Get ready Conservatives...

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>You really think that a CGI Cross Hair over a picture, on a website, that
>he probably never even visited, facilitated the shooting of the
>Congresswoman?

To reiterate:

Gun-target analogies and talk about violent/armed overthrow does NOT cause such incidents. They do contribute to an atmosphere that encourages it. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to the people who advocate such things.

You must have missed it - you wrote it . . . I bolded it.

I believe facilitated is too strong a word then -

Perhaps "contributed to" in place of facilitated - but the tone of your post would leave little room for the difference between the two.

Try this:
You really think that a CGI Cross Hair over a picture, on a website, that
he probably never even visited, "contributed to" the shooting of the
Congresswoman?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Fine. Just as long as there's no double-standard applied to the Moozlim who shot-up Ft. Hood. Deal?

What would the double standard be? We don't know enough about the man to say more than he was just some crazy. We know a far sight more about Hasan, and we knew it before he started live target practice.

Quote

Hasan is an American-born Muslim of Palestinian descent. Internal Army reports indicate officers within the Army were aware of Hasan's tendencies toward radical Islam since 2005. Additionally, investigations before and after the shooting discovered e-mail communications between Hasan and Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who quickly declared Hasan a hero, as "fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty". After communications between the two were forwarded to FBI terrorism task forces in 2008, they determined that Hasan was not a threat prior to the shooting and that his questions to al-Awlaki were consistent with medical research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

Sorry for the Wiki...it was the best I could do on short notice.

I'm disappointed you need to give yourself wiggle room, and a non-answer answer, instead of just a straight-up answer.

[pbwing 0]

Quote

Quote

If you think that the Liberal Party of Canada was actually trying to incite or advocate the assassination of the PM, then you really are not better than the morons on here and all over the net today who think that Sarah Palin was advocating or is responsible for the attack yesterday.

Of course I DID NOT THINK Liberals were actually serious in their calls for a Harper assassination. It was merely an example of stupid Liberal humor and an example for Leftists here to ponder that they can not claim the high ground today.

Tell me did you think posting a picture of their opponent being assassinated on their official political party website funny? Hopefully the answer was no, hopefully if/when you heard about such nonsense being displayed it made you stop and ask yourself "who exactly are these people who work down at the Liberal Party of Canada" (a political organization that does not even practice democracy inside of it's own organization when it comes to picking their leader and their riding candidates).

Actually, I didn't ask myself anything - and I, like the authour of the CFP article you quoted DID think it was funny. In many cases I agree with the authour that they acted like douche bags in trying to deflect the blame. If they had just admitted that they ran the photo after someone has submitted it as part of a contest - admitted that it was a huge lack in judgement on the part of the Liberal Party and left it at that, I'd be fine with that. But in their typical political blame game, they were too weak to even do that.

Let's not get into what the Liberal Party does or doesn't do in terms in inside politics. Remember, we have a Prime Minister who forbids his federal ministers from speaking a word unless it passes through his office first. When one office and a very small group of people (very, very small) control the message of our entire government, that makes me a little more uneasy than how a party elects its leaders...

Understand (and I think I've said this to you before), I hold them all in the same regard. I will defend them when they are acting in our interests and being just, I condemn them when they do otherwise.

[1969912 0]

Quote

You saw it coming huh

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

From page 2 of your link:

Quote

.....Under the current law, it is illegal for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution” to purchase a firearm, according to the FBI’s website.

However, Loughner did not fall into either of those categories, according to Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

“I’ve seen no evidence that he falls into those categories. It’s the same thing as this guy at Virginia Tech,” said Horwitz. “We can do a much better job checking people’s mental health background.”

WTF? Perhaps we need a nationwide team of "citizen sleuths" to spy on people and scour their web postings, and then make a deterimination as to their elegibility to puchase or possess guns. I nominate Kallend to lead the team.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You saw it coming huh

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html

From page 2 of your link:

Quote

.....Under the current law, it is illegal for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution” to purchase a firearm, according to the FBI’s website.

However, Loughner did not fall into either of those categories, according to Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

“I’ve seen no evidence that he falls into those categories. It’s the same thing as this guy at Virginia Tech,” said Horwitz. “We can do a much better job checking people’s mental health background.”

WTF? Perhaps we need a nationwide team of "citizen sleuths" to spy on people and scour their web postings, and then make a deterimination as to their elegibility to puchase or possess guns. I nominate Kallend to lead the team.

Scarry shit huh

Kallend was talking to cars and then made a comment that I brought up driving not him

So, he thinks it different?
Not me
We do all the stuff he posted about cars and privileges

Same with guns

Guns are the item

Shooting is what causes the issue

With all the laws and requiements we cant keep people from killing others with cars

It will always be the same with guns

Cause in the end it is not about guns or cars
It is about responcibility for ones actions

Again all you gun o phobes

what do we give up to feel better?

Think 911 the TSA and the Patriot Act

Nothing new here if you chose to look at it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,121]

>You really think that a CGI Cross Hair over a picture, on a website, that
>he probably never even visited, "contributed to" the shooting of the
>Congresswoman?

It contributed to the atmosphere that encourages it, yes. If you are doing things like putting crosshairs on candidates, advocating violent revolution, suggesting "second amendment remedies" to political problems etc then you are indeed creating an atmosphere where violence is more likely.

For a very simple example, consider the conservative Alabama blogger who encouraged people to throw bricks at democratic headquarters. Someone then threw a brick at a democratic headquarters. Did he cause the incident? No. Did he contribute to the atmosphere that led to it? Yes.

It's like a DZ where people who pull high or jump large canopies are ridiculed as pussies, and small canopy jumpers are worshiped. If someone goes in because of a low pull followed by a spinning mal on a too-small canopy, did those people making fun of high pullers CAUSE the accident? Definitely not. Did they contribute to the atmosphere that led to it? Most likely yes.

[airdvr 210]

I answered the question. I'm still waiting for you to tell me about the double standard .

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

It contributed to the atmosphere that encourages it, yes. If you are doing things like putting crosshairs on candidates, etc, etc, etc

I think you need to talk to these people (England's womens national cricket team) because just the other day they said "England has promised to come out guns blazing on Friday for the second Women's One Day International (ODI) cricket match against Australia". Clearly this is not politically correct and we can't have a bunch of female cricket players threatening their Australian counterparts with their blazing guns. http://onehd.com.au/onehd/newsarticles/Cricket-England-promise-to-come-out-guns-blazing-S-727074.htm

I think you are going to have a hard time banning every possible gun reference from our popular culture. There are just too many people who will put you in their sights once they see you want to take away their targets. What's next banning the infamous Far Side Bummer of a Birthmark cartoon because the poor deer has a birthmark resembling a bullseye or was it that the birthmark resembles the Target corporate logo? LOL

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I answered the question.

Did not.

[billvon 3,121]

>I think you are going to have a hard time banning every possible gun reference . . .

No one's talking about banning anything. Why does everything on SC always have to be reduced to that asinine argument?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

When one office and a very small group of people (very, very small) control the message of our entire government, that makes me a little more uneasy than how a party elects its leaders

And exactly how are Ignatieff's Liberals any different? Were you sleeping when Ignatieff whipped the Liberal MPs (threatening to throw them out of caucus) in order to defeat Bill C-391? Were you asleep when CBC paid pollster Frank Graves told the Liberals it was time to wage a culture war in Canada pitting Liberal controlled urban Canada against rural Canada? Rather rich to claim one party is ruled by a dictator when the other party does the exact same thing. The Conservatives are far from perfect, they have made plenty of mistakes. But they are still a better choice than the most arrogant most corrupt political party Canada has ever been ruled by. Empty promises of socialist bliss followed by theft of the tax payer's money is a hallmark of Liberal governance.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>I think you are going to have a hard time banning every possible gun reference . . .

No one's talking about banning anything. Why does everything on SC always have to be reduced to that asinine argument?

you said Asinine and Banned in the same sentence . . . .



just joking

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Why does everything on SC always have to be reduced to that asinine argument?

Too bad my attempts of bringing the "Far Side" cartoon reference into this thread was lost as humor. We don't agree on all topics, but compared to many people I know you are a moderate Bill. I saw the debate you were having the other day with dreamcatcher concerning some tax/economy issues and I wanted to make some sly remark of "okay who hacked into Bill's account, he is making too much sense here". But I let it go.

Here is something that could help the US Congress. Everyone should be forced to view some "Far Side" cartoons before they attempt to do their jobs. If everyone starts their day off with a laugh or two maybe they won't be as angry as they are with each other. Then again I think they would continually need to view "Far Side" cartoons all day long to keep the anger away and well ... there may be a lot of cartoons from the great Gary Larson, but even he had his limits.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Who was it again that GUTTED the funding for mental institutions accross the USA again.

When I was a kid drunks who lived on the streets were known as BUMS and lived on Skid Row.

Then thousands upon thousands of menatlly ill people were turned out of institutions.
They are the homeless that an exceedingly high number of are mentally ill.

About 25% of the prison population should be in mental institutions.. not prison.

Very interesting that you should write this blaming compassionate conservatives for somethat that, um, er, uh, wasn't really their fault. It all started in California. California had the Short-Doyle Act of 1957, which set up community based mental health care. In 1966, Medi-Cal (Cali's version of Medicaid) was set up. But short-Doyle didn't work too well because it delegated responsibility to counties - a system that realy wasn't perfected until 1993!

Now, in the interim, there had bee issues with people being confined to mental health institutions without due process. A guy is told he's got mental issues and he's kept in mental health facilities without due process and with no way to get out. So the Lanterman-Short-Petris act was passed in 1967 and signed into law by then-governor Ronald Reagan.

The stated legislative intent was to:
(a) To end the inappropriate, indefinite and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons...;
(b) To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders...;
(c) To guarantee and protect public safety;
(d) To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;
(e) To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;
(f) To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these purposes...,
(g) To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal
acts. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5001 (g))

The LPS Act became a model for other states nationwide.

Shortly after, a whole series of cases worked their ways through the courts that increased due process protections. These cases, filed by patients' rights groups and the ACLU, increased patients' rights (and, in my opinion, deservedly so!) For example, in 1971, a case called Wyatt v. Stickney out of Alabama established that the reason for hospitalization is treatment and NOT custodial care! Treatment must be calculated to improve their condition.

But a BIG one came in 1975 - the US SUpreme Court held UNANIMOUSLY in O'Connor v. Donaldson that s State cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.

In that case, Donaldson had been diagnosed as mentally ill and held against his will for 15 years in Florida. Mental illness alone could not justify holdin someone.

Therefore, in response, the mental hospitals nationwide HAD to release these mental patients. Plans were proposed by states to offer outpatient mental health care and even group homes. This was met with great resistance by the public, who did not like the idea of being told things like, "A few guys being released by court order from Camarillo State Hospital are gonna be living on your block."

So these people were released and WITHOUT outpatient care. They were stable upon release and without continued outpatient treatment destabilized, relapsed into illness and ultimately were arrested and put them in prisons.

Of course, I understand that you are more interested in blaming Reagan and conservatives for this. Indeed, Rehnquist DID join with the SCOTUS in its decision. But these mental health patients were being held in the prior version of Gitmo. Furthermore, no communities would support the provision of mental health outpatient services because people didn't want Weirdo Willie anywhere around them.

Now, Jeanne, I could have blamed the ACLU for it. I could have said, "A bunch of lousy do-gooder bleeding hearts who thought it better to let these people on the streets versus in a menta health institution." But I didn't because not only does that blame game get us nowhere, but that I AGREE with the reasons they were released.

The public simply would not, has not, and WILL NOT support the funding and locations of outpatient mental health treatment. The general public would prefer that they be sent to prison with the antisocials.

Quote

About 25% of the prison population should be in mental institutions.. not prison.

Maybe not that much, but you are right with regard to people being in prison that are sick and need treatment. Unfortunately, as well, people support more prisons and politicians like being "tough on crime." This is an issue that I think even you will agree crosses the political spectrum.

Quote

But then our compassionate conservatives who are far from anything of the sort, want to further cut "social programs" that would have helped those people like Cho or Loughner, there is no program.

No. Neither Conservative not Liberal has found a way to Constitutionally and politically DEAL with the problem. What would they do with Loughner? you know he refused a mental health evaluation that was asked of him to get back into college? He'd been pinched once or twice but had never done anything considered a criminal threat.

So, Jeanne, considering the Constitutional and pragmatic limitations, instead of just bitching about conservatives cutting funding for programs found unconstitutional 35 years ago, why not propose something new?

Quote

Ya caint have it both ways councilor. If you want to kepp guns out of the hands of those who are mentally defective... as the law requires... perhaps supporting some of those social programs that would identify.. and heaven forbid TREAT the mentally defective, and let us know who the fuck is out there to NOT sell guns to.

ABSOLUTELY! I've LONG stated on here that I support funding for those who CANNOT take care of themselves and for treating or sequestering those who are a threat to others. The problem is the identification of these people. Loughner had not done anything where he could Constitutionally have been identified as a threat.

Also - suppose that he considered self-referring. Even nutters are usually smart enough to say, "If they find something wrong with me, even if I am treated I will not be allowed to ever have a firearm, will nto be eligible for certain jobs - hell, I won't even be able to keep my private pilot's license." The punishments become a sufficient incentive to prevent people from self-referring.

It's the law of unintended consequences. It's also the example of how no good deed goes unpunished.

Quote

The signs were there in the case of Loughner being a nutter. If the college could have reported his eratic behavior to SOME social program to get him some help... maybe 6 people would still be alive. I would say many THOUSANDS of others would

You are right. However, read what I wrote and tell me how a college could have done that without exposing itself to significant problems. No good deed goes unpunished.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Like I said, the politicians should stop inciting violence through their attack ads and negative campaigning.

Yes, I think they should be nice. But considering that you appear to be blaming them for this guy's shooting of people, I don't think it is appropriate to find a cause and effect. In fact, as more and more information is coming out, it looks more and more like politics and conservatives had ZERO influence over it.

Quote

The solution is to not vote for the fuckers that do that, which is exactly why I left the republican party after the tea baggers came in to play.

On this we can agree. Which is why I have been a libertarian since the age of 20.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

Like I said, the politicians should stop inciting violence through their attack ads and negative campaigning.

Yes, I think they should be nice. But considering that you appear to be blaming them for this guy's shooting of people, I don't think it is appropriate to find a cause and effect. In fact, as more and more information is coming out, it looks more and more like politics and conservatives had ZERO influence over it.

Quote

The solution is to not vote for the fuckers that do that, which is exactly why I left the republican party after the tea baggers came in to play.

On this we can agree. Which is why I have been a libertarian since the age of 20.

I have not once blamed anyone for Loughtner's actions. I have put blame on some of the tea partiers for fostering an environment that is conducive to these kind of attacks.

I have considered myself a libertarian most of my life, but the reality is we still pretty much have to vote for D or R. I fought hard for Dr. Paul only to watch a group of nutjobs use the momentum of his presidential run to concoct this whole teabagger nonsense. It's disgusting to me that somehow the movement to elect a true conservative like Ron Paul was taken over by a group that has accepted Palin and Beck as their de facto leadership. It's a sick joke.

[lawrocket 3]

Indeed. Only I haven't voted for D or R. I've voted libertarian.

But I understand that. Now I'm getting a better picture of what you're thinking. I can't say I object to it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It's the law of unintended consequences. It's also the example of how no good deed goes unpunished.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The signs were there in the case of Loughner being a nutter. If the college could have reported his eratic behavior to SOME social program to get him some help... maybe 6 people would still be alive. I would say many THOUSANDS of others would

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


You are right. However, read what I wrote and tell me how a college could have done that without exposing itself to significant problems. No good deed goes unpunished.

So what we end up with is the rather untennable situation we have today.

Hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people living on our streets most in squalor, 1/4 of our prison population living in a hellish existence that is little better, and a misery quotient that lessens our society. They really should pull themselves up by their bootstraps ... isn't that the American way???
Lets call it the Lawrocket conservative law of intended consequences after the removal of those pesky social programs that were desined to help Americans, which is SOOOO less sexy than spending a few more billion to kill non americans.

In the mean time, we have 100,000 more Cho's, Hinkleys and Loghners just ticking their way thru life ready to go off at the drop of a tin foil hat.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Now we have more reason to believe he was just a nutjob.....

funny how at first you had him labeled as a potential "right wing nut job" but when it turns out he may actually be liberal... he's just "a nut job".

but it's not just you either, there are a few others with the same tune...

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, you actually think it's okay for politicians to incite violence against their opposition?

I'll actually turn your words and apply them to you. Get ready because you are asking for it.

I'd be careful. Somebody might be reading this and seek blood revenge from what you're saying. AIf there is any act of retaliation, I will hold you are all who similarly accuse a certain group for this to be personally responsible for this. You are deliberately and purposely seekin to inflame the passions of people who may act out in an aggressive and deadly manner.

I predict that you will attempt to either deny your intentions, ignore me, or support what I have to say. Denial will obviously be expected as an attempt to cover up your actions and cover your ass. If you ignore my accusations, the only valid reason for doing so is that you are putting your head in the sand and failing to own up to your responsibilities. Admission will merely verify your guilt.

Therefore, you are inciting violence and soas to not set off any lunatic, you should be forced to tone down your rhetoric.

Hey - just looking looking at you through your lens...

I don't even understand your post.

It makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Quote

Now we have more reason to believe he was just a nutjob.....

funny how at first you had him labeled as a potential "right wing nut job" but when it turns out he may actually be liberal... he's just "a nut job".

but it's not just you either, there are a few others with the same tune...

I thought liberals were all for big government.

It's becoming clear that he was opposed to government. Probably more of an anarchist. Not many liberals support the gold standard.

[lawrocket 3]

First - I have consultest the greatest authority on this and she agrees with your 25% stat. SHe said it may be higher than 25% mentally ill in prison and is epected to reach 50% of prison population mentally ill by 2020. So I stand corrected.

Quote

They really should pull themselves up by their bootstraps ... isn't that the American way???

No. The mentally ill are people without the ability. WE don't spend on the people who NEED it. Instead we spend on the people who don't need it. The mentally ill cannot take care of themselves. But we sure as hell have given trillions to people who CAN take care of themselves but have chosen not to.

Why? BECAUSE they are mentally ill, they don't vote. They are seen as annoyances and criminals and weirdos. Choosing between funding mental health or welfare queens, guess who gets the money?

Quote

Lets call it the Lawrocket conservative law of intended consequences after the removal of those pesky social programs that were desined to help Americans

You just HAVE to ascribe blame on everything bad on conservatives. Again, after I have mentioned no solutions and how the blame game should stop you go ahead and affix blame. When I am calling for increasing a program, you put in an insulting dig on "lawrocket's conservative law of unintended consequences."

It appears more likely that "Amazon's axiom of arbitrary ascription" is very real. And the war in Iraq is mentioned, despite my total opposition to that war since its inception.

Quote

In the mean time, we have 100,000 more Cho's, Hinkleys and Loghners just ticking their way thru life ready to go off at the drop of a tin foil hat.

I think you have now qualified for a Nobel Prize in Medicine (as well as a Nobel Peace Prize). You have hit that magical truth that nobody else has realized - or at least enunciated. The event that sets them off are the tin foil hats!

Hinckley! Cho! Loughner! All were people who believed in the tin foil hats. Fuck. That's it! Ban tin and aluminum (lead foil is already banned). That'll prevent future nutjobs from blowing.

Thanks, Jeanne. You've opened my eyes and everyone else's. It's FOIL that causes this. Foiled again!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure, why not
She is not responcible for this nut

Try listening to Gifford talk about what Palin was doing to her.

Kind of makes one sick to their stomach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4&feature=player_embedded#!

You are correct
Gifford and the MSNBC reporters do make my stomach turn

Did you even watch the video? She acknowledged nutbags on the left AND the right, stated that it was the responsibility of leaders on both sides to tone down the rhetoric and encourage civil, democratic change rather than violence, and the tag line across the bottom said "Tea partiers claim Giffords is toast."

Which part of that turned your stomach?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

And now another slant on taking advantage of a tragity

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers

Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

And now another slant on taking advantage of a tragity

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers

Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

Sounds pretty knee-jerk. You either make an illegal threat against someone or you don't. "Could be perceived..." is bs. And I don't care what the victim's job is. We're not a monarchy, despite allusions by the Kennedy's, Bush's, et al. Obama, Brady, Boehner, and Giffords all deserve the same protections against threats that the rest of us deserve, no more, no less. They may have a security team that takes those threats more seriously, as harm to them is more disruptive to society than harm to us common folk, but the legality of threatening someone should not hinge on what that person's job is.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)