Originally Posted by The Rani

We've had politicians shot before, with collateral damage. It just hasn't happened in a long long time.
When it happened to Reagan, people had been talking about that 20-year-curse thing for a while, so the only surprise (for me) was that it happened so soon after he was inaugurated.
I don't remember a mass hysteria following. But then, those were the (good old) days before the internet and cable news ... sigh ...

I think the context of this happening now in a crisis phase has made me overly sensitive to the overtones of this. The cycles are much in my thoughts...the last two crisis es were horribly violent...a resumption of such would be incredibly sad for so many. FTR, I see no such thing happening now, yet. Hence characterizing myself as overly sensitive.

Originally Posted by Tone70

Oh, and stop baiting Odin.

I plead No Contest......

PoC67

PS: I plead ......Guilty(sheepishly).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why am I not surprised to see pw, in particular, so enthusiastically jizzing all over the corpse of an innocent child? I would ask about his sense of shame, but it was clear back during his "idiot america" days that it is lacking completely.

Partisanship is pointless at best... but sometimes we get to see it at its sickening worst. I suppose we should appreciate his service in bringing that to us.

Enough, though. Please.

Seconded. Enough. Please.

Originally Posted by Tone70

Seconded. Enough. Please.

Thirded......the motion Passes!

PoC67

PS: Glad that's over and done with!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

And that is just a recent wave. In the post Civil War south, a lot of people didn't want the newly freed slaves exercising the privileges and immunities that were supposed to come from the 14th Amendment. A lot of stuff came out of this. Posse Comitatus, the notion that the military could not enforce the law, was a reaction to Yankee troops occupying the south. There were a series of arguments nullifying various rights, such as the Second Amendment protecting militias rather than being an individual right. There was also a broad sweeping theory that the Bill of Rights did not grant individual rights, but only limited the powers of the federal Congress. The feds thus could not protect the Rights of the People. This was supposedly the responsibility of the states only, and thus minorities had no rights in the South.

These Jim Crow laws and interpretations were slowly whittled away during the 20th Century by people like Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King, but the Second Amendment was one of the last aspects of the Jim Crow interpretations to fall.

It is not clear to me that the Second Amendment is correct for modern times, but I am dismayed by how few people know how Jim Crow for a good part of the nation's history trumped the Bill of Rights.

I think Odin is wrong about this. The gun control movement started after the JFK assassination, but it promptly provoked a backlash that was much stronger than the movement itself. Democrats began losing thanks to gun control in states like Pennsylvania and elsewhere. By the 1980s the NRA was untouchable. The only change in the pattern was after a few school shootings, as I recall, in the early 90s, when assault rifles were banned--but Bush and the Republicans allowed the ban to lapse. Reagan signed a very liberal abortion law but I don't think he ever touched guns.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Hardly a "myth" at all -- Henry's speech involved no bloodshed whatsoever. It was a speech to the Virginia Convention. You can look it up, if you don't believe that.

But the fact remains, it was a pivotal moment in that 4T. That's why it's worth considering if we will have a similar tipping point in this one.

But spin it, if you must.

"A pivotal moment in that 4T" and that 4T was essentially what - an 8-year war. Generally recognized as justified, yes; but bloodless, no.

Just think you should go into your hope-for event with eyes wide open as to what it would actually likely mean.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why am I not surprised to see pw, in particular, so enthusiastically jizzing all over the corpse of an innocent child? I would ask about his sense of shame, but it was clear back during his "idiot america" days that it is lacking completely.

Partisanship is pointless at best... but sometimes we get to see it at its sickening worst. I suppose we should appreciate his service in bringing that to us.

Enough, though. Please.

This statement of yours -

Ah yes. "violence, or threat of violence has no place in our democracy".

Which explains, by the way, the utter lack of anything resembling influence that the people have over their rulers. It is apparently Right and Good to complain (quietly and privately, and only in permitted means and along permitted channels, of course) and to beg. But to threaten the actual interests of those who rule?

Why that's just un-American.

Let's give a moment of thanks to the tools of the ruling class for reminding us subjects of our place.

- is nothing, if not an outright endorsement of the violence witness in Arizona.

If there is any doubt of that, that doubt vanishes with -

That'd just be a waste of perfectly good ammo, for the most part. Congresscritters, as individuals, are pretty easily-replacable elements of the ruling structure. Unless you're talking about putting them up against the wall en masse, there's not really much point.

That is no different than the spew of Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage and dozens of others on the air waves screaming for exactly what happened in AZ and now saying, "oh no, there's no connection."

Only people completely mired in Idiot America don't get that.

While you are also mired there, perhaps a strand of humanity is left and that picture of the 'collateral damage' of your glibness struck a nerve - maybe your concern for jizzing is a deep psychological projection?
Maybe give it some thought before you go mouthing off about how little value Congressional representatives have or putting them up against a firing squad en mass.
Do you really know for certain that your own personal Jared Lee isn't out there on the Internet or perhaps even in the community where you live. Are you willing to bet your own kids lives on it?

Originally Posted by The Rani

A disgusting yet accurate description.
Playdude has had the good sense to remove images like this that he has posted in the past. I hope when he sobers up he takes that one down also.

Now which picture would that be?

Is it the one of Palin's target map that any one with half-a-brain (even a fairly-dense clinical psychologist) could see might trigger a nut like Jared to act out? I could see Glibertarians like Justin taking offence with that, but not so sure that holds with you.

So is it the photo of Christina? For some people, I could see that they don't want to be reminded of any possible collateral damage from their 'high-minded' hopes and dreams for bloodless revolution and civil war. But you?

I'm really wondering why you of all people would give two shits about either pictures. Certainly from this recent post -

We've had politicians shot before, with collateral damage. It just hasn't happened in a long long time.
When it happened to Reagan, people had been talking about that 20-year-curse thing for a while, so the only surprise (for me) was that it happened so soon after he was inaugurated.
I don't remember a mass hysteria following. But then, those were the (good old) days before the internet and cable news ... sigh ...

- it's pretty clear you remain our resident nihlist.

I guess that's it - any photos that bring a touch of real-world humanity... you know, real suffering, sorrow, concern - well, that just ain't your bag is it lady? Must upset that desperately-practiced detachment you work so hard for, right?

Originally Posted by playwrite

"A pivotal moment in that 4T" and that 4T was essentially what - an 8-year war. Generally recognized as justified, yes; but bloodless, no.

Just think you should go into your hope-for event with eyes wide open as to what it would actually likely mean.

Oh, so 4Ts include war? Really???

How - utterly - brilliant of you.

Keep spinning... the more you do, the more a fool you make of yourself.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Oh, so 4Ts include war? Really???

How - utterly - brilliant of you.

Keep spinning... the more you do, the more a fool you make of yourself.

Ah, Henry's speech was in 1775 and a year later, what happened?

Here, perhaps this will help -

http://www.fourthturning.com/html/am...evolution.html

It might prove beneficial to first read the book that spawned this forum before posting; it is generally assumed - I believe even Rani has done that!

Since you apparently are unable to put 2+2 together correctly, let me dumb the original comment down for you.

I asked a question. The question was, will we have someone who stands up and says, in response to a tyrannical government, that he/she would prefer to die than lose their liberties and freedom? Not we will, but will we? And will he/she be called treasonous if he/she does make such a statement?

From that, you get that a child shot in a completely different context is collateral damage and proceed to post inflammatory pictures. Then you claim that Patrick Henry's famous speech to the Virginia legislature involved bloodshed.

Proven wrong, you then twist that to say, "well, there was a war, and wars shed blood." Now, you say that because the speech happened a year before the Declaration of Independence, the speech is why war broke out.

And to top it off, you assume everyone BUT you are the stupid ones? Riiiiight.

-sigh-

I figured, given the source, that decency was too much to ask. When will I learn?

LOL... seriously.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Placing a photo of an armed Sarah Palin with a gun next to a murdered girl has nothing to do with the real world. As I've said before, the woman likes to kill moose, not children.
You are politicizing the issue, and exploiting a child's death for your own purposes, and it is disgusting.

What's disgusting is to see the Idiot America assertion that "an armed Sarah Palin with a gun next to a murdered girl has nothing to do with the real world."

Not so much that you said it, but for the number of people that while not necessarily agreeing, just ignore or excuse eliminationist speech as being just the way the world is right now, and move on until the next outrage - Zombies.

But I guess that's appealing to you.

Originally Posted by Xer H

Since you apparently are unable to put 2+2 together correctly, let me dumb the original comment down for you.

I asked a question. The question was, will we have someone who stands up and says, in response to a tyrannical government, that he/she would prefer to die than lose their liberties and freedom? Not we will, but will we? And will he/she be called treasonous if he/she does make such a statement?

From that, you get that a child shot in a completely different context is collateral damage and proceed to post inflammatory pictures. Then you claim that Patrick Henry's famous speech to the Virginia legislature involved bloodshed.

Proven wrong, you then twist that to say, "well, there was a war, and wars shed blood." Now, you say that because the speech happened a year before the Declaration of Independence, the speech is why war broke out.

And to top it off, you assume everyone BUT you are the stupid ones? Riiiiight.

Funny, my point to you is your lack of putting 2+2 together. You 'wonder' if someone will get up and say "give me liberty or give me death." Hey, it's been done, and likely done somewhere by someone every day - and it is meaningless unless acted upon. And "acted upon" is the real question.

You're posting this on a thread dealing with violence. You are posting it in response to a chain of posts addressing the horrific violence in AZ. Just exactly what is it that would make having some clown somewhere getting up and parroting PH meaningful in anyway that would make it a topic under violence ... and not result in the possibility of collateral damage similar to that in AZ or on the scale of what happen one year after it was originally voiced?

Just what exactly was your motivation in posting your 'wonderment?'

Originally Posted by Justin '77

-sigh-

I figured, given the source, that decency was too much to ask. When will I learn?

Given your posts since the AZ incident (e.g. suggesting among other things lining up Congress to be shot), I guess your quest for decency and learning will remain unsuccessful.

But do keep trying.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

-sigh-

I figured, given the source, that decency was too much to ask. When will I learn?

Never. The lure of debating with idio, er, liberals in the Twilight of the Intellectuals is just too much dag-gone fun.

Originally Posted by Publius

Never. The lure of debating with idio, er, liberals in the Twilight of the Intellectuals is just too much dag-gone fun.

Theoretically, but how would such an entity know they were debating, let alone debating someone of intelligence?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Me too. Sorry guys, I was wrong. And I will now bow out of this particular discussion ...

Spoil sport. What, being a mere wall is un-fun? Pray tell it's not true!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Theoretically, but how would such an entity know they were debating, let alone debating someone of intelligence?

Good point.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Given your posts since the AZ incident (e.g. suggesting among other things lining up Congress to be shot)...

And the New York Times and Washington Post's clear inference that Sarah Palin is somehow responsible for the Giffords shooting are aok, in your little blue book?

Good grief. You people are transparently pathetic. And most folks, save those in your little liberal bubble, know it.

Just... wow.

via balko

“This shouldn’t happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.” – John Green, father of nine-year-old Christina Green, who was killed in Saturday’s Tucson shootings.

If it were me and my kid, I can't imagine that I'd be anything but berserk. In any case, far too gone to deliver such an eloquent "fuck you" to all the types who want to use her death to score political points.


So... wow.

Yeah, I read his comments earlier today. What amazing people, no?

Originally Posted by playwrite

What's disgusting is to see the Idiot America assertion that "an armed Sarah Palin with a gun next to a murdered girl has nothing to do with the real world."

It's funny you should say that. What is disgusting and extremely amusing to me is an idiot like yourself who seems to believe that your picture of Sarah Palin somehow portrays an armed person at all.

There are three rather obvious reasons in that picture that show Sarah Palin to be quite unarmed and un-threatening.

I suspect you are a pretty ignorant fellow when it comes to firearms Playwrite. Let's see if you can name all three.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

-sigh-

I figured, given the source, that decency was too much to ask. When will I learn?

I have been very disappointed with Playwrite's blatant partisanship (which is not the same as having strong ideological views, they are plenty of partisan Dems that are spineless centrist corporate hacks), he reminds me of the DU poster ProSense.