We could make it a crime to publish the name or picture of a mass killer (terrorist), like we just saw in Orlando, Fl. There’s no compelling need for the general public to know that information or to sensationalize a vile act. Doing so actually works against the public interest. Media headlines of outrageous crimes really do plant bad ideas into the heads of demented people, there’s no question about.
The examples we could point out coincidentally run concurrent with the media’s growing ability to inform large numbers of people over great distances. Now with television and the internet, what happens in Florida is viewed in California within minutes.
Need I remind you. . . there was a time when we had no aircraft hijackings, then there was one and it led to a rash of hijackings. Years ago, it began with the first mass killing at a school and that too led to a rash of other school shootings soon thereafter. We don’t have to play that game folks anymore. We can do better and we should!
From the Atlantic: “After a wave of teen suicides in the 1980s, news outlets began reporting on these deaths more cautiously. Similar guidelines could help prevent more shooting sprees.
You might not have noticed, but the mass media rarely reports on suicides, particularly teen suicides. When it does, the coverage is careful, understated, and dampened. This is no accident: Following guidelines endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Mental Health, the media carefully and voluntarily avoids sensationalizing such deaths especially among teenagers. They almost never make the news unless the person is a public figure; methods of suicide are rarely mentioned; suicide pacts are not reported upon.
This is for good reason: Suicide, especially among teens, is contagious. It’s a morbidly attractive idea that offers an established path of action for a troubled youngster. And we know from research in many fields that establishing a path of action — a complete narrative in which you can visualize your steps and their effects — is important in enabling follow-through.”
Of course the news media will be the first ones to cry foul if Congress proposes a law to prevent names and photos from appearing in US news, because it effects their pocketbook and nothing sells better than carnage. This is why the media’s slogan is, “If it bleeds its leads.” What would you expect? But, common sense says their needs do not always serve our needs or the needs of the nation. There are times when the media needs to cool it.
During WWII the media was far more restricted than what I am proposing, but it had to be done, nobody questions that now do they? No. Lives were at stake. Well, guess what folks, lives are still at stake and many would agree we are at war with militant Islam.
I would much rather see the names of terrorists censored from the press than my second amendment right taken away. Maybe some Congressman will take a bold step and propose this? Nah, probably not. Well, not unless Trump is elected president then he may have no choice.
Jack, it is 100% clear that you are no longer a constitutional conservative, and have instead chosen to signed on to Trump’s brand of authoritarianism. Your proposal completely violates the first amendment’s protections of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But given Trump’s extreme hostility to freedom of the press, this should come as no surprise to your readers here.
I hope you will reconsider whether abandoning constitutional conservative values as well as your soul was worth it when Trump loses by a wide margin in November.
Chris you do realize that the Atlantic magazine from which Libby often quotes is in complete agreement with me? You also realize that free speech carries with it some responsibility and it is therefor limited based upon the good of the nation, like you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, right? You do realize that sometimes in great crisis the media must act prudently or risk exacerbating the crisis? No, apparently you do not.
“Chris you do realize that the Atlantic magazine from which Libby often quotes is in complete agreement with me?”
You’re either a liar or you are functionally illiterate. The Atlantic article did not propose making it a crime to publish this information, it merely recommended guidelines. You are the one saying that the government should restrict freedom of speech so that you will feel less scared, not the Atlantic. So don’t pass off your unconstitutional proposals on other people.
You are in rare form tonight Chris. The Atlantic is in complete agreement with me: Media notoriety does lead to copycat crimes/terrorism.
Now for the minutia. It’s preferable to do what we can to discourage acts of terrorism and I have made one small suggestion, which is more than you have done. Of course, this was not an original idea, but its one I felt worthy of proposing for consideration.
“You are in rare form tonight Chris. The Atlantic is in complete agreement with me: Media notoriety does lead to copycat crimes/terrorism.”
Jesus Christ, what’s wrong with you? The Atlantic did not agree with you that it should be a CRIME to publish such information. So no, by definition of the word “complete,” the Atlantic is not in “complete agreement” with you.
Are you ready to admit that fact yet?
This is not rare form for Chris, his is his usual twit self.
It’s certainly something worth considering as a guideline but as we have found since Vietnam, the left media can’t be counted on to support any American war effort unless its headed by a Democrat in the WH.
Chris is young, therefore history and experience began only yesterday. I doubt he understands what you’re suggesting much less that you are not actually proposing authoritarian restrictions on the free press (Even after the reasonable example). He certainly flies his own authoritarian flag at your suggestion though. 😉
The Atlantic piece: “After a wave of teen suicides in the 1980s, news outlets began reporting on these deaths more cautiously. Similar guidelines could help prevent more shooting sprees.”
“Guidelines” adopted by the news outlets! In other words, industry or outlet imposed responsible reporting. What a novelty that would be!
This idea speaks to the point I’ve made before about the importance of individuals and society having generally agreed upon high civic standards.
During WWII the slogan, “Loose lips sink ships,” was a constant reminder to our citizens that information loosely disseminated could cost the lives of many people. I think we had two things going for us at that time, 1. Respect for the privacy of others, especially in in times of grief, and 2. Trust in our leaders, administrators, and servants. Three things have changed since then, 1. Tabloid interest in everything that goes on, 2. Loss of trust in those who lead and serve us, 3. Stark political and social divisions.
“I doubt he understands what you’re suggesting much less that you are not actually proposing authoritarian restrictions on the free press”
Except that that is exactly what he did. How can you deny what is right there in black and white? What is wrong with you people? How can it be so easy for you to lie to yourselves?
Jacks exact words: “We could make it a crime.
Is that any more out there than suggesting the Second Amendment be repealed, which a professor did yesterday, or demanding stricter gun laws that have proven to be ineffective as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other lawmakers have done?
Do you actually think Jack’s suggestion (we could) is more authoritarian than an entire party that demands our government completely take over healthcare (single payer)?
And what about the authoritarian local gun free zones that have been ground zero for so many murderous “gun violence” incidents? How authoritarian is that?
Liberals (progressives) are among the biggest authoritarian bullies on the planet…no wonder they scream “authoritarian” at the drop of a hat!
A study at Purdue found that since the 1950’s all but 2 such incidents occurred in gun free zones. The likelihood is certainly in our recent experience.
It’s true that there is a social consensus not to publicize teen suicides, as teens are wildly suggestable. But what would we gain by Jack’s proposal?
This we need to know about … all about. Like the latest from the investigation which has concluded that Mateen was not radicalized. The 911 call was cover. He was just a messed up guy thwarted on a number of levels with way too much access to lethal firepower. Jack does not want us considering this, for some reason.
Libby: “He was just a messed up guy thwarted on a number of levels with way too much access to lethal firepower”
Libby knows how the PC game is played, just SCRUB every bit of information that points to an radical Islamic jihadist and claim the poor guy was just “messed up and “thwarted.”
Sure explains why this man slipped under the radar in a progressive PC administration
Don’t crab at me. This is coming from the FBI.
Oh, so we only “could” violate the first amendment. Much better.
I have said nothing about gun control in the wake of the Orlando tragedy–you have actually suggested more gun control than I have since then, suggesting that people on the terror watch list should not be able to buy guns. I’m on the fence about this; I don’t believe a right should be denied without due process, but I’d also like to keep terrorists from having guns.
So I do not need to address comparisons between Jack’s unconstitutional proposal and the unconstitutional proposals of others. Doing so would not make Jack’s proposal any less unconstitutional, nor would it make it less hypocritical given his stated identity as a constitutional conservative.
Oh Get off it Mr. perfect.
Ideas, discussed on this blog DO NOT MAKE LAW. You’re so damn eager to make people wrong you pounce even on a suggestion…a suggestion made in the spirit of calming things down being more sensitive to unintended consequences!
Get a grip, for heavens sake.
Tina, I suggest that we pass a law banning conservative Christians from being able to run blogs.
Hey hey, it’s just a suggestion on a blog, so you can’t get mad at me or even point out that such a law would violate the Constitution. Don’t be so eager to prove me wrong. Don’t you support the first amendment, which means people have the right to propose utterly outrageous things and you have no right to criticize them for it?
Your logic is ridiculous, Tina. Yes, when you propose unconstitutional laws–which Jack did–you are going to be criticized for that. That goes double if you have previously claimed to be a constitutional conservative. Don’t like it? Either don’t have a blog, or don’t allow people who disagree with you to comment. Or get over it. Your choice.
I can’t believe I just had to explain that to you.
ey Chris, if the media would adopt a code of ethics about not publishing the name of the terrorists or splashing his photo all over the front page, I would be okay with that. But, they won’t, so we might have to incentivize them to make it work.
My thought would be, you can’t post the name and picture of a terrorist or risk a fine, something like that.
As I have said many times before, we should make some attempt at giving terrorists the publicity they seek because doing that encourages and promotes more terrorism. Publicity is the very foundation of terrorism, not violence.
I am at least willing to put ideas out here and have an intelligent discussion.
You, on the other hand, never venture in that area. Ideas are not your strong suit. Your specialty is to mock, demean and belittle anyone with an idea you don’t like. And often times this has you on the side of the terrorist enemy. That sort of nastiness gets more than a little tedious Chris and I wish you would stop it. It’s so pointless and ridiculous.
I don’t know if you are just terminally naïve or you’re just a nut, but I do know you are wrong on almost everything you say and your outrageous criticism is getting boring. I am almost out of patience.
“ey Chris, if the media would adopt a code of ethics about not publishing the name of the terrorists or splashing his photo all over the front page, I would be okay with that. But, they won’t, so we might have to incentivize them to make it work.”
By “incentivize,” you mean “use the force of the government to restrict freedom of speech.” Why don’t you just say that? That is what you are proposing. Which: fine. Go ahead. But never claim to support the Constitution again, because you clearly don’t.
Let me see if I have this straight. You believe the following things:
1) Obama is wrong to not use the phrase “Islamic terrorism.” This is wrong because we have to identify the enemy clearly and directly and there can be no question about who we are fighting.
2) Journalists are wrong to identify the enemy clearly and directly and to let us know who we are fighting.
And you believe both these things simultaneously, and don’t see any conflict between the two. Wowzerz.
“Ideas aren’t my strong suit?” Bull. I understand your ideas better than you do. That’s why I’m able to explain all the ways in which they are wrong and incoherent. That’s why I notice when two of your ideas contradict each other and you dont. You’re not critical thinkers, so you can’t even analyze your own beliefs, let alone those of people you disagree with–you just say whatever feels good in the moment.
I’m sorry you don’t have the patience to learn. I’m running out of patience for people like you who do nothing but mock American values and propose restrictions on freedom for those you don’t like while simultaneously wrapping yourself in the flag and the Constitution as if that will justify your fear-based, lizard brain reaction to terror. I’m running out of patience for people who can’t learn from history. I’m running out of patience for you complaining about being called bigoted and Islamophobic when all you have posted over this past week is bigotry and Islamophobia.
Chris should seriously consider not getting drunk or smoking weed when commenting in Post Scripts. The poor drug addled chump does not recognize when Jack is being facetious to make a point.
Inside every progressive is a drug addled totalitarian screaming to get out.
Wait, Pie–you think Jack is being facetious when he says we should make it a crime for journalists to publish details of mass murderers?
Jack, can you confirm? Pie thinks your proposal is so ridiculous that it must be satire. Did you mean your proposal seriously, or is Pie right that you were being facetious?
Great suggestions Jack, those ideas would work and by no means are they anti conservative in any manner. If fact they do represent the basic conservative mindset of doing something to protect us from harm, without weighting us down with more Government regulations.
Also if the ideologues of the liberal party spend half as much time attempting to come up with some resolve, verse the time wasted spewing negativity and putting down those who do recognize that this administration failures to govern effectively are just making things worst, in fact they are not even helping solve it in the slightest .
Yep, if only!…… maybe then maybe we could get an effective resolve.
Remember Governments primary job is protecting us, which is not happening!
In fact they are just making us weaker and easier targets for a enemy that wants us dead!
Harold: “In fact they do represent the basic conservative mindset of doing something to protect us from harm, without weighting us down with more Government regulations.”
…Do you not know what any words mean? Jack IS proposing a government regulation! Making something a “crime” is a government regulation!
The level of stupidity here lately is too much to handle. You’ve all entered Bizarro World, where everything is the opposite of what it means.
Chris, It is really to bad you don’t understand that less could create more.
Yes we all know that Government intervention is more regulation, but what Jack is saying is really a bare minimum of it.
Unless of course you liberals expand the hell out it and make it ridiculously over the top.
As mentioned in other posts, all you liberals do is just negative commentary.
Take a breath and relax, because your vanity driven critic is a level of uselessness we all can do without, Jack presented a idea, you contribute nothing but self indulgent blather, always!
Jack – Take your opening statement
“We could make it a crime to publish the name or picture of a mass killer (terrorist), like we just saw in Orlando, Fl. There’s no compelling need for the general public to know that information or to sensationalize a vile act.”
WTH are you doing? You propose BIG Government and Unconstitutional Actions? Let us look at the 1st amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
We need to address the problem not change the Constitution.
We the people are out here having a conversation. Join It. The first amendment and the second amendment are safe unless you allow Trump Politics to destroy it.
In Both the Democrat and Republican Parties we have people allowing Politics to be ran my Big Money. Pay to Play system.
Authoritarian Fascism is now your Political Framework? You follow like Sheeple. The Tea Party is dead I see. What are you going to do if the GOP acts responsibly at the convention and does something about that Buffoon? Flip Flop?
You are crossing the line to destroy the only thing holding a bit of this country together. The Constitution.
We need to deal with the Monopoly that has turned our press into a very profitable Money machine of Propaganda. All of the Mainstream Media outlets are Propaganda with a slice of Truth. We went from 50 corporations owning all press media to 6 who admit they care none about the people they care about INVESTOR PROFITS.
Leslie Moonves on Donald Trump: “It May Not Be Good for America, but It’s Damn Good for CBS”
If we repealed Bill Clinton’s Telecommunication act it would be a start. NOT WRITE BIG GOV LAWS AGAINST FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Your hate for so called Liberals is what will destroy this country. You need to win at all costs. Even at becoming an authoritarian country of fascism.
And once again, I must point out that no one proposes to take away your guns, Jack. At least not the ones you already have, which makes the title of this post paranoid hyperbole, which I am getting real tired of pointing out. Do you think you could take it in, just this once?
Libby, you need to update your info, California has removed guns from responsible gun owners with a program Kamala Harris instituted called “APPS” which is using a cross referenced data base of medical history and previous legally registered guns. many mistakes have been made, but she still took the weapons. One such is included in this link.
However criminals to date have not had their weapons seized by her.
I read this story and it’s an outrage. Kamela Harris is the real danger here. She needs to be removed from office and her gun privileges suspended. She is a public menace.
Well, as long as Jack refrains from getting himself 5150’d, there will be no problem. You’re not really disagreeing with this are you, Harold?
And now I have to spend, Lord knows how long, listening to Kamalaphobia?
I was attempting to provide you with information that corrected your comment about California and it’s gun grabbing mindset.
I am disagreeing with your comment of, “I must point out that no one proposes to take away your guns, Jack. At least not the ones you already have”
Kamala Harris has already started doing so.
Libby snarky says “And now I have to spend, Lord knows how long, listening to Kamalaphobia?” well get use to it because you are obviously under informed about her intentions.
Oh, I for one am tired of listening to your negative anal retentive misinformation as well.
You haven’t said. Do you want to repeal this law allowing for the confiscation of weapons from people with mental health issues? Let’s have it plainly.
I’m sure the office does make mistakes. On that account do you want to repeal the law?
Speak up?, better you should listen up and stop with the snarky retorts.
What Harris is doing is terribly flawed and responsible gun owners have to pay dearly for it. It has been proven to be flawed, needs to stop, period!
And the funding she used , typical Liberal money grab as well, it was from the DROS fee (dealer record of sale) people pay when legally purchasing a gun, that money was never indented to fund gun confiscations.
August 2013, an Upland, California, man had his guns confiscated by the state after his wife checked into the hospital following an adverse reaction to a change in medication. Citing incorrect hospital charts, the state came to get their guns nine months later. They finally got their guns back, but not their sense of freedom I’ll bet
Following that incident, a Bakersfield man expressed disbelief when armed agents came to his door to seize 18 guns when he was flagged in the APPS system. The reason for the raid came from a 40-year-old charge for marijuana possession that is no longer listed in the state’s criminal code. agents returned them once the mistake was fought and Harris lost!
Finally, last November a federal firearms license holder (FFL) had his 541 gun inventory impounded after he went through mental health treatment last summer, which, unknown to him, landed him in the APPS database. His attorney maintains the guns are legally owned and is fighting the action.
Another Harris overreach of the APPS program.
This FLAWED APPS program is her stepping stone to replace Boxers Senators seat, how many mistakes will she make there as well, if elected and has access to more power for her ambition’s.
I don’t hear you ….
Because if you do not favor keeping weapons out of unstable hands … why are you in any way distressed by Omar’s exploit? If we’re going to have unrestricted access, then there are going to be a lot of Omars, and you don’t get to say nothing about it.
Before you take my guns, indeed. I find this image rather haunting. This year, Charlie Brown would be 66 years old, and Snoopy 462 in dog years.
Just a thought…what if, in order to purchase a gun, one must have successfully completed at least two years service in a branch of our military. I’m thinking this would cover the “well regulated militia” requirement of the second. Idk…just a random thought
I like it.
It really worries me, this professional soldier thing we’re working these days. It’s not healthy. If we’re going to be eternally at war, 37 years and counting, ALL the boys need to find out how much fun it is. (That was sarcasm, in case anybody missed it.)
Do not know the facts. Yet they start in.
Look at the list.
“California’s Department of Justice made its largest-ever weapons seizure from a single home on November 18th, removing 531 individual guns and more than 100,000 rounds of ammunition from the home of Clovis resident Albert Sheakalee, Frens0-based ABC affiliate KFSN
After being institutionalized, Sheakalee missed a court-mandated deadline for relinquishing his guns, and was subsequently was charged with illegal possession of firearms.
During a raid on Sheakalee’s home, agents seized 209 handguns, 88 shotguns, 234 rifles, 181 standard capacity magazines, 10 high-capacity magazines, 100,521 rounds of various ammunition, and 10 assault weapons including a .50 caliber bolt action rifle, which are banned under California law”
There are some nut bunnies in this country and no mistake!
A well regulated Militia is not some dude who left the military. No one is going to take away guns from responsible gun owners.
Another bureaucratic snafu.
In 2015 Gun Owners of California argue that anywhere from 40 percent to 60 percent of the names on the list are there incorrectly.
These include people who legally can own firearms, but didn’t know they had to fill out forms or petition the court to restore those rights.
Many people don’t even know their names are on the list. A state auditor report from 2013 reviewed a number of confiscation decisions by DOJ and found a large percentage (37 percent) of inaccuracies.
And critics raise questions about how the department’s agents conduct the sweeps. “They show up in full regalia — armor, machine guns and black SUVs,” said Sam Paredes, the Gun Owners of California’s executive director, many tines with out Warrants!, “Very few judges will give search warrants because the information is so sketchy, so they go and knock on the door and try to bully their way into the home.”
Paredes says the department may be using an overly expansive definition of “possession.” For instance, if a prohibited person gives his firearm to a relative, agents may claim the “prohibited” person still is in possession of the firearm and will go to the relative’s house to take it.
So once more we see the expansive nature of a BAD program gone terribly worst, but still operating. However if it appeals to the gun grabbers in California, then shhhhhhhh don’t say anything, as long as guns keep been taken by Kamala Harris squad of invaders , legally or otherwise
Private gun ownership will never be forbidden, but it will never again be unregulated. Gun owners will be obliged to keep up on the rules. And if you get onto a list you think you shouldn’t be, it’s your responsibility to get yourself off.
Would you listen to the lefties, all of a sudden concerned about constitutional rights. Do they have any idea how many rights the left has stepped on over the past seventy or so years? No, Of course not. They were just busy doing good things. Well the result of all that do-gooderism can be observed in the cities of Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore….
David French at National Review, The Left’s Burning Cities:
The regulatory state necessarily creates more interactions between armed law enforcement and citizens. It fosters resentment. It creates the possibility for confusion, mistakes, and petty acts of violence and vengeance. Yet the Left never seems to learn. Even now deep-Blue Hawaii wants to raise the legal smoking age to 21. How long before there’s a tragic incident tied to confrontation between a police officer and a 19-year-old smoker?
This nation has thousands of gun laws…thousands! But the nutty leftists that puff themselves up regularly on this blog are not in favor of abridging basic constitutional rights. Give me a break. Hello…the ACA abridges basic rights with it’s mandate to buy insurance.
There is a point where more laws do NOTHING but further restrict and annoy law abiding citizens. We need some common sense. We need a population grown up enough to tie it’s own shoes. We also need someone in the WH that doesn’t give us Benghazi, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Orlando!
This is just “they don’t respect the Constitution, so we shouldn’t have to either.” Is that really your position? Are you really ready to trash everything the conservative movement has claimed to stand for for decades out of spite? Because that’s exactly what your move away from constitutional conservatism toward Trump-style authoritarianism is doing. And your fellow conservatives are warning you: the call is coming from inside the house. You are sabotaging everything out of hatred for liberals. But you won’t listen to anti-Trump conservatives, so why would you listen to me?
I’m coming around on second amendment issues. Really. I think a lot of liberals are completely wrong in their interpretations of the 2nd amendment and/or their calls to repeal it. But watching you burn the first amendment too out of spite is appalling.
“Are you really ready to trash everything the conservative movement has claimed to stand for for decades out of spite?”
Mental midget anyone? How have you made this gigantic leap over a blog post that was an just an idea put forth for discussion. You take yourself, and your importance, much too seriously and so project that onto everyone else.
Then when I clearly demonstrate that all of your so-called concerns about constitutional rights are hypocritical given your support of a million lefty breaches to individual freedoms you pull this high toned gotcha crap.
Don’t preach to me about authoriatarianism…your party passed the ACA in secret meetings, in collusion with insurance giants, with arm twisting and bribes, and without partisan agreement!
There is only one thing that can trash everything the conservative movement has stood for and that would be the election of Hillary Clinton.
Trump IS the Republican candidate no matter how many disgruntled elites in the party guff and haw like donkeys.
I DON’T HATE LIBERALS…please get that through your thick head. I do hate what has happened to our nation under the leadership of the radical progressives that have taken control of the Democrat Party and with underhanded politics inspired by the mafia and the communist party have just about destroyed everything that made this nation great.
I don’t listen to you, Chris, because you have bought into the progressive narrative and remain there stubborn and unmovable with a completely closed mind. Even after knowing that most of us here supported a different candidate you act as if we are unaware of Trumps shortcomings. You offer no viable alternative to Trump and yet expect us to help defeat him…for what you cannot say because defending the current administration and your current criminal candidate is fraught with problems much bigger than the crass man from New York who might just surprise us all.
Nobody wants to burn the First Amendment Chris. Jacks idea would have been more compelling as an idea for self-policing in the media but that would never go over wit you lefties either…for you, anything goes has been the hallmark in media and entertainment.
The director of the CIA is saying Obama isn’t dealing effectively with terrorists and his approach ought to be re-thought. Obama seems confused about terrorism, who is involved in it and why and what the proper response should be.
I know he sure doesn’t seem to comprehend the conflicts within Islam and our Democracy! And I know he has given speeches where he has mischaracterized and exaggerated Islamic contributions in the USA. I don’t trust him.
“I know he sure doesn’t seem to comprehend the conflicts within Islam and our Democracy!”
Jack, you should really write for Dabiq. ISIS could use you in their efforts to convince Muslims to abandon the “gray zone” and choose their brand of Islam over democracy.
Or, the CIA is looking after its budget.
I don’t like the CIA. I like my geopolitical meddlers competent, my torturers properly descreet. I was reading about the Bay of Pigs … Geez, Louise!
Try keeping them “discreet” with radical meddlers whose main goal in life is discrediting and smearing their political opponents…to hell with ending monstrous terrorists or protecting us.
Tina, that was sarcasm, and you are one worrisome little person.
Why thank you Libby, coming from you….
Jack he seems to be more of the mind that our Constitution and way of life must bend to accommodate and submit to Islam. I don’t trust him and cannot wait for his term to end. Our candidate may bring a whole host of new things to be disturbed about but on the other hand he may surprise us. One thing is for certain, he cares about America and the American people…all of us!
“Jack he seems to be more of the mind that our Constitution and way of life must bend to accommodate and submit to Islam.”
Delusional. There is no other word for this.
You are the ones who have suggested we bend our Constitution and our way of life to deal with the problems posed by radical Islamic terrorists. I believe America is strong enough to deal with the problem without undoing parts of our Constitution, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech and due process (and, yes, even the right to bear arms. Surprise!). You have never believed we could do this, which is why you have supported indefinite detention, torture, banning immigration by certain religions, and banning the press from reporting certain information, and are now apparently even entertaining the idea of bringing back internment camps.
Projection is all you have.
Re : “The director of the CIA is saying Obama isn’t dealing effectively with terrorists and his approach ought to be re-thought. Obama seems confused about terrorism, who is involved in it and why and what the proper response should be. ”
BINGO! The proper response certainly is NOT the hand wringing, “do not offend or legitimize” nonsense which is the progressive response.
Tina you are out of line.
have a conversation for the good of the country. Stop the hate.
That’s okay Dewey you are out of your mind.
My remarks are based on my own perception of the man. He takes the Islamic rule about criticism to heart and bends a bit too far for my liking.
Criticism is a form of speech, still legal and an individual right in this country. I find nothing wrong with criticizing the monsters that use Islam as their guide to murder, rape, torture and control and I want a president who is not afraid to do the same.
As far as I know I’ve done more than you have to “have a conversation for the good of the country.” Jack and I have opened a space for discussion and we’ve been at it for at least two double term presidencies. Hate does not motivate us. Kindly look to your own often hateful remarks.
If I am out of my mind that the whole world is Tina. People who watch Mainstream media stick out like a sore thumb now both conservative and Liberal. it is amazing how one can see it when you stop watching.
Religion is being abused by all. Did you take a moment to remember NC? Those people killed at Bible study? Or do they count?
Do you take a moment to see how Religion plays into RW hate and those murders?
Religion seems to be a problem all together as it is abused .
Religion has caused too many wars throughout history.
The KKK symbol is a cross.
We are not going to give ISIS their religious wars of Christians against Islam.
NEVER will we give them what they want!
hateful? No never only strong against propaganda and Hypocrisy.
Views are 1 thing, facts are facts
get away from media for a month and allow your critical thinking to exercise. We all know propaganda exists. We all know media hides truth. We all have to step away from it and talk using facts.
In the end who owns the Media? What is their main goal by law? What did Bill Clinton create by making news no longer for the public good as a public service?
The people are rising for the greater good of everybody. Freedom is not debt slavery or rule by fascist corporations.
Why do we allow this?
Tina: ” I find nothing wrong with criticizing the monsters that use Islam as their guide to murder, rape, torture and control and I want a president who is not afraid to do the same.”
…Except that Obama frequently criticizes the monsters that use Islam as their guide to murder, rape, torture and control.
He also, y’know, kills them.
But keep living in your fantasy dystopia where Obama skips through fields of grass with ISIS terrorists while putting conservatives in FEMA camps. It sounds terrible, and I’m not sure why you’d want to live there.
P.S. Let me know when Obama gits Ur Gun.