Shooting at Congressional Baseball Practice

[The Thriller]

Who would be carrying a gun while at baseball practice? That sounds pretty dangerous. If Steve Scalise had not been there with his security detail (as he is the majority whip), these guys would have been sitting ducks. I doubt this guy realized that there was armed security personnel as they were not dressed in a uniform and he likely thought he would have free rein and possibly even get away.

Dangerous? About right on par with asking teachers to pack heat in response to school safety, right?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I understand why people often so desperately want to attach a meta explanation to individual acts. Perhaps, however, the simplest, best explanation is that this was just a single act by a mentally unhinged individual and it's no one's fault but his or whatever mental illness he happens to have. Or perhaps he's just a really, really big dick.

 

[Archie Moses]

I understand why people often so desperately want to attach a meta explanation to individual acts. Perhaps, however, the simplest, best explanation is that this was just a single act by a mentally unhinged individual and it's no one's fault but his or whatever mental illness he happens to have. Or perhaps he's just a really, really big dick.

Well, if you read comments on liberal social media facebook pages, you may be surprised by the amount of people who aren't condemning it, but rather applauding it.
Examples: CNN and Vice.

 

[Stoked]

I understand why people often so desperately want to attach a meta explanation to individual acts. Perhaps, however, the simplest, best explanation is that this was just a single act by a mentally unhinged individual and it's no one's fault but his or whatever mental illness he happens to have. Or perhaps he's just a really, really big dick.

I think it is a given that this, and others that commit similar crimes, have to have some level of derangement. I fully agree that this man is fully responsible for his actions.

On a larger scale I think that his actions are symptomatic of the increasingly heated divide in America. One that is growing in width and vitriol.

 

[Rubashov]

I think it is a given that this, and others that commit similar crimes, have to have some level of derangement. I fully agree that this man is fully responsible for his actions.

On a larger scale I think that his actions are symptomatic of the increasingly heated divide in America. One that is growing in width and vitriol.

Such is the style of modern politics, wedge politics, championed by the american right. I could tee off on this but at 5:30am I haven't got the energy left. Maybe some other time.

 

[DutchJazzer]

To me the answer to this one is put an end to the demonization of anyone that opposes our political leanings.

AMEN!


bernie saunders THE DEZI, told his supporter to up the resitence with hashtag takedowntrump

 

[Stoked]

Such is the style of modern politics, wedge politics, championed by the american right. I could tee off on this but at 5:30am I haven't got the energy left. Maybe some other time.

I'd change that to the political left and right. If you are trying to paint political elite on the right and their ardent supporters as those that engage in the types of tactics you listed I fully agree. I just also think the political elite on the left and their ardent supporters do so as well.

 

[Stoked]

AMEN!


bernie saunders THE DEZI, told his supporter to up the resitence with hashtag takedowntrump

So you intend to tone down your rhetoric and attacks on Sanders and his supporters? Or is it just "the other guys" that need to tone it down?

 

[DutchJazzer]

So you intend to tone down your rhetoric and attacks on Sanders and his supporters? Or is it just "the other guys" that need to tone it down?

nope, i will stop when they stop projecting and calling us nazis and racist and such.

i will preach life liberty property and defense!
the real only 4 rights because they ar egiven by god not by the state. if given by god, they are not infringing on others.

rethoric like this on fake news

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp2eE7hxD0s well he got his wish!

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Well, if you read comments on liberal social media facebook pages, you may be surprised by the amount of people who aren't condemning it, but rather applauding it.
Examples: CNN and Vice.

Applauding the shooting? I very much doubt it. Plus, the fact that you refer to CNN as "liberal social media" already tells me that you lack credibility.

 

[Rubashov]

I'd change that to the political left and right. If you are trying to paint political elite on the right and their ardent supporters as those that engage in the types of tactics you listed I fully agree. I just also think the political elite on the left and their ardent supporters do so as well.

The left have copied it, stupidly, because its not really their game and it contributes to the general trashing of the public discourse. I believe it was the Republicans of the late 80's early 90's that pioneered this crap. Since then its been put on a steroid program that would make Lance Armstrong blush and all we are left with is constant endless bickering over nothing. If you'd come to Australia as a tourist a few months ago and watched the discussion in the Australian Parliament, you'd have assumed that the white hot political issue in the country was the racial discrimination act, not the housing crisis keeping anyone without two incomes and wealthy parents out of the housing market. When dudes from KPMG give lectures saying the market is still affordable when compared to New York, London or Monaco there may be a housing bubble. Yet nobody profits politically from this crisis and there is no minority to scapegoat so nothing is done about it. Then we move on to energy policy...

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think it is a given that this, and others that commit similar crimes, have to have some level of derangement. I fully agree that this man is fully responsible for his actions.

On a larger scale I think that his actions are symptomatic of the increasingly heated divide in America. One that is growing in width and vitriol.

The problem is that this is recency bias that lacks any historial context. You may well be correct, but I'd bet there were similarly 'political inspired' (if that what is was) violence in the good ol' days of yore.

 

[infection]

It's a shame that some people are trying to make this a political issue. Yes, the political rhetoric needs to be chilled. why doesn't the Twitter in Chief set the example?

Let's focus on the facts. The research shows:

• 1. Wealth inequality leads to civic and social destabilization.

• 2. Moderate gun regulation leads to lower gun violence rates.

• 3. Universal health care leads to better health outcomes. Perhaps if this individual had received the health care that they desperately needed he wouldn't have committed such a thoughtless act?

Interesting comment. Discuss how it's a shame that people have made this about politics then list out what you believe are all the political underpinnings to this event (victim blaming?)

Regarding #3, what health care did this individual lack that you believe would have prevented this?

 

[Stoked]

The left have copied it, stupidly, because its not really their game and it contributes to the general trashing of the public discourse. I believe it was the Republicans of the late 80's early 90's that pioneered this crap. Since then its been put on a steroid program that would make lance Armstrong blush and all we are left with is constant endless bickering over nothing. If you'd come to Australia as a tourist a few months ago and watched the discussion in the Australian Parliament, ago you'd have assumed that the white hot political issue in the country was the racial discrimination act, not the housing crisis keeping anyone without two incomes and wealthy parents out of the housing market. When dudes from KPMG give lectures saying the market is still affordable when compared to New York, London or Monaco their may be a housing bubble. Yet nobody profits politically from this crisis and there is no minority to scapegoat so nothing is done about it. Then we move on to energy policy...

I do not care who started it decades ago. I care about who is engaged in it now. They are both clearly engaged in it. The right and it's tea party and religious pandering...the left and it's identity politics dividing by race, orientation... both actively attack those on the other side. I remember the "Obama is a Muslim" and "Republicans want you to die quickly" attacks for example.

The problem is that this is recency bias that lacks any historial context. You may well be correct, but I'd bet there were similarly 'political inspired' (if that what is was) violence in the good ol' days of yore.

Well many things have changed since then that would affect the historical records and how that compares to modern climate. Social media, TV and internet access, firearm tech, different social groups with different aims as opposed to the "good ol' days of yore", improvements in personal transportation...

So there are always variable and things in play as far as that goes.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Well many things have changed since then that would affect the historical records and how that compares to modern climate. Social media, TV and internet access, firearm tech, different social groups with different aims as opposed to the "good ol' days of yore", improvements in personal transportation...

So there are always variable and things in play as far as that goes.

My point is that we remember things that happened recently more than things that happened in the past, and the most distant the past, the less we remember, particularly if we were not alive or were not conscious of such things at that time. The argument seems to be that politically inspired violence is worse today than at some never clearly defined moment in the past. This is an assertion that, it seems to be, suffers from this kind of recency bias and it, also, empirically testable. It might be correct, but my guess is that most people nowadays who make this assertion, are not asserting it with any kind of historical context.

As for the acrimony of the current political climate, my sense is that it is worse today than at other times in my life, but I've read a lot of US history, and I'm pretty certain that even today it does not approach what it's been in other periods of our nation's history, ante and post-bellum periods come to mind.

 

[Stoked]

My point is that we remember things that happened recently more than things that happened in the past, and the most distant the past, the less we remember, particularly if we were not alive or were not conscious of such things at that time. The argument seems to be that politically inspired violence is worse today than at some never clearly defined moment in the past. This is an assertion that, it seems to be, suffers from this kind of recency bias and it, also, empirically testable. It might be correct, but my guess is that most people nowadays who make this assertion, are not asserting it with any kind of historical context.

As for the acrimony of the current political climate, my sense is that it is worse today than at other times in my life, but I've read a lot of US history, and I'm pretty certain that even today it does not approach what it's been in other periods of our nation's history, ante and post-bellum periods come to mind.

And you may very well be correct. But to me it seems to be the worst so far during my life and only getting worse.

But I have no doubt of your point on memory and how that influences our view.

 

[Rubashov]

I do not care who started it decades ago. I care about who is engaged in it now. They are both clearly engaged in it. The right and it's tea party and religious pandering...the left and it's identity politics dividing by race, orientation... both actively attack those on the other side. I remember the "Obama is a Muslim" and "Republicans want you to die quickly" attacks for example.



Well many things have changed since then that would affect the historical records and how that compares to modern climate. Social media, TV and internet access, firearm tech, different social groups with different aims as opposed to the "good ol' days of yore", improvements in personal transportation...

So there are always variable and things in play as far as that goes.

Yeah cause its the way business is done these days if you catch my drift. Always looking to wedge your opponent on a hot button issue that feeds the media and the news cycle.

If you look at the way parties used to campaign, with a manifesto, broad community support and involvement, speeches at factories and so on, it was a more organic process. These days most political parties are more like media organisations, substance and consultation with the community and their constituency is not as important as dominating the media cycle, spinning the days events and finding media friendly sound bites. It cheapens the whole process and these parties only really exists to further their own interests.

That said politics by nature should be an adversarial process but the language and nature of todays politics is really appalling, it also stops people innovating and taking risks and suggesting difficult solutions to complex problems because their opponent will workshop a cheap line and attack them with it. This culture is a big part of what is wrong with politics, especially in the English speaking world.

 

[Rubashov]

My point is that we remember things that happened recently more than things that happened in the past, and the most distant the past, the less we remember, particularly if we were not alive or were not conscious of such things at that time. The argument seems to be that politically inspired violence is worse today than at some never clearly defined moment in the past. This is an assertion that, it seems to be, suffers from this kind of recency bias and it, also, empirically testable. It might be correct, but my guess is that most people nowadays who make this assertion, are not asserting it with any kind of historical context.

As for the acrimony of the current political climate, my sense is that it is worse today than at other times in my life, but I've read a lot of US history, and I'm pretty certain that even today it does not approach what it's been in other periods of our nation's history, ante and post-bellum periods come to mind.

Depression era politics was incredibly violent, also state violence directed against the anti-Vietnam war movement and black civil rights group dwarf what is going on today.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I do not care who started it decades ago. I care about who is engaged in it now. They are both clearly engaged in it. The right and it's tea party and religious pandering...the left and it's identity politics dividing by race, orientation... both actively attack those on the other side. I remember the "Obama is a Muslim" and "Republicans want you to die quickly" attacks for example.

problem is nobody tried attacking democrats for 8 years!


the left projected and said when trump loses their will be anger and violence in the street! they where jus tprojecting!

 

[Siro]

Well, if you read comments on liberal social media facebook pages, you may be surprised by the amount of people who aren't condemning it, but rather applauding it.
Examples: CNN and Vice.

Welcome back. Was getting bored with the old drivel from Dutch and co, so I am excited for the new drivel you are sure to offer.