tvashtarkatena

Yeah, I don't buy the bullshit that every tea party member is 'mourning this tragedy'. That's neither the sociopath's nor the fascist's way, and that movement is clearly both.

All of Eastern Europe. South Africa. wow. i guess i need to re-read my history books. Try reading them the first time, anyway.

The term 'blood libel' is so unusual that I simply can't believe it wasn't employed purposefully. Anti semitism and anti liberalism typically go hand in hand (ZOG and all that rot). I believe Palin is not only a sociopath, but a fascist in more literal ways than her apologists even realize. Most Americans don't listen to her, but when she's continually splashed all over the front page of the NYT (in addition to having her speeches reposted word for word by certain Spraydiots here instead of just providing a link), she's kind of hard to avoid.

Buncha hot shit in one hole out in the middle of bum fuck nowhere versus a destroyed climate. I choose door #1, thanks. Most anti-nuclear rhetoric applies to a very dirty weapons program and mismanaged US commercial program, not a very clean, reliable French style nuclear program (or US Navy program, for that matter)

As an energy source for producing power to the grid, it's probably the most sustainable one we have at present. I hope you're joking about extraction costs. 1 lb of uranium 235 has the equivalent energy of 3.7 MILLION lbs of coal. A mom and pop mining operation (common during the day) can extract a huge amount of ore, relatively speaking. Are you arguing that refining energy is prohibitive for nuclear? It's not. Not even close.

It's interesting to note that there were 10 death threats and acts of vandalism against members of congress who voted for the health care bill during the week following its passage. And no, that doesn't happen every week.

Nuclear's sustainable, too, purt much. Lotta that shit around.

A nucular powered river, myan.

Particularly if there's a river available for transport.

Logging and milling using hog fuel (waste wood) is a pretty sustainable business.

Sustainable means steady state for energy, air, water, soil, and other basic raw material use over the long term. We WILL get there just as sure as we'll all kick the bucket. Whether under our own power or by force? That's the question.

All of Eastern Europe. South Africa.

ok, ole'hal seemed a pretty easy case, at least on what's on his wikipedia page (and i can't imagine that 3 years in jail will soften him much) - i don't listen to right radio much at all - do they actually say shit as crazy over the top as senor turner? seems like those guys, fuckstickes that they are, are a bit more nuanced... 3 years'll soften part of him up a bit. He'll rant and rave more than ever afterward...just on the radio. Employers tend to soften up sooner than shock jocks, but that's close enough for government work.

Rob actually gave me custody of his kids yesterday...he feels that, after the soul destroying intellectual crushing I've dealt him, he can no longer provide a role model for them. I tried to explain to them that, sometimes, Daddies cry, but they'd have none of it. You must have some pretty worthless friends, FW, if that's all it would take. Sucks to be you, but then, that's hardly news.

Here's an illustrative example of a talk radio show host who was convicted for restricted speech (violent threats): The Hal Turner Conviction Hal Turner Conviction It does happen, apparently. Corporate owners, in particular, respond well to threats of prosecution or fines when their media darlings get a bit too worked up for the public good. Apparently, threats do not have to be that specific, credible, or imminent for a conviction. Hate crimes legislation (first passed in 68 as part a wave of civil rights legislation) is different from the ban on threats; a crime must be committed, and their must be a direct link between hate speech and that crime: Kennedy-Smith Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment to the Defense Department Authorization Bill "On its face, the hate crimes amendment punishes only the conduct of intentionally selecting another person for violence because of that person’s race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The prosecution must prove the conduct of intentional selection of the victim. Thus, the hate crimes amendment, like the present principal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 245 (“section 245”), punishes discrimination (an act), not bigotry (a belief)." - ACLU.org brief Ironically, a lot of conservatives were up in arms about this legislation, either because they correctly surmised that it included LGBT, the disabled, and women as protected classes and it violated their bigoted sensibilities against those classes, or because they incorrectly believed that it introduced new hate speech restrictions (quite the opposite: it actually restricted the governments formerly broad prosecutorial definition of what constitutes hate speech, thus protecting beliefs without criminal action)

One need only look at the many modern, liberal democracies where personal gun ownership is NOT legal to surmise that, in the real world (not the hypothetical one where Patrick Swayze stops Hitler with his .308) such a right is clearly neither a prerequisite nor requirement for a free society for any reason, personal defense or 'right to rebel'. Hypothetical historical reduxes are fine for Tarantino screenplays, but that's about it. It's just a moron's way to fudge the data to create phony causality to support an argument that lacks a better foundation. It's a desperate rhetorical tool that tugs at heartstrings...no neurons required, using cute little hero fantasies. A created universe of bullshit. Regarding the 'right to rebel' and other self esteem building fantasies, right wing policies have so muscled up our police and military that you'd be better off hoarding ammonium nitrate than Glocks - terrorism is gonna be your route, and the government is really, really not gonna appreciate it. You're gonna lose really quickly and the public at large will treat you like the kook apparently probably are. We have ways of influencing and changing our government and its policies...no guns or canned food stocks required. It's kind of amazing how so many 'right to rebel' folks won't 'soil their hands' by participating in the political process. Not all, however, the ACLU at least two on its board - but their opinions carry a bit more weight with me considering their vast service work in the political realm...and the fact that they're not fucking crazy.

on the more relevant question is how effective anti-obscenity laws have been in squelching the 8 words you cannot say on radio and television versus the inattention paid to violent threats on very same media. Want a $250K fine every time Howard Stern says 'blowjob'? Go for it. Hey, but if Howard Stern suggests that his listeners take up arms against elected officials...no prob, man! Thanks to a the FCC's obscenity restrictions (ridiculous, but there you are) on speech, the mechanism are already in place to 'tone down' the threats the minute the government decides that this should be a priority. $250K per incident. The pundits may say FU, but their owners sure as hell won't. This is not 'politicizing' the issue, as such sanctions would apply to everyone, regardless of Leftie/Righty message. Of course, it would be levied almost exclusively against the Right...as they are the only public figures employing this kind of rhetoric. great points - i suppose "obscenity" is easy to crack down on b/c it boils down to the 8 fucking shit-black n' cock-sucking white words we can't use - there's not much grayness to them what will be the clearly enforcable rules for what the pundits can say w/o inciting others to violence? a concrete rule or two, w/ a snazzy fox clip to illustrate it, would be cool. Not a simple question, but a good one. I'll get back to you.

Fox Prez tells his anchors to 'shut up and tone it down'.

bill, here is a question to ponder: had this fellow (crazy, righty, lefty, who cares?) had 11 or 15 bullets to play with rather than 31 or 33 before reloading, how many of the injured and dead would not be injured or dead today? lots of complex issues here, but one conclusion seems pretty plausible to me: we _do_ need more control/restriction/banninating over our weapons. i'd certainly welcome a complete ban on handguns, but ffs, why not at least limit the number of rounds that can be popped off at once? bradley I was just about to pose that very same question. Well put. Personally, I believe a shotgun is all one should ever need for home defense. I do not believe individuals need or should have the right to carry outside the home - there are many other paths to personal security that work better and threaten fewer people. I'd like to here from Billcoe and other zero restriction advocates why they believe private citizens need Glocks with 31 round clips to feel 'safe'. It's not a constitutional issue: restrictions of types of weapons: machine guns, cop killer bullets, etc, as well as time and place restrictions (bars, etc) have repeatedly passed constitutional muster.

You've told us multiple times. Nobody is impressed. I must have impressed you enough for you to remember, girlfriend!

the more relevant question is how effective anti-obscenity laws have been in squelching the 8 words you cannot say on radio and television versus the inattention paid to violent threats on very same media. Want a $250K fine every time Howard Stern says 'blowjob'? Go for it. Hey, but if Howard Stern suggests that his listeners take up arms against elected officials...no prob, man! Thanks to a the FCC's obscenity restrictions (ridiculous, but there you are) on speech, the mechanism are already in place to 'tone down' the threats the minute the government decides that this should be a priority. $250K per incident. The pundits may say FU, but their owners sure as hell won't. This is not 'politicizing' the issue, as such sanctions would apply to everyone, regardless of Leftie/Righty message. Of course, it would be levied almost exclusively against the Right...as they are the only public figures employing this kind of rhetoric.

I'm on the ACLU's 2nd Amendment Policy Committee. True story LOL!

Mass killing and political assassinations tend to get me a bit riled.

I think Boehner represents that average tea bagger's viewpoint: in the 80's, he was pulling down 75+K a year (good for back then). His reason for going into politics? He thought his tax bill was too high. (ref: recent New Yorker interview) Not because he wanted to make this country and its environment a better place. Nope. He was already wealthy...and he wanted more...while someone else footed the bill. Hero!

BTW, anyone actually think the tea bagger movement is about 'limited government'? Ask them about ending the drug war and cutting the military budget. The tea bagger movement is about reaping the benefits of a liberal society without paying the taxes. It's about wealth concentration, with a side of racism and homophobia for spice. It's about SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! (without the amendments) Libertarians? Hardly.