It is somewhat perturbing to see how many of you are letting your political perceptions color these events.
You're not really better than any of these politicians.:o
It is somewhat perturbing to see how many of you are letting your political perceptions color these events.
You're not really better than any of these politicians.:o
Than, not then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supermarioman
I must've missed those, links?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I understand your little doubleposting bumps when you think you're being ignored, but damn, at least read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The video's don't count, Julian Assange is not even an American let alone a Democrat, plenty on the left have said aggressive things about him too.
Glenn Beck never called for Michael Moore to be assasinated and is not an elected Republican, unlike the Democrat Congressman who called for a Republican governor candidate to be "put against the wall and shot".
What double-posting bump, that was not a double-post, but I've still been ignored. That was in reply to this quote: "Never heard of it. Was it put out by a PAC, calling for some of these violent liberal groups to kill him???"
Still awaiting a source of a PAC calling for someone to kill anyone.
wait, violent rhetoric only counts when its againist american politicans? You don't see the issue of talking heads calling for the murder of regular citizens as a greater problem? :bulb: Pretty sure we could play this "doesn't count" game all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No one made the assainated claim, but physically, and personally strangling someone is just as bad, no?Quote:
Glenn Beck never called for Michael Moore to be assasinated and is not an elected Republican, unlike the Democrat Congressman who called for a Republican governor candidate to be "put against the wall and shot".
and you don't see the already abused practiced of politicans using 3rd parties to convey messages?:|
The bumps where you are basically talking to yourself because, for whatever reason, you think you're to important for the thread to move on.Quote:
What double-posting bump, that was not a double-post, but I've still been ignored.
Those "talking heads" were (A) not Republicans, (B) not referring to Democrats, (C) not talking about domestic politics and (D) talking about someone they view as a terrorist. It is worth noting that although in some of the highest elected offices, Hillary Clinton, the US Attorney General and others have referred to Assange in very similar language to being a terrorist. I don't agree with Clinton or anyone else regarding that and said so here at the time, but its hypocritical to point at one wing only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If he meant it yes, its quite clear even in the page you linked to that he was neither going to do so nor was he calling for others to do so.Quote:
No one made the assainated claim, but physically, and personally strangling someone is just as bad, no?
and you don't see the already abused practiced of politicans using 3rd parties to convey messages?:|
It is indeed aggressive, but do you honestly consider it to be more aggressive than an elected politican calling for another politician to be "put against the wall and shot"? Yes or no?
No, the bump was because a claim was made and not backed up, its still not being backed up. It seems that its easier to throw shit than to stand by it. If you're happy to acknowledge the claim that a PAC called for someone to kill someone is nonsense then I'm happy to move on, if you're happy to provide a link I'd love to see it.Quote:
The bumps where you are basically talking to yourself because, for whatever reason, you think you're to important for the thread to move on.
I believe the US government is also discussing prosecuting him as a terrorist.
terrorist = assassinate. gotcha :up:
Err, yes. Have you honestly never heard of any Al'Qaeda operatives being assassinated? Are you playing dumb or just ...
PS its a bit ironic to pretend that the right is the only side using aggressive language while not just (and still) ignoring plenty of comments from left-wing politicians, activists and journalists but to reference someone talking about Michael Moore. Yes, because Michael Moore has never said an aggressive thing about anyone in his life, right. "Gotcha :up:"
you don't see the difference between prosecuting a terrorist thats not a physical threat, and military operations during a "war"?
Thats slightly more alarming than how you're trying to explain away everything that isn't againist a wall:bulb:
I do see the difference, I said that I didn't agree with Hillary and co in calling him a terrorist.
However according to Secretary of State Clinton, the Attorney General and plenty of others Assange is providing a real and physical terrorist threat to both lives and security. I don't agree with that, but you should take your beef to them not me.
Many think Assange's organization does pose a massive physical threat to many international interests and foreign informants. Not everyone fetishises what he's doing. So yes, some think that's reasonable given the imminent harm he's causing. I don't really agree, but the sentiment isn't that hard to explain.
He hasn't even been prosecuted as a terrorist yet, but because he is someone these people (who aren't judges or juries) view as a terrorist, that makes it all ok to call for his death. You don't see the problem with that thinking Rand?
This doesn't have anything to do with what side said what. You made a claim that your "againist the wall" was the worst thing said, and I call bullshit because you didn't read the thread. So far your best excuses include tit-for-tat on Moore, and because you don't agree with what wikileaks has done.
Whole lot of justification for death based on what a lot of out the loop people want to think. Serious problem with that line of thought.
You're not listening are you. I have no problem with what wikileaks did, I said so here at the time, need me to dig the thread up?
The Attorney General, the Secretary of State, generals and others have refered to Assange as a terrorist, the US assinates terrorists, QED some US talking heads called for his assination. From Clinton onwards I disagree with them all. Not just one side, but all of them, unlike you who glosses over half of them.
I stand by the claim that in the context of domestic politics, which this thread was about, the "against the wall and shoot" (interesting how you deliberate drop the shoot word isn't it?) quote was the worst so far. Calling for Assange's assasination is no worse than calling for a governors murder, both are equivalent except one was outside the context of the discussion. Even if you include it, its no worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
that is allQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Aha, all we need is to label someone as terrorists then he is outlawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Sure. When I say I would support reasonable limitations on political speech, I'm not just talking about conservatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
EDIT: <sigh> I long for the days when assassination wasn't openly considered an acceptable solution to international criminals; when we at least pretended the rule of law, the trying of criminals, was the proper course of action. Today we freely accept find 'em and shoot 'em....
With the consequence that the US lost a lot of support for being the "World Police" over here.
The Assange assasination bit I'd missed, as I said, so your selectively quoting my quotes means nothing if you ignore that. I acknowledge that across the whole political spectrum many Americans are acting like douchebags regarding Assange, do you? And its not just Americans either ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
These word games are fun!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Suppose its easier for you to selectively quote out of context than actually answer proper questions though. "I acknowledge that across the whole political spectrum many Americans are acting like douchebags regarding Assange, do you?"
but now I'm curious, how do the videos not count, if you missed them (or viceversa)?
Maybe you did miss them (which explains the first bullshit only violent quote claim), but then you tried to explain them away as not being related, only to backtrack and admit they are at least equivalent to your violent quote.
Either way you look at it, at this point you're only arguing with yourself :haha:
Let's break this down really simply for you.
1: We were talking about aggressive language in politics, I claimed that only violent quote so far in the thread from the right to the left was the "second amendment solutions" one
2: You refer to the videos and choking.
3: I didn't see the video's or choking references, as I said.
4: You post the links
5: I see them for the first time (if you see throughout the thread I never referred to them at all before now) and respond to both for the first time.
6: After seeing the videos, I think they don't demonstrate anything relevant to the thread and say so, and respond to the Michael Moore quote too.
Entirely consistent throughout, I missed them originally as I said. We're on page 9 now afterall. Now is that enough petty quoting or are you going to continue to avoid answering any questions?
Generally, if you're thinking about assassination, it's someone who you're convinced will never be in the hands of your criminal justice system anyway. Even in countries where the rule of law doesn't mean much, China is the only one where you still expect a dissident in jail to disappear and be killed. Most others view locking people up as effectively neutralizing themQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
edit: reacted to a post from page 2. Nevermind.
Instead, a twitter that could already have been posted by the likes of OG.
http://i.imgur.com/8ZHvX.png
:haha:
Out of interest and I don't want to go OT beyond this post and your response, but given we share similar parliamentary systems I am interested: how can someone be stripped of being an MP other than for a criminal act? You can lose party endorsement but in the Westminster system parties have no power over an MPs right to sit within the term for which they were elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm surprised it hasn't been posted yet, but Obama weighs in:
SourceQuote:
Using the massacre to address the nation's spiritual state, the president decried the small-minded nature of political debate. "If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost," he said in a speech that was frequently interrupted by applause and cheers from the audience.
"Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle."
At a time when "we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do," Obama said, the killings should make Americans ask themselves "Have we shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to people in our lives?"
She opened hr eyes for first time this morning, and reached for her husband. This seems to be further evidence of higher brain function giving the doctors and her loved ones even more reason for optimism. Go Gabby Go, give it the good fight girl.
Two things: 1) Violence in general. Are you saying all the public schools, universities, airports, state/federal office buildings are being "alarmist" with their safety screenings? Those precautions are just to appease an unreasonable or hysterical public? Or is it because we've had more violence in recent years, the kind that harms several people in one fell swoop....Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
2) Nastiness in politics. Town Hall meetings where people yell and scream, thinking it's okay to physically approach candidates in a threatening manner, or spit on them. Birthers denying our President is a citizen. A handful of congress wanting to conduct "investigations for anti-Americanism". FBI following threatening phone calls and e-mails in increasing numbers.
If poli-sci academics analyze this all the freaking time, then where are the reports saying our society has no need for all these new security measures? Sure, they post crime rates, and how violent crimes have remained steady or gone down in most major metropolitan areas. But the type and degree of violence has changed (bombs or semi-automatic guns instead of knives or pistols). I don't mean from Prohibition Bonnie and Clyde days, but the 20th century in general. We don't have airplanes hijacked to Cuba now, we have underwear bombs and terrorists flying planes into buildings. Going Postal means something very different in the last couple of decades, like the DC area sniper hiding in the trunk, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. Instead of an isolated Kent State incident, students are attacking and killing teachers and fellow students.
We have more piracy and kidnappings, mass shootings and bomb threats, murder/suicides, sarin or anthrax threats, violence at the Mexican border, gangs and drug lords that shoot up entire neighborhoods, lots of young people dying en masse, more GSW in the ED than ever. Do you deny all that?
I'll concede the point that we've always had violence, crime, even assassinations. We're a violent culture. But IMO it has gotten "worse" or escalated, at least since the 80's. If I have a bias, it's not to confirm some existing belief of my own (Loki). Possible it's related to our media tools and 24/7 internet coverage, splayed across screens everywhere? (Kind of like saying our cancer rates are historically the same, they just appear higher now that we can diagnose earlier and more often?) Maybe it's related to the type of weapons that can spray bullets into crowds, planes used as weapons (just one guy will fly into an IRS building), or larger bombs. Maybe it's not frequency but severity.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Violent crime - lowest since 1973
Murders - lowest since 1964
Rapes - lowest since 1976 (and rapes weren't reported as much back then)
There's no category of crime that isn't currently at the lowest level in decades...
These measures do more to limit freedom than increase security. We must decide, and soon, if we want a free and robust society or a safer and restricted one. Will Big Brother be watching, or will we poke him in the eye? I find it reprehensible that people have, and continue to, die for our freedom so we can just give it away to save our own asses. They say freedom isn't free, I say sometimes that price is paid at home. But I'm only one voice in the chaos that fear has created.
He was convicted of deliberately lying about an opponent during the election - a type of electoral fraud - in a specially convened election court. Was the first time it's happened in a Westminster election in 99 years. This fell under part of electoral law. Although after the media said for months it was the first time this law had been used in 99 years it turned out it had been used to disqualify a local Councillor who'd deliberately and falsely accused an opponent of being a Paedophile in an election leaflet earlier in the decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lane
There are 4 ways I know of for an MP to lose the seat:
1: Have the election declared void (which happened following the court-case).
2: Being convicted and sentenced for 12 months or more in prison (automatic disqualification and by-election).
3: MPs in Westminster have the power to evict an MP, I don't know the full regulations but this hasn't happened since 1947 when a Labour MP was expelled from Westminster after selling PLP information to a newspaper. This nearly happened just now following a sitting Labour MP's conviction for expenses fraud. Following the conviction he'll likely get a 12 month sentence but if he didn't the other MP's would expel him if he didn't quit.
4: Take a seat in the Lords, or "payment from the Crown" aka the "Chiltern Hundreds" job (technically you can't resign being an MP, the "Chiltern Hundreds" disqualifies you so is the way to resign).
It think it's just that the media is so pervasive these days that perceptions of violence seem more alarming than they actually are because it's in our face all day.
The evening news and newspaper had a half-hour of time, or x amount of columns to tell the big stories, while today, the internet, email, twitter, skype, Facebook, (TWF :o) etc. ad nauseum, allows us to hear everything about everything in a way that wasn't possible before.
I thought that's what I said. :confused: However, I'm not convinced you can separate out the reporting methods, or tracking statistics, from past to present. I admitted my "bias" may be one of awareness and reporting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Example: child molestations and pedophilia. People have been trying for decades to re-define what that means, how to get victims to report, or have churches and schools create a policy. Same with rape or spousal abuse, stalking or even bullying.
If you poll emergency rooms or first responders, or university teaching hospitals, there are more GSWs and violent assaults than ever. To the point that EMTs, MDs, and RNs refer to emergency medicine as war zone triage. Many techniques are transferred from military war experience to the average urban-suburban hospital! Medical professionals are now active in gun control legislation, and social efforts to "combat" violence.
So violent crime is at a record low, but there are more people than ever being assaulted? Riiight.
I don't believe that, can you provide some evidence please.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Not sure what you're asking as definitive "proof", but I mean the US (not the UK).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/822099-overviewQuote:
United States
Tracking trauma is the purview of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCICP) . Data collected by this organization suggest that traumatic injury is the third overall leading cause of death and the number one cause of death in persons aged 1-44 years. Penetrating abdominal trauma affects approximately 35% of those patients admitted to urban trauma centers and 1-12% of those admitted to suburban or rural centers.3
The mechanism that underlies the penetrating trauma (eg, gunshot wound, stab wound, impalement) relates to the mode of injury (eg, accidental or intentional injury, homicide, suicide). Homicide or intentional injury is the predominant mode of abdominal injury in this patient population. Accidental injury is most common in pediatric home firearm injuries but is uncommon by comparison to the overall levels of homicide and intentional injury. Suicide via penetrating abdominal trauma is uncommon.
From the NCICP link dated 2008, related to new coding and reporting data:
http://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio...ersion_3-a.pdf
Erm, that gives the data for now. It doesn't say it's gone up...