bush_cheney2004 Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Do you have any statistics and/or reports to backup your assertion? Yes...but they are only American. Sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 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. 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. Those Americans without socialist inclinations became a little concerned when he started bringing in hard left socialist advisors in the White House. No they became concerned once the right wing political apparatus which includes talk radio, fox news etc, started using unsubstanciated hyperbole to described Obama, his people, and his policies. Nor did the American people, once again without a socialist inclination, expect a government takeover of corporations such as GM and Wall street. Why would they not expect that??? The bailouts were already well under way before Obama was ever president, not just in the US but all around the world. Stealing money from tax payers and giving it to private corporations is the exact opposite of socialism. And there hasnt been any takeover of GM or Wall Street. This is just paranoid hyperbole. The bailouts were simply a latest face in the long con Americans have been the victim of for quite some time. 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. No thats true. They wanted a public government run option, and Obama let the Health Insurance industry draft a welfare bill for themselves instead. He deflected any linking of his policies, mandate or even himself to being socialistic in any respect with obfuscation and generality. Thats because the people making those accusations didnt have access to dictionaries. He should have completely ignored these stupid people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 American Woman, on 15 January 2011 - 10:16 AM, said: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? Are you saying institutionalizing and/or forcing meds are the only possible consequences for resorting to violence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 This probably doesn't suprise anyone. After being inundated by leftwing pundits and media about how the Tea Party and Sarah Palin are responsible for the shootings. It was only a matter of time before somebody was influenced and began to nudge over the edge. Tucson Shooting Survivor Arrested for Issuing Death Threat to Tea Partier at ABC Town HallABC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 It was only a matter of time before somebody was influenced and began to nudge over the edge. You really think people can be nudged over the edge by the influence of political rhetoric? Sounds stupid to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Yes...but they are only American. Sorry! Despite the disproportionate number of mentally ill people among the homeless population, the growth in homelessness is not attributable to the release of seriously mentally ill people from institutions. Most patients were released from mental hospitals in the 1950s and 1960s, yet vast increases in homelessness did not occur until the 1980s, when incomes and housing options for those living on the margins began to diminish rapidly (see "Why Are People Homeless?," NCH Fact Sheet #1). However, a new wave of deinstitutionalization and the denial of services or premature and unplanned discharge brought about by managed care arrangements may be contributing to the continued presence of seriously mentally ill persons within the homeless population. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Mental_Illness.pdf Edited January 16, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 Certainly some people fall through the cracks, due to lack of funding. We certainly can't institutionalize everyone with mental health issues on suspicion that they might act violently some day, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Certainly some people fall through the cracks, due to lack of funding. We certainly can't institutionalize everyone with mental health issues on suspicion that they might act violently some day, either. Good morning. I am not proposing that. What I am suggesting is that the use of violence by an individual must require a consequence and that, depending upon the circumstances, an institutional setting is the most appropriate place for such a person. Edited January 16, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Good morning. I am not proposing that. What I am suggesting is that the use of violence by an individual must require a consequence and that, depending upon the circumstances, an institutional setting is the most appropriate place for such a person. Good morning. I didn't mean to suggest that you were proposing that, so sorry if it appeared that way. My comments were in response to a few comments that have been made. I agree that some people with severe problems have slipped through the cracks but I also agree that some have exercised their right through advocates/the proper channels. Perhaps not all should have been released, but that's different from falling through the cracks. Also, the observation was made that some haven't been institutionalized until they've actually committed an act of violence along with the comment that it saves money to do it that way, so I was responding to that idea, also, saying we can't institutionalize everyone on the basis of the potential for violence. Many people could fall under that category, and that's a dangerous direction to take. I think there was more of that mentality in the past, and people who shouldn't have been institutionalized were against their will. I think in a democracy we have to live with some possibility of violence in order for freedoms/rights of the masses to prevail, and I see that as a better alternative than the state institutionalizing people on their prerogative/whim 'for the good of the people;' I think that 'for the good of the masses' mentality too often leads to a police state. Edited January 16, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Good morning. I didn't mean to suggest that you were proposing that, so sorry if it appeared that way. My comments were in response to a few comments that have been made. I agree that some people with severe problems have slipped through the cracks but I also agree that some have exercised their right through advocates/the proper channels. Perhaps not all should have been released, but that's different from falling through the cracks. Also, the observation was made that some haven't been institutionalized until they've actually committed an act of violence along with the comment that it saves money to do it that way, so I was responding to that idea, also, saying we can't institutionalize everyone on the basis of the potential for violence. Many people could fall under that category, and that's a dangerous direction to take. I think there was more of that mentality in the past, and people who shouldn't have been institutionalized were against their will. I think in a democracy we have to live with some possibility of violence in order for freedoms/rights of the masses to prevail, and I see that as a better alternative than the state institutionalizing people on their prerogative/whim 'for the good of the people;' I think that 'for the good of the masses' mentality too often leads to a police state. You have put forward a well thought out position and it is difficult for me to quibble with much of what you have said. I am wondering if you can provide an example or two of those individuals choosing advocacy as it is unclear to me what you are intending to convey in that regard. Although I realize advocacy can have several meanings advocacy to me is the utilization of legal counsel once a person is brought up on a charge or charges. A second point I would like to explore is the cost factor. If we use the recent incident in Arizona as an example it appears budget cuts may have resulted in a decline of resources available to address those with mental health needs. I would like to make it clear that I am not proposing that anyone be apprehended on a whim although if violent conduct resulting in injury occurs I support the idea of confinement if the circumstances at the scene dictate such action. In the city I live in there is a zero tolernace guideline in domestic violence cases. In my view no one should turn a blind eye to violent conduct. Edited January 16, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) You have put forward a well thought out position and it is difficult for me to quibble with much of what you have said. I am wondering if you can provide an example or two of those individuals choosing advocacy as it is unclear to me what you are intending to convey in that regard. I really can't cite any examples but what I'm intending to convey is that sometimes people who are institutionalized have been released through the proper channels, that being advocates/counselors/lawyers et al working on their case. I don't have any particular cases in mind, I've just been aware of it happening over the years. Although I realize advocacy can have several meanings advocacy to me is the utilization of legal counsel once a person is brought up on a charge or charges. We're on the same page. Sorry I can't provide any concrete examples, but like I said, I'm aware that it happens. A second point I would like to explore is the cost factor. If we use the recent incident in Arizona as an example it appears budget cuts may have resulted in a decline of resources available to address those with mental health needs. I don't disagree with that. I think lack of funding is, always has been, and likely always will be a factor in such incidents, and I don't think that's true in just the United States. Unfortunately. I would like to make it clear that I am not proposing that anyone be apprehended on a whim although if violent conduct resulting in injury occurs I support the idea of confinement if the circumstances at the scene dictate such action. I can't disagree with that. In the city I live in there is a zero tolernace guideline in domestic violence cases. In my view no one should turn a blind eye to violent conduct. I agree. Sometimes, though, in domestic violence cases the victim/accuser withdraws the charges, making it more difficult for charges/prosecution/sentencing to take place. Edited January 16, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 "Sometimes, though, in domestic violence cases the victim/accuser withdraws the charges, making it more difficult for charges/prosecution/sentencing to take place." Yes and that is regrettable as in such circumstances the abuse usually continues and may lead to death and serious injury. In urban areas there are shelters available to women and their children and as well resource centres to help these distressed individuals in transition. My wife worked as a flight nurse for several years and witnessed first hand the conditions in the more remote areas of the province. It was not a pretty picture she painted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Jack Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 It should be quite apparent to anyone with a functioning brain that the hatred promulgated by the likes of Sarah Palin will influence an individual such as this young man. Whether he read Mein Kamph ot the Communist Manifesto is really beside the point. The gun culture in the USA and in particular a state like Arizona contributes in large part to such tragedies. Events such as these will continue to be repeated unless and until the Congress rids itself of the influence of the gun lobby. If you want to see REAL hatred you should watch Ed Shultz and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 Do you have any statistics and/or reports to backup your assertion? About what? That there a lot of sane people living on the streets? If so, i hope you're kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) If you want to see REAL hatred you should watch Ed Shultz and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. I watch both of these gentlemen from time to time and suggest to you neither of them come close to Caribou Barbie when it comes to inflamatory rhetoric. Edited January 17, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 17, 2011 Report Share Posted January 17, 2011 About what? That there a lot of sane people living on the streets? If so, i hope you're kidding. You seem to be looking for some attention so I will oblige you but before I do I am wondering if you can explain to me the relevance of your statement to the topic at hand. I take it the link you have provided is intended to highlight the plight of children in distress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028710-503544.html?om_rid=NsfrMk&om_mid=_BNNZPNB8XdRasy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 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? Is that not why we have prisons and psyc wards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Is that not why we have prisons and psyc wards? No. We most definitely do not institutionalize/imprison "everyone with anger management issues/everyone who's resorted to violence." Not by a long shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 No. We most definitely do not institutionalize/imprison "everyone with anger management issues/everyone who's resorted to violence." Not by a long shot. Can't argue with that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Can't argue with that! I should have added: nor should we. Still feel the same way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 I should have added: nor should we. Still feel the same way? Nor should we, right. I've resorted to violence myself; and while I can't say a nice stint in an institution definitely wouldn't have helped me, I'm glad it never happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Nor should we, right. I've resorted to violence myself; and while I can't say a nice stint in an institution definitely wouldn't have helped me, I'm glad it never happened. Fair enough, then. We are in agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 Fair enough, then. We are in agreement. We are. Not the first time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 18, 2011 Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 If you want to see REAL hatred you should watch Ed Shultz and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. More false equivalency! As Bill Maher said: "there's a difference between a madman and a maaad man. 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.