Freaky Friday!
Wow! I didn’t even have to wait a whole week for the next “your world/my shooting gallery” tragedy! These are almost coming faster than the politicians can lose interest in the subject! Will the shooting in Washington, DC prove to be the proverbial last straw?
I am afraid not. Although Wednesday’s mayhem at the offices of the Family Research Center does have a sexy political angle, upping the ante on the Chik-fil-A/gay marriage controversy, not a single person died. And the one person who was injured remained hale enough to disarm gunman Floyd Lee Corkins II before he could draw another bead.
We thus have a clear, descending violence curve running from the Aurora massacre to this feeble attempt at carnage that may mark the end of this Summer’s slaughtertainment cycle. And if it doesn’t, well…. we’re gonna need something big to push the candidates and their SuperPAC ads off the air. Osama? We miss you, buddy.
The political angle of this story, (not surprisingly, the Sikh temple shooting has not received nearly the introspection it deserves) has evoked a little soul-searching on the part of pundits left and right, and this may in fact be the “conversation” we were waiting for. The issue, of course, is not about why yet another screwball was able to conjure a deadly weapon seemingly out of thin air to scratch his social itch, but who, if anyone, is pushing these shooters’ buttons.
The National Review Online’s Charles C.W. Cooke and WaPo columnist Dana Milbank are both fencing with pointed fingers in this regard. Cooke’s response to the FRC shooting was this editorial, excoriating those who would suggest that heated rhetoric could possibly have played a part in any of the acts of near terrorism of the past few years. He singles out Milbank specifically for once suggesting that Glenn Beck and his bretheren had tilled the soil for Jared Lee Loughner’s assassination attempt on Gabbie Giffords:
Dana Milbank — and his ilk — are fond of writing sentences such as, “It’s not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by people who watch his show†and then of adding an insidious “and yet . . . †immediately afterwards. There is no “yet.†The social compact does not allow room for violence against those with whom one disagrees, regardless of how worked up talk-radio hosts may get about a particular topic.
As Cooke puts it elsewhere in his article, scurrilous language has been a mainstay of the press since the Revolution, and if Jefferson survived slander from John Adams’ media stooges with nary a nick to his skin, then we should not even suggest that the 24/7 media onslaught environment we live in is having any effect on anyone. That would be like suggesting that the Founding Fathers, who lived in the age of muskets, had not divined that someday a weapon would exist that could mow down an entire British regiment in thirty seconds when they wrote the 2nd Amendment!
So words are powerless? Not so, says Milbank! Having not forgotten his charges against Glenn Beck, Milbank is happy to level blame for Wednesday’s shooting at The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled the FRC a “hate group”.  And was shooter Corkins not filled to bursting with hate (as well as coagulated fat) when he shouted “I don’t like your politics!” (or words to that effect) before opening fire?
Bearing in mind that there is, at present, no evidence whatsoever that Corkins has ever heard of the SPLC, we are still comparing apples and oranges. If we accept that the English language is capable of evoking anger at all, we must consider the context most beneficial for that outcome, and throwing around the word “hate” is, of itself, hardly incendiary. To read the word “asshole” does not boil the blood at all, but to have it screamed in your face does. And as a surrogate, watching or listening to one person call another person an asshole is far, far more likely to evoke an emotional response from you than to simply see it written, or even spoken, in a non-confrontational context. This is why watching porn is more gratifying than reading it, at least if you are a dude. It is simply easier to project yourself into the situation.
This is also why yesterday, after watching a clip of Fox News blonde Laura Ingraham giving a typically Orwellian interview to a liberal opponent, I found myself pacing my apartment wishing I had a radio program  so that I could threaten the lives of Laura’s children. Yes, that is exactly how I felt. Because watching a fight physical or verbal, aggravates one on a physical level. This is the key to the success of right wing media: their disposition towards violence, to raise temperatures and to always find the quickest route to pissing the viewer off. The reason Glenn Beck was scrutinized for the Giffords shooting was not because he had singled her out, but because we all felt that thanks to the likes of Fox News, that was where the conversation was heading.
So Dana Milbank, middling liberal that he is, is trying to balance scales that are properly weighted against the obnoxious right wing. And Milbank has allies amongst conservatives as well, in the form of FRC President Tony Perkins. On the topic of the SPLC’s culpability in the shooting, Perkins, on Fox News, stated:
“Based upon the evidence which seems… that is part of the contribution of what  led Mr. Corkins to do what he did yesterday.”
 |
| Floyd Lee Corkins II: Chick-fil-A’s anti-Jared |
Perkins is referring to the SPLC’s labeling of the anti-gay FRC as a hate group, sentiments which arose in the recent Chick-Fil-A kerfuffle. Corkins had a sack of Chick-Fil-A’s greasy, damp and oversalted sandwiches with him when he was arrested, a sign that the shooter probably intended to go down in a hail of gunfire, leaving the grub as his suicide note. But take a look at the guy! Why isn’t the press exploring the possibility that Corkin’s real message was “Chick-fil-A turned me into a pear-shaped effigy of Captain Lou Albano”?
“The notion that insane people will be pushed over the edge if those in the mainstream are uncivil toward one another is risible at best and an invitation for a cancerous self-censorship at worst,” Charles Cooke concludes in his NRO piece. But Cooke might want to consider the experience of his fellow conservative Tony Perkins, who just got a taste of the medicine the right usually dishes out to the left. I do not necessarily mean violence, but rather the feeling that your political enemies really don’t care about the consequences of the opinions they let fly, or the way they may be interpreted by our nation’s army of well-armed and unmedicated mental cases.
Cooke’s opinion, that words have no consequences, is as incorrect as Dana Millbank’s assumption about which words may have motivated Corkins. In the end, it is Tony Perkins who has found the nub of the issue: when rage is the national pastime, any one of us may find ourselves before the camera following  a shooting, trying to connect the dots. Rather than worrying needlessly about self-censorship, Cooke ought to be asking where all this speaking from the adrenal gland is getting us.
(Of course, if reckless, unfettered speech is the great fertilizer of liberty that the NRO thinks it is, I will pay real money for evidence that any of my readers have cyber-bullied Laura Ingraham’s kids into a bed-wetting phase.)
JaSoN, If we had ‘progressive mental health conected to progressive gun laws’, your apartment would be being searched now, with your name on the, no buyey gun list. Leave Laura alone, besides, she has no kids, but has a dog. Perhaps we throw a ball, but hide it behind our back; that would teach her. My only solace is the cameras that keep an eye on you. Catcha arg. tatefun
“I found myself pacing my apartment wishing I had a radio program so that I could threaten the lives of Laura’s children. Yes, that is exactly how I felt. Because watching a fight physical or verbal, aggravates one on a physical level.”
No, Jason, this — coupled with other violent jokes of yours about real people — only demonstrates your own personal psychology. You should seek counseling, because you are at the point where you are justifying your violent anger by externalizing it, e.g. “Everyone feels this way,” and “It’s the right wing media’s fault that I feel so violently angry.” It’s not. It’s you. I don’t feel this way watching conflicts. Most people don’t. It’s why violent altercations between two people outside of alcohol-plying bars don’t end in riots on a weekly schedule.
You don’t have to post this comment. Please, please seek help. You are a hate-filled man and recent comments make me worry that you are a danger to yourself and others.
JY: I only mention the threat on Laura’s (apparently non-existent) children for purposes of full disclosure. Please note that this idea is predicated on my having a radio program that would grant me the audience reach that Laura enjoys. It is after pondering what a person could possibly do to ruffle the feathers of people whose standards for civil discourse are below Atilla the Hun’s that I settled on electronic terrorism as the only practical solution.
I appreciate your piety, but hate does breed hate. and fights often get out of hand. The fact that eroding our civility is now big business is what I am responding to.
Uh… you two must be reading different posts to the ones I read from JY.
They don’t read it. They see a few words and come in here throwing around word salad like Sarah Palin on mescalin.
Dearest Jody, my ‘ quote’ was a paraphrase of a quote by you. While the rants of the High Lord on the airways does harden my nipples, why does a double-wide polititian scare you; then again the Tea Party base resents her being paid big bucks from their donations to speak to them. Quit your bitchin support the revolution, not the eroding of freedom.
Hmm, how much money are we talkin’? I might do it for a free subscription! So, who’s Laura Ingraham?
Jody’s post, if it is the one that I recall, mentioned ‘gun control’ and ‘counselling’ or similar; you managed to interpret this as ‘police state’. This interpretation is so dissimilar to the original statement that, in my estimation, it was deliberate and hence you are being disingenuous.
For your crimes against debate etiquette, Capcha declares your name mutorm.
Good grief. It is the end of a long hot summer. The Republicans are running Oberfuhrer Ryan as their surrogate presidential candidate because Romney turned out to be a Godzilla-sized albatross. Science remains besieged by forces political and religious. How about giving us a break and reporting on the Comic Con, with pictures?
Dearest Holms, under the ‘What would batman do’ line; Jody wrote, “more stringent gun laws coupled with a more liberal approach to mental health care” , and knowing the mental health system from a clinician standpoint, it is easy to 302 a person for 72 hours, which can lead to more time and/or outpatient “care”. So who is being dissingenuous poopy pant?
Well seeing as how getting 302’d (a.k.a. ‘committed against your will or arrested without a warrant’) is decidedly NOT LIBERAL…
In fact, unwarranted detainment is heavily reminiscent of a certain Patriot Act, which I guess makes it a conservative approach to health care. When Jody mentioned a liberal approach, that would actually imply stepping _away_ from that sort of shit.
So, as for ‘who is being the disingenuous poopy pant’, that would be you. Whoopsy.
Dearest Holms, if a goal is to curtail gun possesion by use of laws and mental health, it is certainly not the defignition of LIBERAL, but if you put down the spliff for two seconds, sometimes words defignitions evolve. But then again simpletons as you will be used, and fight another to bend over (not that that is bad in all circumstances). So embrace the wedge being used, and go back to hitting that joint and discussing politics with the other art school slackers(again not that art school is a waste for some with talent not to end up being a tracer).
Quite a mess ya got over there! The current problem is a discipline problem, nothing more. Ya learn to deal with the problems society throws at ya (constantly). I don’t like being around people but can work and live in a city of 3 million without any freakouts, and these little retards can learn the same! Mental health issues are best dealt with by medical professionals, not the police or government (imagine the mess they’d make!). Usin’ it to detain people would certainly be a dangerous game too; the next ‘302’ might be powerin’ a Ford pick up they’d meet on a late Friday night!
Nice try Malachi, but pointing out the changing meanings of words does not make a 302 remotely liberal.
Funny how these fucknuts manage to change the word “liberal” into “anything I don’t like”, isn’t it? Tho I can’t imagine Mal disliking the PATRIOT Act, provided his side is the one brandishing it.
But yeah. Only a fool would misinterpret “liberal approach to health care” as “committing people against their will within 72 hours”. Or someone that isn’t trying to present an argument, and is just here to troll. 🙂
Jody, since in your world you call yourself an artist and in reality you are a tracer who sucks at real artist’s teats while pretending talented people need you. So avoid discourse hack.
JY: Let’s not get personal, guys. And I’m the only hack on this website.
Whenever someone resorts to a personal attack, they send a clear message that they have run out of anything relevant to the conversation.
I was just thinking the same thing, Holms. What was I just saying about someone that isn’t presenting an argument? 🙂
To dismiss an attempt at discussion with those who cannot defend their words but use deflection, and then are upset when a personal attack hits home. Yes Jody, your lack of defence of your words, has me amuse myself by trying to bring about a conversation useing this article time line. Then again, it could be compared to a frustrated no talent making a living off of creative folk being seen and taking the rocky road to produce joy by doing it yourself. And to Ja, you are not a hack, keep marching.
I didn’t need to defend them because you deliberately misinterpreted them with your overwrought, nonsensical prose. 🙂
Tho why you’re trying to hit me in the resume when JY already called for an end to it is beyond me. I mean, I’m well aware of my accomplishments. Some online anonymous nobody’s attempt at tearing them down isn’t going to harsh my buzz.
Someone’s frustrated here, and it ain’t me. So stop trolling, kid. Ya just look silly.
Boo hoo, I ask you to explain, and your obtuse wit can only try and minimize my words of attempt to have you defend your words. That an ‘anonymous nobody’ could ‘harsh your buzz’, shows how silly you are.
…you, uh, didn’t ask me to explain. You misinterpreted what I said, then when called out on it you called me a hack. Seriously, it’s all there in print. 🙂
I’m reading back and trying to figure out your argument, which appears to be “universal health care would result in people getting locked up against their will, which is exactly what liberals want”.
Despite the fact that, you know, that doesn’t happen anywhere that actually HAS universal health care. Because there’s no stigma attached to getting care. So people get treatment early, instead of going out and buying guns and shooting up congresswomen and movie theaters.
You don’t have a point now beyond trying to save yourself a little face. Give it up. 🙂
Perhaps you are ignorant of mental health and guns: When you buy a gun they ask you-(paraphrased)- ‘do you have a mental health diagnosis or have sought mental health care.’ This is a RED flag and you are not going to get a gun. So if you lie, it is a crime, so to think that a person who wants to hunt with a diagnosis of depression, because he needed help when his wife died, now he cannot get a gun to shoot Bambi which he did in the past to relieve stress. So how can this stigma be less with change in health care with the goal of keeping guns from brain chemistry deficient person who think pop culture is permission to act some out. Since you have written on this with strong conviction and are not able to discern why you are such a example of the Peter Principle. And there was a subhuman who murdered defenceless children who was deemed sane that HAS universal health care, and there are many more examples my ostrich hack.
You’re becoming less and less coherent, Malachi. I suspect that even those readers who agreed with you to begin with are now cringing at your inner monologue ramblings. I know I cringed when you mentioned killing things as a relaxation method.
Unless your reply is a wholesale retraction, you’re probably going to get laughed at.
While you are at it, attack my spelling and syntax; my fool’s errand. Either give example, explain problem, or stut zeit my dissengenuous fellow Brownie. Not just argue as an anal retentive, but instinct had me notice you as a poopy pants, so there is no hope for change in you.
(munches popcorn)
Your errors have been pointed out and explained already. Re-read the comments if you missed them.
Thank you, after reading over I found an error, I should have wrote, now he can’t get a gun to shoot Bambi’s mother.
Wow. I thought this was done, lol.
Holms: He’s not going to reread them. He’s established he isn’t arguing in good faith and can’t even be bothered to read his own earlier comments to recall what he said.
JY: you entertain me every week; glad to return the favor. 🙂
Now, Malachi, I urged you to stop posting to save yourself some face. But I see you’ve waived that right, so here goes…
I don’t have to paraphrase you, or even me, because I know what I said. I’m not the one arguing dishonestly here, and I’m presenting a rational point with evidence instead of an emotional argument that boils down to “I don’t like this so it sucks”. You have to paraphrase me, because when you actually go back and read what I said it CONTRADICTS YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.
Speaking of which, your argument now appears to be, “if mental health treatment is more accessible, than the mentally ill won’t be able to get guns”. As if a mental health program wouldn’t be able to deem someone fit, or as if some of those people SHOULDN’T BE ARMED IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHICH IS MY ENTIRE POINT. Mentally ill people need more access to health care and the stigma towards mental health in general needs to be removed because these people are arming themselves instead of seeking help. At this point in the conversation, after reading your scribblings, I can not help but wonder what condition you yourself might be suffering from, and the fact that you will not seek treatment because that’d mean you *might* not be able to arm yourself is scary. It also illustrates my point perfectly.
Further, the reason the shooting in Norway was such a big deal was because IT HAPPENED IN NORWAY. ***ONCE***. Apparently all the ones we’ve had over here in the time since simply don’t count in your book.
The fact that you thought that was a good point to bring up would be laughable, were it not for all the dead people involved.
“You chatter like monkey, I will call you chattering monkey”. Just admit you do not think anyone should possess guns. Canada has such health care and the recent mental deficient not only killed but ate people; France has gun laws you may likey and health care while some crazy blew-up and shot people
, more common than CNN shows. That you ignore the restrictiveness of your wetdream utopia makes me happy you are not a breeder.
1. ‘Tighter gun control’ does not mean ‘no guns ever’. There exists a middle ground, but you’re making it a false dichotomy. So no, I will make no such ‘admission’ because I don’t think that at all.
So your first point is not only wrong but fallacious.
2. No one is making the claim that violence will be completely eliminated by gun control; instead, the claim is that violence will be *reduced*. This is in fact grounded in verifiable evidence: America ranks last out of all the developed nations in terms of violence and gun crime in particular. The only nations that are even worse than America are all unstable developing nations. On the other hand, EVERY other developed nation has not only stricter gun control and broader public health care, but also has heavily reduced violence statistics.
So your second point is not only wrong but also a misrepresentation of our claims and ignores readily accessible data.
3. I don’t really give a shit about the restriction against say automatic rifles, since no one short of the military actually has a legitimate need for that crap. A semi-automatic pistol is more than enough for home defense, a semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun is enough for protecting livestock from coyotes or whatever, and concealed carry simply has no place in any civilian body.
So your third point is more lame than incorrect.
4. Apparently all advocates of gun restrictions are gay now. Strange, I could have sworn I wasn’t. Oh and do I detect the implication that being gay is a bad thing? I think I do.
So now you’re a homophobic tool as well.
Bear in mind that these are only your latest idiocies, scrolling up reveals plenty more that have already been explained to you. Since you’re clearly not interested in honesty I can’t be bothered with you. No doubt you will interpret this to mean that you ‘won’, but that would just be another misrepresentation 🙂
I, uh, already addressed the point about these other attacks happening in other countries, Malachi. As I point out, *in the post right above yours*, they happen much, much less often, thanks to the support structures in those other countries.
Saying the inevitability of these things means we shouldn’t do anything about it is like saying there are still fires so disband the fire department. Your inability to understand that speaks volumes.
I’ve said dozens of times that I’m not against the second amendment, but I always get some drooler insisting that I am, because that’s the argument he wants to have. It’s the easiest way to get all righteous about justifying our weekly mass murders. But seriously, when you have to bring up the odd rare foreign case, when we have more such incidents here in America by an order of magnitude, you’re just making an even bigger ass of yourself than I had previously imagined.
I’ll give you one thing tho: you can’t remember what was said in the last post, but you sure seem to know a thing or two about me. You stalking me or something? Or are you just upset that a gay dude is kicking your ass? 🙂
I have not laughed this much since that little white bread girl called Juan Williams rascist. I just wanted a honest clarification on your words, but I received what I was told to expect. I expected better Thumkin.
Oh hey, a non-answer that doesn’t even mention, let alone refute, any point raised so far.
HOW UNEXPECTED!
Holms, you have some serious transferance issues. The points you do have me say make me think you have a problem. I only say this because I care. Again, your use of the word liberal just exhibits that you are complacent with whatever or whoever abuses you, if they wear the prefered hat. “you don’t judge a book by it’s cover, unless you cover just another, but our acceptance is a sign of silly fools like”, ahh the classics.
I love how he’s insisting I didn’t clarify anything when I’ve been explaining my point with every post. And he STILL isn’t explaining himself.
He really does think if you insist something long enough, it becomes true.
Seriously, how old are you Malachi, like ten?
Hard to separate you and holms, since he answers for you, but if you are answering with each post, perhaps your hair moose prevents your ability to discern that others are not of your mindset. Now that pleasantries are done, if the stigma of seeking psychiatric assistance is to have no stigma, why do you want to prevent a person who does seek help not recieve the privelidge to obtain a gun (this does not include those identified as a danger to themselves or others)?
…because the “people that don’t seek help” category DOES INCLUDE “those identified as a danger to themselves and others”. THAT’S THE ENTIRE POINT. And I’ve stated it several times. You can’t just dismiss them because you don’t want to count them.
Due to the stigma, and the for-profit nature of our health care system, people that desperately need care don’t get it. And since they have no mental health records, despite needing them, they can go out and buy guns, and shoot Arizona congresswomen, or movie theaters, or whatever.
So you’re saying it’s better for dangerous mentally ill people not get treatment, than to risk someone getting misdiagnosed and denied a firearm.
Aside from the obvious stupidity of that statement, there are numerous working models across the globe that shows that THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. For fuck’s sake, you can get a shotgun in England even if you’ve been diagnosed, so long as you have been treated.
And to show that one of us can read threads before commenting, before that you were insisting that a universal care system – like the ones every other first world nation on the planet has – would lead to people getting disappeared by the government. You only shifted gears once you were called out on how fucking stupid that is.
So you’re changing your argument from “paranoid bullshit fantasy” to “the mentally ill deserve guns”. And you think you’re making progress.
Whose brain is rotted with “mousse”?
Wow, just the thought that you, Jody can get sick freaks to get treatment by making it free, you are the man. Your answer screams that the stigma those who seek treatment get is embraced by you. We are talking the US, not the UK. My requests have been constant, and yours constant only in being bifurcated. So continue to deflect, you made lifestyle of it.
You are really bound and determined not to get it, aren’t you?
Every nation with a national health program pays less than we do specifically because they cover everyone. And since everyone can get care, there is no stigma about going to the doctor, because it’s already been paid for. I’m citing working models. You can’t cite me one that supports whatever you’re arguing for now, lol.
Seriously. Go look it up. Every other first world nation pays less than we do. By a lot. And they all get covered.
Your requests have been constant only in that they have been nearly impossible to decipher. And continuing to insist that I’m deflecting doesn’t really do anything other than show off your lack of reading comprehension. Your misuse of the word ‘bifurcate’ supports this as well. And ‘moose’. And basically everything else you’ve written. 🙂
Sadlly, you are a typical pseudointelectual who works from a faulty premise, but ignores what is asked and blames others. The attempt to just have you explain your hypothesis is ignored, deflected and you insult. You are a fool, ignorant of reality and your need for validity is sad. Your persistence amuses me, your anal retentivness can be treated, may I suggest more fiber.
…caught in a loop? 🙂
What am I deflecting? Come on, explain.
There is no point. Every time he attempts to make a point, it gets refuted and he immediately reverts to generic and groundless accusations. “Deflecting! Gay! You have problems!” I especially like the bit where apparently our replies are hard to separate, followed by the statement that no one agrees with you.
Some people are just immune to reason, logic, evidence and learning.
(Hint: that means you, Malachi)
Malachi (et. al.)-
I generally resist policing these comments, but some of these sentiments really do seem to be drifting into the personal. Please refrain from making the kind of remarks you would not be willing to say to someone’s face. I can testify that Jody is eight feet tall and covered in thick rhinoceros hide, so unless you think you will never run into him at a don’t ask/don’t tell underground circle jerk…
Jody read The Sun. holms, my “points” are made to have Jody recognize the mental health system, even if “universal” is subject to the DSM which at one time had homosexuality as a diagnosis (before your that voice you hear says I agree with that, I don’t Nancy) which would prevent him from having a gun (which after I busted his chops, perhaps…). Besides Holms, Jody deflects and I could not care less about his sexuality ,yours or lack of. But back to deflecting, I am not the one who keeps bringing up the benefits of socialized medicine or how what we had pass was, is and will be a tax and won’t do what anyone wants but be a camel nose in the tent. I did not call you a troll and dismiss an attempt to discuss. I treated you as you treated others(jody) and when I was told who you are, the fodder was there to get your goat. That you think you were being straight forward shows intellectual dishonesty, on a site to have fun with issues. Dude the world sucks donkey, the attempt that I made amazes those who know me that are following this banter and that you continue to attempt to be snarky back at me. We can continue this or allow JaSons sensibilities not to be offended, but that would be fun also. Let us just agree I am a bitch and you will always out last me.
Holms: yeah, he’s pretty tiresome, but I figured one more round would be fun. Plus I’m hoping the odd flame war is good for site traffic. I don’t have these discussions to persuade the person I’m arguing with. I do it to show bystanders how stupid the other guy’s point is. 🙂
And Mr. Yungbluth, you do go on. You made this delicate, eight foot tall, rhino-skinned suthun’ belle all flustered with those sweet nothings *blush*
And Malachi, I’ma ask you one more time: what am I deflecting? You don’t just get to cry “deflection” over and over again without further iterating your point. I even explained your points to you up there, so I’m curious what I’m missing. Let me know, so I can go back thru everything we’ve written and quote you all the stuff you’re ignoring.
Then you can ignore THAT, and cry “deflection” again. By which point we’ll all be so sick of your ignorant crap we’ll just leave, and you can pretend you won an internet argument. 🙂
Ah, you posted as I was writing.
So NOW, if I am reading your point correctly, you seem to be saying “homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder so national health plans would prevent Jody from buying a gun”. Is that correct? Because I don’t want you thinking I’m deflecting again.
But really, you’re implying a national mental health program would lead to modern day fascism. That’s been the gist of your ramblings this whole time.
Well chuckles, I can demolish your argument with one word: Canada.
Or England.
Or Sweden, or France, or Germany, or Switzerland. And that’s just for starters.
Or do you think Americans are just so stupid we’d fall right into fascism at the first sign of national health care? You know, a program that hasn’t caused anything of the sort anywhere else? Cuz that doesn’t speak very highly of your fellow Americans, does it?
Soin conclusion, I don’t think you’re a bitch. I think you’re a selfish, cynical, sociopathic little loser, but not a bitch. 🙂
Read “Howl” you undereducated tool and since you don’t read Netflix has a movie, and I will always think of you as a wannabe. Have a nice day in your world.
So your rebuttal to my citing several current examples that have lower gun crime rates and readily accessible mental health care, is to cite a 65 year old book.
I repeat: modern, real world examples, versus literature from another era.
Well, at least you didn’t cry “deflection”. 🙂
It’s all good Jody. Consider Group as an adjunct tool to help you, help You.
“I treated you as you treated others(jody) and when I was told who you are…” This is interesting. You’ve been told who I am? I’d love to hear this insider information of yours about me. Tell all you know, I you permission to spill all!
…
Do you even know which state I live in? (Answer: no.)