Dan

You see CYA from the sheriff, others see partisan rhetoric as the root of his comments. Maybe the guy's just incompetent. I honestly don't know what, if anything, motivates his actions or inaction. I think the concern is that if we "pre-emptively" lock people up or order them for counseling based upon patterns of behavior, we're on a slippery slope. I'm sure many would bring up the McCarthyism of the 50's. Who determines what behaviors are bad, what patterns warrant counseling, etc? Imagine the flack a congress person would get for proposing a bill that youtube accounts be reviewed for suspicious behavior?

I agree. Both sides share equally in the divisive nature of the political climate in this country. No, I'm not changing my point. I'm clarifying my point because you misinterpreted it. I would completely disagree with the bolded statement. Or are you suggesting that MSNBC is filled with quality programming? I do hope it settles down, because IMO all it's doing is making this country more divided than we've been in quite some time. And that's not good.

I can agree that there was a pattern there. But, the police can't arrest or commit someone based on a pattern of misdemeanors and odd behavior. It's no different than the husband that beats his wife, she gets a restraining order, and he eventually kills her. There's little the police can do. Yes he was convicted of beating her, lost his job, called her every night and called her names, even bought a gun. But, none of that means they can do anything. Of course, when he snaps and shoots her; we all knew it was coming. But, they can't put the guy in jail because he fits a pattern of a person that abuses his wife and then kills her. Perhaps this nut's mom had something to do with the sheriff not being more strict with the guy; I don't really know. But, there's also, legally, very little anyone could have done to stop this.

Actually my point has more to do with the amount of hateful discourse than the actual level of hate. Yes, there's hate-filled rhetoric, just as there always has been. But, what has happened (or so it seems) is it's become much, much more frequent and all intrusive.

Prior to his shooting rampage, what had he done to warrant a full investigation, let alone being committed? The police don't investigate every kid that gets in trouble with campus police. They certainly don't cruise the web looking at youtube accounts. They don't even investigate people that commit multiple misdemeanors like smoking pot. It's easy with hind sight to say this guy was troubled. But, how many people are walking the streets right now that behave similarly. There are lots of social outcasts running around taking drugs and spouting anti-government, anti-everything rhetoric. But, there's little anyone can do until they actually commit a serious enough crime to warrant an investigation.

Apparently you fail to realize that his cartoons are not germane to my point. Furthermore, you again assume that you're the only person that's familiar with his work. Do you always make so many wrong assumptions?

Actually, you only mentioned one other thing - he had run ins with Campus security and was suspended from college. That's not a whole bunch. I guess you did say there's "an additional stack of EVIDENCE" as well. I guess that counts as a bunch of things? Boy you got me there. You're right, the Sheriff needs to check up on all the youtube accounts of the college drop outs and lock any up that say some weird stuff.

I don't pretend that there as been NO hate-filled discord between the parties prior to the Clinton administration. I'm well aware that there's a long history of it in this country. Perhaps none as severe as the 20 years or so leading up to the Civil War. What I'm saying is that it seems, in the last 20 years, to have become much more prevalent, such that it's far more common to have people slinging mud than it is respectful disagreement. And are you seriously drawing a comparison to a Genesis video showing Reagan as a puppet and someone showing Bush with a noose around his neck or some of the imagery thrown at Obama? Come on. I'm not referring to Chevy Chase making fun of Ford tripping and falling down. I'm referring to a Congress so determined to undermine a presidency that they launch a 6 or 7 year , non stop investigation just to eventually prove the guy got a blow job. Huge difference.

Just because it's something I've long thought, but never really seen anyone else make such a claim. So, I've long wondered did things really start to go down hill in the 90's or did I just become aware of things in the 90's. I agree, I'm not referring to anything policy related; just the manner in which people talk about the policies. Each side's comments have become increasingly polarized, increasingly extreme, and increasingly bitter, IMO.

You're funny. I suppose everyone who's made a ranting youtube video should be committed? Must be a nice world in which you live.

I would suggest that you assume quite a bit. Interesting to see you say that. I've often said that the vitriolic rhetoric really escalated in the early Clinton years and has gone downhill since - getting worse with each successive administration. Of course, being the age I am, I didn't really pay too much attention to pilloried prior to the 90's. So I really couldn't say if that really is a turning point or if it's just an awareness point, on my part.

Ravens at Steelers is turning into a flag fest. Seems every other play is a penalty of sorts.

Time for new material.

So your stance is 2 wrongs make 1 right? So where does.. when does it ever end? I guess the notion that we should expect people to improve, to take the high road, to just be better is kinda out the window. Because the Bush bashers say they were justified because of all the Clinton bashing and in a few years the next guy bashers will say they're justifed because of all the current bashing. I know there will always be some level of discourse. But, does it have to come every day from every news station, outlet, blogger, pundit and politician that has a chance to speak? Really no need to answer, because I pretty well know the answer and any "discussion" we might have would be futile.

In the case of #1... thanks for being honest. In the case of #2... I'd have to agree with LABillzfan; there's far better and more important logs to throw on that fire. My guess is in 2 weeks this speech will be all but forgotten, let alone in 2 years. So, while on one hand I can agree with you it's nice to know the truth about all events; in the grand scheme of things, the truth behind this event will almost certainly matter very little.

Good points. Although I'd imagine it's more complex for at least a number of the owners.

OK... 2 questions: 1. The University has already said the WH had nothing to do with it. If the guy that made up the shirts comes out and says, "The design of the shirts was entirely my idea. I lobbied the school to let me distribute them. No one is to blame but me."; would you then state that Obama handled this event well and did a good job? 2. If the guy that made up the shirts comes out and says, "The design of the shirts was given to me by an unknown WH staffer. He also lobbied the school to let me distribute them."; would it change your current view of the Obama administration?

Interesting read. The article certainly paints the owners in a bad light. I agree with Fez. The $33million profit is undoubtedly skewed by a few clubs. So, if you assume the Packers are closer to the actual average, that's not a lot of money and I could easily see an owner wanting more money. A billion dollar business only making 10million profit almost seems impossible. Is that 1%? (I hate math). So, If you had a $1million dollar business, but at the end of the year you only made $10 grand; would it be worth it to run that business? Who knows where this goes...

So, if I tell people that we all need to work together to find the best solution; I'm a communist? Crap. I use words like "together" and "community" all the time. I suppose I've been converted and didn't even know it. Who's covering what up? I don't get it. The organizers of the memorial went a little over the top with shirts and letting students attend on a first come first serve basis. Disrespectful, perhaps; but you seem to be suggesting some nefarious plot to make us all communists. So what's there really to cover up? You think it was more of a political pep rally and hate Obama for it. I get it. But, how is that any different than any other event, speech, or action he's ever done?

So correct. How could I forget!

By all means... let's have a Congressional investigation and spend countless dollars and hours of time getting to the bottom of this deep seated conspiracy to distribute t-shirts with a positive message on them. Exactly what Marxist ideas were promoted on this unknown guy's blog? The idea that we should all work together to make this country a better place?

First of all, I doubt any of them went to an Ivy League school.

I suppose you're smart enough to find a link to a 2008 website, but University organizers aren't that swift? I guess I am stupid, because I never saw that website or heard that slogan until all this. Have you heard the President or the WH make a connection between the shooting and partisan political rhetoric? I haven't. All I've heard from the WH in response is just the opposite. In fact, when the President specifically states we should be engage in civil discourse and not look to blame anyone, you want to blame him or the WH for doing something bad? Like it or not, this event has gotten tied to the vitriol espoused in the political climate. Yes, initially by the Ds; but now by the Rs as well. So, should the President just ignore it all and pretend it doesn't exist? Or should he address it and say it doesn't belong and is inappropriate? I think he did more the later and I think it's right and justified. So, again, what could Obama have done that you would have felt was right? Ignore the issue all together? Give a short 3 minute speech that says I'm sorry for the whole world? What? IMO, HE handled the situation extremely well. Have other pundits? Did the University staff and students? Has the press? Those are all separate questions and entities outside of his control. Pretty well sums it up for me, as well. The only solace I can have is that maybe people in AZ celebrate at memorials. Hell, in Louisiana they have bands and drinks at funerals, so who am I to judge how people want to memorialize. I don't really think that's the case here; but I don't really know either. Similarly, I've read some people were upset about the native american prayer. Again, out west that stuff is quite common. I have no idea the motives behind why they went with a native american prayer and not a a christian prayer; but it's not the first time I've seen it. So, to each their own i guess.

This thread is a perfect example of how polarized we are. Nothing the President can do will ever be right for some. Let me pose this thought: Let's assume you're right and Obama has never asked for civil discourse between both parties or tried to incorporate R ideas into his policies; but now he is. Seems like he's trying.. and yet you still complain about it. Would you prefer he become even more partisan and continue to polarize every issue? Should he ever be allowed to ask us all to just get along? What could he have possibly said or done after this event that would have made you (or any of the detractors) happy? I'm genuinely curious. We can criticize the crowd at the memorial service all we want. But, the fact is, the University as readily admitted they were the people in charge of it. It was their students in attendance. It was their event to organize. The White House and certainly the President, by all accounts, had very little to do with the event. Was it a cheerful crowd - that's an understatement. But, how can you blame an individual for the type of crowd that shows up? Nothing, nothing in his speech was politically oriented or inappropriate. He did nothing to solicit the cheers. Yet he's blamed for them. Again, what could he have done? Fire his entire staff afterwards? Not shown up at all? Admonished the crowd with each cheer?

Maybe not