I know Sarah Palin is an easy target and all, but...

[Decyferon]

I thought you were done here? Or was that just another temper tantrum?

 

Go back in the corner, and think about your behavior young man.

 

To answer your italics point thought, without the right to bear arms, criminals and "nut jobs" will be able to obtain weapons ANYWAY. The right is actually a fundamental idea that the average person being able to protect himself from danger, and tyranny. Apparently you are comfortable with putting your life and the lives of your loved ones into the hands of others to come save the day. You can wait for your knight in shining armor. Me, I would rather rely on myself for that task.

 

But it is your right to bear arms that means that nutjobs and criminals have easy access to guns, your right to bear arms isnt the solution it is the problem.

 

In countries without guns like the majority of the civilised world, criminals do not have easy access to guns, yea they can get them but no where near as easy as in the US. As for nutjobs we have plenty over here in the UK and 99.9% of them will be unarmed and not able to have guns.

 

I don't care about your right to bear arms, I don't live in america, but seriously to think that your guns laws aren't a root cause of the problem is plain idiotic. But as I have said before it is too far into the problem to do anything about it, kinda you have made your bed now lie in it.

[abcs]

some time back i heard some commentary that included a poll. The margin of whom would vote for Sarah Palin was frighteningly close to that for a second term Obama.

[lord_casek]

But it is your right to bear arms that means that nutjobs and criminals have easy access to guns, your right to bear arms isnt the solution it is the problem.

 

In countries without guns like the majority of the civilised world, criminals do not have easy access to guns, yea they can get them but no where near as easy as in the US. As for nutjobs we have plenty over here in the UK and 99.9% of them will be unarmed and not able to have guns.

 

I don't care about your right to bear arms, I don't live in america, but seriously to think that your guns laws aren't a root cause of the problem is plain idiotic. But as I have said before it is too far into the problem to do anything about it, kinda you have made your bed now lie in it.

 

 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Decyferon]

but Casek it isn't the government that is shooting and killing it's own citizens, it is criminals and gangbangers and nutcases, if guns were not so prevelant in your country you wouldn't have such a high rate of gun crime, it really is that simple.

 

Yea I do agree with your right to self defense, however I also agree with being able to live safely without every citizen being able to have a gun.

 

It states as a last resort against government tyranny, not as a first resort for a minor disagreement with someone in the street. Your constitutional rights have been skewed so much by the huge business that is the gun industry that, the founding fathers would not have envisioned american society as it is today, because if they could they would be high irresponsible to put that into the constitution.

[angelofdeath]

But it is your right to bear arms that means that nutjobs and criminals have easy access to guns, your right to bear arms isnt the solution it is the problem.

 

which is taking us back more on track to more relevant discussion.

true the existence of guns does make it so that people can use guns to kill people. however, where you go wrong is the 'easy access.' people have 'easy access' to heroin in federal prison, but there is total prohibitions on drugs in all of the US. any high school student has 'easy access' to marijuana any time they want it. this is also totally prohibited. urban youth in high school in washington DC have 'easy access' to handguns, yet they are 100% banned.

 

the error on the part of the gun control advocates is that they think because something is banned or outlawed or restricted in some way that this will eliminate gun possession. all cases where objects or substances are banned by governments, if there is enough demand, will be in the hands of people who want them. the examples of this effect are to numerous to miss.

 

so a question i would ask is:

if one is in favor of a total gun prohibition or any variation of 'reasonable restriction' (this is NEVER defined) then how do you plan to keep these prohibited weapons out of places like high schools where they can get prohibited drugs at any time they want?

 

the answer is quite apparent.

its impossible.

the only solution to guns being used for violence is to have the power to miraculously zap all guns off the planet with the flick of your fingers. then of course, people with violent intent will simply use other other objects.

 

In countries without guns like the majority of the civilised world, criminals do not have easy access to guns, yea they can get them but no where near as easy as in the US. As for nutjobs we have plenty over here in the UK and 99.9% of them will be unarmed and not able to have guns.

 

gun prohibition really kept firearms out of the hands of the IRA for decades, eh?

the main side effect to gun prohibition is making normal citizens who tend to follow the law, an easier target for predators. and here is the illustration...

lets first start by saying we know cops are usually minutes away when seconds count. so lets leave them out because everyone can agree a cop who is on average 10 minutes away will have no affect on a person wielding a baseball bat, intent to kill you because you have 1000$ bucks in your drawer.

 

so by eliminating an equalizing force, you have therefore subjected a 100 lb woman to have to deal with a 250 lb attacker with a baseball bat (or whatever lethal object you want to pick). if this woman had the right to own a firearm, she would atleast have a chance of defending herself and being able to equalize the situation.

 

I don't care about your right to bear arms, I don't live in america, but seriously to think that your guns laws aren't a root cause of the problem is plain idiotic. But as I have said before it is too far into the problem to do anything about it, kinda you have made your bed now lie in it.

 

guns arent the root cause of crime any more than a pencil is to be blamed for a mizpeled word. the ROOT cause is obviously people wanting to use force to get what they want and violate the rights of others. if guns were the ROOT cause, then any criminal could plead innocence, blame the bullets for inflicting death on someone and the prosecution would then indict the glock 19. guns are only a tool that can be used for good or evil. after all, who do you call when someone is shooting people or threatening to shoot people with a firearm? you call someone with a firearm. usually a police officer, but i would submit, most police have a pretty bad record at quelling these situations, especially when you factor in rounds expended by police vs private citizens doing the same thing, collateral damage, etc.

i recently saw some statistic that was basically along the lines of...'knife attacks have a 85% mortality rate. gun attacks have a 60% mortality rate.' yet there is more fear of guns when knives are generally more lethal.

its back to the primitive 'omg there is a snake its going to kill me omg' argument, when snakes account for roughly 5 deaths per year.

 

but its very interesting to note that you throw this philosophy out the window because 'american is to far gone.' in light of this, why dont you stick to this point more? you are doing yourself a great injustice to argue for gun control that does not and will not work in the US. you should concentrate on like this that you have basically said in the past:

 

'look, guns are bad, i hate them, im scared of them, whatever, but there are so many of them in america, you just have to own one in order to defend yourself."

 

PS. a belated merry christmas back at you.

 

 

 

 

but to steer this into a direction away from whether ayn rand is a conservative and whether bill oreilly and the young turks hold the monopoly intellectual power of what is a conservative and what is a liberal....

 

i'd ask this:

 

since pot has been outlawed and is now readily available in great quantity at any high school in america... explain to me how the same thing will not happen to guns?

 

i'd also like to hear from the gun control zealots exactly what they define as a 'reasonable restriction' and exactly what policy should be instituted in the US and how exactly this will END violence. this is something that is never talked about. we only hear abstracts about 'more controls!' and never any specifics and when exactly enough restrictions will be in place and then they can pack up and go home.

 

i want specific policies / laws / whatever you want done that will create utopia on earth.

[angelofdeath]

but Casek it isn't the government that is shooting and killing it's own citizens, it is criminals and gangbangers and nutcases, if guns were not so prevelant in your country you wouldn't have such a high rate of gun crime, it really is that simple.

 

im not a huge fan of empirical 'evidence' because it doesnt take into account manipulation of statistics, biases, leaving out relevant data, etc, but it can be used an an illustration (not evidence) of what CAN happen under certain situations.

 

one doesnt even need a chart to know that in the US the highest crime rates are in areas that have the hardest gun control policies or out right bans.

 

so while logic would suggest to the anti gun folks if you just 'passed a law...' you could eliminate guns and you would have utopia, it actually has the opposite affect. in fact it tends to breed a 'shooting fish in a barrel' scenario where the law breakers and violent criminals face little equal resistance to their assaults on liberty in areas where people have no guns. by the way, lets not forget that only the people who want to initiate violence against others, dont really have any trouble breaking a relatively minor gun law if they are going to use said gun to rob someone or murder someone (much more sever offense)

 

but to suggest that the government is not shooting and killing people is absurd. governments have killed between 170 and 240 million people in the 20th century alone. to think that the biggest mass murderer in history, government can some how stop 'private' criminals from murdering is just silly on its face.

 

 

Yea I do agree with your right to self defense, however I also agree with being able to live safely without every citizen being able to have a gun.

 

there is no such right because in order to 'feel safe' you are trampling on someone elses rights. as long as no one uses said gun against you, everything is legitimate. what right of your's has been violated by a policeman or a private citizen owning a firearm that is sitting on a shelf somewhere?

 

you are twice as likely to be killed in the US being in a car or being near a car then by a firearm, yet i dont hear anyone calling for 'car control' and saying there is a right to not be frightened about your neighbors owning a mass murdering machine, known as a honda. i mean what about these peoples rights to not be able to live safely without every citizen being able to have a car?

 

It states as a last resort against government tyranny, not as a first resort for a minor disagreement with someone in the street. Your constitutional rights have been skewed so much by the huge business that is the gun industry that, the founding fathers would not have envisioned american society as it is today, because if they could they would be high irresponsible to put that into the constitution.

 

the american people, historically were comparatively MUCH BETTER armed than today. the flintlock rifle or musket of the 18th century was the EQUIVALENT of the arms the government had. CANNONS were owned by civilians. for casual conversational purposes civilian ownership of military arms equivalents are severely outlawed today. until NFA34 anyone could keep a BAR full auto machine gun in their closet.

but you are correct, it is a last resort to take up arms against your own government, which is why it isnt being done. it wont start until they start putting people in camps. and it might not even start then. this natural right was codified as a means of a free people to have SOME recourse if things go completely south. considering the people that drafted said amendment threw off their own government over a couple percent tax on a morning drink and babbled a little bit about tax rates that were essentially NON EXISTENT by todays standard... i'd say they would be asking us why in the hell we have put up for this shit for so long? lets not forget that some americans were ready to march on DC after they found out the more centralizing constitution was passed!

[Decyferon]

I do agree with your points AOD, your comparison with guns and drugs in school for instance, I know exactly what you mean, kids shouldn't be able to get drugs in school, just like they shouldn't be getting guns into schools. It is a hard one for me to comment on for the main reason I haven't had to deal with guns in school and to be honest the worst drugs I came into contact with in school were weed and acid, but I think times have changed a bit since then.

 

There is really no solution to it, this is why I don't say ban guns because it would do no good they are already there on the street. Education can help the drugs problem, I don't know if it will help the gun problem, I just think someone should take some positive steps towards the situation, I however do not have the answer to what to do!

 

The IRA was more of a highly organised terrorist network that imported a lot of guns from America and also through raids on british military, I wouldn't compare them to say your average disgruntled teenager or gang member. As for your self defense arguement with the woman, I agree it is an equalising force and she does have that right, like I said I do not deny your right to defend yourself, but also on the flip side, you wouldn't have a junkie with a gun here in the UK who would shot me for £20 and a quick fix because he managed to easily get a gun, but guns are used in muggings in the US. There are always 2 sides. You might as well just even the field and give every single person a gun.

 

I also guns arent the root cause for all the evil, they are just a tool, however they make it a hell of a lot easier to kill. You give someone a knife and tell them to kill someone or you give them a gun, I bet you more people would be able to do it with the gun. A knife you have to be up close and really stab someone to kill them, unless you get some lucky artery slashes. I would say there is a higher mortality rate in knife attacks because most knife attacks will be hitting the main bulk of the body and the organs, whereas you get a lot of leg and arm gun injuries, it is how they determine the statistic really.

 

The only way I can think of keeping guns out of schools is the metal detector thing or some overblown security like in airports, but obviously that is pretty ludicrous and not practical in the slightest, so obviously I'm not advocating that. To be honest I wouldn't know how to address it apart from making guns harder to obtain, but then there are so many already on the streets it is futile, hence my previous staement of you have made your bed now lie in it.

[Fist 666]

can i ask why you guys keep coming back to crossfire to rehash the same arguments, thread after thread, and ultimately year after year?

 

its been a while since i quit posting in crossfire (outside of the god thread every few months) because i just find myself getting pissed off at whoever i was arguing with (usually dawood). neither of us had any intention of changing our stances. there was an opportunity to learn on occasion, but more often than not it seems that these threads are just affirmations of what you guys already believe, reworded 50 different ways, thread-dependent.

 

is it personally rewarding or is it just a way to kill time? do you guys get mad? (it certainly seems so based on the personal jabs every few posts) or are you able to look at this as a constructive or valuable conversation? this isn't high school debate, so what are the rewards (escape?) you get from this?

 

thanks.

[Decyferon]

haha Fist, I tend to not comment on stuff much in here anymore, because it always ends up with the same old discussion, i dunno today i was bored and had nothing better to do.

 

sometimes i do enjoy reading peoples endless back n forth, sometimes i learn something new. But noones opinion is going to change and because it is such a small majority of people that use crossfire means the conversations always lean to the same subjects and arguements.

[UPS!]

I dont feel like starting off an argument along the same tune of the same arguments that have been stated so I guess ill post up my other reasons.

 

Guns are something I am interested with, and am interested in owning once I am of age to do so. I do agree that the presents of so many guns leads to initial crime and there are cases were people go loco and blow away a group of people, but I dont want the fact that other people abuse something prohibit me from enjoying something.

 

Just becuse others drink and drive, or smoke marijuana and then forget to take their baby out of the bath tub shouldnt mean that Im not allowed to enjoy something I can correctly partake in. same with guns, just becuse someone miss uses them and it can cause tragedy dosent mean I shouldnt be able to own and operate one, being that im not a nutcase and wouldnt shoot anyone that dosent need to be shot.

 

Also whether you agree with it or not, im actually a fan of population control. Theres too many people, and of course im no fan of homicide but guns when not used to kill innocent people can keep people safe when they have no other option, and many times weed out many people that probably shouldnt be part of society anyway, the main downside is unfortunatly these same scumbags usually are poor shots and its the innocent that go out with them.

 

Long story short, I like guns, I want guns, and I think that its crucial to atleast the American population that we continue to have the right to bear arms, I dont feel its an outdated amendment and is one of the most important, right behind any that protect liberties and keep cops out of your shit(supposedly)

 

Russian officals have even confirmed that back during the cold war the main reason they abandonded all plans of an invasion of the United States, was solely that it coulndt control the population due to the amount of gun owners.

[lord_casek]

can i ask why you guys keep coming back to crossfire to rehash the same arguments, thread after thread, and ultimately year after year?

 

its been a while since i quit posting in crossfire (outside of the god thread every few months) because i just find myself getting pissed off at whoever i was arguing with (usually dawood). neither of us had any intention of changing our stances. there was an opportunity to learn on occasion, but more often than not it seems that these threads are just affirmations of what you guys already believe, reworded 50 different ways, thread-dependent.

 

is it personally rewarding or is it just a way to kill time? do you guys get mad? (it certainly seems so based on the personal jabs every few posts) or are you able to look at this as a constructive or valuable conversation? this isn't high school debate, so what are the rewards (escape?) you get from this?

 

thanks.

 

 

These guys are interesting to talk to. No matter what political affiliation or belief, it's always good discussion.

 

Even the people I disagree with.

[Fist 666]

i understand the merit in conversation, thats why i read and don't post. but, for example, the last page of theo and aod going back and forth about one's inability to comprehend negates any sort of gentleman's disagreement that might be had. when insults are thrown back and forth amidst political debate it removes most constructive elements for me.

 

i'm not trying to slam anyone here, i quit posting in threads of this nature because i would find myself angry (for a couple hours sometimes) about shit on the internet. i've been taking anger management classes for a while and arguments like the previous page are one kind of thing that set me off, and i'm trying to get better. do you guys insult and just walk away from the internet or is there a residual anger that goes with you, or is it nothing until you log back into crossfire?

[lord_casek]

I used to get a little mad, but it passed quickly. These days I just smirk when it comes to the point of name calling.

 

You're right, though. When you start to get too angry at the internet you need to step back for a minute and get your shit together. Opinions are out there and more likely than not, others aren't going to always say something you agree with.

[christo-f]

Russian officals have even confirmed that back during the cold war the main reason they abandonded all plans of an invasion of the United States, was solely that it coulndt control the population due to the amount of gun owners.

 

Ah, I would like to see that comment in full context before I believe it. Not saying that you are BSing, I'm just suggesting that there would be a hell of a lot more to it than that......, for instance Russia never had the logistics/transport available to invade the US. And that's just the first thing that comes to mind on the matter. There's more credence in the claim that Adolph never invaded Switzerland because they were armed and even that argument leaves out about a mountain of more relevant context. not to say that it never figured but just that there were far more relevant and deciding factors in play such as geography, necessity, etc. etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Fist, I only get frustrated at the way people discuss things or their thought processes on certain subjects. Whilst I see AOD as a total fucking nut case, I'd still be the first person to buy him a beer or two as I know we still have a lot of stuff in common that we could talk on and he's a respectful bloke who gives thought to his ideas and that alone gets respect from me. Same goes for other loonies like Ilotsmybrain, Zig and others, we disagree and I like to act childishly by calling people names sometimes but I still respect these clowns and would more than likely be happy to buy them a beer. Wearekilluminati on the other hand is quite plainly an idiot time waster that A) has the intellect of a 12 year old B) is very gullible and easily influenced, c) clearly uneducated, D) has the conversation skills of a fucking house brick and E) would more than likely find himself on his back snoring if he spoke to half the people on here face to face like he does from a safe distance.

 

 

 

 

And Casek, well he's just a conservative faggot ass hat, tin foil, left wing, bleeding heart, gun nut, god bothering, war monger, mum's basement, toy, bitch, lesbian, communist, pinko, hippy, nigga loving nazi fascist, homo, christian, terrorist, zionist, cop, extremist stooge.

[TheoHuxtable..]

a mortgage or rent is a voluntary contract. being born into a society, committing no crime, and being FORCED to pay money to someone who has decided they have authority over you is an act of coercion. government is not voluntary. by your logic, if a slave is born into the hands of a master, and is forced to produce or labor for the master, its just the way it is. this is what happens to every person born under the authority of a government. there was no asking, there was only...'you pay taxes or else.' if you dont pay taxes, you get audited. if you refuse to still pay the taxes, you go to court. the court rules you have to pay taxes. if you still refuse, well they come and arrest you. if you resist arrest, the government ultimately claims the right to kill you for resisting arrest in relation to your refusing to pay taxes. if engaging in a voluntary mortgage contract is the same as being born under a government, why arent mortgage companies that i never signed a contract with coming to arrest me, kill me or otherwise attempt to extract money from me? if taxes are simple voluntary transactions, then obviously i can choose not to engage in a contract with these people and i can seek services else where. oh wait.... i DONT have that choice.

 

That's all "voluntary". You don't HAVE to own a home or property to pay taxes and you don't HAVE to work. Work on the black market or be homeless. Also, the lowest income people don't pay income taxes currently. If you really want to avoid taxes, it's completely possible.

 

im not against taxes that pay for the common defense and a police and court system. which is why im not an anarchist. i also do not believe 100% in the constitution. while the constitution in its original meaning is a much better system than the system we have today where governments can write any law, giving the national government the ability to tax is one of its many faults. that being said, the constitution is the law of the land and should be defended to the extent that it protects liberty.

 

but your are overlooking the forest for the trees. the revolutionary war and the founding generation as a whole did not look to their government for permission to say something was 'illegal or wrong in anyway.' they looked to natural rights. the english constitution, a non written concept of common law, did not allow the colonists to secede, shoot british soldiers, refuse consent of the english government and establish a new one. natural law did.

 

I could have swore in another thread that you wanted taxes eliminated completely.

 

so you just went back on your previous statement that you agreed rand was not really a conservative but was sort of a conservative that influenced conservative thought.

this is getting hilarious.

 

I never once said Ayn Rand wasn't a Conservative. I said in the comment that you're referring to, that she "certainly wasn't a Liberal". And in your mind you took that to mean that I don't consider her Conservative.

 

ron paul is a libertarian who calls himself a conservative for political expediency.

 

How do you know? You read his mind? I thought you Ron Paul supporters like him because he "tells it like it is" and avoids all the political bullshit. Now you're accusing Ron Paul of being a typical politician, lying to get himself votes & support. Too funny.

 

He seems pretty genuine when he refers to himself as being a "Conservative" with "Conservative values". Newsflash: it is possible to be a Conservative & a Libertarian at the same time.

 

rand paul is the same thing with a more conservative leaning. the videos you posted prove my point 100% that ayn rand was not a conservative, but influenced some strains of conservative thought. what is so hard to understand about this.

 

You are confusing objectivist philosophy with pol

 

do me a favor, read capitalism, the unknown ideal. get a full understanding of objectivism then come back to me.

 

what will you come up with next, albert jay nock was a 'conservative?' or josef stalin was really a 'liberal?'

 

Stalin was not a Liberal, but an authoritarian. Right-wingers always call Stalin a Liberal to score political points.

 

since you have such a hard on for rand, all you have to do, since you obviously wont read any of her work and his writings on her philosophy, is go on youtube and listen to her talk to mike wallace and donahue and some of these other guys. you'll hear her say she isnt a conservative and you'll hear that her ideology is 100% opposite of the conservative movement which is now almost 100% pro state.

in fact if you would remove the shit from your ears you would see that the basis of conservatism and the basis of objectivism are diametrically opposed philosophies.

 

you were much more on the right track with your previous statement before you decided to back track and go back to your original false claim.

rand influenced some strains of conservative thought. period. nothing more nothing less. she was not a conservative. just like hayek, mises and friedman influenced various strains of conservative thought, predominately in economics but all rejected the term conservative. it doesnt matter to me one way or the other if rand WAS a conservative... i have no agenda behind me saying that she wasnt. im just stating the truth on the matter. im not a huge rand fan. sure atlas shrugged was good. i like a lot of her philosophy particularly how it relates to politics, but i reject her objective reality stuff.

yeah, i can really see george bush and dick cheney in the white house asking 'wait, who is john galt? why, we are the chief oppressors in rands wonderful novel atlas shrugged! we need to resign!'

yeah, i can see all of the republicans in congress doing this as well.

good call guy, maybe you are right, ayn rand was a neo con!

 

rand was not a libertarian nor a conservative, she was an objectivist! what is so hard to understand?

 

 

http://stason.org/TULARC/philosophy/objectivism-Ayn-Rand/06-Was-Ayn-Rand-a-Conservative-or-a-Libertarian.html

 

The problem is that you're putting an apolitical philosophy and a specific political ideology on the same playing field. Economic Conservatism is without a doubt strongly influenced by Ayn Rand's form of Objectivism. Being an Objectivist doesn't mean you can't be a Conservative. Anyone reading up on Objectivism will see the striking similarities between such a philosophy, and the philosophies that guide modern Conservatives.

 

this is getting just down right funny.

so let me get this right, all republicans and 'conservatives' are not really big government types at all, they all seek to throw out the constitution in favor of the more laissez faire AOC but the ONLY reason they dont mention this is because its political suicide? consider for one second... ron paul. this guy has said the most politically suicidal things in the 20th and 21st century political arena. abolish social security and end the fed and bring all the troops home from around the world. yet, RP has never ever even philosophically said we need to scrap the constitution. do you really think if he believed that he wouldnt say it, considering the other things he has said? if RP doesnt believe in this, how in hell is john boehner going to believe in it? these clowns want to 'cut spending' to 2008 levels. what the hell planet are you on? you equate what basically means non existent cutting of government (equivalent of using a 3$ coupon on a trip to the moon) as wanting to over throw the US government and its constitution in favor of replacing it with either the AOC or NOTHING? or atleast abolishing 75% of the current federal government? these are the same conservatives that when asked what they want to cut, they cant even ANSWER or when they do, they talk about cutting some 1 million dollar bridge to no where that has absolutely no effect on government spending and size.

you really are an ass hat.

 

Never said Republicans seek to "throw out the Constitution in favor of the AOC". What I said was that the creation of the Constitution was Leftist/Progressive move because it allowed a growth in a central government. All that other hypothetical argument you're making is coming from your own twisted mind.

You really are a self-righteous fool.

 

 

 

estimates of contractors over 100K.

what a change in foreign policy.

 

 

 

the point was that obama has the same foreign policy as bush. keeping troops stationed indefinitely in places they never should of been in the first place

big change.

 

 

This may also surprise you, but unilaterally pulling all troops out all at once, instead of a gradual draw-down, is irresponsible, reckless, irrational, and would be a stupid move politically. Troops in Iraq are still slated to be gone by the end of the year.

 

 

 

 

ok fine, you win. he didnt nationalize it, yet. however he supported a bill that fines people for not owning health insurance. good one! you are correct to point out that the bill didnt nationalize the means of production, but it did further the fascist healthcare system in america, much to its own destruction and much to the destruction of healthcare for people in the america. but i cant say the current and pre obama care system is much better, but under obama care the system is much worse.

 

 

I'm for a nationalized single-payer healthcare system, so I guess we just disagree there. Apparently the current healthcare system is fine and dandy. America is ranked #37 in healthcare by the WHO for a reason. There should at least be a Public Option.

 

 

 

the areas of the patriot act and civil liberties and foreign policy are the one area the president has it within his power to constitutionally END these policies. he doesnt dislike it. if he disliked it, he would bring charges against the people in gitmo or let them free and shut it down, he would cease using the patriot act in all its forms, he would essentially nullify the MCA06 and he could restore the rule of law to america in a few days. obama is the chief law enforcement officer of the US, he could essentially end all this oppression with the clintonian notion of 'stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty neat.'

 

Obama has been criticized by the left as being politically weak. Obama is a Liberal but is governing like a Centrist - and if this were Europe he'd be governing like a center-right Conservative. He's afraid of criticism from the the right-wing demagogues and the "powers that be" if he abolishes the Patriot Act with a stroke of a pen.

[angelofdeath]

That's all "voluntary". You don't HAVE to own a home or property to pay taxes and you don't HAVE to work. Work on the black market or be homeless. Also, the lowest income people don't pay income taxes currently. If you really want to avoid taxes, it's completely possible.

 

 

what an orwellian 'freedom=slavery' way to look at it.

you are entirely 100% wrong.

the question is what gives the government to take property AT ALL? walmart cannot come into my house and steal my money or force me to shop at their store. yet, if i possess property that has been in my family since before the creation of the US government, the government claims a right to tax me for it. it interferes with private transactions between consenting adults and charges sales tax. the list goes on ad infinitum.

 

according to your 100% wonderful logic, why, all the jews had to do was just not partake in german society! all they had to do what just, oh, move to another location if they didnt want to live in a disarmed government poverty created ghetto like warsaw. why, all they had to do what just stay in their house locked in a basement under floor boards if they didnt want to wear those great little stars! and why, they could of kept their guns and money if they just didnt partake in german society and moved to a nice place out in the country and grew their own food and never owned any property!

duh! why, theo huxtable on 12oz told me that living under hitler was just COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY!

 

i could however be a hypocrite like yourself. argue for higher taxes, then openly acknowledge you do everything you can to both legally and illegally decrease your tax liability. and then brag about not reporting income on a public message board, which flies in the face of everything you supposedly stand for. higher taxes, less freedom. yet in practice you are just as self interested as the rest of america. you want to pay as little taxes as you can get away with.

 

 

I thought you Ron Paul supporters like him because he "tells it like it is" and avoids all the political bullshit. Now you're accusing Ron Paul of being a typical politician, lying to get himself votes & support. Too funny.

 

this comment is to funny.

libertarians and the traditional conservatives (im talking pre bill buckley) were almost one and the same though they differed on a few issues. when ron paul says conservative to describe himself he does it help try to reclaim what the original conservative label meant. to think that ron paul and GWB are the same, is just 'too funny.'

 

Newsflash: it is possible to be a Conservative & a Libertarian at the same time.

 

yup, you can be culturally conservative and be a libertarian. you cannot be a political conservative in todays sense of the word and be a libertarian. why? conservatism wants to ban gay marriage, make abortion a federal issue, and has no problem outlawing drugs, prostitution, and other victimless crimes. libertarians believe in laissez faire in these areas.

 

my last comment on ayn rand...

 

ayn rand is a 'conservative' the same way a memphis beale street blues player in 1948 or bill monroe the father of bluegrass who both influenced elvis presley, are 'rock and roll' musicians.

rand was an intellectual influence on later conservative thought, but was not a conservative and always referred to conservatives as 'them' instead of referring to conservatives as 'us.'

 

 

This may also surprise you, but unilaterally pulling all troops out all at once, instead of a gradual draw-down, is irresponsible, reckless, irrational, and would be a stupid move politically. Troops in Iraq are still slated to be gone by the end of the year.

 

dont you think after 50-70 years in japan, germany, south korea, and all these others places...that this might of been enough time to be responsible in 'gradually drawing down troop levels?'

while there may be some truth to your statements especially being 'politically stupid' it does not negate right and wrong. obama made a few promises to end the war MUCH more quickly than he is currently proposing.

 

Apparently the current healthcare system is fine and dandy. America is ranked #37 in healthcare by the WHO for a reason.

 

no, i believe we do need 'healthcare reform.' however the reform im talking about is not nationalizing the health care system into one big soviet system, it is completely making it totally 100% free.

 

Obama is a Liberal but is governing like a Centrist - and if this were Europe he'd be governing like a center-right Conservative. He's afraid of criticism from the the right-wing demagogues and the "powers that be" if he abolishes the Patriot Act with a stroke of a pen.

 

who the hell cares what the 'other side' thinks. compromise is what has given us the biggest government in history!

i love how, no matter what, you lefties defend obama to the grave. this is what has happened to the anti war movement. because a lefty got in office, 'one of their guys' they parrot everything the guy does and defend him to the death. its no different than republicans. they did the same thing with bush, now when obama does the same thing, they denounce the very same policies.

 

if bush was still torturing prisoners, keeping secret prisons open, enforcing the patriot act or like pelosi did make it more permanent and extending it, engaged in wars over seas and bailing out huge corporate conglomerates... the left would be denouncing it ALL. but because a lefty is doing it, its all okey dokey. not surprising, as this is partisan politics. no principle, just back and forth bickering between one predator party and the other.

[lord_casek]

And Casek, well he's just a conservative faggot ass hat, tin foil, left wing, bleeding heart, gun nut, god bothering, war monger, mum's basement, toy, bitch, lesbian, communist, pinko, hippy, nigga loving nazi fascist, homo, christian, terrorist, zionist, cop, extremist stooge.

 

 

I disagree with moms basement and faggot. The rest is completely true. Including "lesbian".

 

Also, you vegemite crunching, dingo raping, Chinese dissident marrying, Kim Jung loving, Abo touching, Steve Irwin killing, dirty bastard: IT'S TEA TIME, BITCH!

[angelofdeath]

A

Fist, I only get frustrated at the way people discuss things or their thought processes on certain subjects. Whilst I see AOD as a total fucking nut case, I'd still be the first person to buy him a beer or two as I know we still have a lot of stuff in common that we could talk on and he's a respectful bloke who gives thought to his ideas and that alone gets respect from me. Same goes for other loonies like Ilotsmybrain, Zig and others, we disagree and I like to act childishly by calling people names sometimes but I still respect these clowns and would more than likely be happy to buy them a beer.

 

amen to this.

christo might be a naive hippy on some subjects, but he is a much better debate partner than some people on this board. his positions are at least coherent and on solid footing although we disagree on most issues as he is a center left guy and im a 'nut case' liberty loving anti state voluntarist. it is a much better debate to go at it with someone who doesnt spew out the last thing he heard on MSNBC and recite chris matthews sensationalism in every rebuttal.

[christo-f]

Not that I'm in the habit of defending Obama, because when it comes to Foreign policy there's not a huge difference between most of them, Obama did stick to his plan of withdrawing the troops from Iraq (and then surged them in Astan, of course!!)

 

 

Tangent:

 

The Bush team REALLY fucked things up badly. They went in to Iraq in order to over-throw saddam, instal a nice, US friendly democracy (based on the fact that the US would be welcomed with flower and song and instantly endorse Western democratic values) and then arm them to the teeth in order to balance against Iran (who regardless of nukes, still has the strongest conventional army in the region).

 

Instead the occupation was a total failure, the troops got horribly bogged down, a US friendly govt did not materialise and IRaq has basically been handed to IRan on a platter.

 

The real kicker, though is that whilst the US was committed to the Middle East and South Asia Russia took back Ukraine from the Orange movement, invaded Georgia and showed the rest of the FSU that the US was not their knight in shining armour, over-threw Bakiyev in Kyrgyzstan and created the Customs union between Belarus and Kazakhstan.

 

Bush and pals gave Iraq to the Enemy #1 and allowed Russia to recreate the Soviet Union.

 

No matter what Obama does, I'm skeptical that he would fuck things up as bad as Bush did. Not because Obama is any better, more so because I just don't think it's possible!!!!!

 

 

End tangent.

[Zig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=3&adxnnlx=1295272816-mzPTbiXmgfYK5d56DmiDjg

 

 

Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

This article was reported by Jo Becker, Serge F. Kovaleski, Michael Luo and Dan Barry and written by Mr. Barry.

 

TUCSON — Moments after the swirl of panic, blood, death and shock, the suspect was face down on the pavement and squirming under the hold of two civilians, his shaved head obscured by a beanie and the hood of his dark sweatshirt.

 

Deputy Sheriff Thomas Audetat, a chiseled former Marine with three tours in Iraq to his credit, dug his knee into the gangly young man’s back and cuffed him. With the aid of another deputy, he relieved the heroic civilians of their charge and began searching for weapons other than the Glock semiautomatic pistol, secured nearby under a civilian’s foot, that had just fired 31 rounds.

 

In the left front pocket, two 15-round magazines. In the right front pocket, a black, four-inch folding knife. “Are there any other weapons on you?” Deputy Audetat recalled demanding.

 

“Back right pocket.”

 

But the back right pocket contained no weapons. Instead, in a Ziploc bag, the deputy found about $20 in cash, some change, a credit card and, peeking through the plastic as if proffering a calling card, an Arizona driver’s license for one Jared Lee Loughner, 22.

 

Deputy Audetat lifted the passive, even relaxed suspect to his feet and led him to the patrol car, where the man twisted himself awkwardly across the back seat, face planted on the floor board. Then he invoked an oddly timed constitutional right. “I plead the Fifth,” Mr. Loughner said, though the deputy had no intention of questioning him. “I plead the Fifth.”

 

At a Pima County Sheriff’s Department substation, Deputy Audetat guided Mr. Loughner to a tiny interview room with a two-way mirror, directed him to a plastic blue chair and offered him a glass of water. The deputy detected no remorse; nothing.

 

Now to another building for the mug shot. Look into the camera, the suspect was told. He smiled.

 

Click.

 

Mr. Loughner’s spellbinding mug shot — that bald head, that bright-eyed gaze, that smile — yields no answer to why, why, why, why, the aching question cried out in a subdued Tucson synagogue last week. Does the absence of hair suggest a girding for battle? Does the grin convey a sense of accomplishment, or complete disengagement from the consequence of his actions?

 

And is his slightly blackened left eye all but winking at the wholesale violence that preceded the camera’s click? The attack on a meet-and-greet event with a congresswoman outside a supermarket; the killing of six people, including the chief federal judge in Arizona and a 9-year-old girl; the wounding of 13, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, shot in the head.

 

Since last Saturday’s shooting frenzy in Tucson, investigators and the news media have spent the week frantically trying to assemble the Jared Loughner jigsaw puzzle in hopes that the pieces will fit, a clear picture will emerge and the answer to why will be found, providing the faint reassurance of a dark mystery solved.

 

Instead, the pattern of facts so far presents only a lack of one, a curlicue of contradictory moments open to broad interpretation. Here he is, a talented saxophonist with a prestigious high school jazz band, and there he is, a high school dropout. Here he is, a clean-cut employee for an Eddie Bauer store, and there he is, so unsettling a presence that tellers at a local bank would feel for the alarm button when he walked in.

 

Those who see premeditation in the acts Mr. Loughner is accused of committing can cite, for example, his pleading of the Fifth Amendment or the envelope the authorities found in his safe that bore the handwritten words “Giffords,” “My assassination” and “I planned ahead” — or how he bided his time in the supermarket, even using the men’s room. Those who suspect he is insane, and therefore a step removed from being responsible for his actions, can point to any of his online postings, including:

 

“If 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234, 098,601,978,618 is the year in B.C.E then the previous year of 987,123,478,961,876, 341,234,671,234,098,601,978,618 B.C.E is 987,123,478,961,876,341,234,671,234,098, 601,978,619 B.C.E.”

 

What the cacophony of facts do suggest is that Mr. Loughner is struggling with a profound mental illness (most likely paranoid schizophrenia, many psychiatrists say); that his recent years have been marked by stinging rejection — from his country’s military, his community college, his girlfriends and, perhaps, his father; that he, in turn, rejected American society, including its government, its currency, its language, even its math. Mr. Loughner once declared to his professor that the number 6 could be called 18.

 

As he alienated himself from his small clutch of friends, grew contemptuous of women in positions of power and became increasingly oblivious to basic social mores, Mr. Loughner seemed to develop a dreamy alternate world, where the sky was sometimes orange, the grass sometimes blue and the Internet’s informational chaos provided refuge.

 

He became an echo chamber for stray ideas, amplifying, for example, certain grandiose tenets of a number of extremist right-wing groups — including the need for a new money system and the government’s mind-manipulation of the masses through language.

 

In the last three months, Mr. Loughner had a 9-millimeter bullet tattooed on his right shoulder blade and turned increasingly to the Internet to post indecipherable tutorials about the new currency, bemoan the prevalence of illiteracy and settle scores with the Army and Pima Community College, both of which had shunned him. He also may have felt rejected by the American government in general, and by Ms. Giffords in particular, with whom he had a brief — and, to him, unsatisfactory — encounter in 2007.

 

Nearly four years later, investigators say, Mr. Loughner methodically planned another encounter with her. Eight days ago, on a sunny Saturday morning, he took a $14 taxi ride to a meet-your-representative gathering outside a Safeway, they say, and he was armed for slaughter.

 

Clarence Dupnik, the outspoken sheriff of Pima County, was driving back from Palm Springs when he received word of the shooting. Ms. Giffords and the slain judge, John M. Roll, were friends of his. “It was like someone kicked me in the stomach,” he recalled. “Shock turned to anger. The closer to Tucson, the angrier I got.”

 

Although his law enforcement colleagues are diligently working to shore up their criminal case to counter a possible plea of insanity that could mitigate punishment, Sheriff Dupnik seems torn about Mr. Loughner’s mental state.

 

“There’s no doubt in my mind that the whole trial will be about did he know right from wrong,” the sheriff said. “We’ll have 15 psychiatrists saying yes. We’ll have 15 psychiatrists saying no. What do I say? I think he’s mentally disturbed.”

 

Disturbed enough to be found guilty but insane?

 

“I majored in psychology at the university,” Sheriff Dupnik answered. “Based on what I’ve seen, he is psychotic, he has serious problems with reality, and I think he’s delusional. Does he meet the legal test of guilty but insane? I don’t know.”

 

Early Signs of Alienation

 

One spring morning in 2006, a student showed up at Mountain View High School so intoxicated that he had to be taken to Northwest Hospital, five miles away. A sheriff’s deputy went to the hospital’s emergency room to question the inebriated 17-year-old student, whose eyes were red from crying.

 

According to a police report, the teenager explained that he had taken a bottle of vodka from his father’s liquor cabinet around 1:30 that morning and, for the next several hours, drank much of its contents. Why? Because I was upset that my father had yelled at me, said the student, Jared Loughner.

 

In the search for clues to explain the awfulness to come, this moment stands out as the first public breach in the facade of domestic calm in the modest Loughner home on Soledad Avenue in the modest subdivision of Orangewood Estates, its front door shrouded by the wide canopy of an old mesquite tree, its perimeter walled off as if for fortification.

 

The mother, Amy Loughner, worked as the manager of one of the area’s parks. Pleasant though reserved, she impressed the parents of her son’s friends as a doting mother who shepherded her only child to his saxophone lessons and concerts, and encouraged his dream of one day attending the Juilliard School, the prestigious arts conservatory in New York.

 

Once, when he was in the ninth grade, Mr. Loughner’s parents had to leave town for a week, and he stayed with the family of his friend, Alex Montanaro. Before leaving, Mrs. Loughner presented Alex’s mother, Michelle Montanaro, with a document that temporarily granted her power of attorney for Jared — in case something happened.

 

“This is how I knew his mom doted on Jared,” Ms. Montanaro said. “She thought of everything for her son.”

 

But the father, Randy Loughner, was so rarely mentioned by his son that some of Jared’s friends assumed that his parents were divorced. Mr. Loughner installed carpets and pool decks, and spent much of his free time restoring old cars. Jared drove a Chevy Nova; his mother, an El Camino.

 

Some neighbors saw Randy Loughner as private; others as standoffish, even a bit scary. As a member of one neighboring family suggested: if your child’s ball came to rest in the Loughners’ yard, you left it there.

 

And, occasionally, word would trickle back to the homes of Jared’s friends of a family unhappy in its own way. That Jared and his father did not get along. That a palpable sense of estrangement hovered in the Loughner home.

 

“He would tell me that he didn’t want to go home because he didn’t like being home,” recalled Ashley Figueroa, 21, who dated him for several months in high school.

 

Teased for a while as a Harry Potter look-alike, then adopting a more disheveled look, Jared seemed to find escape for a while in music, developing a taste for the singular sounds of John Coltrane and Charlie Parker. A talented saxophonist, he could show off his own musical chops by sweetly performing such jazz classics as “Summertime.”

 

He belonged to the Arizona Jazz Academy, where the director, Doug Tidaback, found him to be withdrawn, though clearly dedicated. He played for two different ensembles, an 18-piece band and a smaller combo, which meant four hours of rehearsal on weekends and many discussions between the director and the mother about her son’s musical prospects.

 

But Mr. Tidaback did not recall ever seeing Jared’s father at any of the rehearsals or performances. And one other thing: the music director suspected that the teenager might be using marijuana.

 

“Being around people who smoke pot, they tend to be a little paranoid,” Mr. Tidaback said. “I got that sense from him. That might have been part of his being withdrawn.”

 

Mr. Tidaback, it seems, was onto something. Several of Jared’s friends said he used marijuana, mushrooms and, especially, the hallucinogenic herb called Salvia divinorum. When smoked or chewed, the plant can cause brief but intense highs.

 

None of this necessarily distinguished him from his high school buddies. Several of them dabbled in drugs, played computer games like World of Warcraft and Diablo and went through Goth and alternative phases. Jared and a friend, Zane Gutierrez, would also shoot guns for practice in the desert; Jared, Mr. Gutierrez recalled, became quite proficient at picking off can targets with a gun.

 

But Jared, a curious teenager who at times could be intellectually intimidating, stood out because of his passionate opinions about government — and his obsession with dreams.

 

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

 

“I think he feels the people should be able to govern themselves,” said Ms. Figueroa, his former girlfriend. “We didn’t need a higher authority.”

 

Breanna Castle, 21, another friend from junior and senior high school, agreed. “He was all about less government and less America,” she said, adding, “He thought it was full of conspiracies and that the government censored the Internet and banned certain books from being read by us.”

 

Among the books that he would later cite as his favorites: “Animal Farm,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto.” Also: “Peter Pan.”

 

And there was that fascination with dreams. Ms. Castle acknowledged that in high school, she too developed an interest in analyzing her dreams. But Jared’s interest was much deeper.

 

“It started off with dream interpretation, but then he delved into the idea of accessing different parts of your mind and trying to control your entire brain at all times,” she said. “He was troubled that we only use part of our brain, and he thought that he could unlock his entire brain through lucid dreaming.”

 

With “lucid dreaming,” the dreamer supposedly becomes aware that he or she is dreaming and then is able to control those dreams. George Osler IV, the father of one of Jared’s former friends, said his son explained the notion to him this way: “You can fly. You can experience all kinds of things that you can’t experience in reality.”

 

But the Mr. Osler worried about the healthiness of this boyhood obsession, particularly the notion that “This is all not real.”

 

Gradually, friends and acquaintances say, there came a detachment from the waking world — a strangeness that made others uncomfortable.

 

Mr. Loughner unnerved one parent, Mr. Osler, by smiling when there wasn’t anything to smile about. He puzzled another parent, Ms. Montanaro, by reading aloud a short story he had written, about angels and the end of the world, that she found strange and incomprehensible. And he rattled Breanna Castle, his friend, by making a video that featured a gas station, traffic and his incoherent mumbles.

 

“The more people became shocked and worried about him, the more withdrawn he got,” Ms. Castle said.

 

Not long after showing up intoxicated at school, Jared dropped out. He also dropped out of band. Then, in September 2007, he and a friend were caught with drug paraphernalia in a white van.

 

Something was happening to Jared Loughner. It was clear to his friends, clear to anyone who encountered him.

 

“He would get so upset about bigger issues, like why do positive and negative magnets have to attract each other,” recalled Mr. Gutierrez, the friend who joined him in target practice in the desert. “He had the most incredible thoughts, but he could not handle them.”

 

Facing Rejection

 

Two Pima Community College police officers drove into Orangewood Estates and up to a flat-roofed house on Soledad Avenue, the one with that crooked mesquite tree in the front and the old cars always parked in the driveway. Their mission that night in late September was dicey enough to require two other officers to linger in the neighborhood as backup.

 

The owner of the house, Randy Loughner, locked away the dogs and directed the officers to the garage, where his son, Jared, a student at the community college, was waiting. One of the officers explained that the purpose of their visit was to serve Jared with a “Notice of Immediate Suspension” from the college.

 

The officer, Dana Mattocks, read the letter aloud, detailing a litany of troubled and disruptive behavior, including the recent posting of an unsettling video titled “Pima Community College School — Genocide/Scam — Free Education — Broken United States Constitution.”

 

As Officer Mattocks spoke, he later recalled, Jared Loughner stared at him as if in a “constant trance.” The notice was handed to the young man, who then read the letter back to the officers.

 

“Even though we spent approximately one hours relaying the information and narration of Jared’s actions that brought him to his current predicament,” Officer Mattocks wrote in a subsequent report, “Jared left his silence and spoke out saying, ‘I realize now that this is all a scam.’ ”

 

The officers declared the meeting over, chatted briefly with Jared’s father in the backyard and left the Loughner family to deal with this “current predicament.”

 

What had happened?

 

After dropping out of high school, Jared Loughner had tried to straighten up, friends say. He shed his unkempt image, cut drugs from his life and indulged only in the occasional 24-ounce can of Miller High Life. He began wearing crisp clothes and got a job at Eddie Bauer.

 

“He was damned strait-laced and, I believe, had given up weed,” Mr. Gutierrez recalled. “At Eddie Bauer, he tucked his shirt in, wore a belt and dressed himself nicely, real clean cut. He could have been in any office building and would have looked fine.”

 

And when the two friends got together, Mr. Loughner would limit himself to that one big can of beer — he was notoriously frugal — and talk of bettering himself. “He started saying that he wanted to stay out of trouble and was thinking about doing good stuff with his life,” Mr. Gutierrez said.

 

Still, things never quite clicked.

 

Mr. Loughner seemed to meet rejection at every turn. He tried to enlist in the Army in 2008 but failed its drug test. He held a series of jobs, often briefly: Peter Piper Pizza, but not long enough to make it past the three-month probationary period, an executive said; the Mandarin Grill, where the owner recalled that after less than a month of employment, the teenager simply stopped showing up.

 

After leaving his job at Eddie Bauer, he became a volunteer at an animal-care center in Tucson. On his application, he came across as a normal and ambitious teenager, expressing interest in “community service, fun, reference and experience.” But within two months he was told not to come back until he could follow rules.

 

At least there was the Northwest Campus of Pima Community College, where tuition was affordable, the quail often skittered across the grounds and Mr. Loughner found intellectual sanctuary. Beginning in the summer of 2005, when he was just 16, he began taking classes: music fundamentals, philosophy, sign language, algebra, biology, computers, logic — even Pilates.

 

But beginning in 2010, Mr. Loughner’s mostly private struggle with basic societal norms tipped into the public settings of the classroom, the library, the campus.

 

Pima Community College has six campuses, four educational centers and nearly 70,000 students. But one student in particular, it seems, came to occupy the attention of its administrators and security officers.

 

Disruptions and Monitoring

 

In February, an administrator reported to the campus police that Mr. Loughner had disrupted the class with his strange reaction to the reading of another student’s poem, taking a huge leap from its context to abortion, wars and killing people. The school official described him as “creepy.” They would keep an eye on him.

 

In April, the director of the library summoned the police because Mr. Loughner was making loud noises while listening to music through his earphones. According to a police report, he was advised “that this behavior was not an acceptable practice for a public setting, especially in a library.” The student said it would not happen again.

 

In May, an instructor reported to the campus police that when she informed Mr. Loughner that he had gotten a B in her Pilates class, he threw his work down and declared the grade unacceptable. Things got so tense that the instructor felt intimidated, and feared that the moment might become physical.

 

In June, a school counselor investigated an incident in which Mr. Loughner had disrupted a math class. When she inquired, Mr. Loughner first said that he was offended by the inquiry, then explained, “My instructor said he called a number 6, and I said I call it 18.” He said he also asked the instructor to explain, “How can you deny math instead of accept it?” He went on to strike the increasingly familiar theme of persecution: that he was being “scammed.”

 

“This student was warned,” the counselor, Delisa Siddall, wrote in a report. “He has extreme views and frequently meanders from the point. He seems to have difficulty understanding how his actions impact others, yet very attuned to his unique ideology that is not always homogeneous. ... Since he reported that an incident such as this occurred in another class, administrators will have to help this student clearly understand what is appropriate classroom dialog.”

 

Mr. Loughner said that he would not ask any more questions for fear of being expelled. All the while, though, he was expressing himself in sometimes odd conversations with other players in an online strategy game. Writing under the moniker “Dare,” he denounced his “scam” education, expressed frustration over his continued unemployment (“How many applications ... is a lot?”) and revealed that he had been fired from five jobs — including one, at a hamburger restaurant, that he lost because he left while in the throes of what he called a “mental breakdown.”

 

He also wrote of his “strong interest in logic.” But, it seems, it was a logic whose inductive and deductive reasoning made sense only to him.

 

Around this time, Mr. Loughner bumped into his old girlfriend, Ms. Figueroa, in a store. Years earlier, she had fallen for a shy boy in her computer class; they would hold hands during football games and hang out after marching band practice. Now here he was, his long locks shorn and an off-kilter air. A completely different person, it seemed.

 

“It was kind of like he wasn’t there,” Ms. Figueroa recalled. “I can’t put my finger on it. It just wasn’t a good feeling. I kind of got a chill.”

 

In September, Mr. Loughner filled out paperwork to have his record expunged on the 2007 drug paraphernalia charge. Although he did not need to bother — he completed a diversion program, so the charge was never actually on his record — Judge Jose Luis Castillo, who handled the case in Pima County Consolidated Justice Court, said after the shooting that, in retrospect, it definitely “crossed my mind” that Mr. Loughner was worried that the charge would prevent him from buying a weapon.

 

And that same month, there was another incident at Pima Community College, another class disruption caused by Mr. Loughner, another summoning of the campus police. A teacher had informed him that he would receive only a half-credit for handing in an assignment late, and he was declaring this a violation of his right to freedom of speech.

 

One of the responding police officers began to engage him with simple questions, only to enter the Loughner world of logic, in which freedom of speech morphed into freedom of thought and his teacher was required to accept the thoughts he wrote down as a passing grade. The other officer took note of the student’s tilted head and jittery, darting eyes.

 

A few days later, during a meeting with a school administrator, Mr. Loughner said that he had paid for his courses illegally because, “I did not pay with gold and silver” — a standard position among right-wing extremist groups. With Mr. Loughner’s consent, that same administrator then arranged to meet with the student and his mother to discuss the creation of a “behavioral contract” for him, after which the official noted: “Throughout the meeting, Jared held himself very rigidly and smiled overtly at inappropriate times.”

 

At the same time, other college administrators and officers were just learning of the “Pima Community College School-Genocide” video, in which the narrator says, “We are examining the torture of students,” and “I haven’t forgotten the teacher that gave me a B for freedom of speech,” and “This is Pima Community College, one of the biggest scams in America” — and “Thank you ... This is Jared ... from Pima College.”

 

Mr. Loughner was informed in his father’s garage that he was suspended. Not long after, the college sent him a letter saying that he would not be welcomed back until he presented certification from a mental health professional that he was not a threat. That never happened.

 

By now the strange presence that was Jared Loughner was known in places beyond the Northwest Campus of Pima Community College.

 

Leaving an Impression

 

At a small local branch of a major bank, for example, the tellers would have their fingers on the alarm button whenever they saw him approaching.

 

It was not just his appearance — the pale shaved head and eyebrows — that unnerved them. It was also the aggressive, often sexist things that he said, including asserting that women should not be allowed to hold positions of power or authority.

 

One individual with knowledge of the situation said Mr. Loughner once got into a dispute with a female branch employee after she told him that a request of his would violate bank policy. He brusquely challenged the woman, telling her that she should not have any power.

 

“He was considered to be short-tempered and made people at the bank very uncomfortable,” said the individual, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss the matter.

 

The bank’s employees could not forget how, after bulletproof glass was installed at the bank, Mr. Loughner would try to stick his finger through a small space atop the glass and laugh to himself, the person said.

 

And employees at the Sacred Art Tattoo shop would not forget that day in November — the same month in which Mr. Loughner bought a Glock — when he walked in wearing jean shorts and a muscle shirt and holding up a 9-millimeter bullet that he said he wanted replicated on his right shoulder.

 

It took less than a half-hour and cost $60. And when it was done, Mr. Loughner insisted on shaking the artist’s hand.

 

Then, a week later, he returned to get a second bullet tattoo.

 

“I started talking to him about what he liked to do, hobbies, pastimes,” recalled Carl Grace, 30, who drew the second tattoo. “He said he dreamed 14 to 15 hours a day. He said he knew how to control his sleeping and control his dreams.” But when the artist asked about the meaning behind the tattoo, the customer just smiled.

 

“When he left, I said: ‘That’s a weird dude. That’s a Columbine candidate.’ ”

 

A Busy Morning

 

At 9:41 last Saturday morning, a 60-year-old cabdriver named John Marino pulled his Ford Crown Victoria into the parking lot of a Circle K convenience store on West Cortaro Farms Road to collect his first fare of the day. The cashier inside raised her finger to signal one minute.

 

Then out came his customer, just another customer, a normal-looking young man. Climbing into the back seat, the man said he needed to go to the Safeway supermarket on Oracle Road, on the Northwest side. Their five-mile ride began.

 

Mr. Marino has been driving a taxi for a dozen years; he likes to say that he has hauled everyone from street walkers to mayors. He does not pry for information from his passengers, mostly because he doesn’t care. But if a customer wants to talk, he will talk. He glanced at his rear-view mirror and saw his passenger looking out the window. The passenger was quiet, until he wasn’t.

 

“Do you always remember everybody you pick up?” Mr. Marino recalled the man asking.

 

“Yeah, vaguely,” Mr. Marino says he answered. “I’ve been doing this a long time. It’s hard to remember everybody.”

 

At another point, the passenger blurted out, “I drink too much.” To which the cabdriver answered, “Oh, that’s too bad.”

 

Then it was back to silence.

 

By this point, the passenger, Mr. Loughner, had already had a full day.

 

Late the night before, he had dropped off a roll of 35-millimeter film to be developed at a Walgreens on West Ina Road. Law-enforcement officials would later say the roll included many photographs of Mr. Loughner wearing a bright red G-string and posing with a Glock. In some photos, presumably mirrored reflections, he holds the gun by his crotch; in others, next to his naked buttocks.

 

At 12:30 in the morning, he checked into Room 411 at a Motel 6 less than two miles from his house — an occasional habit, his parents later told investigators. The motel, a mottled brown building, sits near a railroad track; one of its rooms is still boarded up, marking where a guest shot himself recently.

 

Less than two hours later, he hopped back in his Chevy Nova to run a couple of errands, including a return to the Walgreens to collect those photographs of him posing nearly naked with a Glock. Soon after that, he posted a message on his Myspace page: “Goodbye friends.”

 

Shortly after 6, he headed back out for more predawn errands, including a visit to a Super Wal-Mart to buy ammunition and a black backpack-style diaper bag.

 

At 7:30, minutes after sunrise, he was stopped by an Arizona Game and Fish Department officer for running a red light, but was cordial and cooperative in providing his license, registration and insurance card.

 

He returned home, where his father confronted him about the contents of the black diaper bag he was lifting out the Chevy’s trunk. He mumbled something before dashing into the surrounding desert, his father giving futile chase in a vehicle. (Days later, a man walking in the desert came across a black diaper bag jammed with ammunition.)

 

Mr. Loughner then made his way to the Circle K, about a mile away. He called for a cab.

 

Now that cab was delivering its passenger in a hooded sweatshirt to his destination, the Safeway supermarket plaza, where a congresswoman was about to greet constituents. Mr. Loughner pulled out the Ziploc bag where he kept his cash and handed Mr. Marino a $20 bill for the $14.25 fare. The driver could not break the bill, so the two men went into the supermarket to get change.

 

Mr. Marino got in line at the customer-service desk, behind someone cashing in a winning lottery ticket. He received a few bills for the $20 and handed Mr. Loughner a $5 bill — meaning his tip was 75 cents. The cabdriver would later wonder why, considering what was about to happen, his passenger didn’t just let him keep the $20.

 

Before going their separate ways, Mr. Marino recalled, Mr. Loughner asked, “Can I shake your hand?”

 

Sure.

 

“And I noticed his hands were really sweaty,” recalled the cabdriver who had seen all types. “You know?”

 

Reporting was contributed by A.G. Sulzberger, Richard Oppel and Anissa Tanweer from Tucson; Sarah Wheaton from New York; and Janie Lorber from Washington. Jack Begg, Toby Lyles, Jack Styczynski and Kitty Bennett contributed research.

 

This kid was obviously insane, but it's starting to concern me that all of these points are being brought up about the drugs he took, the topics he was interested in, the video-games he played, where he was politically aligned, what he was interested in, etc....

 

Why is it that when one of these fucked up individuals commits a crime, we are all supposed to collectively accept the blame for that one person's resentment for the law and society. I smoke pot on a regular daily basis (never tried salvia), I play video-games all the time, I fucking hate Bush, I'm interested in anti-government "conspiracies"... but none of this would compel me to ever pick up a weapon and take innocent people's lives. None of what Jared Loughner did makes me feel collectively guilty as if I'm somehow responsible for how fucked up people can become in the kind of society we live in.

 

If there is any collective guilt that should be going around, in my opinion it should be amongst those in the government. I will be the one to say that, to me, this is blow-back towards our government for their corruption and disregard for the laws of our nation. Just like September 11th has been described as blow-back for our mistreatment and interference with other nations around the globe, this kid blew away a congresswoman because he was a) fucking crazy and sick and b) because our government gives people every reason to be violently upset with them to the point that we would pick up guns and start shooting. Thankfully, I don't personally feel violence is the answer and I know many people would agree with me and say that peace is necessary to bring about a restoration of our constitutional laws and remove corruption in our government. Unfortunately, there are sick individuals out there who don't have as strong of a mindset, and who wouldn't hesitate to blast away as many people as they can because in their own mind they are some sort of martyr.

 

This relates to what is happening all over the world. We have real legitimately sick individuals who have fundamental religious beliefs that America is corrupt and evil, therefore they are misguided into killing themselves for the sake of religion and suiciding while murdering others. They are convinced in their own minds that they are doing this for the good of humanity, or society, when in reality they are simply cold blooded murderers who are being used as pawns in a global game of chess.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if over the next few years we saw more of these incidents at more extreme levels. This only helps global Tyranny progress at a faster rate.

[fastZeetec302]

the uk's gun crimes are getting higher every year. stick to sipping tea br0

[christo-f]

On that note, and not intending to broach the issue of gun restriction (as I support farmers, sporting shooters, etc. having access, blah blah blah) in itself, I certainly hope the procedures of legally acquiring a weapon in Arizona are coming under scrutiny (he did get it legally, right? I haven't been keeping up).

 

I mean how did a lot of this not stand out when he either applied for his license or after he got it? Kind of like letting the visually impaired get a heavy vehicles license.

 

 

Disclaimer/ I don't know what goes in to the testing of applicants and all that. Just a little surprising that some one who in hindsight seems pretty screwed was able to legally obtain a weapon.

[TheoHuxtable..]

what an orwellian 'freedom=slavery' way to look at it.

you are entirely 100% wrong.

the question is what gives the government to take property AT ALL? walmart cannot come into my house and steal my money or force me to shop at their store. yet, if i possess property that has been in my family since before the creation of the US government, the government claims a right to tax me for it. it interferes with private transactions between consenting adults and charges sales tax. the list goes on ad infinitum.

 

That's really your opinion You gonna do something about it or are you gonna whine to me about it? Assuming you own property, I assume you are paying taxes on it. If not, then you're probably created a lot of trouble for yourself. And getting mad at me isn't really going to solve it.

 

The fact is you use a government services, whether it be the roads, sidewalks, parks, social security, the USPS (which is much cheaper than the private carriers), police & fire protection, and the list goes on. That's where your tax money goes to, and you as a citizen are entitled to use those services.

 

according to your 100% wonderful logic, why, all the jews had to do was just not partake in german society! all they had to do what just, oh, move to another location if they didnt want to live in a disarmed government poverty created ghetto like warsaw. why, all they had to do what just stay in their house locked in a basement under floor boards if they didnt want to wear those great little stars! and why, they could of kept their guns and money if they just didnt partake in german society and moved to a nice place out in the country and grew their own food and never owned any property!

duh! why, theo huxtable on 12oz told me that living under hitler was just COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY!

 

You have a knack for created strawman arguments, and putting words in other people's mouths, and then calling them stupid for an argument they never made. Just as I never said Republicans want to go back to the AOC, I never said any of that nonsense about Hitler or Germans.

 

i could however be a hypocrite like yourself. argue for higher taxes, then openly acknowledge you do everything you can to both legally and illegally decrease your tax liability. and then brag about not reporting income on a public message board, which flies in the face of everything you supposedly stand for. higher taxes, less freedom. yet in practice you are just as self interested as the rest of america. you want to pay as little taxes as you can get away with.

 

I said I do tax write-offs to decrease, which is 100% legal. How is that "hypocritical" if it within the means of the law? The main argument is that I see taxes as a necessity, and you think taxation is a form of oppression that should be eliminated at all costs.

 

 

this comment is to funny.

libertarians and the traditional conservatives (im talking pre bill buckley) were almost one and the same though they differed on a few issues. when ron paul says conservative to describe himself he does it help try to reclaim what the original conservative label meant. to think that ron paul and GWB are the same, is just 'too funny.'

 

Is this another incident of you putting words in people's mouths. I said or "thought" Ron Paul and GWB were the same? When?

 

You explicitly said that Ron Paul isn't a Conservative, and he just says that to stay in office. In other words you were accusing him of lying and behaving like a typical "politician".

 

yup, you can be culturally conservative and be a libertarian. you cannot be a political conservative in todays sense of the word and be a libertarian. why? conservatism wants to ban gay marriage, make abortion a federal issue, and has no problem outlawing drugs, prostitution, and other victimless crimes. libertarians believe in laissez faire in these areas.

 

my last comment on ayn rand...

 

ayn rand is a 'conservative' the same way a memphis beale street blues player in 1948 or bill monroe the father of bluegrass who both influenced elvis presley, are 'rock and roll' musicians.

rand was an intellectual influence on later conservative thought, but was not a conservative and always referred to conservatives as 'them' instead of referring to conservatives as 'us.'

 

The original point was that Conservatives/Libertarians today routinely reference Ayn Rand as one of their influences. As I showed you in the video of your heroes Ron & Rand Paul doing the same. Economic Leftists generally do not - going back to the original point of arguing against the notion that Loughner was somehow "Liberal" even though he was a fan of Ayn Rand.

 

 

dont you think after 50-70 years in japan, germany, south korea, and all these others places...that this might of been enough time to be responsible in 'gradually drawing down troop levels?'

 

I've always argued that the bases in Japan, Germany, and South Korea isn't necessary. It costs billions & trillions to maintain. This is where I support Ron Paul's beliefs.

 

The DIFFERENCE however is that Japan, Germany, and South Korea are not "war zones". South Korea does get periodical attacks and threats from the North, but its country itself is not "war-ravaged" and unstable, like Afghanistan and (to a lesser extent) Iraq.

 

no, i believe we do need 'healthcare reform.' however the reform im talking about is not nationalizing the health care system into one big soviet system, it is completely making it totally 100% free.

 

Wait, did you just say you are against Universal Healthcare while saying you want health care to be "100% free"? LOL! How does one expect to have free health care without a universal system? Private businesses certainly aren't going to be offering it for free. And national healthcare isn't really "free" itself since you can expect a tax hike, or at least spending cuts in other areas. Please lay out your plans on how a nation would offer "free" healthcare without nationalizing it.

[lord_casek]

On that note, and not intending to broach the issue of gun restriction (as I support farmers, sporting shooters, etc. having access, blah blah blah) in itself, I certainly hope the procedures of legally acquiring a weapon in Arizona are coming under scrutiny (he did get it legally, right? I haven't been keeping up).

 

I mean how did a lot of this not stand out when he either applied for his license or after he got it? Kind of like letting the visually impaired get a heavy vehicles license.

 

 

Disclaimer/ I don't know what goes in to the testing of applicants and all that. Just a little surprising that some one who in hindsight seems pretty screwed was able to legally obtain a weapon.

 

 

Unfortunately, nutjobs getting ahold of guns is one of the prices we sometimes have to pay for be able to own guns. You filthy fucking Aussie.

[Decyferon]

Ah, I would like to see that comment in full context before I believe it. Not saying that you are BSing, I'm just suggesting that there would be a hell of a lot more to it than that......, for instance Russia never had the logistics/transport available to invade the US. And that's just the first thing that comes to mind on the matter. There's more credence in the claim that Adolph never invaded Switzerland because they were armed and even that argument leaves out about a mountain of more relevant context. not to say that it never figured but just that there were far more relevant and deciding factors in play such as geography, necessity, etc. etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Fist, I only get frustrated at the way people discuss things or their thought processes on certain subjects. Whilst I see AOD as a total fucking nut case, I'd still be the first person to buy him a beer or two as I know we still have a lot of stuff in common that we could talk on and he's a respectful bloke who gives thought to his ideas and that alone gets respect from me. Same goes for other loonies like Ilotsmybrain, Zig and others, we disagree and I like to act childishly by calling people names sometimes but I still respect these clowns and would more than likely be happy to buy them a beer. Wearekilluminati on the other hand is quite plainly an idiot time waster that A) has the intellect of a 12 year old B) is very gullible and easily influenced, c) clearly uneducated, D) has the conversation skills of a fucking house brick and E) would more than likely find himself on his back snoring if he spoke to half the people on here face to face like he does from a safe distance.

 

 

 

 

And Casek, well he's just a conservative faggot ass hat, tin foil, left wing, bleeding heart, gun nut, god bothering, war monger, mum's basement, toy, bitch, lesbian, communist, pinko, hippy, nigga loving nazi fascist, homo, christian, terrorist, zionist, cop, extremist stooge.

 

Only person that has ever really got me angry on here was Soaker, I have gotten frustrated to talking to people on here before, but ultimately it doesn't matter so once I leave the PC i am chilled, although sometimes a bit dumbfounded.

 

So am I some kind of lefty socialist communist then christo? Personally I find it hard to believe you are sober half the time, surely that is against Aussie rules

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

can i ask why you guys keep coming back to crossfire to rehash the same arguments, thread after thread, and ultimately year after year?

 

its been a while since i quit posting in crossfire (outside of the god thread every few months) because i just find myself getting pissed off at whoever i was arguing with (usually dawood). neither of us had any intention of changing our stances. there was an opportunity to learn on occasion, but more often than not it seems that these threads are just affirmations of what you guys already believe, reworded 50 different ways, thread-dependent.

 

is it personally rewarding or is it just a way to kill time? do you guys get mad? (it certainly seems so based on the personal jabs every few posts) or are you able to look at this as a constructive or valuable conversation? this isn't high school debate, so what are the rewards (escape?) you get from this?

 

thanks.

 

With this logic, why do you even come to the forum?

 

For me, it's just a place to discuss things that normally don't come around in public, or with friends. Most of my friends could care less about anything discussed in this section of the forum. Yes, most of the issue's repeat, but so does daily life.

[Decyferon]

so do you think they should relax gun restrictions? anyone? I was thinking if they removed the licenses and everyone could wander around with a gun on them at all times things would be safer?

[lord_casek]

so do you think they should relax gun restrictions? anyone? I was thinking if they removed the licenses and everyone could wander around with a gun on them at all times things would be safer?

 

 

Maybe. Criminals wouldn't know who was packing and who wasn't. It would definitely level the playing field.

[angelofdeath]

That's really your opinion You gonna do something about it or are you gonna whine to me about it? Assuming you own property, I assume you are paying taxes on it. If not, then you're probably created a lot of trouble for yourself. And getting mad at me isn't really going to solve it.

 

The fact is you use a government services, whether it be the roads, sidewalks, parks, social security, the USPS (which is much cheaper than the private carriers), police & fire protection, and the list goes on. That's where your tax money goes to, and you as a citizen are entitled to use those services.

 

 

 

You have a knack for created strawman arguments, and putting words in other people's mouths, and then calling them stupid for an argument they never made. Just as I never said Republicans want to go back to the AOC, I never said any of that nonsense about Hitler or Germans.

 

 

the logic is 100% solid.

you are saying that just because a group of people got together many years ago, called their 'club' a government, and started bullying people around and making them pay for various things, stealing people's money and regulating every aspect of citizens lives, that they are justified in imposing their will on other people. its not right, plain and simple. not any more right than a crime family imposing their will on others.

 

how is a government different than a criminal gang?

they do the same thing. 'give me money or else!' or 'you are going to this thing our way or else.' that is the essence of government. it is a monopoly on force. to believe that government is voluntary, try not paying your income tax, try running off road diesel in your truck, and just tell jose padilla that bush's rule and the unlawful detention was just 'voluntary.' if you cannot even distinguish between something that is voluntary and something that is involuntary, than there is no hope for you. atleast most statists DO admit that taxation and regulation is NOT voluntary and that is exactly the point of it all. but to sit here and conjure up reasons how government is voluntary is just insane.

 

the logic of theo that says 'government is voluntary and taxes are voluntary and avoidable' is the same logic that says 'all the kulaks in russia had to do was just grow their own food and not earn any income and they would be able to avoid the total taxation and nationalization of the economy.

 

you only consider the immediate effects of your ideology. you do not even look at the broad picture of saying something as basically as silly as 'government is voluntary and dont get mad at me about it.

 

it is also very funny that whenever someone objects to unjust taxation the first thing the statist trot out is " roads, sidewalks, police & fire protection." these are obviously the least objectionable uses of tax payer dollars, but it still doesnt negate the act of theft. what are the bulk of taxes going to pay? bloated bureaucracies, un needed departments, zillions of bureaucrats, congressional pay and expenses, military industrial complex, (3000$ coffee pots!)medical industrial complex, corporate subsidies, the welfare state, bail outs, subsidization of industry, and a zillion other unconstitutional non necessary things. if all we had to worry about was paying taxes that fund roads and police (roads should be privatized but no need to get into this now) the anti tax sentiment in america would barely exist!

 

the USPS doesnt do things better or cheaper than a private carrier. the post office is 250 billion in the hole. the post office cant even deliver the mail at a profit with a GOVERNMENT GRANTED MONOPOLY they have enjoyed for over 200 years. not to mention, it is funny when the post office is subsidized by tax dollars in the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and you want to say its 'cheaper.' whats even more funnier than this is its prices on first class mail are cheaper because competition is outlawed and for letters that are 'urgent' (over night or 2 day) a private carrier is forbidden from charging double what the first class mail rate is!

and you want to tell me with a straight face that USPS is 'cheaper' ??

 

how does that saying go? '... and thats the rest of the story'

 

 

I said I do tax write-offs to decrease, which is 100% legal. How is that "hypocritical" if it within the means of the law? The main argument is that I see taxes as a necessity, and you think taxation is a form of oppression that should be eliminated at all costs.

 

i have repeatedly heard you argue for tax increases. why dont you set an example and just stroke off a check for double what you currently pay in taxes, because after all taxes are a necessity and you are a proper american for 'paying your fair share!' but dont feel bad, all you lefties do the same thing. the clintons argued for higher taxes for years, all the while enjoying lush tax breaks and subsidies. its another case of 'do as i say not as a do.' people push for laws that dont affect them. how would you feel if the law makers decided to tax guys named theo on 12oz 6 times the current tax rate? pay your fair share! yet this is what you do when you call to raise other peoples taxes. you want other people to pay more while you take every loop hole you can and as you admitted in clear english in a previous post you dont report income you earn under the table or that is 'untraceable' which is illegal. but i guess under your view, hypocrisy is consistency. and 'government is voluntary.'

 

. This is where I support Ron Paul's beliefs.

 

you must be a deranged nut job right winger conservative, young turk told me so.

 

 

Wait, did you just say you are against Universal Healthcare while saying you want health care to be "100% free"? LOL! How does one expect to have free health care without a universal system? Private businesses certainly aren't going to be offering it for free.

 

100% free as in 100% laissez faire. 100% laissez faire would be good, athough i'd settle for as free as the food system. for a couple days at least, then i'd be arguing for a total free market in medicine.

you know, 'free' has other meanings besides 'it doesnt cost anything'

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Fist, I only get frustrated at the way people discuss things or their thought processes on certain subjects. Whilst I see AOD as a total fucking nut case, I'd still be the first person to buy him a beer or two as I know we still have a lot of stuff in common that we could talk on and he's a respectful bloke who gives thought to his ideas and that alone gets respect from me. Same goes for other loonies like Ilotsmybrain, Zig and others, we disagree and I like to act childishly by calling people names sometimes but I still respect these clowns and would more than likely be happy to buy them a beer. Wearekilluminati on the other hand is quite plainly an idiot time waster that A) has the intellect of a 12 year old B) is very gullible and easily influenced, c) clearly uneducated, D) has the conversation skills of a fucking house brick and E) would more than likely find himself on his back snoring if he spoke to half the people on here face to face like he does from a safe distance.

 

 

 

 

And Casek, well he's just a conservative faggot ass hat, tin foil, left wing, bleeding heart, gun nut, god bothering, war monger, mum's basement, toy, bitch, lesbian, communist, pinko, hippy, nigga loving nazi fascist, homo, christian, terrorist, zionist, cop, extremist stooge.

 

HAHAHAHA. Word. That shit was just funny.