I agree that the white nationalist President may not intend for people to act on his words.
Well. there it is, it took a few posts, but once again the answer from the left always goes to color or racism.
What is wrong with placing the blame solely where it bongs?... ON THE SHOOTER
Who wrote it? THE SHOOTER
The shooter wrote a manifesto. It talks alot about...
(checks notes)
...color and racism.
You're right, the shooter wrote it.
"but once again the answer from the left always goes to color or racism"
No, it was the shooter's answer.
I agree that the white nationalist President may not intend for people to act on his words.
Well. there it is, it took a few posts, but once again the answer from the left always goes to color or racism.
What is wrong with placing the blame solely where it bongs?... ON THE SHOOTER
Who wrote it? THE SHOOTER
The shooter wrote a manifesto. It talks alot about...
(checks notes)
...color and racism.
You're right, the shooter wrote it.
"but once again the answer from the left always goes to color or racism"
No, it was the shooter's answer.
Then we agree?.....The sole responsibility falls on the shooter?....."Influences"..lol....the ultimate decision was his.
I agree that the white nationalist President may not intend for people to act on his words.
Well. there it is, it took a few posts, but once again the answer from the left always goes to color or racism.
What is wrong with placing the blame solely where it bongs?... ON THE SHOOTER
Who wrote it? THE SHOOTER
The shooter wrote a manifesto. It talks alot about...
(checks notes)
...color and racism.
You're right, the shooter wrote it.
"but once again the answer from the left always goes to color or racism"
No, it was the shooter's answer.
Then we agree?.....The sole responsibility falls on the shooter?....."Influences"..lol....the ultimate decision was his.
Pretty sure Hitler never pulled a trigger either. Never mind his influence. The fault always lies with the shooter. It's unfair to blame Hitler for anything. The sole responsibility lies with the shooter...always. Got it!
I agree that the white nationalist President may not intend for people to act on his words.
Well. there it is, it took a few posts, but once again the answer from the left always goes to color or racism.
What is wrong with placing the blame solely where it bongs?... ON THE SHOOTER
Who wrote it? THE SHOOTER
The shooter wrote a manifesto. It talks alot about...
(checks notes)
...color and racism.
You're right, the shooter wrote it.
"but once again the answer from the left always goes to color or racism"
No, it was the shooter's answer.
Then we agree?.....The sole responsibility falls on the shooter?....."Influences"..lol....the ultimate decision was his.
The sole responsibility? No.
You are a student of history. To dismiss any inflammatory rhetoric or communication from a powerful leader defies human history itself.
Unless, of course, one is willing to twist however far one needs to so he can prevent agreeing with anyone he perceives as a liberal. Then, all bets are off.
Well, Charles Manson was held responsible for the Sharon Tate murders for doing nothing more than what Trump has done, influencing and inciting weak minded and mentally vulnerable, internally angry people to go out and commit violence, am I wrong???...........Peace......joe
YES, YOU ARE WRONG. Charles Manson, a career criminal starting as a juvenile with theft, pimping, assault, rape among other counts didn't manage to turn himself into a successful musician but did become the leader of a cult of mostly young women groupies who whored, stole, & supported him. Manson lived with them in a communal setting, told them what to do, & kept them in check through drugs, rape & fear. Every commune member who made a statement to investigators said they feared Manson.
The Tate/LaBianca KILLERS were convicted of 1st degree murder which at the time carried a death sentence. Manson was ALSO convicted of 1st degree murder & conspiracy & sentenced to death. In the interim, CA overturned capital punishment so all sentences became life imprisonment.
Manson never raised a NGRI (insanity) plea. He was portrayed as a druggie, belligerent, angry man but not mentally ill. It was not until his final parole hearing in 2012 when he was 78 YEARS OLD that a psychiatrist suggested he might be schizophrenic but couldn't be certain.
So, no, the POTUS who was elected, has never been convicted of a violent crime, doesn't have interpersonal relationships w/any mass shooters, and doesn't personally & physically confine citizens to a commune & control them w/drugs & rape, CANNOT BE COMPARED TO CHARLES MANSON or any other cult leader who ordered hits. MANSON DID SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN TRUMP.
KILLERS are responsible for murder. If others were involved, they can be charged. However, there still is personal accountability in the US for murder at least.
Reasonable people have been concerned that Trump's rhetoric could incite some individual to act, especially when the killer's actions in Charlottesville weren't immediately & strongly condemned by Trump. Racist fanatics have been emboldened. However, even on a music site that 20 people read, it's ludicrous to compare Manson to Trump. I hate everything about Trump & his corrupt organization & administration, but I do believe in the criminal justice system. I was tempted to ignore your post, but I chose to respond one last time.
BTW, you might want to re-consider your username since mental illness terms are being tossed around like word salad.
we have a president who spews venom and hatred toward Mexicans, calls them invaders, criminals, disease carriers, etc. we were bound to have a massacre of them.
What a bunch of crap. ANYONE who hears "venom" from any source has the power to walk away. If you are affected enough to feel a "call to action" that is on you and NO ONE ELSE
we have a president who spews venom and hatred toward Mexicans, calls them invaders, criminals, disease carriers, etc. we were bound to have a massacre of them.
What a bunch of crap. ANYONE who hears "venom" from any source has the power to walk away. If you are affected enough to feel a "call to action" that is on you and NO ONE ELSE
Wrong. The scumbag in chief is provoking white nationalists, neo nazi punks and emboldens them with his big mouth.
Is he provoking you?...Or are we going to give you the benefit of the doubt and applaud your ability to make your own decisions? Somewhere down the line these idiots are making a choice, that is on them, NO ONE ELSE.
They take his speeches and tweets as a call to arms..
Well then, would not that make it their fault?...I mean they had a choice right?
They take his speeches and tweets as a call to arms..
Well then, would not that make it their fault?...I mean they had a choice right?
Right, but if they are so mentally ill, are they really capable of making real choices? Should anyone take that into consideration when making inflammatory statements knowing that these same severely mentally ill people probably possess a bunch of guns?
Suppose I went to a mental hospital where people are involuntarily committed and told the patients that the people responsible for their confinement lived on the east side of town. Then one of them escapes and kills somebody on the east side of town. Is there more than one person to blame in that situation?
I just think that asking the mentally ill to take responsibility and make better decisions can't be the ONLY solution.
Right, but if they are so mentally ill, are they really capable of making real choices? Should anyone take that into consideration when making inflammatory statements knowing that these same severely mentally ill people probably possess a bunch of guns?
Suppose I went to a mental hospital where people are involuntarily committed and told the patients that the people responsible for their confinement lived on the east side of town. Then one of them escapes and kills somebody on the east side of town. Is there more than one person to blame in that situation?
I just think that asking the mentally ill to take responsibility and make better decisions can't be the ONLY solution.
Are you genuinely interested in mental health or are you just mocking people w/mental illness in this thread knowing that not one mass shooter had a mental illness?
You're probably surrounded by people w/a mental illness - OCD (compulsively checking their phone), bipolar disorder (overspending, overeating, over exercising), clinical depression (above average function when on medication), or anxiety disorder (fear of flying, meeting new people, or being in unfamiliar place who present a perfectly placid demeanor) just as you are w/physical illness (diabetes, heart disease, high PSA level).
You seem to think ALL people w/mental illness have substandard IQs, are violent, & have a stockpile of weapons. Your example isn't only ignorant, it's offensive. There's no such thing as your local mental hospital. There's a locked unit in a general hospital for 72 hour holds for schizophrenics off their meds or addicts violently acting out when the jail is full. Alzheimer's patients often end up in a psych unit if they're lost or violent. If people are sick enough to be hospitalized they're incapable of coming up w/a plan never mind carrying it out. And I mean a plan to make a telephone call to the intended person not to escape, obtain a weapon & murder someone on your suggestion. They know who involuntarily committed them - a judge. Because they're patients in a psych unit, they legally lack capacity to make decisions. They would most likely be found legally incompetent to stand trial. So, there's no question of responsibility. Think it through, man.
People who are drunk or high present a much more immediate danger than an anorexic teenager.
[Edited on 8/6/2019 by cyclone88]
we have a president who spews venom and hatred toward Mexicans, calls them invaders, criminals, disease carriers, etc. we were bound to have a massacre of them.
What a bunch of crap. ANYONE who hears "venom" from any source has the power to walk away. If you are affected enough to feel a "call to action" that is on you and NO ONE ELSE
Wrong. The scumbag in chief is provoking white nationalists, neo nazi punks and emboldens them with his big mouth.
Is he provoking you?...Or are we going to give you the benefit of the doubt and applaud your ability to make your own decisions? Somewhere down the line these idiots are making a choice, that is on them, NO ONE ELSE.
Vince, as far as I can tell, we've been conversing and arguing at this website for about 13 years now.
Over those years, you've made your views on illegal immigration and the laws passed around the matter quite clear during that time.
So, if I may ask a few questions, and yes, I have a point.
1. Do you believe that the United States of America is currently being invaded by Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal?
2. In the case of illegals, do you believe that the problem should be dealt with using deadly force?
3. Do you believe that the Democratic party and American liberals support allowing anyone and everyone into the country in order to create a new voting bloc and take jobs and a multitude of other things away from American citizens?
4. Do you believe that the country is being changed and/or lost because of immigration, legal or illegal?
5. Do you support the Second Amendment and a citizen's right to defend themselves or their country when the time comes?
I don't think you're mentally ill. I probably already know the answers to these questions. Even if you were to tell me that you believe that the country is being invaded and you are willing to do anything and everything to defend it, I still wouldn't think you were mentally ill. What I would think is that you were devoted to a cause defined by a set of beliefs and you are prepared to defend them, just as millions of others have felt throughout the course of human history. Wars have been fought over a great many things, up to and including inflammatory rhetoric. Take the American Civil War...certainly no shortage of rhetoric or inflammation leading up and during that one. Was everyone acting individually, of their own accord, all mentally ill?
The point is...El Paso Shooter feels perfectly justified, as he was acting in defense of his country, therefore, that's his rationalization and justification for his actions. Kinda like Timothy McVeigh.
Both of them mentally ill? To be honest, I'm not so sure. In a way, that's even more terrifying. What is different between the two is that the President's rhetoric and messages is clearly found in a manifesto. Is the President directly responsible? No. Is the President culpable? Hells to the yeah.
Right, but if they are so mentally ill, are they really capable of making real choices? Should anyone take that into consideration when making inflammatory statements knowing that these same severely mentally ill people probably possess a bunch of guns?
Suppose I went to a mental hospital where people are involuntarily committed and told the patients that the people responsible for their confinement lived on the east side of town. Then one of them escapes and kills somebody on the east side of town. Is there more than one person to blame in that situation?
I just think that asking the mentally ill to take responsibility and make better decisions can't be the ONLY solution.
Are you genuinely interested in mental health or are you just mocking people w/mental illness in this thread knowing that not one mass shooter had a mental illness?
You're probably surrounded by people w/a mental illness - OCD (compulsively checking their phone), bipolar disorder (overspending, overeating, over exercising), clinical depression (above average function when on medication), or anxiety disorder (fear of flying, meeting new people, or being in unfamiliar place who present a perfectly placid demeanor) just as you are w/physical illness (diabetes, heart disease, high PSA level).
You seem to think ALL people w/mental illness have substandard IQs, are violent, & have a stockpile of weapons. Your example isn't only ignorant, it's offensive. There's no such thing as your local mental hospital. There's a locked unit in a general hospital for 72 hour holds for schizophrenics off their meds or addicts violently acting out when the jail is full. Alzheimer's patients often end up in a psych unit if they're lost or violent. If people are sick enough to be hospitalized they're incapable of coming up w/a plan never mind carrying it out. And I mean a plan to make a telephone call to the intended person not to escape, obtain a weapon & murder someone on your suggestion. They know who involuntarily committed them - a judge. Because they're patients in a psych unit, they legally lack capacity to make decisions. They would most likely be found legally incompetent to stand trial. So, there's no question of responsibility. Think it through, man.
People who are drunk or high present a much more immediate danger than an anorexic teenager.
[Edited on 8/6/2019 by cyclone88]
I was actually just trying to make a point in the very oversimplified discussion that was taking place.
I am absolutely not mocking people with mental illness. I am right there with you in agreeing that probably a majority of people have at least one form of mental illness, it may be minor or life-changing. My dad is in a nursing home for the last 16 moths due to Parkinsons-related issues including dementia. He is not going out and buying a gun anytime soon.
I am mocking the the lack of any logic or action in the same old Republican talking points that get dragged out after every new mass shooting. Republicans have no actual interest in treating mental health issues in this country. These mass shooters are not "mentally ill" like my aunt with anxiety, and they should be called what they actually are: psychopaths and terrorists.
There is no definition to what Republicans call "mentally ill" until after the person has committed a terrible crime.
There is no Republican plan for funding the treatment of mental health issues, THAT THEY CLAIM, might help stop these events.
In fact Republicans have always sided with health insurance companies that have always resisted providing mental health coverage. It has really only been widely covered by private insurers since Obamacare took effect.
The largest administrators of mental health services in the country are Medicare and Medicaid, which are not exactly where Republicans are happy to see our tax dollars end up, and the jail system.
Most mass shooters buy their guns legally and are not flagged as a mental health threat at the time, so I don't know what they are suggesting that would change that situation.
Anything that interferes with a single gun sale is dead-on-arrival for most Republican legislators because they are terrified about their NRA report card slipping.
The Republican Party and the NRA (which are the same thing) have been peddling this crap, at the expense of millions of people with mental illness, for decades at this point. Yet they have not explained what any such solution might entail nor have they attempted to enact any such solutions. It is just a way to eat up oxygen until the press coverage goes down and they can get back to making it easier for gun companies to sell guns.
For Republicans, apparently no number of victims is enough to trip up the business model of those who profit form flooding our country with dangerous weapons. Otherwise they would have done literally anything except what they have done for the last twenty years.
I was actually just trying to make a point in the very oversimplified discussion that was taking place.
I am absolutely not mocking people with mental illness. I am right there with you in agreeing that probably a majority of people have at least one form of mental illness, it may be minor or life-changing. My dad is in a nursing home for the last 16 moths due to Parkinsons-related issues including dementia. He is not going out and buying a gun anytime soon.
I am mocking the the lack of any logic or action in the same old Republican talking points that get dragged out after every new mass shooting. Republicans have no actual interest in treating mental health issues in this country. These mass shooters are not "mentally ill" like my aunt with anxiety, and they should be called what they actually are: psychopaths and terrorists.
There is no definition to what Republicans call "mentally ill" until after the person has committed a terrible crime.
There is no Republican plan for funding the treatment of mental health issues, THAT THEY CLAIM, might help stop these events.
Glad you cleared that up. In other words, we agree that mental illness as accurately described by the medical profession has nothing to do with mass shootings. It's a misnomer that's trotted out when the appropriate words are terrorist & sociopath to distract from the real issue of the availability of weapons (the exception being Charlottesville when the weapon was a car).
IMO it's not a partisan issue. There are plenty of people on the other side of the aisle who haven't figured out that terrorism isn't a mental illness that can be treated.
I've always wondered exactly how a mental status exam would be administered to a potential gun purchaser by a gun store clerk whose sole interest is making a sale. That is definitely a scenario worthy of mockery.
I've always wondered exactly how a mental status exam would be administered to a potential gun purchaser by a gun store clerk whose sole interest is making a sale.
It is not the purchase that brings the subject of mental illness into the discussion, it is what happens after someone who is ill does with the weapon after acquiring it.
I've always wondered exactly how a mental status exam would be administered to a potential gun purchaser by a gun store clerk whose sole interest is making a sale.
It is not the purchase that brings the subject of mental illness into the discussion, it is what happens after someone who is ill does with the weapon after acquiring it.
Again... Please tell me what the proposed mental health solutions are. Or, is it just noting that the mass shooter was not behaving like a responsible member of society? We are all capable of hindsight. Punishing the shooters, while doing nothing else, hasn't really slowed this thing down a lot.
That is why we shouldn't be handing guns out like candy in this country and, yeah, I am also talking about handguns and the problems with Chicago, too. The Governor of Texas put out a tweet a little while ago lamenting that Texas was the #2 ranked state in gun sales. He said in the tweet, "Come on, Texas!"
That is just stupid and dangerous. Last weekend was the proof, yet I bet he doesn't even feel like a jackass.
Or, is it just noting that the mass shooter was not behaving like a responsible member of society?
I think for me and the way I apply logic this is it, I can't understand why anyone in their "right" mind would set out with the intention of killing large groups of people because of personal issues....I apply the same "logic" to the thinking that more laws will fix this, because, well they will not. The mentality that drives this behavior is the root cause and it may take a while for a solution that suits all to be found.....
Or, is it just noting that the mass shooter was not behaving like a responsible member of society?
I think for me and the way I apply logic this is it, I can't understand why anyone in their "right" mind would set out with the intention of killing large groups of people because of personal issues....I apply the same "logic" to the thinking that more laws will fix this, because, well they will not. The mentality that drives this behavior is the root cause and it may take a while for a solution that suits all to be found.....
Are you seriously going to ignore the complete context of the El Paso shooting and the motivations behind it?
It's completely acceptable to demonize, scapegoat, fundraise, rally and frame a subset of human beings as invading and infesting vermin as long as you don't kill them? Is that about right?
Are you seriously going to ignore the complete context of the El Paso shooting and the motivations behind it?
"Motivations" I believe in free will and whatever "Motivated" this moron to action is on him, no on else.
It's completely acceptable to demonize, scapegoat, fundraise, rally and frame a subset of human beings as invading and infesting vermin as long as you don't kill them? Is that about right?
"Acceptable"? That's up to you. You can exercise your version of "acceptable" at the Polls, just like everybody else.
"Acceptable"? That's up to you. You can exercise your version of "acceptable" at the Polls, just like everybody else.
No sh*t. In other words, you find it acceptable.
What difference does it make in your day what I believe? Since I have stated no opinion on this thought, I can only guess that my exhibited behavior is in your belief "antagonistic" simply because I want none of the Kool-Aid you are selling. Is it that important to you that people agree with your views?
Evidently it is.
Are you seriously going to ignore the complete context of the El Paso shooting and the motivations behind it?
"Motivations" I believe in free will and whatever "Motivated" this moron to action is on him, no on else.
It's completely acceptable to demonize, scapegoat, fundraise, rally and frame a subset of human beings as invading and infesting vermin as long as you don't kill them? Is that about right?
"Acceptable"? That's up to you. You can exercise your version of "acceptable" at the Polls, just like everybody else.
Yeah, you're good with it. I never expected you to just come out and say it, but you do you.
we have a president who spews venom and hatred toward Mexicans, calls them invaders, criminals, disease carriers, etc. we were bound to have a massacre of them.
What a bunch of crap. ANYONE who hears "venom" from any source has the power to walk away. If you are affected enough to feel a "call to action" that is on you and NO ONE ELSE
Wrong. The scumbag in chief is provoking white nationalists, neo nazi punks and emboldens them with his big mouth.
So Pops, which of Trump's orations have caused you to act that way?
This is from the Chicago Tribune today, a very conservative/republican paper.....
Editorial: President Trump’s failure to heal and unify the nation
When the president of the United States speaks, Americans listen. That’s especially true in moments of crisis when strength and succor are required. Think: Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Depression (“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”). Or Ronald Reagan after the Challenger disaster (They " 'slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God’ ”).
Contrast those stirring examples with the mean-spirited leadership style of President Donald Trump, whose record of public statements is pocked with coarse insults, disparaging rhetoric and bizarre equivocations. Mexican migrants, he said as a candidate, are “bringing crime. They’re rapists.” About Central Americans: “We cannot allow all of these people to invade our country.” And after a neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Virginia, led to rioting, Trump failed to forcefully denounce white supremacy, claiming he saw “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.”
You likely recognize those quotations because the presidential bully pulpit reverberates, whether the sentiment is healing or toxic. A smattering of Trump’s name-calling vocabulary: Sad joke, loser, crazed lunatics, extraordinarily low IQ person, complete and total fraud. ... On he rants, especially via Twitter and at political events, unloading his negative energy at perceived enemies and anyone else against whom he thinks he can score points by vilifying. Last month he told four congressional Democrats, all women of color, to “go back” to their homelands. These are not presidential words to be carved in marble.
Then came violence in the border city of El Paso, Texas, where a gunman killed 22 people and injured dozens. Authorities believe the suspect posted a hate-filled, anti-immigrant screed on the internet before opening fire. El Paso had been in the news because it’s the location of a federal immigration facility housing Central American migrants seeking asylum — the very kind of people Trump demonized as an invading force.
The president is not directly to blame for the shooting in El Paso. Perpetrators of violence are responsible for their actions. But two things are true about the impact of Trump’s bullying and belittling: He is doing damage to the culture of civility and tolerance in America by promoting nastiness as his personal political brand. And he’s failing in the traditional presidential role of providing moral leadership to the country.
Trump spoke Monday from the White House about El Paso, and condemned racism, bigotry and white supremacy. On Wednesday he visited hospitals in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, site of a second mass shooting. But he doesn’t have the credibility to meaningfully contribute to the healing that’s necessary. That’s because what he reads from a teleprompter or says to family members of victims is contradicted by his crazed, off-the-cuff language.
All the words of a leader matter. They can provide comfort and wisdom amid uncertainty, or spread mistrust and hate. Trump’s divisive rhetoric generates electricity among supporters at partisan events where the theme is: Vanquish political foes. It also spreads toxins. It’s beneath the dignity of high office. As the insults mount, Trump contributes to a national climate of intolerance. Because of him, the body politic is debased.
And as a result, when a terrible event occurs and Americans need inspirational words to guide them, the president is incapable of delivering an effective message of unity. His track record gets in the way. His voice rings hollow.
This is its own small national tragedy.
Editorials reflect the opinion of the Editorial Board, as determined by the members of the board, the editorial page editor and the publisher.
The president is not directly to blame for the shooting in El Paso.
Perpetrators of violence are responsible for their actions.
But two things are true about the impact of Trump’s bullying and belittling: He is doing damage to the culture of civility and tolerance in America by promoting nastiness as his personal political brand.
"But....."
I was going to predict what you would cherry pick from that article.... I was right.......
I was going to predict what you would cherry pick from that article.... I was right.......
Predict away. You can't have it both ways and the word "But" equates just that.
Either it is or it is not.
I'll let the Tribune know.....
Bombs serve a purpose in war just like military-style firearms, but they have no reason to be in the hands of civilians.
[Edited on 8/5/2019 by adhill58]
Yeah....one purpose of military style firearms is to kill. Why available to the public is baffiling to me.
Everyone has a plan, till you get punched in the face,
