Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

No, it's not. How many dead bodies are going to have to pile up in this country before someone finally stands up and says, "enough is enough?" I don't think anyone here thought the guy was really planning on hunting Obama, come on now. But it was a freakin' sick thing to say. And people say stupid, sick things in the face of a very gruesome reality and no one can call them on it?

So while nutcases are running around with guns, shooting citizens and committing mass murders, morons like this believe that comments about "hunting and shooting" people in our county are nothing more than just "bad jokes," and nothing to apologize for and nothing to be upset about?" So let's just all "calm down and take a deep breath," until the next mass shooting at a church, or a school, or a college or at a civic center takes place, so that we can all just helplessly wring our hands, and say, "there's nothing to be done."

Oh, but wait, let a late-night comic make an off-color joke about the girl of a powerful politician "getting knocked up," and we don't hear the freakin' end of it. Really, you tell me, LKD, how many times did Letterman have to apologize for a "bad joke" about Palin's daughter, and have the lunatics carrying signs outside his building, because he "told a bad joke?" And that he needed to apologize and make it a national spectacle, because Ms Palin was "deeply offended" by his "bad joke?" Imagine if Lettman had commented that someone needs to "hunt down Palin?" Wow, I hate to think of the "conservative outrage" that would have caused. How many mindless YOUTUBE links would we have to view over that one??

 

Good thing people are entitled to their own opinions....

Now, that is good to know.

Wow, and I almost forgot to notice how "funny" THAT was....

 

BTA - I should be on record, somewhere on this board as saying that Letterman did need to apologize for making that off-color comment about Palin's daughter. As a parent of two girls, I understand Ms Palin's offense. I was glad that Letterman did make a public apology, and I felt that it was in good spirit and faith that he made it. He apologized for it, so we should "get on with life."

In this instance, the guy who made the joke, has commented that he has "nothing to apologize for because it was only a joke," and, to add to his arrogance, he is telling the rest of us how we need to react to his comments. He is condescending enough to tell the rest of us to "calm down and take a deep breath." He is entitled to his opinion, just as everyone else is - still I don't need him, or anyone else, to tell me how to behave or how to react to something I find sick and offensive. I always try to express the viewpoint that everyone is entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it.

 

I agree with you BTA....

 

Chandos, a couple of things.

1.) You seem to be implying that nuts with guns have been running loose in the US shooting at political officials like crazy, as if the US were a war-zone or something. In that kind of climate, I'd agree with you that this guy really crossed a line. Thankfully, we don't have that kind of climate. There have been a few people taking guns to protests, legally, and not causing any trouble; and there have been even fewer people trying to get guns into rallies, illegally, and they've been arrested. So far, I think I've heard of about 8 cases, total, between both those groups, and not a shot has been fired yet (from what I've heard).

2.) You are saying that it is 'condescending' to tell people who are clearly reacting emotionally that they need to 'calm down'. Personally, I think you may need to take that advice, though I'm not 100% sure.

3.) You seem to be saying that Letterman was treated too harshly, and yet appear to want to treat this guy substantially worse for, basically, the same thing (an impromptu joke about a violent crime against an innocent person). Actually, was Letterman's joke impromptu, or was it scripted? If it was scripted, Letterman really did need to apologize. If not, I'd say the protesters there need to calm down, too.

 

NOG:

1. I commented that we have a lot of gun violence in this country, not directed at public officials specifically. But that "enough is enough," and with all the tragedy we have gone though as a country, it is not funny, or anything to joke about.

2. I'll try my best to be polite to you in this regard, since I find that remark insulting, so I would appreciate if you would keep comments like that to yourself in the future. We are all trying to be friendly here so I see no reason for insults.

3. I apologize for not being clear enough in my comments regarding Letterman. Let me repeat myself: Lettman should have apologized publicly for his comments, which were over-the-top and moronic regarding Palin's daughter. I felt he offered his apology in good faith and he did the right thing by it. I hope we are clear now.

As I commented, eveyone is entitled to his own opinion. For this "gentleman" to comment that people, who don't like his comment, need to take a deep breath and calm down, just because they are expressing their opinions, is a pretty strong indication of his arrogance and narrow mindedness in that someone should dare hold a different opinion than his. As I commented feel free to disagree.

 

1.)I don't know of any recent uproar in gun violence. As far as I know, it's been pretty stable for years. 3 years ago, if the comment were made about Bush, I would have taken it the same way I do now. I would have taken it the same way 10 years ago about Clinton. We do have more gun violence than we should (any is more than we should), but really most places don't have terribly high gun crime rates. I'd also like to know exactly what 'tragedies' we've gone through as a country that you feel relates. Are you talking long-term (i.e. over the whole history of the country) or recent. Seriously, I'm confused where that comment came from.

2.) What do you see as offensive or condescending about 'calm down'? All it says is 'you seem to be in high emotions which are not productive to the discussion'. He's not calling them twits, or idiots, or anything insulting like that (at least that I've seen), and neither am I. I'm just saying you seemed to be getting very worked up and emotional, and that's rarely a productive state to be in, especially when you feel someone's been offended in any way.

4.) He's not saying to calm down just because people disagree with him, but because people are trying to eat him alive for his comment (figuratively speaking, of course). I doubt he would have said that if someone had just said, "You know, I think that comment was out of line, and I would like to see you apologize to President Obama." Instead, people are reporting him to the FBI and crucifying him in the press.
They're almost treating him like the Unibomber or Osama Bin Laden.

 

...Talk about "high emotion." You should take your own advice.

Watch:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4920269n

I don't believe gun control is the answer. But neither are stupid, moronic jokes about gun violence.

 

That's not high emotion, though I can see how it could be read as such. I was entirely calm when I wrote that.

And detailing a number of recent cases doesn't show anything. You can find cases like that all across America for the past decade and more. Columbine wasn't the first school shooting, or the first mass murder case, in American history.

I'll agree stupid jokes don't help the situation any, but I honestly don't think they hurt it any, either. To me, it seems like you're trying to force a connection to a completely unconnected problem.

 

Well, you don't sound very calm.

Yes, it does. I wanted you to notice the dates on those shootings. Take a look again. Your original comment was:

If you see how close together the dates are, and if you watched the link I provided, you would be much better informed on the sudden rise in mass shootings.

1. Detailing the number of cases, DOES show something (as shown by the dates).

2. There has been a recent uproar in gun violence (and the link proves that).

Why do you insist on making such ill-informed comments?

 

Wow, I sounded to you? I gotta get that program!

My point is that all you've proven is that gun violence happens. Detailing recent cases doesn't show anything about past cases. Strictly from your data and links, for all we know, that could be a downtrend. As I've said, I know things like that happen, but the fact of the matter is that they aren't recent developments. They've been happening for a long, long time. There are (and have been) school shootings that don't make the news. There are (and have been) police shot in the line of duty. There are (and have been) people taking guns to work/parks/malls and going crazy. These things happen, as your links prove, but they aren't new.

 

What we are discussing here is specific gun violence, not shootings caused by acts of crime. But, if you will, people just shooting people for no good reason other than they are pissed off and their only solution seems to be to turn a gun on someone. I suppose you are thinking of any crime in which a gun is someway invovled, but I was speaking along the same lines as the discussion in the link I provided from ABC (hence the reason it's there).

No, again, notice the mass shootings for 2009 compared to the other dates. And listen to the link.

It will go well with the one for "tap dancing" that you seem so fond of.

 

Chandos, one of the incidents mentioned in the video was about police killed after reporting to an ongoing crime-scene. It's not that big of a surprise that they were shot at.

Beyond that, though, unless you intend to tell me that those are all the gin-crimes like that in history, it's still meaningless. Yes, you presented more cases in 2009 than 2008 or 2007, but that doesn't mean that there really were more cases, just that you presented, and probably found, those.

This stinks to me of the same BS the news pulled when I was in high-school and they reported, on national news, about every shark attack on the east coast. They were talking about everyone being 'so paniced over the recent rash of shark attacks'. Later, statistics from the gov't showed that that year actually had fewer shark attacks than the several prior. The next year, they tried the same thing with school bus accidents. Someone rear-ended a school bus! A school bus was broad-sided by someone running a red light! What can we do to protect our children and school busses?! Again, statistics showed that year wasn't actually an anomaly. You're presenting selective data, and the above is what can happen with selective data. It's a fundamentally flawed approach.

 

Denial, denial, denial...prove me wrong. Go ahead show some facts. You have the same internet I do -- go ahead -- make my day.

That was your comment. I proved you were wrong, again, by providing one example of a news story that illustrated the "recent uproar," and you provided...nothing.

 

Chandos, I don't log every news article like you apparently do. Either that, or I just don't have the time and energy to search the way you do. I'm going from what I've seen on TV and the local newspaper for years.

And anyway, if you're specifically looking for pointless "I'm going to end it all" crimes like those listed, it's completely off-topic. The comment that started this whole debate has nothing to do with it. Even if you presume that it may really spark an attack of some kind, that would be a very point-based assassination attempt. The thing that would worry me on that point would be an uptick in suicide-by-cop cases which, as far as I've heard, died off years ago.

 

No need to tell us.

 

NOG - We can argue that point about the "joke's" comment and its relevance to the bigger picture of gun violence, if indeed it has any. And that is a valid point we can argue. But I was a bit taken back by your comment that "there has not been a recent uproar" because of gun violence, considering the events of last Spring (which were very prominent in the news).

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7262910

I think the salient point of the link I provided in the earlier post was that despite the extreme violent acts, we really don't do much other than say, "how tragic." And the next time it happens we do pretty much the same thing. Platitudes are fine, especially when they are sincere, but there comes a point when we have to take such violent acts more seriously.

So far, the debate has centered around gun control, which I think has been a bit misguided. I think a large piece of the answer, and this is just a personal opinion, is that our leaders (and those who aspire to be leaders) have to have a serious public discourse on the issue of gun violence. Until now it has been "liberals want to take our guns," versus "gun-loving loons want to shoot up the country." And that really is NOT a serious discourse. But when a would-be leader pops off with a "hunting the president" comment, it illustrates, at least in my opinion, that they are not taking this issue very seriously, and until they start, the problem won't go away anytime soon. The story in the link points out that we may be at a point in which we are becoming to "desensitized" to the issue of gun violence, and that may be a large part of the problem.