Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
Who said anything about her looks. The sheer entertainment value of both of them running would be worth it.
-
Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!
NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread
- Thread starter imaplanner
- Start date
Who said anything about her looks. The sheer entertainment value of both of them running would be worth it.
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
Mastiff
Gunfighter
- Messages
- 7,170
- Points
- 36
In my mind, it wouldn't be a crime.
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47141.html
Here's to lowering the deficit.
I would like to discuss what the word promise means to you...
Here's to lowering the deficit.
I would like to discuss what the word promise means to you...
Duke Of Dystopia
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,702
- Points
- 26
The nice thing is that unions have money to use the court system for redress. That's what they are there for. Remember GOP, the state signed a contract, so you should be liable for that states contracts. Its what you stand for...remember? Oh... that's right, contracts only mean something when people owe big business something.
I imagine that the WI state unions lawyers could cost the State of WI, by way of Scott Walkers actions, almost as much as he thinks he is going to save. Not to mention the anger that will accrue to his administration and party as he pounds on various systems within the state.
Its really quite amusing. You know that the Towns Association in WI voted for walker. Yet, they will be REALLY REALLY ANGRY when shared state money ends up being set much lower than they expected. What did they really think will happen? It gets better. The state may get their costs down, and all of those costs will be shifted to the various municipalities. The bigger your municipality, the less you will loose. In WI, your power lays in the Urban areas, short them, and you are OUT on your but!
Carnage is always fun to watch.:a:
I imagine that the WI state unions lawyers could cost the State of WI, by way of Scott Walkers actions, almost as much as he thinks he is going to save. Not to mention the anger that will accrue to his administration and party as he pounds on various systems within the state.
Its really quite amusing. You know that the Towns Association in WI voted for walker. Yet, they will be REALLY REALLY ANGRY when shared state money ends up being set much lower than they expected. What did they really think will happen? It gets better. The state may get their costs down, and all of those costs will be shifted to the various municipalities. The bigger your municipality, the less you will loose. In WI, your power lays in the Urban areas, short them, and you are OUT on your but!
Carnage is always fun to watch.:a:
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/underwhelmed_by_speaker_boehne.html
My favorite part of the article from the Washington Post:
"Since the closest Boehner edged to substance in Wednesday's speech involved House rules, let's focus on one specific change he mentioned. "Old rules that have made it easy to increase spending," the new speaker said, "will be replaced by new reforms that make it easier to cut spending."
Not exactly. The previous pay-as-you-go rule required lawmakers to find a spending cut or new revenue to finance any cut in taxes or increase in mandatory spending. (Such as, for example, the Medicare prescription drug bill that the previous Republican majority passed without paying for.)
The new, Republican pay-go rule only requires that spending increases be paid for -- and then only with a spending cut. Tax cuts can whiz through the new House. In short, the Republican version of pay-go makes deficit spending much easier than it was before. "
Another good read as found at: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shameful-attack-on-public-employees-2011-1
My favorite part is:
"In 1968, the sanitation workers of Memphis tried to form a union. The city resisted. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to support them. That was where he lost his life. Eventually the sanitation workers got their union. And in subsequent years millions of public employees across the nation got similar protection.
It's far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public's work - sanitation workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees – to call them "faceless bureaucrats" and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling federal and state budgets. The story fits better with the Republican's Big Lie that our problems are due to a government that's too big.
But the right's argument is shot-through with bad data, twisted evidence, and unsupported assertions.
They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take account of level of education. Matched by education, public sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts.
The Republican trick is to compare apples with oranges — the average wage of public employees with the average wage of all private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be - all need at least four years of college.
The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans.
The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there's no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights - Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example, are running giant deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many that give employees bargaining rights — Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana — have small deficits of less than 10 percent.
Public employees should have the right to bargain for better wages and working conditions, just like all employees do. They shouldn't have the right to strike if striking would imperil the public, but they should at least have a voice. They often know more about whether public programs are working, or how to make them work better, than political appointees who hold their offices for only a few years.
Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants. They'd rather set average working people against one another – comparing one group's modest incomes and benefits with another group's modest incomes and benefits – than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate. And Republicans would rather you didn't know they want to cut taxes on the rich even more.
Yet conservatives are now waging a vicious attack on public-sector unions. Abetted by the usual gang of suspects — Fox News, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and right-wing radio — Republican governors and legislators have decided to go after people who work for the government. A few Democratic governors have joined them.
Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar, even as corporations refuse to hire more workers. They don't want stories about Wall Street bonuses, now higher than before taxpayers bailed out the Street. And they'd like to avoid a spotlight on the billions raked in by hedge-fund and private-equity managers whose income is treated as capital gains and subject to only a 15 percent tax, due to a loophole in the tax laws designed specifically for them.
Above all, Republicans don't want to have to justify continued tax cuts for the rich. As quietly as possible, they want to make them permanent.
Compare apples to apples and and you'd see that over the last fifteen years the pay of public sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.)
Here's another whopper. Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions who want only to fatten their members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pensions obligations are out of control.
Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension.
But these are the exceptions. Most public employees don't have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous.
And most of that $19,000 isn't even on taxpayers' shoulders. While they're working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. Taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of their retirement benefits. Remember also that many public workers aren't covered by Social Security, so the government isn't contributing 6.25 of their pay into the Social Security fund as private employers would.
There is cause for concern about unfunded public pension liabilities in future years. They're way too big. But it's much the same in the private sector. The main reason for underfunded pensions in both public and private sectors is investment losses that occurred during the Great Recession. Before then, public pension funds had an average of 86 percent of all the assets they needed to pay future benefits — better than many private pension plans.
Don't get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers, and for many state workers across the country as well.
But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees.
It's only average workers – both in the public and the private sectors – who are being called upon to sacrifice.
This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shameful-attack-on-public-employees-2011-1#ixzz1AIc01rOT
My favorite part of the article from the Washington Post:
"Since the closest Boehner edged to substance in Wednesday's speech involved House rules, let's focus on one specific change he mentioned. "Old rules that have made it easy to increase spending," the new speaker said, "will be replaced by new reforms that make it easier to cut spending."
Not exactly. The previous pay-as-you-go rule required lawmakers to find a spending cut or new revenue to finance any cut in taxes or increase in mandatory spending. (Such as, for example, the Medicare prescription drug bill that the previous Republican majority passed without paying for.)
The new, Republican pay-go rule only requires that spending increases be paid for -- and then only with a spending cut. Tax cuts can whiz through the new House. In short, the Republican version of pay-go makes deficit spending much easier than it was before. "
Another good read as found at: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shameful-attack-on-public-employees-2011-1
My favorite part is:
"In 1968, the sanitation workers of Memphis tried to form a union. The city resisted. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to support them. That was where he lost his life. Eventually the sanitation workers got their union. And in subsequent years millions of public employees across the nation got similar protection.
It's far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public's work - sanitation workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees – to call them "faceless bureaucrats" and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling federal and state budgets. The story fits better with the Republican's Big Lie that our problems are due to a government that's too big.
But the right's argument is shot-through with bad data, twisted evidence, and unsupported assertions.
They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take account of level of education. Matched by education, public sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts.
The Republican trick is to compare apples with oranges — the average wage of public employees with the average wage of all private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be - all need at least four years of college.
The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans.
The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there's no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights - Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example, are running giant deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many that give employees bargaining rights — Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana — have small deficits of less than 10 percent.
Public employees should have the right to bargain for better wages and working conditions, just like all employees do. They shouldn't have the right to strike if striking would imperil the public, but they should at least have a voice. They often know more about whether public programs are working, or how to make them work better, than political appointees who hold their offices for only a few years.
Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants. They'd rather set average working people against one another – comparing one group's modest incomes and benefits with another group's modest incomes and benefits – than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate. And Republicans would rather you didn't know they want to cut taxes on the rich even more.
Yet conservatives are now waging a vicious attack on public-sector unions. Abetted by the usual gang of suspects — Fox News, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and right-wing radio — Republican governors and legislators have decided to go after people who work for the government. A few Democratic governors have joined them.
Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar, even as corporations refuse to hire more workers. They don't want stories about Wall Street bonuses, now higher than before taxpayers bailed out the Street. And they'd like to avoid a spotlight on the billions raked in by hedge-fund and private-equity managers whose income is treated as capital gains and subject to only a 15 percent tax, due to a loophole in the tax laws designed specifically for them.
Above all, Republicans don't want to have to justify continued tax cuts for the rich. As quietly as possible, they want to make them permanent.
Compare apples to apples and and you'd see that over the last fifteen years the pay of public sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.)
Here's another whopper. Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions who want only to fatten their members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pensions obligations are out of control.
Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension.
But these are the exceptions. Most public employees don't have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous.
And most of that $19,000 isn't even on taxpayers' shoulders. While they're working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. Taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of their retirement benefits. Remember also that many public workers aren't covered by Social Security, so the government isn't contributing 6.25 of their pay into the Social Security fund as private employers would.
There is cause for concern about unfunded public pension liabilities in future years. They're way too big. But it's much the same in the private sector. The main reason for underfunded pensions in both public and private sectors is investment losses that occurred during the Great Recession. Before then, public pension funds had an average of 86 percent of all the assets they needed to pay future benefits — better than many private pension plans.
Don't get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers, and for many state workers across the country as well.
But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees.
It's only average workers – both in the public and the private sectors – who are being called upon to sacrifice.
This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shameful-attack-on-public-employees-2011-1#ixzz1AIc01rOT
Last edited:
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
Agreed. Thats a very good article. This is especially interesting given the context of republican public pension bashing:
So the GOP is wanting to not only renege on promised benefits to public workers, but also to steal the funds that public employees contributed of their own money? When you put it that way - holy freakin crap. What a bunch of a holes :-@
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
I would say that no one quite agrees with me. That is why politics is interesting/frustrating. Don't let it keep you from espousing your views. As long as you stay open minded nothing bad can come of it.
illinoisplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 5,334
- Points
- 25
I hope she recovers. The same with everyone else who was shot. What a senseless act.
Bill Foster, the Democratic congressman who replaced Denny Hastert and served my college from 2008-2010 had one of these Saturday morning grocery store chats as well, and I remember going to it. It was usually just a bunch of bored old people wanting to complain about this or that. You got to stand in line and ask him one question, but despite the staffers and grocery store people trying to keep things in line, it was all too easy to imagine some sort of anarchist coming in. I wonder if these sorts of meet-your-representative things will go away, or if we will now see increased protection for congressmen at events like this. Frisking at the grocery store chats and town halls? Bullet-proof cars for the parades?
UPDATE: I just heard on Fox News that 19 were shot, 5 are dead, and many of the injured are in critical condition. This is horrible.
Bill Foster, the Democratic congressman who replaced Denny Hastert and served my college from 2008-2010 had one of these Saturday morning grocery store chats as well, and I remember going to it. It was usually just a bunch of bored old people wanting to complain about this or that. You got to stand in line and ask him one question, but despite the staffers and grocery store people trying to keep things in line, it was all too easy to imagine some sort of anarchist coming in. I wonder if these sorts of meet-your-representative things will go away, or if we will now see increased protection for congressmen at events like this. Frisking at the grocery store chats and town halls? Bullet-proof cars for the parades?
UPDATE: I just heard on Fox News that 19 were shot, 5 are dead, and many of the injured are in critical condition. This is horrible.
Last edited:
hilldweller
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,863
- Points
- 23
UPDATE: I just heard on Fox News that 19 were shot, 5 are dead, and many of the injured are in critical condition. This is horrible.
I hope they fry this right-wing lunatic scumbag ASAP:-@
dandy_warhol
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 13,803
- Points
- 60
And the others who are responsible for this senseless tragedy. :-{
illinoisplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 5,334
- Points
- 25
There, I corrected it for you. This guy sounds so f***d up that he's beyond right-wing or left-wing.
mgk920
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,200
- Points
- 26
How do you know that he is 'right wing'?
And, for ANYONE to blame this on *ANYONE* or *ANYTHING* but the perpetrator is beyond *SICK*.
:-@
Mike
chupacabra
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 276
- Points
- 10
Mastiff
Gunfighter
- Messages
- 7,170
- Points
- 36
I agree to a point. I'll be very interested if the stories of an accomplice(s) turns out to be true. This guy was a loon, but did someone wind him up and point him in their direction? To blame anyone without facts, however, is wrong.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
Most reports about the guy so far have talked about possible mental health issues and nothing about his political affiliation. Things that might be construed as political seem to cross any traditional party line - trying to enlist in the Army, burning the American flag, smoking pot, criticism of religion, fighting illiteracy. In other words, there have been no links to anything political or ideological for motivation, at least not in the context of any traditional or conventional current debates.
In other words, don't be so quick to believe this was a Timothy McVeigh-type right winger or Tea Partier just because the intended victim has a "-D" next to her name on her Congressional placard.
Details of Suspect in Arizona Rampage Slowly Emerge - CBS News
Last edited:
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
Personally I don't care if it is political. To me this is just another case of where our political world is taking citizens. I don't blame it on either side, but I don't think the hatred and evil spew that comes out of some of the talking heads is healthy for our nation. I hope that people that make up sh!t for a living and work to incite fear and hatred take a hard look at themselves this week. I would love to see someone like Rush, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, or their ilk to quit based on what their words have done. Now that is something we can all believe in....
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
You are a conservative republican, an evangelical and living in the most republican state in the Union, save Utah. So you have your state and church to be your support group for your political beliefs. The rest of us have Cyburbia. Me thinks thou dost complain too much.
I don't think the shooting is politically motivated. This was just a nutjob who didn't have a job or much of a future. I do think it is a product of our over heated political climate-think the town hall meeting with people openly displaying their guns. I would like to think this will make us take a step back, but it won't. Too many people making too much much money from the smoke and mirrors.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
[OT]
I'm more moderate than a lot of you may realize. My more conservative opinions often times do not mesh with the GOP's more conservative opinions (i.e. we place emphasis on different issues). I consider myself more of a classical liberal than a modern conservative.
Texas is so large that it does not have a uniform political/cultural climate, and I am drastically outnumbered in the specific region of my state I live in. I also intently avoid churches that espouse any one political ideology, since I don't think Christianity itself espouses any political agenda, and its precepts could be used to support either side in the current US political diametric - Christianity is [or is supposed to be] a personal and relational faith, not an ideological PAC institution. Evangelical Christianity (and Christians) is not (and aren't) anywhere near all right-wing Jerry Falwell types.
I would just like to see a little more open-mindedness and allowing for the benefit of a doubt in certain things (from both sides, really, but perhaps more from a certain Dem-leaning clique [but also a couple of GOP backers], that is often given to you all in these forums, even if it's only because "conservatives" have a small minority [even though our minority probably is larger than a lot of you think, too]) than quick, hasty assumptions and generalizations leading to regurgitated talking points.[/OT]
I'm more moderate than a lot of you may realize. My more conservative opinions often times do not mesh with the GOP's more conservative opinions (i.e. we place emphasis on different issues). I consider myself more of a classical liberal than a modern conservative.
Texas is so large that it does not have a uniform political/cultural climate, and I am drastically outnumbered in the specific region of my state I live in. I also intently avoid churches that espouse any one political ideology, since I don't think Christianity itself espouses any political agenda, and its precepts could be used to support either side in the current US political diametric - Christianity is [or is supposed to be] a personal and relational faith, not an ideological PAC institution. Evangelical Christianity (and Christians) is not (and aren't) anywhere near all right-wing Jerry Falwell types.
I would just like to see a little more open-mindedness and allowing for the benefit of a doubt in certain things (from both sides, really, but perhaps more from a certain Dem-leaning clique [but also a couple of GOP backers], that is often given to you all in these forums, even if it's only because "conservatives" have a small minority [even though our minority probably is larger than a lot of you think, too]) than quick, hasty assumptions and generalizations leading to regurgitated talking points.[/OT]
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
It's good to hear from an another evangelical that believes that God does not have a political party and the church has no business in politics. Our purpose is much, much higher-saving the lost as opposed to be a shill for conservative republicans. However, we are in the minority in the church. I'll grant you there are parts of Texas that are not hard right republican. Tho those areas appear to be in the minority. As always, I appreciate your well thought out political idea, tho I don't always agree with them. They do make mer think and question.
illinoisplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 5,334
- Points
- 25
I think way too many people are already coming to conclusions about what this guy's motive was, when we don't even know that yet. We do know that he was a very strange and disturbed individual and posted complete nonsensical things on his Youtube account and has been described as withdrawn and strange by those that knew him. As for the political stuff, it's too early to determine exactly.
So, as of right now, it appears that this guy was someone gone crazy just like most of the other shooters that have recently gone on mass shootings like the school shooters and mall shooters, etc.
As for blaming the media and politicos for any role in this, I think that's out of line. We should be able to have debate and discussion in this country (yes, even heated debate) and shouldn't let some random lunatic keep us from doing that. After all, Gabrielle Giffords was the one who volunteered to recite the 1st Amendment on the floor of the House just last week.
So, as of right now, it appears that this guy was someone gone crazy just like most of the other shooters that have recently gone on mass shootings like the school shooters and mall shooters, etc.
As for blaming the media and politicos for any role in this, I think that's out of line. We should be able to have debate and discussion in this country (yes, even heated debate) and shouldn't let some random lunatic keep us from doing that. After all, Gabrielle Giffords was the one who volunteered to recite the 1st Amendment on the floor of the House just last week.
beach_bum
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,427
- Points
- 21
TO-I'm a republican, although it seems lately I have been agreeing with the Dems because I just don't agree with most of the hard-right rhetoric and that seems to have taken over the party. I don't comment much on political things since my days of being a poly sci major and interning in the state house and congress sort of turned me off to working in politics and into planning
The hard-right talking heads don't speak for me and 9 times out of ten I don't agree with them. I would say I'm a moderate republican, I was big supporter of McCain in the 2000 primary.
During my days of working at a congressional office I can't tell you how many crazies we delt with and strange people that would come around. I did mostly constituent services and some people actually thought that you had to be registered the same party as the representative to have access to the constituent services!
The hard-right talking heads don't speak for me and 9 times out of ten I don't agree with them. I would say I'm a moderate republican, I was big supporter of McCain in the 2000 primary.
During my days of working at a congressional office I can't tell you how many crazies we delt with and strange people that would come around. I did mostly constituent services and some people actually thought that you had to be registered the same party as the representative to have access to the constituent services!
wahday
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,959
- Points
- 23
From the information profiling the shooter I have read, my personal, armchair diagnosis (building on my degree from Hollywood Upstairs Medical College) is that he is probably a paranoid schizophrenic. He's the right age for it to manifest and much of the bizarre (yet with some sense of internal logic) behaviors, comments and actions leading up to this seem like classic schizophrenia to me.
The blame game is not probably very helpful except to the extent that it maybe puts a mirror up to the social/political environment at present which is, I think most would agree, a bit tense. People with mental illnesses like this pick up on any number of narratives present in civic discourse (or really anywhere - Catcher in the Rye anyone?) and use that as fuel to drive complex delusions. So, to the extent that he picked up on these narratives swirling around on TV and in the papers is probably some reflection of the heightened (and sad, I think) state of rhetoric. But I don't think it is fair to pin any blame or to suggest that any one side in these vitriolic debacles is more responsible than another. I do think, though, that the shootings should be a wake up call to tone it all down a bit.
But I think this guy is clearly mentally ill and probably a paranoid schizophrenic.
otterpop
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,655
- Points
- 28
We still have a lot to learn about the Tucson Safeway shooter. As Wahday pointed out paranoid schizophrenia is a distinct possibility. My thinking at this time is that the shooting was not politically motivated. This shooting has more akin to celebrity shootings (Rebecca Schaffer) and celebrity stalkers.
You have an attactive, well-known woman who had brief contact with the shooter some time ago. The shooter is mentally unhinged and his infatuation manifests into obsession and hatred because of a perceived slight (she did not answer his nonsensical question to his satisfation when they met at a previous meet-and-greet).
The mass shooting is something of an aberration, but the deranged don't act logically.
I suppose it is naturally to find to make sense of a sensless tragedy. But there is no sense to it.
Part of the problem is the 24-hour news channels and their desire to turn 15 minutes of news into hours of coverage. So they have to bring out a bunch of paid consultants, from politicos to doctors, to fill the time. Talking heads from the far left and the far right have to earn their fees by stirring up the pot.
You have an attactive, well-known woman who had brief contact with the shooter some time ago. The shooter is mentally unhinged and his infatuation manifests into obsession and hatred because of a perceived slight (she did not answer his nonsensical question to his satisfation when they met at a previous meet-and-greet).
The mass shooting is something of an aberration, but the deranged don't act logically.
I suppose it is naturally to find to make sense of a sensless tragedy. But there is no sense to it.
Part of the problem is the 24-hour news channels and their desire to turn 15 minutes of news into hours of coverage. So they have to bring out a bunch of paid consultants, from politicos to doctors, to fill the time. Talking heads from the far left and the far right have to earn their fees by stirring up the pot.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
I suppose the same thing happened (on the other end of the spectrum) with the counterculture movement in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
NOT. It may not be right, and it may be what happens, but the Tea Party can so blame the irresponsible journalists and talking heads for pointing the finger at them without any evidence. In fact, if the folks pointing fingers used specific Tea Party groups names or if the Tea Party groups were more organized, the finger-pointing folks could be easily sued for libel/slander (as the case may be).
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
Ahh.....
You ever heard of guilt by association? Using words like TARGET and RELOAD, along with actual targets on a map could easily qualify for this type of association. At the very least it looks REALLY REALLY BAD and should at least now be recognized to be in VERY BAD TASTE and VERY POOR JUDGMENT, at the very least:not:
You ever heard of guilt by association? Using words like TARGET and RELOAD, along with actual targets on a map could easily qualify for this type of association. At the very least it looks REALLY REALLY BAD and should at least now be recognized to be in VERY BAD TASTE and VERY POOR JUDGMENT, at the very least:not:
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
The "irresponsible journalists" haven't helped, but it's more than just that. I'm talking about the human nature side of this.
I found out about the shooting on my cell phone, via Facebook. Before I even knew about the political affiliation of the Congressperson, my initial thought was that it was an extreme right-winger, Tea Party person, etc. That was my initial gut reaction. Granted, I align myselves more with the Democrats, but consider myself extremely open-minded. My point is that certain actions of certain people who align themselves with the Tea Party have poisoned how people respond to not only them specifically, but to anything having to do with politics/politicians in general.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
There's a huge difference between metaphorical violence and actual physical violence. Political rhetoric and terminology has borrowed from combat terminology for near eternity, even in basic things like the term "campaign" (originally a military/war term).
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256692/goodbye-all-jonah-goldberg
Even the Dems have used actual targets on a map:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
Which certain actions are those, exactly?
Also, your gut reaction was based on prejudices which should have been put in check upon learning there is no evidence to back it up, not turned into more negative attention and sentiment toward the group you had the prejudice against to begin with, as you did in your statement. Otherwise, you're showing that you do not, in fact, have an open mind (or, at least, not a disciplined one).
Sorry if this comes across as harsh. I do not mean it to be harsh - just direct.
Last edited:
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
Easy.....
Watch the last 10 years of the Daily Show and every episode of the Colbert Report and read Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations (ISBN 0-385-31474-4), then you'll start to get an idea.......
see also: ad hominem attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Watch the last 10 years of the Daily Show and every episode of the Colbert Report and read Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations (ISBN 0-385-31474-4), then you'll start to get an idea.......
see also: ad hominem attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
You're right, I checked my prejudices and didn't start spouting off on the internet that it was a Tea Party affiliated person.
But my whole point is that in today's political atmosphere, with the angriness and verbal assaults going around, I can understand why people think it was a "right-wing nut". And the rise of the Tea Party has coincided with this heightened level of angriness, so I can see how people correlate the two, whether it's right or wrong.
No need to apologize. I have thick skin.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
Political Vultures: The sick art of turning insanity into politics, an article by Victor David Hanson in the National Review Online.
illinoisplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 5,334
- Points
- 25
Your assessment sounds fairly accurate and believable.
The other thing is it seems like people are always quick to blame in incidents like this, as if that helps them bring closure to figure out why. And a lot of times the recipients of the blame do not deserve it. Yes, certain societal movements and ideas may be out there, but it is unfair to criticize them as causing violent acts to happen. The rest of the world remains civil. At the end of the day, a person with mental problems or violent tendencies is still going to do whatever, no matter what is out there in society and the media.
It reminds me of past incidents. Like the incidents where Ozzy Osbourne's song "Suicide Solution" was to blame for causing teenagers to kill themselves. Or Marilyn Manson to blame for casuing Columbine. Or violent video games fueling the NIU shooter. And it's wrong to do so. Millions of people listen to Ozzy Osbourne, Marilyn Manson, play violent video games, (or go to Tea Party rallies), but it seems like those millions of people go through life just fine without killing people. To conclude, this guy likely has mental problems or some own personal motive, and it is unfair to go into a moral panic and blame large mainstream movements in our society for these sorts of tragedies.
On a side note, I already predict the word "vitrolic" is going to be on the list of banished words of 2011.
mgk920
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,200
- Points
- 26
Hey, WE on the right are NOT complaining about all of that endless left-wing vitriol that that nutcase was seeing and hearing for him killing that Bush XLI-appointed federal judge, are we?
Who said "If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun"?
^o)
Mike
Mastiff
Gunfighter
- Messages
- 7,170
- Points
- 36
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
Hey, WE on the right are NOT complaining about all of that endless left-wing vitriol that that nutcase was seeing and hearing for him killing that Bush XLI-appointed federal judge, are we?
Who said "If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun"?
Mike
Hey, ME on the LEFT is NOT saying it has anything to do with the Tea Party. I'm simply stating I can understand why someone could have made that knee jerk reaction based on the political atmosphere we currently find ourselves in.
And it was Obama who said that. Big effing deal. As I said earlier, neither side is right when it comes to things like this. I'm simply making observations about human nature.
mgk920
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,200
- Points
- 26
If I had my digital camera handy every time I that saw the true HATE speech in some of those left-wing bumper stickers....
Mike
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
Evidence:
The only one of those that's mildly threatening is the "Save a Seal, Club a Liberal" one. And that's just a dumb sign phrase. None of the rest are advocating violence at all.
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
You honestly believe that signs that depict or refer to guns/ammo are not implying at least a certain level of violence could be expected?
Mastiff
Gunfighter
- Messages
- 7,170
- Points
- 36
What's your point? I see mine sailed over your head.
The only way this is actually the fault of Tea Party activists is if they wound this guy up and pointed him at her. But that wasn't the argument. It was that without any evidence media people blamed them because of their message. That "weak" evidence shows clearly that many in the group, even if they might lack the sack to do it themselves, would support armed revolt. I couldn't even find the "It's time to water the tree of liberty" sign.
Your response to that is, "Well, the left wingers do it, too!" Yeah, and? If you espouse such things you might find yourself linked to some tragic event like this, fair or not. I'm one of the latter, who does not think it's fair. That said, a pundit has plenty of evidence to point that finger... get it?
Right, because if someone said to you at a meeting, "I came unarmed... this time" you wouldn't see that as a threat, right? Give me a break.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
Could be expected? Sure. Would be expected? No. Keep in mind, most of these signs and protests these are at are pro-gun rallies or Tea Party events which highlight (amongst other things) gun control opposition. The signs and "threats" are more acts of defiance or dumb protest slogans than they are threats or intimidation.
Last edited:
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
BINGO!
I'VE HAD THIS HAPPEN TO ME SEVERAL TIMES IN COLORADO AND ARIZONA DURING MY CAREER!
Other similar comments I've heard in the past (forgot the rope at home, will wait until after the meeting, I know where to find you.....on and on.....)
I'd like to see a poll asking how many planners have been to a public meeting where security was specifically asked to attend for one reason or another. I've lost count over the last 16 years being in this business.
I'VE HAD THIS HAPPEN TO ME SEVERAL TIMES IN COLORADO AND ARIZONA DURING MY CAREER!
Other similar comments I've heard in the past (forgot the rope at home, will wait until after the meeting, I know where to find you.....on and on.....)
I'd like to see a poll asking how many planners have been to a public meeting where security was specifically asked to attend for one reason or another. I've lost count over the last 16 years being in this business.
Duke Of Dystopia
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,702
- Points
- 26
Practical gun control has been dead since about 2006 (?).
NOBODY has been advocating for greater gun control recently. At least not credibly since before the assault weapons ban lapsed.
You just gutted your own argument that the Tea Party and gun nuts are non violent in intention.