patrick.net

It would appear that dope smokers should not be armed. A great reason for a law against armed dope smokers.

Bap33 says

It is shamefull how the leftist media and their loyal menions are treating this. Shamefull

Really. I wonder whether you are hearing that from actually listening to leftist media?

Because when I listen to leftist media (you know Palin's "lame stream media") mostly what I am hearing is along these lines: "We don't really know the politics of this young man or whether there was any connection to politics or political commentary, but do you think maybe this is a time to look at how inflamatory the dialogue is ?"

Everyone knows that the emotions and dialogue in AZ runs very hot, I guess mostly because of immigration. Isnt it AZ that even has laws against having certain types of classes that teach about other cultures ? They do happen to have a deep right wing streak there, and some very emotional contentious political debates. Some would even say a lot of racst hate talk.

Did you see the way people tried to use emotion and ugly rude behavior to shut down any calm meaningful objective discussion of health care at those town hall meetings the summer before last. Sure it is their right.

I guess if hate and emotion are working for you and your party, then the leftists who say, "even if this shooting was not political, maybe we could use this as an opportunity to tone down the discussion for the benefit of all," are being shameful.

I get it. Hate and bullying with emotion is working for us. Don't let the shameful liberals use this to take that away from us.

marcus says

I guess if hate and emotion are working for you and your party, then the leftists who say, even if this shooting was not political, maybe we could use this as an opportunity to tone down the discussion for the benefit of all,
are being shameful.

1) protected speech - Constitutional
1a) inflamitory speech - Constitutional
2) hate speech - Progressive Liberal tool used to quiet those they disagree with. Arbitrary. Unconstitutional.
2a)"toned down" - who gets to decide what gets to be said, by who, and how often? Very Arbitrary. Unconstitutional.

Are you interested in having someone descide what you are allowed to say or write?

Bap33 says

Are you interested in having someone descide what you are allowed to say or write?

OH jeez. You have to be kidding.

Ironic that this is coming from you, someone who mostly insists on being a gentleman.

Nobody is wildy thinking of new laws here.

But some are hoping (wishing) to tone down the conversation. Nobody is trying to impose anything. It would be as if you and I were arguing and it started getting ugly, and then for whever reason there was something that was a catalyst for us saying, lets not have this be so emotional and ugly. Maybe it would even be more productive if we acted as grown ups.

I think that what is really bothering you is that the most inflammatory hateful sort of messages out there are coming from the likes of Rush and talk radio. So when people talk about toning things down, you are seeing it through that lens, as maybe quelling some messages that you like or agree with.

I must have misunderstood.

Do you want limits on speech?

If you do not, then fine, we are all done on that subject.

But, if you do, you should explain how that can be anything other than limiting speech. And who gets to choose, when, why them, ect ect.

You suggest there is something bothering me .... nope. Only the common actions/pontifications of the left spark my desire to point out where they are horribly wrong and anti-American..... but, not bothered, really. If you read my first post, it pretty much covered it. No need to be offended.

I'm going to not post anymore about this, to avoid being a target. Cheers.

Bap33 says

If you do not, then fine, we are all done on that subject.

I don't.

Bap33 says

You suggest there is something bothering me

I was reacting to the "shameful" comment.

Once again, I must state how I feel... I realize that ya'll have been waiting on pins & noodles for this:

I own a gun. I like guns - I've shot them many times. I've shot an AK-47, and it was fun. Deer rifles knock me over from the kick, but they're fun too. They can hurt people when used correctly, and when they're used incorrectly. Guns don't kill people, but the gaping wounds in vital organs that they leave definitely kill people.

I've also smoked pot. Many times. I like pot. Pot doesn't kill people, and it's not been proven to cause lung cancer or any bad stuff. Pot makes me mellow and I don't feel like using my guns when I smoke it.

Of course, I'm not mentally ill. If I were, it would be a game changer. Mentally ill people hear messages from different sources and believe that they're directed at them - and act in strange ways in response to the messages.

Palin & Beck and the hatemongers (whether republican or democrats) created an atmosphere of hatred, to which this guy responded. While they're not personally accountable, they should shut the fuck up.

Bap33 says

...more in common with crazy arab islamist than Conservatives...

Are you really trying to claim that "crazy arab islamist" arent *conservative*?

I mean. Really. I just. Fuck.

You're not helping.

LOL

elliemae says

Palin & Beck and the hatemongers (whether republican or democrats) created an atmosphere of hatred, to which this guy responded. While they’re not personally accountable, they should shut the fuck up.

I would bet everything, that this guys beef, was Not caused by what Beck or Palin ever said.
This guys beef was so far off from Left vs. Right agendas, that he was just a nutcase and mentally disturbed.
Him shooting up the Safeway for his demented view, is like running into the Dry Cleaners and shooting every one because Denny's screwed up his over easy eggs.

It's possible his mental illness was exasperated by the political discourse these days.
If that's the case, I would bet it was self righteous smug Liberals on the internet, that constant berates anyone that is not a Liberal, posts picks like the one of Palin listed above, or the photo shopped Tea Party pics that were circulating in the election season, that would have had more to do with it, than what Palin, Beck, or Limbaugh collectively ever said.

You guys are the biggest Shit slingers out there, and I find it very RICH that you guys sanctimoniously act like, Palin and Beck have the monopoly on Political hate and Fear mongering.

They should outlaw high capacity magazine clips in public and limit them to shooting ranges and licensed hunting preserves. There is absolutely no reason someone needs a high capacity clip in public.

All the right-wing gun nuts who want high capacity clips survive with land mines being outlawed. What about my constitutional right to bare arms in the form of land mines? A high capacity clip and a land mine are equally destructive. In fact, there have been NO reported deaths from land mines in the United States in the past decade.

SoCal Renter says

A high capacity clip and a land mine are equally destructive.

Are you new to the deep end, or did the AZ psychopath just cause you to fall off?

shrekgrinch says

After all, who cares about the rest of the Constitution when the parts we don’t like are open game for pissing all over?

I notice you completely ignored his point. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Where do YOU draw the line? Or does that guarantee me the right to own nuclear bomb or 10? Or biological weapons?

tatupu70 says

I notice you completely ignored his point. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Where do YOU draw the line? Or does that guarantee me the right to own nuclear bomb or 10? Or biological weapons?

Don't worry tatupu70. When losing an argument, the followers of Beck will slap on a neatly tailored tin foil hat, stick their fingers in their ears, and start screaming about the Constitution.

shrekgrinch says

Note the word ‘nobody’…no qualifications about who he refers to as nobody. So therefore, he is defining it as ‘anybody not doing…[rest of verb action of his sentence here]’.

Hmmm...Shrek is breaking out the whole "CURRENCY OF GRAMMER" argument. I'm starting to think Loughner has Internet access in his jail cell....

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says

I notice you completely ignored his point. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Where do YOU draw the line? Or does that guarantee me the right to own nuclear bomb or 10? Or biological weapons?

Tatu…try READING for a change before typing on the keyboard, ok?
I did not ignore it I WAS REFERRING TO IT. But you seem to be oblivious to that fact because you didn’t follow back far enough where it is clear I was referring to SoCal Renter deciding all on his own to amend the right to bear arms how he sees fit.

No, actually, you completely missed his point and went on a ramble of your own making. You can say you referred to it, but sadly, saying it doesn't make it true. If you had actually acknowledged it, then I wouldn't have posted.

I'm having a good day, so I'll give you another chance. Where do YOU draw the line? Where does the Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms end? Or does it end? Should I be entitled to put land mines in my yard? Or have nuclear missiles in my garage? Or a store of bio weapons in my basement?

SoCal Renter says

16 Tea Party members elected to congress in 2010 and Glen Beck is irrelevant?

Who in the Hell is Glen Beck? The National Tea Party Gand Dragon?

Get a hold of your self SoCal, you either high opinion of your self and your cause, or a low opinion of everyone who disagrees with you. Or possibly both.

Hitler was a national dictator, not a T.V. host or 2008 political candidate.

Tenouncetrout says

Who in the Hell is Glen Beck? The National Tea Party Gand Dragon?
Get a hold of your self SoCal, you either high opinion of your self and your cause, or a low opinion of everyone who disagrees with you. Or possibly both.

Actually, the Tea Party members are encouraged not to publically use the term "Grand Dragon" as it associates too closely with the KKK. I know Tea Party members usually have dual memberships, but they do like to at least to appear like non-violent non-racists in public settings. When not in mixed company, feel free to use the "Grand Dragon" moniker as the good ole boys will get your double entendre.

Glenn Beck created the Tea Party with his 9-12 protests. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-12_Project

SoCal Renter says

Glenn Beck created the Tea Party with his 9-12 protests. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-12_Project

Wrong. Rick Santelli, and his rant on the floor of the Chicago Merchantile exchange which was broadcast live on CNBC on February 19th, 2009 and subsequently became a youtube hit was the origin of the tea party movement.

You can watch it yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k
or read about it:
http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html

Then please pull your head out of Glenn Beck's rear.

SoCal Renter says

Tenouncetrout says

Who in the Hell is Glen Beck? The National Tea Party Gand Dragon?

Get a hold of your self SoCal, you either high opinion of your self and your cause, or a low opinion of everyone who disagrees with you. Or possibly both.

Actually, the Tea Party members are encouraged not to publically use the term “Grand Dragon” as it associates too closely with the KKK. I know Tea Party members usually have dual memberships, but they do like to at least to appear like non-violent non-racists in public settings. When not in mixed company, feel free to use the “Grand Dragon” moniker as the good ole boys will get your double entendre.
Glenn Beck created the Tea Party with his 9-12 protests. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-12_Project

Who made Who?

shrekgrinch says

Stop the red herrings and please help SoCal Renter provide actual proof that the Right was actually involved in this. He needs the help, trust me.

You don't believe Obama has provided sufficient "proof" of eligibility to be President. Therefore, nothing can satisfy your circular, reductive, illogical, and insane requirements for "proof".

BTW: Boehner is also a friend of Gabby Giffords. Does this mean he lacks credibility? How does being friendly with someone equal POLICE CORRUPTION? My god, man. If you make these logical leaps with this type of "proof" I have to question your grasp on reality.

Are you in a beige jumpsuit right now?

shrekgrinch says

Why does it matter?

It matters because it goes to the very heart of your contention:

shrekgrinch says

After all, who cares about the rest of the Constitution when the parts we don’t like are open game for pissing all over?

So I'll ask again--where do YOU draw the line?

shrekgrinch says

Stop the red herrings

You are calling the Constitution a red herring?

shrekgrinch says

The heart of my contention was that if you piss on on part of the Constitution you piss all over it

Exactly. And my question is--what part of the Constitution was he pissing on (to use your witty phrase)?

I'm assuming you are refering to the right to bear arms. It's obviously very vague. Notice it doesn't say the right to carry high capacity magazine clips. So then, if you are so worried about people pissing on the Constitution, are you up in arms (no pun intended) because it's against the law to own a nuclear bomb? Clearly that qualifies as armament. So the Constitution should protect your right to own it, right?

This is not a red herring. It goes to the heart of your argument.

shrekgrinch says

The heart of my contention was that if you piss on on part of the Constitution you piss all over it. You can’t ‘cherry pick’ what you like and fuck the rest. For example, I don’t like Roe v. Wade — not because of the alleged woman’s right to choose — but because the Supremes ADMITTED to just pulling out of their asses the Constitutional ‘justification’ for it. But it is in there and so must be accepted or the entire Constitution is at risk. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

High capacity magazine clips are mentioned in your version of the Constitution...where, exactly?

So like, when the US government amended the Constitution to outlaw Slavery, they were just pissing on the whole thing? The bastards!

I guess with the whole Roe vs. Wade thing, your version of the Constitution ommitted the 14th Amendment. Or are Amendments pissing on the Constitution too? I can't keep it all straight.

shrekgrinch says

SoCal Renter says

Hmmm…Shrek is breaking out the whole “CURRENCY OF GRAMMER” argument. I’m starting to think Loughner has Internet access in his jail cell…

No, it is because others on patrick.net have used the term ‘nobody’, got caught red handed being proved they were full of shit and tried to weasel out of it by qualifying the term after the fact, that’s why.

I'm not following but I assume your refering to other threads, or the other voices inside your head. I just want you to know it will be ok. No one here is going to try to take your grammar currency.

shrekgrinch says

They should outlaw liberal idiots from speaking or voting and limit them to scrubbing toilets and fluffing on porn sets as an occupation. There is absolutely no reason such idiots should participate in society otherwise.

After all, who cares about the rest of the Constitution when the parts we don’t like are open game for pissing all over?

shrekgrinch says

a few months ago I predicted that the Dems will continue to piss people off…and piss off people who tend to have guns…so much so that pretty soon said Dems would start getting shot at.

I’m serious. I predicted that.

shrekgrinch says

Truthfully (I’m not Bap33 but will answer that unsolicited if it means I can piss even more people off than I usually do), I’ve always wondered how Liberals can be such dumb-asses when it comes to their fervent drive to totally piss off millions of gun-owners in this country. I mean, THEY OWN GUNS, people! Liberals usually don’t.

So, do ‘the math’. While your average Winchester hunting rifle won’t stand up to the National Guard on their worst day of the month, it is more than enough to kill unarmed liberals who stupidly & arrogantly think that they are somehow immune from the wrath of an armed people descended from folks that did take up arms against their government before (Parliament and King George).

shrekgrinch says

So, don’t do the math then. Instead, keep whacking the nose of said rabid pit bull with your liberal rag of a newspaper while thinking “He can’t touch me! I have the ‘intellectual’ high ground!” Being in denial of the world as is is sooo conducive to one’s survival, after all.

shrekgrinch says

do ‘the math’.

shrekgrinch says

congressbitch...your precious Demobitch...

I've stopped listening, now.

If you haven't seen this already ... Jon Stewart's monologue following the Giffords shooting in Arizona:

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/the-daily-show/jon-stewart-on-the-giffords-sh-39033.aspx

tatupu70 says

I’m assuming you are refering to the right to bear arms. It’s obviously very vague. Notice it doesn’t say the right to carry high capacity magazine clips. So then, if you are so worried about people pissing on the Constitution, are you up in arms (no pun intended) because it’s against the law to own a nuclear bomb? Clearly that qualifies as armament. So the Constitution should protect your right to own it, right?

This is not a red herring. It goes to the heart of your argument.

Hey shrekgrinch, you going to answer this or not?

I think blaming Palin or conservatives in general for this is complete bullshit.

MarkInSF says

I think blaming Palin or conservatives in general for this is complete bullshit.

I disagree. If I yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and someone gets hurt, don't I share some of the blame? The conservatives claim that their yelling "FIRE" did not influence Jared's actions, as there is yet no concrete evidence Jared listened to the right wing hate.

Two facts remain. 1) Palin and the right-wing are screaming "FIRE". Their messages are very suggestive of violence.

2) A disturbed person took violent actions against a perceived enemy.

This is the same as the following scenario. I scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater. People look around concerned but see no fire. Moments later one individual tramples an old lady to death. Now you can argue that the individual who ran over the lady was just crazy and he did not hear me scream "FIRE". IT WAS JUST A WEIRD COINCIDENCE.

Blame can never be proven in either case but that isn't the issue. Conservatives just need to shut the fuck up and stop yelling "FIRE". That is the only issue.

MarkInSF says

I think blaming Palin or conservatives in general for this is complete bullshit.

SoCal Renter says

Blame can never be proven in either case but that isn’t the issue. Conservatives just need to shut the fuck up and stop yelling “FIRE”. That is the only issue.

yup. They wanted to move the debate to the right by stoking the fires of anger, fear, resentment, and uncertainty.

It is very ugly politics but the true tragedy is that this sort of message has found so many millions of adherents.

We in the "reality-based community" can't change the conservative mind from the outside. They have to find their own way back.

Troy says

but the true tragedy

did I write that? Apologies for taking a rhetorical drift-out there. . . meant to say "central issue" I guess.

I don't mind that the right has committed itself to this hate message -- against "socialists", liberals, illegal immigrants, gays, feminists, vegetarians, muslims, etc etc -- I just wish it didn't find such a receptive audience.

Troy says

I just wish it didn’t find such a receptive audience

Yes, right ? Troy you really do get to the crux of the biscuit.

Shrekie seems to have left the building.

That picture needs the right caption. Blazing Saddles is the obvious reference.

Troy says

I just wish it didn’t find such a receptive audience

I'm still thinking about this, as I listen to the youtube of Obama's speech yesterday.

I'm not actually religious. Sprititual at times, but close to agnostic.

But I wish there was a judgement day, for which Beck, Limbaugh, Savage and the rest would have to answer for whether:

Do they say these things because they believe them ?

Or do they say them because that's what their audience wants to hear, and because there's money in it ?

If it is the latter, I wish that they would have to answer for that !!

So if it turns out this guy was into violent video games and gruesome hollywood movies are you going to start attacking them as well? Oh wait, shoveling death and destruction for entertainment purposes is art and protected as free speech.

Nevermind.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

When the microphone is off, these people go home and spend their money

If they don't believe any of it, and they are able to influence the electorate that much, just because it sells ad time on the radio, then it's easy to make a very tight logical argument that we need the fairness doctrine back.

Now of course, if you are a right winger, then you may not be able to appreciate that one day things could be too far to the right, and at that time the fate of our country could be dependent on leadership that is to the left of where we then are politically.

If you don't think that is possible, then you will disagree that the fairness doctrine is a logical necessity. In this case I can point you to your argument. You can talk about the constitution, freedom of speech etc., and so on.

Okay, then we continue, and now with corporate citizens able to fund any propaganda they wish. Terrible change doesn't happen all at once. It happens one step at a time.

EightBall says

So if it turns out this guy was into violent video games

Speaking for myself, I have no idea whether the shootings had anything to do with right wing talk radio. But read above, or in other thread, people talking about parents and inlaws whose world view is more than a little shaped by right wing radio. If the entertainers on those programs don't even believe what they are saying, but do it simply because hate sells. That's a problem.

I may be talking about it now, in this thread, because it's possible Laughlen (sp?) was influenced by those guys. But I'm thinking about elections and the future of the country, not the prospect of cause and effect on violence.

Really I'm thinking about education. It seems to me, that even long after school is over, Americans are entitled to education.