[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Maybe they couldn't find a babysitter.

From the BBC...

Christina Taylor Green, the youngest victim of the Tucson shootings, had just been elected to the student council at the nearby Mesa Verde Elementary School. She had been taken to Ms Giffords' public event because her family thought it would help her learn more about government.

Her father, John Green, said President Barack Obama had inspired his daughter's interest in politics.

"President Obama and his campaign is where she started getting interested in politics, and at least to have heard him mention her makes me feel better".

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I feel sorry for the little girl. She's only dead because her parents politicised her (at age nine - WTF?)... ...a nine year old should be playing with dolls/kittens, not "learning about government" at a rally.

Actually, I'm pretty sure she's "only dead" because an insane person shot her. Parents should feel free to take their 9 year old kids wherever they want. Have your own kids and keep them locked up however you want. Don't judge others for taking their children out in public or nurturing their interests.

Blaming the parents in this instance is pretty sickening. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I feel sorry for the little girl. She's only dead because her parents politicised her (at age nine - WTF?)... ...a nine year old should be playing with dolls/kittens, not "learning about government" at a rally.

You really believe that don't you.
WTF?

[screener]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I feel sorry for the little girl. She's only dead because her parents politicised her (at age nine - WTF?)... ...a nine year old should be playing with dolls/kittens, not "learning about government" at a rally.

You really believe that, don't you.
Not surprised.

[screener]

Seriously, playing with dolls, what the F... is wrong with you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Actually, I'm pretty sure she's "only dead" because an insane person shot her. Parents should feel free to take their 9 year old kids wherever they want. Have your own kids and keep them locked up however you want. Don't judge others for taking their children out in public or nurturing their interests.

Blaming the parents in this instance is pretty sickening. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

I'm not blaming her parents. I'm blaming your overly-politicised society.
Do you not think that there's a connection between early politicisation and the amount of rhetoric being handed around? I do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm not blaming her parents. I'm blaming your overly-politicised society.
Do you not think that there's a connection between early politicisation and the amount of rhetoric being handed around? I do.

If this is a roundabout way to say that you feel these kids are being indoctrinated, how do you feel about religious indoctrination?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by screener 

You really believe that don't you.
WTF?

Originally Posted by screener 

You really believe that, don't you.
Not surprised.

Why don't you say it again? Didn't quite get your meaning yet, so you should probably repeat it a few thousand times.

Originally Posted by screener 

Seriously, playing with dolls, what the F... is wrong with you.

What would you have a nine-year-old girl do? Bottle of Jack then off down to the local crack house to pimp herself out?

[Dork.]

Yeah, good luck getting your foot out of your mouth, Doof. Did you know that humans as young as nine can think for themselves, and some girls aspire to being more than a groupie when they grow up?

[screener]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why don't you say it again? Didn't quite get your meaning yet, so you should probably repeat it a few thousand times.



What would you have a nine-year-old girl do? Bottle of Jack then off down to the local crack house to pimp herself out?

Sad, the best you got?


Not much respect for the opposite sex huh?
Not surprised.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If this is a roundabout way to say that you feel these kids are being indoctrinated

I don't know whether it's that or a general comment on how overly-politicised your culture is. I haven't decided yet. Maybe it's both.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Did you know that humans as young as nine can think for themselves

Well, obviously not. If this were the case, they'd be able to get jobs and mortgages, wouldn't they?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't know whether it's that or a general comment on how overly-politicised your culture is. I haven't decided yet. Maybe it's both.

What's interesting to me is whether the damages of an overly politicized government are heightened by only having two major political parties. The contrast in position between parties often ends up being two extreme ideologies which are rammed into the ground, there is so very little subtlety in viewpoint based on rhetoric.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, obviously not. If this were the case, they'd be able to get jobs and mortgages, wouldn't they?

I've known nine year olds who would do a better job at it than most folks twice their age.

[besson3c]

I think it would be an interesting experiment to bring up Muslims somehow, maybe something about religion being a big scam, abortion, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Keith Obermann, and just see how ugly this thread can become before the MacNN hamster explodes, assumes artificial intelligence, and bans us all (including the mods).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

and some girls aspire to being more than a groupie when they grow up?

Hmmm. Even this comment is hysterical politicised bullshit.
You know I voted for Thatcher, right?

There's something seriously wrong with the political thought processes in your country if you think I'm misogynistic because I believe a nine-year-old child should be engaged in being a child rather than worrying about politics.

[besson3c]

I don't think a kid should be discouraged from being interested in and participating in politics, but I don't think they should be pushed that way either.

Chances are this kid is just mimicking her Mom, like most kids that age do.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What's interesting to me is whether the damages of an overly politicized government are heightened by only having two major political parties. The contrast in position between parties often ends up being two extreme ideologies which are rammed into the ground, there is so very little subtlety in viewpoint based on rhetoric.

I don't think it's a battle of ideologies as much as it is the parties trying to get everyone on their team (a similar thing happens here where there's three main parties). The only way to do this, of course, is to ramp up the rhetoric.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What's interesting to me is whether the damages of an overly politicized government are heightened by only having two major political parties.

You know one of the biggest obstacles to 3rd parties is the spreading of the stereotype that they're just a bunch of nutjobs, pretty much exactly what you did in the first post of this thread.

The contrast in position between parties often ends up being two extreme ideologies which are rammed into the ground, there is so very little subtlety in viewpoint based on rhetoric.

IMO it's actually the opposite, the two parties are so fundamentally similar that they must cling to any subtlety they can come up with, just to differentiate from each other.

[besson3c]

Isn't the rhetoric more likely to be pretty extreme when each party can just claim "yes" or "no" for themselves? If two parties claimed yes and no for themselves, the only way for a third party to establish a position and offer contrast is to claim "it depends".

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Isn't the rhetoric more likely to be pretty extreme when each party can just claim "yes" or "no" for themselves? If two parties claimed yes and no for themselves, the only way for a third party to establish a position and offer contrast is to claim "it depends".

This stops being a problem when there is more than one "yes or no" question

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You know one of the biggest obstacles to 3rd parties is the spreading of the stereotype that they're just a bunch of nutjobs, pretty much exactly what you did in the first post of this thread.

On what universe does speculating that somebody might be a tea party nutjob = all tea party people are nutjobs? There are nutjobs in every party, and nutjobs who are not a part of any party... Nutjobness is mutually exclusive of political party affiliations.

Like I said, if somebody wants to project more into what I said, that is their problem.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by screener 

Not much respect for the opposite sex huh?

How do you get that from his posts in this thread?

[screener]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

if you think I'm misogynistic because I believe a nine-year-old child should be engaged in being a child rather than worrying about politics.

From your link,

Her father, John Green, said President Barack Obama had inspired his daughter's interest in politics.

Squash her interest and let daddy decide she should play with dolls.

WTF is wrong with you.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

On what universe does speculating that somebody might be a tea party nutjob = all tea party people are nutjobs?

In the universe where the language you're using allows words to refer to not just those immediately preceding them.

Your post could have easily been interpreted as "somebody might be a tea party (nutjob)" or "somebody might be a (tea party nutjob)"

[screener]

Yeah, let the doofus weasel out of it.

Fu..... Hell.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

In the universe where the language you're using allows words to refer to not just those immediately preceding them.

Your post could have easily been interpreted as "somebody might be a tea party (nutjob)" or "somebody might be a (tea party nutjob)"

I think that's a stretch. For starters, it is not even grammatically correct the other way.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

On what universe does speculating that somebody might be a tea party nutjob = all tea party people are nutjobs? There are nutjobs in every party, and nutjobs who are not a part of any party... Nutjobness is mutually exclusive of political party affiliations.

Like I said, if somebody wants to project more into what I said, that is their problem.

The problem is it was your first guess. You really can't see the connection?

If you heard there was a murder and your first thought was "probably a black man," don't you think that would be rightfully considered racist? There are murderers of all races, but the fact that your first thought is "black" is what makes it racist (not to mention the "man" part, sexist ). Calling it "speculation" rather than "all black men are murderers" doesn't help. Saying "if someone wants to project 'all blacks are murderers' onto 'murderers are probably black'" doesn't help. Do you honestly not get this?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The problem is it was your first guess. You really can't see the connection?

No, because it was an absolutely logical guess.

If you heard there was a murder and your first thought was "probably a black man," don't you think that would be rightfully considered racist? There are murderers of all races, but the fact that your first thought is "black" is what makes it racist (not to mention the "man" part, sexist ). Calling it "speculation" rather than "all black men are murderers" doesn't help. Saying "if someone wants to project 'all blacks are murderers' onto 'murderers are probably black'" doesn't help. Do you honestly not get this?

This is an unfair comparison.

Would it be illogical to assume without knowing that somebody that was firmly for gay rights was politically left of center?

[Uncle Skeleton]

In a world where more more murders actually are committed by blacks, it would also be a logical guess, but still prejudiced.

And you weren't guessing based on a part of the tea party's actual platform, so your gay rights analogy is way off.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Hmmm. Even this comment is hysterical politicised bullshit.
You know I voted for Thatcher, right?

You won't impress me by citing all the blokes you've voted for in the past.

There's something seriously wrong with the political thought processes in your country if you think I'm misogynistic because I believe a nine-year-old child should be engaged in being a child rather than worrying about politics.

Look, all the kid wanted to do was visit her Congresswoman when the Congresswoman held an event in front of the local grocery store. There's nothing wrong with a kid that young having role models and being interested in talking to them. There's nothing wrong with a kid that young having dreams of what they want to be when they grow up, and their parents encouraging it. You go on about it like the parents were forcing the kid to participate, like they were forcing her to watch MSNBC instead of iCarly, and forcing her to take trips to Washington instead of the Justin Whats-his-name concert. It's possible for her to have a genuine interest in the matter, and her parents to encourage and nurture it, without taking away her childhood.

Besides, most young girls I know had put down the dolls for computers and TV (and, possibly, hamsters) by the time they were 9.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In a world where more more murders actually are committed by blacks, it would also be a logical guess, but still prejudiced.

No. It would be statistically more probable, but still not a given. It is statistically probable that a batter in baseball will get themselves out too, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm willing to predict accordingly.

It terms of this incident, my presumption was totally logical because either:

a) the murders were politically motivated
b) they weren't

I assumed a, given our climate and the fact that a politician specifically was targeted, given that Giffords was not in a minority racial group, and if they were politically motivated:

a) it would be more likely that somebody who was right of center would attack somebody left of center
b) the attack would be pretty random, unmotivated by political leanings

I assumed a, also logical, and given the assumption that the person was right of center:

a) mainstream Republican
b) tea party
c) something else

The tea party for me conjures up stronger images of angry gun-packing people than anything else.

What would be discriminating would be for me to assume it was a tea party person without examining any of this motivation at all, like if this murder was of random people on the street or something.

Isn't police work all about examining probable cause and all that?

[Chongo]

Sorry folks, this guy is definitely NOT right of center. He's heavily into the occult.
From his back yard "shrine"
Gabrielle Giffords shooting: Frightening, twisted shrine in Arizona killer Jared Lee Loughner's yard

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sorry folks, this guy is definitely NOT right of center. He's heavily into the occult emo.

Fixed.

[SpaceMonkey]

Looks to me like he was trying to figure out how to hit a curveball.

[ort888]

To be fair, that looks a lot less crazy then most 22 year old living spaces.

If all it takes is a fake skull and some candles to be branded an occultist, then I guess most of my circle of fiends, myself included, were occultists.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

To be fair, that looks a lot less crazy then most 22 year old living spaces.

If all it takes is a fake skull and some candles to be branded an occultist, then I guess most of my circle of fiends, myself included, were occultists.

Ahh, but did you have the potting compost? All of the oldest and best grimoires speak of the need for potting compost.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ort888 

To be fair, that looks a lot less crazy then most 22 year old living spaces.

If all it takes is a fake skull and some candles to be branded an occultist, then I guess most of my circle of fiends, myself included, were occultists.

The sad thing is in today's age:
I hope you never run for office. That comment could come back to hurt you.

See Christine O'Donnell, then Doofy's point about society-wide over politicalization. I think its great that parents give their children an opportunity to meet their representatives. Much like you'd take your kid to meet Cal Ripken - these people are role models. Its a horrible tragedy that this little girl had her life snipped away from her in this manner, and I agree with Doofy to an extent but I don't think this is the best example to illustrate his point.

This thread, however, is a perfect example of Doofy's assertion. That this would have political undertones of left v right is absolutely sickening to me. And anyone that claims one particular ideology leads to this kind of violence needs to evaluate their priorities, lest we wish to breed more insanity on this scale.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This thread, however, is a perfect example of Doofy's assertion. That this would have political undertones of left v right is absolutely sickening to me. And anyone that claims one particular ideology leads to this kind of violence needs to evaluate their priorities, lest we wish to breed more insanity on this scale.

Remember the guy that flew a plane into the Discovery Channel building? Exact same thing happened in that thread, too. I was hoping to curb it with the "not even one post..." post, but that was clearly no match for the power of the politically extreme.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No. It would be statistically more probable, but still not a given.

O RLY? "statistically more probable, but still not a given." Hmmm.

It terms of this incident, my presumption was totally logical because either:

a) the murders were politically motivated
b) they weren't

I assumed a, given our climate and the fact that a politician specifically was targeted, given that Giffords was not in a minority racial group,

Is this "statistically more probable, but still not a given?"

and if they were politically motivated:

a) it would be more likely that somebody who was right of center would attack somebody left of center
b) the attack would be pretty random, unmotivated by political leanings

I assumed a, also logical

Now I know this one is "statistically more probable, but still not a given..."

and given the assumption that the person was right of center:

a) mainstream Republican
b) tea party
c) something else

The tea party for me conjures up stronger images of angry gun-packing people than anything else.

You are unbelievable, bessy. First of all, even "statistically more probable, but still not a given" is a few steps above "for me conjures up images of," and second you're trying to show you're not prejudiced by referring to that very prejudice. Racists base their "logic" on "blacks for me conjure up stronger images of angry gun-packing people than anything else." Does that sort of "logic" really win you over?

[sek929]

Can't somebody just be batsh!t insane without having to be labeled to a certain political ideology?

Hitler was a leftist, McVey was a Christian, etc etc.

Crazy people can just be ****ing crazy, they have their own political party, the crazies.

[turtle777]

Besson, the Master of Assuming.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Remember the guy that flew a plane into the Discovery Channel building? Exact same thing happened in that thread, too. I was hoping to curb it with the "not even one post..." post, but that was clearly no match for the power of the politically extreme.

In case I didn't express this to you at the time... thank you. Seriously. Don't give up man. We barely get a handle on these perps' names before we're already trying to silence contrarian ideologies.

Amazing how fragile our system would be if sanity didn't prevail.

This guy is neither left or right nor interested in politics. He is not interested in marching, protesting, or following any standard process of airing grievances. He had been stalking Giffords since 2007 because he asked her an incoherent question and Giffords did not respond "adequately". He kept that letter. 2007; before Palin and the Tea Party had become front-page news, before many here knew they would be the formidible political opponent they had become. He was a proponent of Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, and believed Bush was behind 9/11. He uttered disconnected rants on dream journals, lamented the gold standard and scared the hell out of most people he came in contact with; kicked out of the community college he was attending and told not to return 'til he had sought psychiatric help. Not because he was marching or airing grievances, but because he was deemed crazy. By all accounts, his thoughts and politics are so disconnected that one could never tell you what he was.

I mean, other than this:

[ebuddy]

He's smiling, but it seems he failed to kill the one person he actually sought, instead rendering her a hero to both the left and the right. Somehow I'm certain that's not what he had in mind and if there's anything that brings me a glimmer of optimism, it is this.

[OAW]

Is that dude's mugshot? Something tells me this guy never gets any ass. Couple that with a little mental instability and you have the makings of a highly volatile individual.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

O RLY? "statistically more probable, but still not a given." Hmmm.


Is this "statistically more probable, but still not a given?"


Now I know this one is "statistically more probable, but still not a given..."



You are unbelievable, bessy. First of all, even "statistically more probable, but still not a given" is a few steps above "for me conjures up images of," and second you're trying to show you're not prejudiced by referring to that very prejudice. Racists base their "logic" on "blacks for me conjure up stronger images of angry gun-packing people than anything else." Does that sort of "logic" really win you over?

Why is it that I usually have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, and vice versa?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Is that dude's mugshot? Something tells me this guy never gets any ass. Couple that with a little mental instability and you have the makings of a highly volatile individual.

I've seen worse walking around with girlfriends so I'm not sure if I can agree with that premise, but he's an ugly cuss no doubt about it.

[besson3c]

I can't imagine being that dude's lawyer right now...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that I usually have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, and vice versa?

Oh I know exactly what you mean. You're conclusions aren't prejudiced, they're just based on prejudice

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I can't imagine being that dude's lawyer right now...

That dude's lawyer is the same court-appointed lawyer who represented the Unabomber and Moussaoui. No joke.