they can - esp. if paranoid. this guy sounds paranoid.

Heh, yeah, a catatonic schizophrenic doesn't really bother anyone.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/typ...schizophrenia/

*Don't* sell them a gun.

Weren't there similar issues with the guy at Virginia Tech?

Edit (from Wikipedia)

From wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

i'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:

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. 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.

There are still some dupes and a few thieves in the left-wing, but most snuck over into the right-wing several years ago.

nicely put and informative.

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.

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 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?

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.

:D

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.

Then we'd lose our technicality loophole in court.:p:

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.

Not relevant, our Constitution does not apply world wide.

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?

What was Rham It Through Emanuel's quote? "Never let a good crisis go to waste!"

The latter.

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:

And that changes what?

Obama say's bring a gun to a knife fight....

So what's your point?

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........

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.

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.

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.

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...

And I am shocked that you folks get the protection of the Secrets Act...

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?

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.

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.] ;)

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.

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.

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



Here is President Obama's: (34+ minutes) from PBS

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...ooting-fallout

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.

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.

:D

lol V.

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.

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.