# Enviro-kook takes hostages at Discovery Channel HQ



## Archangel M (Sep 1, 2010)

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/09/something_bad_is_happening_at.html



> Around 1 p.m. this afternoon, a lone gunman now identified as James Lee entered the lobby of Discovery Channel headquarters in Silver Springs, Maryland, outside of Washington, D.C., and reportedly fired shots while declaring, "Nobody is going anywhere." He may also have explosives, and though the building has been evacuated, he has taken at least one person hostage as police monitor him on closed-circuit television and try to communicate with him. So why is he doing it? Apparently he's obsessed with overpopulation, and is furious that the Discovery Channel hasn't given the topic its due coverage. In fact, Lee has been protesting Discovery for some time, and a website registered to Lee posted a list of demands for the channel in July.



Take a look at this guys manifesto:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...est&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Ahhh peaceful tree hugging at it's best.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 1, 2010)

Damn Rightwing Evangelicals


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 1, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Ahhh peaceful tree hugging at it's best.



Do you _really _want to go down that path?  The enviro-kooks come out several orders of magnitude ahead of the winger nutsos since they, you know, haven't actually _killed _anyone yet.

Hopefully the situation will be resolved quickly, and no one hurt.  This guy sounds like a real piece of work.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 1, 2010)

"the froggies"? 
I think the pyschiatric hospitals need to check to see if they are missing a patient, they really should lock those padded cells or at least make sure the straight jackets are secure, this is someone who is definitely not sane and is certifiably dangerous.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 1, 2010)

Keep pushing all of this "sky is falling", end of the world envirodoomsday crap and we are going to see more and more of this IMO.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 1, 2010)

> A note posted online July 18 issues a list of demands to the Discovery Channel, saying the station "MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet." It lists 11 demands about airing shows that would promote curbing the plant's population growth, finding solutions for global warming and dismantling "the dangerous US world economy."
> "All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions," it reads. "In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it."
> .
> .
> ...


 

Maybe we need to tone down the dangerous rhetoric about global warming, capitalism, and overpopulation before people get killed.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 1, 2010)

Reminds me of these nutz -


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 1, 2010)

Tango Down:

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/09/01/police-shoot-discovery-channel-gunman-hostages-safe/

NEXT! :drinkbeer


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 1, 2010)

Just more violence promoted by those horrible conservatives in the Tea Party.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## David43515 (Sep 1, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Do you _really _want to go down that path? The enviro-kooks come out several orders of magnitude ahead of the winger nutsos since they, you know, haven't actually _killed _anyone yet.


 
*cough, cough* *Uni-bomber* *cough, cough*

While thier message is _generally_ peaceful......yeah, there`ve been cases where they`ve killed people. Being green doesn`t mean being harmless. Just like the majority of religious people aren`t violent......until you get someone blowing up abortion clinics or crashing planes into buildings. It`s the exceptions that stand out.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 1, 2010)

Flipped out after talk radio, damn that Limbaugh, oh wait...Lee said at the time that he experienced an &#8216;&#8216;awakening&#8221; when he watched  former Vice President Al Gore&#8217;s environmental documentary &#8216;&#8216;An  Inconvenient Truth.&#8221;


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 1, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Maybe we need to tone down the dangerous rhetoric about global warming, capitalism, and overpopulation before people get killed.


 

No!!! the guy got off his meds most scizophrenics will find something to go nuts about.

Did you know he was in custody and escaped? Law Enforcement dropped the ball.

I say feed the poor eat the rich!!!!!!!!!

What really burns my butt is how one guy will hurt and kill a bunch of people when lots of men are around doing nothing I wish more of us who have some skill and balls would just be present.

These loosers always know at the end of the day they get a nice clean cell three meals and clean laundry. If it was known that the offenders who do violence to unarmed inocent people knew they are going to have an ugly painful death I can assure you the atacks would greatly reduce. 

And srew the phyco bable about how punishment does not work, sure it does he is dead he can't do it again!! tell your rehab story to the senior citizens and children that beat and chopped up every day?

For non violent offenders and addicts they need treatment not punishment.

I would not make a good cop I would empty the clip and reload probably for jay walking oops my bad?


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 1, 2010)

They should have gotten the Mythbusters guys to blow him up.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 1, 2010)

Master Dan said:


> No!!! the guy got off his meds most scizophrenics will find something to go nuts about.
> 
> Did you know he was in custody and escaped? Law Enforcement dropped the ball.



Uhh. Proof of any of that please?


----------



## Steve (Sep 1, 2010)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry that some of you are using this crazy guy as a right vs left zinger.

The actions of this guy are to be condemned just as we should condemn the actions of individuals who take equally destructive and irrational positions, regardless of the politics involved. This is regardless of whether they're bombing abortion clinics or spiking trees. The entire tone of this thread is stupid and offensive, as if anyone, liberal or conservative, would endorse this crazy man's behavior.

There are unbalanced individuals on both sides, and fear mongering on either side of the aisle needs to stop.  Crazy is bi partisan.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 1, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I don't know whether to laugh or cry that some of you are using this crazy guy as a right vs left zinger.
> 
> The actions of this guy are to be condemned just as we should condemn the actions of individuals who take equally destructive and irrational positions, regardless of the politics involved. This is regardless of whether they're bombing abortion clinics or spiking trees. The entire tone of this thread is stupid and offensive, as if anyone, liberal or conservative, would endorse this crazy man's behavior.
> 
> There are unbalanced individuals on both sides, and fear mongering on either side of the aisle needs to stop. Crazy is bi partisan.


 
What Steve said.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 1, 2010)

> fear mongering on either side of the aisle needs to stop


 
Yes. Just like the hoopla over the slashing of a cabbies throat because of his religion.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 1, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Just more violence promoted by those horrible conservatives in the Tea Party.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



Yes. Pop that champagne. It'd could only be better if he'd killed a few people before he was taken down. That'd really show Al Gore!


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 1, 2010)

Read his 'manifesto' and you will see the ravings of a seriously deranged man not a political or enviromental activist, he could have chosen any subject whatsoever as his 'crusade' but the fact remains he was as Steve said unhinged, unbalanced and downright crazy. It's not a political issue it's a mental health one.
He's dead now anyway and all hostages safe.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 2, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> They should have gotten the Mythbusters guys to blow him up.


They would take entirely too long figuring out the most efficient way to do it.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 2, 2010)

I can't help but wonder what the conversation here would have been like if the nut had taken over CNN demanding that they report that the President was not a natural born citizen? And that he had had an awakening after watching Glenn Beck.


----------



## Carol (Sep 2, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I can't help but wonder what the conversation here would have been like if the nut had taken over CNN demanding that they report that the President was not a natural born citizen? And that he had had an awakening after watching Glenn Beck.



Something like this?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 2, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Yes. Pop that champagne. It'd could only be better if he'd killed a few people before he was taken down. That'd really show Al Gore!


 
Oh, I thought the taking of hostages was enough. But since you're advocating even more violence you must be one of those evil, knuckle dragging conservatives. A Tea Party member, too, no doubt. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## crushing (Sep 2, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Yes. Pop that champagne. It'd could only be better if he'd killed a few people before he was taken down. That'd really show Al Gore!


 
Such a senario would have been much more useful to HC, Inc.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 2, 2010)

+1 to what Steve said.

What is up with you people?  Take a step back and listen to yourselves.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 2, 2010)

Great post Steve.

Look guys, anyone preaching hate and fear of other people, in my book are a problem.  Doesn't matter if it comes from the left or the right.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 2, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> +1 to what Steve said.
> 
> What is up with you people? Take a step back and listen to yourselves.


 
Go back and reread the first few pages of the thread on the cabbie being stabbed. That incident was called "a modern day lynching." The "Tea Party-ish side of the Republican Party [was] whipping up hysteria." Obviously the crime was committed by the same kind of yokels who think "All 1.6 billion of the worlds Muslims are even now, actively conspiring to kill us all, all us non-Muslims." The whole thing was premeditated "Because this guy was probably pissed off at the Muslim population as a whole, and was seeking out anyone of that faith, to attack. He probably would have done the same thing if he walked up to a passerby or street vendor."

I won't even bother to quote from off-site sources.

Oops. The attacker was a film school guy who worked for a liberal organization. 

Go back and look through media reports about the man who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, TX. It was reported in the beginning that he was probably some right-wing nut. It wasn't until his suicide note came out that it was admitted he was basically a Marxist. Oops. 

When the Times Square Bomber happened NYC's mayor came out on national television and said that he thought it was probably the work of "someone with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something." You know, like those evil conservatives. In the words of Rep. Alan Grayson (Democrat) from the floor of the house, said: "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care is: Die quickly." Because, obviously, conservatives are evil. 

As it turns out, the Time Square Bomber was a Muslim terrorist. Oops. 

I could go on, but I think perhaps you are beginning to see my point. 

The people posting here are simply pointing out that the horrible crime that the Discovery Channel Bomber (boy that's a weird combination of words) was motivated, _by his own admission_, by the Left's favorite substitute for the eschatological apocalypse: environmentalism. 

You don't have to excuse people for taking an opportunity to engage in a little sarcasm about the man's motivation. IMNSHO, we don't need to be excused. But perhaps you can see that the general tenor in this country breaks down something along the lines of: if something bad happens the media and cultural "elites" present it as probably being the result of a conservative motivated by conservative principles. Conservatives, the Tea Party, etc. are all a step away from Neanderthals (and frankly the main stream media isn't sure if the step is upwards on the evolutionary scale). 

Except in a lot of cases when things come to light it's an example of DA Nifong's (who was pursuing several white students at Duke University for gang raping a black woman, until it turns out she had fabricated the events) statement: "The narrative was properly about race, sex and class... We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place... We just got the facts wrong. _The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong_."

The narrative was right. That sums up a lot of things here in 21st century America. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Steve (Sep 2, 2010)

This guy is a left wing nut.  Those guys were right wing nuts.  Operative word here is nuts.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 2, 2010)

Did you actually read his 'manifesto'? Do you really think it's politically motivated? Dear lord, the man was sick or nuts if you prefer, he wasn't rational, he wasn't right in the head. 
Did you see the hate he had for children and humans? Do you think thats normal, that there wasn't something wrong in his head and you are bickering to the point of being hysterical about his 'political' motivations. he didn't have any..he was however seriously disturbed. That writing is not the sharp points of a political agitator it's the ramblings of someone needing serious help from mental health professionals. 
http://abcnews.go.com/US/discovery-channel-attack-inside-james-lee-takedown/story?id=11541307&page=1

It's not a witch hunt it is a sad case which ended with only him dead but had the potential to be a lot worse. Get a grip gentlemen, it's ridiculous your political hatreds are sounding rabid and unsound now.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 2, 2010)

When is someone going to realize that the point here really has nothing to do with the mentally ill guy?

I think chrispillertkd is onto something. 

Why no calls for "moderation" on the cabbie slashing thread? hmmm...


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 2, 2010)

I haven't been back there (to the Cabbie thread) since I posted in it and my memory might be faulty with regard to what I wrote but I thought that what I said there was pretty middle-of-the-road?  

I intended to say something about a climate of fear being fostered by all media and political sources to polarise opinions to the extremes - whether that is actually what came out of what I said there I don't recall but that is certainly my position.

Same thing here - the poor crazy loon is dead.  Be satisfied with that (and that noone else got killed) rather than trying to build a case for the 'rightness' of the Right and the 'wrongness' of the Left.  It could very easily be one of us that ends up being the whacked whack job.  It only takes a few chemicals to get out of balance in your brain and off you go ...


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 2, 2010)

Hmm. This guy obviously was a believer in the religion of radical environmentalism. He was also armed. Now can we talk about who&#8217;s clinging to their guns and religion?


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 2, 2010)

Hmm..if Jon Stewart were to make a joke about this it would be cutting edge political commentary. If someone here posts something about the oddity of the situation its devisiveness. Interesting.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 2, 2010)

it is a bit disturbing that some people don't understand the differences.


----------



## Steve (Sep 2, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Hmm..if Jon Stewart were to make a joke about this it would be cutting edge political *comedy*. If someone here posts something about the oddity of the situation its devisiveness. Interesting.


I fixed that for you.  Commentary and comedy aren't the same thing.  And for what it's worth, he's pretty damned funny whether he's skewering the right or the left.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 3, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I fixed that for you. Commentary and comedy aren't the same thing. And for what it's worth, he's pretty damned funny whether he's skewering the right or the left.


 
So was Janeane Garofolo and Al Franken, right?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2010)

Did you see the little children being taken from out of there? The people that could have been your families, the worry of the hostages loved ones? I guess not. it was a hostage situation that could have turned really nasty really quickly, as it is one man is dead, it could have been many. I suppose when you are consumed by political hatred you see very little from behind those blinkers.


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So was Janeane Garofolo and Al Franken, right?


Garafalo went over the deep end. I haven't heard anything that wasn't hateful from her in years. 

Al Franken is more like Rush Limbaugh than Jon Stewart, in that Al and Rush make (or in Al's case made) a living translating current events into bite sized chunks for an audience already in agreement. Any comedy either of them do is incidental to their larger role as opinion peddlers. 

Jon Stewart makes a living lampooning and satirizing government at large. He goes after both sides as well as popular media. But I'd bet you don't _actually_ watch the show, so you wouldn't know that.   

Don't get me wrong. I don't care one way or the other if you watch or like The Daily Show. It's just ignorant to suggest that it has anything to do with blatantly partisan talk radio programming from either the right or the left.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

I watch The Daily Show. I think the show deserves the awards it has gotten.  I've noticed they pretty much poke fun at the hypocrits, hate mongers, and politicians who don't seem to be in touch with reality.  Doesn't seem to matter which side of the isle they are from, which makes it better in my opinion.

The Discovery thing was a tragedy all the way around.  You've got people who were victimized and traumatized.  You have a mentaly ill man who lost his life.  Because his mentally imbalanced mind fixated on ecology, some choose to brand him as a left leaning kook, so that they can point at the left and go "See! They are just as bad as the right!"  According to his manifesto, he didn't apear to have any political agenda, nor was his actions helped formed by anyone else.  He was just insane.  Not politically right or left insane, just insane.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 3, 2010)

You can claim he wasn't a leftist, but, you can't do it honestly.
Oh look VIDEO


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

How is this leftist?  I just see the ramblings of a derangd person.  Of course, that is exactly what I see when I view some of the people who are supposed to be representing the right as well, so maybe I'm just a bad judge.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2010)

>Shakes head in disbelief<


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> How is this leftist? I just see the ramblings of a derangd person. Of course, that is exactly what I see when I view some of the people who are supposed to be representing the right as well, so maybe I'm just a bad judge.


 

Says I must spread some more love before repping you again so will say it here, good posts and a voice of_ hope and sanity_ along with Steve amid the rabid rantings of the haters.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> How is this leftist?  I just see the ramblings of a derangd person.  Of course, that is exactly what I see when I view some of the people who are supposed to be representing the right as well, so maybe I'm just a bad judge.


Blaming the troops is a leftist position, always has been in this country.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

Nope, it has and always will be an ignorant, and as shown here an insane position.  Calling it a leftist position is just a veiled attack...like saying if a person is a conservative he must be racist.  Niether holds water.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Nope, it has and always will be an ignorant, and as shown here an insane position.  Calling it a leftist position is just a veiled attack...like saying if a person is a conservative he must be racist.  Niether holds water.


It was a CODE PINK rally. Those people aren't known for their calm demeanor...


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

Big Don said:


> It was a CODE PINK rally. Those people aren't known for their calm demeanor...


 
You're reaching now...Notice he doesn't have on any pink?  He might have been at the rally, but he was not part of the rally, nor in any way a representative of code pink.  Also notice he was being jeered?  So using your logic, those far leftist wackoes of Code Pink thought this guy was spouting nonsense.  That's a position you and Code Pink agree on.  You agree with Code Pink!  You leftist, you 

You are trying to paint him as a leftist politico in order to attack those left of center.  The more you post, the more apparent that is becoming.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 3, 2010)

Rick Sanchez of CNN on James Lee, the Discovery Channel Bomber:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthe...assign-blame-over-discovery-channel-terrorist

According to Sanchez, Lee was "_well meaning_," but "most watching this would argue that he _may have_ taken it way too far on this day." Indeed, Lee is "_very concerned_" about Global Warming. 

Sanchez can barely bring himself to believe that the _narrative_ has let him down. After all, Global Warming activists are on the side of the angels and, as Sanchez points out, Lee is "a bit of an activist, a guy who truly believes, seemingly, in his heart that he needs to do all he can to save the planet. _Most_ watching this would argue he _may have_ taken it way too far on this day by endangering the lives of people in this building, as he _seems_ to be doing right now."

_Most_ people probably think Lee _may have_ crossed the line by taking hostages and having a bomb. Maybe. If he is, in fact, _really_ endangering people's lives.

This is how the media and cultural elites view things.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

And it seems interesting how quickly people are trying to frame this as the actions of a mentally ill man..."it had nothing to do with his beliefs, he was just crazy and lets all leave it at that (please)". Has there been any evidence that this person had some sort of mental illness. If he was, was he any more or less ill than these people?


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Rick Sanchez of CNN on James Lee, the Discovery Channel Bomber:
> 
> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthe...assign-blame-over-discovery-channel-terrorist
> 
> ...



But Mr Sanchez was quick to blame FOX news for cop killings.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthe...blames-fox-news-right-wing-radio-cop-killings

So FOX can influence people into murder, but AL Gore and the envirogeddon crowd cannot (unless you are CRAZY)????

I think there is some willful ignorance of what this thread is about going on here.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

It is pretty simple.  When your news personalities suggest violent "rebellion," to go get a gun, or to kill someone, that is a far cry from telling people we are causing climate change.  If you can't see the difference then you are also part of that problem.

As far as Rick Sanchez...he's about as serious a newsman as Glen Beck.  Before you ask, serious mews people don't just pander to the prevailing opinion and they verify source information to make sure it is accurate.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> When your news personalities suggest violent "rebellion," to go get a gun, or to kill someone,



Uhhh...what?

I have never heard that. I think it's an issue of what you want to hear..or a willful reinterpretation. FOX is "suggesting violence" but the incessant media blitz "suggesting" that we are all going to be wandering around in a "road warrior" dystopia due to GW is simply "telling people something" absent of any political intent?

Right.


----------



## Steve (Sep 3, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> And it seems interesting how quickly people are trying to frame this as the actions of a mentally ill man..."it had nothing to do with his beliefs, he was just crazy and lets all leave it at that (please)". Has there been any evidence that this person had some sort of mental illness. If he was, was he any more or less ill than these people?


Do you think this guy was sane?  I think it's interesting that you're even suggesting otherwise.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/...-Discovery-Channel-Gunmans-Radical-Views.html



> If James Lee had been a member of a Tea Party group or an activist opposed to abortion rights the national media would be in the throes of ecstasy, describing his actions as the product of some sort of loosely organized effort that should have all Americans living in fear for their lives and their liberty. The Department of Homeland Security would probably announce the creation of some sort of task force to investigate his activities and root out his followers and allies. And President Barack Obama would no doubt address the issue in his weekly radio address. But Lee was neither of those things. He was a radical on the edge of an already radicalized movement but one that continues to gain uncritical acceptance among the general public. Perhaps it&#8217;s time for a reassessment.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Uhhh...what?
> 
> I have never heard that. I think it's an issue of what you want to hear..or a willful reinterpretation. FOX is "suggesting violence" but the incessant media blitz "suggesting" that we are all going to be wandering around in a "road warrior" dystopia due to GW is simply "telling people something" absent of any political intent?
> 
> Right.


 

Nope, these are taken from Fox news I have seen.  Now granted it wasn't the "real" news on Fox, but it is still irresponsible.  Once upon a time there were leftist organizations that tried to accent thier point with violence and violent imagery.  It wasn't right then and it isn't right now, when the right is doing it.  

I'm not saying every conservative is a violent act waiting to happen.  Far from it.  My best friend and some family members are very conservative and they would never dream of doing anything so stupid.  But to deny that some of this isn't going on then to try to say the left is doing it in the very next breath is "willfull" ignorance.  Sane people don't promote violent rhetoric or imagery, no matter thier political alignment.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Do you think this guy was sane?  I think it's interesting that you're even suggesting otherwise.



He very well probably was mentally ill. But was he ever diagnosed? The mans mental illness is really not my point. My point is how some people are so ready to dismiss the influence of leftist favored politics on people like this yet are so ready and willing to blame rightist politics for the actions of other people...and not simply blame it on mental illness.

Just do a simple google on the Lee topic and see how many articles there are out there that are that are quick to say it was mental illness..ignore the environmental media machine influence. 

I doubt a right wing nut who did something crazy would get the same media treatment.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Nope, these are taken from Fox news I have seen.  Now granted it wasn't the "real" news on Fox, but it is still irresponsible.



Examples?


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

Are terrorist suicide bombers mentally ill?


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

Hannity and O'Reilly both referenced Dr Tillman needing to be "taken out."  I don't think they were referencing a night on the town.  I don't think there is any connection to the guy who actually killed him, but it was irresponsible just the same.  Glen Beck talked about arming up more than once.  I've seen both Hannity and Beck talk about armed insurrection and rebellion against the US government.  My father-in-law watches a lot of Fox News 

You know instead of denying it then throwing out that the left does the same thing, perhaps it would be better to just state that it shouldn't be done at all from any political party talking heads and if it is done, calling out those that do it.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Are terrorist suicide bombers mentally ill?


 
usually, yes...or really, really gullable.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

I have never heard anyone call for armed insurrection. As a matter of fact I have heard some of those guys explicitly state that any action has to be non-violent. And I think that rhetoric from each side can have an influence on people that are "influence-able"..always has always will. Do we limit any "sides" freedom of speech because of what some nuts may do?

I dont think that the "enviro doomsday" types in the media should be suppressed. Not at all. However, look at how willing politicians are to bring legislation for "media fairness" as long as its aimed at conservative media. Should that be supported? Yet the influence of other "more left" media favorites is to be ignored?


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> usually, yes...or really, really gullable.



Hmmm. Some people would argue that they were simply radicalized by extremist politics. But to say "no they are not necessarily crazy" would open to door to saying "well why couldn't Lee have been radicalized?"


----------



## Big Don (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> usually, yes...or really, really gullable.


If either is the case, wouldn't that make the people encouraging them to acts of violent death be especially despicable?


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

Big Don said:


> If either is the case, wouldn't that make the people encouraging them to acts of violent death be especially despicable?


 
Absolutely.  I think the guys behind training the suicide bombers are much worse than the bombers themselves...not that I have much sympathy for the bombers.  Believing something enough to sacrifice your own life may not be a bad thing...maybe.  However, if someone is selling you something and telling you that killing innocents is the way to achieve it...that has all kinds of wrong to it.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> usually, yes...or really, really gullable.


 
No, they just believe that they are following the dictates of Jihad by blowing themselves and others up. Just because they engage in evil behavior it doesn't mean they are, therefore, mentally ill. There is a difference. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Nope, these are taken from Fox news I have seen.


 
Could you put up a link to the video of this. I'd be very interested in seeing it so I can write FOX News and tell them they are being irresponsible for putting this kind of thing on the air.  

Pax,

Chris


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 3, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Could you put up a link to the video of this. I'd be very interested in seeing it so I can write FOX News and tell them they are being irresponsible for putting this kind of thing on the air.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 

No.  I'm not looking through Fox programs to prove to you it is there.  If I did you would just make an excuse for it, anyway.  The stuff has been said.  It is there if you want to find it. Probably the easiest to find will be the stuff on Dr Tiller, since it was also brought up after Dr Tiller's death.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 3, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> No. I'm not looking through Fox programs to prove to you it is there. If I did you would just make an excuse for it, anyway.


 
On the contrary, if you put up a link showing the comment(s) I'd e-mail FOX News as soon as I saw it and give them a piece of my mind.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 3, 2010)

I saw Al Franken kill a puppy once on CNN.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 4, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I saw Al Franken kill a puppy once on CNN.


I missed that episode, but, Randi Rhodes DID "Joke"about killing the President of the United States... But, that wouldn't encourage nuts...
In hindsight, it is probably a good thing no one listened to Air America...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 4, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> No. I'm not looking through Fox programs to prove to you it is there. If I did you would just make an excuse for it, anyway. The stuff has been said. It is there if you want to find it. Probably the easiest to find will be the stuff on Dr Tiller, since it was also brought up after Dr Tiller's death.


 
Weak.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 4, 2010)

From Salon.com:



> This is where O'Reilly's campaign against George Tiller becomes dangerous. *While he never advocated anything violent or illegal,* the Fox bully repeatedly portrayed the doctor as a murderer on the loose, allowed to do whatever he wanted by corrupt and decadent authorities.


 
Even those sites that are virulently left-wing can't point to *any *statement made by Bill O'Reilly that would be advocating killing Docter Tiller.

But alot of sites say that he and other conservative hosts are "complicite", or shoulder some responsibility for his death.

Quite frankly, WC, your position on this is blatently partisan, and downright hypocritical.  You blame people here for talking about this incident being perpetrated based on someone's radical environmentalist views (rather then a mental illness), but then do *exactly *that when talking about Dr. Tillman's death.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 4, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> blatently partisan



That's the root cause of far too many endless circular arguments in this section of the board (and around the world).  

Once people engage their default religious or political 'axes' to the grinding wheel of their favourite 'sacred cow' all semblance of rational intelligence vapourises.

Debate is supposed to be the exchange of views for the enlightenment of all.  It sadly fails to aspire to that on most occasions.

Speaking to this thread in particular, I have said all that I am going to say but I am saddened that it has been twisted into yet another Left vs Right anger fest.  

I thank the gods I stepped down from being a Moderator but, with my Mentor hat on, I do think that perhaps what posts are added to this pile should more closely address the original topic rather than the tangent that has been developed.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 4, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That's the root cause of far too many endless circular arguments in this section of the board (and around the world).
> 
> Once people engage their default religious or political 'axes' to the grinding wheel of their favourite 'sacred cow' all semblance of rational intelligence vapourises.
> 
> ...


 
I agree.  It's why I try to limit the amount of time that I come here.  I think few people are interested in rational discourse.

I don't mind things being controversial or even a bit heated.  But I would hope that people could be intellectually honest.

As for the last part of your statement, it was obvious what it was going to be from the beginning.  And it was intended to be a left vs. right thread.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 4, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I agree. It's why I try to limit the amount of time that I come here. I think few people are interested in rational discourse.
> 
> I don't mind things being controversial or even a bit heated. But I would hope that people could be intellectually honest.
> 
> As for the last part of your statement, it was obvious what it was going to be from the beginning. *And it was intended to be a left vs. right thread*.


 

Why? Why does everything have to be left v right? Do you have no middle ground then in America, only hatred of each other? Is everything to be seen only through your own political viewpoint? it's almost rabid this arguing, the only thing I've seen comparable to this is the Sectarian divide in Northern Ireland.


----------



## girlbug2 (Sep 4, 2010)

Tez we need to be polarized, it keeps us from looking at the real problems facing our country.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 4, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Once upon a time there were leftist organizations that tried to accent thier point with violence and violent imagery.  It wasn't right then and it isn't right now, when the right is doing it.



Once upon a time?  No.  Both sides are there now.  The Yippies are still alive and kicking.  So are other radical Leftist groups.  We can't really pretend they only happened in the past.

Lets call it what it is... Radical Politics.  Doesn't matter which side.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 4, 2010)

Bemoaning polarization does nothing about the underlying fact.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 4, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Once upon a time? No. Both sides are there now. The Yippies are still alive and kicking. So are other radical Leftist groups. We can't really pretend they only happened in the past.
> 
> Lets call it what it is... Radical Politics. Doesn't matter which side.


 

What leftist side now advocates violence or incendary speach as part of thier politics?   What main stream progressive does this?


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 4, 2010)

What "leftist side?".  I think Im misunderstanding you.  Cuz my answer would be, the one to the left. 

I didnt say mainstream, I said Leftist.  Not all leftists are mainstream, and not everyone on the Right are either. But you need to attend some "Peace Rallies" in DC if you think none of the leftist groups are advocating Violence.  

I've personally witnessed large groups of Socialists and left wing anarchists trying to incite violence at these rallies... or should I suppose those guys in their homemade riot gear with their riot shields cut from 50 gallon steel drums egging on the cops back in 08 weren't trying to incite anything, just there to pass out flowers and peace and love?


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 4, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> What "leftist side?". I think Im misunderstanding you. Cuz my answer would be, the one to the left.
> 
> I didnt say mainstream, I said Leftist. Not all leftists are mainstream, and not everyone on the Right are either. But you need to attend some "Peace Rallies" in DC if you think none of the leftist groups are advocating Violence.
> 
> I've personally witnessed large groups of Socialists and left wing anarchists trying to incite violence at these rallies... or should I suppose those guys in their homemade riot gear with their riot shields cut from 50 gallon steel drums egging on the cops back in 08 weren't trying to incite anything, just there to pass out flowers and peace and love?


 

There are always gonna be idiots to the far side of both the left and right.  Now name a left personality that is like that.  Name a left person that uses fear and hate to drum up support for thier theories.  I can name left talking heads that I think are a bit over the top, such as Obermann, but I've not seen the incendarary stuff in the left like that coming from the right.  Perhaps that is because the left is in power at the moment.  I don't know.


----------



## Steve (Sep 4, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> What "leftist side?".  I think Im misunderstanding you.  Cuz my answer would be, the one to the left.
> 
> I didnt say mainstream, I said Leftist.  Not all leftists are mainstream, and not everyone on the Right are either. But you need to attend some "Peace Rallies" in DC if you think none of the leftist groups are advocating Violence.
> 
> I've personally witnessed large groups of Socialists and left wing anarchists trying to incite violence at these rallies... or should I suppose those guys in their homemade riot gear with their riot shields cut from 50 gallon steel drums egging on the cops back in 08 weren't trying to incite anything, just there to pass out flowers and peace and love?


I think that this is a big part of the problem.  Associating "The Left" with anarchists and socialists.  That's as bad as presuming that all conservatives are militiamen.  

If, as a moderate liberal, I have to continuously account for every crackpot anarchist and socialist, we'll never have any meaningful dialogue.   While I understand that these are on the left wing of the political spectrum, not every conservative is a fascist.  Most aren't.  And not every liberal is a socialist.  Most aren't.

This goes the other way, too.  Of course.


----------



## Steve (Sep 4, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> There are always gonna be idiots to the far side of both the left and right.  Now name a left personality that is like that.  Name a left person that uses fear and hate to drum up support for thier theories.  I can name left talking heads that I think are a bit over the top, such as Obermann, but I've not seen the incendarary stuff in the left like that coming from the right.  Perhaps that is because the left is in power at the moment.  I don't know.


In  fairness, Jenine Garafalo is pretty bad. Randi Rhodes isn't much better.  They're cut from the same cloth as glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 4, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Why? Why does everything have to be left v right? Do you have no middle ground then in America, only hatred of each other? Is everything to be seen only through your own political viewpoint? it's almost rabid this arguing, the only thing I've seen comparable to this is the Sectarian divide in Northern Ireland.


 
How about instead of judging an entire country by some posts on an internet politics forum you actually reserve making comments like the one above until you, oh, I don't know, come over and spend substantial time here getting to know the people, the culture and the politicians? You know, you could actually walk a mile in someone's shoes before judging them and get a more accurate view of things besides relying on the internet (the anonymity of which often results in a skewed presentation of people and things). 

But if you want to denounce the Orangemen for giving people a big old middle finger every year go right ahead. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 4, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> If, as a moderate liberal, I have to continuously account for every crackpot anarchist and socialist,



Show me where I said "Every"?

I said: "large groups of Socialists and left wing anarchists" meaning, the left leaning ones.  Not All.

The sad thing is I came onto this thread stating both sides were equal guilty of having radicals and now I'm busy defending the right from you and WC, which was never my intention, so I'm gonna shut up and let you all get back to your fantasies that the Liberals fart roses and crap cupcakes and all the righties are Satan in disguise who wanna murder children and kick puppies.

I'm done.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 4, 2010)

I am unabashedly conservative. Do I believe EVERYTHING on FOX? Of course not. But at least I am being honest about my leanings. Unlike all the "moderate liberals" who want to pretend like they are being moderate while its actually passive aggressiveness. Man up and stand by your flag.

I don't subscribe to the "lets all pretend to be moderate here by not posting our opinions" crap that inevitably arises. Are we to not express what we TRULY think just for the sake of "peace"? It would be a sham peace if anything. If you don't like the topic don't participate. I can't understand the people who read these threads just so that they can "tsk tsk" people.

PS Tez-Unlike Ireland we can yell our politics at each other here and it rarely ammounts to anything more than..well...yelling. Don't compare your experiences to ours. While I disagree with some of the people here on idelogical grounds we dont resort to Mlotov Coctails and street assassinations (beyond the rare nutjob like the guy this thread is about).


----------



## Steve (Sep 4, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Show me where I said "Every"?
> 
> I said: "large groups of Socialists and left wing anarchists" meaning, the left leaning ones.  Not All.
> 
> ...


Tez, while guys like cryozombie really do try to make it look like there's no middle ground, that's only on the internet.  

Cryo, are my only two choices anarchists and socialists or farting roses and crapping cupcakes?  You're proving my point for me.  It has to be extremes with you.  No room for moderation.


----------



## Steve (Sep 4, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I am unabashedly conservative. Do I believe EVERYTHING on FOX? Of course not. But at least I am being honest about my leanings. Unlike all the "moderate liberals" who want to pretend like they are being moderate while its actually passive aggressiveness. Man up and stand by your flag.
> 
> I don't subscribe to the "lets all pretend to be moderate here by not posting our opinions" crap that inevitably arises. If you don't like the topic don't participate. I can't understand the people who read these threads just so that they can "tsk tsk" people.
> 
> PS Tez-Unlike Ireland we can yell our politics at each other here and it rarely ammounts to anything more than..well...yelling. Don't compare your experiences to ours. While I disagree with some of the people here on idelogical grounds we dont resort to Mlotov Coctails and street assassinations (beyond the rare nutjob like the guy this thread is about).


In the real world, I'm actually more right than left on most issues.  Here, though, I seem to be a hippy.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 4, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> How about instead of judging an entire country by some posts on an internet politics forum you actually reserve making comments like the one above until you, oh, I don't know, come over and spend substantial time here getting to know the people, the culture and the politicians? You know, you could actually walk a mile in someone's shoes before judging them and get a more accurate view of things besides relying on the internet (the anonymity of which often results in a skewed presentation of people and things).
> 
> But if you want to denounce the Orangemen for giving people a big old middle finger every year go right ahead.
> 
> ...



You do have to realise that your position there is on thin ice?

I concur fully with the overt, surface, meaning of your words.  But the underlying precept is not tenable.

If you don't want 'us' here, you can just say so directly.  I thought we (non-American residents) were welcome to voice our ill-informed views but it seems I may be in error on that front (amongst others).


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 4, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> You do have to realise that your position there is on thin ice?
> 
> I concur fully with the overt, surface, meaning of your words. But the underlying precept is not tenable.
> 
> If you don't want 'us' here, you can just say so directly. I thought we (non-American residents) were welcome to voice our ill-informed views but it seems I may be in error on that front (amongst others).


 


That's about as serious as I can get with your post. You don't think people should understand a culture before drawing sweeping generalizations about it? Come on.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 4, 2010)

Honestly, it isn't like US culture is hard to understand.  I actually think the view from a 3rd party can be a good thing.  I'm willing to bet if the outside views mimiced your own, you wouldn't have a problem hearing them.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 4, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> You don't think people should understand a culture before drawing sweeping generalizations about it?



Dunno. We'd better take a poll on it first.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 4, 2010)

Folks, not only is some of this drifting kind of far afield from the incident at the Discovery building -- it's getting kind of heated.  This is The Study, and some heat is allowed -- but let's drop the personal attacks and name calling, and maybe try to shift back to the original topic, OK?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 4, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Honestly, it isn't like US culture is hard to understand.


 
To some extent, this is true. For people who _live_ in that culture. For those who get their understanding of American culture (or any othne culture) from reading an internet BBS or watching television or even reading media outlets, not so much. There's no substitute for getting an inside view of a culture in order to understand it. But even within the group of those who are native to a particular culture there are degrees of understanding. There are those who understand better the culture than others. They've studied the country's history, current events, etc, and know how the country has developed. Having an understanding of the past is helpful in understanding how you got to the present and often times will help a person understand the direction a country is headed into the future. 



> I actually think the view from a 3rd party can be a good thing.


 
No one is suggesting otherwise. But not all views are accurate nor, for that matter, are all opinions drawn from observation equal. 



> I'm willing to bet if the outside views mimiced your own, you wouldn't have a problem hearing them.


 
LOL What a silly thing to say as it can easily be levelled right back at you. But _agreeing_ with someone is irrelevant to what I said in response to Tez's post, which should have been obvious if you read it.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Big Don (Sep 5, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Dunno. We'd better take a poll on it first.


Bill, does Hillary know you're on the computer?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 5, 2010)

Show me a clip of anyone from the right saying anything like THIS... (and not being pilloried for it...)


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> How about instead of judging an entire country by some posts on an internet politics forum you actually reserve making comments like the one above until you, oh, I don't know, come over and spend substantial time here getting to know the people, the culture and the politicians? You know, you could actually walk a mile in someone's shoes before judging them and get a more accurate view of things besides relying on the internet (the anonymity of which often results in a skewed presentation of people and things).
> 
> But if you want to denounce the Orangemen for giving people a big old middle finger every year go right ahead.
> 
> ...


 

Actually if you read my posts, which I doubt you do before jumping in with your big feet, *I was criticising the posts, yes the posts not the country* *not the politics of the country not the people, not the media...* *the posts, yes that's right the posts on here, on this thread,* about this subject. Get off your high horse and start reading the plain English, I wanted to know why you lot on here write with such vitriol. Get your facts straight first.....unless that's the problem you don't understand what people are saying or meaning when they write so you jump to massive conclusions. 


And if you think all the Orangemen do is give people the finger once a year you are very sadly mistaken, they kill and maim almost as many people as their opposite numbers in the Provos, shows how much you know.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 5, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Bill, does Hillary know you're on the computer?


Here's a suitable answer for 'ya Don...

When the current deponent is positing a position, that said deponent of the aforementioned article shall be seen within the context of one's prior position as being within the justification of the parties involved bearing no further onus to outside agencies.


----------



## Steve (Sep 5, 2010)

When I say that I'm a moderate, I mean just that.  I lean left on some issues and right on others.  I would like to think that most people are the same.  Not too many years ago, being a moderate was a good thing.  

I think that it's about time in this country for actual moderate voices  to stop allowing radicals to control the dialogue.  Archangel stands proud as a CONSERVATIVE (all caps because that's how he did it), as though that one word perfectly encapsulates his entire political and social platform.   That's pretty non-specific, to me.  15 years ago, I could have told you what being a conservative meant, but that's all gone by the wayside.    

I could say I'm a liberal, I guess, but that would only be to appease archangel so that he can fit me into a neat mental container.  As I said before, I'm more to the left than most of this board, but I'm to the right of most everyone I know.  I vote for lower taxes, am a pain in the *** of my local school board because they're always spending too much money.  I think we need to reduce the size of government and am staunchly opposed to anything that smacks of big brother.  I don't like the Grateful Dead or Phish.  I tend to vote democrat on national ballots and GOP in my State government pretty consistently over the last several years.  That's just how things shake out.  Given the candidates and my positions, our state government needs more balance.  Taxes are out of control along with spending and the Democrats have been in power for too long.    Nationally, the GOP is a mess.

I don't listen to Randi Rhodes, and can't even tell you whether Garafolo or some of the others from Air America are even still on the air.  Talk radio for me means The Men's Room on KISW, Rock of Seattle.  

Calling any moderate voice a liar (childish  behavior, particuarly from an "mt mentor" aside), is scary stuff, and exactly  what I'm talking about.   Shouting down the middle and tying everything to an extreme position isn't productive.  If we're having a discussion about politics and things quickly devolve to fascists vs socialists... or around here, extreme conservatives vs everyone else, it's no wonder things get heated.

In my opinion, both the left and the right need to begin giving these  radical voices the attention they deserve, which is little to none.  At the  same time, there needs to be a recognition that people who are zealots,  particularly to the point that they plan and/or execute crimes such as  the one in this thread, aren't representative of the group.


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 5, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I can't help but wonder what the conversation here would have been like if the nut had taken over CNN demanding that they report that the President was not a natural born citizen? And that he had had an awakening after watching Glenn Beck.


 

Its not the point mental or political sane or insane 90% of the bad guys know they live a long time even if sentenced to death. My point is we need a more definative laws that give no quarter to violent offenders agianst unarmed or defenseles citizens. Incarceration is not a deterent to most of them pain and death on the spot or very soon is.

We don't need DNA when there are tens of witnesses or video. For those of you who want to talk in quiet soothing tones for peace and compansion. Lets see what you think when you or your family god forbid should encounter being confronted by violent criminals who consider you just food or prey??

And the worst are now corporations who have no concience but to the bottom line regardless of how many people they make sick or kill.
We need to punish CEO and others


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 5, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Actually if you read my posts, which I doubt you do before jumping in with your big feet,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 5, 2010)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.  Please return to the original topic.

jks9199
Super Moderator
*


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2010)

A Huff-Po lib's take on Lee:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/a-deeper-meaning-in-the-d_b_703289.html



> Anyone who studies carefully the evidence upon which such views are based would be hard pressed to label these views crazy. So it will not do to dismiss the ideas Lee championed as delusional, even if we conclude that in important ways, he must or might have been. A wiser response would be to wonder if this troubled man might, despite his desperation and hostility, have had something worth considering. Perhaps he was trying to point our attention to a history that, if properly understood, might well help us envision a better future for life on earth. Perhaps if he felt more people were listening, and cared, he could have found a non-violent way to express his deepest passions.



Yeah. Kids are parasites. They are the problem. Nice point. Sheesh!


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 6, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I think that it's about time in this country for actual moderate voices  to stop allowing radicals to control the dialogue.



The problem with the usual "moderate" solutions trotted out by talking heads like David Broder is that they simply halve the distance between whatever the two media-defined "sides" are.  No matter what those sides say.  If Obama proposed eating children and Boehner proposed not eating children, David Broder would inform us in all solemnity that we should be eating half of the child, and it's those nasty extremes poisoning the dialogue.

Many of the so-called "moderate" solutions really just are Solomon's solution to the dispute over the child.  Except the moderates actually mean it, while Solomon was just being clever.

Sometimes one "side" is just right.  On evolution and global warming, say.  Or a multitude of others.  True discernment and rationality sometimes involves picking a side.

It also doesn't help that the Overton window has shifted, and what is considered "moderate" or even "liberal" now used to be considered right wing.  For instance, the current health care reform plan and the Cap-and-Trade scheme to control CO2 emissions were once both _Republican _proposals, offered to counter more "liberal" alternatives.  Now they are called out as the height of Socialism by the right wing.


----------



## Steve (Sep 6, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> The problem with the usual "moderate" solutions trotted out by talking heads like David Broder is that they simply halve the distance between whatever the two media-defined "sides" are.  No matter what those sides say.  If Obama proposed eating children and Boehner proposed not eating children, David Broder would inform us in all solemnity that we should be eating half of the child, and it's those nasty extremes poisoning the dialogue.
> 
> Many of the so-called "moderate" solutions really just are Solomon's solution to the dispute over the child.  Except the moderates actually mean it, while Solomon was just being clever.
> 
> ...


Terrific post.  I agree completely with the last part, and that's where I shake my head in disbelief that people here think I'm a flaming liberal.  15 years ago, I was a conservative. Or, at least, I wasn't a hippy.  

Regarding the moderate position, I can't say I agree 100%.  While what you're describing is certainly true at times, there are many situations where the ideology is so complex and the plans theoretical that no one REALLY knows what will happen.  There are educated guesses on both sides, and compelling arguments as well.  The moderate solution is one that mitigates both and protects us from really stepping off the cliff.  I've said before that our government works best when it works slowly.  

So, while you can suggest that sometimes one side is just right and the other is wrong, and I can agree with you in theory, I'm also pretty sure that we wouldn't agree on any of the specifics.  Where you think that the GOP is just flat out right and it seems common sense to you, I might disagree and feel just as strongly the other way.  Usually, I've found that it's not because your reasons or mine are 'wrong.'  Rather, it's because your reasons aren't as important to me as mine.  We're judging the same issue based upon different priorities and considerations.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 6, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Usually, I've found that it's not because your reasons or mine are 'wrong.'  Rather, it's because your reasons aren't as important to me as mine.  We're judging the same issue based upon different priorities and considerations.



For many somewhat "philosophical" type disputes I would agree.  For instance, the relative emphasis of freedom vs. the common good on an issue like gun control has no real "right" answer.  Almost everyone falls somewhere in between "not even sharp sticks" and "nuclear arms for all!", and there is no real right answer.  It's a tradeoff.

What troubles me however is how ideology has penetrated and corrupted the acceptance of commonly held basic facts.  Science and scientists are now simply considered political actors by many, especially on the right, same as a politician or bureaucrat.  Commonly accepted facts, history, science, almost everything is now being filtered by many not by academic rigor, but by ideological comity.  Even the Theory of Relativity is dismissed by some on the right for ideological reasons.

The Soviet Union did the same thing.  Evolution and genetics were dismissed for ideological reasons, and the incorrect theories of Lysenko were adopted instead.  Nazi Germany did the same thing.  Physics theories were dismissed because they were produced by the wrong race.  They held that there was such a thing as "German Science" and "Jewish Science", which implies there is such a thing as "German Reality" and "Jewish Reality."

Now we are seeing the same impulse play out here.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.  They are not entitled to their own facts.  Our fate as a nation depends on recognizing facts for what they are.  The false equivalency impulse, the "both sides are bad" mantra applied to every dispute with two sides, hinders this crucial recognition.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 6, 2010)

Problem is that some scientists have allowed themselves to be politicized, either out of their own political leanings or out of funding considerations. Thats how we wind up with "my scientists say..." vs "YOUR scientists are wrong".


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 6, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Problem is that some scientists have allowed themselves to be politicized, either out of their own political leanings or out of funding considerations.



Who?  Name names.  Then show how their work has been affected by their politics.  It's easy to make this claim without specifics.



Archangel M said:


> Thats how we wind up with "my scientists say..." vs "YOUR scientists are wrong".



Not all scientists agree, nor does their data all agree.  Consensus is achieved over time with many results pointing to the same conclusion.  Einstein, for instance, was convinced that Quantum Mechanics was wrong for some time.  He also dismissed the expansionary universe described by Hubble and others for some time based on his emotional desires for what the universe should be.  Later, he described the cosmological constant as the "greatest mistake of my life."


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 6, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Not all scientists agree, nor does their data all agree. Consensus is achieved over time with many results pointing to the same conclusion. Einstein, for instance, was convinced that Quantum Mechanics was wrong for some time. He also dismissed the expansionary universe described by Hubble and others for some time based on his emotional desires for what the universe should be. Later, he described the cosmological constant as the "greatest mistake of my life."


 
You've just proven Archangel's point. Einstein dismissed a theory not on scientific grounds but on what he wanted to be true. The fact that he later came around doesn't change that. People change their positioons all the time based on a variety of reasons, some of them are based on emtion, some on ideology, and some on scientific evidence.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 6, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> You've just proven Archangel's point.



Only if the entire scientific enterprise is based on the whims of one person.  Or on people being completely rational.  It is not and they are not.

Scientists are human beings.  Thus fallible.  However, science as a whole is far larger than one person, with rules not based on emotion or whim or politics, and it is self-correcting.  Einstein was convinced eventually by the weight of the evidence.  Even if he had not however, science is far larger than Einstein and the rest of the field had already accepted what he initially did not based on the evidence.

The reliance on evidence is key.  You do not refute science with claims of bias, politics, emotion or ideology.  You refute it with more and better science.  That is where the modern deniers of inconvenient science fail.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 6, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Only if the entire scientific enterprise is based on the whims of one person. Or on people being completely rational. It is not and they are not.


 
As Archangel said: "Problem is that _some scientists_ have allowed themselves to be politicized, either out of their own political leanings or out of funding considerations. Thats how we wind up with "_my scientists_ say..." vs "_YOUR scientists_ are wrong"." 

You brought up Einstein, thus proving that point. 



> Scientists are human beings. Thus fallible. However, science as a whole is far larger than one person, with rules not based on emotion or whim or politics, and it is self-correcting.


 
Sure, but it depends on those fallible humans in the first place. No big deal but science's history is hardly free from scandal. That's just human nature.  



> Einstein was convinced eventually by the weight of the evidence.


 
Eventually, yep.



> Even if he had not however, science is far larger than Einstein and the rest of the field had already accepted what he initially did not based on the evidence.


 
The rest of the field? Wow. Apparently he was the last hold out. Interesting.



> The reliance on evidence is key. You do not refute science with claims of bias, politics, emotion or ideology. You refute it with more and better science. That is where the modern deniers of inconvenient science fail.


 
Well, actually if you believe that some scientists are holding a position because of bias or politics or emotion there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 7, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Who? Name names. Then show how their work has been affected by their politics. It's easy to make this claim without specifics.


 
What about the e-mail system that was hacked showing how scientists intentionally attempted to hide and change data?



> From: Phil Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
> To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann
> Subject: Wahl/Ammann
> ...


 


> At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
> Mike,
> I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
> Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. *We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.* *Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.* IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it!
> ...


 


> From: Phil Jones
> To: Gavin Schmidt
> Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper
> Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008
> ...


 


> From: "Michael E. Mann"
> To: Tim Osborn
> Subject: Re: reconstruction errors
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400
> ...


 
Now, one could argue that even with the "covering up", the scientific basis on a whole is still very sound.  Fine.

But is it any wonder when things like this come out that people doubt the science behind the claims of anthropogenic global warming?  Some of the scientists who believe in it themselves are creating skeptics.

Even some of these scientist say that some measurements are imprecise.  (See Dr. James Hansen's "Climate Change and Trace Gases" article).




> Despite multiple careful studies, *uncertainties in the icegas age*
> *differences for the Vostok ice core remain of the order of 1 kyr* (Bender et al.2006). Therefore, we can only say with certainty that the temperature and gas changes are nearly synchronous. *Data from a different Antarctic (Dome C) ice core with slightly higher snow accumulation rate (**Monnin et al. 2001) and an independent analysis based on argon isotopes (Caillon et al. 2003) support temperature leading GHGs by ca 600800 years. In addition, carbon cycle models yield increases of GHGs in response to warming oceans and receding ice sheets.*


 
Temperatures come before an increase in GHG increases.

Now do you wonder why I'm a skeptic?​​​​​


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 7, 2010)

Being a skeptic is fine.  What in my mind is dangerous is basing a policy on an arguement that 97% of scientist believe is false.  Especially when the consequences could be so great.  Our science isn't infallable and accepted truths have been disproven.  However, to believe something is not true because you wish it to be so and then enacting policy that has long term consequences is so much more dangerous than any individual scientist acting upon his own ego.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 8, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Being a skeptic is fine.


 
You're kinda missing the point.  This isn't merely about being skeptical of the science.  This is also about being skeptical about the scientists.

When, as the above e-mails show, scientists are deliberately hiding and manipulating the data so that the conclusions fit the anothropogenic global warming theory, how is a person supposed to trust them, or the data they provide?  

When scientists show that there is evidence that increased carbon dioxide has occurs *after *an increase in temperature, but still insist that it's carbon dioxide causing the increase in temperature, it's a little hard to believe them.  In other words, their own evidence doesn't meet their conclusions.  

When the InterAcademy Council shows that some of the conclusions and statments made in the IPCC reports are flawed, some based on little to no evidence, how is a lay person supposed to believe what those "97%" of scientists say?

As I said before, some of these scientists are their own worst enemy when it comes to the debate over what to do about it.



> What in my mind is dangerous is basing a policy on an arguement that 97% of scientist believe is false.  Especially when the consequences could be so great. Our science isn't infallable and accepted truths have been disproven. However, to believe something is not true because you wish it to be so and then enacting policy that has long term consequences is so much more dangerous than any individual scientist acting upon his own ego.


 
The consequenses of doing what some of these scientist want are just as great.  They interject themselves into the political debate, urging us to completely change our economy, while China, India, and Turkey do what.  Continue on before, throwing out these same gases, and doing nothing to stop the problem.  What happens then?

The study of the sciences is not perfect.  Mistakes are made in testing and the development of conclusions.  I don't think anyone expects perfection.

What we should be able to expect, however, is that when reporting these facts, that the scientist are telling us the truth, the whole truth.  And finding that they manipulate the facts and conclusions shows that that is not what is happening.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 8, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You're kinda missing the point.  This isn't merely about being skeptical of the science.  This is also about being skeptical about the scientists.
> 
> When, as the above e-mails show, scientists are deliberately hiding and manipulating the data so that the conclusions fit the anothropogenic global warming theory, how is a person supposed to trust them, or the data they provide?



It's a toughie. Especially when the whole "scandal" was proven to be overblown.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 8, 2010)

Marginal said:


> It's a toughie. Especially when the whole "scandal" was proven to be overblown.


 
Proven? Or were the comments attempted to be justified by those that made them or agree with those that made them?

I mean, it is apparent that they intentionally manipulated and hid data.  And that includes trying to hide behind the law.  But somehow I'm supposed to believe them.  They try to suppress climate studies that don't agree with them, including trying to "redefine what the peer-review literature is" (e-mail from Michael Mann of Penn State University).

We don't hear about the desent from other scientist because the ones who agree with climate change intentionally suppress them.  Not only that, but our politicians suppress them as well.

Their comments *may* not have had anything to do with changing the results.  But for me, especially in the case of the e-mails, it has everything to do with their integrity.  And I have a hard time believing that we should change policies that will have an enormous affect on many sectors of our lives based on statements of those who would lie to me.  

It's really not a "toughie".  Scientists should stay out of the politics of this debate and stick to science.  Except for those few hired as scientific political advisors, they should keep their policy desires to themselves in order to gain some credibility.  Then I might be more inclined to trust them.

It's really interesting.  Whenever there is a scientist who provides evidence that disagrees with the "prevailing widsom", we look at who pays him, what his agenda is, etc.

But now we have out and out data manipulation and intentional deception, and we say that in this case it's "overblown".


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2010)

And one has to wonder..if some college kid who has been thorougly "indoctrinated" into the ecodoomsday meme decides to become an environmental scientist, what sort of mindset are they going to be carrying with them? These guys were caught trying to manipulate data they "didn't like". That sort of happens when you go into a scientific field with your preset worldview.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 8, 2010)

I kinda liken it to this original train of thought to this discussion.

If you commit violence in the name of a political right item, you are an extremist, terrorist, etc.

If you commit violence in the name of a political left item, then you're actions must be mitigated by the fact that you have a chemical imbalance and can't help yourself, and it's not really about the political agenda.  

But that's humans for you I guess....


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 8, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I kinda liken it to this original train of thought to this discussion.
> 
> If you commit violence in the name of a political right item, you are an extremist, terrorist, etc.
> 
> ...


 
If only it were that simple, in *one* case a clearly unbalanced person who has an extremely weird 'manifesto' which is perceived as being of the left by some commits a crime so you label every situation the same. The guy in the OP is unbalanced, possible insane, certainly mentally ill, his 'aims' or point of view is extremely skewed so yes it is down to whatever makes someone mentally ill, that doesn't mean all actions by left inclined people are. Nobody has excused terrorism by left wingers, we can see it for what it is - terrorism. Why can't you see *this* particular case for what it is?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If only it were that simple, in *one* case a clearly unbalanced person who has an extremely weird 'manifesto' which is perceived as being of the left by some commits a crime so you label every situation the same. The guy in the OP is unbalanced, possible insane, certainly mentally ill, his 'aims' or point of view is extremely skewed so yes it is down to whatever makes someone mentally ill, that doesn't mean all actions by left inclined people are. Nobody has excused terrorism by left wingers, we can see it for what it is - terrorism. *Why can't you see this particular case for what it is?*


 
Who said that I can't.

You seem to like to throw stones alot, Tez, without trying to understand what people are actually saying.

I never said that *this* guy didn't have a mental problem.  I am pointing to the current trend on this site, and, quite frankly, in the most television and print news.  We tend to label people who do crazy things on the right as "right-wing extremists", "right-wing wackos", or "right-wing (insert dispariging name here).

But there is always seems to be some "reason" when someone on the left does it.  

Why can't you see what people write for what it is, rather then what you want it to be?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 8, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Who said that I can't.
> 
> You seem to like to throw stones alot, Tez, without trying to understand what people are actually saying.
> 
> ...


 

Why can't you see what you think you are writing isn't what comes out when put down in words? You may mean what you wrote above to be what you said the first time, it wasn't, you accused people of thinking left wing terrorism is mental illness while right wing terrorism is evil.

You talk about what you perceive in your country forgetting that there are people from many countries posting here so what you see as self evident isn't to the rest of us and then you get snippy because we don't see things as you do. Okay it's a website run by an American but it's open to all, everyone can express opinions and it is educational to see how others do and think about things. A great many things that happen in American do impinge, sometimes greatly, on what happens in the rest of the world so you will have to understand the great interest in what happens in your country.

In the UK you will find far more headlines saying' left loonies' than you will right loonies.
I watch the Discvoery Channel so am also naturally interested in what goes on there when something like this happens.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Why can't you see what you think you are writing isn't what comes out when put down in words? You may mean what you wrote above to be what you said the first time, it wasn't, you accused people of thinking left wing terrorism is mental illness while right wing terrorism is evil.


 
For some reason, you seem to have that problem *alot *more then *anyone* else here, including people from places other then the U.S.



> You talk about what you perceive in your country forgetting that there are people from many countries posting here so what you see as self evident isn't to the rest of us and then you get snippy because we don't see things as you do.


 
Don't forget about it.  In fact, I often try to note where most people come from, including different places within the U.S.  

But, I'm not going to change the way I write for two separate and completely different understandings of what left and right is based on country.  More then likely, that will only lead to further confusion.

This was an event that happened in the U.S.  I am a United States citizen.  

Like I said, try to understand what people are actually writing, rather then what you perceive they are writing.



> Okay it's a website run by an American but it's open to all, everyone can express opinions and it is educational to see how others do and think about things. A great many things that happen in American do impinge, sometimes greatly, on what happens in the rest of the world so you will have to understand the great interest in what happens in your country.


 
That's funny, because you often rail about how people outside of the U.S. couldn't care less about what goes on here.  



> In the UK you will find far more headlines saying' left loonies' than you will right loonies.


 
Ok, but this event didn't happen in the U.K.  If it does, you write it as you see fit, and I will try to understand it from your / the U.K. perspective, and respond accordingly.


----------



## Steve (Sep 10, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I never said that *this* guy didn't have a mental problem. * I am pointing to the current trend on this site, and, quite frankly, in the most television and print news.  We tend to label people who do crazy things on the right as "right-wing extremists", "right-wing wackos", or "right-wing (insert dispariging name here).
> 
> But there is always seems to be some "reason" when someone on the left does it.  *
> Why can't you see what people write for what it is, rather then what you want it to be?


Hey.  I'm reading through some of the later posts and stumbled onto this.  Could this be where the disconnect is?  If you believe this, let me assure you that I have no problem at all calling this guy a "left wing whacko."  Because that's what he is.  In much the same way that others are referred to as Right Wing Whackos.  Other nutjobs on the left would include people who spike trees, killing or severely injuring loggers.  Or people who throw red paint on women wearing fur coats.

The defining word, however, is whacko, and that can apply to both sides of the political spectrum.

I'll also agree with you guys that the media and political leadership needs to take some responsibility on both sides.  Harbingers of doom, whether it's on the side of the left or right, will tend to make the crazies come out.  

Ultimately, I see this again being a really good reason to value moderate voices and re-examine moderate positions.  If you are railing against one extreme position with your own equally extreme position, I don't see how there's much room to get anything done.


----------

