lol epic music for such random acts lol

>> ^Psychologic:

True enough, but if someone is determined to kill/injure others then I feel like they could do more damage with a vehicle than with a pistol and large clip.

I'm not so sure about that. You can hear a car coming, and get out of the way if you react fast enough. Getting inside a building pretty much immunizes you from random acts of vehicular homicide.

It's true that people intent on murder will not be deterred by laws, but it's also true that if you make them resort to lesser tools of killing, they will have a harder time doing the same amount of damage.

>> ^Psychologic:
I can see an argument for restriction of guns on public property (we already restrict who can drive on public property), but I'm not sure I want clip size restrictions for private property. Of course I don't live in a major city, so what I find "reasonable" could be a function of local population density.


I guess I have the reverse view after this Tuscon incident. Loughtner was stopped when he went to reload. He had a 31 round extended clip, and if he'd only had the 9 or 10 in a normal clip, he would have been able to get off only a third of the shots before he was made vulnerable by the need to reload.

As O'Donnell said on another night, eventually the police reports will give us the shot order, and allow us to do the grim accounting of finding out who would still be alive if Loughtner had been forced to settle for a 10-round clip instead of a 31-round one. At that point, we can debate about whether the freedom to have extended clips was really worth the lives of the people killed by the bottom twenty bullets Loughtner fired.

This is NOT about taking sides. This is about the absurdity of using this kind of political rhetoric in campaigns. Any kind of calls to violence of this sort should be frowned upon. People need to be responsible for their words, and in this case, Palin's words just happened to be related to a random act of violence. This is not directly Palin's fault because both sides are at fault, but this is an example of what this kind of rhetoric can lead to and how dangerous it actually is.

>> ^TangledThorns:

The Left trying to pin this on Palin will only blow back in their face. Besides, the left have used this kind of imagery and rhetoric many times, see below, so stop the hypocrisy!
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/112823/


>> ^COriolanus:

Look, we need to get some things straight:
1. There is no proven link between the shooter and any group. ANY group.
2. One can denounce the "gun targeting" fund raiser from an a priori standpoint.
3. The shooter met the Representative in 2007 long before Palin was on the national scene.
4. The shooter was from an economic class under siege, esp. in Arizona after the housing bust. He was booted from school for disruptive behavior, his economic future was bust.
5. If Palin et al. had such a potent effect, we should see daily if not multiple shootings per day, bombings, etc. given the 100s of millions of people she reaches via the media. These things happen for very personal reasons; politics, if it is involved, is just a fig leaf.
Bottom line: trying to score points off of a tragedy like this is the very mindset that puts us where we are as a nation. We need to unplug from the 24 hour news cycle and focus on our own here and now, and the people who are hurting and going unhelped.

No, he probably just wasn't that keen on fans running up to him every other minute and interrupting the whole show. Open the gate by accepting that behaviour just once and they'll be forever jumping up on stage to do all kinds of stupid, random acts.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Perhaps you are right.. perhaps this is either a random defacing, or part of a conspiracy to turn public opinion against the protesters. And I agree WP, that most of the conservatives *I* know (and coming from western kentucky, that's a lot) are also opposed to such displays.. any moderately human person is against them.

So, if it turns out that a liberal did do this, we'll all call him or her an idiot and agree it was a terrible thing to do, but if that DOES happen, will you be so quick to run to the defense of liberals as you are to conservatives? Will you be the first to say that those symbols surely can't represent the majority of liberals, and we shouldn't judge all liberals by this one random act?

Just my opinion, but videos like this annoy me when they make it on the Sift. No context, no grand value, just a random act of stupidity and booze-fueled violence that are a dime a million on sites like Break. Add in a few probies fresh from YouTube to make filthy comments, everyone gets pissy and we have a perfect recipe for flamebait.

Anyway, off the soapbox. Nothing personal, EndAll. For this video: If you pay attention at 0:14, it looks like he puts his hand on her shoulder or tries to put his hand in her face. Not like her language was in line, but he (looking at the video only) appears to be the first to make physical contact. I would then imagine the predicament was started by him trying to make a bit more intimate physical contact in the first place, which would justify her (not his) reactions.

Prick.

Solid American journalism. Go right for the gut with random acts of videotaped violence. Thank you for reporting on the real issues.

Normally hate random acts of violence but this was fully deserved.

Hey asshole, I've had about enough. While I do enjoy making obviously stupid and trollish comments to bring out the morans and hypocrites, I take self-linking seriously and am a member of the self-appointed sift police.

Trust me that the whynow11 video is a self-link. And if you think Kucinich knows or even posts to any YT account, you are clueless. Maybe it is the guy in the video, or maybe it is a staffer, but someone posted an completely lame, 1 hour old video, with virtually no views. Those factors usually add up to self-linking. Then you have blankfist highlighting a new member in what he claims to be a complete random act of featuring a new member. It's the first ever new member ever to be highlighted on sifttalk that didn't involve administrative duties.

You and the self-appointed queen of the sift can crawl back into your holes, because I don't care. I haven't said dick about you personally and if people get upset about my criticism of retarded videos, then tough shit, quit posting them.

If whynow11 is a self-linker, that would make him presidential candidate Dennis Kuccinich. Another cased cracked by joe, the misunderstood genius.

>> ^joedirt:
I erased the comment because I was letting it go with a lame attempt at some random act of parody or whatever. I still think it is odd behavior and I'm 90% sure that whynow11 is a self-linker, so whatever.
You kept saying I was ruining your party and your obvious gleeful fun.

I erased the comment because I was letting it go with a lame attempt at some random act of parody or whatever. I still think it is odd behavior and I'm 90% sure that whynow11 is a self-linker, so whatever.

You kept saying I was ruining your party and your obvious gleeful fun.

I disagree with the message of the video (obviously a tribute to hooliganism), but the footage is just... Crazy.

And I love the half-naked man-conga lines intermingled with doses of vandalism and random acts of violence. Little did I know that was what I needed to get my official 'tough guy' membership card!

Apparently he's the younger brother of a guy who was involved in throwing rocks at that very same crocodile a couple of years(?) ago, so it doesn't seem to be some random act of violence.

I just know the usual things will get the blame again. Violent games, movies, music, and so on. There's just one tiny detail I'd like to know: Where the hell were his parents when this happened and where did they think he was at the time?

>>^roughy
I think she said we have more hurricaines due to "warming ocean temperatures" not "global warming."


She actually said:
"..the fact that there are more and more intense storms in the Gulf Coast is actually related to some things that we're doing. It's because of warming ocean temperatures and something that nobody's really talking about for some reason, but yeah there is a connection between warming ocean temperatures, something called global warming, and actually the substance that Republicans want to drill for off the coasts and which Sarah Palin wants to drill for in Alaska. So these aren't just completely random acts and they're not interested in that kind of security." [my emphasis]

I have no problem believing that warmer ocean temperatures leads to a larger number of and/or more intense storms. However she leaves no doubt that she attributes the warmer ocean temperatures to human activity. She uses the words "warming ocean temperatures" and "global warming" right next to each other in the same sentence.

The problem now is that I feel a little bit like I've backed myself into a corner defending the critics of anthropogenic global warming. In actual fact I find that I am yet to be convinced one way or the other. I like to think of myself as being relatively well informed and yet the more I try to research the issues the more I feel like my head is spinning.

The whole topic is extremely complicated and hard to comprehend, even for climate scientists, and yet the media is full of personalities and presenters and news programs and even adverts that seem so certain that they know that the case for AGW has been proved. The constant repetition of the mantra of global warming has an aura of "truthiness" about it. If you repeat it often enough eventually everyone will believe it.

I would like to believe too. I keep waiting for an epiphany to happen. Waiting for the moment when I can finally say "Aha, now I get it. Now I see what everyone else could see."
But really I get the feeling that most people don't really "see it" at all. They just believe what they're told.