AZ Congresswoman...12 others, shot

Reba said:
David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam serial killer) got his orders to kill from a dog. Should we blame the dog for inciting the killings?
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the dog.....I had tell me to stay on Q-7 off last night and I hit a full house. :dunno:
 
saywhatkid said:
Just having some fun here. I am against censorship, but that does not mean I have to like all the results of not using it. Make sense?
Click to expand...
Yes.

saywhatkid said:
Censorship = bad.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

saywhatkid said:
Limbaugh, Beck, Olbermann, and their ilk = bad.
Click to expand...
To each their own.

saywhatkid said:
Thinking we should bring indictment against a radio/TV commentator based on the actions of the killer = wrong.
Click to expand...
Totally.

saywhatkid said:
Thinking these commentators do not have any influence on those borderline people, perhaps tripping the switch that makes them carry out agendas against the other side = naive.
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence whatsoever that this guy was even influenced by any of the above?
 
darkdog said:
Is there any evidence whatsoever that this guy was even influenced by any of the above?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know that he has spoken yet, but even if he had a "Rush is my Dad" tattoo, it does not indict anyone other than the guy at the fat end of the gun. However, the "rabble rousers" are at least partially responsible for the widening gap between Right and Left, IMO. Angry rhetoric causes angry listeners. Perhaps those listeners tune in to get their daily dose of anger incitement, dunno. I avoid all of these entertainers because I don't need the BP increase.

BTW, welcome to the 1,000 post club!
 
saywhatkid said:
Well, I don't know that he has spoken yet, but even if he had a "Rush is my Dad" tattoo, it does not indict anyone other than the guy at the fat end of the gun.
Click to expand...
Cool.

saywhatkid said:
However, the "rabble rousers" are at least partially responsible for the widening gap between Right and Left, IMO. Angry rhetoric causes angry listeners. Perhaps those listeners tune in to get their daily dose of anger incitement, dunno. I avoid all of these entertainers because I don't need the BP increase.
Click to expand...
Okey doke. Personally, I don't mind "rabble rousing" so much as blatant dishonesty. As long as rabble rousing is based on things that are true, I'm all for it. The truth alone is bad enough to make any reasonable person angry. If anything, I think a bit of righteous anger is what this country needs right now to survive.

As for the widening gap between the right and the left, I'm also all for clarity. I want to know what people really stand for. The entitlement crisis won't be solved by some wishy-washy wimp. It's going to take someone with balls who's not afraid of pissing off people who are on the wrong side of the issue.

saywhatkid said:
BTW, welcome to the 1,000 post club!
Click to expand...
Thanks! But damn, I missed it. I kind of wanted my 1000th post to be something special, like a one word post- "Fart". You know, something I could be proud of and put on my wall. Oh well. Guess I'll have to wait for my 10,000th post.
 
I guess the chemtrails are working. Just shut up and watch tv. Bwahhh ha hah hah.
 
Reba said:
David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam serial killer) got his orders to kill from a dog. Should we blame the dog for inciting the killings?
Click to expand...

Acutally, it's widely believed he faked his insanity.
 
saywhatkid said:
Just having some fun here. I am against censorship, but that does not mean I have to like all the results of not using it. Make sense?

Censorship = bad.

Limbaugh, Beck, Olbermann, and their ilk = bad.

Thinking we should bring indictment against a radio/TV commentator based on the actions of the killer = wrong.

Thinking these commentators do not have any influence on those borderline people, perhaps tripping the switch that makes them carry out agendas against the other side = naive.
Click to expand...

Give him a few years. With a bit more age and experience, he will hopefully understand that nothing is black and white.
 
Reba said:
David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam serial killer) got his orders to kill from a dog. Should we blame the dog for inciting the killings?
Click to expand...

Depends on whose rhetoric the dog's voice was manifested from.:cool2:
 
saywhatkid said:
Well, I don't know that he has spoken yet, but even if he had a "Rush is my Dad" tattoo, it does not indict anyone other than the guy at the fat end of the gun. However, the "rabble rousers" are at least partially responsible for the widening gap between Right and Left, IMO. Angry rhetoric causes angry listeners. Perhaps those listeners tune in to get their daily dose of anger incitement, dunno. I avoid all of these entertainers because I don't need the BP increase.

BTW, welcome to the 1,000 post club!
Click to expand...

Exactly. And the rabble rousers need to have enough humanity to understand the role they may have played and accept personal responsibility for that. The fact that they refused to is simply indicative of the negative few of society that they have.
 
darkdog said:
Cool.


Okey doke. Personally, I don't mind "rabble rousing" so much as blatant dishonesty. As long as rabble rousing is based on things that are true, I'm all for it. The truth alone is bad enough to make any reasonable person angry. If anything, I think a bit of righteous anger is what this country needs right now to survive.

As for the widening gap between the right and the left, I'm also all for clarity. I want to know what people really stand for. The entitlement crisis won't be solved by some wishy-washy wimp. It's going to take someone with balls who's not afraid of pissing off people who are on the wrong side of the issue.


Thanks! But damn, I missed it. I kind of wanted my 1000th post to be something special, like a one word post- "Fart". You know, something I could be proud of and put on my wall. Oh well. Guess I'll have to wait for my 10,000th post.
Click to expand...

Truth is too subjective. Loughton was acting on his "truth".
 
deafskeptic said:
Acutally, it's widely believed he faked his insanity.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. There are several indications and opinions from expert clinicians that he was inconsistent to the degree that malingering was strongly suspected.
 
I recommend that everyone read the book "Executing the Mentally Ill." If you can read that book, no matter your perspective, and not be moved to question what you have believed prior to reading it, you may need some clinical assistance of your own.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. And the rabble rousers need to have enough humanity to understand the role they may have played and accept personal responsibility for that. The fact that they refused to is simply indicative of the negative few of society that they have.
Click to expand...
Since there is zero proof that anything anyone has posted or said led to the shootings, why should anyone accept personal responsibility for something that they didn't do? That makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Reba said:
Since there is zero proof that anything anyone has posted or said led to the shootings, why should anyone accept personal responsibility for something that they didn't do? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
She's acting on her "truth".
 
Reba said:
Since there is zero proof that anything anyone has posted or said led to the shootings, why should anyone accept personal responsibility for something that they didn't do? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The only proof you can have is from an esperimental study. There is plent to support the fact that he was influenced. No one here (at AD) needs to accept personal responsibility for the contribution to the shooting, nor has it ever been suggested that they should. However, there is evidence that those in the general public did influence the direction of his delusional thought processes. They need to accept responsibility for the fact that, knowingly or unknowingly, they may have spoken in a way that created a negative influence.
 
jillio said:
The only proof you can have is from an esperimental study. There is plent to support the fact that he was influenced. No one here (at AD) needs to accept personal responsibility for the contribution to the shooting, nor has it ever been suggested that they should. However, there is evidence that those in the general public did influence the direction of his delusional thought processes. They need to accept responsibility for the fact that, knowingly or unknowingly, they may have spoken in a way that created a negative influence.
Click to expand...
If there is evidence (see your bolded statement), then please show me. I haven't heard or seen that anywhere. I haven't even seen any evidence that indicates Loughner even saw these supposed sources of incitement.
 
Back
Top