ThinkFast: April 17, 2007
ThinkFast: April 17, 2007
During an interview on Sunday with congressional investigators, Kyle Sampson said that Gonzales was “‘inaccurate,’…in asserting that he had no role in the deliberations about individual United States attorneys who were later dismissed.” He also revealed “that Gonzales remembered talking to Bush last October about concerns with then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.”
Gun control advocates said the Virginia Tech shootings “pointed to the need for tougher laws, while supporters of gun rights generally kept their heads down.” The Brady Campaign said the incident underscored “how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country.” The NRA deplored the tragedy but declined to comment “until all the facts are known.” The White House said, “The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed.”
$2.3 billion: The amount in state taxes that Wal-Mart, now the largest company in the world, appears to have skipped out on using corporate tax shelters.
“The tax burden in the U.S. is shifting away from the rich, to the point where in a few years it could change from being progressive to effectively flat, a new study shows.”
“Over the past six months, American troops have died in Iraq at the highest rate since the war began… From October 2006 through last month, 532 American soldiers were killed, the most during any six-month period of the war. April, with 58 service members killed through Monday, is on pace to be one of the deadliest months of the conflict for American forces.”
While Paul Wolfowitz was serving as Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon directed a military contractor to hire his World Bank girlfriend Shaha Ali Riza to spend a month in 2003 studying issues related to setting up a new government in Iraq. Former Undersecretary of Defense Dough Feith “said he had no recollection of any request by his office to have Ms. Riza hired.”
“President Bush has reneged on his promises to Katrina’s victims,” the New York Times editorial page writes. “Over a year and a half later, there are 64,000 people still sleeping in trailers in Louisiana and far too many communities without schools, hospitals and other basics. These are unacceptable failures.”
The arctic north is experiencing some of the worst impacts of global warming. “Inuit hunters are falling through thinning ice and dying. Dolphins are being spotted for the first time. There’s not enough snow to build igloos for shelter during hunts.”
“The national average price for gasoline in the U.S. rose for the 11th straight week, according to a government report released Monday.”
And finally: Fashion lessons for Congress from Xtina. “Next week, Members of Congress will be getting some fashion cues from pop star Christina Aguilera. Aguilera designed a scarf and tie that Lifetime TV and nonprofit partners including the National Center for Victims of Crime will distribute to every Member of Congress on Monday.” But Christina won’t be there to deliver them herself because she’s “on tour.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush Tells Of Dreaming Putin In A U.F.O.
from Turkishpress dot com 4/2/07
CRAWFORD, MOSCOW - U.S. President George Walker Bush said Saturday that he had a ``subtle deja vu dream`` of Russian President Vladimir Putin emerging in front of an UFO.
...``Yeah fellas, he (Putin) was commander cosmonaut of his UFO ship. He landed in our ranch. When I was approaching to greet him in front of his Soviet-made hatch-door, I suddenly woke up. I am still so sad that I hadn`t chance to see the rest of this miraculous dream``, Bush said.
``The weirdest thing in this dream is that this was also a pure deja vu for me. But as my mind is busy with hubble-bubble in world politics, this also seemed to me a jamais vu``, Bush told reporters.
``I directly called Mr. Putin through hot-line today and spoke with him in Kremlin, he was quite surprised and thanked for it.`` Meanwhile in Kremlin, President Putin told Russian media that ``The only human being that can come out of an UFO would be President Bush and not himself.``
Refusing to elaborate further on Bush`s dream, Putin said "I`m only interested in the hard-rock group UFO`s songs.``
April 17th, 2007 at 9:06 amNice.
This administration continuously rapes the constitution, but lo and behold, the 2nd Amendment is untouchable:
“The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed.â€
Really? I'm sure the families of the victims will love to hear that at the funerals.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:07 amOh, and by the way, does the "all laws must be followed" statement pertain to wire tapping and surveillence?
Just askin...
ITMFA!
“Over the past six months, American troops have died in Iraq at the highest rate since the war began… From October 2006 through last month, 532 American soldiers were killed, the most during any six-month period of the war. April, with 58 service members killed through Monday, is on pace to be one of the deadliest months of the conflict for American forces.â€
SEE PROGRESS!
April 17th, 2007 at 9:08 amRefusing to elaborate further on Bush`s dream, Putin said “I`m only interested in the hard-rock group UFO`s songs.“
At least Putin has good tast in music!
April 17th, 2007 at 9:08 amWhat is wrong in a developed country, that a guy walks into a University and shot dozens of people? Or alks into a McDonalds killing people? Or seizes a tank and go around the streets? Really, what, as a society, are we doing wrong?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:10 amThe NRA may not have issued a statement but plenty of individual gun nuts were spouting their BS about howw if students on th VT campus had been strapped this wouldn't have happened. You're going to here more of that crap in the coming days and mark this; there will be a push to overturn university gun bans all across the south.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:13 amAt least Putin has good tast in music!
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Lights out, light out in London!!!
April 17th, 2007 at 9:14 amUpdate on Bush's strong dollar policy - it's now two dollars to the GB pound:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3ebd4b4-ecbc-11db-9520-000b5df10621.html
April 17th, 2007 at 9:16 am“Over the past six months, American troops have died in Iraq at the highest rate since the war began… From October 2006 through last month, 532 American soldiers were killed, the most during any six-month period of the war. April, with 58 service members killed through Monday, is on pace to be one of the deadliest months of the conflict for American forces.â€
Gee, the insurgents wouldn't happen to be emboldened by the election in November, would they? We filled the House and Senate with the cut-run-surrender monkeys and now the death toll for US troops goes up. Coincidence? I think not.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:17 am“The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed.â€
Unfortunate that one of those laws disarmed all of the victims...even those with valid CCW permits.
Gun control proponents, when speaking of this tragedy, maintain that there were still too many guns available on that day. I maintain that there were too few.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:17 amAnd meanwhile, researchers with the Russian Academy of Sciences are speculating that the Little Ice Age may return by 2060.
And CO2Science.org is debunking the rapid sea level rise expounded by Al Gore here.
They report:
April 17th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I guess since Heston is gone, they're not so eager to show up on the doorstep of a shooting tragedy within a week to hold a national convention anymore... or is it too soon to make that call yet?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:20 amUnfortunate that one of those laws disarmed all of the victims…even those with valid CCW permits.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 17, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Was it a law that disarmed the victis? Or was it a school policy?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:21 amOMG, TMM and I actually agree on something. So have I come over to the dark side TMM, or have you?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:22 amDrxJ,
I'm more of a Michael Schenker Group fan myself.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:24 amI honestly would prefer that the VTech tragedy not be used for political points on either side so damn fresh off the incident. Unfortunately, that's too much to ask, I suppose. And yeah, I've heard more about how 'This woudlnt' have happened if all the students were packing too!' than how this shows a need for gun control. 1) more than likely, this would have happened anyways, with either more or less gun control, and 2) if all the other students were packing, I can envision only one word: crossfire. And...that idea worries me personally. That and a distinct distrust of the combinations of college, alcohol, and firearms.
Secondly...it seems again, it's a good day to be rich in America. Poor to middle-class....eh....not so much.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:25 amI maintain that there were too few.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
I know you admire Samuel Colt, but that was just stupid. Either way somebody would have ended dead.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:27 amEvery law abiding gun owner is just one trigger squeeze away from being a criminal.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:29 amOkay, food for thought...
Is the VT shootings considered a terrorist attack?
I mean, if a radical muslim strapped him/her self with homemade bombs, and detonated them in the school cafateria, murdering 13 students, it would be a terrorist attack!
Isn't this also???
I'm curious as to your feelings why or why not.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:29 am(JakeA$$, you're on my Ignore Stupid Plageurist list, so no need to respond)
OMG, TMM and I actually agree on something. So have I come over to the dark side TMM, or have you?
Comment by Dale
Go figure. The sad thing is that while you think it is a right to go and kill people (cuz thats what guns are for) these companies get rich with your paranoid and mass hysteria about "protection".
April 17th, 2007 at 9:30 amA flat tax with no corporate or personal loopholes and severe penalties on out-of-country tax shelters would help with making it more progressive again. And then tax credits or cuts for the poor (under $30K) would be a nice compliment to the otherwise flat tax.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:32 amComment by Kryptik — April 17, 2007 @ 9:25 am
April 17th, 2007 at 9:32 amImagine a Friday or Saturday night at any typical college if students were packing.
Instead of Fist a cuffs, there would be cross fire shootings at drunken fraternity partys, because someone got dissed, or dished by a girl
Every law abiding gun owner is just one trigger squeeze away from being a criminal.
Comment by Elmer Fudd — April 17, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Or a hero
April 17th, 2007 at 9:32 amJuan C sez:
Please outline the scenario where everyone survives. Remember, criminals are not deterred by anti-gun laws...they are criminals, after all...
April 17th, 2007 at 9:33 amGee, the insurgents wouldn’t happen to be emboldened by the election in November, would they? We filled the House and Senate with the cut-run-surrender monkeys and now the death toll for US troops goes up. Coincidence? I think not.
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Let's see the people of Iraq get a couple hours of electricity a day and they're using it to watch the news about United States Congressional elections. You've been watching Fox News again haven't you?
If they are watching our news they might also have heard that Bush was sending more troops and was refusing to set a timeline for leaving Iraq.
Of course anecdotal evidence, yours and mine, is crap. But Limbaugh and Fox News doesn't let that hold them back any. So let me give you MY opinion, Iraqi insurgents are more likely to act because they're PISSED OFF than because they are emboldened. Troops might act because they are emboldened but insurgents act out of anger.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:34 amLet's outline a scenario where death becomes the norm every weekend to the chance that someone becomes a "hero" every decade.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:37 amThere was much hand-wringing and calling for change after Columbine. What has changed? Nothing.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:37 amThere were a couple of posters here awhile back who had a bet going on about gas prices hitting the $2.80 mark:
Anybody want to guess what will happen to Big Oil's profits this quarter?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:38 amNope, even if he was Muslim... only if he did if for political purposes. If this guy just 'went nuts' (for lack of a better term), then it's a mass murder. If he did it for Islam/Christianity/Buddhism/etc, then it's a terrorist attack.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:39 amRemember, there a a hell of a lot meore stupid and/or angry people in this world than the smart and consientious ones.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:39 am#23.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:39 am.............or dead.
Check out http://www.fairtax.org, they have the flat tax with tax credits for the poor.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:40 amComment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 9:18 am
The Heartland Institute is in a BANK BUILDING in Chicago. And their idol is Milton Friedman, an economist who started moving to the far right in 1950!.
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems". [1] It campaigns on what it calls "junk science", "common-sense environmentalism" (i.e. anti-Kyoto, pro-GM), the privatization of public services, smokers' rights (anti-tobacco tax, denial of problems from passive smoking), the introduction of school vouchers, and the deregulation of health care insurance. It also provides an online resource for finding right-wing think tank policy documents called PolicyBot.
Dale, could you shut the f##c up now.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:41 amThe easy answer is to ban guns. It is much harder to look at ourselves and wonder how to change the culture that breeds violence.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:42 amComment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 9:34 am
I just had to get the talking point out there before Jake showed up. Now there is no need for him.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:44 amI think it's just sick that not even 2 minutes after the whole terrible thing over at VT happened, the political machine was spinning. Come on! Give the families some time to mourn (or even find out whether or not to mourn) before you all start jumping on one side of the NRA bandwagon or the other.
I also think it's disgusting that all the MSM are pouncing on the student survivors, pounding them with questions before the shock of the whole situation has really, and truly set in. Harry Smith on CBS Early Show was talking with one of the students who was barricading a class room door closed against the shooter was about to break down in tears again talking about it.
MSM is just drooling to find out more information. They are practically DEMANDING to find out the identity of the "Chinese national" who shot himself and why he did it, etc. BACK OFF, MSM!!!
Sorry, had to rant. Thanks for reading. Back to the regular discussion.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:44 amor is it too soon to make that call yet?
Comment by Crystal W. — April 17, 2007 @ 9:20 am
By Wednesday they'll be mouthing off. But since they've said that these two guns had their serial numbers sanded off usually a sign that they were purchased illegally gun laws don't really matter.
But what about Homeland Security? The guy is a KOREAN national buying illegal weapons. Isn't 32 people dead an act of terrorism? Oh but we are fighting the terrorist in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. How's that working for us?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:45 amthey are criminals, after all…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Police should deal with them. Otherwise arm everybody and stop having a police department. Your line of thought in this issue is the same that war supporters. Why? In order to have some sense of "security" you would arm yourself. In order to have some security, your government invades a country. The same reasoning.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:47 amRe: Mainstream Media...
April 17th, 2007 at 9:47 amListen to the song "Dirty Laundry" by Don Henley. Says it all.
#33, the Heartland Institute also accepts no corporate or federal money.
No thanks, I'd rather not. If you don't like what I say, then don't read it.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:48 amWell said!
April 17th, 2007 at 9:49 amThis news may be lost amid that about the massacre at VA-Tech, but the mayor of Nagasaki, Japan was shot outside his campaign headquarters about 3-4 hours ago. His heart and breathing have stopped, though there has yet to be an official declaration of death, and the doctors are working hard to revive him.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:49 amAbout 19 years ago, the previous mayor of Nagasaki was similarly shot, though he managed to survive.
Or a hero
Comment by hacker bob
Heroes dont carry guns. Heroes carry wounded children from a burning building or children from 9 months in their wombs without the help of a husband.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:49 amEvery law abiding gun owner is just one trigger squeeze away from being a criminal.
Comment by Elmer Fudd — April 17, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Or a hero
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Too much Rambo movies.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:49 amNo, the number of people do not define a terroristic act. Nice try to connect the tragic VT shootings with Iraq, though.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:50 amInstead of Fist a cuffs, there would be cross fire shootings at drunken fraternity partys, because someone got dissed, or dished by a girl
Comment by DRxJ — April 17, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Brings to mind a bar in Chicago where police officers gather after their shifts which is riddled with bullet holes.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:50 amWhen did Christina Aguilera join the Navy?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:50 amIs her tour a tour of duty?
only if he did if for political purposes.
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 9:39 am
then,
If he did it for Islam/Christianity/Buddhism/etc, then it’s a terrorist attack.
Okay, I'm confused. Is it considered a terrorist attack when politically motivated, or religously?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:51 amIf he did it for Islam/Christianity/Buddhism/etc, then it’s a terrorist attack.
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Are you out of your effing mind. He's Korean. Maybe he did it out of nationalism. That wouldn't be a terrorist attack?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:53 amComment by Juan C — April 17, 2007 @ 9:49 am
A person that saves another person is a hero, I think we can agree on that.
Sometimes violence has to be met with violence. The passive route is not always a viable option. If I use a gun to stop someone from hurting or killing another person, what does that make me?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:53 amI think it's terroristic only if it is intended to induce fear to further some sort of larger agenda, whether political, religious, etc. If it's just someone who goes bat**** insane and goes on a suicide run, then yeah, I think that simply constitutes mass murder.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:55 am#48, the definition I found (from pbs.org) is:
So both.
I haven't heard whether the VT shootings were done for political, religious, or ideological objectives.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:56 amComment by Proud Dem — April 17, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Well said!
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Thank you. I feel it had to be said.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:56 amJuan C sez:
That's not the same reasoning at all, Juan. I'm surprised you would try to make that claim.
Carrying a weapon is not the same as invading a country. The former involves my rights, and doesn't infringe upon the rights of anyone else. How you could possibly equate the two is beyond me.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:56 amI just had to get the talking point out there before Jake showed up. Now there is no need for him.
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 9:44 am
So you got it out there, now what, nothing to say regarding my post?
April 17th, 2007 at 9:56 amComment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Back to supporting Bush again, I see. In your fantasy world, the only variable causally linked to American soldiers being blown to bits in Iraq is how many Democratic Congressmen and women are elected to Congress.
How comforting it must be to go to bed at night knowing that Bush's surge is not in any way responsible for more American Soldiers getting blown up and shot at; that putting more troops in harm's way would have reduced the number of casualties, had it not been for Democrats gaining more seats in Congress; that sending in kids without completing their training, without providing them with body armor, weapons, ammunition, had nothing to do with more of them getting blown up or shot to death.
News reports of sending in troops without training nor proper equipment did not embolden the insurgents? News reports of sending in injured and disabled troops did not emboldent the insurgents? But news reports of Democrats gaining control of the House and Senate emboldened the insurgents? Perhaps you were standing a little to close to an IED, bob. Your cognitive processes seem to have been damaged; you're not thinking like a soldier, but like a "Loyal Bushie."
April 17th, 2007 at 9:58 amGOPers believe the solution for the college massacre is to give students all guns, but imagine students with guns and shooting each other over stupid petty things. The real solution is more security at colleges to prevent nuts from bringing guns onto campuses. Virginia Tech is a huge university with over 25,000 students, so it needs security checkpoints and metal detectors.
As for the shooter: The press today has announced he was a South Korean student at the university. His girlfriend dumped him for a black guy at the college, so he went to the guy's dorm room and found them in bed and shot them dead. He then walked around the college for 2 hours until he went berserk shooting students and then himself.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:59 amSure, if he believed that attacking the VT students would further his 'Korean nationalistic' objectives.
But we don't *know* why he did it yet (and we may never know). To try to attach a political spin to it (re: your comment in #37, vis-a-vis Iraq) is disrespectful to all the families that are going through this terrible tragedy.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:00 am"often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives..."
not always....
April 17th, 2007 at 10:00 amComment by Juan C — April 17, 2007 @ 9:49 am
A person that saves another person is a hero, I think we can agree on that.
Sometimes violence has to be met with violence. The passive route is not always a viable option. If I use a gun to stop someone from hurting or killing another person, what does that make me?
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 9:53 am
That's a hollow argument. Violence isn't so often needed as the NRA members, the GOP members or you believe.
What result has had your excessively violent standing when dealing with terrorism? An innecesary war with the wrong country, Iraq. The Waco people killed a lot of law officers thanks to their "liberty" to have weapons. Lots of automatic ones. In a farm. To shoot the foxes that break in the chicken coop, no doubt. Routinely, your overstuffed weapon market provides serial killers with the weapons needed to enter a school, a McDonalds, or shoot indiscriminately people putting oil in their vehicle.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:01 amthe Heartland Institute also accepts no corporate or federal money.
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 9:48 am
You have a list of donors Dale? Do you donate? How many of the donors are that top 1% with all the money? And when they donate, so they can make more money, they get a tax deduction so they keep more money.
Keep talking, but unless your a top 10% income earner, you're an idiot.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:01 amIf I use a gun to stop someone from hurting or killing another person, what does that make me?
Comment by hacker bob
A guy who kill a person. Please, dont try to make romantic something it is not. How many times have you listen or see that somebody with a gun actually stop someone from being hurt? Very very few times. US society is built in war economy. Again, the level of indoctrination about this stupid fascination of having guns is not different from the fascination of US population have with making wars and defeating enemies and conquering victory and blah, blah, blah. Just take a look at Hollywood.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:02 amToo much Rambo movies.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 9:49 am
No, not at all.
I agree that not everyone should own firearms. And anyone that does should undergo very stringent training with them. But everyone should have the RIGHT to own one.
It is not about "packin' heat" to go out and be a hero. It is about the right to protect and defend yourself and others.
Face it, the police are only effective AFTER the crime has been committed.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:03 ammy #58:
#57, #59 ... so I guess we *do* know (assuming the MSM is getting the story right).
Points to the guy going nuts, *not* having anything to do with terrorism.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:04 amHeroes dont carry guns. Heroes carry wounded children from a burning building or children from 9 months in their wombs without the help of a husband.
Comment by Juan C — April 17, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Absolutely, Juan. And very well said.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:04 amNo, the number of people do not define a terroristic act. Nice try to connect the tragic VT shootings with Iraq, though.
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 9:50 am
What does?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:05 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — April 17, 2007 @ 9:58 am
you obviously miss this
April 17th, 2007 at 10:07 am
So do you have anything to say about the *science* that was presented in their studies, or are you just going to continue blathering?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:08 amComment by Jay Randal — April 17, 2007 @ 9:59 am
April 17th, 2007 at 10:09 amJay, I kinda suspected that (if it's true)
Being on both ends of the cheating spectrum in college, all I can say is that it plays mental anguish continuously on a person's mind (especially a males)
this, of course, gives no excuse for what he did.
but imagine if he had no access to fire arms.
There would not have been a slaughter of this magnitude.
#66, I already posted a definition of terrorism in this thread... if you don't like the definition I found on pbs.org, go find your own.
Above all, out of respect for the families of those slain, how about we keep politics out of this situation for a day. Can you agree to that for the families sake?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:10 amAs for the shooter: The press today has announced he was a South Korean student at the university. His girlfriend dumped him for a black guy at the college, so he went to the guy’s dorm room and found them in bed and shot them dead. He then walked around the college for 2 hours until he went berserk shooting students and then himself.
Comment by Jay Randal — April 17, 2007 @ 9:59 am
So, it was a "hate-crime" then.
can a minority be charged with a hate crime?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:11 amIf I use a gun to stop someone from hurting or killing another person, what does that make me?
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 9:53 am
"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride." And if somebody like you had a gun at the college campus then they might have helped.
Of course the police were on campus but ASSUMED the shooter left after he shot the first two people. So there were plenty of weapons on campus but nobody with the wherewithall to do anything proactive.
So having a gun is like flipping a coin. Heads you shoot somebody to protect lives. Tails you shoot somebody because you're angry, or drunk, or miscalculate circumstances and shoot somebody and end up in prison.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:12 amAbove all, out of respect for the families of those slain, how about we keep politics out of this situation for a day
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 10:10 am
too late. Your Commander in Chief's press secretary alreayd politicized it yesterday, before the details where even released
April 17th, 2007 at 10:13 amThis weeks sign that the apocalypse is upon us: I agree with hacker bob and dale about something.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:14 amSo, it was a “hate-crime†then.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:14 amComment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Aren't all crimes of this caliber considered hate???
The former involves my rights, and doesn’t infringe upon the rights of anyone else. How you could possibly equate the two is beyond me.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
What if your right also involves to be safe from any potential threat in the whole world? You would need to invade or bomb countries as well. Its the same line of reasoning. The right of bearing arms is from times where you were killing indians and getting free from the Britains. Get over that, come on.
Why dont you ever questioned that weapon companies get rich by selling weapons to criminals and to "pacificists"? The line of thought of people advocating the toppling of Saddam´s regime is that of security. Your line of reasoning of security also, with the possibility of killing innocent people. You would say, Oh, no, I would just kill the bad guys...well, there you have it. The same thing.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:15 am#63 Face it, the police are only effective AFTER the crime has been committed.
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:03 am
You're right. If you let the police act only after a shooting. Policy PREVENTS crime. and Policy can be used to create laws to get weapons out of the street. And permit the police act harsher against ultimate weapon providers. If a greater share of the weapons in the street are product of a robbery, bob, you must acknowledge that you have a serious problem with security.
Or if the greater share of weapons used in crimes are being legally acquired, then legal weapon sellers are skipping the checks, or the mandatory security needed for shops and/or weapon owners is too loose.
Everything points to a violent culture too prone to acquire weapons.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:16 amjay randal -
SOURCES ?!?!?!?!
jeez…
April 17th, 2007 at 10:16 amI think it’s terroristic only if it is intended to induce fear to further some sort of larger agenda, whether political, religious, etc.
Comment by Kryptik — April 17, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Of course the shooter is dead so we don't know what it intentions were. But what if people made fun of him because he was Korean? And the girl he loved broke up with him because other Americans made fun of her Korean boyfriend? And he wanted to show Americans that they shouldn't make fun of people from Korea or bad things would happen to them?
Regardless, nice to know Homeland Security is using all those warrentless wiretaps not finding foreign nationals buying weapons.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:18 amKyle Sampson's new testimony which clearly contradicts that of Alberto VO5 as well as his testimony regarding Bush's involvement in the Iglaisias firing is the "smoking gun" which will bring this administration down.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:19 amIt makes you a victim of circumstance.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:20 amYes, what the heck is Homeland Security doing anyway? Wiretapping political foes, that's what they're doing while foreign nationals are buying firearms, that's what.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:20 amAs we debate whether we should have a more strict, or less strict gun control, I think we are missing the big picture here...
April 17th, 2007 at 10:20 amWhat breeds an individual (or indiviuals) to manifest such hate and violence, and to act upon them?
If what Jay says is true, why couldn't the attacker just eventually find another girlfriend?
What made him snap from doing harm to his ex, to actually killing her, to then killing 30 more who were not involved?
Listen to the song “Dirty Laundry†by Don Henley. Says it all.
Comment by Raven
It's more true now than ever, Raven.
"Lawyers clean up all details,
April 17th, 2007 at 10:21 amSince Daddy had to lie."
Obviously, with the Commonwealth of Virginia ranking #2 in laxity around gun control mechanisms, this begs the question regarding the stranglehold the gun lobbies have on this government.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:22 amAren’t all crimes of this caliber considered hate???
Comment by DRxJ — April 17, 2007 @ 10:14 am
I would think so. But if a white man kills a black man, it is automatically called a "hate crime". If a straight man kills a gay man, it is automatically called a "hate crime".
Face it, it is a crime, no need for the extra lable.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:24 am"But I'm Angry NOW!"
-Homer Simpson, at the gun shop, wanting to buy a weapon immediately
April 17th, 2007 at 10:25 amI just had to get the talking point out there before Jake showed up. Now there is no need for him.
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:07 am
That was posted while I was composing my comment. At least my analysis of your earlier comment sounding like a "Loyal Bushie" was right on!
Next time, use the /sarc or something (/Dale) so I know where you're coming from.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:27 amPolicy PREVENTS crime.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 10:16 am
VT had a POLICY of not allowing weapons on campus. It was a really effective deterrent, wasn't it?
Everything points to a violent culture too prone to acquire weapons.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 10:16 am
So, you are saying that S.Korea has a violent culture? Or are you implying that he only became violent after coming to the US?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:28 am“Lawyers clean up all details,
Since Daddy had to lie.â€
Comment by Proud Dem — April 17, 2007 @ 10:21 am
different song... another apropos title though:
April 17th, 2007 at 10:30 am"The End of the Innocense"
except it's about divorce...
April 17th, 2007 at 10:31 am"I would think so. But if a white man kills a black man, it is automatically called a “hate crimeâ€. If a straight man kills a gay man, it is automatically called a “hate crimeâ€.
Face it, it is a crime, no need for the extra lable."
/dumb
April 17th, 2007 at 10:32 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — April 17, 2007 @ 10:27 am
No problem.
I like the /Jake> tag.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:33 amCool, I've got my own HTML tag... wonder if I can charge royalties? (all proceeds to go towards my continuing drive to oppress the poor, of course) /Dale
April 17th, 2007 at 10:34 amBut if a white man kills a black man, it is automatically called a “hate crimeâ€. If a straight man kills a gay man, it is automatically called a “hate crimeâ€.
B*llsh*t
April 17th, 2007 at 10:34 amComment by pgw — April 17, 2007 @ 10:32 am
explain please.
Is it worse if a gay man or a black man is killed?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:35 amJuan C sez:
It doesn't. Your rights end where another's begin.
I'm not advocating kicking in the doors of people I suspect will assault me in the future, Juan. Please stop misrepresenting my position.
It would be nice if you didn't automatically classify all Americans as "the enemy". Some of us are quite opposed to the actions our rogue government has taken in the last six years (actually, most of us, if the polls are to be believed).
After all the fighting for freedom against the British was completed, we put into place a system of government that would ensure that all could live free. Today, we have a cabal of criminals that has hijacked our government and is doing their utmost to dismantle this framework of freedom. I'll just hold onto my weapons, thanks.
I'm certain that gun companies do make profits. Lock companies make profits as well...should locks be outlawed?
According to that logic, you shouldn't have any locks on your doors, since your line of reasoning is security, which somehow makes you equivalent to a rogue government committing war crimes.
The difference is one of degree. You persist in taking my completely reasonable desire and expectation of security to ridiculous and unreasonable extremes. You may object that my argument of locks is flawed, since no one gets killed by locks. To that, I reply that your argument of invading countries is equally flawed, since I'm not advocating violating anyone else's rights.
The fact remains that criminals will always have access to weapons. Period. If I could wave a magic wand and eliminate all weapons from the world, I'd do it in a New York minute. But I can't, and neither can you.
As long as the criminals are armed, I prefer to be armed as well. By the way, I've been using guns since the tender age of twelve, and have yet to kill anyone.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:35 amVT had a POLICY of not allowing weapons on campus. It was a really effective deterrent, wasn’t it?
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:28 am
and what if we had Canada's more strict gun control? Could such an attack have taken place with a hunting rifle, and not a handgun that had 30 rounds?
(playing devil's advocate here)
April 17th, 2007 at 10:35 ammaybe “I would think so. But if a white man kills a black man solely because he's black, it is called a “hate crimeâ€. If a straight man kills a gay man solely because he's gay, it is called a “hate crimeâ€" would actually be closer to reality. and why have manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. when they're just extra labels?
April 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am#91. katy.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:45 amHow about "Garden of Allah"?
Another dark commentary on American kulture..........
Comment by katy — April 17, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Oops. You're right. But still, it could be used in this case. Some of the verses anyway.
"Bubble Headed bleached blonde comes on at 6."
That's better.
See, trolls, I can admit when I'm wrong. Your turn.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:45 amTo try to attach a political spin to it (re: your comment in #37, vis-a-vis Iraq) is disrespectful to all the families that are going through this terrible tragedy.
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Really, and how about you and your troll buddies always spewing how were fighting in Iraq to be safe here. Do you think any of the parents from VT feel safe today. Do you think the parents and spouses and children of soldiers in Iraq feel safe any day.
But just so you and Jake and Patrick1 can feel safe in your own little world lets see how we can deplete the resources of this country, financially and militarily. Because all those soldiers in harms way in Iraq and all the intelligence agents used to battle the insurgents in Iraq are brave people who could be here protecting our borders and keeping us safer here. If that was the reason we are were in Iraq in the first place.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:46 amComment by DRxJ
He reloaded his weapons. If he had a rifle, he would have reloaded that as well.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:47 amComment by Lora — April 17, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Thanks for the post. You bring a different aspect to the debate.
How did this happen? Japan has the strictist gun regulation in the democratic world, yet someone was able to get a gun and shoot this man.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:47 amHe reloaded his weapons. If he had a rifle, he would have reloaded that as well.
Comment by Proud Dem — April 17, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Yes, but reloading an automatic handgun that has a 30 round clip is alot easier and quicker than reloading a hunting rifle.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:49 amand why have manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. when they’re just extra labels?
Comment by pgw — April 17, 2007 @ 10:44 am
These decide intent.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:49 amHey, we can admit when you're wrong also! :-)
j/k
April 17th, 2007 at 10:51 am(an observation)
I've noticed how we can debate this issue without name calling (firehead, Patrick1) or sending the thread on an irrelivent tangent (JakeA$$, JMH), or even injecting homophobia (St. daryll)
I'd like to see more of this from TP!
and before I get jumped on for wanting more strict gun control, remember that I did see Ted Nugent in concert, and have always been a Deadly Ted fan!!!
April 17th, 2007 at 10:53 am(HA!)
Jay Randall sez:
Hang on a minute. If the shooter's intention was just to go shoot his ex-GF and her new BF, then why did he need two weapons? Why wear a vest packed full of ammo?
For that matter, why go to all the trouble to file the serial numbers off the weapons, while carrying around documentation in your backpack that will allow police to trace the weapons?
And how does a 9mm round in the face make positive ID virtually impossible?
This story isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as the press would have you believe, Jay. I'm mildly surprised that I have to remind you to not believe everything you hear.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:54 amSo do you have anything to say about the *science* that was presented in their studies, or are you just going to continue blathering?
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 10:08 am
My point was it isn't *science* when an obscure group with a political and financial agenda makes shit up.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:57 amJapan mayor shot while campaigning - CNN.comThe mayor of the southwestern Japanese city of Nagasaki was shot outside a train station on Tuesday as he campaigned for local elections.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/17/japan.mayor.ap/ - Apr 17, 2007 - Similar pages
Japanese Mayor Who Criticized Hirohito Is Shot - New York TimesJapanese Mayor Who Criticized Hirohito Is Shot. Print; Save. Article Tools Sponsored By. Published: January 19, 1990. DCSIMG ...
April 17th, 2007 at 10:57 amquery.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3D61530F93AA25752C0A966958260 - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
I just saw this item: two other attacks were reported yesterday, one in Texas and one in Maryland.
Apparently, some person or persons poured some type of acid on playground equipment. Sick b*stards.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:57 amOf course the shooter is dead so we don’t know what it intentions were. But what if people made fun of him because he was Korean? And the girl he loved broke up with him because other Americans made fun of her Korean boyfriend? And he wanted to show Americans that they shouldn’t make fun of people from Korea or bad things would happen to them?
Regardless, nice to know Homeland Security is using all those warrentless wiretaps not finding foreign nationals buying weapons.
I think in that case, it's still 'just' a mass murder, unless it came about as some sort of nationalist scheme to fear Koreans. Possibly bordering on hate crime, but that in itself is a bit sketchy.
Unless there was some larger overarching goal to it besides a personal vendetta, I don't think it really counts as terroristic.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am#108... good point, this is the type of debate I like to see (and take part in).
April 17th, 2007 at 11:01 amand before I get jumped on for wanting more strict gun control, remember that I did see Ted Nugent in concert, and have always been a Deadly Ted fan!!!
(HA!)
Comment by DRxJ — April 17, 2007 @ 10:53 am
OK, UFO and Ted alll in the same thread.
I knew I liked you for some reason.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:01 amBy the way, I’ve been using guns since the tender age of twelve, and have yet to kill anyone.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Well, you have the society you want. I dont blame you, personally, you could be the greatest guy in the world. I still really think that bearing arms is a solution to nothing except to gun companies, which by the way, make way more money than lock companies with products that are used only to kill people. Nothing more.
I dont think my argument is flawed. You keep your guns, make richer gun companies in the process, lets give all kids guns, lets tell them thats their right from the paleolitic era, lets tell them that guns are for their own protection and to be used only against bad guys (whatever that means), lets have a military-like society (welcome to Israel), lets everybody have guns and heavy weaponry in schools, malls, streets, restaurants, airports and parks. Tell them that peace is for pussies, tell them chemical and bio weapons are for national defense, lets make them paranoid about everybody (it increases the sales), lets all build a nuclear shelter, cuz it is our right, lets all make heroes people who carry guns in movies, lets preserve this agressive society that doesnt know how to solve problems without the use of force.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:03 amHeartland didn't make anything up; they reported on studies by others (including the Russian Academy of Sciences).
Unless you can cite which of the two studies (or both) they *made up*?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:03 amI’m mildly surprised that I have to remind you to not believe everything you hear.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 17, 2007 @ 10:54 am
i'm not... but thing is, jay didn't even HEAR that story... he's just
April 17th, 2007 at 11:03 am"just commenting on his motivation for the crime: jilted boyfriend goes on rampage." (from the 'identification' thread)
...pure conjecture... irresponsible too...
HAHA,
This guy was carrying a 9mm and a 22 pistol. These are NOT powerful guns. These are extremly small caliber handguns. Outside of taking away our right to bear arms, how do you plan to get "tougher" on this? I own 4 handguns and all are much more powerful then these guns. You haven't even addressed the fact that all us hunters own weapons that are 10 times more powerful then these weapons and most can be bought over the counter from your local sporting goods store. If anything, this case shows once again that we need to allow people the chance to protect themselves. I know I would be pissed right now as a parent knowing that the school didn't allow there students to carry protection. One student with a gun on him could have ended this whole thing with a few simple shots to this thugs head. It is time we change the law to allow more law abiding people to carry protection IMO.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:04 am#116, wow, all that because TMM owns guns?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:05 amThanks for the post. You bring a different aspect to the debate.
How did this happen? Japan has the strictist gun regulation in the democratic world, yet someone was able to get a gun and shoot this man.
Comment by hacker bob
You're welcome. Japan indeed has very strict gun regulations, but some people do manage occasionally to smuggle them in from other countries. Also, guns are occasionally stolen from police boxes or licensed hunters. The culprit in this case, a 59 year old yakuza (gangster), has been apprehended and admits to the crime. I suppose that, under questioning, how he acquired the gun will eventually come out.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:05 amCan you agree to that for the families sake?
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Every day soldiers die in Iraq. Where's your sympathy for them and their families. You constantly spew how we're fight them there to stay safe here.
I would say families of soldiers are more likely to see your posts here than the families from VT are to be reading here today.
As usual you set up false scenarios trying to make your arguments easier for you.
A life is a life. To me every soldier is as valuable as every college student. You right wing nuts may think that soldiers are just cannon fodder for your little games, but progressives see them as brave and noble people that deserve a nation that takes every measure to protect them. That means training them, arming them, equipping them and making sure their needs are met abroad and back home.
Your selective grieving is indicative of YOUR politicising of the issue.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:06 amIs it worse if a gay man or a black man is killed?
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Society deems it worse, if the reason they were killed was solely because they were gay or black. If, on the otherhand, they were having an affair with your lover behind your back, and that was the only reason you killed them, then their being gay or black wouldn't be an issue.
Society is more accepting of the revenge motive of a jilted lover than the hate motive of a racist or homophobe.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:07 amComment by TripMaster Monkey
I always figured you as a closet right winger.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:07 amWhat about Columbine or High school students,should the be packing heat too?
And at VT.,who is to say that those with guns would have been in the right place at the right time?
Face it,parents of college students will not send them to a school where other students are armed.
It's time for you to re-new your NRA. membership.
Juan,
We ignore the need for mental health here in the US. Mental health is stigmatized. Lots of people are walking around on the brink of snapping. More than we would like to know about. My estimate is that 80 to 95 percent of all people are dysfunctional. My father in law disclosed to me would have no problem killing someone if he could get away with it. Also the lack of justice in everyday life might contribute. The attitudes taught to people don't help either. Just my opinion.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:07 amSo, it was a “hate-crime†then.
can a minority be charged with a hate crime?
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:11 am
I didn't know a DEAD PERSON could be charged with anything.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:08 amComment by Juan C — April 17, 2007 @ 11:03 am
I'd quote specific parts of your post, Juan, but there would be little point. You're just taking the argument to ridiculous, unreasonable extremes again...which is interesting, considering that your solution (getting rid of all weapons) is merely another ridiculous, unreasonable extreme. While it may be in the opposite direction, the point remains that it is demonstrably unfeasible, and thus need not be considered seriously.
We have weapons here, Juan. That's not going to change, regardless of what laws are passed. Criminalizing them will only insure that only the criminals possess them. It is unreasonable to demand that the police protect me and mine every minute of every day. Given that, I'm baffled by your steadfast drive to prevent me from defending myself.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:11 amOne student with a gun on him could have ended this whole thing with a few simple shots to this thugs head. It is time we change the law to allow more law abiding people to carry protection IMO.
Comment by Roger_Roger Debate_Dodger — April 17, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Dude, I don't know about you, but the last place we need is another OK at the gun corral at college campuses.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:13 amI may be 40 (soon to be 41), but I remember college like it was yesterday. Lots a fun, tons of beer, plenty of pre-marital sex! (oh yeah, umm, that education thingy too)
But, with alcohol consumption, comes arguing and fighting over the tiniest of things.
Every student packing a gun for protection is just asking for more murders, not less
Given that, I’m baffled by your steadfast drive to prevent me from defending myself.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
I didnt say that the second part of my post were your words. Those ARE MY WORDS in a despair mood. You defend your position. I say that position will produce more VA Techs, as we have seen.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:15 amYes, what the heck is Homeland Security doing anyway? Wiretapping political foes, that’s what they’re doing while foreign nationals are buying firearms, that’s what.
Comment by veritas — April 17, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Exactly. And only OUR TROLLS feel safer. Obviously they are POLITICAL INSIDERS who put their party and political connections before the United States and the constitution. America didn't get to be great because of sellouts like the Administration, our trolls and basically all neocons.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:16 amWe ignore the need for mental health here in the US. Mental health is stigmatized. Lots of people are walking around on the brink of snapping.
Comment by ForTruth
NOW YOU TELL ME!
April 17th, 2007 at 11:16 amComment by TM M. Dummy — April 17, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Reply to me with a real name and I'll discuss the matter with you, as I am with Juan.
Continue to snipe from cover of a false name, and I'll continue to give your posts all the consideration they merit.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:16 am#119......
"extremely small caliber handguns..."
a 9mm? WTF
April 17th, 2007 at 11:18 am....and as well, not powerful? a 9mm? This is the weapon du jour for most law enforcement agencies. Powerful, rapid fire, huge magazine...
April 17th, 2007 at 11:21 amYou are usually a little more knowledgable, Roger squared....
One student with a gun on him could have ended this whole thing with a few simple shots to this thugs head. It is time we change the law to allow more law abiding people to carry protection IMO.
Comment by Roger_Roger
There you go, Trip. This is what life looks like from a decadent, fearing society.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:22 amI would think so. But if a white man kills a black man, it is automatically called a “hate crimeâ€. If a straight man kills a gay man, it is automatically called a “hate crimeâ€.
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:24 am
hacker are you hung over today or something.
If a white man kills a black man to take his wallet it is not a hate crime. If he shoots him because he is black that is a hate crime. If the shooter is dead, again, he can't be tried for any kind of crime.
You white men are so sensitive. If you don't want to be accused of hate crimes then don't commit any.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:24 amNext time, use the /sarc or something (/Dale) so I know where you’re coming from.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 17, 2007 @ 10:27 am
Frankly I believe hacker bob was just backpeddling and using Jake as an excuse for his first post.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:25 amJuan C sez:
You don't need to tell me what life looks like in a decadent, fearing society, Juan. I live it every day.
I'll say it again. Absent some sort of magic wand we can wave and disappear all weapons, or instill values and morals in all our population, or redress the frightful social and economic injustices that are perpetrated in this country every day, I'll hold onto my weapons, thanks.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:28 amVT had a POLICY of not allowing weapons on campus. It was a really effective deterrent, wasn’t it?
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Obviously not enforced. The shooter was a student with weapons on campus. Maybe if the VT had enforced the no weapons policy everybody would be alive.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:29 amIs it worse if a gay man or a black man is killed?
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Is it worse when a white man is killed? If a black man gets a rifle and only shoots white people it would also be a hate crime. Why is this even an issue? Can't you even find a relevant distraction.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:32 amHey, we can admit when you’re wrong also! :-)
j/k
Comment by Dale
:-P
hahaha
April 17th, 2007 at 11:35 amI’ll hold onto my weapons, thanks.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Criminals say the same thing.
Not trying to be pushy. Im just really sad about what happened yesterday.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:35 amToday, we have a cabal of criminals that has hijacked our government and is doing their utmost to dismantle this framework of freedom. I’ll just hold onto my weapons, thanks
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I couldn't agree more. Under the current administration with all their lies and infractions on civil liberties this is the time when average Americans need to hold onto their weapons.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:36 amJuan C sez:
Thanks for proving my point for me.
As am I.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:39 amand why have manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. when they’re just extra labels?
Comment by pgw — April 17, 2007 @ 10:44 am
These decide intent.
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Forget the hangover, are you drunk? Hate crime is based on "intent".
April 17th, 2007 at 11:40 amCriminals say the same thing.
Thanks for proving my point for me.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Eye for an eye. That will take us far, Im sure.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:40 amComment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Maybe so. But hacker bob should understand by now that as he returns to playing the part of a "Loyal Bushie" so too will his nightmares return.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:46 amJuan C sez:
I'm not advocating revenge. I'm advocating self-defense.
AGAIN, Juan, stop misrepresenting my position. You're better than that.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:47 amI agree with Juan in theory and I prefer peace.
However,
With the current political situation in this country, I have for the first time, considered getting a gun.
I don't beleive it will be possible to remove guns from the hands of criminals.
It must be the energy here in the USA.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:49 amA simple solution to the gun control problem:
The Constitution gives each citizen the right to bear arms. It does not grant the right to shoot those arms. All firearms should have the firing pin (or other mechanism) removed permanently. At any time a person carrying a firearm can be required by any law enforcement officer to place the firearm to his head and pull the trigger. Refusal to do so will result in immediate imprisonment for a minimum of ten years.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:50 amUnless you can cite which of the two studies (or both) they *made up*?
Comment by Dale — April 17, 2007 @ 11:03 am
All I know their is no link or footnote to the study the Chicago group is citing. Hard to check what the studies said with no footnotes. And again it's a right wing economic policy group. Not a science group that had findings published.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:50 amI know I would be pissed right now as a parent knowing that the school didn’t allow there students to carry protection. One student with a gun on him could have ended this whole thing with a few simple shots to this thugs head.
Comment by Roger_Roger — April 17, 2007 @ 11:04 am
The shooter was a student with two guns on campus. Any weapons restrictions on campus were NOT ENFORCED. Which means any student, like the shooter, could have had a gun on campus.
So your proposal is to allow all students to carry a gun to class? And that would make you feel safer while your kid is in college?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:55 amAGAIN, Juan, stop misrepresenting my position. You’re better than that.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
You said you will hold to your weapons. What if criminals hold better weapons? What if criminals have tanks, flamethrowers, machine guns, planes? You would have to improve your weaponry as well, if I understand your right of holding arms for protection, right? When does it end?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:56 amOk, so I'm guessing you cowboys who want more guns on school campuses figure that out of 32,000 VT students there was only one wacko? Your plans to arm the campus, even those that have been vetted in some way, will only introduce many more options for the rest of the nuts that walk that campus. Think about it for one minute, rationally. Last time I was attending college, students were little balls of stress. I can easily envision a student snapping for any number of reasons (revenge a failing grade, a cheating lover, loss of scholarship, etc.), then in that moment of rage and anger, set off to find one of the many guns hidden around the campus. Only thing you'd have to do is ambush someone, knock 'em out, and grab their gun. Murder-rates on campus would skyrocket, suicides would triple.
Smart thinking gun-toters. America is not the OK Corral, FFS.
And another thing, gun crimes are miniscule in other countries. Maybe look and see what those countries are doing right? Or what they're not doing wrong. Just a thought...
April 17th, 2007 at 12:34 pmTMM @ 148 it must be clear to you by now that you're wasting your time.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:44 pmJuan C sez:
Again, Juan, you persist in steering the argument into absurd flights of fancy. In the idealized world in which you seem to have based your argument, where all manner of armaments can be had for the asking, I suppose an insane arms race like the one you are proposing would be possible. In the real world, however, where these things cost money, economics puts the brakes on your scenario.
Again, Juan, this is the real world we are living in here.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pmRegarding Purgegate
Is it just me or does anyone else think that Gonzo is just the middleman getting the shiev from Sampson and Rove?
It seems to me that Sampson worked for Rove, and got all his directives from Rove, which he then relayed to Gonzo, who simply was being informed of what was going to occur. Gonzo was never a decision maker, he was a cog in the wheel.
The folks who were running DOJ were Sampson and Rove. Sampson is Rove's boy and now he and Rove are squashing Gonzo.
Gonzo is going down because they are going to release all types of information that implicates and incriminates Gonzo, simply because Gonzo was the man with the authority even though he willingly abdicated his responsibilities and duties to Rove and Sampson.
Is it just me who sees this?
After all Sampson was Rove's constant 'traveling companion' and Rove is called Turdblossom..which means that Sampson was his buttboy, no?
April 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pmGonzo will certainly be sacrificed if that's what it takes to save Karl.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pmKarl is Bush's brain.
George cannot possibly function without being directed.
Especially as his delusional empire crumbles daily around his feet, with one appointee after another being asked to testify, George will become increasingly isolationist and dependant on Karl and Dick to prop him up.
Scary.
In the real world, however, where these things cost money, economics puts the brakes on your scenario.
Again, Juan, this is the real world we are living in here.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
I was going to point out that economic brakes havent prevented the poorest African countries from getting weaponry to slaughter their own population. Or that a bum gets a gun in order to rob a shop, or a passionate teenager from killing his rivals...but, you have already made up your mind. Lets continue this way. Lets what other tragedies we have to see.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:04 pmPolicy PREVENTS crime.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 10:16 am
VT had a POLICY of not allowing weapons on campus. It was a really effective deterrent, wasn’t it?
Not enforced. Yourself are answering your own question. A law not enforced is the same as no law at all. But we know that you don't want laws restricting weapon possession, isn't?
Everything points to a violent culture too prone to acquire weapons.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 10:16 am
So, you are saying that S.Korea has a violent culture? Or are you implying that he only became violent after coming to the US?
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:28 am
You're really good playing dumb, bob. The culture that has provided the violent boy with weapons has been the USA one. Think of it: if he had a green card, wasn't because he had no criminal background? Maybe the last time he was angry only punched a nose back in Korea, because he had no easy access to firearms?
And another thing: how many of these rampages have been done by full american boys? How many have been comitted by fresh vets from any war? Almost every time you see a shooting in a McDonalds, you can check the shooter background and, alas, he was licensed few months ago, had a couple "best shooter" medals, and lacked mental health care back at home.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pmThat L.A. times article is really just plain wrong. The anti-gun-control crowd are definitely raising this incident as an illustration for the need to allow college students with conceal and carry licenses to be able to carry on campus. They say that this will allow them to fight back when something like this happens. Whether you agree with that or not is immaterial to the fact that the L.A. times article says that the anti-gun-control is silent on the issue.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:20 pmI just want to say about the VA Tech shootings that the "news" and TV people keep asking the question, "how can we prevent this from happening." The short answer: you can't. Yup, it sucks. But there isn't much you can feasibly do to prevent this from ever happening again.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:23 pmComment by johnnyRocketpants — April 17, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
No one is saying "Arm all the students"
What I am saying is "Don't deny them the right to arm themselves."
April 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pmhacker are you hung over today or something.
Not at all.
If a white man kills a black man to take his wallet it is not a hate crime. If he shoots him because he is black that is a hate crime.
In either case, is the victim any less dead? Is it any more or less a crime? Murder is murder.
If the shooter is dead, again, he can’t be tried for any kind of crime.
No Sh*t.
You white men are so sensitive. If you don’t want to be accused of hate crimes then don’t commit any
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:24 am
So, are you saying that only white men commit hate crimes?
April 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pmFrankly I believe hacker bob was just backpeddling and using Jake as an excuse for his first post.
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:25 am
You should know by now that I will pretty much tell you what I think with no backpeddling.
Obviously not enforced. The shooter was a student with weapons on campus. Maybe if the VT had enforced the no weapons policy everybody would be alive.
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:29 am
And how do you expect them to enforce it? What about the ones that live off campus?
Is it worse when a white man is killed?
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:32 am
No
If a black man gets a rifle and only shoots white people it would also be a hate crime.
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:32 am
How often do you see a minority charged with hate crimes?
Forget the hangover, are you drunk? Hate crime is based on “intentâ€.
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:40 am
1. First Degree Murder: All premeditated murders, and (in some states) murders involving certain especially dangerous felonies, such as arson or rape, or committed by an inmate serving a life sentence.
2. Second Degree Murder: Non pre-meditated killing.
3. Voluntary manslaughter cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for murder is mitigated by the circumstances and state of mind. The most common example is the so-called heat of passion killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of a lover or witnessing an attack against his or her child.
4. Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.
All murders pretty much fall into one of these four categories. Can you show me one that requires "hate" to be a motivator? When you commit murder, you do not have love for your victims.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:55 pmComment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
The thing you are missing is that it is not the gun manufacturers fault that this kid went on this rampage. It is also not societies fault, the girlfriends fault, the medias fault, rock music, rap music, or little green men. It is Cho Seung-Hui's fault.
You are painting the killer as another victim.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:59 pmComment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
The thing you are missing is that it is not the gun manufacturers fault that this kid went on this rampage. It is also not societies fault, the girlfriends fault, the medias fault, rock music, rap music, or little green men. It is Cho Seung-Hui’s fault.
You are painting the killer as another victim.
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
No, bob. The killer isn't a victim. But the USA society has facilitated greatly his rampage.
Control closely the number of weapons in the street and killers would have a harsher time obtaining guns, making them far easier to stop BEFORE the shooting.
It's not so hard to understand. You have already laws banning free possession of large amounts of explosives. Why? Because is too easy to harm innocents. Why must have automatic, semi-automatic, weapons with large clips, pistols and handguns a different treatment?
April 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI think you're extending the scope of this incident... this involved two handguns, certainly not automatic weapons.
But the simple answer to "Why?" is the 2nd ammendment; the people's right to bear arms.
April 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pmhacker bob
What I am saying is “Don’t deny them the right to arm themselves.â€
Including every nut on campus. Your calls for armed self defense would clearly end in many more bloodbaths, but you envision the one outcome in which the perpetrator would be identified, targeted, and killed without incident. Every other possible outcome and scenario would be a disaster, and you should be able to see that. Can you not envision your scenario going wildly wrong? Can you not envision the cops blowing away someone wrongly identified in the chaos, or one vigilante gunning down another vigilante in the fray, or as I said earlier, a criminal mugging and killing a weaker student for his or her gun?
I understand you believe what you do because you never want this to happen again, however I submit to you bob, and the rest, the risks of an armed-up campus would greatly over-shadow the one narrow possibility of identifying, targeting, and downing a suspect without further incident. You must be able to recognize the other possibilities of your theory, particularly in an environment filled with stress, alcohol and youthful indiscretion. But maybe you don't.
April 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pmMy apologies in advance as I don't have the time nor the patience to do my own research...
April 17th, 2007 at 2:38 pmbut wasn't there a similar incident in Australia awhile back? and wasn't there a ban on all assault weapons? and wasn't there a more strict gun policy afterwards?
and didn't the violent crime rate, especially gun crimes, fall drastically?
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Automatic weapons are banned.
Here is an interesting article on the effects of the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in September. As you see, it did not have the intended effects.
Do you advocate the Government going into peoples houses and taking their firearms? That is one way to reduce the number of legally acquired and possessed weapons. How are you going to get to the unregistered, illegally obtained weapons? At what point do only criminals have guns while the rest of the population do not?
Society is not guilty of facilitating greatly in this kids rampage. He is. He is the only one responsible.
April 17th, 2007 at 2:44 pmComment by johnnyRocketpants — April 17, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
You make it sound as if every student would be out there playing "Dirty Harry". You have to consider that even if they were allowed to arm themselves, very few would.
Yes, there could be drastic problems, and I agree that the school has the right to have that policy. I am talking about the over all picture. Why would we want to take away peoples Constitutional rights because of fear?
April 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pmhacker bob
You make it sound as if every student would be out there playing “Dirty Harryâ€
Out of a population of 32,000 students, you would only need a fraction of a percent playing "Dirty Harry" to cause a disaster. It's a very real possibility bob, you should be able to see that. One tenth of one percent is all you'd need for dozens of students playing vigilante. End result, disaster.
Why would we want to take away peoples Constitutional rights because of fear?
Bob, come on, fear is the motivating factor for all those who believe they must arm-up. What other than fear drives those who conceal weapons for self-defense? And those people motivated by fear really REALLY shouldn't be walking around a campus with a gun. Again, that scenario will bring much more bad than good.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pmReally. I don't live in fear and I "arm-up". I do not carry a gun everywhere, but I have them (not in my home at the time though). And I probably live in on of the safest communities in the country. I like to shoot, plain and simple. I carry one when I drive cross country as well. If the car breaks down, they are a great was of dispatching a feral dog or something.
So it is not always fear that is the motivator.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pmI'm glad you don't live in fear bob, perhaps I over-stated by saying "all". Of course, you'd recognize others do live in fear and arm-up, correct? That would be disastrous, no?
My point is, adding more guns to a stressful, alcohol-fueled, youthful environment would certainly shed just as much innocent blood, 9 time out of 10.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:34 pmGuns are already banned at Va Tech. Apparantly, gun control doesn't work.
Ah, another mention of global warmnig here on one of the indoctrination sites. I say "global" you say "warming."
"Global!" ....
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. The climate has warmed about 0.6C in the past 100 years, but most of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the post World War II industrialisation that led to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming."
Dr. de Freitas has expressed similar distrust of the global climate models developed and used by scientists as they "do not adequately handle key aspects of the climate system, such as the role of clouds and aspects of heat transfer in ocean circulation." Until such models are more reliable, argues Dr. de Freitas, they cannot be made the basis for sound public policy.
Global warming supporter Ronald Baily says about Al Gore, "On balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science (we'll leave the policy stuff to another time), but he undercuts his message by becoming the opposite of a global warming denier. He's a global warming exaggerator."
Over the past 70 years, the city of Lewiston, Idaho has seen their annual mean temperature drop by .48 degrees. So if the rest of the planet is heating up, we can all move to Lewiston, ID to cool down.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:12 pmComment by muckdog
Guns are already banned at Va Tech. Apparantly (sic), gun control doesn’t work.
Good lord, you think gun control has even been remotely attempted in America? Pfff... Nice try.
Also, how many campuses in the US have a no gun policy and have never been shot up? By your logic, that proves a no gun policy on campus does work much more often than not. Your pathetic argument holds no value.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pmHere is an interesting article on the effects of the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in September.
Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
The last paragraph:
The people most likely to be targeted by those with assault rifles according to the article: law enforcement personnel.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pm