Warning Signs
POSTED BY: Jongsstraw
UPDATED: Sunday, April 29, 2007 19:28
VIEWED: 14532
PAGE 11 of 15
Prolly cause a lot of us don't find him offensive.
Overtly melodramatic and fulla sensationalism to a ridiculous degree ? sure.
Downright offensive ? rarely.
Incapable of rational thought or debate ? nope.
Remember, PN walked off with the win on the first Historical Trivia Challenge.
If he bugs ya just skim over the stuff and ignore it, but in truth if you're willing to wade through the sensationalism and melodrama, he does make some interesting points.
And scary that it may sound, on some of those wild allegations ? there's actually proof, which is downright scary - but there you have it.
If you wanna tag him with something, we could hit him up with "Official Tabloid Reporter", hehehe.
But really, I got no issue with him myself.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The irritable bowel syndrome is keeping him behind his desk these days.
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
How is kindly Agent whathisname? He hasn't been calling around to my house so much these days.
Quote:I doubt they'll be selling samples large enough to build anything larger than a glow in the dark watch.
http://www.unitednuclear.com
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey FremD,
I heard someone suggest insurance. To pay for medical/ restitution. I'm guessing that it would be like cars (in CA ~ 1/4 are uninsured) so maybe make the mfg insure the guns? Then it would be in their interest to sell only to qualified buyers.
What do you think?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Forcing people to take on any additional issurance comes too close to government mandated corporate welfare for my taste.
The answer to the problem is licensing with stiff penalties for anyone found to have an unlicenced weapon and a sentence multiplier applied to any crime commited with the aid of a gun. The problem with this is that the gun lobby will fight it all the way because
1) In THEIR interpretation of the second ammendment, the one that believes the mention of a well regulated militia is additional to the right to bear arms and not part of it, ANY form of regulation is none constitutional
and
2) They fear that once the government has that power they can use it to submarine a complete ban by simply restricting the issuing of licences.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Among industrialized nations, the USA crime rate sticks out like a sore thumb. What are we doing differently from them?
Easy, we're locking up everyone who does drugs, instead of treating the problem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If he bugs ya just skim over the stuff and ignore it, but in truth if you're willing to wade through the sensationalism and melodrama, he does make some interesting points.
Now if he would just make his points and leave out the melodrama instead of quoting 3 pages of text he would probably be a worthy contributor to the board. But as it is I just can't bring myself to wade through his posts and the melodrama makes it nearly impossible to take him seriously.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Prolly cause a lot of us don't find him offensive.
Overtly melodramatic and fulla sensationalism to a ridiculous degree ? sure.
Downright offensive ? rarely.
Incapable of rational thought or debate ? nope.
Remember, PN walked off with the win on the first Historical Trivia Challenge.
If he bugs ya just skim over the stuff and ignore it, but in truth if you're willing to wade through the sensationalism and melodrama, he does make some interesting points.
And scary that it may sound, on some of those wild allegations ? there's actually proof, which is downright scary - but there you have it.
If you wanna tag him with something, we could hit him up with "Official Tabloid Reporter", hehehe.
But really, I got no issue with him myself.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
You're kidding, right?
He takes quotes out of context - like that English teacher's poem quoted above - and then uses that to support his demented theories. He regularly accusses people in politics and the media of hideous crimes, up to and including child torture and murder, and crows with glee whenever something unfortunate happens to them (see his recent post about Brittney's spectacular fall from grace.)
He regularly links to hate sites that demand that homosexuals be put to death. He claimed that the Columbine kilers were part of a Jewish conspiricy, and asked people they're religion before killing them (in fact they asked one girl if she believed in God and shot her when she said yes.) He even went so far as to say that people should claim to be Jewish if they're asked that question by a mass murderer.
How can you not find that kind of stuff offensive? Or how about we e-mail Nikki Giovanni and see if she finds his post in this thread offensive? What would the general reaction be if his post was mentioned on a news website? How many new browncoats would we get do you think?
Yes, I skim past his posts most of the time, and no, I'm not willing to wade past the sensationalism and melodrama to see his "interesting points" and I really don't care that he has a good knowledge of American history. Jumping on every news story to espouse your Jew-hating, homosexual-hating, Neopagan religious belief-hating "theories" as to why the devil worshipping, kid killing George Bush is responsible for everything that's wrong in the world is not tabloid and not acceptable. It's no less tasteless than the Westboro Baptist church planning to picket a VTech student's funeral. It's using the deaths of innocent people as an excuse to bash people you don't like.
I'm sorry, but if Kaneman gets an offensive tag then Piratenews should damn well get one too.
Banners, Avatars, LJ Icons and other fun stuff at www.desktophippie.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Desktop,
The reason I don't find PN offensive (even though his statements very much are) - is b/c he seems, well, one short of a full load. He could be standing on a street corner carrying a sign that says {the end is near}, or { John 3:16 } or some such.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi Desktop,
The reason I don't find PN offensive (even though his statements very much are) - is b/c he seems, well, one short of a full load. He could be standing on a street corner carrying a sign that says {the end is near}, or { John 3:16 } or some such.
Well, Cho was one short of a full load too. That doesn't make him any less of a murderer.
The stuff Piratenews posts is hurtful. Like I said, I can't even imagine what the reaction of Virginia Tech students would be if they read his posts in this and other recent threads, although I can guess. Being nuts doesn't give you the right to hurt people. It means steps should be taken to minimize the damage you do. In real life that wouldn't be wearing a warning label, but on a board pretty much the only thing you can do is warn people off reading someone's posts.
Banners, Avatars, LJ Icons and other fun stuff at www.desktophippie.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The answer to the problem is licensing with stiff penalties for anyone found to have an unlicenced weapon and a sentence multiplier applied to any crime commited with the aid of a gun. The problem with this is that the gun lobby will fight it all the way because
1) In THEIR interpretation of the second ammendment, the one that believes the mention of a well regulated militia is additional to the right to bear arms and not part of it, ANY form of regulation is none constitutional
and
2) They fear that once the government has that power they can use it to submarine a complete ban by simply restricting the issuing of licences.
While the "Gun Lobby" usually fights licencing for your reason #2, they are very firm in supporting harsher penalties for the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime. BTW, there are already Federal sentence multipliers in place.
Quote:
A mandatory five-year prison term for using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime;
A mandatory fifteen-year prison term for felons in possession of a firearm who had three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses;
A ten-year sentence enhancement for using a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, or a semiautomatic assault weapon, in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime;
A thirty-year sentence enhancement for using a machine gun, destructive device, or firearm equipped with a silencer during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime; and
A twenty-year prison term or life imprisonment for second or subsequent GCA offenses.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME