Probably has something to do with Devo.
Bricker offers a conjecture that leads to intriguing courses of action. But would officials in Alaska honor a suggestion for involuntary commitment originating in, oh, say, Minnesota?
Is there a minimum number of Dopers who need to be assembled to represent “The Left” or “The Right”?
I ask, because in a GD thread I’d love the chance to say “The Right Wing thinks that the country has gone to hell ever since those 4 moptops invaded the country in the 60’s with their loud so-called music” And then cite you-know-who as my proof.
Sarah Palin refudiates herself:
To be fair, starving people do tend to weigh less, making it much easier to pull themselves up by said bootstraps.
So, arguably, the right is doing something to help.
Here, we might be mice but we do have fully functioning human brains (and, as the memo proves, there are also humans with fully functioning mouse brains!).
CMC fnord!
I don’t know, did the General American “War against Terrorism” waged over the last 10 years have anything to do with the American, Muslim, Army, Doctor of Psychiatry shooting up Fort Hood?
But ya, see. Palin, Beck, and their political conspirators, and seditionaries are equivalent to the Yemeni based cleric that Dr. Hasan took direction and “spiritual” guidance from…
Is it OK for me to put up a map with “surveying symbols” on top of pictures of Republicans? Maybe with an image like this?
Interesting article about a man who voluntarily turned in his weapons and the traditionally-seen-as-Liberal ACLU representing him in court to have them returned, because it’s the law that a court has to order it and the police in possession of his guns believe he’s fit to have them back. I don’t see anything in that article about “the Left” advocating in favor of civil liberties that would make it difficult for mentally ill people to be involuntarily committed.
Couldn’t get this link to load.
*“The ACLU of Rhode Island has filed a “friend of the court” brief addressing the issue whether the civil commitment hearing of convicted sex offender Todd McElroy should be public.”
. . .
“The brief concludes by calling on the court to “fashion a remedy which allows for an open court process that provides a public ruling on the merits of the civil commitment proceeding itself, including its reasoning and adherence to the civil nature of its intent, while protecting the confidential healthcare information disclosed” during those proceedings.”*
Please tell me you really aren’t contending that this is intended to support your allegation that “the Left” is “making it difficult to involuntarily commit a mentally ill person”. When there are conflicting laws on any matter, what remedy would you want sought if a court ruling is such an egregious affront to attempting to follow said conflicting laws?
Have you lost your mind, Rick? I ask that with all sincerity. Usually you can be relied upon to provide cites that actually speak to your claims. Did you pick this one just because it’s talking about California, which you perceive to be Liberal? Did you just use Ctrl+F to suss out references to Civil Liberties and think you’d hit pay dirt with this article?
First, that article is from 11 years ago, published in March, 1999. It (basically) begins by stating that “[t]he current California law regarding involuntary treatment for mental illness – the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act (LPS Act) – was written 30 years ago before scientific knowledge advanced recognizing mental illness as a physical disorder of the brain.”
So who was the Governor of California, 30 years prior to 1999? I’ll give you a hint: his initials are RR. Oh, what the hell, I can do better than that.
“The act . . . was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan.”
Can you explain to me how that law is evidence of your contention that “The left shares blame for notions of personal rights that make it difficult to involuntarily commit a mentally ill person who needs help but does not realize it”?
Now I know you’ve lost your damn mind. The fact that you believe “the left” is somehow to blame for difficulty in getting people involuntarily committed, does not make it “generally known to be true”. And in fact, you can’t even prove your contention with cites, so you have no business calling out your “opponents” as being discourteous in daring to ask you to support your still unsupported allegation.
In short, fuck you.
And you were doing so well, too.
Well, it is the Pit, and I do have a reputation to uphold. 
I don’t know… He had me at defining “The Left” as CannyDan and some other unnamed posters in a thread…
Well, alot of people do take an oath to protect against foreign and domestic threats.
LOL!
Because, honestly, that situation is just so comparable, isn’t it? An American Muslim going on a shooting spree of fellow soldiers in an army that has recently attacked a number of muslim nations is of course directly comparable to a person with no particular political affiliation attacking a politician who reportedly he felt slighted him 3 years ago, and the people around her.
For your sake, I honestly hope you’re embarrassed at the sheer stupidity of that analogy.
Is it stupid to draw a logical conclusion… that one thing leads to another? Is there not cause and effect? Does a political landscape not inform the Body Politik and vice versa?
Right - especially the little voices in some of their heads.
Yes, if those nudging voices are intoned in Palinesque and Beckian monologues.
A logical conclusion? That’ll be shining bright.
Tell you what. All you have to do is demonstrate any causal relationship between Palin’s idiotic rhetoric and this event, and I’ll happily mail you the rope to string her up with. Shit, I’ll even give consideration to circumstantial evidence - some sign that he was either a supporter of hers or some other right wing pundit, perhaps? I’m open to persuasion, just show me what you’ve got in the way of substantiation.
Because as far as I can see, what little evidence there is suggests quite the opposite. He was registered as an independent. Old friends say he "“did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.” Another friend has advised that “Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords for failing to answer a question sufficiently”. There is also a series of youtube videos from Loughner that centre on his frankly batshit theories and beliefs.
In short, and acknowledging this is a very early stage in any investigation, there is a pretty good stack of evidence to suggest that Loughner is as mad as a box of frogs, and motivated by outright crazy ideals that have nothing to do with right wing politics. So, care to tell me again about how you “logically” concluded that Palin or some other right wing pundit is to blame?
Was there any causal relationship between Bush’s fear mongering with respect to Saddam Hussein and the subsequent conquest of Iraq?
Are you one of those numbskulls who still maintains that “everyone believed” Saddam’s regime was an actual grave and gathering danger to the United States?
Seem to me that war’s a pretty clear and recent demonstration that violent and idiotic rhetoric has real world consequences. Do you disagree?