Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
January 9, 2011 - 5:41pm
#1
Liberals love plays and movie scripts about assassination
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
Crazy is not right or left and this fellow was as crazy as it gets...
Exactly. But the most insane, disgusting thing that happened immediately afterward was the media spewing the democrat talking point of "Did conservative talk radio push him to do it"? Or, better yet, "The tea parties rhetoric may have pushed him to do it."
This lunatic was a nihilist. An atheist, and had a demonic shrine set up. ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION with the tea party or conservative talk or politics.
Democrat congressman Kendrick Meek(D)Fl. amongst others should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to make this horrendous tragedy into a political agenda.
This goes back to the heart of what Obama's ex-Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a tragedy go to waste."
If anything, the assailants background would be more conduscive to left-wing politics. But you don't see any republicans blaming the rhetoric on the left and wanting limits on free speech.
Basically, punish the criminal not the 1st admendment.
Mark Evans
Really? That's impossible. If he had a "demonic shrine" he could not possibly be an atheist. Get a grip, man. Atheists do not believe in any kinds of gods, that includes demons, devils, spirits, what-have-you. One can't be both a demonist and an atheist.
I guess you suck down what your version of the media says.
As to the comment the guy was absolutely nuts, yeah. That much appears certain.
And, of course, you appear to suggest that publishing maps with crosshairs on them aimed at some politicians would never influence the crazy among us. Is that your claim?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Sarah Palin's spokesperson has explained that they were not gunsight crosshairs, but surveyor's grid marks. Even so, they have been taken down from her website.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
It's more of the typical liberal bilge being spewed by the leftist hacks with an agenda to push. However, for those of you who are infected with the degenerative liberal mental disorder, you'll like it.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Sarah Palin's map contained " a point of reference" logo. NOT! and I repeat NOT! crosshairs. This was immediately debunked BEFORE the leftists could grab hold of it.
The United States Geological Survey. USGS provides the symbols.
So, using your own words:
" I guess you suck down what your version of the media says."
Once again, you have made yourself look foolish.
Furthermore, if that the case, then you should be outraged at all the democratic ads in the last election that used the words 'targeting' the opponent.
Mark Evans
This is comic. If everyone who wasn't TOLD these weren't gunsight symbols thought they were ...
Barry Goldwater
A democratic guy, now.
McCarthy says RED!
If I or any other poster wrote the exact opposite, that the shooting was because we have an out of control Congress that refuses to do what the country wants, thinks themselves better than the rest of us, and are surrounded and supported by extremists from the left who, as Rahm noted, should never let a crisis go to waste...the post would be called hate and scrubbed.
The shooter was crazy. He had zero political motivation, not a single mention of politics has been found in his papers, the folk who know him label him as a leftist drug user, and his reading list was mostly of the left...Since we are quoting opinion pieces, here is one a tad better written by an actual psychiatrist...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html
Put succinctly, your opinion piece was the equivalent of a reviewer trashing a product without bothering to listen to it, measure it, or test it in any manner at all simply because they hate the sound of another companies product whose owner you do not like...
Cheap, shoddy opportunism and character libel is not a serious response to crazy
So far, so good. The Rich get Richer extremists who support big business, offshoring of jobs, and obviously fraudulent bank processes and repossessions are part of the problem, indeed.
The lie, of course, is that the "left" is in any fashion involved. It is the whacko-right, with their support of cheat-any-way-you-can business practice disguised as the "free market", who has created this mess, just like they created the mess in 1929, who extended the life of this mess, and who is now in congress doing their best to ensure the misery of the people they tricked into voting for them.
As there is zero, as in not any, nada, evidence even tenuous supporting that view, I have to put it in the same category, unsupported partisan opinion.
The fellow was crazy...that is not a political philosophy
The shooter was clearly completely deranged, indeed.
Does this excuse rhetoric that incites such crazy people?
Your question assumes crazy folk are excited by rhetoric...in this case there was no such a link. The loss of freedom resulting from the control of political speech far outweighs any gain from enforced civility. Our politicians already are so separated from the people that they only do what we want by accident. Removing them from criticism is not a great idea.
Evidence?
Nope, didn't think so. Don't make the mistake of thinking that a mentally ill person connects things the same way as a competent individual.
That is the point...blaming anyone or anything aside from the crazy is simply not supported by the facts.
See Brandenburg v. Ohio. You're dead in the water JJ. All this crap about people inciting violence is bullshit unless you happen to be a liberal inciting violence.
Democrats to AIG: Give back the bonus money or we will release your personal information.
Democrats Get Their Wish: Children of AIG Employees Threatened
Democrat Congressman Clyburn: If you oppose Porkulus Bill your racist
Democrats say ObamaCare protestors are “anti-American”, “not representative of America”, “Nazi’s etc.. – GOP Chairman Steele Responds!
Democrats Senate Leader Harry Reid says ObamaCare protestors are “Evil Mongers”
Democrat Congressman Clyburn compares town hall protesters to thugs who attacked civil rights marchers
The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare. Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit. – UPDATE: Liberals & union thugs personally attack Whole Foods
ABC saying that “Limbaugh has a history of making racially offensive comments” – but offered no proof
ABC – If you oppose Obama on policy, your racist
See Hateful “Attitude Change Propaganda” at Work Against Tea party Courtesy ABC News.
The elite media often charges the Tea Party with being angry and violent, but what they don’t tell you in case after case of violence at a Tea Party the violence has been leftists and SEIU thugs attacking Tea Party participants. Hmm why doesn’t that fit in to ABC’s bogus narrative?
And of course I saved the best for last...
"I don't regret setting bombs I feel we didn't do enough" - Bill Ayers.
Yes, and we can't forget Obama's hateful preacher/black liberation theologian Jeremiah Wright that he never heard for 20 years. I guess he listened but didn't inhale.
Quinnipiak just released a survey...seem the country agrees that heated rhetoric can influence the unstable...They also say the left produces more of that rhetoric than the right
"American voters say 52 - 41 percent that "heated political rhetoric drives unstable people to commit violence," the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric, voters say 36 - 32 percent."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1548
hahahahahahaha I was going to write a long post on how I think it's ridiculous all the labels and mud slinging that goes on here in the off topic section of these forums. Honestly, you're the sorts of people that I didn't even really believe existed outside of Fox news. Not everything is a leftist plot, and what the hell is leftist reading material? I also saw a reference to right whackos (which is just as stupid, and I don't believe the shooter was incited by any rhetoric either), but he seems to be an overwhelming minority so I'll focus on the anti liberals...
I'm not an American and I rarely follow American politics, so all of you could be totally right about whatever it is you're saying, but the way you choose to get your point across is quite disgusting.
Saying that "liberals enjoy this" or "Liberals would love that" implies that liberals are some sort of hive mind ant colony without any sort of individual thought.
I almost feel dirty after reading these posts. You are all disgusting, idiotic, self rightous prigs and I am never going to come back here.
I read the entire thing (had to google it as your link appears to be broken), as well as many of the responses about how people were going to re-post this to everyone they knew, and how the author was a saint.
The actual writing of the article, and tone was just so contrived as to be... offensive(? I think...) to read. The author seems to think he's writing for a bunch of idiots (and maybe he is, followers of this kind of extreme brand of politics, left or rigt, tend to be complete morons) but the end result was that I ended up a little nauseous after reading it; no less so for all of the comments I read on it afterwards.
Also the examples he brings up as a sort of closing argument; proof of his claims are hysterical... some of then are over a decade old.
Of course this is how I choose to get my point across, I simply call it as I see it. If you conduct yourself in such a manner then I will treat you how you deserve to be treated and speak to you how you deserve to be spoken to. If you want to go around running your mouth off about how all liberals are the same then go right ahead, but you're frankly a walking, talking, thinking (barely) joke!
And what makes you so sure that I'm such a liberal? I live in Canada and voted for Stephen Harper last election.
Do you honestly believe there are two types of people, Liberals and Conservatives, and that one half are always wrong about everything all the time?
and I am never going to come back here.
You came back.
I live in Canada and voted for Stephen Harper last election.
"And I ain't even got a garage, you can call home and ask my wife!"
C'mon guys, the Z man said he's not a liberal.
I realize you all wish he was liberal since he is such an inarticulate, fuzzy thinker :-)
But hey, he's Canadian. What can you expect from someone who ends every sentence with an "eh" and a question mark ?
He can say it all he wants, that doesn't mean he is not.
If he is not a lib, He definitely is not proving it by calling Conservatives "disgusting idiotic, self-righteous prigs"
...and that was from his initial post
But I digress, I'm throwing a party at my place at the end of the month. Your invited Tom and I'm also inviting Z man. I'll provide the tunes, beer, and 'other' indulgences
We can fellowship while listening to my favorite left-wing wacko environmentalist guitarist David Gilmour, of whom I love to no end.
In the words of the philosopher L. Kravitz: "Let love rule."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPKSw1OeK2w
OK, I'm there at STs party if Lamont comes and brings his wife.
I want to meet the woman that can intimidate that SOB. :-)
Mrs. Lamont keeps my money in her purse. She kinda funny like that.
That's for damn sure!
I called you and several other posters disgusting self righteous prigs; I never said anything about conservatives.
You can't be this dense...
it would seem conservatives are more obsessed with death, fear, etc.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Thlyte2KGgsJ:faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf+Arie+Kruglanski+conservatives&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgji7ys_4NiihFPsfVp6kyc5dyWLvHl_38BmAQiZ4LiA4brEU81IQjdDwbFNlr52J-7txe-FRePNgGQFtlosh0-fHFp0DHtg_RTEL6a9zvRAMS-NgDIXEsTUdIVoOonaYpcQu0D&sig=AHIEtbR8Ic6c59LKZN82KFy6NOQJ8zX3tQ
R.A. Altemeyer, a psychologist who has extensively studied people with right-wing beliefs, has observed:[Right-wing authoritarians] see the world as a dangerous place, as society teeters on the brink of self-destruction from evil and violence. This fear appears to instigate aggression in them. Second, right-wing authoritarians tend to be highly self righteous. They think themselves much more moral and upstanding than others - a self perception considerably aided by self-deception.... This self-righteousness disinhibits their aggressive impulses and releases them to act out their fear-induced hostilities.
George Will seems steeped in that fear. To illustrate that point the authors quote this passage from an essay by Will: "Conservatives know the world is a dark and forbidding place where most new knowledge is false, most improvements are for the worse." Psychological studies back Will up. People with right-wing personalities hold more pessimistic views and left-wing personalities hold more optimistic ones. And that pessimism and optimism appears to inform how conservatives and liberals view their fellow humans. A 1984 survey of "emotional reactions to welfare recipients" found that conservatives "expressed greater disgust and less sympathy" than liberals.
While this propensity of conservatives to be threatened and fearful does not appear to induce neurotic behavior, one study of dream lives discovered that Republicans had three times as many nightmares as Democrats, indicating that fear, anger and aggression might be a factor in the subconscious motivations of conservatives.
The authors speculate that this susceptibility to fear "may help explain why military defense spending and support for national security receive much stronger backing from conservative than liberal political leaders."
Haunted by death
Of course, the greatest personal loss is death. Studies demonstrate that the people who most fear death are the most conservative. More generally, the fear of death and the resulting protective posture that such a threat engenders cause people to become conservative and to strongly "defend culturally valued norms and practices" and "to distance themselves from, and even to derogate, out-group members to greater extent." Similarly, the fear of death has also been linked to "system-justifying forms of stereotyping and enhanced liking for stereotype-consistent women and minority group members" and "greater punitiveness, and even aggression, toward those who violate cultural values." Applying that knowledge, the authors write, "High profile terrorist attacks such as those of September 11, 2001, might simultaneously increase the cognitive accessibility of death and the appeal of political conservatism."
While trying to retain the impartiality of scientists, albeit social ones, the authors warn that the available evidence indicates that governments can manipulate people's conservative tendencies by raising the specter of death. They write, "Priming thoughts of death has been shown to increase intolerance, out-group derogation, punitive aggression, veneration of authority figures and system justification."
1. What is a prig?
2. A psychologists that "extensively" studied people with right wing tendencies. How were these studies conducted? Did the psychologist follow these people around and study them? Like moving in next door to them and stalking them for months? Uh, here are my own thoughts. There are two things you cannot avoid. Death and taxes. It is easy to say that any single group is raising the specter for each of them. They are unavoidable. Of course, anybody can look this up on Wikipedia. The most accurate encyclopedia in the world.
The concept of right-wing authoritarianism was introduced in 1981 by Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer,[4] as a refinement of the authoritarian personality theory originally pioneered by University of California at Berkeley researchers Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford.[5] After extensive questionnaire research and statistical analysis, Altemeyer found that only three of the original nine hypothesized components of the model correlated together: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Researchers have traditionally assumed that there was just one kind of authoritarian personality, who could be either a follower or a leader. The discovery that followers and leaders are usually different types of authoritarians is based on research done by Sam McFarland.[6]
Come on. You can't be "that" dense to dig up some obscure study from 30 years ago and apply it somehow to what ever it is you are trying to accomplish in The Open Bar. I watch enough of MSNBC each week to know more about conservatives than your Canadian psychologist ever knew.
Are you the Canadian that said he would never come back here or are you the Canadian that wants us to think you are a U.S. citizen? I get you guys confused with all your bullshit.
Context determines meaning genius.
Now what were you saying about being dense?
.
Nice cut and paste from an uber-leftist phD./journalist. But do you have any original thoughts?
This article is so skewed its pathetic. This article would be the equivalent to Planned Parenthood writing an op-ed piece on the positive, beneficial impact abortion has had on modern American culture since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1972.
Here's the 411 on leftists' fear and death tactics.
Ever since W. Wilson, FDR, and LBJ created the socialist policies that propelled this nation toward unsustainability, The Democrats have used fear, and death to promote EVERY single social program they instituted via class warfare, thus enlarging their voting base and creating a sub-class of dependent American citizens, and even worse, the Democrats want to expand these programs to illegal aliens. The poverty pimps that exist within Congressional Black Caucus continually tell their constituents that Conservative Republicans want to kill seniors, kill children, hang Blacks from trees, resurrect Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson, destroy the earth, pollute water, air, etc; etc; ad-nauseum ad-infinitum.
You have nearly 100 years of democrat obsession with fear and death as a tool to buy votes and remain in power over the lives of individuals.
I read the article. Since this happened in a government school, it's no telling how this will turn out. Most government schools like private schools, have their codes of proper dress, and codes of conduct.
The difference is, private school standards are set by that particular school. If you don't like something, you can find another private school that fits within your own expectations and parameters. Public school, thats a different story. Public schools operate under a one-size fits all philosophy. Basically, what goes for one school in a particular district..goes for all which is socialistic at its core.
If this were a private school, the school would exercise absolute autonomy over their own codes and standards without interference from the government (NEA). But this is a government school and it is subjected to whatever the bureaucrats dictate no matter how the students, teachers, or parents feel.
Basically, the politicians will decide.
To summarize:
If this would have happened in a private school, the school could have suspended the cheerleader, expelled, or over-looked this all-together.
Since, it happened in a public school, look for sensitivity training for all students and diversity training for all teachers after the ACLU sues the school district. This is usually followed by the federal government mandating the said public school to hire more gay. lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgendered teachers.
Question is..where would you want to enroll your young child?
heads up Mark - that was a spammer.
Good eye Ariel!
Kinda hate it though... the avatar looked rather enticing. LOL ;-)
Your on top of the job my man! good work.