Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Survey marker: <a href="http://www.penryfamily.com/surveying/images/bmcandy1b.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.penryfamily.com/sur...dy1b.jpg</a> Cross hairs: <a href="http://www.cksinfo.com/clipart/signssymbols/targets/crosshair-2.png" target="_blank">http://www.cksinfo.com/clipart...ir-2.png</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Palin's map: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...433.html</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You would have a better case if he had been a sane person acting out of political hatred, but that ain't the case here." You don't know that. It may come out this guy knew exactly what he was doing.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///it has become de rigueur to give the public access to government worker full names, salary information and place of work./// The practice sounds fine ***EXCEPT*** the disclosure of full names. We should have access to know where(and how much) our money is going, all of it.
Originally Posted By mele It's absurd that people are pretending that Palin doesn't heavily rely on gun imagery for her persona. Mama Grizzly, don't retreat, RELOAD, I dunno...an entire show centered around her killing animals. That's the image she wants! I don't believe she wanted anyone shot, however, but I do believe she contributes to the vitriol/stupidity/truthiness in our political climate in a BIG way. Huge.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The practice sounds fine ***EXCEPT*** the disclosure of full names. We should have access to know where(and how much) our money is going, all of it." We have no problems with name of positions and exact salary. We've objected to the names, but the California Supreme Court felt otherwise.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I don't believe she wanted anyone shot>> I used to feel the same way, mele, but not anymore. I believe Sarah Palin simply DOES NOT CARE whether or not someone is shot or killed or paralyzed. It doesn't register on her radar, because she's incapable of having any sympathy or empathy for anyone else. Sarah Palin is a textbook example of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. People suffering from this disorder truly have no capacity for sympathy or empathy. They cannot feel beyond their own experiences. Everything in the world revolves around them. They are addicted to attention -- ANY attention -- be it good or bad. They are literally prisoners in their own little world. Sarah wants to be rich and famous and noticed and envied by everyone. And she does not care one iota how she achieves this, just as long as she achieves it. It's all about Sarah. Others simply do not matter.
Originally Posted By MamaTinkAz I have looked at Sara Palins website and it's She is not advocating shooting anyone so for those people making idiotic parallels and what this mad man did in Arizona SHAME ON YOU !.Americans make gun references all the time.I am sure we can find a quote that even our President has made that is violent if we try.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I hope he's not subjected to state-sanctioned murder, which Arizona does have./// Don't worry too much about AZ for the United States gets to 'peck' first since a US judge is already done.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///There is no evidence that Loughner was a Sarah Palin fan. There is no evidence that he was associated with the Tea Party/// And if the shooter were I would still hold them harmless to this incident.
Originally Posted By utahjosh < I believe Sarah Palin simply DOES NOT CARE whether or not someone is shot or killed or paralyzed. It doesn't register on her radar, because she's incapable of having any sympathy or empathy for anyone else.> You honestly believe that? I've never met a person, EVER who is that way. Ever.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<You honestly believe that? I've never met a person, EVER who is that way. Ever.>> You obviously don't work in a psychiatric-related profession. I've met people like this. I was married to someone like this. These people exist. They have no capability for deep feelings for others. It's part of their psychiatric disorder. You think Bernie Madoff had ANY feelings for the victims he was bilking? For the thousands of lives he was destroying? Of course not. He suffers from this same disorder. Madoff did not care ONE IOTA for the people he was destroying, because he was incapable of having any sympathy or empathy for them. I firmly believe that Sarah Palin is exactly like this.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>You honestly believe that? I've never met a person, EVER who is that way. Ever.<< I don't know if Sarah Palin is like that or not. But there are people like that in the world. They have anti-social personality disorder, formerly known as sociopathy. A big part of it, though not the only part, is an inability to empathize with other people. I tend to think Palin doesn't qualify. But I think it's undeniable that she shows a shocking, even dangerous inability to understand or empathize with anyone who isn't LIKE HER. She is on record as saying people who don't agree with her aren't "real Americans." She does seem to see people as not quite worthy of empathy or love if they don't fit in with her narrow definition of what a proper Christian and American is. I think skinner is spot on: She's a narcissist. She's in love with a particular false image of herself and she reacts vitriolicly when anyone challenges the image of St. Sarah that she's constructed for herself. And yes, I stand by my previous statements: she's dangerous and evil.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Hey Barboy, do you believe in direct correlation or any sense of culpability at all in these matters when hateful rhetoric is directed at specific people, as in the case with Palin?/// I wrote "of course not" but that only applied to the culpability part of your question. As for the correlation part, obviously 'yes'....... there is a correlation when the Palin drones chant 'terrorist'/'socialist' at ralies.
Originally Posted By mele <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/26/elizabeth-hasselbeck-sara_n_514561.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...561.html</a> Hell is a little colder today.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater IS legal under the 1st amendment, however by doing so, you had better be prepared to face the repercussions of doing so/// You may have forgotten to include 'falsely'(or its equivalent) in your statement. One can incite fear in crowds all he wants, as long as there is something to fear. And by the way Edis, that was a most strange thing to write since you cited something as protected speech("legal under the 1st amendment") and then immediately turned around and effectively said it was not protected speech("Inciting a riot and involuntary manslaughter")......very strange indeed!
Originally Posted By mele It's a good thing only the left is trying to demonize others by unproven facts: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/rush-bails-water-arizona_n_806912.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...912.html</a>
Originally Posted By mele This is my favorite from the above article: WHERE'S THE SAFETY NET? "Loughner is obviously deranged, so where's the left's safety net? Haven't we spent trillions of dollars to build a system to catch these disturbed people? Where is the evidence that their compassion works?" Hm, like the availability of accessible health care for all? Like that kind of safety net/system? I was unaware that "the left" was entirely responsible for setting up the laws and treatment options regarding the mentally ill. Right now, most mentally ill adults (and in some states, teenager) usually have the ultimate say in getting treatment. The cost of meds for a truly mentally ill person is incredibly high, especially considering they might not be able to hold down jobs and/or get health care. (And believe me, I realize that their illness might stop them from taking meds even IF they were 100% covered.) Once a patient is stabilized (it can take only a couple of days), they're let out into the world. But, and it's a BIG but, how is this magical Lefty system supposed to work with LESS governmental interference?
