pinko Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/11/armed_but_not_necessarily_dangerous As the 20th century neared its end, the anti-government skeptics infused their theories with a millennial sense of urgency. "The wolf," said popular conspiracy writer Milton William Cooper, "is at the door." The X-Files' many devoted fans agreed with one character's assessment of the federal government in the show's fifth season: "No matter how paranoid you are," she explained, "you're not paranoid enough." No one could say that about Jared Loughner, cluttered with a toxic jumble of left- and right-wing conspiracy theories, his sources ranging from Marx to Hitler to heavy metal. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/11/a_very_american_conspiracy_theory?page=0,1 Edited January 14, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) True in some cases maybe but not all. Americans prior to the last election polled favorably when asked if there should be public healthcare. This is a big part of why Obama won... he campaigned on a public option, insurance exchanges, etc. He won because the American people wanted change. Obama was a good orator and people didn't ask too many questions about what he meant concerning fundamentally transforming America. Those Americans without socialist inclinations became a little concerned when he started bringing in hard left socialist advisors in the White House. His so-called Czars. The Tea Party was born out of that concern. yes he promised health care reform. Few guessed correctly it would be the document it turned out to be, 2900 pages of unread legislation, or that it would be not honestly presented and debated. Health reform was a necessity but not what Obamacare promises to deliver. Nor did the American people, once again without a socialist inclination, expect a government takeover of corporations such as GM and Wall street. He deflected any linking of his policies, mandate or even himself to being socialistic in any respect with obfuscation and generality. Edited January 14, 2011 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 we do not acknowledge your sham political system Hey, waldo! Have a great day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 As opposed to just regular garden variety murders? ...and it worked too. Fewer doctors will perform the procedure just because of sloppy contraception. I guess you are rarely disappointed, since you set such a low bar for lawful and civil conduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 we do not acknowledge your sham political system Oh, we have ways of making you acknowledge it, conspiracy boy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 He won because the American people wanted change. Obama was a good orator and people didn't ask too many questions about what he meant concerning fundamentally transforming America. Those Americans without socialist inclinations became a little concerned when he started bringing in hard left socialist advisors in the White House. His so-called Czars. The Tea Party was born out of that concern. Wow! I've heard this before, and I'm still amazed that anyone actually believes Foxnews and right wing radio's reinvention of history. This didn't happen 20 or 50 years ago! This should still be part of the public record....but the right is already creating a myth of what has happened last year and the year before. Do you really consider Lawrence Summers, Tim Geitner, or Rahm Emmanuel socialists? If they qualify as socialists, I'm so far off to your left now that you probably wouldn't be able to see me! And c'mon Czars....as if Bush and previous presidents back to Nixon didn't have their own czars. If I recall correctly, Nixon started this special position when he created the Drug Czar when the War On Drugs first began. And any czars that Obama had who were caught in a whiff of controversy, were tossed overboard before they had a chance to select new office furniture. To be honest, I don't see what these tea party activists are complaining about (except for the obvious one - he's black!). President Obama has been a colossal disappointment to real liberals and progressives in America, who were hoping that he would actually close Gunatanamo and end the wars (since he used his state senate opposition to the Iraq War as a wedge issue against Hillary); or that he was really serious about healthcare reform. The results have been a military and foreign policy that is virtually identical to Bush. We have learned from Wikileaks that America under Obama, is still undermining non-compliant democratic governments (Honduras) with military coups. Obama has had I.C.E. agents forcibly deport more illegals to Mexico than Bush; he has expanded policies that violate international law (like declaring it legal to assassinate U.S. citizens living in foreign countries); and his administration shutting down whistleblowers at all levels of government, especially defense......so what has the right wing got to complain about?....besides that he's black? America's two party democracy is for the most part, a dog and pony show that churns over unimportant issues as the most important government policies remain the same from one administration to the next.....whether it's Democrat or Republican! yes he promised health care reform. Few guessed correctly it would be the document it turned out to be, 2900 pages of unread legislation, or that it would be not honestly presented and debated. Health reform was a necessity but not what Obamacare promises to deliver. Nor did the American people, once again without a socialist inclination, expect a government takeover of corporations such as GM and Wall street.He deflected any linking of his policies, mandate or even himself to being socialistic in any respect with obfuscation and generality. A government takeover of corporations and Wall Street....what a laugh! GM is back under private ownership, and they have successfully busted their workers down to a level where employees with less than 10 years seniority are working for half of the wages as guaranteed in earlier contracts......thank you President Obama! If you take a look at the electoral map of the recent Congressional Elections, you'll notice that Democrats got hammered in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana....districts that have GM factories. And I haven't seen any mention on the MSM of the fact that these blue collar districts weren't in a mood to reward President Obama for putting them back on the line for $14.00 an hour. There's a lesson there that is lost on the MSM talking heads who kept repeating the mantra that "Obama needs to move to the middle," as if he hadn't betrayed his voting base quite enough! No point watching them anyway, they are either clueless or malicious....and I don't care which. And Wall Street....give me a break! Wall Street owns the Whitehouse, no matter which party wins the election! Get it straight who owns who. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 That was probably an M1 Garrand. The M1 Carbine (sometimes called the cooks rifle) would only make a bear angry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand You know, I love older guns, I guess it's that they are part of history or something. Old fighter planes too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 To be honest, I don't see what these tea party activists are complaining about (except for the obvious one - he's black!). Bailouts, taxes, deficits and debt. It's only people of your ilk that constantly bring up race. Judging from the recent shooting in Arizona, perhaps you should watch your words and tone things down a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Judging from the recent shooting in Arizona, perhaps you should watch your words and tone things down a little. What exactly do you mean by this? Plese tell me what WIP said that warranted your comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 What exactly do you mean by this? Plese tell me what WIP said that warranted your comment? Because....words...hurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Because....words...hurt I agree words hurt but I must say, I saw nothing in WIP's words that warranted a comparison to what happened in Tucson. That is why I am asking....what words of his were hurtful, as you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Loughner is hardly unique By: Allan Levine / Now & Then Posted: 01/15/2011 1:00 AM We may never know for certain what prompted Jared Lee Loughner, a troubled 22-year-old college student, to open fire in Tucson, Ariz., on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her supporters, killing six innocent people and seriously injuring Giffords and many more. Easy access to guns facilitated the shooting. This is particularly the case in Arizona, where as one pundit put it, "someone can buy a Glock semi-automatic as if it were a quart of milk." But a profound fear and hatred for government also appears to have provoked Loughner into acting as he did. The consequences of the events in Tucson are devastating. Yet in a sad commentary on American history, Loughner is hardly unique. From almost the first day the United States was established, there have been far too many Loughners, individuals who have defined "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" according to their own distorted values. Then, instead of protesting peacefully or using their vote to effect positive change, they have opted for violence. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/loughner-is-hardly-unique-113752424.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I think Republicans need to step up and defend the constitutional rights of schizophrenics to purchase semi-automatic weapons without getting hassled by the far left. Oh wait... they already are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I agree words hurt but I must say, I saw nothing in WIP's words that warranted a comparison to what happened in Tucson. That is why I am asking....what words of his were hurtful, as you say. I think calling millions of people racists, just because you disagree with their politics is more than a little hurtful. It only fosters more anger which can lead to violent situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I think calling millions of people racists, just because you disagree with their politics is more than a little hurtful. It only fosters more anger which can lead to violent situations. Those who are unable to manage anger and resort to violence ought to be confined to an institution and/or medicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Those who are unable to manage anger and resort to violence ought to be confined to an institution and/or medicated. But but but.... we can't confine them against their will, or force them to take meds against their will... Media wordsmiths and spin artists are part of the problem, the media is supposed to report the news, not make it and shape it as they surely did this week. They rushed to judgement using their power to manipulate and idologically shape the event to their own bent. And, in so doing turned the whole thing into a partisan circus, branding numerous people as being responsible when in fact, they had zilch to do with it. Don't be a Dupnek about it LOL The left lost a lot this week, but I doubt much will change. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576076373704758778.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion Why the Left Lost It Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Those who are unable to manage anger and resort to violence ought to be confined to an institution and/or medicated. Do you think confining everyone with anger management issues/everyone who's resorted to violence to institutions, and/or making people take meds, is compatible with the idea of a democracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Judging from the recent shooting in Arizona, perhaps you should watch your words and tone things down a little. oh my! Watch it... scribblet has been on a tear chastising anyone who dares to suggest the need to 'tone down' the rhetoric... claiming an infringement on free speech!!! You're not advocating against free speech, are ya, Shady? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Do you think confining everyone with anger management issues/everyone who's resorted to violence to institutions, and/or making people take meds, is compatible with the idea of a democracy? Certainly not everyone, but anyone who is a danger to themselves or others and/or convicted/committed by a court. We used to institutionalize people with mental health issues on a routine basis, but now we just wait for the violent ones to act out. Saves a lot of money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Do you think confining everyone with anger management issues/everyone who's resorted to violence to institutions, and/or making people take meds, is compatible with the idea of a democracy? Yes I do subject of course to the rule of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 (edited) Certainly not everyone, but anyone who is a danger to themselves or others and/or convicted/committed by a court. We used to institutionalize people with mental health issues on a routine basis, but now we just wait for the violent ones to act out. Saves a lot of money! People were removed from institutions and placed in the community with the promise of adequate resources for these individuals. Unfortunately many of these people fell through the cracks and either live on the streets or in some wretched bug infested building. Edited January 15, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 I think Republicans need to step up and defend the constitutional rights of schizophrenics to purchase semi-automatic weapons without getting hassled by the far left. Oh wait... they already are. I heard this clown who was campaign manager or something for Bush on Bill Maher's season opener last night, try to earn whatever he gets from the NRA, by making a point that someone, either his family, the college he attended etc. should have notified the authorities to take him off to a psychiatric unit for evaluation. Problem is, they're not doing that in Arizona, because funding for mental health programs was one of the first things cut in Republican austerity budgets. They even have about 100 people, who have been informed that they have been taken off the waiting lists for organ donations.....and these are the people screaming about "death panels!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 In the people were removed from institutions and placed in the community with the promise of adequate resources for these individuals. Unfortunately many of these people fell through the cracks and either live on the streets or in some wretched bug infested building. No...they did not fall through any cracks...they asserted their constitutional rights with the help of "advocates". Lots of sane people live on the streets too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 (edited) No...they did not fall through any cracks...they asserted their constitutional rights with the help of "advocates". Lots of sane people live on the streets too. Do you have any statistics and/or reports to backup your assertion? Edited January 15, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Do you think confining everyone with anger management issues/everyone who's resorted to violence to institutions, and/or making people take meds, is compatible with the idea of a democracy? Are you saying there shouldn't always be consequences for resorting to violence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.