Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by downtown, Jan 8, 2011.
Put him in the supermax in Colorado. That should be sufficient to put him out of commission.
Can we please please please keep the death penalty discussion to the death penalty thread? We really don't need that cesspool of fail infecting this one.
Leftists in the Democratic party?
A fine joke, but it doesn't really fit with the solemn nature of this thread.
Incitement alone is not a crime, or else every extremist group in the country would be in prison by now. It has to be a direct order. Such prosecutions wouldn't do any good and would make the US Attorney's office look like fools, which would reflect even worse on the government. I am simply stating that politicians owe the public a measure of personal responsibility in choosing their public words and public actions carefully. Just as my words and deeds reflect on me as a physician, I make sure to behave accordingly when the public is in view. For those co-workers and colleagues with which I have less formal relations, I am the less formal. When public figures make statements, they send the message that they approve of them, so they should not be surprised when some act on them. It is not sufficient to claim misinterpretation of public statements because it is only public perception that matters. I do not favor punishment for incitement. Who could say how close or tenuous some vague statement at some time could lead to some incident? I am merely advocating a philosophy, which is not exactly revolutionary, and which, I would think, has existed as long as politics. Perhaps it is forgotten.
This is rather insane. Blog post about the ruthless editing of Palin's Facebook wall. Negative comments deleted in minutes. Funny and all, but not terribly surprising.
But not this, commented about the 9 year old who was killed:
"It's ok. Christina Taylor Green was probably going to end up a left wing bleeding heart liberal anyway. Hey, as 'they' say, what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a kid? Exactly."
Huh. Left up for hours, still there as of the posting time.
Maybe a civil suit would work better, but I lack any faith that they will act more responsibly without some penalty for doing otherwise.
This is a blog from the BBC by Mark Mardell:
Not the best blog (too political rather than practical), but it highlights some important points.
It's not at all about pointing fingers at a particular side, or blaming them directly for the despicable act we see, it's a matter of acknowledging the climate around US politics, and making certain individuals accept culpibility for contributing to that climate. It's not right to use this simply as some way of scoring political points, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging the rhetoric causing the heated atmosphere and acknowledging the dangers of such an atmosphere (in fact, I'd go as far as to say that politicans have a responsibility to see to it that they do acknowledge this).
Glad you think I am "admitting" something that virtually everybody who has been pointing out the obvious has been mentioning repeatedly. Once again, from the NYT article that Downtown posted which hardly anybody apparently took the time to read, especially this part that I even bolded recently:
Of course, you did point out those yourself. They are the really obvious ones, even though neither one were really espoused by very many people and certainly not by any news media organization.
I've seen what you think are examples of similar behavior. Most of it is just a rehash of the rationalizations found on far-right websites to try to defend their own misdeeds by attempting to catalog similar ones from the "left". The examples are far less prevalent than simply turning on Fox News and watching for 15 minutes.
There really isn't anything "left" about the current Democrat Party, not that it has really ever been so in the deep South. And the real Dixiecrats got "disgusted" and switch to the Republican Party long ago when the northern Democrats forced civil rights and desegregation down their throats.
Nowadays, what passes for "left" in the Southern states are usually centrists like Gabrielle Giffords.
It's all part of the "socialism is ruining this country" myth. You can't very well have socialism when your worst enemy is only slightly less right than you are.
basing this only on news released here in Turkey , this follows the Columbine high school affair where there were "most unvisible" links between the shooting and the war in Kosovo , where US "opened" war reserves to continue the bombing , using black budget weapons stored . This follows the Chinese revelations of the "FB-22" and the capability to use long range ballistic missiles in precision tactical strikes , including carrier strikes . A kid born on 911 , a federal judge ( as reported in Turkey ) and a senator ( who survived on a fluke ) might just be parts of a pattern too ugly to discuss , but could conceiveably a warning to US leaders to be tough on what ever the enemy is supposed to be .
Would a "fox news" link suffice ?
No, entirely not. The two variables are not really connected. 1% of people will hurt you for their goals, but this is not the entire schizophrenic subset. The vast, vast, vast majority of schizophrenics will have a set of morals like most people - they're not willing to hurt others to get what they want. They don't have a criminal mindset. They merely have delusions about reality and/or social confusion.
The 1% of society that will hurt you, they don't need to be crazy. They're just willing to hurt others, and then their goals determine whether they hurt and who they hurt. Hell's Angels, terrorists, certain CEOs, gangsters etc. They're not delusional, they're just willing to use violence.
The average schizophrenic is no more dangerous than the average person, they're just a little less predictable.
They must have seen the liberal = Hitler part and thought it was a good post. So basically they have no intention of changing their revolting language.
Or at least, one halfwit crank of a moderator won't.
there is no evidence of a political intention, if a Republican was shot by a mad man, all the democrats would make sure that everyone knew.
I don't think the death penalty should be wavered. It looks like he planned this all ahead. Clearly, he knew what he was doing, and surely knew it was wrong. He posted "don't be mad at me" before the attack in reference to any friends he thought he had. So he knew it was wrong.
Intent? Check. Clear knowledge of good and evil? Check. Doesn't sound very insane to me.
Good to hear she's recovering. Shows how our media isn't always reliable, since some of them were proclaiming her dead.
Of course, we must remain cautiously optimistic. After all, President McKinley seemed to be recovering from his assassination well before suddenly taking a turn for the worse. Best of luck, Ms. Giffords.
What I mean is, even if you fall within both 1% isn't there also a chance that your delusions have nothing to do with anything violent?
Oh, maybe. But I'm pretty sure that the sum total is close enough to 0.01% that we can pretend that people who fall into both are likely to be trouble. Heck, people who fall into the 'violent 1%' are often trouble.
I wonder how others will be changing their security arrangements. I was kind of shocked with how little security members of Congress have when in public, especially when compared to some other public figures (US college football coaches, for example, often travel with state trooper delegations).
When we were campaigning, one staffer would be assigned to be the "Body Man" for the congressman, and basically just follow him around when he waded into a crowd to shake hands. I did it a few times...but for us, it was usually some Notre Dame undergrad who was less than 160 pounds. You guys have seen my picture...I wouldn't be able to stop an assailant either. I wonder if it'll be different now...
It is a double edged sword of the internet, allowing for individuals who would otherwise not meet like people (let's say, a forum for those people with rare neurological birth defects to share experiences and such, which is good, and say, stormfront). The 1% of the 1% that El Mach talks about can find themselves much easier. I see it in the comments that are posted online there's not a filter or something, and while 99.9% of folks don't post comments on news articles, we can clearly see that .1%.
On her recovery. As I'm somewhat more familiar than the average person with brain issues and trauma, let me talk briefly about her recovery.
It's a very positive sign that she can respond to basic commands. However, the side of the brain she was shot on controls speech and thought. She may very well live, but neurological damage takes years to recover if its possible at all. Her personality will almost very likely be changed. Some facts I dug up on headshots:
9 out of 10 are immediately fatal
Of those 1 out of 10, half are fatal during operation and recovery.
In almost no cases does the victim make a full recovery.
I am holding out hope that in 5 years time she'll be able to enjoy a semblance of a normal life, but I doubt she'll be back to representing in Congress any time during her term.
Separate names with a comma.