (e.g. city, county, state, federal - incl. Sec. Svc.) who happen to be on the scene when a politician is attacked shouldn't intervene; because, there may be more than one of them and they might all shoot each other. Absurd. It's the responsibility of each shooter to verify the legitimacy of a target as well as the risk to others before pulling the trigger and there are many ways to separate friend from foe. There are also many non-LE people I would trust to do a better job of that than many LE officers.
The price of the freedom of gun ownership is that occasionally somebody gets one who is mentally unfit.
While there is a grain of truth to this, what I actually hear is an excuse to do no better than we have done.
I admire your skill with rhetorical questions.
I notice you didn't answer the question.
While there is a grain of truth to this, what I actually hear is an excuse to do no better than we have done.
Of course not: that's the prominent mentality. The right to gun ownership is so innate that to have to think of ways to make it safer for all is ludicrous. "You can worry about crazies and their rampant access to guns when I lift a cold dead finger to do anything about it."
That's like saying that plainclothes law enforcement officers (e.g. city, county, state, federal - incl. Sec. Svc.) who happen to be on the scene when a politician is attacked shouldn't intervene; because, there may be more than one of them and they might all shoot each other. Absurd. It's the responsibility of each shooter to verify the legitimacy of a target as well as the risk to others before pulling the trigger and there are many ways to separate friend from foe. There are also many non-LE people I would trust to do a better job of that than many LE officers.
No, it's NOT like saying anything of the sort.
Plainclothes, or any other LE authority, have a badge or some ID to display.
Except as you sort of said, yourself, when they do something stupid !
If LE can't always get it right, how to expect the CCL's to do so.
I hesitated to use the phrase "Polish firing squad" in my first reply,
but a quick Google search turned up this from 2005.
There's a bit of tongue-in-cheek, the video link doesn't work,
and it is the LA Police Dept !
Nevertheless:
Polish Firing Squad
Last night in the upscale (not!) neighborhood of Compton in the tony south central portion of Los Angeles,
a very lucky man avoided what should have been his last night on this big blue orb.
Apparently the driver of the SUV in this video fired some shots at somebody
and was then engaged in a high speed pursuit at 0300 this morning.
At the conclusion of the chase, at least four LA County Sheriff's Deputies commence
what amounted to a "mad minute" on the occupant(s) of the SUV.
If you watch the vid, you will notice that the SUV moves slowly forward while it is under fire.
Deputies are positioned at angles in front of the SUV on either side of the street and do not seem to be concerned
about obtaining a covered firing position.
When the SUV moves ahead, those angles are steepened to 90 deg.
Essentially creating the Polish firing squad scenario.
<snip>
This gentleman in Compton must have had 4 Deputies empty their magazines in his general direction,
and he only came away with minor injuries.
One Deputy was also wounded from what will almost certainly turn out to be friendly fire.
The most interesting connection that I draw from these two stories is the fact that in both cases,
people who are not smart enough to avoid a Polish firing squad are also lousy shooters. Imagine that.
There is no psychological test for gun ownership because that would be unthinkable. At some point in time there will be enough genetic markers found for schizophrenia that it can be tested for with a cheek swab. Until the time as such a test is affordable, we will have to wait.
I'm really ambivalent about the gun issue, but I thought this was relevant.
I notice you didn't answer the question.
I addressed a current event about specific people in a particular situation. You tried to extrapolate that into a gross generality that's better suited to a pro-gun VS anti-gun thread the likes of which have already been done here ad nauseum. You simply weren't astute enough to realize that I'm not going to debate that here.
No, it's NOT like saying anything of the sort.
Plainclothes, or any other LE authority, have a badge or some ID to display. ...
Anybody can buy a stinkin' badge. Do you really think they're going to take the time to authenticate each other's credentials while under fire?
... Except as you sort of said, yourself, when they do something stupid !
If LE can't always get it right, how to expect the CCL's to do so.
I think you're projecting your own inabilities to process relevant information under such circumstances, to make timely and accurate judgment calls, on others. That's not an uncommon trait in the elderly.
I think you're projecting your own inabilities to process relevant information under such circumstances, to make timely and accurate judgment calls, on others. That's not an uncommon trait in the elderly.
You're not really addressing his concern. I thought the same thing as Lamp.
(edited: I gotta stop pushing the reply button so quickly)
... I thought the same thing as Lamp. ...
[the Doctor] I'm so sorry. [/the Doctor]
I addressed a current event about specific people in a particular situation. You tried to extrapolate that into a gross generality that's better suited to a pro-gun VS anti-gun thread the likes of which have already been done here ad nauseum. You simply weren't astute enough to realize that I'm not going to debate that here.
Anybody can buy a stinkin' badge. Do you really think they're going to take the time to authenticate each other's credentials while under fire?
I think you're projecting your own inabilities to process relevant information under such circumstances, to make timely and accurate judgment calls, on others. That's not an uncommon trait in the elderly.
Ouch !
Ouch !
Double Ouch!
Sorry sexobon. Us elderly do have our faults.
Guess I'll have to stay on the "What's making you happy today" thread. :biggrin:
You simply weren't astute enough to realize that I'm not going to debate that here.
I'm sorry footfootfoot, I just can't do it. Even with an insult to respond to.
What's wrong with me?
:shotgun: ... Arrrghhh, you got me Lamp. Give my boots to glatt and bury me in Nothingland. It'd be nice if ME would shed a tear and Pico didn't piss on my grave (and vice versa).
I see the problem with guns, is the same as with cars, most of the people that have them don't know how to handle them properly. Lack of knowledge, training and practice, under the assumption they are competent until they prove otherwise.
Could you explain it to me using a metaphor involving a four wheel drive being driven by tw?
I admire your skill with rhetorical questions.
glatt accurately described what you posted. They deserved to be harmed because they were not packing. That was your claim.
There is no psychological test for gun ownership because that would be unthinkable.
Employees at Wal-mart refused to sell him ammunition because they considered him that dangerous. It was that obvious. Wal-mart employees may have been sued for not making the sale. But refused to do so anyway.
Unfortunately, he just kept going to Wal-Marts until he found one that would sell him the ammo.
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this is repeating anything someone else has said:
What is the difference between the revolutionary violent rhetoric in those banners and the banners being waved in London by muslims protesting against the Dutch cartoons?
It's interesting that while the Congresswoman advocated (according to reports) concealed carry in a State that permits it, neither the Congresswoman nor anyone in her entourage appears to have availed themselves of this means of protecting themselves; or, their constituency! While the element of surprise would have still kept the Congresswoman from being saved from harm, the others who were injured and killed might have been spared if someone, anyone, had been in a viable position to respond to a lethal threat without having to wait for the perpetrator to stop and reload.
Everyone knows that such public gatherings enhance the targetability of those attending; so, it appears that the Congresswoman simply didn't consider personnel security to be her duty even though she had the right to own it. If she and her entourage had been known to exercise that right, this incident might not have occurred. I suppose it's like when people who have the right to vote just don't want to bother with getting out and voting; or, otherwise rationalize leaving the outcome to others. They just don't consider it to be their civic duty.
So, public figures using violent allegory to rouse their supporters to heights of political passion is just the exercising of rights to free expression, but the victim in an assassination attempt is irresponsible for not carrying a firearm?
Forgive me for my bluntness but that really sounds off kilter to me. I also really don;t see how you can draw any kind of equivalence between responsibly taking part in the democratic process through voting, and carrying a weapon.
What is the difference between the revolutionary violent rhetoric in those banners and the banners being waved in London by muslims protesting against the Dutch cartoons?
Are the Imams preaching hate and violence in the mosques? You may not see it. But that is what Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News, et al are preaching. Limbaugh's routine attacks on Hillary in the 1990s left me surprised that gunmen were not waiting for her in many states. The hate promoted by Fox News easily matches and probably exceeds that broadcast by early 1960s Radio Moscow. Hate is also why Colin Powell’s wife terminated his presidential ambitions.
That AZ Sherriff was right on the money. He was talking about the same hate routinely preached by Likud to get Rabin assassinated. They got what they wanted. Same attitude is preached by our wackos.
Classicman intentionally tried to post my personal information in order to encourage harm to me. If you did not know it, he was stopped by (I believe) UT. Why? I repeatedly accuse him of promoting hate and extremism. So emotions replaced logic. Same has become so common in the last 15 years that, well, that attitude even inspired Timothy McVeigh. They did not tell him what to do. Just encouraged the attitude. Promoting hate is how extremists get empowered. Why Christine O’Donnell set records for campaign contributions.
So, you tell me. Are the Imams promoting hate in mosques? That is where a problem most likely lies if it exists. Is what you see on the street a symptom of a dangerous source? Or just isolated venting overplayed by the local gossip?
There is no psychological test for gun ownership because that would be unthinkable. At some point in time there will be enough genetic markers found for schizophrenia that it can be tested for with a cheek swab. Until the time as such a test is affordable, we will have to wait.
Your argument is ridiculous. There are people being treated for schizophrenia right now. How were those people diagnosed? Do you think their doctors should wait for a genetic test?
If the
Washington Times can already predict that the shooter is a nutcase, then the state
could have known at the time he bought the gun.
I'm sorry footfootfoot, I just can't do it. Even with an insult to respond to.
What's wrong with me?
More like, why are you addressing 3 foot?
And, don't throw self defeating statements to the wind.
You're just a damn nice guy.
Classicman intentionally tried to post my personal information in order to encourage harm to me. If you did not know it, he was stopped by (I believe) UT. Why?
Total Lie - I spoke up because you made uncalled for, unfounded accusations of another posters wife being a "gonorrhea dripping whore." No one else was going to call you out for your bullshit, so I did.
And for your information, after you were banned for your emotional metdown, I contacted a mod and asked them to reconsider out of pity for your sorry existence of a life. Stick that in your Honda and drive it straight up your fat ass. (Too bad it isn't a 4WD)
FWIW - I didn't need to be stopped because I don't know who you are, nor do I want to.
Just so we are all clear on the facts, not simply your emotional delusions of reality.
I see the problem with guns, is the same as with cars, most of the people that have them don't know how to handle them properly. Lack of knowledge, training and practice, under the assumption they are competent until they prove otherwise.
So, given that guns are here to stay, perhaps we should have gun-ed in school? And no, I'm not being facetious. Maybe then the non-gun-people would be less scared, the pro-gun-people would be less gung-ho and everyone would have a chance of handling weapons better in a crisis. just like driver's ed.
Driver's Ed is not a part of the curriculum in the UK, but cars are not such a big part of life. Having lived here a while, shocked as i still am about how young they can drive, I appreciate that it's considered a universal skill that should be part of schooling in many places. Maybe we should afford guns the same treatment.
Wow. Vaccinations did that much damage?
This is the kind of petty shit that made me realize the cellar isn't what it was. Maybe it is, but it certainly isn't the kind of place i need to spend the kind of time i once did. the fact statements are accepted and/or ignored says a lot about the evolution of the cellar. the issues don't matter so long as we can shit on a few people and regurgitate our well known position pieces, right?
you got it about right , seems so anyway
See I said this thread belonged in Politics ;)
BTW what a mug shot this guy has! YIKES! :eek:
See I said this thread belonged in Politics ;)
Not worthy of politics.
Where's the bitching/sniping forum when you need it?
I think you're projecting your own inabilities to process relevant information under such circumstances, to make timely and accurate judgment calls, on others. That's not an uncommon trait in the elderly.
Weren't some of the victims elderly? And one nine?
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this is repeating anything someone else has said:
What is the difference between the revolutionary violent rhetoric in those banners and
the banners being waved in London by muslims protesting against the Dutch cartoons?
To my mind there are major conceptual differences.
The US demonstrators are protesting their government,
while the Muslims are defending their religious faith.
They both invoke images of blood and violence because, for each,
their beliefs are absolute... and not to be compromised.
It seems in politics that we in the US tend to impose a technical and political view
on to others when theirs is first a religion and then a way of governing.
So between Shite and Sunni, their first differences are religious,
but the former superimpose religion on government,
while the latter
tend to more independent government.
So, given that guns are here to stay, perhaps we should have gun-ed in school? And no, I'm not being facetious. Maybe then the non-gun-people would be less scared, the pro-gun-people would be less gung-ho and everyone would have a chance of handling weapons better in a crisis. just like driver's ed.
Driver's Ed is not a part of the curriculum in the UK, but cars are not such a big part of life. Having lived here a while, shocked as i still am about how young they can drive, I appreciate that it's considered a universal skill that should be part of schooling in many places. Maybe we should afford guns the same treatment.
If they tried to include teaching about guns, even in say a science class, half the parents would have a shitfit.
I'd like to see more rigorous qualifications for carry permits. Locally, they have started to require a sign off by a certified range instructor, but that varies by jurisdiction.
As for driver's ed in school, when I took it, it was a joke, mostly memorizing the answers for the exam. I doubt it's gotten any better, and many schools have dropped it because of budgets.
What is the difference between the revolutionary violent rhetoric in those banners and the banners being waved in London by muslims protesting against the Dutch cartoons?
The banners are selected from all the protests everywhere over time. The people holding them are on the fringe of their groups rather than the mainstream.
You think the people waving banners calling for the murder of the cartoonist were 'mainstream'?
Of their particular group.
ahhh sorry. Yes, ok, I'd go with that.
Your argument is ridiculous. There are people being treated for schizophrenia right now. How were those people diagnosed? Do you think their doctors should wait for a genetic test?
Schizophrenics are diagnosed by psychiatrists. It is unthinkable to put every gun applicant through psychiatric testing. It would also be highly ineffective. Schizophrenics are normal until the illness shows up, often around Loughner's age. The only way to diagnose its eventual likelihood would be through genetic testing.
By the way, you won't read that Loughner is Schizophrenic anywhere but here. News won't say it because it's not an official diagnosis. Doctors won't publicly speculate, because they won't diagnose without personally seeing the patient. And even if he was diagnosed, that information would be protected by healthcare privacy laws. I'm saying it on the basis of stories from fellow students and teachers at his junior college, and his YouTube videos.
We just got an email from Student/Academic support services, about how to proceed with troubled students. This Loughner guy was kicked out of community college for behavioral issues.
If you've been kicked out of community college for behavioral issues, methinks you have some monumental behavioral issues. Surely these behaviors don't exist in a vacuum. But we can't use that sort of common sense, it tramps all over our FREEDOMS (say that word loudly and pound your chest as you say it.)
If only the 9 year old girl had been packin'. :(
It's interesting that while the Congresswoman advocated (according to reports) concealed carry in a State that permits it, neither the Congresswoman nor anyone in her entourage appears to have availed themselves of this means of protecting themselves; or, their constituency! While the element of surprise would have still kept the Congresswoman from being saved from harm, the others who were injured and killed might have been spared if someone, anyone, had been in a viable position to respond to a lethal threat without having to wait for the perpetrator to stop and reload.
Should our tactic be reactivity, so that only one woman gets shot in the head (perhaps) and the shooter gets a hundred bullets in him from the standers-by, or should our tactic be proactivity, so that nobody gets shot in the first place?
Disclaimer: I do not think that we can stop all gun violence, but I think that, as a society, we can do a better job.
If only the 9 year old girl had been packin'. :(
Side note: the 9 year old girl was the granddaughter of Dallas Green, Manager of the Phillies when they won the world series in 1980.
By the way, you won't read that Loughner is Schizophrenic anywhere but here. News won't say it because it's not an official diagnosis. Doctors won't publicly speculate, because they won't diagnose without personally seeing the patient. And even if he was diagnosed, that information would be protected by healthcare privacy laws. I'm saying it on the basis of stories from fellow students and teachers at his junior college, and his YouTube videos.
From the Washington Times story I linked.
"There's a likelihood he [Loughner] presents with schizophrenia," said L. Thomas Kucharski, psychology department chairman at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Schizophrenics are diagnosed by psychiatrists. It is unthinkable to put every gun applicant through psychiatric testing. It would also be highly ineffective. Schizophrenics are normal until the illness shows up, often around Loughner's age. The only way to diagnose its eventual likelihood would be through genetic testing.
So are you saying that only a psychiatrist could tell that this guy was not stable? I bet his neighbors wondered about him. I bet if you interviewed neighbors and co-workers, you'd get a picture.
His [strike]friends[/strike] aquaintances, former classmates (he didn't have cow orkers), and neighbors, have been all over the news. They all said he was nuts... make that acted nuts, but that's not illegal.
So are you saying that only a psychiatrist could tell that this guy was not stable?
From bits and pieces in the press, he was a loner. He had plans for years. But even locked them in a safe. Apparently said nothing to anyone.
It becomes a problem of what is your responsibility verses what will only get you sued. A question we should all have answered years ago. And still is not discussed or publically defined.
He scared many people in his math class. Was (as best I can tell) expelled. Should have been known to those that he obviously needed help. But this is again what the AZ Sheriff noted. We don't help the mentally deficient. We put them back on the streets. Another problem that has not been addressed.
Surprising though. He owned (or rented) a house. He must have had income. So much of this story is not told. Too little for anyone to make conclusions.
How obvious was Hinckley a threat to Reagan. As best I can tell, even that question was never answered.
Surprising though. He owned (or rented) a house. He must have had income. So much of this story is not told. Too little for anyone to make conclusions.
Student loan and Pell grant overages, probably. :cool:
It becomes a problem of what is your responsibility verses what will only get you sued. A question we should all have answered years ago. And still is not discussed or publically defined.
He scared many people in his math class. Was (as best I can tell) expelled. Should have been known to those that he obviously needed help.
This is an interesting question.
I see homeless guys having conversations with nobody there, and sometimes they are laughing heartily with or passionately yelling at these invisible people. They are clearly mentally ill. It's not a secret. They are right out in the open. Thousands of people each day walk right past them.
So am I supposed to do anything about them? Is there a nutjob hot line I'm supposed to call?
Again, he was kicked out of COMMUNITY COLLEGE for behavioral issues. Do you know how bad you gotta be to get kicked out of CC? We're not talking the guy in the weird hat, the student who talks to himself, the guy who eats insects on his smoke break, we're talking threatening harm and intimidating people. Otherwise, we got a program for your weird ass, we want you to succeed! Eat your bugs man, we're all about diversity! We applaud you! Next week the cafe is doing a feature on bug casseroles and lizard dishes. We want you to feel at home.
But threatening people and creating an unsafe environment, that will get you kicked out of CC.
I did not think schizophrenics as a rule were known for violent behavior towards others.
I did not think schizophrenics as a rule were known for violent behavior towards others.
they can - esp. if paranoid. this guy sounds paranoid.
Heh, yeah, a catatonic schizophrenic doesn't really bother anyone.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/types-of-schizophrenia/So am I supposed to do anything about them?
*Don't* sell them a gun.
Weren't there similar issues with the guy at Virginia Tech?
Edit (from Wikipedia)
Cho's underlying psychological diagnosis at the time of the shootings remains a matter of speculation.[53] However, the lack of speech that resulted in the diagnosis of selective mutism could have been an early indication that Cho was developing schizophrenia. One symptom of schizophrenia is what is known as "poverty of speech," referring to a marked deficit in the amount of talking the person engages in. In addition, Cho's manifesto provides evidence of both paranoid and grandiose delusions. Such symptoms are also associated with schizophrenia, and it has been argued that Cho was schizophrenic.[54]
In middle school, he was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder known as selective mutism, as well as major depressive disorder.[8] After this diagnosis he began to receive treatment and he continued receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. During Cho's last two years at Virginia Tech, several instances of his abnormal behavior, as well as plays and other writings he submitted containing references to violence, caused concern among teachers and classmates.
In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine convened a panel consisting of various officials and experts to investigate and examine the response and handling of issues related to the shootings. The panel released its final report in August 2007, devoting more than 30 pages to detailing Cho's troubled history. In the report, the panel criticized the failure of the educators and mental health professionals who came into contact with Cho during his college years to notice his deteriorating condition and help him. The panel also criticized misinterpretations of privacy laws and gaps in Virginia's mental health system and gun laws. In addition, the panel faulted Virginia Tech administrators in particular for failing to take immediate action after the first shootings. Nevertheless, the report did acknowledge that Cho was still primarily responsible for not seeking assistance and for his murderous rampage.[9]
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Choi'm so busy with work on the weekends that i didn't find out about this until the 5 o'clock news yesterday. that guy is a wacko! when i saw the little girl, i cried.
In other, ahem, news, left-wing chatterers and statist Democrats continue to think and behave abominably:
. . . buried in a long article on the shooting, Politico online magazine quoted an unnamed "veteran Democratic operative" advising the administration to "pin" the shooting on the Tea Party movement. "They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers," stated the Democrat. "Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people."
Politico noted in passing that "That horror, which killed 168 people including many children, helped then-President Bill Clinton stigmatize extreme anti-government rhetoric and re-energize his presidency at a time when Newt Gingrich and conservative Republicans were riding high in Congress." (11)
A second unnamed "Democratic strategist" also compared the Tucson shooting and the Oklahoma City bombing, saying that both "take place in a climate of bitter and virulent rhetoric against the government and Democrats."
From
http://www.nolanchart.com/article8259.html
With opinionmaking of this kind, does any human being continue as left-wing? Or is it now strictly the habitation of thieves and their dupes?
So if any Republicans take the advice of the unnamed "veteran Democratic operative" and call him a liberal because he had Marx on his reading list (but don't mention Ayn Rand), then any right-winger isn't human and the Republican Party is strictly the habitation of thieves and their dupes?
Aheh.
quoted an unnamed "veteran Democratic operative"
It seems your chaps have been learning some bad habits from our journos. Really, Urbane, I expected better of you than that. Don't get me wrong, I still think you're a wack job, but you don't usually come across as naive.
[YOUTUBE]Y3MnLSjyBLA[/YOUTUBE]
In other, ahem, news, left-wing chatterers and statist Democrats continue to think and behave abominably:
From http://www.nolanchart.com/article8259.html
With opinionmaking of this kind, does any human being continue as left-wing? Or is it now strictly the habitation of thieves and their dupes?
There are still some dupes and a few thieves in the left-wing, but most snuck over into the right-wing several years ago.
Aheh.
It seems your chaps have been learning some bad habits from our journos. Really, Urbane, I expected better of you than that. Don't get me wrong, I still think you're a wack job, but you don't usually come across as naive.
nicely put and informative.
whatever
whatever
whatever
It matters not. Please, friends, I beseech you.
Now Sarah Palin is accusing the left of blaming her for the shootings.
I swear if she went hunting with Dick Cheney and he accidently shot her like he did his friend, she'd STILL blame a democrat for it!
I have not ANYONE blame her. They have just pointed out that this is a good time to re-think what we say and post.
This whiny bitch needs to find an ice flow and stay there.
Robert Wright makes an interesting point this morning. The really dangerous speech is that which labels our fellow countrymen as outsiders. All we can really ask is that people stick to the truth as best they understand it. As Roger Ailes said, “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually.”
Nobody could possibly say that anybody but the man who fired the gun is ultimately responsible for this. But people who take up a role in politics, and therefore step up to be amongst the nations leaders and opinion formers, have a responsibility not to knowingly fan the flames of violence and political intolerance. To my mind that is a very basic responsibility for those who would seek any role in governance. Your word carries a different weight to the words of others.
Nobody could possibly say that anybody but the man who fired the gun is ultimately responsible for this.
William Edward Deming defined it long ago. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. One need not hold a gun to have responsiblity. How many million were killed by Hitler - who never held the gun.
Now Sarah Palin is accusing the left of blaming her for the shootings. ... This whiny bitch needs to find an ice flow and stay there.
Now if some whacko abducts Palin and dumps her on an ice flow or impales her with an icicle, maybe you'll rethink what you posted.
Hey, this "blood libel" stuff is fun! It doesn't
even have to be restricted to just those in governance; rather, it can be directed to anyone with a Venue for Mass Dissemination (VMD) like television, radio; or, website since audiences tend to accept reinforcement of their opinions from most any source. Even better is that it can be preemptive [see example above]. Thanks Dana. ;)
Palin is a goddamn fucking hypocrite. She is now accusing the media of doing to her what she has already done to Obama and what the rest of her cadre does to liberals. She's an evil tool.
Ah yes, the reciprocity of reciprocal reciprocation; or, the Three "R"s of politics.
Would you put her on an ice floe?
Would you put her on an ice floe?
That depends. Is global warming real or not ?
Penn Jillette said it best: Democrats are the party of hate; Republicans are the party of fear.
[YOUTUBE]tG6JYsm1GmM[/YOUTUBE]
That depends. Is global warming real or not ?
:D
Penn Jillette said it best: Democrats are the party of hate; Republicans are the party of fear.
[YOUTUBE]tG6JYsm1GmM[/YOUTUBE]
A very nice plea for reasonableness...which I admit I tend to lose when I get passionate. But take out 'goddamn' and 'evil' and my statement still stands strong. She's a tool at this point (and I mean it literally not figuratively) and she is being hypocritical too.
Would you put her on an ice floe?
Then we'd lose our technicality loophole in court.:p:
Hey, this "blood libel" stuff is fun!
Ah, the latest talking point. Comparing the claim that Jews used Christian childrens' blood in rituals to the request for Palin to stop using violent rhetoric.
With the length of time since the Tucson shootings and the talking heads
exploring almost every perspective of motivations for it,
why would Sara Palin deliberately chose to use this phrase "blood libel" ?
It's not like she has not had sufficient time to think it through.
My first reaction is along the lines of "any kind of publicity is good";
sort of like Kate Goslin going on "Dancing with the Stars",
only "blood libel" 'is much more incongruous.
You think the people waving banners calling for the murder of the cartoonist were 'mainstream'?
Not relevant, our Constitution does not apply world wide.
Palin is a goddamn fucking hypocrite. She is now accusing the media of doing to her what she has already done to Obama and what the rest of her cadre does to liberals. She's an evil tool.
Originally Posted by Sheldonrs
Now Sarah Palin is accusing the left of blaming her for the shootings. ... This whiny bitch needs to find an ice flow and stay there.
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Comparing the claim that Jews used Christian childrens' blood in rituals to the request for Palin to stop using violent rhetoric.
A trifecta!
And there you have it...:rolleyes:
Don't you guys even see the hypocrisy in your statements or am I just off base here?
With the length of time since the Tucson shootings and the talking heads
exploring almost every perspective of motivations for it,
why would Sara Palin deliberately chose to use this phrase "blood libel" ?
It's not like she has not had sufficient time to think it through.
My first reaction is along the lines of "any kind of publicity is good";
sort of like Kate Goslin going on "Dancing with the Stars",
only "blood libel" 'is much more incongruous.
What was Rham It Through Emanuel's quote? "Never let a good crisis go to waste!"
Don't you guys even see the hypocrisy in your statements or am I just off base here?
The latter.
What was Rham It Through Emanuel's quote? "Never let a good crisis go to waste!"
Yes, he is being quoted on the internet a lot right now.
But if SP is following his advise, where is she headed next ?
When Emanuel said it on the
WSJ Forum in 2008, he immediately added to it:
‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.
What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do what you think you could not do before.’
And that changes what?
Obama say's bring a gun to a knife fight....
So what's your point?
Not relevant, our Constitution does not apply world wide.
Right: firstly, I had misunderstood the 'mainstream' comment as being applied to the entire muslim diaspora, as opposed to their particular protest gathering.
Secondly, we were not just talking about constitutional rights, we were also talking about moral questions and the (admittedly very natural) tendency most of us (myself included) have to engage in a double standard when it comes to actions by our own people and actions by another people.
I'm not touching the rest of your comments in this thread with a ten foot fucking barge pole. If you cannot see the distinction between the 'blood libel' and the current dismay at particular politicians' highly questionable public activities, then we have nothing to talk about.
Do not attempt to draw conclusions between our Constitutional Rights and the muddled issues of the EU. There is no comparison. Apples and Oranges. Moral questions are answered by each individual country. Do Not try to drag our country into other countries issues on this subject if you are not willing to have the same critical assessments.
So take your ten foot pole and put it where it belongs........
And that changes what?
Obama say's bring a gun to a knife fight....
So what's your point?
I took your reply seriously because I have not figured out what Sarah Palin is all about.
If pushed, I would be dismissive of her.
But it appears the Republicans are going with her, not against her.
So as in my post above, I'd like a better idea of where she is headed.
The Rohm Emmanuel quote sounds quite cynical, albeit apropos right now... but only if it is limited to the first sentence.
When his next sentence is added, it is a much more of a constructive statement.
That is, many cliches include the idea that "problems are opportunities"
for those who are willing to accept them.
At the time of my post above, I had not seen the entire video clip of SP's remarks posted today.
I urge everyone to go to UTube and view the entire 7:43 minutes.
Early in her remarks, she says she has reflected for several days, asking for guidance.
This confirms to me that she knew (or should have known) what she is saying in this video.
My point is that she is not just making offhand remarks.
Instead, she is deliberately using the words and phrases in this video,
and so can and should be held responsible for them.
For now, I was largely disappointed in her messages in today's video.
Do not attempt to draw conclusions between our Constitutional Rights and the muddled issues of the EU. There is no comparison. Apples and Oranges. Moral questions are answered by each individual country. Do Not try to drag our country into other countries issues on this subject if you are not willing to have the same critical assessments.
.....
Wtf have the 'muddled issues of the EU' got to do with anything? I was talking about protesters holding up signs calling for violent acts.
So take your ten foot pole and put it where it belongs...
It wouldn't stretch all the way across the pond.
Just as an aside: I am honestly, genuinely shocked at some of the stuff American politicians say in public. Ours can be nasty, but the only time I recall hearing violent rhetoric like that from an active politician, it was from an undercover expose of the British National Party, and the calls for violent response were being made to a private audience.
Wtf have the 'muddled issues of the EU' got to do with anything? I was talking about protesters holding up signs calling for violent acts.
It wouldn't stretch all the way across the pond.
Than do not try to draw comparisons between what people over there say in public and our folks say in public, as protected by our First Amendment rights as a comparison with radical Muslim extremists who killed a Cartoonist because he violated some BS line in the sand...
Just as an aside: I am honestly, genuinely shocked at some of the stuff American politicians say in public. Ours can be nasty, but the only time I recall hearing violent rhetoric like that from an active politician, it was from an undercover expose of the British National Party, and the calls for violent response were being made to a private audience.
And I am shocked that you folks get the protection of the Secrets Act...
Than do not try to draw comparisons between what people over there say in public and our folks say in public, as protected by our First Amendment rights as a comparison with radical Muslim extremists who killed a Cartoonist because he violated some BS line in the sand...
Well: I didn't make a comparison between what people say in public and the radical muslim extremists who killed a cartoonist. I was referring to the muslims who protested. Or are you saying they're all in it together and as such equally culpable for the violent end to that affair?
And I am shocked that you folks get the protection of the Secrets Act...
Oh for fuck's sake.
I know you are Merc, but what am I?
[W]olf is going to have to move this thread to the Relationships forum what with all this flirting going on.
This was an [eta]. but it turned into an essay so I am throwing it onto a different post :P
Right: this has started to get unpleasant. It is not always necessary to defend your country. You can throw what you like at me about ours, and if it seems a fair comment I'll agree with it. Is it shocking that we have the official secrets act? Damn right it is. Is it to be expected in a country like Britain? Alas, I think it's a fairly predictable lack of transparency. I personally don't find it shocking as such: it is how it has always been. That is what my country is like. Partially free. Partially in hoc to a born aristocracy who own all but a fraction of the land, and people the benches of both our political houses, and on both sides of the great political divide. Our governance, our intelligence services, our judicial system, law makers and law keepers, and most of the money sit with a small, but very powerful group of people and families. Despite our moves towards classlessness and social mobility, there is still a very authoritarian streak to our country, and I am not speaking of the socialist element of our politics. The authoritarian streak is much older, and much deeper than that. It also tends to sit more comfortably with the right of our political spectrum than the left: makes sense if you consider the origins of our political spectrum, as compared to your own.
We have a phrase in Britain, I don't know if it is ever used in America, but I have always thought of it as a British phrase: The men in grey suits. Say that phrase to any Brit and they'll know exactly what you mean. It is how our politics works. Unlike in the US, when the administration changes hands in an election, the civil servants who service the political machine remain in post. They provide the continuity.
When I say i am shocked by the violent rhetoric in American politics, I am talking about what appears to be a change in tone from the way it used to be, and from the way I expected it would be. I am not being flippant when I say I expected better. For all its flaws, the US political system has at its core a level of freedom that doesn't exist within ours. We still have Lords and Bishops sitting in our upper house. Some of the Lords are still in hereditary seats. The protection of that freedom is something that has often been a source of disagreement, misunderstanding, and cultural confusion amongst the various contingents of the Cellar. There are times whne that protection seems to lead to decisions that seem daft to an outsider like me. And there are times when it looks downright magnificent. But the one thing that seemed clear, was that freedom of expression, and the political freedom that implies, would always be defended, even ad absurdum (to an outsider:P)
To me, the introduction of this more violent edge to the political process in America seems a fundamental attack on those freedoms. More fundamental than any wiretapped phone, or hacked email account.
Do you really look at what is happening and not feel worry?
They think its a fucking revolution, Dana. They're gonna get all those stinking liberals out of the government and get rid of all those taxes-raising entitlements. They've got guns and know how to use them.
Koch would be so proud.
This was an [eta]. but it turned into an essay so I am throwing it onto a different post :P
Right: this has started to get unpleasant. It is not always necessary to defend your country. You can throw what you like at me about ours, and if it seems a fair comment I'll agree with it. Is it shocking that we have the official secrets act? Damn right it is. Is it to be expected in a country like Britain? Alas, I think it's a fairly predictable lack of transparency. I personally don't find it shocking as such: it is how it has always been. That is what my country is like. Partially free. Partially in hoc to a born aristocracy who own all but a fraction of the land, and people the benches of both our political houses, and on both sides of the great political divide. Our governance, our intelligence services, our judicial system, law makers and law keepers, and most of the money sit with a small, but very powerful group of people and families. Despite our moves towards classlessness and social mobility, there is still a very authoritarian streak to our country, and I am not speaking of the socialist element of our politics. The authoritarian streak is much older, and much deeper than that. It also tends to sit more comfortably with the right of our political spectrum than the left: makes sense if you consider the origins of our political spectrum, as compared to your own.
We have a phrase in Britain, I don't know if it is ever used in America, but I have always thought of it as a British phrase: The men in grey suits. Say that phrase to any Brit and they'll know exactly what you mean. It is how our politics works. Unlike in the US, when the administration changes hands in an election, the civil servants who service the political machine remain in post. They provide the continuity.
When I say i am shocked by the violent rhetoric in American politics, I am talking about what appears to be a change in tone from the way it used to be, and from the way I expected it would be. I am not being flippant when I say I expected better. For all its flaws, the US political system has at its core a level of freedom that doesn't exist within ours. We still have Lords and Bishops sitting in our upper house. Some of the Lords are still in hereditary seats. The protection of that freedom is something that has often been a source of disagreement, misunderstanding, and cultural confusion amongst the various contingents of the Cellar. There are times whne that protection seems to lead to decisions that seem daft to an outsider like me. And there are times when it looks downright magnificent. But the one thing that seemed clear, was that freedom of expression, and the political freedom that implies, would always be defended, even ad absurdum (to an outsider:P)
To me, the introduction of this more violent edge to the political process in America seems a fundamental attack on those freedoms. More fundamental than any wiretapped phone, or hacked email account.
Do you really look at what is happening and not feel worry?
I don't know whether to applaud or mention you missed saying," stick that in your pipe and smoke it." ( no offense to Merc) so I'll do both
I really feel that is the awesome-st post I have ever read.
oh and btw....just for comic relief... * whispers* Here it's [the men in black.] ;)
When I say i am shocked by the violent rhetoric in American politics, I am talking about what appears to be a change in tone from the way it used to be, and from the way I expected it would be.
Even a decade ago, I so strongly warned to overseas Cellar Dwellers of this new tone in America. That anyone overseas would not see. A tone that justified Mission Accomplished even when facts said otherwise.
You would have no idea how routine this hate is aired daily. How righteous these people are told to be using icon enemies that rally the troops - including Hillary Clinton and bin Laden.
So much of what Limbaugh says is found in posts even from our extremists. Underlying mockery, cheapshots, and contempt is similar to what Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc promote. Hate no different than that promoted by religion in the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades. Hate so deeply embedded that they do not even see it as hate. Instead they regard it as a righteous cause.
Palin is now denying that hate. As if putting Congressmen in the crosshairs is not what extremists promote. Hate is the underlying force that especially inspires the simplest of supporters. It is preached constantly on talk radio and Fox News. Do you have anything like that in Europe now that Radio Moscow is gone?
Worry is me when I saw how many were so easily manipulate by lies about Saddam's WMDs. Since then, the rhetoric and lies have slowly become even more rabid. Hate so deeply embedded that they do not even regard it as hate.
snip...That is what my country is like. Partially free. Partially in hoc to a born aristocracy who own all but a fraction of the land, and people the benches of both our political houses, and on both sides of the great political divide. Our governance, our intelligence services, our judicial system, law makers and law keepers, and most of the money sit with a small, but very powerful group of people and families... snip
It's always been that way here, Dana, but it was sort of kept under wraps, an open secret that was only discussed in boring political tracts. For all the freedoms we extol, the real power, the important decisions, were always made by the insiders. In the last 20 years the money/power cadre has become more brazen, more visible, but this whole left/right wing, dog & pony show, is just to distract the peons, and doesn't affect the real power brokers.
Oh and when the control shifts parties, 99.99% of the civil servants stay right where they are.
yeah - what bruce said.
sarah palin is the dog and pony show for the "little people" of this country. She distracts us from the real issues.
I'm ashamed that I fall for it.
She's nothing more than some politicos version of the bikini-clad babe at the Tough Man contest holding up a sign to announce the next round.
It's always been that way here, Dana, but it was sort of kept under wraps, an open secret that was only discussed in boring political tracts. For all the freedoms we extol, the real power, the important decisions, were always made by the insiders. In the last 20 years the money/power cadre has become more brazen, more visible, but this whole left/right wing, dog & pony show, is just to distract the peons, and doesn't affect the real power brokers.
.
I always knew there was an element of that. But I didn't think it was as entrenched as it is in our system. I began to get an inkling of it during the Bush years of course.
Yesterday there were two political speeches based on the Tuscon shooting.
Here is Sarah Palin's video: (7+ minutes) from CNN
[YOUTUBE]6NYl8LeW5Lk[/YOUTUBE]
Here is President Obama's: (34+ minutes) from PBS
[YOUTUBE]ztbJmXQDIGA[/YOUTUBE]
It doesn't take a genius to figure out who the hate mongers are ...
Obama's was on in the background while I was surfing the internet. I was half listening. I mostly didn't like the tone. Too much like a pep rally, and not enough like a serious memorial. Mostly it was the crowd's fault. They were awfully excited. I wonder how often Presidents have visited Tucson?
I saw two really interesting political blogs about this. One from the left and one from the right. I'll see if I can find them. They were reproduced in a Guardian article.
[eta] Got it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/sarah-palin-arizona-shooting-fallout
Andrew Sullivan, the conservative blogger, writing in response to Palin's tanking in Intrade, wrote: "There is no way to understand the politics of this without Palin. She has long been the leader of the movement that drapes itself in military garb, that marinates in violent rhetoric, that worships gun culture, that has particular ferocity in the state of Arizona, and that never ever apologises for anything."
He adds: "My hope is that this horrifying momentary conflation of politics, guns and mental illness will lead responsible figures on the right to eschew the path of Palin."
Steve Clemons, a liberal blogger and a director at the Washington-based think-tank New America Foundation, saw Palin as culpable for "the whole brand of lock and load politics, that frontierswoman mystique and a continuation of the Bush Texas-style swagger".
He said a culture had developed in American politics in which people "yell out … and stomp their feet, and act as if brute force is something to be celebrated". He added: "What used to be celebrated is ability to think through politics. What we are celebrating is ignorance. I think Sarah Palin has had an enormous amount to do with this." He predicted Palin and the Tea Party would be forced to the fringes in the near term, but predicted both would prove resilient.
Correction: "Andrew Sullivan, the liberal blogger who was briefly conservative in 2002 when he was briefly a Bush fan and pro-Iraq war, positions he has backed away from with vigor..."
Mr Sullivan has been the most rabidly anti-Palin pundit there is.
I took your reply seriously because I have not figured out what Sarah Palin is all about.
--snip
Allow me. Trying to apply reason, logic to her remarks is a exercise in cognitive dissonance. I have followed her remarks, and I hope you'll find this analysis of "what Sarah Palin is all about" helpful.
[CENTER][COLOR="DarkRed"][SIZE="5"]Talk about[/SIZE][/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="7"]ME!!!!![/SIZE][/COLOR][/CENTER]
There seems to be a new thrust in the news media this morning
about the motivations of the shooter.
I haven't found the origin...it may be this article in
Mother Jones
about Loughner and "Sovereign Citizens"
Here is a discussion by liberal website The Young Turks which summarizes it pretty well.
[YOUTUBE]uJdAfChCRGE[/YOUTUBE]
Obama's was on in the background while I was surfing the internet. I was half listening. I mostly didn't like the tone. Too much like a pep rally, and not enough like a serious memorial. Mostly it was the crowd's fault. They were awfully excited. I wonder how often Presidents have visited Tucson?
I too was bothered by the RaaRaa atmosphere because of the President, but I think he tried hard to give a good message and his tone was positive. I think all the cheering just gave it more of a campaign speech environment. Kudos to him.
Correction: "Andrew Sullivan, the liberal blogger who was briefly conservative in 2002 when he was briefly a Bush fan and pro-Iraq war, positions he has backed away from with vigor..."
Mr Sullivan has been the most rabidly anti-Palin pundit there is.
I am sure his views are hardly biased..... rrriiggght. :rolleyes:
I always knew there was an element of that. But I didn't think it was as entrenched as it is in our system. I began to get an inkling of it during the Bush years of course.
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."
;)
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.
No, she said she started to notice it as an across-the-ponder, during the Bush years, not that it started then.
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.
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.
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, and still is, despised by the Republicans because the oil crisis happened on his watch.
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.
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.
In contemporary life, humility is more important than ever. The more successful we become, both as individuals and as a family, through our development of science and technology, the more essential it becomes to preserve humility. For the greater our material achievements, the more vulnerable we become to pride and arrogance.
The Dalai Lama
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.
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)
You can reverse the question too, but I don't think many Democrats hated Ford or Bush 1. Nixon was hated, Reagan was hated,
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
... 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. ...
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.
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.
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?
...Rather than let my imagination run wild ...
I'd rather let your imagination run wild. Please post more of your imaginings here for evaluation.
Sure. I'll get right on it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reagan was not hated. He and Democats routinely worked deals together.
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.
I've read and heard that he was considered a naif in Washington.
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.
<snip>
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.
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.
:lol2: Hey, from his presidency he could only go up.
From what I knew (or thought I knew) at the time, I thought he was doing the right thing.
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/nationworld/nation/la-na-jared-loughner-video-20110115,0,7041106.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.
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.
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.
Is this an example? Or was he able to keep his condition unknown to others?
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.
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?
TUCSON, Ariz. — A Tucson mass shooting victim was taken into custody Saturday after yelling "you're dead" at a Tea Party spokesman during the taping of an ABC-TV town hall event hosted by Christianne Amanpour.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41094534/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/From that cited LA Times article of 14 Jan 2010:
Within hours of seeing the video, college police officers arrived at Loughner's home and delivered a letter of immediate suspension to Loughner and his father, Randy, school police reports said.
Apparently that is all they can do. What power and responsibility does a father have?
Which takes use back to posts early in this thread. How did nobody notice?
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:
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?
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.
Maybe someone did notice, but they were afraid that if they said anything, he'd shoot them.
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".
[YOUTUBE]lt9ulRezH34[/YOUTUBE]
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.
[YOUTUBE]5rlgwC2spyw[/YOUTUBE]
What a bunch of morons.
:lol2:
Another wacko joins the list...
James Eric Fuller, 63, who was shot in the knee, had told The Post on Friday, the day before his arrest, that top Republican figures should be tortured -- and their ears severed.
"There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center," Fuller said.
Also on Friday, Fuller stopped by the home of gunman Jared Lee Loughner and told a neighbor he was going to forgive the shooter, The Associated Press said.
On Saturday, Fuller was carted away for a psychiatric exam after disrupting the town-hall meeting by taking a photo of Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries and shouting, "You're dead!"
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/docs_upgrade_gabby_condition_LZ3Z2FWj75oEr26HpCeAdI#ixzz1BS9WkLbXSo 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?
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.
In this country the problem is to define crazy... Bipolar? History of Depression? PTSD? Any thing at all, or should it be defined?
Where in the world is the WBC? On 17 Jan 2011 was this:
WBC to preach to the world from the Mike Gallagher Show, in lieu of picketing the funerals of those dead from the GodSmack in Tucson, Arizona where God sent the shooter to punish this nation for her proud sins.
Maybe they need Limbaugh to write their material for them. Oh. Limbaugh is off on a new campaign of hate. This time about Nicole Kidman's baby.
He's moved on from being incredulous that anyone could understand Chinese?
[YOUTUBE]sLCEXtpTNYU[/YOUTUBE]
This video (#303) is so slickly made it's easy to see it's superficial appeal,
but there are far too many deliberate false connections between
the blinking of violent images against the soft, smoothly presented dialog.
Understanding the physics of the solar system is not the same as understanding government.
Portraying non-violent actions as childish or ignorance is misleading.
Paying taxes is not "theft of your money"
These are propaganda techniques that draw people in, and then deliver very sinister messages:
"Rise Up" --- "You will be arrested" -- "You will be shot"
I back-tracked the UTube source to a blogger in Canada
who is so almost mesmerizing in delivering left-wing political arguments.
His views are at such extreme levels as to be beyond Libertarian.
I tolerate extreme political views, but I totally reject those which advocate uprisings, or anarchy.
tl;dw: the video is Radar's old argument, that the
non-aggression principle is the sole defining law on how people should operate with each other.
The problems with this approach are left as an exercise for the reader.
IIRC, that whole schtick was W.HI.P.'s thing as well. And he's actually Canadian, unlike Radar.
Nicely said Lamp.
It's brain washing, the same as any. You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.
It is the same way the some extremist religions and cults operate. They expect people to make an illogical leap of faith, and many people do. They will believe because they are chosen. Everyone wants to be special. Some people want it so badly they will leave common sense at the door.
I am tired. I don't even know if I am making sense,but I sure get chatty sometimes when I am tired and or not making sense.
Extremist views on religion, in cults, and now with politics is all beginning to blur into one big messs.
She's well enough to attend the shuttle launch on Friday....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13184638I have some friends went down to Florida to see the launch with their kids (they homeschool) :( They already rescheduled once. best laid plans.... pretty cool field trip, though
By the way, you won't read that Loughner is Schizophrenic anywhere but here. News won't say it because it's not an official diagnosis. Doctors won't publicly speculate, because they won't diagnose without personally seeing the patient. And even if he was diagnosed, that information would be protected by healthcare privacy laws. I'm saying it on the basis of stories from fellow students and teachers at his junior college, and his YouTube videos.
As of yesterday, it's official.
NY Times: Suspect in Shooting of Giffords Ruled Unfit for Trial
Dr. Pietz conducted 12 interviews with Mr. Loughner over nine hours. She found that his thoughts were random and disorganized and that he suffered delusions and offered nonsensical answers to her questions. She diagnosed schizophrenia.
Similarly, Dr. Carroll found after five interviews over seven hours that Mr. Loughner experienced delusions, bizarre thoughts and hallucinations and appeared to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, the judge said. Dr. Carroll considered whether Mr. Loughner was faking a mental illness but reported that he showed no signs of that, the judge said.