Las Vegas Suspects Were 'White Supremacists'

Police reportedly find swastikas at the home of a couple who killed three people and then themselves in a suicide pact.

The pair who fatally shot two Las Vegas officers and a civilian before killing themselves were reportedly white supremacists who targeted police.

The two suspects were married, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. They killed themselves in an apparent suicide pact.

Their identities have not been released but their home was being raided by police.

The Review-Journal said investigators had found paraphernalia associated with white supremacy theories as well as swastikas.

The attack at a CiCi's Pizza restaurant on Sunday killed Officers Alyn Beck, 41, and Igor Soldo, 31, who were both husbands and fathers.

One of the shooters yelled: "This is a revolution".

The two suspects, a man and a woman, then fled to a Walmart across the street, where they gunned down a person just inside the front door and exchanged gunfire with police before killing themselves.

The officers were "having lunch when they were ambushed", Las Vegas police said in a statement.

Both officers were pronounced dead at hospital.

Mr Beck had been with the department since 2001 and leaves behind a wife and three children. Mr Soldo had been with the force since 2006 and is survived by a wife and baby.

A witness, Pauline Pacheco, was shopping at Wal-Mart when she saw the armed man and grabbed her father to escape, KLAS-TV reported.

"We saw when the man was walking, he was shouting, yelling bad words, and suddenly he had a gun," she told KLAS-TV.

"It was terrible, it was terrible. That man was crazy."

Both the pizza restaurant and the Walmart store remained closed while detectives carried out forensic investigations.

http://news.sky.com/story/1278468/las-vegas-suspects-were-white-supremacists

Surely at some point, someone has got to face up to America's gun problem and take action?

Sassy,they will never change the gun culture, it's enshrined in their constitution, "the right to carry and bear arms" or something like that.

waiting for the police update.....seems likely domestic terrorism according to reports so far.

Cass wrote:waiting for the police update.....seems likely domestic terrorism according to reports so far.

Having looked at the Constitution, surely the right to bear arms was about being able to form an army etc, not the right to shoot and kill indiscriminately. I can't be beyond the wit of the Government to find a way of making life safer for it's people, surely?

Sassy wrote:

Cass wrote:waiting for the police update.....seems likely domestic terrorism according to reports so far.

Having looked at the Constitution, surely the right to bear arms was about being able to form an army etc, not the right to shoot and kill indiscriminately. I can't be beyond the wit of the Government to find a way of making life safer for it's people, surely?

they threw a swastika and a don't tread on me flag onto the body of one of the dead officers....on the other they pinned a note on the other dead officer a note saying it was the start of a revolution.

sick twisted bastards.

the guy was a convicted felon so where did he get the guns from? FFS

They were also apparently at the bundy ranch until they were told to go.

the other victim had a concealed weapon was confronting the man but didn't know there was the woman behind them and who subsequently killed him.

oopsue there goes a big NRA argument that someone who can carry a concealed weapon will take down the perpetrator.

Absolutely beyond comprehension.

don't get me wrong I am terribly sorry the innocent guy died and perhaps by his actions he saved others from being killed but you cant deal rationally with people with weapons who are willing to go all the way and take others with them.

Cass wrote:don't get me wrong I am terribly sorry the innocent guy died and perhaps by his actions he saved others from being killed but you cant deal rationally with people with weapons who are willing to go all the way and take others with them.

There is no way of dealing with it is there, except to stop them getting weapons in the first place.

They are White Supremacists...otherwise known as Republicans. Who doesn't remember Sarah Palin's political leaflet with the rifle scope target focused on Democrats? This is the Republican Party today.

Don't you think that is rather OTT Quill?

Original Quill wrote:They are White Supremacists...otherwise known as Republicans. Who doesn't remember Sarah Palin's political leaflet with the rifle scope target focused on Democrats? This is the Republican Party today.

I do - disgusting.

but again stop with the labelling of all. I know plenty of Republicans who want much stricter gun laws and Democrats or Independents who want less or to stay the same.

Cass wrote:

Original Quill wrote:They are White Supremacists...otherwise known as Republicans.  Who doesn't remember Sarah Palin's political leaflet with the rifle scope target focused on Democrats?  This is the Republican Party today.

I do - disgusting.

but again stop with the labelling of all. I know plenty of Republicans who want much stricter gun laws and Democrats or Independents who want less or to stay the same.

You guys are both burying your heads in the sand.  What keeps America from realizing what is going on in America today, politically, is that old nostalgic memory of the way things used to be.  FGS...a mere 7-years ago Republicans were torturing Iraqis...raping little girls...and kidnapping them and sending them to Guantanamo.  Don't you realize the old conservatives have morphed into monsters today?

It must have been like this in 1937 in Germany.  Lots of smiling, blue-eyed, blond-haired little girls, dancing around in the streets and thinking of how the changes were for the better.  Besides...it's all 'over there'.  Somewhere else...where we don't have to look at it and see.  Kinda like Iraq, eh?  Or Afghanistan?

But these are the same minds at work.  Surprised that they come home and roost in Las Vegas?  The collective mind is a bit like Whack-a-Mole...you never know where the head is going to pop up. Gun carry...White Supremacists...foreign wars...it's all the same collective mind inside the Republican heads.

sorry I take exception to that. Mr. C did 4 tours in Iraq and didn't torture anyone. I was VERY AWARE of what he was doing and so were my sons.

prick

Cass wrote:sorry I take exception to that. Mr. C did 4 tours in Iraq and didn't torture anyone. I was VERY AWARE of what he was doing and so were my sons.

prick

Don't think I have ever seen you get cross like that. I don't agree with a lot that America has done, but that was a bit much.

Sorry Quill your assertions are based upon fallaices, if a mindset is all the same between people, that they will all be witjin the extreme bracket which has little or no evidence or any methodology to back such an assertion. If I was to use your logic, I could claim Democrats were warmongers, basing this view on how many Conflicts Democrats had taken the US into conflicts, it would be very silly to claim, based off some Presidents that did.

I am no Republican fan, but the greatest President to me was Lincoln and he was a Republican. Your assertion that now all in the army must be Republicans and are all complicit in war crimes is very absurd also to say the least and has again little validity. You also neglect why some may be a Republican supporter and yet do not hold to all their views, so it is a very flawed philosophy, which is as bad as claiming all RW people are Nazi's and LW people are Communists

Cass wrote:sorry I take exception to that. Mr. C did 4 tours in Iraq and didn't torture anyone. I was VERY AWARE of what he was doing and so were my sons.

prick

And do you think he did any good? Maybe he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time...but don't tell me he represents a policy that was good for America.

I have no doubt he was unconscious of how he was being used. But to go on and say that it was a beneficial policy is just reduction of cognitive dissonance in a confused mind.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:sorry I take exception to that. Mr. C did 4 tours in Iraq and didn't torture anyone. I was VERY AWARE of what he was doing and so were my sons.

prick

And do you think he did any good?  Maybe he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time...but don't tell me he represents a policy that was good for America.

I have no doubt he was unconscious of how he was being used.  But to go on and say that it was a beneficial policy is just reduction of cognitive dissonance in a confused mind.

Bang out of order Quill to make remarks on her husband, who is not here to defend himself who has served his country, which you have never faced the same situation.
Your view is flawed and places millions into a category where you are castigating them all, with a view to demonize them, which is no better than what many far right promote on immigrants, Muslims, Jews etc.

FFS Quill, learn some boundaries will you. You are talking about Cass's husband, of whom she is very proud.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:sorry I take exception to that. Mr. C did 4 tours in Iraq and didn't torture anyone. I was VERY AWARE of what he was doing and so were my sons.

prick

And do you think he did any good? Maybe he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time...but don't tell me he represents a policy that was good for America.

I have no doubt he was unconscious of how he was being used. But to go on and say that it was a beneficial policy is just reduction of cognitive dissonance in a confused mind.

actually yes he did good in an impossible situation.....he had no choice but to go.....I sent out care packages full of supplies and goodies for him to give to the local population....they were what on from on high by politicians ....and don't effing patronise me or him EVER.

now back to the original OP......

Didge wrote:Sorry Quill your assertions are based upon fallaices, if a mindset is all the same between people, that they will all be witjin the extreme bracket which has little or no evidence or any methodology to back such an assertion. If I was to use your logic, I could claim Democrats were warmongers, basing this view on how many Conflicts Democrats had taken the US into conflicts, it would be very silly to claim, based off some Presidents that did.

I am no Republican fan, but the greatest President to me was Lincoln and he was a Republican. Your assertion that now all in the army must be Republicans and are all complicit in war crimes is very absurd also to say the least and has again little validity. You also neglect why some may be a Republican supporter and yet do not hold to all their views, so it is a very flawed philosophy, which is as bad as claiming all RW people are Nazi's and LW people are Communists

You need to catch up, Didge. Lincoln was another era. The Republican collective mind has gone through the post-Civil-War carpet-bagging era, the late 19th-century golden era, the trust-busting era, the Great Depression, the post-war era, Goldwater and the Orange County Republican era, the post-'64 Civil Rights Act era, the Atwater Southern Strategy, the Reagan supply-side era, the Neo-Con era, and in the post-Iraqi War time...confusion and the Hells Angels era of the Tea Party, White Supremacists, gun-toting, school shootings, black hating and anarchist Republicans.

Let's put it into context and start the discussion there.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And do you think he did any good?  Maybe he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time...but don't tell me he represents a policy that was good for America.

I have no doubt he was unconscious of how he was being used.  But to go on and say that it was a beneficial policy is just reduction of cognitive dissonance in a confused mind.

Bang out of order Quill to make remarks on her husband, who is not here to defend himself who has served his country, which you have never faced the same situation.
Your view is flawed and places millions into a category where you are castigating them all, with a view to demonize them, which is no better than what many far right promote on immigrants, Muslims, Jews etc.

Cass is the one who brought up her husband.  I am simply pursuing a straight-line political discussion about Republicanism in America.  Don't confuse the two, Didge.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Sorry Quill your assertions are based upon fallaices, if a mindset is all the same between people, that they will all be witjin the extreme bracket which has little or no evidence or any methodology to back such an assertion. If I was to use your logic, I could claim Democrats were warmongers, basing this view on how many Conflicts Democrats had taken the US into conflicts, it would be very silly to claim, based off some Presidents that did.

I am no Republican fan, but the greatest President to me was Lincoln and he was a Republican. Your assertion that now all in the army must be Republicans and are all complicit in war crimes is very absurd also to say the least and has again little validity. You also neglect why some may be a Republican supporter and yet do not hold to all their views, so it is a very flawed philosophy, which is as bad as claiming all RW people are Nazi's and LW people are Communists

You need to catch up, Didge.  Lincoln was another era.  The Republican collective mind has gone through the post-Civil-War carpet-bagging era, the late 19th-century golden era, the trust-busting era, the Great Depression, the post-war era, Goldwater and the Orange County Republican era, the post-'64 Civil Rights Act era, the Atwater Southern Strategy, the Reagan supply-side era, the Neo-Con era, and in the post-Iraqi War time...confusion and the Hells Angels era of the Tea Party, White Supremacists, gun-toting, school shootings, black hating and anarchist Republicans.

Let's put it into context and start the discussion there.

Irrelevant, he was a Republican and again it shows many Republicans have different views which differ greatly between each other, thus to say they are one mind set is not only absurd, but lacks any credible evidence other than your own biased view against them. basically what you are promoting is tantamount to hate, which as stated is no better than other arguments where people do the same onto again immigrants, Jews, Muslims etc. Democrats took the US to war in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, I could go onm the list is endless but moots your point very much on this aspect and again this only goes off administrations, not supporters themselves. In fact many Americans themselves were against a conflict with Germany.
So you have put nothing into context, but trying to add 2 and 2 and coming up with 5

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Bang out of order Quill to make remarks on her husband, who is not here to defend himself who has served his country, which you have never faced the same situation.
Your view is flawed and places millions into a category where you are castigating them all, with a view to demonize them, which is no better than what many far right promote on immigrants, Muslims, Jews etc.

Cass is the one who brought up her husband.  I am simply pursuing a straight-line political discussion about Republicanism in America.  Don't confuse the two, Didge.

You are still insulting her husband, which is clear to all by her own reaction, which shows you have little understanding what your views are doing, you may want to think about that. I respect you loads, but what you are doing and saying here is not only horseshit but also insulting

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Bang out of order Quill to make remarks on her husband, who is not here to defend himself who has served his country, which you have never faced the same situation.
Your view is flawed and places millions into a category where you are castigating them all, with a view to demonize them, which is no better than what many far right promote on immigrants, Muslims, Jews etc.

Cass is the one who brought up her husband.  I am simply pursuing a straight-line political discussion about Republicanism in America.  Don't confuse the two, Didge.

Who the hell do you think you are?   Cass is one of the nicest people here, who never takes anything out on anyone and you have the bloody gall to attack her husband to try and big yourself up.

Now, perhaps you will shock the hell out of all of us and be a man and apologise. Never been known before of course, your normal way is to do a runner.

it will be interesting to see where he got the guns from. As a felon who couldn't buy them legally but perhaps at a gun show or a private sale which doesn't have nearly enough control. or maybe they were bought by her?

it just sickens me to think of those poor officers.....executed while eating lunch. Their poor families.

shame the perps took the easy way out.

Cass wrote:it will be interesting to see where he got the guns from. As a felon who couldn't buy them legally but perhaps at a gun show or a private sale which doesn't have nearly enough control. or maybe they were bought by her?

it just sickens me to think of those poor officers.....executed while eating lunch. Their poor families.

shame the perps took the easy way out.

Yep, they should have been locked in a cage and fed dog food for the rest of their natural.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You need to catch up, Didge.  Lincoln was another era.  The Republican collective mind has gone through the post-Civil-War carpet-bagging era, the late 19th-century golden era, the trust-busting era, the Great Depression, the post-war era, Goldwater and the Orange County Republican era, the post-'64 Civil Rights Act era, the Atwater Southern Strategy, the Reagan supply-side era, the Neo-Con era, and in the post-Iraqi War time...confusion and the Hells Angels era of the Tea Party, White Supremacists, gun-toting, school shootings, black hating and anarchist Republicans.

Let's put it into context and start the discussion there.

Irrelevant, he was a Republican and again it shows many Republicans have different views which differ greatly between each other, thus to say they are one mind set is not only absurd, but lacks any credible evidence other than your own biased view against them. basically what you are promoting is tantamount to hate, which as stated is no better than other arguments where people do the same onto again immigrants, Jews, Muslims etc. Democrats took the US to war in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, I could go onm the list is endless but moots your point very much on this aspect and again this only goes off administrations, not supporters themselves. In fact many Americans themselves were against a conflict with Germany.
So you have put nothing into context, but trying to add 2 and 2 and coming up with 5  

You are just trying to look good now, Didge...perhaps vindicate your Masters degree in History or playing board politics. I'm not up for one of your long-winded back-and-forths with Tommy or Smelly. When you want to talk politics--as opposed to Lincoln, 150-year old Republicanism, or Cass' husband--look me up.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Irrelevant, he was a Republican and again it shows many Republicans have different views which differ greatly between each other, thus to say they are one mind set is not only absurd, but lacks any credible evidence other than your own biased view against them. basically what you are promoting is tantamount to hate, which as stated is no better than other arguments where people do the same onto again immigrants, Jews, Muslims etc. Democrats took the US to war in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, I could go onm the list is endless but moots your point very much on this aspect and again this only goes off administrations, not supporters themselves. In fact many Americans themselves were against a conflict with Germany.
So you have put nothing into context, but trying to add 2 and 2 and coming up with 5  

You are just trying to look good now, Didge...perhaps vindicate your Masters degree in History or playing board politics.  I'm not up for one of your long-winded back-and-forths with Tommy or Smelly.  When you want to talk politics--as opposed to Lincoln, 150-year old Republicanism, or Cass' husband--look me up.

What you mean is you are not man enough to apologise.

I would also add Quill, that America once before saw advocating of a political divide within its nation, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, I do not think people would wish to see a repeat of that. Thus what you advocate does place a divide between American people, a them and us attitude, which is not only unhealthy, but goes afreedoms of the US, the very right to political views, no matter if you disagree with them. You do not change people by castigating them all collectively as bad and wrong, through poor methodology. All that does is seek to divide society and leads to conflict.

Sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Cass is the one who brought up her husband.  I am simply pursuing a straight-line political discussion about Republicanism in America.  Don't confuse the two, Didge.

Who the hell do you think you are?   Cass is one of the nicest people here, who never takes anything out on anyone and you have the bloody gall to attack her husband to try and big yourself up.

Now, perhaps you will shock the hell out of all of us and be a man and apologise.   Never been known before of course, your normal way is to do a runner.

Nevertheless, Cass brought up her husband. It's not something I am remotely interested in. My point is about Republicans and where America seems to be going today.

Keep your eye on the ball, Sassy. Don't argue over examples or change the point. This is where your scatter-brained thoughts go astray.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Who the hell do you think you are?   Cass is one of the nicest people here, who never takes anything out on anyone and you have the bloody gall to attack her husband to try and big yourself up.

Now, perhaps you will shock the hell out of all of us and be a man and apologise.   Never been known before of course, your normal way is to do a runner.

Nevertheless, Cass brought up her husband.  It's not something I am remotely interested in.  My point is about Republicans and where America seems to be going today.

Keep your eye on the ball, Sassy.  Don't argue over examples or change the point.  This is where your scatter-brained thoughts go astray.

Don't lecture me. Have the decency to apologise before you run off.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Irrelevant, he was a Republican and again it shows many Republicans have different views which differ greatly between each other, thus to say they are one mind set is not only absurd, but lacks any credible evidence other than your own biased view against them. basically what you are promoting is tantamount to hate, which as stated is no better than other arguments where people do the same onto again immigrants, Jews, Muslims etc. Democrats took the US to war in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, I could go onm the list is endless but moots your point very much on this aspect and again this only goes off administrations, not supporters themselves. In fact many Americans themselves were against a conflict with Germany.
So you have put nothing into context, but trying to add 2 and 2 and coming up with 5  

You are just trying to look good now, Didge...perhaps vindicate your Masters degree in History or playing board politics.  I'm not up for one of your long-winded back-and-forths with Tommy or Smelly.  When you want to talk politics--as opposed to Lincoln, 150-year old Republicanism, or Cass' husband--look me up.

Oh stop being absurd, this is not personal but my view you are being poor in your outlook, I am not going to agree on everything with you, thus for you to get snide, is silly and have no need to blow trumpets or compare dicks to qualifications, as that again is very pathetic indeed.
You can debate a topic easily, but here I find your view on Republicans very absurd, it lacks any credability

Didge wrote:I would also add Quill, that America once before saw advocating of a political divide within its nation, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, I do not think people would wish to see a repeat of that. Thus what you advocate does place a divide between American people, a them and us attitude, which is not only unhealthy, but goes afreedoms of the US, the very right to political views, no matter if you disagree with them. You do not change people by castigating them all collectively as bad and wrong, through poor methodology. All that does is seek to divide society and leads to conflict.

Now, that is a relevant thought, Didge. There is a string of Republicanism that goes back to the Civil War, although it is obscured by events over the past 150-years.

Republicans have always represented, not really politics, but a script called the American Dream. It's core value is individualism and benefits for the wealthy. But, over time they have shifted to the more nefarious regions of politics...mainly due to the success of Democrats, who play straight politics.

This is caused by the transitions I mentioned. And although you are not trained in American history, you should recognize some of the eras I took you through. In particular, post-War America, the Orange County era and Goldwater and most particularly, Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy...all relate to this little episode in Las Vegas. This is Republicanism today...gun toting, shootings for political reasons (what is the 2nd Amendment, again), anarchy, White Supremacists...which brings us back on point.

This is Republicanism today.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I would also add Quill, that America once before saw advocating of a political divide within its nation, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, I do not think people would wish to see a repeat of that. Thus what you advocate does place a divide between American people, a them and us attitude, which is not only unhealthy, but goes afreedoms of the US, the very right to political views, no matter if you disagree with them. You do not change people by castigating them all collectively as bad and wrong, through poor methodology. All that does is seek to divide society and leads to conflict.

Now, that is a relevant thought, Didge.  There is a string of Republicanism that goes back to the Civil War, although it is obscured by events over the past 150-years.

Republicans have always represented, not really politics, but a script called the American Dream.  It's core value is individualism and benefits for the wealthy.  But, over time they have shifted to the more nefarious regions of politics...mainly due to the success of Democrats, who play straight politics.

This is caused by the transitions I mentioned.  And although you are not trained in American history, you should recognize some of the eras I took you through.  In particular, post-War America, the Orange County era and Goldwater and most particularly, Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy...all relate to this little episode in Las Vegas.  This is Republicanism today...gun toting, shootings for political reasons (what is the 2nd Amendment, again), anarchy, White Supremacists...which brings us back on point.

This is Republicanism today.

But you are confusing politics with psychology, as if they are one and the same through a mindset, which is not the case at all, and using history as I have done shows such views do not match or bring credibility to what you are claiming. Again you are basing a view based on set periods of time where again this perception and view could and does easily change again within the over time, where the next ten years could see such views change again. It is not a stable motion or constant of what is happening within a country at any given time and thus can change easily, due to what happens in a nation whether Republicans become more right wing or not, but again we are mainly talking about those in higher office, not Joe Bloggs on the ground. Basically your whole argument is on the change of perceptions seen from certain Republicans today, it fails to comprehend change through time and places this solely on the view you hold today. That is flawed as a view point and basing again a view point based on this to many Republican supporters, who again will differ into what they view and support

Have to go, until tomorrow, all the best

Still not man enough for an apology. Prick was the right word Cass.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Now, that is a relevant thought, Didge.  There is a string of Republicanism that goes back to the Civil War, although it is obscured by events over the past 150-years.

Republicans have always represented, not really politics, but a script called the American Dream.  It's core value is individualism and benefits for the wealthy.  But, over time they have shifted to the more nefarious regions of politics...mainly due to the success of Democrats, who play straight politics.

This is caused by the transitions I mentioned.  And although you are not trained in American history, you should recognize some of the eras I took you through.  In particular, post-War America, the Orange County era and Goldwater and most particularly, Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy...all relate to this little episode in Las Vegas.  This is Republicanism today...gun toting, shootings for political reasons (what is the 2nd Amendment, again), anarchy, White Supremacists...which brings us back on point.

This is Republicanism today.

But you are confusing politics with psychology, as if they are one and the same through a mindset, which is not the case at all, and using history as I have done shows such views do not match or bring credibility to what you are claiming. Again you are basing a view based on set periods of time where again this perception and view could and does easily change again within the over time, where the next ten years could see such views change again. It is not a stable motion or constant of what is happening within a country at any given time and thus can change easily, due to what happens in a nation whether Republicans become more right wing or not, but again we are mainly talking about those in higher office, not Joe Bloggs on the ground. Basically your whole argument is on the change of perceptions seen from certain Republicans today, it fails to comprehend change through time and places this solely on the view you hold today. That is flawed as a view point and basing again a view point based on this to many Republican supporters, who again will differ into what they view and support

Have to go, until tomorrow, all the best

Have a look at Lakoff, George, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2002). Lakoff is a cognitive linguist, to your point that politics is psychology.

I gotta go too. Chat later.

Off course you have to go, your raison d'etre when you have been shown up.

I have a great and workable idea that isn't unrealistic at all - let's get all the worlds governments to hold hands and ban all weapons

That way no one will ever again be killed by a weapon

Sassy wrote:Off course you have to go, your raison d'etre when you have been shown up.

Sassy, raison d'etre means "reason for being."  What you are trying to say is, it is my habit.

You remind me of what my youngest daughter used to call a yipper dog...not really dangerous, but you have to be careful not to hurt 'em when you boot them aside with your foot.  You can't really kick them.

I have spoken of what Republicanism is today, and it's not a pretty picture.  I have described the war in Iraq, vividly and graphically, as symptomatic of what Republicans are today...torturers, kidnappers, rapists and murderers.  I'm now speaking about Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, the Neo-Cons, and of course, GWB...though he was just a dupe, I'm sure. All of them, through the CIA and Defense Department, the Marines, the Army and even the Navy, carried out a systematic program of inhuman and brutal treatment of Iraqis and Muslims in general...extending from Abu Graib Prison to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Now, I am describing the black heart of what Republicans have become. I have spoken about this many times and I have publically called for a trial of former VP Richard Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on war crimes charges.

I think that most of the soldiers and grunts in Iraq were pulled into that war unknowingly.  Not all soldiers, in any war, are ideologues or true believers.  Most are grunts who are just pulled into it through recruitment or a draft.  Now, Cass has chosen to include her husband in that crowd.  I don't quite know how she means it; is she saying her husband was just pulled into the war unknowingly, or does she mean to include him in the company of Richard Cheney and the CIA?  I don't know her husband and I cannot speak for her or him.  I am merely pointing out that her husband is not my reference, and you will have to speak to her about what she meant to say about him.

In either case I am simply going to continue on with my opinion of Republicans, and my thesis about what Republicanism has come to represent.  I am neither going to change that opinion, nor least of all adopt some other opinion because Cass somehow sees her husband in the mist of it all.  That is beside the point.

Now fuck off you ---- (one can't realistically call a woman a prick, can one).

my point quill is that you cannot keep generalising all under one umbrella....its nonsensical.

is there a very nasty bigoted racist group within the GOP? You betcha....is there a group behind the puppet on show with deep ties to the military-industrial complex that wants to take total control of the government? yup. just as there is a lunatic fringe within the democratic part, just as there is in all religions, all races. sometimes it is not black and white but many shades of grey. I don't generalise mostly (child abusers being one exception) nor do I like being labelled one thing or the other.

I apologise for calling you a prick but you were out of order and patronising. I have spent 25 years of my life being around the military so I do know what I am talking about here.

sorry kindle cut out ....again.

you are very much entitled to your opinion just as I am.

have a good night

Cass wrote:my point quill is that you cannot keep generalising all under one umbrella....its nonsensical.

is there a very nasty bigoted racist group within the GOP? You betcha....is there a group behind the puppet on show with deep ties to the military-industrial complex that wants to take total control of the government? yup. just as there is a lunatic fringe within the democratic part, just as there is in all religions, all races.  sometimes it is not black and white but many shades of grey. I don't generalise mostly (child abusers being one exception) nor do I like being labelled one thing or the other.

I apologise for calling you a prick but you were out of order and patronising. I have spent 25 years of my life being around the military so I do know what I am talking about here.

Generalising is the nature of all politics...indeed, all sociology.  And we don't let groups with published platforms, duly elected spokesmen and decision-makers, and enacted laws and policies, off the hook that easily.  Even if we did, the proof is always in the pudding.  The last time Republicans were in power they stood for rape, torture, kidnapping and murder.  You can parse the good intentions of the GOP all you want...the proof is in what they actually did.

Now I go further and say that what the GWB administration did was lay the bricks for what followed: the Tea Party, anti-women, Republican racism, White Supremacists, voter suppression, GOP anti-hispanic laws, open carry gun laws, the Southern Strategy and the virtual shut-down of the USA, to name but a few.

I grew up during WWII and lived primarily on Naval Air bases at that time.  My father retired as a Rear Admiral in the USNR.  Don't tell me that military life means you have to have a closed mind toward humanism.  My father, a staunch Republican, would have shot any man who wanted to torture a prisoner or rape his daughter.

Republicans have indeed come a long way.

I think these nutjobs are radicalizing one another and getting radicalized through their right-wing media. Notice a lot of conservative media figures and politicians are positively running from these guys, who have ties to Former Right-Wing Hero Cliven Bundy.

I think a lot of them would never go this far but they get around people more psycho than they are and they're pushed farther. And they have trouble drawing the line between conservatism and radical conservatism because, well ...

"Conservatives may not grasp "nuance," but we're pretty good at grasping treason." - Ann Coulter

lol

BigAndy9 wrote:lol

You either have to laugh or cry!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:lol

You either have to laugh or cry!

I choose to laugh at some of the comments here.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:lol

You either have to laugh or cry!

I choose to laugh at some of the comments here.

I always think it's funny when people don't get it but they laugh anyway! You can always catch them out  ::D:: 

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

But you are confusing politics with psychology, as if they are one and the same through a mindset, which is not the case at all, and using history as I have done shows such views do not match or bring credibility to what you are claiming. Again you are basing a view based on set periods of time where again this perception and view could and does easily change again within the over time, where the next ten years could see such views change again. It is not a stable motion or constant of what is happening within a country at any given time and thus can change easily, due to what happens in a nation whether Republicans become more right wing or not, but again we are mainly talking about those in higher office, not Joe Bloggs on the ground. Basically your whole argument is on the change of perceptions seen from certain Republicans today, it fails to comprehend change through time and places this solely on the view you hold today. That is flawed as a view point and basing again a view point based on this to many Republican supporters, who again will differ into what they view and support

Have to go, until tomorrow, all the best

Have a look at Lakoff, George, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2002).  Lakoff is a cognitive linguist, to your point that politics is psychology.

I gotta go too.  Chat later.

Hi Quill

Will have to read, but know doubt will disagree on his views, so to be fair I have to read first before answering.
Again though to me I get the impression his views will be a collective and not an individual view and thus think it will be very flawed.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:Off course you have to go, your raison d'etre when you have been shown up.

Sassy, raison d'etre means "reason for being."  What you are trying to say is, it is my habit.

You remind me of what my youngest daughter used to call a yipper dog...not really dangerous, but you have to be careful not to hurt 'em when you boot them aside with your foot.  You can't really kick them.

I have spoken of what Republicanism is today, and it's not a pretty picture.  I have described the war in Iraq, vividly and graphically, as symptomatic of what Republicans are today...torturers, kidnappers, rapists and murderers.  I'm now speaking about Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, the Neo-Cons, and of course, GWB...though he was just a dupe, I'm sure.  All of them, through the CIA and Defense Department, the Marines, the Army and even the Navy, carried out a systematic program of inhuman and brutal treatment of Iraqis and Muslims in general...extending from Abu Graib Prison to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.  Now, I am describing the black heart of what Republicans have become.  I have spoken about this many times and I have publically called for a trial of former VP Richard Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on war crimes charges.

I think that most of the soldiers and grunts in Iraq were pulled into that war unknowingly.  Not all soldiers, in any war, are ideologues or true believers.  Most are grunts who are just pulled into it through recruitment or a draft.  Now, Cass has chosen to include her husband in that crowd.  I don't quite know how she means it; is she saying her husband was just pulled into the war unknowingly, or does she mean to include him in the company of Richard Cheney and the CIA?  I don't know her husband and I cannot speak for her or him.  I am merely pointing out that her husband is not my reference, and you will have to speak to her about what she meant to say about him.

In either case I am simply going to continue on with my opinion of Republicans, and my thesis about what Republicanism has come to represent.  I am neither going to change that opinion, nor least of all adopt some other opinion because Cass somehow sees her husband in the mist of it all.  That is beside the point.

Now fuck off you ---- (one can't realistically call a woman a prick, can one).

Dry your eyes mate

And remember

Vote republican