Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
It shouldn't be part of the normal political discourse, nor should attempting to assasinate people in other countries just because you don't like them - its too easy for it to get blurred, saying Bin Laden should be killed, Saddam should be bombed, Assange should be hunted like a terrorist, democrats should be targeted.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
CC-Marley
Member
+407|6799

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


But no actual death threats.
maybe...i dunno

she is a dope but i reckon someone said something bad
OTOH Palin made numerous threats and references to violence.
Shut the hell up. He was a lefty, one of yous.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

CC-Marley wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


maybe...i dunno

she is a dope but i reckon someone said something bad
OTOH Palin made numerous threats and references to violence.
Shut the hell up. He was a lefty, one of yous.
The more I find out about Loughner, the more it appears that he was driven by insanity -- not any particular political ideology.

I suppose you could say his interests in Zeitgeist the movie and Loose Change would make him leftist, but anarchist seems like a better description.
CC-Marley
Member
+407|6799
Yeah, that sounds about right. The video of him walking around the campus shows he was on the edge. That crazy laughter is a givaway.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX

CC-Marley wrote:

Shut the hell up. He was a lefty, one of yous.
Says who?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6572|132 and Bush

Well, technically he was an independent.. but really, that didn't matter. He didn't take partisan politics nearly as seriously as some would have you believe.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5208|Cleveland, Ohio

Turquoise wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


OTOH Palin made numerous threats and references to violence.
Shut the hell up. He was a lefty, one of yous.
The more I find out about Loughner, the more it appears that he was driven by insanity -- not any particular political ideology.

I suppose you could say his interests in Zeitgeist the movie and Loose Change would make him leftist, but anarchist seems like a better description.
ATG
13rin
Member
+977|6450

AussieReaper wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

list em
Assange is not a "journalist," any more than the "editor" of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a "journalist." He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? - Sarah Palin



Anti-American operative, pursued like a terrorist?

Julian Paul Assange is an Australian journalist.
I wish someone would attribute a quote like that to me.... Fuck assange.  Waterboard his terrorist loving ass in Gitmo!
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
mr.hrundi
Wurstwassereis
+68|6408|Germany
As someone from another country who's never been to the US and only knows the country from what other people say, here some thoughts:

There is violent rhetoric on every side of the political spectrum. In my opinion there are two reasons for that:
- someone needs to be loud and extreme to be heard in a country that produces masses and masses of opinions and news every single day. Low, reasonable voices won't be heard in a medial system that's based on profit.
- The second has to do with gun laws (I can already hear you sigh). When a community has access to guns all the time, it will get involved with them in their spare time (not necessarily bad, all I shot were air guns, but it was fun). From this, words like 'reload' and 'aim' will automatically be inserted in the vocabulary.

I do think that the daily use of these words will also influence someone's actions (especially people that have mental problems) and can, in my opinion, lead to the recent increase in random killings done by mentally unstable persons.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

mr.hrundi wrote:

As someone from another country who's never been to the US and only knows the country from what other people say, here some thoughts:

There is violent rhetoric on every side of the political spectrum. In my opinion there are two reasons for that:
- someone needs to be loud and extreme to be heard in a country that produces masses and masses of opinions and news every single day. Low, reasonable voices won't be heard in a medial system that's based on profit.
- The second has to do with gun laws (I can already hear you sigh). When a community has access to guns all the time, it will get involved with them in their spare time (not necessarily bad, all I shot were air guns, but it was fun). From this, words like 'reload' and 'aim' will automatically be inserted in the vocabulary.

I do think that the daily use of these words will also influence someone's actions (especially people that have mental problems) and can, in my opinion, lead to the recent increase in random killings done by mentally unstable persons.
I see where you're coming from, but I think the more valid issue at hand is the handling of mental healthcare itself.

In countries where mental healthcare is better managed and better funded, there are far fewer incidents involving crazy people killing others -- whether it's with a gun, knife, or something else.

Guns and rhetoric seem like less significant factors in this by comparison.
mr.hrundi
Wurstwassereis
+68|6408|Germany
I wasn't primarily searching for a reason for the killings, but for a reason for the hostile rethoric. I was merely naming the rethoric as one possible influence for the killings.

Treatment for mentally ill people surely can prevent killings. The problem is that most of the culprits have never been suspicious before and are therefore not covered by psychological help.

I woudn't call the american health care system worse than others in this aspect. In Germany there are crimes by mentally ill people as well, yet most of them are rape of killing of children. This actually might have to do with the availability of guns. When guns are at hand, everybody can be the victim. If you only have a knife, the person will search for someone weaker.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

mr.hrundi wrote:

I wasn't primarily searching for a reason for the killings, but for a reason for the hostile rethoric. I was merely naming the rethoric as one possible influence for the killings.

Treatment for mentally ill people surely can prevent killings. The problem is that most of the culprits have never been suspicious before and are therefore not covered by psychological help.

I woudn't call the american health care system worse than others in this aspect. In Germany there are crimes by mentally ill people as well, yet most of them are rape of killing of children. This actually might have to do with the availability of guns. When guns are at hand, everybody can be the victim. If you only have a knife, the person will search for someone weaker.
Hmmm...  I never thought of it from that perspective.  So, ironically, having a society where guns are less available inadvertently makes children a more desirable target for criminals.
mr.hrundi
Wurstwassereis
+68|6408|Germany
I guess I don't need to tell you that I don't think that is a positive development. Both, random killings of many people and killing of weaker people are crimes and I'd rather see them not happening.

The thing is that I do not think that less availability of guns generally increase the crimes against children. There could well be an average in every country of that. Yet in societies, where guns are readily available, there are not only crimes against children, but also crimes against stronger or equally strong people, because it is more probable to be successful in commiting these.

Politically motivated culprits will only in the rarest cases kill a random child just because they can't get to the person they really want to harm. So no, describing them as a "more desirable target" is in my opinion not true.

Last edited by mr.hrundi (2011-01-18 11:58:36)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

mr.hrundi wrote:

I guess I don't need to tell you that I don't think that is a positive development. Both, random killings of many people and killing of weaker people are crimes and I'd rather see them not happening.

The thing is that I do not think that less availability of guns generally increase the crimes against children. There could well be an average in every country of that. Yet in societies, where guns are readily available, there are not only crimes against children, but also crimes against stronger or equally strong people, because it is more probable to be successful in commiting these.

Politically motivated culprits will only in the rarest cases kill a random child just because they can't get to the person they really want to harm. So no, describing them as a "more desirable target" is in my opinion not true.
Well, I meant it in general.  It's not that criminals inherently desire to harm children usually -- the children just happen to be the easiest targets.

For most criminals, a heavily armed public makes it less desirable to attack people.  For insane people like Jared Loughner, being armed isn't a deterrent.

So, it works both ways.  Granted, there are issues with the middle ground as well.  In a society where guns are readily available and only a small percentage of people carry them, then the legality of gun ownership is less of a deterrent to crime.

I guess it would be interesting to see what percentage of eligible adults in Arizona actually carry a gun with them most of the time.  More specifically, the percentage in Tucson would be relevant in this discussion.

Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-18 12:40:26)

Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6325

Dilbert_X wrote:

OTOH Palin made numerous threats and references to violence.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

list em
http://piggington.com/files/images/pali … rs_map.jpg

"Palin tells followers to 'reload' and 'aim for' Democrats"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/03/pali … democrats/
Oh I thought you said " numerous threats and references to violence. "

lol

Step off, I have seen adds like this all the time. Did she Ever say " Bring a Gun " - " Get in peoples Faces " "Hey ! Shut Up " - " I'll send Mr. Burgess to tear em up " - " Get in the Back of the Buss "

Time to get of this soap box.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-19 12:20:54)

Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6325

Dilbert_X wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Shut the hell up. He was a lefty, one of yous.
Says who?
He Hated Republicans and Bush, Railed against him and had Lots of Marxist literature. And yes it seems he leaned left.  otoh I have 2 copies of the Koran and a " How to understand the Teachings " book and  I am far from being a muslim.  But can you Imagine if he had a Rush Limbaugh book ? The left would be still running with it.

He was nuts, that's the point. When we discovered he wasn't Right we were no longer allowed to discuss it so who really cares.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-19 14:27:53)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard