Evil people

[JoshuaW]

As his moral code is not accepted by most liberals today.

There you go again. I am sure that most American liberals are either Christians or Jews. On what do you base your statement that Jesus' moral code is not accepted by most liberals?

 

[MachZer0]

There you go again. I am sure that most American liberals are either Christians or Jews. On what do you base your statement that Jesus' moral code is not accepted by most liberals?

I base it on the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-pornography doctrine of liberalism.

 

[Guttermouth]

I base it on the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-pornography doctrine of liberalism.

Uh huh. What yo call pro-homosexuality, we call pro-human rights. What you call pro-abortion we call freedom of choice and freedom of conscience. What you call pro-pornogrpahy we call free speech.

Kind of like me saying you are pro-war, pro-theocracy, pro-murder, pro-discrimination, and pro-genocide. Would that be a fair description of your position? I'm not claiming it is, but these are your rules.

Your derrogatory characterizations are not particularly impressive.

 

[crazyfingers]

I base it on the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-pornography doctrine of liberalism.

You appear to be confusing being pro-personal freedom for being pro-those things.

Do you support my right to speak out against Christianity? If you do support my right to speak out against Christianity then by your argument, you are against Christianity.

 

[chaz345]

Wayne LaPierre - his dogmatic refusal to allow the registration and regulation of weapons has contributed significantly to the number of homicides in the US

Got any objective information that shows a causal link? Any reason to believe that someone disturbed/ angry/callous enough to kill another human would care one bit about the legality of the weapon in the first place?

I'd agree that registration may make it easier for law enforcement after the fact, but that doesn't do much for the dead person does it?

 

[chaz345]

What you call pro-pornogrpahy we call free speech.

It is clear to anyone who cares to objectively look at the facts that free speech as defined/envisioned by the founders was intended to apply only to speech critical of the government.

 

[chaz345]

You know, if O'Reilly is on there, shouldn't Hannity and Limbaugh be on there.

Limbaugh specifically promotes false claims, cites false data, generates negative stereotypes, villifies large groups of people, all for monetary gain. His pompous self-righteousness and claims of moral superiority are counter balanced with illegal drug purchases and addiction, problems for which he promotes others be permanently imprisoned, while giving himself a pass.

Hannity is just one lying, hate-filled, death-promoting diatribe after another. All for cash.

Oh...and then there is Coulter...

On the other side of the politcal spectrum, but equally as guilty of the very same things in the pursuit(just not a sucessfully) of money, we have Franken, Olberman and Randi Roads.

 

[crazyfingers]

It is clear to anyone who cares to objectively look at the facts that free speech as defined/envisioned by the founders was intended to apply only to speech critical of the government.

Well that's an interesting bit of nonsense.

By your logic, the supreme court could have outlawed criticism of Christianity, or any other thing, long ago.

Your statement is just plain wrong.

 

[Guttermouth]

It is clear to anyone who cares to objectively look at the facts that free speech as defined/envisioned by the founders was intended to apply only to speech critical of the government.

Really? So we could start passing laws against people stating an opinion on anything at all as long as it isn't critical of the government? Sort of a rule system where the majority can tell the minoirty what they can and can't say...

Do you really want to go down this road? I don't think you will fare very well here....

 

[marshlewis]

It is clear to anyone who cares to objectively look at the facts that free speech as defined/envisioned by the founders was intended to apply only to speech critical of the government.

Whoops, thats 200 years of intellectual work down the drain due to a simple assumption.
Or maybe your wrong about what FREE SPEACH!! means.

 

[Guttermouth]

On the other side of the politcal spectrum, but equally as guilty of the very same things in the pursuit(just not a sucessfully) of money, we have Franken, Olberman and Randi Roads.

I agree that Randi Rhodes' speech is over the top at times, but is it of the level of a Mark Lavin or Rush Limbaugh? I'd be open to examples of her openly lying to promote her agenda and make money. But I can't put her in the evil catagory based on what I know.

Franken's whole concept is in exposing lies on the right. He does so very well. I've listened to him a lot. Far from evil. Olberman similarly does not lie to promote an agenda.

How about John Stewart. You think he is evil? (I don't)

Believe me, I am open to putting any sort of person on the evil list if I feel they qualify. Left, right or in between.

 

[JoshuaW]

On the other side of the politcal spectrum, but equally as guilty of the very same things in the pursuit(just not a sucessfully) of money, we have Franken, Olberman and Randi Roads.

You want Al Franken on a list of Evil People? I'm sure he would be flattered.

 

[JoshuaW]

Got any objective information that shows a causal link? Any reason to believe that someone disturbed/ angry/callous enough to kill another human would care one bit about the legality of the weapon in the first place?

I'd agree that registration may make it easier for law enforcement after the fact, but that doesn't do much for the dead person does it?

Sure let's take Virginia at random. The NRA lobbied hard against regulation of firearms, the result being that almost anyone can purchase a gun in Virginia, even if they were under observation for mental instability. (Sound familiar?).

You may say such a person could just buy a gun on the black market. Uh-huh. What is the address of the black market? What is its website?

The key to committing murder and mayhem is to get your hands on a gun without anyone asking why you need it. Wayne LaPierre guarantees that right.

 

[chaz345]

You want Al Franken on a list of Evil People? I'm sure he would be flattered.

I wasn't necessarily nominating my examples for the list as much as I was simply pointing out that there are commentators on both sides of the political spectrum that do pretty much the same thing.

 

[chaz345]

Sure let's take Virginia at random. The NRA lobbied hard against regulation of firearms, the result being that almost anyone can purchase a gun in Virginia, even if they were under observation for mental instability. (Sound familiar?).

You may say such a person could just buy a gun on the black market. Uh-huh. What is the address of the black market? What is its website?

The key to committing murder and mayhem is to get your hands on a gun without anyone asking why you need it. Wayne LaPierre guarantees that right.

I asked for objective information that shows a causal link, not the same opinion that you have replied with several times.

I think you vastly overstate the difficulty of illegally buying a gun. Especially since many gang members seem to be able to figure it out on a daily basis and most of them are probably of quite a bit lower intelligence than Cho was.

As for the key to comitting murder and mayhem you still haven't even begun to address the idea that if gun's weren't available, he would have had hundreds of other possibilities, many of which could easily have resulted in more( and probably more painful) deaths.

 

[JoshuaW]

I asked for objective information that shows a causal link, not the same opinion that you have replied with several times.

I think you vastly overstate the difficulty of illegally buying a gun. Especially since many gang members seem to be able to figure it out on a daily basis and most of them are probably of quite a bit lower intelligence than Cho was.

As for the key to comitting murder and mayhem you still haven't even begun to address the idea that if gun's weren't available, he would have had hundreds of other possibilities, many of which could easily have resulted in more( and probably more painful) deaths.

oh? name one method Cho could have used to achieve the same number of deaths in a short time period. I'll help you out....an explosive vest. Name another.

 

[chaz345]

oh? name one method Cho could have used to achieve the same number of deaths in a short time period. I'll help you out....an explosive vest. Name another.

I have, several times.

Block the emergency exit, toss in a couple if gallons of gasoline and a match and then block the other exit.

Or substitute a couple of gallons of ammonia and bleach which would create toxic chlorine gas.

Fertilizer bomb.

Bleach and brake fluid which will not only emit massive amounts of toxic smoke but will also often burn.

Any of those in a crowded room with blocked exits could have resulted in far more deaths.

 

[chaz345]

I feel the need to clarify something here. I'm not out to prove anyone wrong. I really do want to understand. And what I'm still not understanding is how more regulation would stop someone who is already intent on breaking the law against murdering people. The existing gun control laws in the places where they are strictest, don't seem to prevent much gun violence.

 

[JoshuaW]

My point is it's quite difficult to murder 32 people even using those methods you describe. Gasoline? I expect they could escape a fire. Remember, these were fit college students, many no doubt macho guys who were gun owners themselves.

No, if you want real efficiency in murder, two Glocks with oversized clips really can't be beat.

 

[chaz345]

My point is it's quite difficult to murder 32 people even using those methods you describe. Gasoline? I expect they could escape a fire. Remember, these were fit college students, many no doubt macho guys who were gun owners themselves.

No, if you want real efficiency in murder, two Glocks with oversized clips really can't be beat.

For the record, even though I'm not an NRA member, I find that image in your post to be offensive. The implication that the NRA supports actions like Cho's is just plain rude. That you, or somone feel the need to stoop to such tactics though only demonstrates a weakness of their position.