Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords is shot

Quote:

---

US congresswoman has been shot and killed at a public event in southern Arizona.

Gabrielle Giffords, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives, was shot in the head at close range in front of hundreds of people.

The gunman was arrested after the shooting at the event at a supermarket in the city of Tucson.

Members of her staff were among up to 12 other people who were also shot. Six are reported to have died.

Ms Giffords, 40, who represented the eighth district of Arizona in the House, was married to space shuttle astronaut Mark Kelly.

She served on several congressional committees, including those covering the armed services and foreign affairs.

Jeff Rogers, chairman of the local Democratic Party, said Ms Giffords was "a rising star" in the Democratic Party and had hoped to eventually win the Arizona Senate seat.

"That is terrible news. She was a wonderful congresswoman and a wonderful person," he told BBC News.

He added: "We just can't continue to have this kind of carnage on school campuses and against public officials."

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774

Quote:

---

KOLD_news13 KOLD News 13 LATE BREAKING: UMC officials confirm Rep. Giffords is in surgery. She has not been declared dead.

---

http://twitter.com/marklittlenews/st...24503301742593

Blimey.

so is she dead or not

according to Sky Breaking News she has been pronounced dead now


----

ok retract that, they just tweeted saying that was false:

@SkyNewsBreak

Reuters: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is alive and in surgery after being shot in the head - earlier reports said she had died.

Blimey, a bit severe over politics however the Americans haven't got the best track record when it come's to guns.

I'd be surprised if she lives.

Are the anti-gun lobby going to make a comment yet on this story blaming this fluke event on the legality of guns in the U.S.? (I await it).

.... Why was she shot? The man who did it is a bit of a berk to be honest, not sure what he was attempting to prove. This is why you shouldn't give guns out willy nilly to apes.

http://twitpic.com/3o85wi

One of the Sarah Palin gun crosshair maps that her people are scrubbing the webs for...

The report says she was shot at a supermarket then someone saying "we just cant have this kind of carnage on school grounds"??

Anyway, I hope she recovers. was there a motive or just a mad man?

The guy who shot her's youtube and some weird videos he made

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHoaZaLbqB4

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

might get removed soon though but I think people are reupping

Everyone's blaming Sarah Palin which is ridiculous. Yes she's done stupid things but it's not her fault one nutjob took it too far.

Her TV show hasn't been renewed which many believe she quit because she is thinking of running for President in 2012.

So, she really needs this negative publicity like a hole... well, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs.McCall

Everyone's blaming Sarah Palin which is ridiculous. Yes she's done stupid things but it's not her fault one nutjob took it too far.

---

on sarah palin's website
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...ntshooting.jpg

the congresswoman's district in crosshairs on sarah palin's website:
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...wsmallgood.jpg

after the health care bill passed, she tweets "Don't retreat, instead- RELOAD!"

of course sarah palin is not specifically to blame, but its her blatantly irresponsible rhetoric that makes so many republican nutjobs think its their responsibility to "save america" by attacking this woman for her politics. this isnt the first time this woman has been threatened and attacked, a gun was dropped at a previous rally of hers and someone smashed the front of her office after the health care bill passed. when bush was in office, republicans weren't getting constant death threats from democrats. but i dont think theres a single person in congress who voted for the health care bill who hasnt gotten death threats. sarah palin personalizes and demonizes other people and it makes for a completely dangerous and dysfunctional political landscape. she has to learn that there's consequences to her rhetoric.

i find the C word very offensive and i never use it, but i might make an exception with sarah palin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

.... Why was she shot? The man who did it is a bit of a berk to be honest, not sure what he was attempting to prove. This is why you shouldn't give guns out willy nilly to apes.

---

a lot of people are assuming he was angry about her immigration/health care stance (which is reasonable, as there have been lots of death threats and acts of violence towards people with her stance) however not all the facts are out, and from the looks of it so far it seems like this man might have simply been a lunatic. his views make no sense. if you watch his youtube videos, youll probably just be more confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

of course sarah palin is not specifically to blame, but its her blatantly irresponsible rhetoric that makes so many republican nutjobs think its their responsibility to "save america" by attacking this woman for her politics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

she has to learn that there's consequences to her rhetoric.

---

Or maybe instead of blaming (or lightly pinning the blame on) Sarah Palin (who I see as part of the same GOP-Democratic Party anyway) you should blame the guy who actually carried this out on his own merits, instead of using his own head and thinking 'hang on, if I do x the consquence will be x'. I think a lot of people have lost sense of what personal responsibility means - that you are in control and you alone are responsible for actions you take.

If I told you to stick your hand in the fire would you?

No, you wouldn't.

If she recovers I'm sure she'll be regretting living in place of the 9-year-old girl.

she removed her tweet about reloading

This sums up my thoughts nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq38Nnf4pOw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Or maybe instead of blaming (or lightly pinning the blame on) Sarah Palin (who I see as part of the same GOP-Democratic Party anyway) you should blame the guy who actually carried this out on his own merits, instead of using his own head and thinking 'hang on, if I do x the consquence will be x'. I think a lot of people have lost sense of what personal responsibility means - that you are in control and you alone are responsible for actions you take.

If I told you to stick your hand in the fire would you?

No, you wouldn't.

---

you missed the point. firstly, this man is insane. you're right , I PERSONALLY would not stick my hand in fire. however, someone who is MENTALLY UNSTABLE might. especially if you tell that man his way of life may be in danger if he doesn't. obviously i'm not saying sarah palin pulled the trigger or even directly influenced this man to carry out the attacks (although i wouldn't rule it out), but its how she and other GOP talking heads rile up peoples emotions for no god damn reason over issues that aren't nearly as severe as they say they are that allow the tense political landscape where these types of things happen. sarah palin's mantra is "the health care bill is destroying america" which is a statement that is ridiculous to the point of irresponsibility. the GOP has been telling people that the health care bill will allow for the government to kill your relatives who are too old, that the next step up from it is a completely socialist society. do you think people would be bringing guns to democratic rallies and threatening the lives of politicians if the talking heads of the GOP were honest and said "your taxes might go up in about 5 years because of the health care bill and thats about it"? obviously not, because the only way the GOP gets votes nowadays is if they instill fear in their base. making people fear for their livelihoods makes people act in ways they would not otherwise.

this is a nicely written article. and the olbermann piece that fez posted is quite good too, although ive always thought that guy was a jerk even though i agree with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misawa

If she recovers I'm sure she'll be regretting living in place of the 9-year-old girl.

---

what an awful thing to say, its not her fault she survived while a little girl died?

So is she in a stable condition now or has she died?

Wouldn't you regret it if you were targetted by a gunman and a 9 year old got killed and you survived?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

you missed the point. firstly, this man is insane. you're right , I PERSONALLY would not stick my hand in fire. however, someone who is MENTALLY UNSTABLE might. especially if you tell that man his way of life may be in danger if he doesn't. obviously i'm not saying sarah palin pulled the trigger or even directly influenced this man to carry out the attacks (although i wouldn't rule it out), but its how she and other GOP talking heads rile up peoples emotions for no god damn reason over issues that aren't nearly as severe as they say they are that allow the tense political landscape where these types of things happen.

---

You mean like the hysteria that followed Obama's election victory in 2008? what about the hysteria from both sides over the threat of terrorism and from the Democratic side on the issue of global warming? (i'll go into both on the next quote) By all means attack the Republican Party, but attack the Democratic Party which is part of the same thing - a two headed monster which is destroying the U.S.

This issue is very severe, you are facing complete decline if you do not reign in your spending and your ways - Great Britain suffered the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

sarah palin's mantra is "the health care bill is destroying america" which is a statement that is ridiculous to the point of irresponsibility. the GOP has been telling people that the health care bill will allow for the government to kill your relatives who are too old, that the next step up from it is a completely socialist society.

---

Well it is destroying America - I don't know whether you are aware but you are on the verge of going bankrupt with a growing debt of £13tn+ and in the meantime you are increasing spending, increasing the size and scope of a government that you cannot afford. It is one thing supporting universal healthcare provided by the state, but you cannot afford it - it is not a reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2MHw3BfELU&feature=related

The western world is turning socialist, China and the capitalist East are rising and are overtaking you. A report today warned that the U.S. is on the way to socialism, and I agree; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...st-nation.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

do you think people would be bringing guns to democratic rallies and threatening the lives of politicians if the talking heads of the GOP were honest and said "your taxes might go up in about 5 years because of the health care bill and thats about it"? obviously not, because the only way the GOP gets votes nowadays is if they instill fear in their base. making people fear for their livelihoods makes people act in ways they would not otherwise.

---

The Democratic Party is just the same with the use of fear, Obama and his global warming bills/spending telling you all that if you do not cough up green taxes the world is going to end - the same accounts for both the Republicans and Democrats concerning terrorism and war, telling you all to abandon your civil liberties in the name of security and you all bow down and agree to be treated like cattle at the airport.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have their stains all over the U.S. Patriot Bill, along with the two wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs.McCall

Everyone's blaming Sarah Palin which is ridiculous. Yes she's done stupid things but it's not her fault one nutjob took it too far.

Her TV show hasn't been renewed which many believe she quit because she is thinking of running for President in 2012.

So, she really needs this negative publicity like a hole... well, you know.

---

Well If what I heard is true she published an image on the lady shot with a gun site over her face. This could be seen as pretty provocative and maybe inciting a somebody with mental issues to actually shoot her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Well If what I heard is true she published an image on the lady shot with a gun site over her face. This could be seen as pretty provocative and maybe inciting a somebody with mental issues to actually shoot her.

---

You'd be much better asking 'why are people with such mental issues allowed amongst the general public?'.

Of course we know why in Britain this is the case, we closed all the mental hospitals down in an attempt (failed) to 'integrate' these people with the general public, something which costs many lives every year and I suspect it is the same in the U.S.

Palin is not responsible for the actions of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You'd be much better asking 'why are people with such mental issues allowed amongst the general public?'.

Of course we know why in Britain this is the case, we closed all the mental hospitals down in an attempt (failed) to 'integrate' these people with the general public, something which costs many lives every year and I suspect it is the same in the U.S.

---

Well we don't know if he has yet so no point speculating at this point. Yes I know all about the 'Care in the Community' initiatives which I agree have totally failed and have put the public at risk. It is niave to suggest that a well known political figure as Sarah Palin should not be responsible for her own actions too. What on earth is she doing publishing images of faces with gun sites over them - did she not think about the consequences that her actions could have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You mean like the hysteria that followed Obama's election victory in 2008? what about the hysteria from both sides over the threat of terrorism and from the Democratic side on the issue of global warming? (i'll go into both on the next quote) By all means attack the Republican Party, but attack the Democratic Party which is part of the same thing - a two headed monster which is destroying the U.S.

This issue is very severe, you are facing complete decline if you do not reign in your spending and your ways - Great Britain suffered the same way.

---

never said i think the democrats are any better for this country, but they arent really advocating violence. and "hysteria" following obama's victory? as someone who was HERE in 2008, i didnt see any more "hysteria" than after any presidential election, there are ALWAYS angry people after an election. the people really in real hysterics were those who bought into believing obama was going to take everyone's land and force-teach us the koran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

[COLOR=darkred][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]Well it is destroying America - I don't know whether you are aware but you are on the verge of going bankrupt with a growing debt of £13tn+ and in the meantime you are increasing spending, increasing the size and scope of a government that you cannot afford. It is one thing supporting universal healthcare provided by the state, but you cannot afford it - it is not a reality.

---

if you think the health care bill is destroying america, that MUST mean you think america was already destroyed in the 1940's. all the health care bill is is an extension of social security to cover more people. there is absolutely no difference. and america has been in debt since its inception, yet we have been able to become the most prosperous nation in history. the way the health care bill was originally intended would SAVE money. the government spends so much money paying for medical treatment for people with no money or insurance (because it is required by law for doctors to treat people in crisis), with or without the health care bill the government is paying the same tab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The western world is turning socialist, China and the capitalist East are rising and are overtaking you. A report today warned that the U.S. is on the way to socialism, and I agree; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...st-nation.html

---

in the 60's and 70's it was russia. in the 80's it was japan. there's always a threat of another country "overtaking us" but we havent seen that come in full. china's one child policy will give their demographics an absurdly old tilt in a few years, halting any sort of prosperity people are predicting. not to mention their historic insularity which only catalyzes any progress. and if socialism means caring about citizens to the point that you that you think people should be allowed to live despite their economic class, you should probably go to wikipedia and edit what their definition of socialism is. even if america did become socialist, would it really make this a land of pain and suffering? people need to stop acting like socialism = hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The Democratic Party is just the same with the use of fear, Obama and his global warming bills/spending telling you all that if you do not cough up green taxes the world is going to end - the same accounts for both the Republicans and Democrats concerning terrorism and war, telling you all to abandon your civil liberties in the name of security and you all bow down and agree to be treated like cattle at the airport.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have their stains all over the U.S. Patriot Bill, along with the two wars.

---

show me a quote where obama suggests the world "is going to end" if we dont pay more taxes. i agree that republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin, but i dont see nearly as much fear-mongering on the side of democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

never said i think the democrats are any better for this country, but they arent really advocating violence. and "hysteria" following obama's victory? as someone who was HERE in 2008, i didnt see any more "hysteria" than after any presidential election, there are ALWAYS angry people after an election. the people really in real hysterics were those who bought into believing obama was going to take everyone's land and force-teach us the koran.

---

The hysteria was that things were going to change.. they didn't.

Both the GOP & Democrats create mass hysteria over climate change, terrorism, Iraq and WMD.. the list goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

if you think the health care bill is destroying america, that MUST mean you think america was already destroyed in the 1940's. all the health care bill is is an extension of social security to cover more people. there is absolutely no difference. and america has been in debt since its inception, yet we have been able to become the most prosperous nation in history. the way the health care bill was originally intended would SAVE money. the government spends so much money paying for medical treatment for people with no money or insurance (because it is required by law for doctors to treat people in crisis), with or without the health care bill the government is paying the same tab.

---

America has been in decline since the 1940s that is correct. Whenever government/the state starts inteferring and extending social security programmes, them nations go bankrupt. The United Kingdom started in the 1890s which lead to other nations catching up (mainly the U.S.) and then a war finally finished us off after which we still adopted bad economic policies and it took until 1979 for us to (partly) correct those problems by cutting back the state.

The British Empire faced internal decline from around 1890s onwards both economically and via foreign policy (dropping our isolationist outlook) when which a war finally bankrupted us in the 1940s. The United States the way it is playing out has faced internal economic decline from the 1940s along with foreign policy from the 1940s (when you dropped your isolationist outlook and started policing the world).. all it takes now is for a medium sized war and you are quite simply toast.

As for healthcare itself, i'm not all that familiar on the bill itself but I would question the idea it it intended to save money. As it all government programmes it only expands and government is incompetent anyway so you are going to make a huge loss for the money you are putting in. The NHS over here in the UK was similar, funded by U.S. loans and was intended to improve the health service greatly when in reality all it did was create a gigantic inefficent monster which consumed and still consumes huge amounts of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

in the 60's and 70's it was russia. in the 80's it was japan. there's always a threat of another country "overtaking us" but we havent seen that come in full. china's one child policy will give their demographics an absurdly old tilt in a few years, halting any sort of prosperity people are predicting. not to mention their historic insularity which only catalyzes any progress. and if socialism means caring about citizens to the point that you that you think people should be allowed to live despite their economic class, you should probably go to wikipedia and edit what their definition of socialism is. even if america did become socialist, would it really make this a land of pain and suffering? people need to stop acting like socialism = hell.

---

The USSR was never a real threat to overtaking the United States as you had the superior capitalist system, they had the failed socialist system. It is partly true about Japan, but with China I think we are seeing something quite different - the western world has never been in so much trouble and it is perfect timing for China to take the reigns (see above again for the similarity with Britains situation around WW2). You also go on to isolationism - isolationism is key to success provided you trade with the world and boy are China trading with the world but are not policing the world.

Socialism.. I don't need to give a history lesson in it; look at Vietnam since it moved away from socialism to a more capitalist tone they have seen amazing growth rates. The same goes for China when Deng moved it from socialism after Mao's death to free marketism and open economics. Socialism brings equality yes, so that everybody is poor and less advantaged. If it takes yet another socialist nightmare for the world to wake upto what socialism really is, we might aswell burn all of our history books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

show me a quote where obama suggests the world "is going to end" if we dont pay more taxes. i agree that republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin, but i dont see nearly as much fear-mongering on the side of democrats.

---

"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe." - Barack Obama

Fear fear and more fear - from both sides, all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

It is niave to suggest that a well known political figure as Sarah Palin should not be responsible for her own actions too. What on earth is she doing publishing images of faces with gun sites over them - did she not think about the consequences that her actions could have?

---

Well most people don't expect nutjobs to take everything they say as damned serious.. so how is she to blame? the consquences from that shooting are down to the man who pulled the shotgun, not from his deluded sense that somebody told him to.

If I told you to jump off a cliff and you do it, who is to blame? you are.

undertaker ruined another thread

getting tired of this now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tramp

undertaker ruined another thread

getting tired of this now

---

You'll find I didn't start on about how somehow its Palins fault a mad man starts shooting people.. when I replied to that, people reply back yet its my fault? the fact is that people who go on rampages like this do so because they are unstable but they do it on their own merits.

Not some lame political-excuse that 'Sarah Palin gave them ideas'.

so what you are actually saying is..

You can read the killers mind and tell us all that sarah palin did not give him a small push to go kill someone?

Yano what? I never believed in telepathy before now. But now. NOWWWWWW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts

Is it bad that I'm not surprised by this?

Stupid people decide that they just want to shoot people just because they don't know anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The hysteria was that things were going to change.. they didn't.

Both the GOP & Democrats create mass hysteria over climate change, terrorism, Iraq and WMD.. the list goes on.



America has been in decline since the 1940s that is correct. Whenever government/the state starts inteferring and extending social security programmes, them nations go bankrupt. The United Kingdom started in the 1890s which lead to other nations catching up (mainly the U.S.) and then a war finally finished us off after which we still adopted bad economic policies and it took until 1979 for us to (partly) correct those problems by cutting back the state.

The British Empire faced internal decline from around 1890s onwards both economically and via foreign policy (dropping our isolationist outlook) when which a war finally bankrupted us in the 1940s. The United States the way it is playing out has faced internal economic decline from the 1940s along with foreign policy from the 1940s (when you dropped your isolationist outlook and started policing the world).. all it takes now is for a medium sized war and you are quite simply toast.

As for healthcare itself, i'm not all that familiar on the bill itself but I would question the idea it it intended to save money. As it all government programmes it only expands and government is incompetent anyway so you are going to make a huge loss for the money you are putting in. The NHS over here in the UK was similar, funded by U.S. loans and was intended to improve the health service greatly when in reality all it did was create a gigantic inefficent monster which consumed and still consumes huge amounts of money.



The USSR was never a real threat to overtaking the United States as you had the superior capitalist system, they had the failed socialist system. It is partly true about Japan, but with China I think we are seeing something quite different - the western world has never been in so much trouble and it is perfect timing for China to take the reigns (see above again for the similarity with Britains situation around WW2). You also go on to isolationism - isolationism is key to success provided you trade with the world and boy are China trading with the world but are not policing the world.

Socialism.. I don't need to give a history lesson in it; look at Vietnam since it moved away from socialism to a more capitalist tone they have seen amazing growth rates. The same goes for China when Deng moved it from socialism after Mao's death to free marketism and open economics. Socialism brings equality yes, so that everybody is poor and less advantaged. If it takes yet another socialist nightmare for the world to wake upto what socialism really is, we might aswell burn all of our history books.



"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe." - Barack Obama

Fear fear and more fear - from both sides, all the time.



Well most people don't expect nutjobs to take everything they say as damned serious.. so how is she to blame? the consquences from that shooting are down to the man who pulled the shotgun, not from his deluded sense that somebody told him to.

If I told you to jump off a cliff and you do it, who is to blame? you are.

---

If you read my post I didn't say she was to blame I said she should be more aware of the consequences of her actions as an extremely well known public figure. You cannot not possibly know yet whether or not he was influenced by her actions. We will have to wait and see.
Your last sentence is silly. If a person told a mentally ill person to shoot somebody and they did I think you will find they would be charged as well for 'conspiracy to murder'. I am not
saying Sarah Palin for one minute thought anybody would actually shoot the people she targeted with gun sites but I am betting she will regret for ever doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

If you read my post I didn't say she was to blame I said she should be more aware of the consequences of her actions as an extremely well known public figure. You cannot not possibly know yet whether or not he was influenced by her actions. We will have to wait and see.
Your last sentence is silly. If a person told a mentally ill person to shoot somebody and they did I think you will find they would be charged as well for 'conspiracy to murder'. I am not
saying Sarah Palin for one minute thought anybody would actually shoot the people she targeted with gun sites but I am betting she will regret for ever doing it.

---

That is why mentally ill people should be at least assessed and should have to pass a certain criteria for them to be able to mix with civilian life.
If they fail, help and help and help them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The hysteria was that things were going to change.. they didn't.

---

hysteria = change? thats an interesting theory, seems like loaded words to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Both the GOP & Democrats create mass hysteria over climate change, terrorism, Iraq and WMD.. the list goes on.

---

again, i'd hardly say there's "mass hysteria" over climate change, talk to anyone and its likely even if they believe in global warming that they aren't doing anything about it. you're far to liberal with the use of the word hysteria. not everything that causes a ripple in people's day is "hysteria." as for terrorism, after a terrorist attack it would be reasonable to expect some type of "hysteria" eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

America has been in decline since the 1940s that is correct. Whenever government/the state starts inteferring and extending social security programmes, them nations go bankrupt. The United Kingdom started in the 1890s which lead to other nations catching up (mainly the U.S.) and then a war finally finished us off after which we still adopted bad economic policies and it took until 1979 for us to (partly) correct those problems by cutting back the state.

---

what's your definition of "decline"? cause what you're implying is that the great depression and being involved in world war II was better than having to deal with social security, which is pretty absurd. not sure if you've seen the united states since the FDR, but we've been alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The British Empire faced internal decline from around 1890s onwards both economically and via foreign policy (dropping our isolationist outlook) when which a war finally bankrupted us in the 1940s. The United States the way it is playing out has faced internal economic decline from the 1940s along with foreign policy from the 1940s (when you dropped your isolationist outlook and started policing the world).. all it takes now is for a medium sized war and you are quite simply toast.

---

isolationism is hardly a flawless policy to be uninvolved in wars. world war I was basically unavoidable, and the u.s. attempted to stay out of world war II until we were attacked. and our internal economics have been varied, not only in decline, clinton in fact gave us a surplus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

As for healthcare itself, i'm not all that familiar on the bill itself

---

oh okay so you're just assuming things to fit your narrative, gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The USSR was never a real threat to overtaking the United States

---

hindsight is always 20/20, but the USSR was certainly threatening at the time, it was certainly conceivable. for all we know, in 20 years we'll be laughing about how we worried about china taking over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Socialism.. I don't need to give a history lesson in it; look at Vietnam since it moved away from socialism to a more capitalist tone they have seen amazing growth rates. The same goes for China when Deng moved it from socialism after Mao's death to free marketism and open economics. Socialism brings equality yes, so that everybody is poor and less advantaged. If it takes yet another socialist nightmare for the world to wake upto what socialism really is, we might aswell burn all of our history books.

---

denmark is time and time again rated the happiest nation on earth, and their citizens give nearly all of their money to the government. mexico and haiti, meanwhile, have been democratic for ages but have never been anything more than desperately poor. if there were a form of government that worked for all countries, it would be applied to nations all over the world without hesitation. but the fact remains that different forms of government work better for different countries.

Quote:

---

"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe." - Barack Obama

Fear fear and more fear - from both sides, all the time.

---

you missed the point, again. forget whether or not global warming is real; obama (and lots of politicians) believe it is, and if it IS then they are right: it WOULD cause a global catastrophe. that isn't absurd hyperbole. however, saying that universal health care is going to kill us all, as many in the g.o.p. are implying, is indeed absurd hyperbole. obama might be fear-mongering but at least he's not just making stuff up.

Quote:

---

Well most people don't expect nutjobs to take everything they say as damned serious.. so how is she to blame? the consquences from that shooting are down to the man who pulled the shotgun, not from his deluded sense that somebody told him to.

If I told you to jump off a cliff and you do it, who is to blame? you are.

---

if you dont expect people to take your words "seriously," whats the point in saying them at all? if i put a giant billboard saying "go jump off a cliff," and someone did it, yeah sure i could argue that it's their fault for going through with it. but really, what was the point of me putting up the billboard?

again, not blaming sarah palin for the congresswoman's death, but she's a prime example of why both political sides need to tone it down with their words. when you have someone like glenn beck, who has a huge dedicated following, saying that he wishes he could kill michael moore and that someone should go out in do it, or politicians saying at rallies (where they invite everyone to bring their guns) that they should make their opponent "afraid to leave their home," you're just creating violent tension that has no place in politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tramp

so what you are actually saying is..

You can read the killers mind and tell us all that sarah palin did not give him a small push to go kill someone?

Yano what? I never believed in telepathy before now. But now. NOWWWWWW

---

No I think you will find that i'm saying that if I tell you to go and jump off a cliff, and you go and do it - it is your own fault and not my fault. Now what I want to ask it, do you dispute that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

If you read my post I didn't say she was to blame I said she should be more aware of the consequences of her actions as an extremely well known public figure. You cannot not possibly know yet whether or not he was influenced by her actions. We will have to wait and see.
Your last sentence is silly. If a person told a mentally ill person to shoot somebody and they did I think you will find they would be charged as well for 'conspiracy to murder'. I am not
saying Sarah Palin for one minute thought anybody would actually shoot the people she targeted with gun sites but I am betting she will regret for ever doing it.

---

Influenced by her speech/rhetoric? he may be influenced, but at the end of the day he himself made that decision and not Sarah Palin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

hysteria = change? thats an interesting theory, seems like loaded words to me.

---

Yeah, you know the hysteria surrounding the election of Obama from both the public and the politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

again, i'd hardly say there's "mass hysteria" over climate change, talk to anyone and its likely even if they believe in global warming that they aren't doing anything about it. you're far to liberal with the use of the word hysteria. not everything that causes a ripple in people's day is "hysteria." as for terrorism, after a terrorist attack it would be reasonable to expect some type of "hysteria" eh?

---

There is hysteria over climate change, maybe not so much from the public now - but the media and the governments of the world both whipped people into believing the end of the world was neigh and the same counts for terrorism. You were beaten into submission by your government basically implying that there was an islamic terrorist berhind every tree waiting to blow you (and us) all up - totally and utterly false. The same applies for the WMD in Iraq, the apparent threat that Saddam Hussein posed where he could destroy London in 45-minutes.. turned out to be a lie.

Fear works and with fear you can make people do almost anything you want, they continue to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

what's your definition of "decline"? cause what you're implying is that the great depression and being involved in world war II was better than having to deal with social security, which is pretty absurd. not sure if you've seen the united states since the FDR, but we've been alright.

---

My definition of decline is having a stagnating economy with cultural decline alongside it - Great Britain suffered with it and still is suffering from it and you are now beginnging to suffer from it.

You've been alright? you have had your currency devalued time and time again, you have had your freedoms and liberty taken away from you piece by peace and you've involved yourselves in policing the world which has killed untold millions of people including your own citizens, often based on a pack of lies (Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

isolationism is hardly a flawless policy to be uninvolved in wars. world war I was basically unavoidable, and the u.s. attempted to stay out of world war II until we were attacked. and our internal economics have been varied, not only in decline, clinton in fact gave us a surplus.

---

World War I was not unavoidable - the United Kingdom did not need to become involved, it was only because we [Europe in general] started building up military pacts with one another and we got dragged into the conflict.

World War II was also unavoidable, why did Britain become involved? because of a pact with Poland despite the fact that Poland lay dead centre in the middle of the continent and we could simply not do anything to rescue them - more to and point and call this crude, I don't see why British soldiers should die for another country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

oh okay so you're just assuming things to fit your narrative, gotcha.

---

I'm using facts, like the £13tn hanging over your head along with a stagnating economy coupled with a world 'Empire' you can no longer afford and which is very very unpopular. I also gave the example with the NHS in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

hindsight is always 20/20, but the USSR was certainly threatening at the time, it was certainly conceivable. for all we know, in 20 years we'll be laughing about how we worried about china taking over.

---

It was threatening militarily yes, not economically. The same with Japan, just the other way around.

China on the other hand is both threatenig militarily and economically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

denmark is time and time again rated the happiest nation on earth, and their citizens give nearly all of their money to the government. mexico and haiti, meanwhile, have been democratic for ages but have never been anything more than desperately poor. if there were a form of government that worked for all countries, it would be applied to nations all over the world without hesitation. but the fact remains that different forms of government work better for different countries.

---

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx

The myth about those northern countries continues.. I would suggest that happiness is linked with liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

you missed the point, again. forget whether or not global warming is real; obama (and lots of politicians) believe it is, and if it IS then they are right: it WOULD cause a global catastrophe. that isn't absurd hyperbole. however, saying that universal health care is going to kill us all, as many in the g.o.p. are implying, is indeed absurd hyperbole. obama might be fear-mongering but at least he's not just making stuff up.

---

Oh but maybe those in the GOP believe socialist healthcare will kill you all - its alright then yes? Obama and his fellow politicians knows this stuff is nonsense (the big factor being temperatures have been in decline for the past 15 years), as do the Republicans connecting socialist healthcare with death - however both are as bad as another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

if you dont expect people to take your words "seriously," whats the point in saying them at all? if i put a giant billboard saying "go jump off a cliff," and someone did it, yeah sure i could argue that it's their fault for going through with it. but really, what was the point of me putting up the billboard?

---

Because you want people to take them seriously. Palin obviously feels strongly about the healthcare (so she makes out as do the GOP) and thus will want to get a big reaction to it, politicians use cheap rhetoric all the time just like in Britain we had the last Labour government banging on about 'child poverty' when in reality whilst western style poverty does exist here - the child part was just to get a reaction and it worked.

[COLOR=RedStratocas]again, not blaming sarah palin for the congresswoman's death, but she's a prime example of why both political sides need to tone it down with their words. when you have someone like glenn beck, who has a huge dedicated following, saying that he wishes he could kill michael moore and that someone should go out in do it, or politicians saying at rallies (where they invite everyone to bring their guns) that they should make their opponent "afraid to leave their home," you're just creating violent tension that has no place in politics.[/QUOTE]

Then by all means vote against it and argue against it, but do not ban it.

woooh calm down guys

Edited by HotelUser (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly thanks.