Well, "pro-constitution" "anti-government" nut bag shoots congresswoman

[MasterKiller]

Who didn't see this coming?

[wenshu]

Momma Grizzlie #1 has no idea what you're talking about.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/01/500x_palin-crosshairsarrowsmallgood.jpg

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/01/thumb160x_eventshooting.jpg


Dude was not necessarily associated with any political party; just a garden variety paranoid schizophrenic.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

[BJJ-Blue]

The guy is mentally ill. You can't blame the 'right', because this guy is all over the political map.

"The Army has confirmed that the suspect was never in the Army. He attempted to enlist in the Army but was rejected for service. In accordance with the Privacy Act, we will not discuss why he was rejected."

In a bizarre equation that Loughner appears to mean as example of deductive reasoning, he concludes that "the police are unconstitutional."

He lists reading under interests, as well as "conscience dreams," and among his favorite books are "Mein Kampf," the "Communist Manifesto," "Animal Farm" and "Brave New World.""

Yup, those teabaggers love the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. :rolleyes: The guy wasn't fit to enter the Army. In a time of war. The guy is a nutcase, period. Anyone using this for political gain should be ashamed.

Also from the article:

"Loughner is suspected of posting a series of YouTube videos that show a focus on literacy and currency -- as well as his distrust in the government.

"Hello, my name is Jared Lee Loughner," one of the videos says, in words appearing on the screen. "This video is my introduction to you! My favorite activity is conscience dreaming; the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don't dream - sadly."

The video, posted Dec. 15, later turns more political.

"The majority of citizens in the united states of America have never read the united states of America's constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws," the video's titles say. "In conclusion, reading the second United States constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver! No! I won't trust in god!""

Gee MasterKiller, he sounds alot like you... ;)


Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/08/shooting-suspects-apparent-youtube-video/

[wenshu]

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.
Sharon Angle


You can't deny the direction that all the violent rhetoric is coming from.

Loughner may have had an accomplice:


Posted Jan 9, 2011, 2:26 am

Dylan Smith
TucsonSentinel.com
Authorities released a photograph early Sunday of a man they say is "possibly associated" with the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing of six others.

Law enforcement is seeking a 40-50-year-old white male with dark hair, said Pima County Sheriff's Deputy Jason Ogan in a news release. He was last seen wearing blue jeans and a dark blue jacket, Ogan said.

Anyone who knows the man's identity is asked to contact 911, 88-CRIME or the FBI at 520-791-6974.

The man described as a "person of interest" may be an accomplice of the suspect who gunned down 19 at a Northwest Side grocery store during a meet and greet event held by Giffords, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said at an evening news conference Saturday.

Investigators have reason to believe that the 22-year-old suspect had an accomplice, said Dupnik, who would not elaborate on the reason for that belief.

"We have photos of him," he said.

Dupnik said the possible accomplice may have driven the shooting suspect to the Safeway, 7110 N. Oracle Rd., where Giffords was holding a "Congress On Your Corner" to meet with constituents.

19 were shot in the incident, which took place around 10:10 a.m. Saturday. Six were killed.

Although authorities have not identified the alleged shooter, sources have named the gunman as Jared Lee Loughner, 22. The shooter, who used a semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine, is in custody after being tackled by two witnesses at the scene.

The suspect was in FBI custody Saturday night, said Ogan.

The suspect, who was detained at the scene of the shooting that killed 6, was the subject of "some police interest in the recent past," Dupnick said. The sheriff indicated that the man had made death threats and "has kind of a troubled past."

"We have reason to believe the individual may have a mental issue," Dupnik said of the shooting suspect.

Giffords "was the target" of the shooting, Dupnik said.

[curenado]

Oh the violent and provoking rhetoric has been coming from both sides...

I was suprised to see this happen so soon. I thought maybe later in the Spring when other crunches start to set in that it may get dicey, but did not see this coming.

[Syn7]

nah blue... this clearly shows how all republican supporters are dangerous gun nutt cowboys... :p

[mooyingmantis]

nah blue... this clearly shows how all republican supporters are dangerous gun nutt cowboys... :p

nope, some of us republicans are dangerous gun nut Native Americans! :D

[Drake]

Point missed.

It isn't about whether or not the right/left wing babble is dangerous on its own. The problem is that those with mental issues will take it and run with it. The stuff being said over TV and the radio is very, VERY dangerous, and people need to show some god**** responsibility with the freedom of speech. He WAS influenced by political mumbo jumbo, though it's unsure WHOSE mumbo jumbo it was.


Both sides - CEASE FIRE. CEASE FIRE. CEASE FIRE. LOCK AND CLEAR ALL WEAPONS, PLACE YOUR WEAPON ON SAFE, AND STEP AWAY FROM THE FIRING LINE.


Nobody can walk away from this blameless.

[David Jamieson]

To make this about left/right is ridiculous in and of itself.
The dude was a nutjob.

The rhetoric being employed is inappropriate and yes, the politicians and pundits should wise up to that fact.

[Lucas]

people need to show some god**** responsibility with the freedom of speech.

wow im not the only one who thinks that...

[Syn7]

wow im not the only one who thinks that...

yeah... everyone says that tho... its just PC bullsh!t most of the time...

its insane that anyone is turning this into a right vs left thing... people are putting all sorts of labels on this guy becoz of his fav book list... how dumb is that??? i read orwell and marx and ive even read some mein kampf(sp???) but i wouldnt want to be defined by that... i read all sides of all stories to try to understand people and how and why they think what they think... doesnjt mean i agree with all of them tho...

[BJJ-Blue]

its insane that anyone is turning this into a right vs left thing... people are putting all sorts of labels on this guy...

I agree. Just look at the title of the thread.

[MasterKiller]

yeah... everyone says that tho... its just PC bullsh!t most of the time...

its insane that anyone is turning this into a right vs left thing... people are putting all sorts of labels on this guy becoz of his fav book list... how dumb is that??? i read orwell and marx and ive even read some mein kampf(sp???) but i wouldnt want to be defined by that... i read all sides of all stories to try to understand people and how and why they think what they think... doesnjt mean i agree with all of them tho...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4

[BJJ-Blue]

Now the Fred Phelps cult has entered the fray:

"Tucson, Arizona (CNN) -- Tucson just isn't that kind of town, says Christin Gilmer.

Gilmer is referring to the actions of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, which has made its name protesting the funerals of people who died of AIDS, gay people, soldiers and even Coretta Scott King.

But when the church announced its intention to picket the funeral of a 9-year-old girl -- one of six people who died Saturday during the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- Gilmer and others put their feet down.

Tucson is a "caring, loving, peaceful community," according to Gilmer, who said two of the six people killed were friends.

"For something like this to happen in Tucson was a really big shock to us all," she said. "Our nightmare happened when we saw Westboro Baptist Church was going to picket the funerals."

They're planning an "angel action" -- with 8- by 10-foot "angel wings" worn by participants and used to shield mourners from pickets. The actions were created by Coloradan Romaine Patterson, who was shocked to find the Topeka church and its neon signs outside the 1999 funeral of Matthew Shepherd, a young gay man beaten and left on a fence to die in Laramie, Wyoming.

"We want to surround them, in a nonviolent way, to say that our community is united," Gilmer said. "We're a peaceful haven.

"You don't mess with Tucson," said Gilmer, 26, who described it as "a little dot of blue in a sea of red."

But political persuasions don't matter, she said. Republicans, Democrats, independents, right, left and center -- they've all offered their support. Forty-two people have signed up on a Facebook page called "Build Angel Wings for the Westboro Funeral Counter-Protest and Meeting," and more than 4,500 have signed up on another page to "Show Support for the Families of the Tucson Shooting Victims."

"People, businesses, they're all donating material and money to build the angel wings," said Gilmer, who is helping organize the action. She added they're donating to a fund created to help pay for services for the shooting victims.

Chelsea Cohen, a 20-year-old senior at the University of Arizona who launched the "Show Support" Facebook page, said she never expected such a response.

"Once I heard that the Westboro Baptist Church was coming, I felt like something should be done to show support for the families," she said. "I don't have any experience in organizing these things. I thought I might get 50 to 100 people."

Cohen said she thinks many of the 4,500 people who've signed up on the Facebook page will be there "in spirit" Thursday when mourners gather for the funeral of Christina Taylor Green, who was born on September 11, 2001. But she added, Tucson is an active town, and the response isn't likely to be small.

"This isn't a counterprotest," she said. "We wanted it to show support for the families and to show that Tucson is there with love and support."

They don't want to interfere with the funeral in any way, Cohen said.

"We plan on being completely silent, and we're asking people not to bring signs or make comments about the Westboro Baptist Church," she said.

The angels will be doing the same thing.

"We're going to silently stand there so people can mourn the death of a 9-year-old girl who died in a senseless tragedy," Gilmer said.

Cohen said several groups are planning to be at the funeral to show their support, and there is an effort afoot to bring them all together "into one group so we can all be on the same page."

"I hope that everyone there can convey the peaceful message that we want to convey, she said

And if the church pickets persist, the silent supporters will be on hand for the funerals of U.S. District Judge John Roll, Gabriel Zimmerman, Dorothy Morris, Dorwin Stoddard and Phyllis Schneck, the other five victims of Saturday's shooting. Giffords, who was shot in the head and is in critical condition, and 13 other people were wounded.

Westboro Baptist Church, founded by its spiritual leader, Fred Phelps, and run mostly by family members, did not respond to a request for an interview in time for this article. But a flier released by the church about the picket targets the Roman Catholic Church because Christina and her family were members.

"God hates Catholics!" the flier, posted on the church's "God Hates ***s" website, says. "God calls your religion 'vain,' as it's empty of His truth; you worship idols!""

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T1

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's been awhile since I read something with so much hate and venom.
There are some deep, rooted physcological issues there, that's for sure.
He'd make a great Nazi or genocidal maniac.
Alas, it seems that he has turned his back on Christ and it pains to see the result.
One hopes that, somehow, his family wakes up from the hate and evil that they are being surrounded in.

[BJJ-Blue]

Excellent article about those who politicized the shooting:

"Political Vultures
The sick art of turning insanity into politics


Very few Americans are fans of both The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kamp, as the Tucson killer, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, apparently was. Fewer still post on the Internet fears about “brain washing,” “mind control,” and “conscience dreaming”; have a long record of public disruption and aberrant behavior; were expelled from community college; or were summarily rejected for military service.

No matter. Almost immediately following Loughner’s cowardly murdering of six and wounding of 14 including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, pundits and some public figures rushed to locate his rampage, together with his paranoid rantings about government control, within the larger landscape of right-wing politics — especially the rhetoric of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

Apparently, we are supposed to believe that Loughner’s unhinged rants about the “government” indict those who express reasonable reservations about the size of government as veritable accessories to mass murder. The three worst offenders were Paul Daly of the New York Daily News, who claimed just that in an essay with the raging headline “The blood of Congresswoman Giffords was on Sarah Palin’s hands”; the ubiquitous Paul Krugman, who connected Loughner to the supposedly Republican-created “climate of hate”; and Andrew Sullivan, who thought he saw yet another avenue through which to further his own blind antipathy toward Sarah Palin and “the Palin forces.” In their warped syllogism, the Tea Party unquestionably creates hatred; a congresswomen was shot out of hatred; ergo, the Tea Party and/or the Republican party all but pulled the trigger.

That the 22-year-old shooter more likely fit the profile of an unhinged killer like Ted Kaczynski or John Hinckley did not seem to register. In the wake of the Kennedy assassination, commentators pontificated about a right-wing “climate of hate” in Dallas, Texas, that supposedly explained why a crazed avowed Communist — pro-Soviet, Castroite 24-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald — shot President Kennedy. Suddenly, this week, we are back in a 1963 mood of blaming politics for deranged shootings.

In the times of national uncertainty and fear that immediately follow hideous mass shootings, this cheap habit of channeling insanity into politics always surfaces but never convinces — as we learned from the deplorable tactic of blaming the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative talk radio. There is usually no clear-cut evidence that a shooter’s ideology has trumped his own imbalances; and we are never quite sure what outside stimulus is the deciding factor that pushes the unhinged over the edge from sounding like a nut on MySpace or YouTube into pulling the trigger.

Loughner was no John Wilkes Booth or James Earl Ray, whose bouts of insanity and past troubles seemed overshadowed by a virulent hatred of the men they shot, which in turn was driven largely by racism or sectarian hatred. But even in such seemingly clear-cut examples of political assassination as Booth’s small cabal, we do not quite see a Day of the Jackal–like cold professionalism, funded by nefarious and well-organized political organizations. Plenty of southerners wanted Lincoln dead by spring 1864; scores of racists shared the sentiments of Ray toward Martin Luther King. But while both killers carefully planned their shootings, it is far harder to uncover elaborate conspiracies that used Booth and Ray as mere triggermen than to discover that both were troubled, sick, and often violent characters whose demonic furies turned their own political extremism into carefully calculated murders.

Further, there is no evidence that political killers share a common ideology. For every apparently right-wing Timothy McVeigh there is a left-wing Ted Kaczynski; both exhibited a sort of mental derangement in their braggadocio about extreme politics. The Sixties culture of drugs, permissiveness, national liberation, radical politics, and environmentalism no more made the Palestinian extremist Sirhan Sihran assassinate Bobby Kennedy, or Charles Manson follower Squeaky Fromme try to kill President Ford, or pop socialist and cult preacher the Rev. Jim Jones order the execution of Rep. Leo Ryan, or Arthur Bremmer shoot the “segregationist dinosaur” George Wallace, than right-wing politics drove on the equally deranged Jared Lee Loughner.

There is much talk that Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” ad pushed Loughner over the edge. But if sloppy use of gun metaphors can drive anyone to shoot congressional representatives, think what we are up against when the president of the United States invokes violent imagery to galvanize his supporters. What are we to make of Obama’s warning of “hand-to-hand combat” if the Republicans take over; or his comment that one of his supporters could “tear [Sean Hannity] up”; or his Untouchables boast that “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”; or his advice to supporters of his presidential campaign to argue with Republicans and independents and “get in their face”?

Why would a president boast about figuring out “whose ass to kick,” or, in a climate of fear about terrorism, call his opponents “hostage takers”? In a post-9/11 world, is it prudent for the commander-in-chief to say of his political opponents, “Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up”? What about, “But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger”?

Also, in a political twofer, Obama once not only evoked gun imagery, but did so in a context of relegating Republicans into second-class citizenry: “We can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Yet do we really wish to tie crude presidential metaphors, similes, and bombast to the next violent attack on a conservative political figure? Are we to suggest that President Obama’s occasional indiscretions have created a climate of fear that someday will lead to violence against his political adversaries? Or, did Obama merely from time to time indulge in sloppy thinking and clumsy expression? Even as someone who did not vote for Barack Obama, I do not think the president’s ill-advised and juvenile similes and allusions will ever drive a liberal extremist into “bringing a gun” to a political fight or literally “tearing up” a political opponent.

The problem that political hatchet writers such as Paul Krugman have with channeling acts of unhinged violence into expressions of mainstream political thinking is threefold. First, such politicos cannot calibrate the degree to which ideological motivation trumps mental instability. If Arthur Bremmer hated racists and admired black politicians, did such feelings feed on mainstream liberals’ fears of segregationists, and did they alone result in his shooting of George Wallace? Analyzing an isolated act of violence is more difficult than finding a pattern in the 30-something terrorist plots since 9/11 in which avowed Islamic terrorists have tried to kill infidel Americans in open emulation of Osama bin Laden.

Second, there is no consistent evidence that the Kaczynskis or Squeaky Frommes of the world are less numerous than the McVeighs. If political fervor inspires extremism, is there any evidence that states’-rights zealotry prompts more terrorism than, say, radical environmentalism? Are left-wing nuts more or less numerous than right-wing nuts — and more or less likely to translate warped politics into pulling a trigger? If Sarah Palin has used crosshairs imagery, has the Democratic-party hierarchy never used shooting-range targets to illustrate their electoral strategy to unseat Republicans? And has any academic collated 100 years of political assassinations and shootings in the U.S. to determine whether radicals or reactionaries are more likely to shoot public figures — and, far more critically, to prove that such political motivations, rather than mental instability, were the real catalysts for the ensuing violence?

Third, the outrage of Daly, Krugman, Sullivan, and others is partisan and transparently self-serving. Paul Krugman would have more credibility on the topic of extreme rhetoric had he written a column a few years ago warning Americans that it was one thing to oppose George W. Bush, but quite another to publish a novel envisioning the assassination of the president, or to award first prize at the Toronto Film Festival to a “docudrama” constructing the shooting of Bush, or to compare one’s opponents (as Al Gore and John Glenn did) to “brownshirts” and “Hitler.” Did we ever hear from Andrew Sullivan to cool the sick rhetoric about Sarah Palin, in worries that his incessant rumor-mongering about her supposed faked pregnancies had reached the point of dehumanization?

If crazed gunmen are sadly a periodic characteristic of American culture, so are political vultures who scavenge political capital as they pick through the horrific violence."

Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256697/political-vultures-victor-davis-hanson?page=1

[Syn7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4

yeah i already saw that...

not sure what it has to do with painting this guy based on a fav list on youtube... clearly he has issues, but who knows what he's really thinking... we'll see...

also another thing... youtube isnt secure... its pretty easy to social engineer your way into peoples accounts or to just make one pretending to be somebody else... coz on gabbriels youtube page she has two favorite links, one to a dem congressman and the second goes to loughners page... on the surface it seems shady but when you think it thru, its more likely that somebody has been manipulating these accounts... atleast hers, anyways...

[Syn7]

blue, i cant take anybody seriously when they actually believe lee harvey oswald was the person solely responsible for jfk's death... its a mess that nobody wants to step in and it was tough to get over it, but i dont think very many people who have reviewed the facts, esspecially those facts delivered under oath to congress, believe that the case was in any way shape or form SOLVED...

[BJJ-Blue]

not sure what it has to do with painting this guy based on a fav list on youtube... clearly he has issues, but who knows what he's really thinking... we'll see...

also another thing... youtube isnt secure... its pretty easy to social engineer your way into peoples accounts or to just make one pretending to be somebody else... coz on gabbriels youtube page she has two favorite links, one to a dem congressman and the second goes to loughners page... on the surface it seems shady but when you think it thru, its more likely that somebody has been manipulating these accounts... atleast hers, anyways...

Actually, a short time after the shootings a Facebook page that was supposed to be the shooter's page was created. We know it wasn't his because the person who created it misspelled the shooter's name the same way early news reports did.


blue, i cant take anybody seriously when they actually believe lee harvey oswald was the person solely responsible for jfk's death... its a mess that nobody wants to step in and it was tough to get over it, but i dont think very many people who have reviewed the facts, esspecially those facts delivered under oath to congress, believe that the case was in any way shape or form SOLVED...

I think the point was that Oswald wasn't some guy who shot Kennedy because of this supposed right-wing hate speech. Not to go off topic, but I do also believe their was more to the JFK assassination than the Gov't says there was.

I have a quick question: If (God forbid) a Hispanic person does something like this in the future, will the same people blaming Sarah Palin for this one blame Obama because he told Hispanics to "punish their enemies"?

[BJJ-Blue]

Of course liberals use tragedies like this to further their political goals. Here is Rahm Emanuel, Obama's outgoing Chief of Staff, openly admitting to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." -Rahm Emanuel

[MasterKiller]

Of course liberals use tragedies like this to further their political goals. Here is Rahm Emanuel, Obama's outgoing Chief of Staff, openly admitting to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." -Rahm Emanuel

*cough* 9/11 used to justify invading Iraq *cough*

[MasterKiller]

I have a quick question: If (God forbid) a Hispanic person does something like this in the future, will the same people blaming Sarah Palin for this one blame Obama because he told Hispanics to "punish their enemies"?


You guys act like fiery, divisive, passionate, political rhetoric is just posturing that has never led to anything violent, like, say, genocide, wars, revolutions... :rolleyes:

[Syn7]

no doubt... alot of people speak without considering the consequences... freedom of speech doesnt mean people dont need to be responsible with their speech...

[Drake]

MK and BJJ.... seriously... you both are proving my point.

[BJJ-Blue]

MK and BJJ.... seriously... you both are proving my point.

How so?

My point is that each individual is responsible for his/her own actions. You can't blame society, parents, talk radio, a book, etc for an individual's bad actions. You must blame, and then punish, the individual who broke the law. What's wrong with that?

[BJJ-Blue]

*cough* 9/11 used to justify invading Iraq *cough*

So we just sit back and do nothing when terrorists crash planes into our buildings and kill thousands of our citizens?

Or maybe we could do like you did, wait for a tragedy and blame whomever we don't agree with for the tragedy before we even get any actual facts. I figured someone as smart as you would at least "look before you leap", but I'll admit I was wrong on that one.

[KC Elbows]

So we just sit back and do nothing when terrorists crash planes into our buildings and kill thousands of our citizens?



Iraq as a state had nothing to do with 9/11.

Individuals should be held responsible for their actions, but public figures need to recognize that when they use crazy language for populist goals and votes, crazy people will respond. Freedom of speech was never intended to protect people from judgment of their irreponsible speech, only to protect their right to initially say it.

[MasterKiller]

Or maybe we could do like you did, wait for a tragedy and blame whomever we don't agree with for the tragedy before we even get any actual facts. I figured someone as smart as you would at least "look before you leap", but I'll admit I was wrong on that one.

Can you quote specifically where I blamed anyone in particular?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Iraq as a state had nothing to do with 9/11.

Individuals should be held responsible for their actions, but public figures need to recognize that when they use crazy language for populist goals and votes, crazy people will respond. Freedom of speech was never intended to protect people from judgment of their irreponsible speech, only to protect their right to initially say it.

Check this out:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

[MasterKiller]

Check this out:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

So, disregarding this incident for the moment, when a political leader incites others to violence through violent rhetoric, they get a pass?

[BJJ-Blue]

Reagan classified ketchup as a vegetable, too.

You're unbelievable.

[BJJ-Blue]

Check this out:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

Yeah, I heard that this morning. It makes perfect sense to me, and quite honestly, it should to anyone with reason and common sense.

I just love the hypocracy on the left. When Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are spewing incindiary rhetoric and some "pro-constitution" "anti-government" nut bag kills a bunch of people, it's Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh's fault. But when Muslim religious leaders and Saddam Hussein spew incindiary rhetoric and some Muslim nut bag kills a bunch of people, it's that individual nut bag's fault.

By their logic, we should never have hunted down and punished any Nazi war criminals. After all, it wasn't their fault they chose to open up cattle cars full of human beings and throw them into gas chambers and ovens, it was all Hitler's fault becuase he was the one spewing the incindiary rhetoric.

[sanjuro_ronin]

So, disregarding this incident for the moment, when a political leader incites others to violence through violent rhetoric, they get a pass?

Nope, but we need to lay the majority of the blame where it should fall, directly on the people doing it.
Now, we need to also realize that this also means that Iraq and Afghanistan should NEVER have happened because it was Al queda and Bin Laden and NOT the citizens of those "states" that caused 9/11.

[MasterKiller]

By their logic, we should never have hunted doen and punished any Nazi war criminals. After all, it wasn't their fault they chose to open up cattle cars full of human beings and throw them into gas chambers and ovens, it was all Hitler's fault becuase he was the one spewing the incindiary rhetoric.

By your logic, Hitler gets a free pass because WW2 was the fault of all those individual Nazi soldiers for not taking charge of their own personal responsibilities.

[MasterKiller]

I just love the hypocracy on the left. When Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are spewing incindiary rhetoric and some "pro-constitution" "anti-government" nut bag kills a bunch of people, it's Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh's fault. But when Muslim religious leaders and Saddam Hussein spew incindiary rhetoric and some Muslim nut bag kills a bunch of people, it's that individual nut bag's fault..

Isn't this exactly your point? Irresponsible political rhetoric can either entice people into violence or it can't. Which is it?

[BJJ-Blue]

By your logic, Hitler gets a free pass because WW2 was the fault of all those individual Nazi soldiers for not taking charge of their own personal responsibilities.

Not at all. He called for the murder of Jews, ****sexuals, gypsies, handicapped people, Slavs, etc. He also signed into law laws doing that and actually personally ordered murders himself (Lidice being a perfect example of him directly ordering murders). Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have never called for violence, nor have they signed legislation calling for violence or ordered others to commit murder. Those are huge differences you've apparently missed.

Buy hey, at least Hitler didn't classify ketchup as a vegetable.

[KC Elbows]

Check this out:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

Okay, so, using rhetoric intended to create an overresponse(for example, racist political rhetoric in congress during Reformation years that was intended to drive the excesses of groups like the KKK so that such groups would victimize blacks starting to do well in society and allow whites to fill the vaccuum) is not doing a separate act that itself is open to judgment aside from the overreaction by nutcases?

If I go find a schizophrenic homeless guy and say that the Repubs want him to die on the streets of starvation, that they won't stop until he's dead, and that he ought to take a second ammendmen solution to the problem, and continue this talk periodically for two years, and he shoots some Repub, was one wrong act done, or does my wrong act count?

If I take a job where I am speaking to normals and crazies, and choose to speak like a crazy, justifying every paranoid position they have and making it sound, falsely, like their worst nightmares are at the door, but none of them end up doing anything bad, does that make my act okay, or am I responsible and worthy of derision for having done it?

As for Blue's Hitler example, horrible example. Those who gassed jews are responsible, AND Hitler is responsible for hyperbole that led them to it. Who the hell doesn't consider Hitler a waste of a life for blaming everything on the jews, for rising to power based on making, through hyperbole, the jews scapegoats for all the ills of the world? Yet, when our politicians do the same to other groups, they aren't to be held responsible? Bull.

Using fiery rhetoric to evoke things like fear, overreaction, and bigotry, are not admirable, and that's the argument here, was such speech worthy of derision, and it was. Was such speech meant to create zero response among the public, or was it meant to move them, and it was meanrt to move them, clearly.

Are some people responsible, through their speech, for such actions? Those who suggested a "second ammendment solution" most certainly are, flat out they called for guns to be involved, and guns got involved. Palin is, to my knowledge, only responsible for being a hyperbolistic cad, but it's not an infringement on her first ammendment rights to call her so for the things she chose to say. She certainly helped paint Democrats as un-American, and helped paint the doomsday scenario men in black suits are gonna steal your guns and tell you what to say tea party rhetoric that's been going around.

Honestly, whose response fits a reality of "they're trying to make a commie state and take away our guns and rights, and it's both the dems and the moderates" more, Blue, who spreads the rhetoric but clearly doesn't believe it, or Loughton's? That's why Loughton's clearly crazy, because he believes the rhetoric, and not just tea party rhetoric, but the fact is, if the rhetoric were true, his response would fit reality better than Blue's, and since Loughton clearly didn't make the rhetoric he based his actions around, and since it clearly isn't true, then someone is responsible for a lie told to the public for some gain, and they should be reviled for such, publically, just as Loughton should be reviled for his acts, and the link between the two SHOULD NOT be obscured by the same politicians and "reporters" who voice ALL the rhetoric in the first place.

Let Loughton face the law and let those who use rhetoric for votes and their and their own ilk's gain face the judgement of society, neither deserves protection.

[BJJ-Blue]

"Arizona massacre gunman Jared Loughner's downward spiral may have been touched off by a broken high school romance and fueled by drug use -- but it was not politically motivated, according to his best friend in high school.

Zach Osler, in an interview Wednesday with ABC's "Good Morning America," said: "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right."

Media speculation swirled after Loughner allegedly opened fire at a Tucson rally last Saturday, critically wounding Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 13 others and killing six. Immediately, the Tucson sheriff and liberal pundits and lawmakers chimed in that the shooting somehow was politically motivated and a result of the extreme rhetoric being used by conservatives such as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

But Osler said Loughner wasn't shooting at people, "he was shooting at the world."

Osler said he instead suspects that Loughner was motivated by a documentary called, "Zeitgeist: The Movie," which slams currency-based economics.

"I really think that this 'Zeitgeist' documentary had a profound impact upon Jared Loughner's mindset and how he viewed the world that he lives in," he said.

Osler said Loughner began to spiral downward after a high school girlfriend broke up with him. Osler also said Loughner then began abusing alcohol and drugs, including salvia, a legal hallucinogen.

"He would say he was using it," Osler told ABC. "And he would talk about it and say what it would do to him."

Eventually, Loughner's increasingly bizarre behavior drove Osler away two years ago.

"I forgot about Jared, I stopping thinking about this kid because thinking about him was something I didn't want to do."

Osler's admission comes as blame for the national tragedy continues to be cast everything from Arizona's immigration law, to Sarah Palin, to charged rhetoric in the political arena rather than apparent mental illness.

In an e-mail to students and staff at University of California-Berkeley on Monday, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau blamed the shooting that killed six and wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- and 13 others -- squarely on the state's controversial immigration law S.B. 1070 while acknowledging Jared Lee Loughner was "profoundly disturbed."

"A climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated can lead to such a tragedy," the e-mail read. "I believe it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons.""

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/12/report-alleged-arizona-gunman-did-watch-news-television/

[KC Elbows]

Dude didn't talk to the guy for two years. Hardly an expert on the events of last week in the Loughner's life, or what the guy's habits had become. All accounts are he was online, which means he was probably exposed to the same media as those watching TV. It's hasty reporting based around extrapolating what happened last week completely on the testimony of someone who hadn't been close to the topic for a couple years.

Just noticed it's Fox news. Typically dodgy of them, reporting the account of someone who had no contact as if they had recent knowledge.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I wouldn't out too much stock on what his "friends" have to same about him.
media hounds are everywhere and they typically all have an agenda.
Fact is, the only person that KNOWS why he did what he did is HIM, no one else.

[BJJ-Blue]

Dude didn't talk to the guy for two years. Hardly an expert on the events of last week in the Loughner's life.

But what he said fits the evidence found this week. The nut had books from both the left and right. Not just one or the other. And he had books about economics.

I'm very conservative. In terms of political books, you won't find in my house a copy of the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, or Marx's books for example. You will find books by Rush Limbaugh, Ken Hamblin, and alot of books about the Founding Fathers.

[BJJ-Blue]

Fact is, the only person that KNOWS why he did what he did is HIM, no one else.

100% true. But that didn't stop experts on his beliefs from calling him "pro-constitution" "anti-government", as well as blaming Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Arizona's controversial immigration law.

[MasterKiller]

But what he said fits the evidence found this week. The nut had books from both the left and right. Not just one or the other. And he had books about economics.

I'm very conservative. In terms of political books, you won't find in my house a copy of the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, or Marx's books for example. You will find books by Rush Limbaugh, Ken Hamblin, and alot of books about the Founding Fathers.

I have books from all over the spectrum. That's how you form your OWN conclusions....

[KC Elbows]

But what he said fits the evidence found this week. The nut had books from both the left and right. Not just one or the other. And he had books about economics.

I'm very conservative. In terms of political books, you won't find in my house a copy of the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, or Marx's books for example. You will find books by Rush Limbaugh, Ken Hamblin, and alot of books about the Founding Fathers.

ANYONE with any interest in actual political science has some Marx, regardless of their political leanings, among a whole host of other authors and topics from different parts of the political spectrum.

I have a book on our legal system recommended by Norman Mailer and William F. Buckley Jr, yet my politics aren't all over the place. I have tons of poli sci books, one can't really grasp modern politics without grasping a whole number of people, and Marx, whether repubs can admit it or not, is highly relevant to many of the things they directly do, as are a number of socialist writers, since there does not exist a modern American politician that does not have every intention on using socialism in their career, just for different programs in some cases.

That said, aside from the founding fathers, every other author you named have never actually played a role in politics or contributed to political science in any way, shape, or form, aside from being bombastic rallying points for non-discerning voters who also don't read much real political science.:p:D

Extrapolating one's views from the books they own, especially at this guy's age, is a total dead-end. Lot's of people have read some of mein kampf, but most read it to be armed with knowledge against the type of hyperbole that Hitler and his ilk favor. Only the jobless neo-nazi losers own it and think it says something important. It's possible this guy was one of them, or that he was marxist, but it's more likely that he happened to own a few books that, together, mean very little, and we may later find out what was going on in his head.

HOWEVER, it's a natural first conclusion, when one party has actively advocated bringing guns to other people's rallies, that this likely is more of the same as done by an extreme case. If that's wrong, it doesn't change that it's the most likely case, that predominantly tea party members have been doing this, and if they don't want to be affilited with what crazy people do, they'd be better acting less crazy than crying foul because everyone came to the obvious conclusion.

[SoCo KungFu]

If you are a repub, go to hell.
If you are a democrat, got to hell.
If you don't have the capacity to understand its the fault of both the idiot with the gun and those using the power of their voice irresponsibly, you're an idiot. Go to hell.
If you have to align yourself with a single party and use political mob tactics rather than think for yourself, you're an idiot. You're what Washington warned us about. And finally, go to hell.

[KC Elbows]

If you are a repub, go to hell.
If you are a democrat, got to hell.
If you don't have the capacity to understand its the fault of both the idiot with the gun and those using the power of their voice irresponsibly, you're an idiot. Go to hell.
If you have to align yourself with a single party and use political mob tactics rather than think for yourself, you're an idiot. You're what Washington warned us about. And finally, go to hell.

What about Furries?

[MasterKiller]

What about Furries?

http://www.therobotspajamas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/cowcostume2.jpg

[SoCo KungFu]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2307/2378531425_ce48632728.jpg

[BJJ-Blue]

I have books from all over the spectrum. That's how you form your OWN conclusions....

Oh, I've read books from both sides over my life. I was much more liberal in my youth, reading books by conservatives changed my mind (that and Ann Richards actions as Governor). I just have zero interest in having them at my house at this point in my life.

And I have plenty of books with nothing to do with politics as well.

I would be interested to know what books from conservatives or libertarians you have read.

[MasterKiller]

I would be interested to know what books from conservatives or libertarians you have read.

My BA is in English with a focus on American literature. Cotton Mather to Kurt Vonnegut, and many things in between.

[Syn7]

Can you quote specifically where I blamed anyone in particular?

yeah, i was thinking the same thing... blue spends too much type labelling and not enough time assessing individuals... its easy to just lump people together to make your beliefs fit all nice and tidy in your own lil world, but that doesnt make it any more or less the truth... and when you stereotype, a significant majority of times you'll be wrong on some level or another, if not all together... its fukced up to assume what people believe and then go and use that as the basis for an argument...

[Syn7]

Check this out:

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

and all this comming from a war criminal that should have been tried for treason... how messed up is that... but hey, thats just my opinion, right...

[sanjuro_ronin]

and all this comming from a war criminal that should have been tried for treason... how messed up is that... but hey, thats just my opinion, right...

Funny, but I don't think that HE would probably see it that way.
Funny how things work.

[Syn7]

Yeah, I heard that this morning. It makes perfect sense to me, and quite honestly, it should to anyone with reason and common sense.

I just love the hypocracy on the left. When Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are spewing incindiary rhetoric and some "pro-constitution" "anti-government" nut bag kills a bunch of people, it's Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh's fault. But when Muslim religious leaders and Saddam Hussein spew incindiary rhetoric and some Muslim nut bag kills a bunch of people, it's that individual nut bag's fault.

By their logic, we should never have hunted down and punished any Nazi war criminals. After all, it wasn't their fault they chose to open up cattle cars full of human beings and throw them into gas chambers and ovens, it was all Hitler's fault becuase he was the one spewing the incindiary rhetoric.

its crazy how you rationalize some things... i read the same words from reagan and i see something quite different... in principle i agree with em... but i dont think he did... now about iraq, the whole country is suffering over the acts of a very very small minority of offenders... how does that fit with your logic???

[Syn7]

Funny, but I don't think that HE would probably see it that way.
Funny how things work.

no doubt... and im sure he belives everything he's done has been right... alot of people who dont, cant think like he did just assumed he was a liar and a hustler... but i have no doubt he was sincere in his work... i just disagree with his methods... but hey, im not saddled with a crazy job like he was so who knows what he knew...

[sanjuro_ronin]

no doubt... and im sure he belives everything he's done has been right... alot of people who dont, cant think like he did just assumed he was a liar and a hustler... but i have no doubt he was sincere in his work... i just disagree with his methods... but hey, im not saddled with a crazy job like he was so who knows what he knew...

I try to give all the benefit of the doubt, namely because the few times I have been in a position that I was critical of someone else and how they did it, I found myself understanding WHY they did it, even if not agreeing.

People are not rational, they human species is not very rational, never has been.

[Syn7]

okay, so, using rhetoric intended to create an overresponse(for example, racist political rhetoric in congress during reformation years that was intended to drive the excesses of groups like the kkk so that such groups would victimize blacks starting to do well in society and allow whites to fill the vaccuum) is not doing a separate act that itself is open to judgment aside from the overreaction by nutcases?

If i go find a schizophrenic homeless guy and say that the repubs want him to die on the streets of starvation, that they won't stop until he's dead, and that he ought to take a second ammendmen solution to the problem, and continue this talk periodically for two years, and he shoots some repub, was one wrong act done, or does my wrong act count?

If i take a job where i am speaking to normals and crazies, and choose to speak like a crazy, justifying every paranoid position they have and making it sound, falsely, like their worst nightmares are at the door, but none of them end up doing anything bad, does that make my act okay, or am i responsible and worthy of derision for having done it?

As for blue's hitler example, horrible example. Those who gassed jews are responsible, and hitler is responsible for hyperbole that led them to it. Who the hell doesn't consider hitler a waste of a life for blaming everything on the jews, for rising to power based on making, through hyperbole, the jews scapegoats for all the ills of the world? Yet, when our politicians do the same to other groups, they aren't to be held responsible? Bull.

Using fiery rhetoric to evoke things like fear, overreaction, and bigotry, are not admirable, and that's the argument here, was such speech worthy of derision, and it was. Was such speech meant to create zero response among the public, or was it meant to move them, and it was meanrt to move them, clearly.

Are some people responsible, through their speech, for such actions? Those who suggested a "second ammendment solution" most certainly are, flat out they called for guns to be involved, and guns got involved. Palin is, to my knowledge, only responsible for being a hyperbolistic cad, but it's not an infringement on her first ammendment rights to call her so for the things she chose to say. She certainly helped paint democrats as un-american, and helped paint the doomsday scenario men in black suits are gonna steal your guns and tell you what to say tea party rhetoric that's been going around.

Honestly, whose response fits a reality of "they're trying to make a commie state and take away our guns and rights, and it's both the dems and the moderates" more, blue, who spreads the rhetoric but clearly doesn't believe it, or loughton's? That's why loughton's clearly crazy, because he believes the rhetoric, and not just tea party rhetoric, but the fact is, if the rhetoric were true, his response would fit reality better than blue's, and since loughton clearly didn't make the rhetoric he based his actions around, and since it clearly isn't true, then someone is responsible for a lie told to the public for some gain, and they should be reviled for such, publically, just as loughton should be reviled for his acts, and the link between the two should not be obscured by the same politicians and "reporters" who voice all the rhetoric in the first place.

Let loughton face the law and let those who use rhetoric for votes and their and their own ilk's gain face the judgement of society, neither deserves protection.

word....!!!

[MasterKiller]

I try to give all the benefit of the doubt, namely because the few times I have been in a position that I was critical of someone else and how they did it, I found myself understanding WHY they did it, even if not agreeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXJJFT9GZwY

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXJJFT9GZwY

LMAO !!
Whatever happened to Chris Rock anyway?

[wenshu]

The foolishness of the 'blood libel' charge (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/the_foolishness_of_the_blood_l.html)
By Adam Serwer

Instead, egged on by her conservative supporters in the blogosphere, Palin has released a video accusing liberal critics who made a connection between her actions and the Tucson shooting with "blood libel":

'Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.'

Most of Palin's message is banal and unobjectionable, although it's odd to hear Palin call for "common ground" having previously suggested that criticism of her threatens her First Amendment rights. Conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds employed the term earlier this week. Its use couldn't be less appropriate, particularly since she goes on to reverse the accusation and imply her critics might bear responsibility for inciting violence.

Blood libel is a term that usually refers to an ancient falsehood that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals. For hundreds of years, particularly during the Middle Ages, it was used to justify the slaughter of Jews in the street and their expulsion from entire countries. "Blood libel" is not wrongfully assigning guilt to an individual for murder, but rather assigning guilt collectively to an entire group of people and then using it to justify violence against them.




Oops!http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2011/01/403442c0eb2c63622b3b0f583c7d10d2/340x.gif

[BJJ-Blue]

yeah, i was thinking the same thing... MasterKiller spends too much type labelling and not enough time assessing individuals... its easy to just lump people together to make your beliefs fit all nice and tidy in your own lil world, but that doesnt make it any more or less the truth... and when you stereotype, a significant majority of times you'll be wrong on some level or another, if not all together... its fukced up to assume what people believe and then go and use that as the basis for an argument...

Fixed that for ya. ;)

Are you living in La-La land? Look at the friggin title of the thread before you post. Who labelled the guy "pro-constitution"? Not me, that would be Masterkiller. Who labelled the guy "anti-government"? Not me, that would be Masterkiller. Who was wrong on some level about the guy's political leanings? Not me, that would be MasterKiller. Who streotyped the guy? Not me, that would be MasterKiller. Who ****ed up and assumed what the guy believed? Not me, that would be MasterKiller.

Who said people should be judged as individuals based on their actions? Oh yeah, that one was me.

[MasterKiller]

Fixed that for ya. ;)

Are you living in La-La land? Look at the friggin title of the thread before you post. Who labelled the guy "pro-constitution"? Not me, that would be Masterkiller. Who labelled the guy "anti-government"? Not me, that would be Masterkiller. Who was wrong on some level about the guy's political leanings? Not me, that would be MasterKiller. Who streotyped the guy? Not me, that would be MasterKiller. Who ****ed up and assumed what the guy believed? Not me, that would be MasterKiller.

Who said people should be judged as individuals based on their actions? Oh yeah, that one was me.

Where was I wrong about anything? He shouted about Constitutional infringements in his classes and he ranted about not trusting the government in his videos.

Your grasping at straws by relying on two-year-old heresay and a list of books on his Myspace page. :rolleyes:

[KC Elbows]

Fixed that for ya. ;)

Are you living in La-La land? Look at the friggin title of the thread before you post. Who labelled the guy "pro-constitution"? Not me, that would be Masterkiller. Who labelled the guy "anti-government"? Not me, that would be Masterkiller. Who was wrong on some level about the guy's political leanings? Not me, that would be MasterKiller. Who streotyped the guy? Not me, that would be MasterKiller. Who ****ed up and assumed what the guy believed? Not me, that would be MasterKiller.

Who said people should be judged as individuals based on their actions? Oh yeah, that one was me.

That's funny, because s a liberal, I find myself having a lot of things that have nothing to do with me ascribed to me by you and people like you.

Interesting.

[BJJ-Blue]

That's funny, because s a liberal, I find myself having a lot of things that have nothing to do with me ascribed to me by you and people like you.

Interesting.

Can you show me an example of me ascribing a lot of things to you that have nothing to do with you? :confused:

[BJJ-Blue]

Where was I wrong about anything? He shouted about Constitutional infringements in his classes and he ranted about not trusting the government in his videos.

Your grasping at straws by relying on two-year-old heresay and a list of books on his Myspace page. :rolleyes:

And yet your not grasping at straws by making judgements about him before much of what we know about him was made public?

I mean you ONLY referred to him as "pro-constitution" and "anti-government". Did you know he was an atheist critical of religion (just like you btw) when you decribed him the way you did? Did you know he was against the Iraq War (again just like you) when you described him as you did? Did you know he had five contacts with Pima Community College police for classroom and library disruptions when you posted? Did you know he had alcohol and drug problems when you posted? Did you know he felt a New World Order would bring about a one world currency when you posted?

So did you make a snap judgement on him because you didn't know those things or did you know about them and only chose to refer to him in just 2 ways that happened to further your political agenda? It has to be one or the other, so which one is it?

[MasterKiller]

LOL at religion being a prerequisite for wanting lower taxes and smaller government! What a smokescreen!

[wenshu]

Did you know he had alcohol and drug problems when you posted? Did you know he felt a New World Order would bring about a one world currency when you posted?


http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2011/01/e12ed2be9c3010f17bcca99554ea1330/340x.jpg

[BJJ-Blue]

LOL at religion being a prerequisite for wanting lower taxes and smaller government! What a smokescreen!

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

So did you make a snap judgement on him because you didn't know those things or did you know about them and only chose to refer to him in just 2 ways that happened to further your political agenda? It has to be one or the other, so which one is it?

[MasterKiller]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

So did you make a snap judgement on him because you didn't know those things or did you know about them and only chose to refer to him in just 2 ways that happened to further your political agenda? It has to be one or the other, so which one is it?

I never got an answer on this.


I just love the hypocracy on the left. When Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are spewing incindiary rhetoric and some "pro-constitution" "anti-government" nut bag kills a bunch of people, it's Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh's fault. But when Muslim religious leaders and Saddam Hussein spew incindiary rhetoric and some Muslim nut bag kills a bunch of people, it's that individual nut bag's fault..

Isn't this exactly your point? Irresponsible political rhetoric can either entice people into violence or it can't. Which is it?

[BJJ-Blue]

"At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds," -Barack Obama

I gotta agree with the man on this one. :eek:

Seriously MasterKiller, here is your guy, the guy you voted for and/or support his policies and you have done exactly the opposite of what he says we should do.

Maybe you could just admit you didn't handle this issue as you should have. Or would actually admitting you made a mistake be too much for you? It takes a big man to admit his mistakes....

[BJJ-Blue]

Isn't this exactly your point? Irresponsible political rhetoric can either entice people into violence or it can't. Which is it?

It can be a factor, yes, but we as individuals are still ultimately responsible for our actions. If German soldiers living in a dictatorship could not use as a defense "I was just following orders" for them committing murder, I don't see how anyone can say people who just listen to talk radio, etc living in a free society are not responsible for their murders.

And one more thing, "irresponsible political rhetoric" is protected under the Constitution. Death threats are not. Telling others to commit murder is not either. But railing 24/7 against big Gov't, a political Party, a politician, etc and not calling for violence is also protected.

Now it's your turn.

[MasterKiller]

What didn't I "handle"? Nothing I posted is incorrect, nor did I blame anyone in particular.

[MasterKiller]

It can be a factor, yes, but we as individuals are still ultimately responsible for our actions. If German soldiers living in a dictatorship could not use as a defense "I was just following orders" for them committing murder, I don't see how anyone can say people who just listen to talk radio, etc living in a free society are not responsible for their murders.

I never claimed anyone was not responsible for their own actions. In fact, I believe the discourse here is that EVERYONE should be accountable because hateful, divisive, rhetoric can entice others into violence.

[BJJ-Blue]

I never claimed anyone was not responsible for their own actions. In fact, I believe the discourse here is that EVERYONE should be accountable because hateful, divisive, rhetoric can entice others into violence.

Held accountable how? Banned from speaking? Thrown in jail? Please tell us how hateful, divisive rhetoric is not protected under the First Amendment.

And again, death threats and calls for violence are not protected.

Please answer my question now. I answered yours as asked.

[MasterKiller]

And one more thing, "irresponsible political rhetoric" is protected under the Constitution. Death threats are not. Telling others to commit murder is not either. But railing 24/7 against big Gov't, a political Party, a politician, etc and not calling for violence is also protected..

What do you interpret the phrase"exercising 2nd amendment rights" against a member of Congress to mean?

[MasterKiller]

Please answer my question now. I answered yours as asked. Hey, I didn't violate the 1st amendment! So I have nothing to apologize for, right?

[BJJ-Blue]

What do you interpret the phrase"exercising 2nd amendment rights" against a member of Congress to mean?

It all depends on the facts. In the case we are speaking about, it appears murder charges will be filed, as they should. But if a member of Congress were to say, assault you with a knife, you would be jusitifed in "exercising your 2nd Amendment rights" against him/her.

Will you answer my question now? :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

Hey, I didn't violate the 1st amendment! So I have nothing to apologize for, right?

I'm not asking for an apology, I'm asking for an answer.

[MasterKiller]

It all depends on the facts. In the case we are speaking about, it appears murder charges will be filed, as they should. But if a member of Congress were to say, assault you with a knife, you would be jusitifed in "exercising your 2nd Amendment rights" against him/her. : So if you were to tell a member of Congress (who was not threatening you with physical violence) that if they didn't vote a certain way, people might "exercise their 2nd amendment rights," that could be interpreted as a threat, right?

[MasterKiller]

I'm not asking for an apology, I'm asking for an answer.

You have it, sir. I exercised my first amendment rights within the legal limits of the letter of the law. No other explanation is needed.

[BJJ-Blue]

So if you were to tell a member of Congress (who was not threatening you with physical violence) that if they didn't vote a certain way, people might "exercise their 2nd amendment rights," that could be interpreted as a threat, right?

Anyone can interpret a statement as they see fit. Or how they choose to interpret it. Thats why we have 9 Supreme Court justices to interpret the Constitution, because different people interpret things different ways.

I myself do not interpret the statement you made as a threat. Keep in mind, "exercising your 2nd Amendment rights" has nothing to do with violence in any way. The 2nd Amendment never mentions violence. It simply says as Americans we have the right to bear arms. It does not in any way say how we can or cannot use the arms, simply that we have the right to bear arms.

[BJJ-Blue]

You have it, sir. I exercised my first amendment rights within the legal limits of the letter of the law. No other explanation is needed.

I figured as much. It says alot about your character that you expect things of others that you yourself refuse to do.

You ask me multiple questions and I answer every one. Yet you won't answer one of mine. It's all good. I now know that you are either a prejudice person, or you used a horrible tragedy to further your politcal agenda. Then when asked for a simple explanation, you refuse to give one. It's always good to know who does and who does not pre judge people and/or use personal tragedies for their own benfit.

And I won't be surprised if I get banned. Again. The last two times we've had disagreements like this my account has been monkeyed with. The first time my 1bad65 acount was banned. The 2nd time my BJJ-Blue account was denied access to only the Off Topic area. You are the mod for the Off Topic area, right? The 2nd time Gene himself said it was a mod who did do it, but I did not ask which one. But I do know whoever did it is probably a petty, immature person. Of course I'm not accusing you of anything, it may all just be an amazing coincidence.

[MasterKiller]

I figured as much. It says alot about your character that you expect things of others that you yourself refuse to do. So why aren't you in Iraq right now?


You ask me multiple questions and I answer every one. Yet you won't answer one of mine. I answered several times. You can't point to where I accused anyone of anything, or said anything that wasn't factual. Why should I have to continually revisit statements that are factually correct because you don't like them?


It's all good. I now know that you are either a prejudice person, or you used a horrible tragedy to further your politcal agenda. So says the guy who thinks "dyke" and "f@ggot" are acceptable terms to call people.


And I won't be surprised if I get banned. Again. The last two times we've had disagreements like this my account has been monkeyed with. The first time my 1bad65 acount was banned. The 2nd time my BJJ-Blue account was denied access to only the Off Topic area. You are the mod for the Off Topic area, right? The 2nd time Gene himself said it was a mod who did do it, but I did not ask which one. But I do know whoever did it is probably a petty, immature person. Of course I'm not accusing you of anything, it may all just be an amazing coincidence.

What a maroon! All I can do is edit/close threads. The uber mods are Gene, Renegade_Monk, Deisgn Sifu, and Gigi. Don't blame me if you p1ssed them off.

[Drake]

So we just sit back and do nothing when terrorists crash planes into our buildings and kill thousands of our citizens?

Or maybe we could do like you did, wait for a tragedy and blame whomever we don't agree with for the tragedy before we even get any actual facts. I figured someone as smart as you would at least "look before you leap", but I'll admit I was wrong on that one.

So what exactly did invading Iraq have to do with 9/11? There's no link, period. In fact, it can be argued that by destabilizing Iraq, we actually brought AQ into the country. Prior to the invasion, there was ONE AQ agent in Iraq, and he was murdered. Want to guess who did it?

AQ and Saddam Hussein did not get along. This is due to the fact that AQ and the more extreme Islamic militias believe that everything is in service to Allah. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, was vain, often building statues and other projects dedicated to his image. This is in direct opposition to AQ's beliefs.


So... I don't get your logic. What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

[Drake]

I figured as much. It says alot about your character that you expect things of others that you yourself refuse to do.

You ask me multiple questions and I answer every one. Yet you won't answer one of mine. It's all good. I now know that you are either a prejudice person, or you used a horrible tragedy to further your politcal agenda. Then when asked for a simple explanation, you refuse to give one. It's always good to know who does and who does not pre judge people and/or use personal tragedies for their own benfit.

And I won't be surprised if I get banned. Again. The last two times we've had disagreements like this my account has been monkeyed with. The first time my 1bad65 acount was banned. The 2nd time my BJJ-Blue account was denied access to only the Off Topic area. You are the mod for the Off Topic area, right? The 2nd time Gene himself said it was a mod who did do it, but I did not ask which one. But I do know whoever did it is probably a petty, immature person. Of course I'm not accusing you of anything, it may all just be an amazing coincidence.

But yet in this exact same thread you used it to slam President Obama. WTF, man?

[BJJ-Blue]

So... I don't get your logic. What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Well according to MasterKiller, those using "irresposible political rhetoric" are at least partially to blame for violence. And since Hussein was using "irresponsible political rhetoric" dierected at the US, by that logic he is at least partially responsible for 9/11.

[BJJ-Blue]

But yet in this exact same thread you used it to slam President Obama. WTF, man?

Huh?

I didn't slam him at all. I posted a news article that referenced him and his rhetoric, but the only thing I myself said about the President was that I agreed with his speech last night.

[BJJ-Blue]

Seriously, Hussein paid suicide bombers familes money and allowed terrorist training to go on there. And the invasion was OK'd by the UN and supported by the US Congress.

[MasterKiller]

Well according to MasterKiller, those using "irresposible political rhetoric" are at least partially to blame for violence. And since Hussein was using "irresponsible political rhetoric" dierected at the US, by that logic he is at least partially responsible for 9/11.


Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them...


Yeah, I heard that this morning. It makes perfect sense to me, and quite honestly, it should to anyone with reason and common sense.


:rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

So what exactly did invading Iraq have to do with 9/11? There's no link, period. In fact, it can be argued that by destabilizing Iraq, we actually brought AQ into the country. Prior to the invasion, there was ONE AQ agent in Iraq, and he was murdered. Want to guess who did it?

AQ and Saddam Hussein did not get along. This is due to the fact that AQ and the more extreme Islamic militias believe that everything is in service to Allah. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, was vain, often building statues and other projects dedicated to his image. This is in direct opposition to AQ's beliefs.


So... I don't get your logic. What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

9/11 had more to do with Saudi Arabia than Iraq.

[MasterKiller]

9/11 had more to do with Saudi Arabia than Iraq.

uh...9/11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq. There's a difference.

[sanjuro_ronin]

uh...9/11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq. There's a difference.

Correct yes, I should have said:
9/11 had more to do with SA and had NOTHING to do with Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.

[Drake]

Seriously, Hussein paid suicide bombers familes money and allowed terrorist training to go on there. And the invasion was OK'd by the UN and supported by the US Congress.

He had no part in the training, planning, or execution of 9/11. And no, there were NO training camps within the borders of Iraq. And the families he paid were not the 9/11 bombers. You are getting your streams crossed.

Also, another logical fallacy. True, Saddam put out hateful rhetoric, but because it was a sovereign nation, we had no legal right to attack him over that, or his soldiers, or kill his people. I do think there should be legal consequences for US citizens who incite discord and violence within our borders.

OH WAIT.... THERE ARE.

[BJJ-Blue]

So let me get this straight; when an American conservative uses "irresponsible political rhetoric" about the Left and violence is directed at the Left by a nutjob, its patially the conservative spewing the rhotoric is at least partially respnsible. But when a foreign leader uses "irresponsible political rhetoric" about the United States and violence is directed at the United States by a nutjob, the foreign leader spewing the rhetoric is completely blameless. Is this correct? :confused:

[Drake]

Huh?

I didn't slam him at all. I posted a news article that referenced him and his rhetoric, but the only thing I myself said about the President was that I agreed with his speech last night.

I suppose you only posted that news article because you think we might not have known people felt that way? Evasive tactics to cover up your own agenda is an act of cowardice.

[BJJ-Blue]

He had no part in the training, planning, or execution of 9/11.

He used "irresposible political rhetoric" directed at the US, and thus by some people's logic, he is at least partially responsible for acts of violence directed at the US.


And no, there were NO training camps within the borders of Iraq. And the families he paid were not the 9/11 bombers. You are getting your streams crossed.

You have been there, and I have not, but is this news article wrong?

"BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. forces came upon a recently abandoned terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Baghdad where recruits were apparently taught how to make bombs and what to do if they got captured, the Marines said Wednesday.

The extensive camp consisted of about 20 permanent buildings on 25 acres south of the city and was operated by the Iraqi government and the Palestine Liberation Front, said Marine spokesman Cpl. John Hoellwarth.

Among the documents found were filled-out questionnaires that included such questions as "What type of missions would you like to carry out?" according to Hoellwarth. He said many recruits wanted to carry out suicide missions.

The camp included an obstacle course and what appeared to be a prison, to teach terrorists what to do if captured and interrogated, Hoellwarth said.

Recruits were also apparently taught how to make bombs, he said. The Marines found chemicals, beakers and pipes.

Hoellwarth said uniforms and gas masks were also left behind, along with bread and other food, suggesting the place had been used fairly recently."

Source: (Article from April 16, 2003)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html

And I didn't say he paid 9/11 bomber's families specifically. I said he paid terrorist's familes money. That is true, correct? IIRC, he openly boasted about doing it.

[Drake]

He supported the Palestinians. Believe it or not, there's a HUGE difference. And I'd take those training camp allegations, especially any of them from circa 2003, with a grain of salt.

Besides... in that part of the world, who is the terrorist? The ones who blow up Israeli structures, or the ones that drop white phosphorous on Palestinian children?

Again...there were NO AQ TRAINING CAMPS IN IRAQ. At least before we went in and destabilized the region, anyway.

[BJJ-Blue]

I suppose you only posted that news article because you think we might not have known people felt that way? Evasive tactics to cover up your own agenda is an act of cowardice.

Do what?!?!

I wasn't evasive at all. I posted the entire article and linked to it. I'm quite honest about my agenda, beliefs, etc. I've never not answered a question asked of me about my political leanings/beliefs/etc.

I did also ask a question regarding Obama's rhetoric, but it was not a statement, it was a question. FYI, it wasn't even answered.

[BJJ-Blue]

He supported the Palestinians. Believe it or not, there's a HUGE difference. And I'd take those training camp allegations, especially any of them from circa 2003, with a grain of salt.

Again...there were NO AQ TRAINING CAMPS IN IRAQ.

So if he supports one group of terrorists that ok, but if he supports a different group of terrorists it's not ok? :confused:

You're the one in Military Intellegence. Can you address that specific alleged camp?


Besides... in that part of the world, who is the terrorist?

If you as a member of our military can't tell the difference between our ally Israel and Islamic terrorists, I really don't know how to reply to that.

[Drake]

So if he supports one group of terrorists that ok, but if he supports a different group of terrorists it's not ok? :confused:

You're the one in Military Intellegence. Can you address that specific alleged camp?



If you as a member of our military can't tell the difference between our ally Israel and Islamic terrorists, I really don't know how to reply to that.

It had to do with whether or not Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Stop distracting from the topic and using red herring logical fallacy tactics. Again, you tell me what makes someone a terrorist. We supported terrorists throughout the 80's and 90's, because it suited our national security issues at the time. We destabilized communist held regions and gave arms to terrorists. I don't know what rosy picture you live under, but it isn't correct.

And no, I cannot address that specific camp, because 1) That's not my AO, and 2) I was an enlisted 35T at the time, not an intel officer. I DO know, however, that just about every initial assessment regarding Iraq was wrong.

As a member of the military and specifically as an intel officer, I owe it to myself and everyone around me to address matters critically. Israel knowingly dropped WP on kids. That is terrorism. There's worse than that, I promise you, done by that Ally. And as far as I'm concerned, that makes them no different from the people they are fighting.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The term terrorist is a funny thing, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The mujhadeen were terrorist to the USSR in AFghnaistan, but freedom fighters for the US.
Now those very same freedom fighters are "terrorists" again it seems.

[BJJ-Blue]

It had to do with whether or not Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Stop distracting from the topic and using red herring logical fallacy tactics.

This makes zero sense to me. Terrorism is terrorism. So since he wasn't connected to 9/11 (but admittedly he was to other terrorist attacks), are you saying we should have left him alone until he was connected to a future terrorist attack on the US before we removed him from office?


Again, you tell me what makes someone a terrorist. We supported terrorists throughout the 80's and 90's, because it suited our national security issues at the time. We destabilized communist held regions and gave arms to terrorists. I don't know what rosy picture you live under, but it isn't correct.

I never said we didn't ever support terrorists. Whether we did or did not is not relevant to this discussion. What's relevant to this discussion is did we support terrorists who targeted us or our allies.

We supported the Contras, who were called terrorists by some. But I don't recall the Contras bombing our ships, hijacking our planes, beheading our journalists, or crashing planes into our buildings.


Israel knowingly dropped WP on kids. That is terrorism. There's worse than that, I promise you, done by that Ally. And as far as I'm concerned, that makes them no different from the people they are fighting.

Let's just assume that's true. Does it make any difference to you if that was a retaliatory strike by Israel for Palestinian acts of aggression/terrorism, or if Israel fired on them first and unprovoked?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I never said we didn't ever support terrorists. Whether we did or did not is not relevant to this discussion. What's relevant to this discussion is did we support terrorists who targeted us or our allies.

Of course it is relevant, if we did then the nation that was targeted by said terrorists is in the right to bomb Us, just like we did Iraq and Afghanistan.

[pateticorecords]

come on... this is your source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
really?:D


He used "irresposible political rhetoric" directed at the US, and thus by some people's logic, he is at least partially responsible for acts of violence directed at the US.



You have been there, and I have not, but is this news article wrong?

"BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. forces came upon a recently abandoned terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Baghdad where recruits were apparently taught how to make bombs and what to do if they got captured, the Marines said Wednesday.

The extensive camp consisted of about 20 permanent buildings on 25 acres south of the city and was operated by the Iraqi government and the Palestine Liberation Front, said Marine spokesman Cpl. John Hoellwarth.

Among the documents found were filled-out questionnaires that included such questions as "What type of missions would you like to carry out?" according to Hoellwarth. He said many recruits wanted to carry out suicide missions.

The camp included an obstacle course and what appeared to be a prison, to teach terrorists what to do if captured and interrogated, Hoellwarth said.

Recruits were also apparently taught how to make bombs, he said. The Marines found chemicals, beakers and pipes.

Hoellwarth said uniforms and gas masks were also left behind, along with bread and other food, suggesting the place had been used fairly recently."

Source: (Article from April 16, 2003)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html

And I didn't say he paid 9/11 bomber's families specifically. I said he paid terrorist's familes money. That is true, correct? IIRC, he openly boasted about doing it.

[pateticorecords]

By definition

ter·ror·ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled
[ter-er-ist] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.



So when a political group in the US uses unfounded fears (eg. socialism, etc) and lies to promote their agenda they should be considered Terrorists!





It had to do with whether or not Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Stop distracting from the topic and using red herring logical fallacy tactics. Again, you tell me what makes someone a terrorist. We supported terrorists throughout the 80's and 90's, because it suited our national security issues at the time. We destabilized communist held regions and gave arms to terrorists. I don't know what rosy picture you live under, but it isn't correct.

And no, I cannot address that specific camp, because 1) That's not my AO, and 2) I was an enlisted 35T at the time, not an intel officer. I DO know, however, that just about every initial assessment regarding Iraq was wrong.

As a member of the military and specifically as an intel officer, I owe it to myself and everyone around me to address matters critically. Israel knowingly dropped WP on kids. That is terrorism. There's worse than that, I promise you, done by that Ally. And as far as I'm concerned, that makes them no different from the people they are fighting.

[Drake]

This makes zero sense to me. Terrorism is terrorism. So since he wasn't connected to 9/11 (but admittedly he was to other terrorist attacks), are you saying we should have left him alone until he was connected to a future terrorist attack on the US before we removed him from office?



I never said we didn't ever support terrorists. Whether we did or did not is not relevant to this discussion. What's relevant to this discussion is did we support terrorists who targeted us or our allies.

We supported the Contras, who were called terrorists by some. But I don't recall the Contras bombing our ships, hijacking our planes, beheading our journalists, or crashing planes into our buildings.



Let's just assume that's true. Does it make any difference to you if that was a retaliatory strike by Israel for Palestinian acts of aggression/terrorism, or if Israel fired on them first and unprovoked?

Dropping WP on kids is dropping WP on kids. It's also forbidden to use WP as an offensive weapon per the Geneva Convention.

And terrorism isn't terrorism. There are varying degree across a wide variety of reasons and logic. There's no "Super Evil Villain" meeting between them all.

You seem to be confused aboit COIN, insurgency, and terrorism, and are committed to creating this weird lump where they are all the same, and in the meantime defending a nation that commits war crimes.

[Syn7]

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2011/01/e12ed2be9c3010f17bcca99554ea1330/340x.jpg

thats a decent paste job... but the markers are there if you know how to look for em...

[MasterKiller]

So when a political group in the US uses unfounded fears (eg. socialism, etc) and lies to promote their agenda they should be considered Terrorists!
Not quite, bro.

“the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.”22 United States Code 2656f(d)(2).

[Syn7]

Anyone can interpret a statement as they see fit. Or how they choose to interpret it. Thats why we have 9 Supreme Court justices to interpret the Constitution, because different people interpret things different ways.

I myself do not interpret the statement you made as a threat. Keep in mind, "exercising your 2nd Amendment rights" has nothing to do with violence in any way. The 2nd Amendment never mentions violence. It simply says as Americans we have the right to bear arms. It does not in any way say how we can or cannot use the arms, simply that we have the right to bear arms.

i lost alot of respect for your supreme court when they made a ruling(Bush v. Gore) that could not be used as a precedent in any later cases... it happened once and only once in american history and it is so so wrong... it goes against everything that institution claims it stands for... they fukced that recount bad... they stopped the counting then ruled later on that there wasnt enough time to finish... ofcourse thats becoz they stopped the counting... that whole mess was a joke and rather embarassing when it comes right down to it... and dont even get me started on Antonin Scalia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

[Syn7]

Seriously, Hussein paid suicide bombers familes money and allowed terrorist training to go on there. And the invasion was OK'd by the UN and supported by the US Congress.

are you sure about that?



The Iraq War, Second Gulf War or Operation Iraqi Freedom[49] was a military campaign that began on March 20, 2003,[50][51] with the invasion of Iraq by a multinational force led by troops from the United States under the administration of President George W. Bush and the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Tony Blair.[52]

Prior to the invasion, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that the possibility of Iraq employing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threatened their security and that of their coalition/regional allies.[53][54][55] In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that it was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction and cruise missiles. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was given access by Iraq under provisions of the UN resolution but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Additional months of inspection to conclusively verify Iraq's compliance with the UN disarmament requirements were not undertaken.[56][57][58][59] Head weapons inspector Hans Blix advised the UN Security Council that while Iraq's cooperation was "active", it was not "unconditional" not "immediate". Iraq's declarations with regards to weapons of mass destruction could not be verified at the time, but unresolved tasks concerning Iraq's disarmment could be completed in "not years, not weeks, but months".[56][60]

Following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion but that Iraq intended to resume production once sanctions were lifted.[61] Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been the main argument to justify the invasion.[62] Some U.S. officials also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda,[63] but no evidence of a meaningful connection was ever found.[64][65] Other reasons for the invasion included Iraq's financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers,[66] Iraqi government human rights abuse,[67] and an effort to spread democracy to the country.[68][69]

The invasion of Iraq led to an occupation and the eventual capture of President Hussein, who was later tried in an Iraqi court of law and executed by the new Iraqi government. Violence against coalition forces and among various sectarian groups soon led to the Iraqi insurgency, strife between many Sunni and Shia Iraqi groups, and the emergence of a new faction of al-Qaeda in Iraq.[70][71] In 2008, the UNHCR reported an estimate of 4.7 million refugees (~16% of the population) with 2 million abroad (a number close to CIA projections[72]) and 2.7 million internally displaced people.[73] In 2007, Iraq's anti-corruption board reported that 35% of Iraqi children, or about five million children, were orphans.[74] The Red Cross stated in March 2008 that Iraq's humanitarian situation remained among the most critical in the world, with millions of Iraqis forced to rely on insufficient and poor-quality water sources.[75]

In June 2008, U.S. Department of Defense officials claimed security and economic indicators began to show signs of improvement in what they hailed as significant and fragile gains.[76] In 2007, Iraq was second on the Failed States Index; though its ranking has steadily improved since then, moving to fifth on the 2008 list, sixth in 2009, and seventh in 2010.[77] As public opinion favoring troop withdrawals increased and as Iraqi forces began to take responsibility for security, member nations of the Coalition withdrew their forces.[78][79] In late 2008, the U.S. and Iraqi governments approved a Status of Forces Agreement effective through January 1, 2012.[80] The Iraqi Parliament also ratified a Strategic Framework Agreement with the U.S.,[81] aimed at ensuring cooperation in constitutional rights, threat deterrence, education,[82] energy development, and other areas.[83]

In late February 2009, newly elected U.S. President Barack Obama announced an 18-month withdrawal window for combat forces, with approximately 50,000 troops remaining in the country "to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to provide intelligence and surveillance".[84][85] General Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, said he believes all U.S. troops will be out of the country by the end of 2011,[86] while UK forces ended combat operations on April 30, 2009.[87] Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said he supports the accelerated pullout of U.S. forces.[88] In a speech at the Oval Office on 31 August 2010 Obama declared "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country."[89][90][91] Beginning September 1, 2010, the American operational name for its involvement in Iraq changed from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to "Operation New Dawn." The remaining 50,000 U.S. troops are now designated as "advise and assist brigades" assigned to non-combat operations while retaining the ability to revert to combat operations as necessary. Two combat aviation brigades also remain in Iraq.[92]






its like me saying "ok blue, we believe you have weapons so we want in ur house to look" so you let us look around, but we dont find anything so we say "ok blue, its clear you arent co-operating and showing us everything, show us all of it or we'll fukc you up son"
then blue says "seriously man, we dont have sh!t, you looked yourself what more do you want from me? fukc right off"

"blue you are being offensive and uncooperative... so now we're gonna roll right thru you and destabilize your family"

few days later...
"ok so maybe you didnt have weapons, but youre still a d!ck and we're still gonna fukc up your house some more... then we're gonna open a store in your front lawn, put a military base in ur backyard and squeeze everything we can from your property to pay for all the damage YOU have done"

[Syn7]

He used "irresposible political rhetoric" directed at the US, and thus by some people's logic, he is at least partially responsible for acts of violence directed at the US.


well by that logic sarah palin does bare some responsibility for the shooting...


for the record, although she is irresponsible and down right dangerous, i dont think we should be pinning this on her... not this one anyways... we'll see about the future...

if she really believed that her cross hair map was fair play then it should still be up on her site in the same way it was before... i mean, if she didnt do anjything wrong, why change her words and pics on her site???

how many times has this chica had to change a twitter or facebook message... she is constantly backpeddling because of the way she chooses to attack opponents and opposing beliefs in general... she does incite, and maybe not this time, but eventually its gonna blow up in her face... and im basing this on sarah palin the person, not on any ideological beliefs on my part... if she had a D beside her name i'd say the same thing... and yes, dems have their crazies too... it does seem that there are more violent conservatives than there are viloent liberals... and i dont say that with any real bias, i have a distaste for both parties, they are all sad sad people... a small handfull are great people, the rest are bottomfeeders... on all sides of the aisle...

[Drake]

I'm wondering what she was thinking, using the term Blood Libel.

[Syn7]

Of course it is relevant, if we did then the nation that was targeted by said terrorists is in the right to bomb Us, just like we did Iraq and Afghanistan.

exactly... and by playing both ends against the middle... by arming groups for one agenda then calling them names to fill another agenda is more than enough justification to call the US as a hostile nation... and im sick of hearing about the kurds... if america had followed thru on their promises and didnt leave them hanging in the wind, they never wouldve been hit as hard as they were hit... the kurds went on the offensive because they believed they had american backup... but when the time came, yall abondoned them to their fate... and now US uses this as justification to invade a soveriegn nation??? it doesnt matter if he's a bad man or not... he wouldnt have even been there if american money hadnt propped his old boss up and eventually him when he took over as leader... and can anyone blame him for hating america??? the US armed both sides of the iran iraq conflict and sat back and watched, in hopes of destabalization so american interests could mop up and profit... like they are now... and we wont even get into the fact that the cia was instrumental in overthrowing a the legitimate democratically elected leader of iran to be replaced by a much hated american puppet in the shah... the US preaches democracy and freedom for all and then turn around and sh!t all over it when it doesnt suit them... so iran decides it wants to profit off its own resources and kicks out meddling foreigners... thats why the US staged that coup, it was about money, not freedom and righteousness... straight up... communism is scary because it doesnt allow americans to exploit a nations resources for their own profit, regardless of the negative effects on the nation its targeting... if it was really about freedom, i can name tons of small nations we could "liberate" and free the people... but they dont have oil, metals, coal etc... so we dont need to "liberate" them becoz there arent any finacial opportunities and we cant "liberate" any funds afterwards...

[Syn7]

I'm wondering what she was thinking, using the term Blood Libel.

i dont think she really understand just what that term impies... another example of palins smarts... its not even a case of malapropism, its just wrong... it doesnt make sense and apply to this situation at all...

[Syn7]

come on... this is your source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
really?:D

fox and msnbc specifically should never be used to reference anything factual...

[Drake]

fox and msnbc specifically should never be used to reference anything factual...

I'd get slaughtered by my professor if I used anything like that for my doctoral work.

[Syn7]

and speaking of terror... in ww2 the japs used a technique the US called "terror bombing"... it was denounced and called uncivilized and all that... americans were horrified and were above that apparently... then at the end of the old and beginning of the new century the US employed this same tactic... ofcourse it needed a new flashy name to cover up what they had said about it before... its new name was "shock and awe"...


its all about perspective... two men do the same actions, one is a freedom fighter and the other a terrorist... just depends on whos side ur on... guerilla warfare is a very effective and legit tactic... hit and run, hit and run... it worked in vietnam pretty well... despite overwhelming odds in weaponry and the fact the US owned the sky, they still beat the "greatest army on earth"... when that last plane left saigon, it wasnt in victory... it was a panic... and they left alot of people behind who risked their lives to support the US only to be left behind to be brutalized and tortured... just another abandoned ally i suppose... gee, i wonder why people are hostile to the west??? hhmmm, tough one... the US is very used to abandoning their so called allies...

[Syn7]

By definition

ter·ror·ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled
[ter-er-ist] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.



So when a political group in the US uses unfounded fears (eg. socialism, etc) and lies to promote their agenda they should be considered Terrorists!

war criminals would be my choice of words... how many times has the US been caught violating the geneva convention in the last ten years??? once is too many... unfortunately, the list is alot longer than just one...

[Syn7]

Not quite, bro.

“the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.”22 United States Code 2656f(d)(2).

yeah but what is the international version of that one???

[Drake]

The Japanese (not Japs, man...that's a bit offensive) used biological warfare as well during WWII. We actually let a few of their guys off easy in return for disclosing the secrets of bio-warfare. The Russians accidentally killed off quite a few people by accident with their Anthrax program.

We even crop-dusted our own cities with harmless phlages just to test the way a bio-warfare weapon would take down a Soviet town. Of course, Nixon killed the program, saying what's the point of this, when we could just nuke them.



But using WP on anyone is a pretty horrific way to attack an enemy.

[Syn7]

I'd get slaughtered by my professor if I used anything like that for my doctoral work.

no doubt... the worst is when people use wiki as fact... i post wiki all the time, but its always gotta be taken with a grain of salt... i use it as an intro to a subject or for quick analysis before i go and do real research on a topic...

[Syn7]

The Japanese (not Japs, man...that's a bit offensive) used biological warfare as well during WWII. We actually let a few of their guys off easy in return for disclosing the secrets of bio-warfare. The Russians accidentally killed off quite a few people by accident with their Anthrax program.

We even crop-dusted our own cities with harmless phlages just to test the way a bio-warfare weapon would take down a Soviet town. Of course, Nixon killed the program, saying what's the point of this, when we could just nuke them.



But using WP on anyone is a pretty horrific way to attack an enemy.

im not defending japan in any way shape or form... just using one of their methods as an example... im talking specifically about the shock and awe technique... not the overall strategy...

as for japs, i never really thought it to be offensive... its not like a called the "dinks" or "gooks"... it was just a shortened version of their name... if somebody called me a "can" i wouldnt be offended...

[Drake]

no doubt... the worst is when people use wiki as fact... i post wiki all the time, but its always gotta be taken with a grain of salt... i use it as an intro to a subject or for quick analysis before i go and do real research on a topic...

Well, you can always see at the bottom where the info came from. It might be a few clicks down the rabbit hole, but sometimes you can actually find a peer reviewed article at the end.

Using the news is dangerous. For example, I have, doing what I do for a living, seen a few doctored news articles portraying certain people in a bad light, when in reality, it wasn't what it seemed. No fact checking done, no chance for a rebuttal.

[Drake]

im not defending japan in any way shape or form... just using one of their methods as an example... im talking specifically about the shock and awe technique... not the overall strategy...

as for japs, i never really thought it to be offensive... its not like a called the "dinks" or "gooks"... it was just a shortened version of their name... if somebody called me a "can" i wouldnt be offended...

It doesn't matter if YOU find it offensive. Japanese people do, due to certain connotations that follow that name.

[Syn7]

It doesn't matter if YOU find it offensive. Japanese people do, due to certain connotations that follow that name.

attached to the big war??? or does it go back to the early days of american and japanese relationship??? or is it from the war at all??? i heard people say japos too...

ima firm believer that offense must be intended... i can make room for ignorance, aslong as its corrected after the fact and doesnt keep happening... although i doubt i'd ever say jap in person, simply becoz i only shorten words like that when i type informally, not when i actually speak... never once occured to me that it would be offensive... but hey, now i know...

sort of on the same level as frog, limey, yank(meant to be offensive) but not on the level of words like ch!nk or n!gger??? or is it like fightin words from the get go???

[PalmStriker]

Not at all. He called for the murder of Jews, ****sexuals, gypsies, handicapped people, Slavs, etc. He also signed into law laws doing that and actually personally ordered murders himself (Lidice being a perfect example of him directly ordering murders). Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have never called for violence, nor have they signed legislation calling for violence or ordered others to commit murder. Those are huge differences you've apparently missed.

Buy hey, at least Hitler didn't classify ketchup as a vegetable.

That's because Hitler was a vegetarian and considered ketchup to be a lowly sauce designed for use on "French" fries and "Hamburgers". An American pastime. :D

[MasterKiller]

Sh1t, leave you guys alone for a few hours and all the sudden is a racial slur contest. Sheesh.

Locked.