Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 01:26 PM) That would be the opposite of what was needed, so no way that would have happened. The only good news is, the step-downs are written in law, so they'd have to specifically pass legislation to change them. Bad news is that they did this at all, and at the scale they did. Well, it was this idiot or the other idiot. I'm quite confident that Brady would not have signed this bill.

Finally, some evidence that Palin set this guy off.

"I didn't lie! I just changed my mind because this CRISIS is brand new! We didn't have any idea that we were in an emergency situation!" GMAFB. I hope everyone who voted for this idiot is happy. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2011/01...as-burning.html

Ugh, perfect timing to force businesses out of the state.

Maybe I'll move to Wisconsin: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2011/01...-his-state.html

and now it sucks even more. 66% increase in income taxes (5%) and 50% increase in business taxes approved. I love that it's only for 4 years and then it'll drop to 4%. I'd bet my life savings it'll NEVER drop. Also glad they had to stay up until 1am to get this thing passed by 1 vote. I'm guessing something fishy went on there.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 08:47 PM) In the end no matter what I think of the refs all Wisconsin had to do was hold the ball instead of attacking the basket at 135 left. Rob Wilson just made a mistake there and he will never hear the end of it. Before this game started I said that it wouldnt be worse than the football loss to MSU, but I dont know this was just terrible. The good news is they appear to be a tournament team, just I think this game was the difference between a shot at the Big 10 title. Typical Big Ten game. 38 minutes they call it close, last 2 min it's anything goes. edit: though i guess it was 7 min with the overtime. i felt like physicality won out in that game, which is msu's advantage.

Wisconsin about to blow a really good road win

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 07:52 PM) Their site streams games. not mens bball unfortunately

anyone find a site to stream the big ten network online? i'd sure love to watch the penn st - illinois game.....

Your guys' viewpoint on the GOP and its leaders is absolutely comical. Continue believing Palin and Limbaugh represent the conservative party and all its members. That's what liberal blogs tell you, so it must be true!

http://deadspin.com/5730509/this-is-why-th...-a-pile-of-s***

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) Interesting side-story. I think we can create a whole bunch of hypotheticals to support our view on this issue no?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:15 PM) No, I am not. I think I've been clear in this thread, but perhaps not. What I have said was: --There is already, and will always be, some anger in the political realm --This shooter is bats*** crazy, and there will always be some bats*** crazy people --The more vitriolic rhetoric and hazy hints at violence are spewed by people in the political world (candidates, officials, talking heads), the more likely it is that someone already crazy will go over the top --If and when that does occur, it is 100% the fault of the person who actually did it --People who are voices to a political audience should, IMO, take some responsibility for their words and try to be civil, which I feel lowers the risk level --Those same people have every right to not listen to my advice, and act like imbeciles All the above I believe are true, and I see no conflict amongst them. No one is stretching other than you, in attempting to paint others as being on some extreme they clearly are not. And my response has always been that (1) I do not believe your third point is true at all, and (2) by claiming that it is you're still, in some part, saying that vitriolic rhetoric plays a part in this. I just don't see how it does any more than a million other things this guy could have come across to set him off.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) I'd love it if someone who is well-educated like yourself, would avoid taking people's statements to extremes that you know full well they didn't intend. I don't remember the poster you are quoting saying anything about banning anything, except perhaps guns at a certain distance from officials (which I don't agree with). No one is using that logic. Not anyone here, at least. Might be extreme yes, but politicians ARE claiming that they'll introduce legislation to ban speech about political figures as a result of this. Balta just posted a story about the guns. I'm confident there will be more introduced over the coming days. Either way, the logic is me blaming movies and movie stars for the Reagan assassination attempt. Clearly neither had ANYTHING to do with it. Hinckley was just crazy, just like this guy was.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) Yeah, I'm just trying to keep clarifying the distinction I am trying to make here. I don't see how you can make the distinction without in some part placing blame/fault on them. You're saying that they've created an environment for these types of events to happen. So have video games. So have movies. So have books. So have a million other things that this guy might have seen/heard/read/been exposed to in his life. I think that's a huge stretch.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:01 PM) And this is what I mean when I say that this violent political rhetoric can cause something like this to happen again even if this particular incident wasn't caused by it: via Movies should be banned because John Hinckley attempted to assassinate Reagan based on his belief that Jodie Foster told him to do it. It's movies and movie stars that can cause something like assassinations to happen. Without them, the likelihood of these types of events would be lowered. That's the logic we're using now?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:51 AM) We already ban, at a nationwide level, bringing firearms within a certain distance of schools and other government facilities. There's no argument in your post here for why it's a good idea to allow legal carrying of weapons in range of obvious political targets other than the "restricting freedoms" point. Frankly, I have zero issue with that restriction on freedoms. The bolded is why you and I disagree on so many issues. The burden isn't on me to prove to you why I should be given the freedom to do X. You have the burden to prove to me why I should be restricted from doing X. Define "obvious political targets." Are you saying politicians? What if a politician knocks on your door at home, uninvited? Are you violating the law? That's a stupid law quite frankly. It's completely unenforceable. It's an absolute overreaction to what a crazy person just did, something that I hope over time will be ignored. Edit: the proposed law I mean, not the shooting

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:45 AM) "Not being able to prevent that particular crime" does not make it a bad idea. "Restrict freedoms just because in a hypothetical it would" isn't a good idea either.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) And jenksismyb****, there is a lot of reflecting that should be done because of this tragedy. Our political discourse, gun control, health care (why a mentally unstable person goes untreated), etc. I don't think it's smart to just mourn/treat this as some isolated incident and put blinders on without discussing some of these issues. Agree and disagree. My issue was the speed at which these issues were brought up (hours afterwards) which i still maintain were brought about purely as an opportunity to s*** on Palin even more. These issues should always be reviewed, and I get that this is a national tragedy with great exposure. But I don't want people going over the top with it. I don't want people to make extreme conclusions like "see this is why all guns should be illegal" or even worse "we should make some speech illegal." Why are we letting a crazy person dictate our lives like that?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:28 AM) I think you must have been thinking of someone else's post. How can I have proof of a statement about the general state of discussion? And did you not see that in every single post, I've said clearly - in fact right in the line above the one you highlighted - that the two are not causal? That was my whole point, which you missed. I thought you were saying that the 2nd statement was true?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) Luckily you've figured it all out for everyone and we can now close this thread. Great! Also, QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 09:12 AM) You may not agree with some of the posts in here but you are adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion with posts like this.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 10:33 AM) Why is it hard for people to seperate these two things? I see people on the left and people on the right incapable of understanding that BOTH of these statements: --Killer is a nutjob and Palin/Limbaugh/Matthews/Whomever are NOT responsible for this --Recent political rhetoric from highline people is making the atmosphere more conducive to problems like this are TRUE. Not just one or the other, and not as a direct causality. Do you have proof of this? Because this is the part I don't agree with. This is the part where I think the media (both sides pointing the finger at the other side) is making s*** up. Palin and politicians don't belong in this conversation, period. This guy was crazy. End of story. That's the only conclusion here. Until some EVIDENCE comes out that he was motivated by that crap, it has nothing to do with it. Bringing up the "let's use this tragedy to tone down the rhetoric" is just a cop out. It's blaming what some asshole did on how we speak about/to one another. It's fabricated bulls***. I point back to my quote of Thomas Jefferson. Blame him. Blame Obama for using a gun quote. Blame US history. I can bring up a million examples and somehow relate it to this tragedy, but it doesn't mean it's the cause or that it played any part WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Continuing to bring this s*** up is purely political. You want to point the finger and say "these assholes on the right/left are the reason this happens. If they only spoke nice to each other this stuff wouldn't happen." BULLs***. It would, because some people are just CRAZY.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 09:30 AM) Seeing that most people didn't watch the Olbermann video that I posted a couple days back, here are some of the snippets I thought made a lot of sense and is part of the crux of my argument in this thread: I don't remember you s***ting on him or any other blowhard who has used violent metaphors to prove their point. You went after a specific person to further your anti-GOP opinions. I think that was the issue people had, not your point that the rhetoric needs to stop. Also, I agree with the Colbert/Stewart stuff posted above. But I think they also play a part in the negative political culture they're talking about.

Palin was brought up in this thread less than an hour after it was started. Post #16. Not all of the facts were even remotely known at that point. I think that should tell you something. It goes beyond simply reminding us that what Palin did prior to the tragedy was in poor taste. It was a "see how stupid/evil Palin really is? See what she causes? See what the GOP consists of?" type post, as are the similar posts that followed.