Reefer madness is a really old movie. It was done far before they had brain imaging equipment that can actually track a psychotic break.
Yes. Marijuana, based on numerous studies can cause psychotic breaks in people pre-disposed to mental illness. It should be no surprise based on the known effects of marijuana. I mean it’s not a great intellectual leap to connect the use of certain drugs to a psychotic break.
Here are some more links since your basis of information seems to be “reefer madness” a reeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly old outdated moralistic documentary.
Why does the debate have to be limited to one aspect of the crime? Are we not capable of having several discussions at once?
Nobody (on this thread and that I’ve seen debating this in other venues) has advocated for charging Palin, et al with a crime or for making violent political rhetoric illegal. What I’m personally hoping for is some self-control from political figures and public acknowledgment that they need to dial it back. I also wouldn’t mind for it to become socially unacceptable for people to make violent comments. The sort of national debate about violent rhetoric that’s arising from this shooting is hopefully letting people know that most people find that sort of thing abhorrent. Maybe next year, I won’t have to hear this crap from my Tea Partying relatives while I’m eating my Thanksgiving dinner.
Am I tho only one who thought the OP was using SP’s simply as one very extreme example of the type of undesireable rhetoric we have seen/heard lately?
As far as the map is concerned, I’ve always been somewhat interested in maps, probably due to my dad having worked for Rand McNally for all the time I knew him until he retired. I can’t recall ever seeing “crosshairs” on a map. Has any one else? Not saying it has never been done (and I have never done surveying." But to describe them as “crosshairs such as you would see on a map…” :rolleyes:
Re: the targets on the Dem map. A couple of things. First, don’t those resemble archery targets more than firearm? Second, I feel there is a subtle distinction between a passive target, and a targeting device sich as a crosshairs or gunsight, which at least implies either some action or a different perspective. Not having a good time explaining it, but the thing you aim AT seems to send a subtly different image than the thing you aim WITH. Not sure which is better or worse.
And it shocks me that folk would seriously suggest that on a whole liberals use as violent terms in their speeches and such as conservatives. (With one exception - if someone considers aortion to be murder.) Haven’t done a study or anything, but guns - and a readiness to resort to them - just impress me as so much more closely tied up with conservative causes and messages than liberal ones. Maybe I’ll start a GD…
Disclaimer, tho extremely “liberal” on just abut every issue, I recently changed my mind WRT gun ownership and am now a pretty strong supporter of what would be considered 2d amendment rights. My “conversion” occurred under the prior adminstration. As I felt rights I consider extremely important (speech, privacy, etc.) to be threatened, I gained sympathy for folks who value 2d amendment rights as highly as I value others. And it took the prospect of a government as intrusive as we were seeing to make me appreciate the benefit of a well armed populace against excessive actions by our own government.
Yes, toejam, I’m aware it’s an old movie. That might be the first accurate thing you’ve said here. Stop doing that or people might mistake you for dryer lint.
I guess you won’t be voting for Obama. Obama’s campaing rhetoric is frequently violent in imagery as well as racially divisive. He also seems to be rallying class warfare. So, I am sure if you really do abhor such speech, you would not want to vote for Obama, right.
Here’s a copy of part of a post with links I posted up further. You seemed to have missed it.
You do know that Obama has often used violent rhetoric during his campaign?
I love your uh…rather intellectual postings filled with nothing but gibberish. Keep at it my friend. You are single handedly helping my cause. Which is to show the liberals are hypocrites who when threatened resort to amorphous insults. :);)
I have no doubt. I am sure you want to be just like me and trade names. I mean your self esteem, based on your screen name, is abysmal.
But you have to show some substance first if you want to be like me. So far your posts contain nothing but pointless innuendo (no I did not miss your innuendo as you seem to think) and silly juvenile insults. Do you agree?
Yes, certainly, tho I suspect your pithy post is intended as a criticism of me and/or my views. Please tell me what portions of my post represent either?
If it makes you any happier, I’ll acknowlledge that my previous post could have been better served by an additional line or 2 between the first 2 paragraphs.
Essentially, I indicated my first paragraph to convey my thought that focusing on these couple of instances/maps was pretty silly, and that I thought the appropriate discussion should concern recent trends in political rhetoric.
Beginning with my second paragraph , I observed that if we were going to focus on the maps, I thought that a meaningful distinction could be drawn between the use of the images used. Do you feel such distinctions are unfounded?
I am pretty comfortable that the people planning national PR campaigns are well-aware of the subtle differences between something that is aimed at, and something that is used in the act of aiming. Do think otherwise?
I have to take this back. I just saw a headline that says Julian Assange thinks that Sarah Palin and a bunch of others should be prosecuted for incitement. He’s coming from a bit of a different perspective than most, though (as he’s had the violent rhetoric aimed at him personally, also):
I take them as I find them. I find you to be a total douchebag (and it’s hard for anyone to convince me so completely that they’re worthless in just one page) so I’m addressing you at a level you’ll understand.
Looks like you also may require reading glasses. I’m not a leftist, and I’m not spinning anything. “Your argument is stupid” does not equate to or imply “You are stupid.” “Your argument is stupid” is not an ad hominem. No matter how many times you assert the contrary. Facts. Reality. These are the currency of the realm.
This is an absolutely and deliberately false statement, and you know it because you’ve been schooled on this message board innumerable times on the subject.
Regardless of anyone’s position on gun control, the Clinton AWB which you yourself reference did NOT ban large capacity magazines in existence at the time of its passage, and up until the day it was defeated they were readily available at any gun shop for a trivial cost - assuming one hadn’t bought them beforehand. Even by the mid-2000’s one could buy magazines like the fucking lunatic bought for less than $20.
And ot be pedantic about it, the AWB would have still allowed 11 shots, not 10, without reloading, and you know this too as you have been schooled in it before.
Given your incredibly long history of complete and utter mendacity on anything involving guns on this message board, I don’t expect you to have the honesty and honour to admit that you’re wrong, let alone that you lied AGAIN, but I thought I should call you on your bullshit so no one else will get the wrong impression about the facts.
And FTR, Sooper Genius, Bricker has you on Ignore, and he’s had you on Ignore for probably a year or more. This is obvious to anyone with a brain, and your continued stalking of his posts around this message board to try to engage him and snipe at him really gives one the impression that you’re a creepy and somewhat obsessed individual.
You’re funny.