Gabrielle Giffords Shot

[mistermack]

Since it is very difficult to wrap our minds around how someone could commit such a crime, and how such madness can be stopped.......

Fuck me Coito, you speak for yourself! I have no trouble wrapping MY mind round that, thanks very much!!

I was speaking about those who feel the need to come up with extraneous "causes" for why Loughlin did this. That's who the "we" is. Sorry for the confusion - I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.

People who want to suggest that someone's "uncivil" rhetoric caused Loughlin to do this is looking for an easy answer. How can we keep this from happening again? Just "tone down the rhetoric." That way the Loughlins of the world will not go on murder rampages. Right?

Wrong. (as you already know). All this comes out every time there is a multiple shooting. Everyone has a theory of why he did it.
Every loonie has a different reason. That's the reliable thing about them. They are unpredictable.
It's like constantly giving guns to chimpanzees, and then wittering on about their motivation for using them. You know if there are lots of guns about, the loonies will go mad with them on regular occasions.
You hear the same stupid debate each time, and each time it's something different.
Anything but face the truth. If you don't want chimps to go on a rampage with guns, you don't give them guns. And the same goes for loonies.
.

[maiforpeace]

Last point - within hours of the shooting - maybe within minutes of the shooting - we had causal attributions to Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin and others....some of the first comments I heard were to the effect of "see! this is what we get with 'this kind' of rhetoric." Yet, I can't seem to locate any specificity. the actual quotes they're talking about. What did these folks say - what are some examples - of what is considered an "incitement?" My guess is that a quote by Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin advocating violence is hard to come by. I doubt they did advocate violence or call for violence. The argument will be, IMHO, that it's their "overall tone" - and their "implicit message" - that arises out of their vociferous opposition to certain government policies or proposals that "creates an atmosphere" conducive to this kind of violence arising...

Sharron Angle:

"Our founding fathers put the second amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but if this congress keeps on going the way it is, people are really looking towards those second amendment remedies and they're saying my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? And I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

"The nation is arming, what are they arming for, if it isn't that they are so distrustful of their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more second amendment types of ways. That's why I look at this almost as an imperative...if we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"

And there's more where that came from...

So what? Is there any reason to think that Loughlin even heard or read Angle's statement? And, is there any reason to think he was motivated by it? Teh fact of the matter is: the 2nd Amd was put in the Constitution "for a good reason" and part of that reason was for the protection of the people against a tyrannical government. So what? That's been the case for 225 years. And, Thomas Jefferson did say that it would be good for the country to have a revolution every 20 years. Was Loughlin motivated to kill by Thomas Jefferson?

If Loughlin was motivated by that Sharon Angle quote, then why didn't he shoot Harry Reid? Why shoot a pro-gun rights, gun owning, Blue Dog Democrat?

I was just giving you an example...actually, if there was anything to specifically incite him to violence against Ms. Giffords, it was Sarah Palin's crosshairs map and her tweet to "Lock and reload" that referenced the map. (her aide's excuse that it was a 'map' crosshairs is bullshit in light of her tweet)

But, again - there is nothing to show that Loughlin had any sympathy at all for Sharon Angle. In fact, his friends said he was a "left wing pothead" and had "radical" opinions. He was also noted by classmates to be scary, and to arbitrarily raise questions in class at college about "mind control." One friend said he had an unusual concern with 2012 prophecies. And, his writings showed him to be anti-religious and concerned about the In God We Trust on the money and Bibles. Surely, that's not Tea Party stuff?

Point being - even if we assumed for the sake of argument that Angle's comments could "incite" someone to violence - the question here is "did it incite LOUGHLIN to violence?" What evidence is there for that? Wouldn't we at least want to establish that he even heard it/read it and sympathized with it? From what I've read, he would be just as likely to shoot Sharon Angle in the head as Rep. Giffords and Judge Roll. Judge Roll was a Bush Republican appointee. And, the fucker shot a little girl and several other people.

So why is he charged with an assassination attempt instead of simply the attempted murder of Ms. Giffords? It was planned, and she was targeted...not Sharron Angle, or the Judge. The judge, the young girl and the others that died or were injured were collateral damage.

Whether or not he was incited by rhetoric doesn't mean that rhetoric isn't out there and shouldn't be toned down...even Ms. Gifford made the call for more reasonable discourse a number of times in her own speeches and comments.

The fact of the matter is, what we consider discourse that should be "toned down" today, is actually already toned down from what we had in the past. It used to be quite common to burn politicians in effigy. Imagine that today? Speaker Boehnor or Fmr. Spkr Pelosi being hoisted up with a noose around his or her neck and set ablaze symbolically?

Politicians are stilled burned in effigy all over the world...wasn't Bush burned in Iraq? So what if it is toned down from what it used to be? Does that still make the current tone acceptable?

Gabrielle Gifford:

"We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. The thing is, the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun site over our district. [When] people do that they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."

The huge difference between Keith Ollberman and his crosshairs map is that Gabrielle Gifford wasn't on his map, nor was she one of the two people of several on Palin's map who defeated the Tea Party opponent.

But, there is nothing at all to indicate that Loughlin was motivated by anything but being deranged.

Not true. More evidence is showing he did not like Ms. Gifford's politics. So, if he is also deranged, any rhetoric that attacks her politics will only serve as fodder for his craziness.

It also makes more sense that the shooter would have aligned himself with the Tea Party if he also aligned himself with the group American Renaissance. (which has been suggested by the DHS)

I hadn't heard anything about a link to American Rennaissance. His friend was on MSNBC and stated explicitly that he was an extreme left wing radical - very liberal with a weird concern with 2012 prophecy. Some of Loughlin's own writings have been released in the media, too, and nothing seems remotely "Tea Party" about his screeds. He sounds more like the Unabomber - conspiracy nutter with his own version of logic that renders his writings virtually incomprehensible.

I did a quick search on the connection to American Renaissance: According to the DailyKos, it starts with Gretawire. Greta Van Susteren of Fox News refers to some notes she received from a colleage of hers at Fox News Channel, Jennifer Griffin. Jennifer Griffin claims the notes are a summation of intelligence the Department of Homeland Security has amassed on the shooter. DHS, however, has not confirmed that at all, nor has DHS made that suggestion themselves. http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/late ... z1AYxb5SFy - nobody else has yet confirmed any of that.

While this doesn't address whether the DHS had stated Loughlin was a member of American Renaissance or not, I did find something else rather interesting from the DHS. DHS Reported in 2009 and Warned of “Lone Wolf” Attacks, Long Before Tucson

Since it is very difficult to wrap our minds around how someone could commit such a crime, and how such madness can be stopped.......

Fuck me Coito, you speak for yourself! I have no trouble wrapping MY mind round that, thanks very much!!

I was speaking about those who feel the need to come up with extraneous "causes" for why Loughlin did this. That's who the "we" is. Sorry for the confusion - I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.

People who want to suggest that someone's "uncivil" rhetoric caused Loughlin to do this is looking for an easy answer. How can we keep this from happening again? Just "tone down the rhetoric." That way the Loughlins of the world will not go on murder rampages. Right?

Wrong. (as you already know). All this comes out every time there is a multiple shooting. Everyone has a theory of why he did it.
Every loonie has a different reason. That's the reliable thing about them. They are unpredictable.
It's like constantly giving guns to chimpanzees, and then wittering on about their motivation for using them. You know if there are lots of guns about, the loonies will go mad with them on regular occasions.
You hear the same stupid debate each time, and each time it's something different.
Anything but face the truth. If you don't want chimps to go on a rampage with guns, you don't give them guns. And the same goes for loonies.
.

[JimC]

Since it is very difficult to wrap our minds around how someone could commit such a crime, and how such madness can be stopped.......

Fuck me Coito, you speak for yourself! I have no trouble wrapping MY mind round that, thanks very much!!

I was speaking about those who feel the need to come up with extraneous "causes" for why Loughlin did this. That's who the "we" is. Sorry for the confusion - I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.

People who want to suggest that someone's "uncivil" rhetoric caused Loughlin to do this is looking for an easy answer. How can we keep this from happening again? Just "tone down the rhetoric." That way the Loughlins of the world will not go on murder rampages. Right?

Wrong. (as you already know). All this comes out every time there is a multiple shooting. Everyone has a theory of why he did it.
Every loonie has a different reason. That's the reliable thing about them. They are unpredictable.
It's like constantly giving guns to chimpanzees, and then wittering on about their motivation for using them. You know if there are lots of guns about, the loonies will go mad with them on regular occasions.
You hear the same stupid debate each time, and each time it's something different.
Anything but face the truth. If you don't want chimps to go on a rampage with guns, you don't give them guns. And the same goes for loonies.
.

I agree. Surely there must be a way to reduce the weapon supply to the crazies ready to go postal. Otherwise, Americans will continue to pay a high price for their right to carry concealeable handguns (that being the relevent factor, not sporting rifles...)

[Atheist-Lite]

Since it is very difficult to wrap our minds around how someone could commit such a crime, and how such madness can be stopped.......

Fuck me Coito, you speak for yourself! I have no trouble wrapping MY mind round that, thanks very much!!

I was speaking about those who feel the need to come up with extraneous "causes" for why Loughlin did this. That's who the "we" is. Sorry for the confusion - I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.

People who want to suggest that someone's "uncivil" rhetoric caused Loughlin to do this is looking for an easy answer. How can we keep this from happening again? Just "tone down the rhetoric." That way the Loughlins of the world will not go on murder rampages. Right?

Wrong. (as you already know). All this comes out every time there is a multiple shooting. Everyone has a theory of why he did it.
Every loonie has a different reason. That's the reliable thing about them. They are unpredictable.
It's like constantly giving guns to chimpanzees, and then wittering on about their motivation for using them. You know if there are lots of guns about, the loonies will go mad with them on regular occasions.
You hear the same stupid debate each time, and each time it's something different.
Anything but face the truth. If you don't want chimps to go on a rampage with guns, you don't give them guns. And the same goes for loonies.
.

I agree. Surely there must be a way to reduce the weapon supply to the crazies ready to go postal. Otherwise, Americans will continue to pay a high price for their right to carry concealeable handguns (that being the relevent factor, not sporting rifles...)

Just let them join the army when they want to and post them overseas like other countries do.

[Coito ergo sum]

Since it is very difficult to wrap our minds around how someone could commit such a crime, and how such madness can be stopped.......

Fuck me Coito, you speak for yourself! I have no trouble wrapping MY mind round that, thanks very much!!

I was speaking about those who feel the need to come up with extraneous "causes" for why Loughlin did this. That's who the "we" is. Sorry for the confusion - I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.

People who want to suggest that someone's "uncivil" rhetoric caused Loughlin to do this is looking for an easy answer. How can we keep this from happening again? Just "tone down the rhetoric." That way the Loughlins of the world will not go on murder rampages. Right?

Wrong. (as you already know). All this comes out every time there is a multiple shooting. Everyone has a theory of why he did it.

Sure - and quite often it's because people want to find an easy cause, external to he monster himself, that is the "real" or "underlying" cause - that way we can have some power over the solution. That's what people are doing by blaming Tea Parties and talk radio for the acts of this deranged psychotic whose only political views expressed bear little, if any, resemblance to conservative politics. Well, that and taking a political opportunity to blame political opponents for the acts of a deranged psychotic.

If we were having discussions about why this guy did these murders, and based those discussions on actual evidence connected to the killer, that would be one thing. But, people just scream "Tea Party! See! This is what you get!" with not a bit of evidence that the killer was in any way sympathetic to tea partiers.

Every loonie has a different reason. That's the reliable thing about them. They are unpredictable.

Sure - but, the urge to find convenient underlying causes, irrespective of the actual facts of the case, is often born of the desire to find solutions to the monstrous problem. Some folks would like it to be talk radio rhetoric that causes monsters to go on mass murder sprees - that way we can just quiet down the talk radio and the problem won't occur again.

It's like constantly giving guns to chimpanzees, and then wittering on about their motivation for using them. You know if there are lots of guns about, the loonies will go mad with them on regular occasions.
You hear the same stupid debate each time, and each time it's something different.
Anything but face the truth. If you don't want chimps to go on a rampage with guns, you don't give them guns. And the same goes for loonies.
.

That is precisely what I'm saying - "anything but face the truth." The truth is unpalatable and frightening - that people are out there that will snap and kill people. The reality is that they were doing that long before Tea Parties and talk radio, and the reality is that the Giffords shooter doesn't appear to have had any Tea Party motivation at all, and there is no evidence that he was motivated by talk radio at all. Why did he do it? Because he thought the government was controlling grammar, he had a weird fixation on 2012 predictions, he held a lot of other weird, disjointed, illogical and irrational beliefs, had an increasingly difficult time socializing, descended deeper and deeper into psychotic delusions, and finally snapped and committed murder. That's only my opinion - but, at least that opinion is based on the facts of the case that have been released so far. I'm not willing to grab something out of thin air - like just say "see! this is what happens when we let gas stations open on every corner!"

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree. Surely there must be a way to reduce the weapon supply to the crazies ready to go postal. Otherwise, Americans will continue to pay a high price for their right to carry concealeable handguns (that being the relevent factor, not sporting rifles...)

Generally, you need a permit to carry concealed weapons. Since this fella bought his gun legally, there's not much that could be done about it. I mean - I suppose you could administer a psych test to everyone getting a gun, but given the lack of accuracy on those tests, I would imagine that they would be quite a blunt instrument. Alternatively, you could ban all guns smaller than a rifle. But, then again, Kennedy was shot with rifle....so, why allow rifles either/ Just ban them all.

[Coito ergo sum]

Last point - within hours of the shooting - maybe within minutes of the shooting - we had causal attributions to Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin and others....some of the first comments I heard were to the effect of "see! this is what we get with 'this kind' of rhetoric." Yet, I can't seem to locate any specificity. the actual quotes they're talking about. What did these folks say - what are some examples - of what is considered an "incitement?" My guess is that a quote by Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin advocating violence is hard to come by. I doubt they did advocate violence or call for violence. The argument will be, IMHO, that it's their "overall tone" - and their "implicit message" - that arises out of their vociferous opposition to certain government policies or proposals that "creates an atmosphere" conducive to this kind of violence arising...

Sharron Angle:

"Our founding fathers put the second amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but if this congress keeps on going the way it is, people are really looking towards those second amendment remedies and they're saying my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? And I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

"The nation is arming, what are they arming for, if it isn't that they are so distrustful of their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more second amendment types of ways. That's why I look at this almost as an imperative...if we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"

And there's more where that came from...

So what? Is there any reason to think that Loughlin even heard or read Angle's statement? And, is there any reason to think he was motivated by it? Teh fact of the matter is: the 2nd Amd was put in the Constitution "for a good reason" and part of that reason was for the protection of the people against a tyrannical government. So what? That's been the case for 225 years. And, Thomas Jefferson did say that it would be good for the country to have a revolution every 20 years. Was Loughlin motivated to kill by Thomas Jefferson?

If Loughlin was motivated by that Sharon Angle quote, then why didn't he shoot Harry Reid? Why shoot a pro-gun rights, gun owning, Blue Dog Democrat?

I was just giving you an example...actually, if there was anything to specifically incite him to violence against Ms. Giffords, it was Sarah Palin's crosshairs map and her tweet to "Lock and reload" that referenced the map. (her aide's excuse that it was a 'map' crosshairs is bullshit in light of her tweet)

But, of course, there is nothing in anything the shooter wrote or said, or in how his friends described him , that indicate that he saw, read, or focused on that. Moreover, martial metaphors in politics are commonplace.

Maybe the killer was motivated by John Kerry? There is the same amount of evidence, and maybe this had been ringing in Jared's ears for a while and he took his shot at a Congresswoman who happened to be within range....

Bill Maher: “You could have went to New Hampshire and killed 2 birds with one stone.”
John Kerry: “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.”

Or maybe he was set off by Obama himself:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

Jared brought a gun....

Oh, and there is more where that came from!

But, again - there is nothing to show that Loughlin had any sympathy at all for Sharon Angle. In fact, his friends said he was a "left wing pothead" and had "radical" opinions. He was also noted by classmates to be scary, and to arbitrarily raise questions in class at college about "mind control." One friend said he had an unusual concern with 2012 prophecies. And, his writings showed him to be anti-religious and concerned about the In God We Trust on the money and Bibles. Surely, that's not Tea Party stuff?

Point being - even if we assumed for the sake of argument that Angle's comments could "incite" someone to violence - the question here is "did it incite LOUGHLIN to violence?" What evidence is there for that? Wouldn't we at least want to establish that he even heard it/read it and sympathized with it? From what I've read, he would be just as likely to shoot Sharon Angle in the head as Rep. Giffords and Judge Roll. Judge Roll was a Bush Republican appointee. And, the fucker shot a little girl and several other people.

So why is he charged with an assassination attempt instead of simply the attempted murder of Ms. Giffords? It was planned, and she was targeted...not Sharron Angle, or the Judge. The judge, the young girl and the others that died or were injured were collateral damage.

Sure - didn't you read the news reports? Giffords and Jared Loughler had met previously, in person. Loughler described her as "stupid," and disliked her intensely, apparently. Loughler was also one of her constituents, and to Loughler, Giffords would have been a commonly seen figure - in the news daily or weekly - repeatedly in public doing these speaking engagements with constituents. Sure, he targeted Giffords - and they charged him with assassination because she was a Congresswoman and she wasn't shot at random.

Giffords was not a liberal. She was a conservative democrat, and despite all the fawning "love talk" we hear after she got shot, she voted against Pelosi, and she was a staunch gun owning pro gun rights Democrat. If a tea partier was going to shoot someone for political reasons, she would be far down the list.

And, key point: Jerad wasn't in the Tea Party - didn't protest with the Tea Party - and his own writings don't sound at all like the Tea Party.

Whether or not he was incited by rhetoric doesn't mean that rhetoric isn't out there and shouldn't be toned down...even Ms. Gifford made the call for more reasonable discourse a number of times in her own speeches and comments.

The fact of the matter is, what we consider discourse that should be "toned down" today, is actually already toned down from what we had in the past. It used to be quite common to burn politicians in effigy. Imagine that today? Speaker Boehnor or Fmr. Spkr Pelosi being hoisted up with a noose around his or her neck and set ablaze symbolically?

Politicians are stilled burned in effigy all over the world...wasn't Bush burned in Iraq? So what if it is toned down from what it used to be? Does that still make the current tone acceptable?

Yes - politicians are still burned in effigy all over the world. But, not here. Did you think it was "going to far" to burn Bush in effigy in Iraq?

You ask "does that still make the current tone unacceptable?"

First we have to agree on what the "current tone" is. I would say, initially, that the tone from the left is no better than the tone from the right. I would add to that that overall - in general - the tone really isn't bad. I remember the vitriol from the Left against Bush during his Presidency. That vitriol doesn't become "acceptable" in my view just because we hate the target it's directed against.

I can't say that overall the "tone" is all that bad. Some people get rude and nasty - but, there is no accounting for manners. Beyond that - you'll have to just tell me what words and sentences you think cause murder and should be eliminated from the language.

Should we remove hateful writings from libraries so teenagers can't study them? Mein Kampf? What's to allowed to be said in political discourse now?

Gabrielle Gifford:

"We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. The thing is, the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun site over our district. [When] people do that they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."

The huge difference between Keith Ollberman and his crosshairs map is that Gabrielle Gifford wasn't on his map, nor was she one of the two people of several on Palin's map who defeated the Tea Party opponent.

But, there is nothing at all to indicate that Loughlin was motivated by anything but being deranged.

Not true. More evidence is showing he did not like Ms. Gifford's politics. So, if he is also deranged, any rhetoric that attacks her politics will only serve as fodder for his craziness.

We know he didn't like her politics - but, what we've learned about him shows he didn't like Tea Party politics either! So, how can you say he was motivated by the Tea Party?

Look - I'm not saying he didn't hate Giffords and her politics. He also thought she was stupid. That doesn't mean that right wing rhetoric drove him to do this.

This is a be careful what you wish for scenario .... if you link this fella with the Tea Party, you have to be prepared for the same tenuous connection to be made to this guy's lack of belief in god, his opposition to In God We Trust and his view that he shouldn't have been given a Bible by the army. I mean...after all...the religious right will say that this is the result of taking God out of public life.....

My point is that we ought not to blame writings and amorphous rhetoric that have nothing to do with the given situation. If there was a call to violence - if there were writings by Loughler himself revealing that he was following some incitement from a third party - etc. - sure - that could be relevant. But, to bandy about this notion that the "tone of political discourse" is now "unacceptable," we open the door to what? What's the next step? One Congressman already has the 2011 equivalent of the Sedition Act getting geared up to submit to the Congress.....

The day we become a country that can't deal with "unacceptable rhetoric" or a tough "tone" to political discourse is a sad day indeed. Maybe that day has already come.

[Atheist-Lite]

When the dollar collapses it'll be great to watch the fireworks from a safe distance. Talk about a fucked up country. It's gonna be a real carry on when it spirals over there.

[Coito ergo sum]

When the dollar collapses it'll be great to watch the fireworks from a safe distance. Talk about a fucked up country. It's gonna be a real carry on when it spirals over there.

Despite how fucked up it is, it's still generally better here than most other places around the world - not all, I'm sure, but most.

By the way, if you think the US will have a bad time when the dollar collapses, wait 'til you see how all the countries riding our coat tails will fair....

[Coito ergo sum]

And, it's blamed on Rush Limbaugh....

"The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said today. "[Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arizona- ... d=12583285

"the kind of rhetoric" -- what kind? Examples?

"partial information - wrong information" - makes people kill?

"angers them against the government" - really? The government wouldn't have people angry at it if it wasn't for Limbaugh? Anger at the government's actions is wrong? Anger at the government is irresponsible?

"this kind of behavior" - he's not talking about behavior -he was talking about words.

"is not without consequences." - Sure - but, what consequences? Rush Limbaugh espousing conservative and idiotic political views causes Jared Loughler to murder Congresswoman Giffords?

What a flippin' joke...this Sheriff would love a nice "Sedition Act" to prevent people from engaging in vitriolic rhetoric expressing anger against the government.

[Atheist-Lite]

When the dollar collapses it'll be great to watch the fireworks from a safe distance. Talk about a fucked up country. It's gonna be a real carry on when it spirals over there.

Despite how fucked up it is, it's still generally better here than most other places around the world - not all, I'm sure, but most.

By the way, if you think the US will have a bad time when the dollar collapses, wait 'til you see how all the countries riding our coat tails will fair....

Unlike the thirties the US is a net drain on the global economy this time. After the shock of the big boy going down I figure the trade winds will re-adjust towards a more balanced trajectory.

[Coito ergo sum]

When the dollar collapses it'll be great to watch the fireworks from a safe distance. Talk about a fucked up country. It's gonna be a real carry on when it spirals over there.

Despite how fucked up it is, it's still generally better here than most other places around the world - not all, I'm sure, but most.

By the way, if you think the US will have a bad time when the dollar collapses, wait 'til you see how all the countries riding our coat tails will fair....

Unlike the thirties the US is a net drain on the global economy this time. After the shock of the big boy going down I figure the trade winds will re-adjust towards a more balanced trajectory.

Perhaps, but if you think those winds are going to blow toward Europe, you may have a rude awakening.

[Atheist-Lite]

When the dollar collapses it'll be great to watch the fireworks from a safe distance. Talk about a fucked up country. It's gonna be a real carry on when it spirals over there.

Despite how fucked up it is, it's still generally better here than most other places around the world - not all, I'm sure, but most.

By the way, if you think the US will have a bad time when the dollar collapses, wait 'til you see how all the countries riding our coat tails will fair....

Unlike the thirties the US is a net drain on the global economy this time. After the shock of the big boy going down I figure the trade winds will re-adjust towards a more balanced trajectory.

Perhaps, but if you think those winds are going to blow toward Europe, you may have a rude awakening.

Then it is good to have a road transport network from the oil rich middle east to europe that are safe from pirates after buzz lightyear(the US) runs out of batteries?

[mistermack]

It doesn't matter why he did it. He is mental !!!

[PsychoSerenity]

It doesn't matter why he did it. He is mental !!!

Does it matter why he is mental?