Jump to content
Dr. McNinja

U.S. Representative, 17 others victims of shooting

Recommended Posts

and what does this have to do with congressional candidates, radio hosts, etc. calling for assassination of political leaders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH MY GAH YOU DON'T SEE THE BIG PICTURE?!

 

just kidding

 

it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Lemur was implying that my statements about assasinations were eccentric - which is what most people do when they hear things that are uncommon. They assume because it's an anomaly of thought it's incorrect. I'd sooner believe this and be called a conspiracy theorist than be a naive tool that actually believes my history professors when they say

 

oh boy that Booth etc. was just dumb ole gun totin' racist huk huk huk huk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OH MY GAH YOU DON'T SEE THE BIG PICTURE?!

 

just kidding

 

it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Lemur was implying that my statements about assasinations were eccentric - which is what most people do when they hear things that are uncommon. They assume because it's an anomaly of thought it's incorrect. I'd sooner believe this and be called a conspiracy theorist than be a naive tool that actually believes my history professors when they say

 

oh boy that Booth etc. was just dumb ole gun totin' racist huk huk huk huk

 

I think you're a little quick to assume my political beliefs.

First, the main point of my post was just for some humor espically since you and only a small few still on this site remember the Atlantean conspiracy shinanigans from a few years ago. No need for the hostility, i was just trying to share a joke.

Second i'm pretty confident that many times the government is used as a tool for market "big business" exploitation, and probably vice versa. And this relationship has for sure been behind assassinations (like the assload of evidence that the CIA tried multiple times to kill Castro). I do however take exception to your specific scenario that all presidential assassinations were tied to their drive to get rid of the debt monetary system, that type of monolithic thinking based on fragments of unverified "facts" is what starts to sound very conspiracy theorist.

 

tl;dr:

-Big Gov/Big Business enact assassinations (potentially against presidents) to further their interests -pretty probable.

 

-All presidential killings have been assassinations tied to one specific policy dealing with the monetary system- just to many logical leaps for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second i'm pretty confident that many times the government is used as a tool for market "big business" exploitation

I don't think you understand my point I'm trying to address. The entire system is designed for big business exploitation - aka the world banks.

The government is a customer to banks just like we are. That is a huge problem, particularly when our founding fathers primary concerns were with that of banking institutions:

 

Benjamin Franklin on the disparity between the rich and poor in Britain, and the rich and poor in the colonies:

 

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”

 

This comes at a time when England was jailing people who could not pay their debts.

 

When asked how this was possible he replied:

 

“That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one.

 

I think Jefferson states it perfectly:

 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

 

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

 

 

 

I do however take exception to your specific scenario that all presidential assassinations were tied to their drive to get rid of the debt monetary system, that type of monolithic thinking based on fragments of unverified "facts" is what starts to sound very conspiracy theorist.
I never made the claim that all presidential assassinations were over this, I'm saying the two prominent ones are

 

There's a lot in common between Kennedy's and Lincoln's assasinations

 

1. fought to end the federal reserve (Greenbacks and Silver certificates)

 

2. issued sovereign currency (greenbacks, silver certificates)

 

3. dismissed fractal banking

 

The only others assassinated were Garfield and Mckinley

 

Garfield was murdered by political opponents that wanted his vice president in office.

 

Mckinley was shot by an anarchist.

 

 

It's hard to explain much without a background however,

 

It's the same reason the British fought the colonists. If you think it was about our independence, you're mistaken. The British didn't give a fuck that we were free, they cared that we were trading in scrip, our own sovereign monetary system. The British came over, and kicked us into economic submission via giving us plentiful supply of gold and silver. As if the French chased them off and had a military victory for once...

 

Ala - the birth of fiat currency and the debt monetary system we're in. (they've fiated over 750 trillion dollars worth of gold, and there's only ever been two olympic sized swimming pools of gold mined in the world)

 

You do the math on whose burden that is to bare. (No I'm not proposing a gold standard, that plays right back into the hands of the bankers)

 

 

-All presidential killings have been assassinations tied to one specific policy dealing with the monetary system- just to many logical leaps for me.

Again, I never said all assasinations -

 

You brush it off as if it's a small insignificant policy.... IT'S AN ENTIRE OVERHAUL OF OUR ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE. Night and day difference.

 

That being, as per Article 1 Section 8 the government has a sovereign right to create its own currency.

No longer would the government be a customer to the world banking cartel,

and money would be introduced as wealth not debt

 

That would piss off elitists that profit from our current system of debt slavery. It's a vortex economic theory that is well known and cited among elitists. I mean, who better to learn from than the best criminals, Ponzi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
remember the Atlantean conspiracy shinanigans from a few years ago

not shenanigans, totally legit

 

they've also revamped their website which makes me even more convinced that secret bloodlines have been controlling the USA since its creation

 

also: @ Hulk, where can I read authors that support your views? I want to learn more about this without wasting a lot of your time.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside to this conversation, if you want to talk about reckless endangerment, you should look at this link......

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alleged_Natural_Born_Killers_copycat_crimes

 

In law, they have the 'but for test' and the 'foreseeability test.'

 

Sarah Palin is a monster, there is no doubt about that now. Are you familiar with Westbrook Pegler? The avowed facist that called for the assassination of FDR among others? Palin quoted him during the 2008 Republican national convention. Make know mistake: she know what she was doing when she used the phrase 'Blood Libel.'

 

While I am open to considering the causality of Palin's crosshairs map, with Oliver Stone, it's case closed.....

 

The movie Natural Born Killers CAUSED the murders of several people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aside to this conversation, if you want to talk about reckless endangerment, you should look at this link......

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alleged_Natural_Born_Killers_copycat_crimes

 

In law, they have the 'but for test' and the 'foreseeability test.'

 

Sarah Palin is a monster, there is no doubt about that now. Are you familiar with Westbrook Pegler? The avowed facist that called for the assassination of FDR among others? Palin quoted him during the 2008 Republican national convention. Make know mistake: she know what she was doing when she used the phrase 'Blood Libel.'

 

While I am open to considering the causality of Palin's crosshairs map, with Oliver Stone, it's case closed.....

 

The movie Natural Born Killers CAUSED the murders of several people.

 

 

It's quite a leap to say that Sarah Palin is calling for the assassination of political figures (especially vague ones, as in Giffords,) by putting a crosshairs over their districts. That becomes particularly relevant as Loughner expressed political ideologies more toward that of the radical left, meaning that the message would have had to be especially enticing.

 

 

And if the movie "CAUSED" the murders of several people, so then should those that committed those crimes be found not guilty by reason of insanity? (or some derivative of that?) It seems like dangerous territory to enter, blaming real insanity on the viewing of a film. Or a television show. Or a video game. How do you delineate the two?

 

Edit: I noticed it was on Netflix instant queue, and I watched the first twenty or so minutes of it. NBK certainly glamorizes the acts, but I worry about stretching it into being a causal factor in the allegedly copycat murders.

Edited by Dr. McNinja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, say what you will about her sense of taste/decency, it's quite a stretch to say that Palin (or any pundit) could ever be a reasonably foreseeable cause of murder through words alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: I noticed it was on Netflix instant queue, and I watched the first twenty or so minutes of it. NBK certainly glamorizes the acts, but I worry about stretching it into being a causal factor in the allegedly copycat murders.

If you hear that a movie turns people into insane killers and then decide to go watch it on Netflix something is probably wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that have never studied the law, people that have never taken a class in Torts, stumble and fall on ascribing appropriate levels of blame.

 

I would not try to ascribe an intentional agenda to Sarah Palin, although I have heard hints of it. What I would suggest is that she was reckless. If you get so drunk that you are driving on the wrong side of the highway and you end up killing 3 people, the charge won't be murder, the charge will be reckless homicide.

 

The William Savage case that John Grisham (the writer) helped take to court would not have been an attempt to charge the director Oliver Stone with murder, rather, it was likely an attempt to prove Stone reckless.

 

Recklessness is not a charge of intent, but a very serious charge nonetheless.

 

Speaking philosophically, and not legally, simply ask yourself, was 'Sarah Palin behaving recklessly?' 'Could she have foreseen this happening?' Yes. 'Could Oliver Stone see the copycat crimes happening?' Of course. The courts probably aren't going to rectify the injustice, but philosophically, ethically speaking? Sarah Palin was being very reckless in posting her crosshairs map, and even more reckless for not taking it down after being warned. Would you trust her to have her finger on a nuclear trigger?

 

Ha fucking ha.

Edited by Hephaestus
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

 

BRB, not giving a shit about media matters

 

The William Savage case that John Grisham (the writer) helped take to court would not have been an attempt to charge the director Oliver Stone with murder, rather, it was likely an attempt to prove Stone reckless.

 

Recklessness is not a charge of intent, but a very serious charge nonetheless.

 

Speaking philosophically, and not legally, simply ask yourself, was 'Sarah Palin behaving recklessly?' 'Could she have foreseen this happening?' Yes. 'Could Oliver Stone see the copycat crimes happening?' Of course. The courts probably aren't going to rectify the injustice, but philosophically, ethically speaking? Sarah Palin was being very reckless in posting her crosshairs map, and even more reckless for not taking it down after being warned. Would you trust her to have her finger on a nuclear trigger?

 

Ha fucking ha.

 

So then should we take any movie or television show or video game that glorifies crime and then assert that those that could have "foreseeable recklessness"?

 

In that light it's really quite easy to show how silly that idea is. Movies are the biggest spots where we see such criminal behavior glorified- Martin Scorsese made his early career of it. What of Television? Dexter is a big shining example of making murder look like a good thing- the entire premise is 1) dexter likes to kill people, but 2) it's okay because he only kills bad guys. How could that not be seen as "reckless"? And what about video games? The lists abound, and in your viewpoint, titles like Grand Theft Auto could very easily be made to blame for the poor choices of those that played the games.

 

 

"Could Scorsese foresee a potential surge in illicit activities after promoting the behavior in three decades' worth of film?"

 

"Could Showtime foresee a potential surge in homicide after having a show promoting it for four years?"

 

"Could Rockstar games foresee a potential surge in crime after promoting the behavior over 10 titles and 10 years of the GTA series?"

 

 

It's intellectually irresponsible to throw the blame anywhere else than with the poor decisions of the individual (lest they be insane, but those are still essentially of the individual,) and more so, it destroys the entire notion of justice in those cases. And, as I've already mentioned, Jared Loughner was established on the radical left. If her message was strong enough to permeate diametric ideologies, then why haven't we been seeing similar activity from those considered much more malleable?

Edited by Dr. McNinja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that light it's really quite easy to show how silly that idea is. Movies are the biggest spots where we see such criminal behavior glorified- Martin Scorsese made his early career of it. What of Television? Dexter is a big shining example of making murder look like a good thing- the entire premise is 1) dexter likes to kill people, but 2) it's okay because he only kills bad guys. How could that not be seen as "reckless"? And what about video games? The lists abound, and in your viewpoint, titles like Grand Theft Auto could very easily be made to blame for the poor choices of those that played the games.

 

We censor. It's just a matter of how much, and when.

 

There are a lot of standards you could use. Songs or movies that have 'an explicitly cavalier portrayal of violence that betrays any kind of moral sensibility' might be a standard. Video games that take 'a particular felony crime and turn it into the object of the game' might might be another.

 

I haven't seen Dexter, so I won't comment. Grand Theft Auto? It should have never hit the market. Natural Born Killers? No way. Doom, or Mortal Combat? I don't have a problem with these games. I don't think games like that motivate people to kill. It has to do with foreseeability - you ask yourself if it's likely that someone would watch it, and then turn around and commit the crimes portrayed, and if you have a pretty sound fear of it, then maybe it shouldn't be on the market. A lot of gansta' rap shouldn't be on the market. I know there are a lot of black people that would love to have it taken off the shelves.

 

Movie makers, like little high school students called in for curfew, will say 'but you let 'the Afflicted' on the market, why not NBK?!?!?! Well, your answer is right there under the section on 'Natural Born Killers Copycat Crimes.' To be honest, this 'slippery slope' mentality is sounding a little sophomoric, a little petulant to me at this stage.

 

I am advocating a pretty broad scope of acceptable videos. There are no Scorsese films that bother me. There are no Stone or Tartantino films that bother me either, other than NBK. There are no video games that bother me either - except Grand Theft Auto - I've never played it, but I get the idea.

 

I remember watching NBK when it first came out. I walked out of the theater thinking to myself 'some group of Mississippi morons are going to watch that movie 10 times on LSD and go around killing people.' Sure enough, that's exactly what happened. I don't get that from a Scorcese film. I don't get that watching the NFL, playing Big Buck Hunter, or watching 'Twin Peaks.' NBK was more than just an R rated gangster flick. It gored the psyche of a lot of people that watched it.

 

People can draw their distinctions between the entertainment world and the political world so they can demonize Sarah Palin and play Grand Theft Auto at the same time. That distinction isn't relevant to William Savage, the innocent victim of Oliver Stone's warped fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love how Nancy Pelosi called this an "accident"

 

Silly leftist euphemistic rhetoric (i.e. estate tax instead of death tax, progressive tax, social security, living wage instead of minimum wage, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We censor. It's just a matter of how much, and when.

 

There are a lot of standards you could use. Songs or movies that have 'an explicitly cavalier portrayal of violence that betrays any kind of moral sensibility' might be a standard. Video games that take 'a particular felony crime and turn it into the object of the game' might might be another.

 

Lol, you think GTA is about grand theft auto.

 

I haven't seen Dexter, so I won't comment. Grand Theft Auto? It should have never hit the market. Natural Born Killers? No way. Doom, or Mortal Combat? I don't have a problem with these games. I don't think games like that motivate people to kill. It has to do with foreseeability - you ask yourself if it's likely that someone would watch it, and then turn around and commit the crimes portrayed, and if you have a pretty sound fear of it, then maybe it shouldn't be on the market. A lot of gansta' rap shouldn't be on the market. I know there are a lot of black people that would love to have it taken off the shelves.

 

You clearly don't know what GTA is about, so yeah, you should probably not comment about that either. Doom and Mortal Kombat are games very well defined within the fantasy genre, nice try though.

 

Your standards destroy free speech, but worse than that, they disregard in entirety that we as individuals within society are culpable for our decisions. In your world, people aren't responsible for their actions, which means in your world, justice can never be attained. I'm finding it more and more difficult to even find a reason to respond to your posts.

 

 

Movie makers, like little high school students called in for curfew, will say 'but you let 'the Afflicted' on the market, why not NBK?!?!?! Well, your answer is right there under the section on 'Natural Born Killers Copycat Crimes.' To be honest, this 'slippery slope' mentality is sounding a little sophomoric, a little petulant to me at this stage.

 

HOLY SHIT that was an obscure movie reference. I don't think anyone would say that about the Afflicted, but that's mostly because I don't think anyone would have 1) even heard about it, but 2) watch such a clearly awful (read: awful, as in piece-of-shit) movie. It's also as easy as reading the plot summary to understand how the two films differ.

 

 

I am advocating a pretty broad scope of acceptable videos. There are no Scorsese films that bother me. There are no Stone or Tartantino films that bother me either, other than NBK. There are no video games that bother me either - except Grand Theft Auto - I've never played it, but I get the idea.

 

"I am advocating a pretty broad scope of acceptable videos."

 

This would be a more important point of yours, had it not been an indictment of your lack of knowledge of film. You mention Scorsese's work as films that are okay, but only because I mentioned them as a counterpoint to your flawed logic.

 

Scorsese has made his career of crime films, all of which demonstrate

 

"an explicitly cavalier portrayal of violence that betrays any kind of moral sensibility"

 

His movies never end with the good guys winning because they're the good guys- it's always about mistakes made by the bad guys. Goodfellas, Casino and The Departed are all a showcase of mistakes which otherwise glorify criminal behavior.

 

You then mention Stone's work, thinking of Natural Born Killers. If you knew film, you would know to not mention Stone's other work as okay films, because you would know that the only film Stone made like Natural Born Killers was - you guessed it - Natural Born Killers. Tarantino got tossed in most likely because you thought of Inglourious Basterds, which then made you backtrack to Pulp Fiction. (But in the process you forgot about the incredibly more violent than either, Kill Bill.)

 

In that regard, Kill Bill is a doozy.

 

"an explicitly cavalier portrayal of violence that betrays any kind of moral sensibility"

 

- Crazy 88s fight

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4lrUR1bdRI&feature=related - Final Fight Volume 1. (The Bride vs. Cottonmouth)

 

The Crazy 88s fight is probably one of the most violent scenes in film in recent history.

 

(Warning: As you have probably gathered, these are both very graphic scenes)

 

 

 

I remember watching NBK when it first came out. I walked out of the theater thinking to myself 'some group of Mississippi morons are going to watch that movie 10 times on LSD and go around killing people.' Sure enough, that's exactly what happened. I don't get that from a Scorcese film. I don't get that watching the NFL, playing Big Buck Hunter, or watching 'Twin Peaks.' NBK was more than just an R rated gangster flick. It gored the psyche of a lot of people that watched it.

 

That's an oddly specific thought. Maybe you should hire yourself out as a predictor of very obscure happenings. Also, NFL, wtf? and Big Buck Hunter, I would assume those people go out and shoot dee-OH SHIT YOU'RE RIGHT!

 

 

People can draw their distinctions between the entertainment world and the political world so they can demonize Sarah Palin and play Grand Theft Auto at the same time. That distinction isn't relevant to William Savage, the innocent victim of Oliver Stone's warped fantasy.

 

Not even bothering to respond to this.

 

It's quite a leap to say that Sarah Palin is calling for the assassination of political figures (especially vague ones, as in Giffords,) by putting a crosshairs over their districts. That becomes particularly relevant as Loughner expressed political ideologies more toward that of the radical left, meaning that the message would have had to be especially enticing.

 

 

It's intellectually irresponsible to throw the blame anywhere else than with the poor decisions of the individual (lest they be insane, but those are still essentially of the individual,) and more so, it destroys the entire notion of justice in those cases. And, as I've already mentioned, Jared Loughner was established on the radical left. If her message was strong enough to permeate diametric ideologies, then why haven't we been seeing similar activity from those considered much more malleable?
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lists abound, and in your viewpoint, titles like Grand Theft Auto could very easily be made to blame for the poor choices of those that played the games.

 

 

"Could Scorsese foresee a potential surge in illicit activities after promoting the behavior in three decades' worth of film?"

 

"Could Showtime foresee a potential surge in homicide after having a show promoting it for four years?"

 

"Could Rockstar games foresee a potential surge in crime after promoting the behavior over 10 titles and 10 years of the GTA series?"

 

I read your quote here, and presumed when you mentioned GTA that you were referring to Grand Theft Auto. I don't know, I will have to google GTA - I don't play that many video games.

 

People keep saying 'where do you draw the line?' My answer is that it's better to draw the line somewhere rather than not draw any line at all.

 

In the film 'the people versus Larry Flynt,' the Supreme Court asked whether Hustler had any societal purpose. Apparently, that's a standard that's on the books. Why the US government would try to bring up charges against Julian Assange, but allow the film 'Natural Born Killers' is beyond me. To me, what Assange is doing is precisely why we need the freedom of speech. 'Natural Born Killers' is simply dangerous tripe.

 

Oliver Stone movies I have seen: Nixon, Wall Street, Natural Born Killers, Platoon, Talk Radio, Born on the 4th of July, The Doors, JFK, W.

 

Quentin Tarantino Movies I have seen: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Inglorious Basterds (which coincidently I saw last night).

 

Wall Street and Jackie Brown are two of my favorite movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey bro, I just wanted to tell you that your points are all well taken. You don't like my opinion on the matter - a lot of people don't, including many of my friends.

 

There are a couple of things I want to sort out:

 

(1) When I talked about 'the Afflicted,' I meant to say 'the Departed.' Lol. Actually, I thought 'the Afficted' was a pretty good film, but I was thinking Departed when I said it. Silly me.

 

(2) You make the statement 'you think GTA is about grand theft auto.' What are you talking about? Here is the Wikkipedia....

 

"Grand Theft Auto" (commonly abbreviated "GTA") is a video game series created in the United Kingdom by Dave Jones, then later by brothers Dan Houser and Sam Houser, and game designer Zachary Clarke. It is primarily developed by Rockstar North (formerly DMA Design) and published by Rockstar Games. The name of the series and its games are derived from grand theft auto, a term referring to motor vehicle theft.

 

Are you saying the video game isn't about stealing cars? I thought that was the object.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how do you establish Jared's left leaning political ideology, Ms. Palin... er Dr. McNinja?

Just because he believes the guy is a leftist doesn't automatically make him conservative. Come on, haven't your years of debate taught you any objectivity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(2) You make the statement 'you think GTA is about grand theft auto.' What are you talking about? Here is the Wikkipedia....

 

Woah buddy.... that's way too qualified for this forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because he believes the guy is a leftist doesn't automatically make him conservative. Come on, haven't your years of debate taught you any objectivity?

 

debate doesn't teach objectivity, just offense.

 

either way, if the gold standard and sovereign citizenship make you a leftist somebody ring Glenn Beck and Todd Palin. they may want to switch parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...