AZ. Representative shot among others

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

First, RIP to all the people that passed away on that sad day. Honestly, I think we are fortunate that this is the first incident like this given the current political climate. (The Tea Party and Palin talking all this guns this, guns that, take our country back, and we need to fight)

This has more to do with him being mentally ill then the political climate. The media is pushing the political angle because it suits personal agendas and ratings but frankly it's disgusting. Yes, he had certain (incoherent) political views but those are not what drove him to do what he did. 
The propensity of mentally ill people to commit violent acts is multiples higher than the ordinary population. 

The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications -- and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment -- are prone to violence.

A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.

Of course it has more to do with him being mentally ill.  Knowing people like him are out here should be enough reason for the Tea Partiers and media like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tone down the violent rhetoric.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

First, RIP to all the people that passed away on that sad day. Honestly, I think we are fortunate that this is the first incident like this given the current political climate. (The Tea Party and Palin talking all this guns this, guns that, take our country back, and we need to fight)

This has more to do with him being mentally ill then the political climate. The media is pushing the political angle because it suits personal agendas and ratings but frankly it's disgusting. Yes, he had certain (incoherent) political views but those are not what drove him to do what he did. 
The propensity of mentally ill people to commit violent acts is multiples higher than the ordinary population. 

The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications -- and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment -- are prone to violence.

A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.

Of course it has more to do with him being mentally ill.  Knowing people like him are out here should be enough reason for the Tea Partiers and media like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tone down the violent rhetoric.


"Violent rhetoric" is very subjective though and calling for repression of certain speech is a slippery slope. 
It's true that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater so out and out calls for death or violence is not protected by the 1st amendment but no one has called for out and out violence. Implying that someone has is subjective and it's better not to start on that road. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

First, RIP to all the people that passed away on that sad day. Honestly, I think we are fortunate that this is the first incident like this given the current political climate. (The Tea Party and Palin talking all this guns this, guns that, take our country back, and we need to fight)

This has more to do with him being mentally ill then the political climate. The media is pushing the political angle because it suits personal agendas and ratings but frankly it's disgusting. Yes, he had certain (incoherent) political views but those are not what drove him to do what he did. 
The propensity of mentally ill people to commit violent acts is multiples higher than the ordinary population. 

The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications -- and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment -- are prone to violence.

A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.

Of course it has more to do with him being mentally ill.  Knowing people like him are out here should be enough reason for the Tea Partiers and media like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tone down the violent rhetoric.


"Violent rhetoric" is very subjective though and calling for repression of certain speech is a slippery slope. 
It's true that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater so out and out calls for death or violence is not protected by the 1st amendment but no one has called for out and out violence. Implying that someone has is subjective and it's better not to start on that road. 

 

[msaba07]

So it's Sarah palin and Glenn becks fault? Lmao

 

[msaba07]

So it's Sarah palin and Glenn becks fault? Lmao

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

First, RIP to all the people that passed away on that sad day. Honestly, I think we are fortunate that this is the first incident like this given the current political climate. (The Tea Party and Palin talking all this guns this, guns that, take our country back, and we need to fight)

This has more to do with him being mentally ill then the political climate. The media is pushing the political angle because it suits personal agendas and ratings but frankly it's disgusting. Yes, he had certain (incoherent) political views but those are not what drove him to do what he did. 
The propensity of mentally ill people to commit violent acts is multiples higher than the ordinary population. 

The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications -- and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment -- are prone to violence.

A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.

Of course it has more to do with him being mentally ill.  Knowing people like him are out here should be enough reason for the Tea Partiers and media like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tone down the violent rhetoric.

"Violent rhetoric" is very subjective though and calling for repression of certain speech is a slippery slope. 
It's true that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater so out and out calls for death or violence is not protected by the 1st amendment but no one has called for out and out violence. Implying that someone has is subjective and it's better not to start on that road. 

I didn't say anything about repression of speech or of 1st amendment.  Damn, you conservatives are so annoying with that 1st amendment crap anytime someone disagrees with something that is said.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by msaba07

So it's Sarah palin and Glenn becks fault? Lmao

They're dangerous propagandists but folks like them are the negative consequences of free speech. Have to take the good with the bad so to speak.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by msaba07

So it's Sarah palin and Glenn becks fault? Lmao

They're dangerous propagandists but folks like them are the negative consequences of free speech. Have to take the good with the bad so to speak.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

First, RIP to all the people that passed away on that sad day. Honestly, I think we are fortunate that this is the first incident like this given the current political climate. (The Tea Party and Palin talking all this guns this, guns that, take our country back, and we need to fight)

This has more to do with him being mentally ill then the political climate. The media is pushing the political angle because it suits personal agendas and ratings but frankly it's disgusting. Yes, he had certain (incoherent) political views but those are not what drove him to do what he did. 
The propensity of mentally ill people to commit violent acts is multiples higher than the ordinary population. 

The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications -- and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment -- are prone to violence.

A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.

Of course it has more to do with him being mentally ill.  Knowing people like him are out here should be enough reason for the Tea Partiers and media like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tone down the violent rhetoric.

"Violent rhetoric" is very subjective though and calling for repression of certain speech is a slippery slope. 
It's true that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater so out and out calls for death or violence is not protected by the 1st amendment but no one has called for out and out violence. Implying that someone has is subjective and it's better not to start on that road. 

I didn't say anything about repression of speech or of 1st amendment.  Damn, you conservatives are so annoying with that 1st amendment crap anytime someone disagrees with something that is said.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. 

 

[klasssickfresh 87]

That 9 year old girl was born on 9/11/2001. 

 

[klasssickfresh 87]

That 9 year old girl was born on 9/11/2001. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

First, RIP to all the people that passed away on that sad day. Honestly, I think we are fortunate that this is the first incident like this given the current political climate. (The Tea Party and Palin talking all this guns this, guns that, take our country back, and we need to fight)

This has more to do with him being mentally ill then the political climate. The media is pushing the political angle because it suits personal agendas and ratings but frankly it's disgusting. Yes, he had certain (incoherent) political views but those are not what drove him to do what he did. 
The propensity of mentally ill people to commit violent acts is multiples higher than the ordinary population. 

The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications -- and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment -- are prone to violence.

A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.

Of course it has more to do with him being mentally ill.  Knowing people like him are out here should be enough reason for the Tea Partiers and media like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tone down the violent rhetoric.

"Violent rhetoric" is very subjective though and calling for repression of certain speech is a slippery slope. 
It's true that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater so out and out calls for death or violence is not protected by the 1st amendment but no one has called for out and out violence. Implying that someone has is subjective and it's better not to start on that road. 

I didn't say anything about repression of speech or of 1st amendment.  Damn, you conservatives are so annoying with that 1st amendment crap anytime someone disagrees with something that is said.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. 


From my perspective, you were implying that. 
See how implying is very subjective? 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

First, RIP to all the people that passed away on that sad day. Honestly, I think we are fortunate that this is the first incident like this given the current political climate. (The Tea Party and Palin talking all this guns this, guns that, take our country back, and we need to fight)

This has more to do with him being mentally ill then the political climate. The media is pushing the political angle because it suits personal agendas and ratings but frankly it's disgusting. Yes, he had certain (incoherent) political views but those are not what drove him to do what he did. 
The propensity of mentally ill people to commit violent acts is multiples higher than the ordinary population. 

The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications -- and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment -- are prone to violence.

A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.

Of course it has more to do with him being mentally ill.  Knowing people like him are out here should be enough reason for the Tea Partiers and media like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tone down the violent rhetoric.

"Violent rhetoric" is very subjective though and calling for repression of certain speech is a slippery slope. 
It's true that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater so out and out calls for death or violence is not protected by the 1st amendment but no one has called for out and out violence. Implying that someone has is subjective and it's better not to start on that road. 

I didn't say anything about repression of speech or of 1st amendment.  Damn, you conservatives are so annoying with that 1st amendment crap anytime someone disagrees with something that is said.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. 


From my perspective, you were implying that. 
See how implying is very subjective? 

 

[msaba07]

So everyone just gonna ignore that he was a liberal?

 

[msaba07]

So everyone just gonna ignore that he was a liberal?

 

[rexanglorum]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

First, RIP to all the people that passed away on that sad day. Honestly, I think we are fortunate that this is the first incident like this given the current political climate. (The Tea Party and Palin talking all this guns this, guns that, take our country back, and we need to fight)

This has more to do with him being mentally ill then the political climate. The media is pushing the political angle because it suits personal agendas and ratings but frankly it's disgusting. Yes, he had certain (incoherent) political views but those are not what drove him to do what he did. 
The propensity of mentally ill people to commit violent acts is multiples higher than the ordinary population. 

The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications -- and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment -- are prone to violence.

A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.

Of course it has more to do with him being mentally ill.  Knowing people like him are out here should be enough reason for the Tea Partiers and media like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tone down the violent rhetoric.

"Violent rhetoric" is very subjective though and calling for repression of certain speech is a slippery slope. 
It's true that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater so out and out calls for death or violence is not protected by the 1st amendment but no one has called for out and out violence. Implying that someone has is subjective and it's better not to start on that road. 

 

[rexanglorum]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by cguy610

First, RIP to all the people that passed away on that sad day. Honestly, I think we are fortunate that this is the first incident like this given the current political climate. (The Tea Party and Palin talking all this guns this, guns that, take our country back, and we need to fight)

This has more to do with him being mentally ill then the political climate. The media is pushing the political angle because it suits personal agendas and ratings but frankly it's disgusting. Yes, he had certain (incoherent) political views but those are not what drove him to do what he did. 
The propensity of mentally ill people to commit violent acts is multiples higher than the ordinary population. 

The mental health establishment has long asserted that psychiatric patients pose no greater threat than the general population. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that those not taking their medications -- and the estimated 10 to 15 per cent who do not respond to treatment -- are prone to violence.

A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association, cited by Bradford, showed the risk of violence is six to seven times higher among people with major depression or schizophrenia. The risk rises to six to 12 times higher in schizophrenics who drink alcohol and 35 to 40 times higher for those on cocaine.

Of course it has more to do with him being mentally ill.  Knowing people like him are out here should be enough reason for the Tea Partiers and media like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tone down the violent rhetoric.

"Violent rhetoric" is very subjective though and calling for repression of certain speech is a slippery slope. 
It's true that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater so out and out calls for death or violence is not protected by the 1st amendment but no one has called for out and out violence. Implying that someone has is subjective and it's better not to start on that road. 

 

[chrome vapors]

Originally Posted by kash55

[h2]

[/h2]

This is foul. I guess it's easy for her camp to play dumb as if they didn't mean to imply anything but come on.

Not implying this is what lead to the tragedy in Arizona but how is this okay? Figuratively putting an actual bulls eye on the back of your opponent. I'd expect ANY politician to be above this.

 

[chrome vapors]

Originally Posted by kash55

[h2]

[/h2]

This is foul. I guess it's easy for her camp to play dumb as if they didn't mean to imply anything but come on.

Not implying this is what lead to the tragedy in Arizona but how is this okay? Figuratively putting an actual bulls eye on the back of your opponent. I'd expect ANY politician to be above this.

 

[essential1]

I think it is more of tone down the rhetoric not calling for suppression...

We have people screaming about "trying to ruin the country on purpose", "master plans", "suppression", etc... The battle of ideas can be had without saying someone is evil trying to suppress the common folk...

And it has not been established what his political affiliation is... You get a quote from a girl who hasn't talked to him in 4 years (high school at that where no one discusses politics even those who love politics..She didn't even state why she thought he was a liberal).. And there are plenty of things that contradict the him being a liberal idea.. But then when you try to label him as conservative you run into the same problems as him being a liberal...

What side takes claim to the government oppressing us through GRAMMAR?? Last I checked that is just bat !*%% crazy..

But at the end of the day, considering the long standing occurrences of politicians and assassinations, any pundit should avoid anything that may have a violent overtone (even if it is not meant).. Politics gets heated, and personal (look at NT for a less heated but still heated example).. When you state they are trying to take your country away, and hurt you financial, then use violent references.. If one person takes that wrong, and goes on a shooting rampage, the person who stoked the "fire" inside that crazy person's mind is not 100% at fault.. But you can't create a climate and be surprised when it leads to tragedy.. We can't control how people act (especially through grammar). But isn't it better to have the war of idea in a civil way.. The sheriff had it 100% right yesterday "IT may be free speech, but it does not come without consequences"

 

[essential1]

I think it is more of tone down the rhetoric not calling for suppression...

We have people screaming about "trying to ruin the country on purpose", "master plans", "suppression", etc... The battle of ideas can be had without saying someone is evil trying to suppress the common folk...

And it has not been established what his political affiliation is... You get a quote from a girl who hasn't talked to him in 4 years (high school at that where no one discusses politics even those who love politics..She didn't even state why she thought he was a liberal).. And there are plenty of things that contradict the him being a liberal idea.. But then when you try to label him as conservative you run into the same problems as him being a liberal...

What side takes claim to the government oppressing us through GRAMMAR?? Last I checked that is just bat !*%% crazy..

But at the end of the day, considering the long standing occurrences of politicians and assassinations, any pundit should avoid anything that may have a violent overtone (even if it is not meant).. Politics gets heated, and personal (look at NT for a less heated but still heated example).. When you state they are trying to take your country away, and hurt you financial, then use violent references.. If one person takes that wrong, and goes on a shooting rampage, the person who stoked the "fire" inside that crazy person's mind is not 100% at fault.. But you can't create a climate and be surprised when it leads to tragedy.. We can't control how people act (especially through grammar). But isn't it better to have the war of idea in a civil way.. The sheriff had it 100% right yesterday "IT may be free speech, but it does not come without consequences"

 

[unkletomcruze]

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

 

[unkletomcruze]

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

 

[untouchable jc]

Originally Posted by CWrite78

please dont let him be hispanic, this is the last thing we need in AZ.

. true that, we don't need all these racist gringos to have more ammo against us.

oh and how surprising, the shooter is some crazy white guy.

  

 

[untouchable jc]

Originally Posted by CWrite78

please dont let him be hispanic, this is the last thing we need in AZ.

. true that, we don't need all these racist gringos to have more ammo against us.

oh and how surprising, the shooter is some crazy white guy.