BF2S Forums Arizona Congresswoman Shot

JohnG@lt wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

No one wants to kill Sarah Palin, we just want her and her supporters to fuck off.

Not that I agree with her or her politics, but why? You disagree with the idea of smaller government?

It's too bad that her version of small government mimics Reagans

Huh? I want her to fuck off because she's a fucking moron. You realise it's possible to support conservative values without supporting Palin right?

Lotta_Drool wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

No one wants to kill Sarah Palin, we just want her and her supporters to fuck off.

So accusing her of being the reason for this shooting does this how?

Do you kinda see the nutterism of trying to blame this on Sarah Palin, or do you blindly take the lead when a stupid concept is put forth as long as it is directed toward "the enemy"?  So much hate inside looking to be directed by a lead nutter.  You guys are dangerous.

You're a troll, I'm not going to waste my time arguing this with you.

ghettoperson wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

No one wants to kill Sarah Palin, we just want her and her supporters to fuck off.

Not that I agree with her or her politics, but why? You disagree with the idea of smaller government?

It's too bad that her version of small government mimics Reagans

Huh? I want her to fuck off because she's a fucking moron. You realise it's possible to support conservative values without supporting Palin right?

Of course it is. I dislike the anti-intellectualism espoused by her and Bush immensely. There are a lot of highly intelligent and educated conservative thinkers and they insult them every chance they get with their own campy pontifications. My main problem with her is that she doesn't understand the concepts she's trying to convey. She tries to simplify and talk down to the lowest common denominator among her audiences instead of trying to pull them up to a reasonable level. "Small government! Small government!" Ok, well what does it mean to decrease the size of government? "I don't know". Slogans only go so far.

During the 2008 elections I sat in the voting booth for a good five minutes trying to decide if I felt I could cast a ballot for McCain despite her being on the ticket.

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

During the 2008 elections I sat in the voting booth for a good five minutes trying to decide if I felt I could cast a ballot for McCain despite her being on the ticket.

Waste of 5 minutes, you live in NY.

True :p

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/29/local/me-palineffigy29 Palin hung in effigy . . 

ALSO

Yes, I'm sure that was endorsed by the Democratic party...

didn't hear any howls of protest from them even when a documentary film on How to Assassinate Bush was aired, " It was ART !  after all . "

How about the Brooklyn museum exhibit were you could have your picture taken Shooting " Sarah Palin "

At Worst this guy is a Lunatic Who is not supported by anyone, Maybe the disgusting sexual insults and constant accusations of Racism will fade too.

Roll your eyes all you want. When do Republicans back stuff like this or WACO ever ? Nice mouth btw

The assassination movie was definitely over the top.

Anyway, I think the central things that can be learned from all this are...

1) Militant rhetoric used by any political side is wrong, not only out of common courtesy, but also because there are enough borderline crazy people that repeated hateful tactics can cause them to snap.

2) Mentally unstable people shouldn't be allowed to have guns.  It actually looks like Jared legally bought his weapon, just like the Virginia Tech nutcase did.  We need to institute psychological backgrounds as part of the background check for getting a license.

3) We need to better fund and better manage mental health resources.  Jared should have been committed long ago.  Unfortunately, we have neither the funds nor the authority to put people like him in an institution oftentimes, until they commit some horrible crime like this one.

Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-10 09:26:59)

So you'd rather more people got shot AND fewer people got the appropriate mental health diagnosis and treatment? I can't think you'd make a popular politician, Macbeth.

ghettoperson wrote:

So you'd rather more people got shot AND fewer people got the appropriate mental health diagnosis and treatment? I can't think you'd make a popular politician, Macbeth.

http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/n … rdiagnosed
http://bipolar.about.com/b/2009/08/17/i … gnosed.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18466044

We already diagnose too many people with mental health disorders. I am very apprehensive to pass any new laws that give an already messed up field any more power.

And yes I would take more shooting over any sort of law that encroaches on the first amendment or a law that gives mental health institutions more power over us.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

What I have taken from this is:

1.  The Democrats take cross hairs targeting weak congressional seats on a map as a sign that a person is putting out a hit on people to have them murdered.

2. Murder of one of their own is not off limits to be used for political gain by Democraps, even in the first few hours of the person's death.

3. Like a fish biting at a shinny object, the Democrats are always ready to bite at a shallow argument or rhetoric if it is aimed at the person the left has trained their supports to focus all their anger on to help unify the democrapic base on something.

4.  Like the Soviets and Nazis, nothing is sacred to the democrats except control and power.

5. Apparently Federal Judges aren't above becoming political activist tools to try to get appointed to a higher courts.

Atleast you're not making sweeping statements.

Sturgeon wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

What I have taken from this is:

1.  The Democrats take cross hairs targeting weak congressional seats on a map as a sign that a person is putting out a hit on people to have them murdered.

2. Murder of one of their own is not off limits to be used for political gain by Democraps, even in the first few hours of the person's death.

3. Like a fish biting at a shinny object, the Democrats are always ready to bite at a shallow argument or rhetoric if it is aimed at the person the left has trained their supports to focus all their anger on to help unify the democrapic base on something.

4.  Like the Soviets and Nazis, nothing is sacred to the democrats except control and power.

5. Apparently Federal Judges aren't above becoming political activist tools to try to get appointed to a higher courts.

Atleast you're not making sweeping statements.

Well I was going to start listing each Democrat individually who has done this stuff, but for the sake of time I decided to just generalize and hope people would be smart enough to know why.

JohnG@lt wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

So you'd rather more people got shot AND fewer people got the appropriate mental health diagnosis and treatment? I can't think you'd make a popular politician, Macbeth.

No, he's right for the most part. I trust psychologists and other 'mental health' people about as much as I trust drug dealers. You can't preempt a tragedy like this by locking up anyone with a mental disorder because A) the diagnosis may be wrong and B) it opens the doors to massive corruption a la the prison system. Freedom means you have to take the good with the bad and not overreact to a tragedy like this with kneejerk legislation. Emotion based policy is never good policy.

It's not about emotions though.  Ever since the Reagan era, mental health funding and authority decreased considerably.  As a result, so did the homeless population, and in some cases, violent crime went up.

There are varying degrees of mental instability, and so extreme cases of it need to be dealt with more vigorously.  We're not talking about committing all unstable people.  However, a certain amount of medication and supervision is necessary.

Another thing to consider is that many people who go off of their medication and then do something horrible get a lighter sentence for it.  I would classify someone in that situation as the same as a drunk driver.  If you know you should be on medication and refuse to take it and then injure or kill someone, you should be punished just the same as a drunk driver.

Turquoise wrote:

Another thing to consider is that many people who go off of their medication and then do something horrible get a lighter sentence for it.  I would classify someone in that situation as the same as a drunk driver.  If you know you should be on medication and refuse to take it and then injure or kill someone, you should be punished just the same as a drunk driver.

wut, driving to a bar and getting wasted then driving home drunk is the same as forgetting to take your Meds, running out of Meds, or deciding the Meds aren't working right and going off of them???

I hear what you were saying with the rest of the post but come on now.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Another thing to consider is that many people who go off of their medication and then do something horrible get a lighter sentence for it.  I would classify someone in that situation as the same as a drunk driver.  If you know you should be on medication and refuse to take it and then injure or kill someone, you should be punished just the same as a drunk driver.

wut, driving to a bar and getting wasted then driving home drunk is the same as forgetting to take your Meds, running out of Meds, or deciding the Meds aren't working right and going off of them???

I hear what you were saying with the rest of the post but come on now.

No, I'm saying that if you kill or injure someone while off of your meds, you're equally as responsible for your actions as you are when you get intoxicated.

A lot of people decide they don't need their meds anymore and then do something terrible.  Later, their defense lawyer can often claim they were in a different state of mind while committing their crime, but to me, that's no excuse.

For example, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic, you have to take your meds, or you end up with dangerous tendencies.  A good example of this was the guy who killed that Iowa high school football coach.  He had been prescribed meds, eventually stopped taking them, and then he freaked out and killed that coach.

To me, he should be charged the same as someone that gets drunk and runs someone over while intoxicated.  He may have been in a different state of mind, but he knew ahead of time what the risks of going off of his meds were.

Turquoise wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Another thing to consider is that many people who go off of their medication and then do something horrible get a lighter sentence for it.  I would classify someone in that situation as the same as a drunk driver.  If you know you should be on medication and refuse to take it and then injure or kill someone, you should be punished just the same as a drunk driver.

wut, driving to a bar and getting wasted then driving home drunk is the same as forgetting to take your Meds, running out of Meds, or deciding the Meds aren't working right and going off of them???

I hear what you were saying with the rest of the post but come on now.

No, I'm saying that if you kill or injure someone while off of your meds, you're equally as responsible for your actions as you are when you get intoxicated.

A lot of people decide they don't need their meds anymore and then do something terrible.  Later, their defense lawyer can often claim they were in a different state of mind while committing their crime, but to me, that's no excuse.

For example, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic, you have to take your meds, or you end up with dangerous tendencies.  A good example of this was the guy who killed that Iowa high school football coach.  He had been prescribed meds, eventually stopped taking them, and then he freaked out and killed that coach.

To me, he should be charged the same as someone that gets drunk and runs someone over while intoxicated.  He may have been in a different state of mind, but he knew ahead of time what the risks of going off of his meds were.

I see your logic, but think it is flawed.  Nobody nessarily knows how a person will be when going off mind altering drugs.  Sometimes the drugs themselve mess up a person and make them go crazy after awile.  These mental health people aren't dealing with a very linear sience and go a lot on "best guess" diagnosis.  Many times they can't predict behavior and many of the mental people are that way because they were on illegal drugs in the first place ( I know a woman who's mother was addicted to crack while pregnant with her, she is mental because of it). 

Too many variables, just need sane people on juries that don't fall for every sob story and make the people accountable for their actions.

If they can't be trusted to live free without killing people ( due to WHATEVER reason ), well then lock the person up.