The fact that the NRA is powerful is represented by my statement that "to be fair I'm not at all confident that they'll be successful", and yet I do not need to be a member of a doomsday cult to be concerned.
I'd be willing to have this conversation with you, but you're going to need to increase your level of intellectual honesty first. Do you really see the Red Team as gnashing their teeth over all that gosh-darn good education, for example? Do you genuinely, honestly think that these people hate their children and want them kept ignorant?
In short if you're willing to cut the bullshit and we can talk, otherwise please don't waste the time replying.
Do note how you're not actually seeking any information whatsoever and have already resigned yourself to the 'more intelligent', 'more objective', 'more civilized' position. In that light, why would ANYONE wish to have further dealings with you at all? Reflect on it, if it truly is more civil discourse that you're after.
Otherwise, I wish you all the best on your awesome bandwagon ride and hope it takes you where you want to go.
Ahh, okay. Check out the clip when you get home. It depicts the campaign between Jefferson and Hamilton as though they could have run attack ads. I think you'll find the notion of 'lost civility' is an illusion conjured up only recently, and suspiciously enough by the team that was taking a beating.
I think you know full well that I feel that 'criminal' modifies the word 'suspect' in that phrasing. So this suspect is not an ordinary suspect, but is one known to be a criminal. This is not an unusual suspect, nor a unlikely suspect, but a criminal suspect. If you're asserting that you merely meant 'suspect' without any modifier, then I'm not clear as to why you have yet to simply say so. Or are we to assume that suspects can exist, in a legal sense, outside of a crime?
criminal (krm-nl) adj. 1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse. 2. Relating to the administration of penal law. 3.
a. Guilty of crime.
b. Characteristic of a criminal. 4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent. n. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.
When did Obama call anyone stupid redneck white trash?
I'm surprised you missed it...
We’re down there. It’s hot. We were sweating. Bugs everywhere. We’re down there pushing, pushing, pushing on the car. Every once in a while we’d look up and see the Republicans standing there. They’re just standing there fanning themselves — sipping on a Slurpee.
Or is that illustration supposed to be a compliment? Because it reads all 'insult' to me.
Being a suspect doesn't make one a criminal. Yeah, I guess I am. I just think that all too often the accused is guilty prior to the process, and even in extreme circumstances like this, we ought to resist the urge.
That's just because you seem to be a reasonable person. Powerful interests are working hard to disarm this country. Now more so than ever, at least until the fervor dies down. You may not see it, and to be fair I'm not at all confident that they'll be successful, but they do exist.
No, what I'm saying is that we should not call our political rivals terrorists and enemies of the state. We should not say they are trying to destroy America. We should not use violent, warlike rhetoric in political discourse.
Why not? By that I mean, why not use these words only in political realms where we use them literally everywhere else? "War on drugs", "price war", "flame war", I could go on all day.
I humbly suggest that those whose particular ideology supports this conclusion are being opportunist about it. If you hate Palin, espouse gun control, and/or otherwise wish to remove the right of the 'red neck' to vote (because they're clearly not worthy of it), then this bandwagon has a seat for you!
Barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we should all assume that our political opponents are good people working to make America better, even if they have different ideas than we do about how to do that.
Is each individual allowed to define what 'better' means? Or do we just settle on an arbitrary definition of it? Obama can call his political opponents stupid, redneck white trash, and that makes America better? How so?
The constant drum of those violent messages permeates email lists, it fuels more hatred. It sets up a system where your opponent is so foreign, so "other", that joking about killing them becomes accepted political speech.
You've got a point, but you're focusing on the symptom rather than the cause. Genuinely, I think if those people in that crowd thought that those "others" didn't all see them as inbred redneck idiots that they'd not disconnect so easily. If we're going to find fault in crosshairs, then I'd say that it is likewise fair to start faulting the 'you have no right to govern yourself' crowd as well. Wouldn't you agree?
Why the hell does everything have to be some stupid big poltical talking point, or related to it?
Because we're at a tipping point. Lincoln started us down this road a long time ago. People in the south have been grumbling about "State's rights" for generations, but until recently it didn't much matter. Only in the last decade or so have we seen powers such as PATRIOT and Obamacare come to be - even when against the will of the people. The Federalist powers have won, and people either seem to love it or hate it. In essence, Lincoln's side won the war, and he got his way, but they forgot to go back and correct the Constitution, so the problem never really was solved. We the people are indoctrinated from a very young age to believe that we are in control of our government. That each State is sovereign and that our elected representatives are looking out for our best interests. This is the design. Unfortunately this isn't even close to what's being practiced. The reality of things is that the parties and the corporations that donate to them are in control and the people are powerless. But we all know that it isn't supposed to be this way. So we're upset. Nervous, if you will. In a word - dissonance.
Add to this mix the for-sale nature of mass media, and the willingness of many to follow along as unthinking sheep, and you get an echo chamber of buzzwords hand-picked by the best spin doctors.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the rhetoric as a result of the shooting for this reason: it demonstrates why the gunsight imagery and "2nd amendment solution" talk is so repugnant in the first place.
This position actually illustrates my deepest fear about this situation. People are going to try and use this type of opinion to remove our right to rebel, which will eventually lead to removing our right to disagree. Decent people such as yourself will see how the congresswoman and the little girl did not deserve to be shot, and will assume that no one in government will ever deserve it, and you'll join the bandwagon to surrender that right. And once you do, we're genuinely no longer America.
The notion of the people rising up to overthrow the tyrant is intrinsic to the design of our nation. Powerful parties would like to change that. It's just sad to see them manipulating decent people like yourself to get that done.
"Not Guilty by reason of insanity shouldn't exist."
Especially since "insanity" has no medical definition. It is entirely a colloquialism. You will not find a definition of the word in the DSM-IV.
Since when do legal matters defer to psychiatric authorities? Note the wikipedia entry, for example:
In criminal trials, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, an affirmative defense by which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law because they were legally insane at the time of the commission of alleged crimes. A defendant attempting such a defense will often be required to undergo a mental examination beforehand. The legal definition of "insane" is, in this context, quite different from psychiatric definitions of "mentally ill". When the insanity defense is successful, the defendant is usually committed to a psychiatric hospital.
In other words, it isn't a matter for the doctors to decide. They're just witnesses/experts/information-givers. It's the judge/jury who decide, based on the law, whether or not the defense is applicable.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that the NRA is powerful is represented by my statement that "to be fair I'm not at all confident that they'll be successful", and yet I do not need to be a member of a doomsday cult to be concerned.
According to the one friend who came forward who only remembers the guy as a nutjob.
Not exactly news there. Hearsay, sure, but nothing informational at all.
And you would be the star. Two idiots collide, leading to idiocy so dense, no thought can escape its idiotic pull. We all it... Anonymous Coward.
This.
And I meant 'suspect' in the legal sense, not the general one. :)
I'd be willing to have this conversation with you, but you're going to need to increase your level of intellectual honesty first. Do you really see the Red Team as gnashing their teeth over all that gosh-darn good education, for example? Do you genuinely, honestly think that these people hate their children and want them kept ignorant?
In short if you're willing to cut the bullshit and we can talk, otherwise please don't waste the time replying.
Do note how you're not actually seeking any information whatsoever and have already resigned yourself to the 'more intelligent', 'more objective', 'more civilized' position. In that light, why would ANYONE wish to have further dealings with you at all? Reflect on it, if it truly is more civil discourse that you're after.
Otherwise, I wish you all the best on your awesome bandwagon ride and hope it takes you where you want to go.
Ahh, okay. Check out the clip when you get home. It depicts the campaign between Jefferson and Hamilton as though they could have run attack ads. I think you'll find the notion of 'lost civility' is an illusion conjured up only recently, and suspiciously enough by the team that was taking a beating.
lol
I think you know full well that I feel that 'criminal' modifies the word 'suspect' in that phrasing. So this suspect is not an ordinary suspect, but is one known to be a criminal. This is not an unusual suspect, nor a unlikely suspect, but a criminal suspect. If you're asserting that you merely meant 'suspect' without any modifier, then I'm not clear as to why you have yet to simply say so. Or are we to assume that suspects can exist, in a legal sense, outside of a crime?
You're denying the presence of a gun control lobby on what grounds, exactly?
More violent than 'children writhing on a pike'? Really??
Can't read past that, sorry. It's clear you didn't consider the example whatsoever.
Protip - look it up, THEN ridicule. For example:
criminal (krm-nl)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
3.
a. Guilty of crime.
b. Characteristic of a criminal.
4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.
n.
One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.
This is a current story with a fuzzy recollection.
I'm genuinely curious, because the question could well have significant meaning. Not as phrased here, but with only slight modification. Such as:
"What is government when you're all liars?"
Or something similar...
Is it really too much to ask that we return to a more civil tone?
This is rather a fallacy, isn't it?
When did Obama call anyone stupid redneck white trash?
I'm surprised you missed it...
We’re down there. It’s hot. We were sweating. Bugs everywhere. We’re down there pushing, pushing, pushing on the car. Every once in a while we’d look up and see the Republicans standing there. They’re just standing there fanning themselves — sipping on a Slurpee.
Or is that illustration supposed to be a compliment? Because it reads all 'insult' to me.
Being a suspect doesn't make one a criminal. Yeah, I guess I am. I just think that all too often the accused is guilty prior to the process, and even in extreme circumstances like this, we ought to resist the urge.
...insensitive clod...
So design the system to operate with as few secrets as humanly possible, and brace for the rest.
People are untrustworthy by their very nature.
That's just because you seem to be a reasonable person. Powerful interests are working hard to disarm this country. Now more so than ever, at least until the fervor dies down. You may not see it, and to be fair I'm not at all confident that they'll be successful, but they do exist.
"No, I do not have a source, but the internet might back me up if you're willing to put in the legwork."
Okay, thanks!
No, what I'm saying is that we should not call our political rivals terrorists and enemies of the state. We should not say they are trying to destroy America. We should not use violent, warlike rhetoric in political discourse.
Why not? By that I mean, why not use these words only in political realms where we use them literally everywhere else? "War on drugs", "price war", "flame war", I could go on all day.
I humbly suggest that those whose particular ideology supports this conclusion are being opportunist about it. If you hate Palin, espouse gun control, and/or otherwise wish to remove the right of the 'red neck' to vote (because they're clearly not worthy of it), then this bandwagon has a seat for you!
Barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we should all assume that our political opponents are good people working to make America better, even if they have different ideas than we do about how to do that.
Is each individual allowed to define what 'better' means? Or do we just settle on an arbitrary definition of it? Obama can call his political opponents stupid, redneck white trash, and that makes America better? How so?
The New Black Panther Party is listed as a hate group.
Your list seems to have omitted at least two events...
Terrorist, patriot - varying only by which way the end of the gun is pointing.
The constant drum of those violent messages permeates email lists, it fuels more hatred. It sets up a system where your opponent is so foreign, so "other", that joking about killing them becomes accepted political speech.
You've got a point, but you're focusing on the symptom rather than the cause. Genuinely, I think if those people in that crowd thought that those "others" didn't all see them as inbred redneck idiots that they'd not disconnect so easily. If we're going to find fault in crosshairs, then I'd say that it is likewise fair to start faulting the 'you have no right to govern yourself' crowd as well. Wouldn't you agree?
Why the hell does everything have to be some stupid big poltical talking point, or related to it?
Because we're at a tipping point. Lincoln started us down this road a long time ago. People in the south have been grumbling about "State's rights" for generations, but until recently it didn't much matter. Only in the last decade or so have we seen powers such as PATRIOT and Obamacare come to be - even when against the will of the people. The Federalist powers have won, and people either seem to love it or hate it. In essence, Lincoln's side won the war, and he got his way, but they forgot to go back and correct the Constitution, so the problem never really was solved. We the people are indoctrinated from a very young age to believe that we are in control of our government. That each State is sovereign and that our elected representatives are looking out for our best interests. This is the design. Unfortunately this isn't even close to what's being practiced. The reality of things is that the parties and the corporations that donate to them are in control and the people are powerless. But we all know that it isn't supposed to be this way. So we're upset. Nervous, if you will. In a word - dissonance.
Add to this mix the for-sale nature of mass media, and the willingness of many to follow along as unthinking sheep, and you get an echo chamber of buzzwords hand-picked by the best spin doctors.
It's a mess.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the rhetoric as a result of the shooting for this reason: it demonstrates why the gunsight imagery and "2nd amendment solution" talk is so repugnant in the first place.
This position actually illustrates my deepest fear about this situation. People are going to try and use this type of opinion to remove our right to rebel, which will eventually lead to removing our right to disagree. Decent people such as yourself will see how the congresswoman and the little girl did not deserve to be shot, and will assume that no one in government will ever deserve it, and you'll join the bandwagon to surrender that right. And once you do, we're genuinely no longer America.
The notion of the people rising up to overthrow the tyrant is intrinsic to the design of our nation. Powerful parties would like to change that. It's just sad to see them manipulating decent people like yourself to get that done.
Can I ask how you know the question but not the answer? Got a source?
My point is that until his lawyers succeed in an insanity defense, he is a criminal suspect, by definition.
I think the correct definition is "innocent man suspected of committing a crime". At least until his day in court...
It isn't 'innocent unless obviously guilty' it is 'innocent until proven guilty', which cannot happen outside the courts.
"Not Guilty by reason of insanity shouldn't exist."
Especially since "insanity" has no medical definition. It is entirely a colloquialism. You will not find a definition of the word in the DSM-IV.
Since when do legal matters defer to psychiatric authorities? Note the wikipedia entry, for example:
In criminal trials, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, an affirmative defense by which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law because they were legally insane at the time of the commission of alleged crimes. A defendant attempting such a defense will often be required to undergo a mental examination beforehand. The legal definition of "insane" is, in this context, quite different from psychiatric definitions of "mentally ill". When the insanity defense is successful, the defendant is usually committed to a psychiatric hospital.
In other words, it isn't a matter for the doctors to decide. They're just witnesses/experts/information-givers. It's the judge/jury who decide, based on the law, whether or not the defense is applicable.