Citizen's home is raided because of a Facebook posting

[Jarlaxle]

It sure as hell looks like an M-16 to me, and I've seen a lot M-16's.

Frankly, they need to give the CPS a commendation for looking into this.

If you think that is an M-16, you need glasses,a shrink, or both.

Hmm...I wonder if my uncle still has that photo of him (age 12) holding a BAR...

Okay, whatever, guy. Admittably, I didn't study the picture like you fetishists did...

But here's the thing. That little loon goes and shoots up his classmates, people would get fired by the truckload for NOT following up, as well they should be.

Took about one half second to know it wasn't an M-16...then again, I keep forgetting that you just aren't too smart.

 

[Pete7469]

I would follow Hitler? What evidence do you have that I have aver agreed with anything Hitler has said? I get accused all the time of being an anarchist, yet I am suddenly a follower of a big government blowhard?

You want to know who supported Hitler in the US? Margaret Sanger. What else is she known for? Planned Parenthood.

Want tot ell me again how people like you wouldn't like Hitler?

Joe Kennedy was a big hitler fan too, go figure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am VERY familiar with Altemeyer and the authoritarian personality. You best be careful with that kind of knowledge, because what Prof. Robert Altemeyer found in his studies is a small, maybe 1% of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

This is not opinion, Altemeyer has tested literally tens of thousands of first-year college students and their parents, along with others, including some fifteen hundred American state legislators, over the course of some three decades. He has tested in the South and North of the United States. There is no database on authoritarians that even comes close in its scope to that which he has created, and, more importantly, these studies are empirical data, not partisan speculation.

That is pure bullshit.

No it isn't. Read Jonathan Haidt's excellent book,

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

In case it matters to you, the book is highly recommended by Mary Matalin.

Wow, a book, that proves it ain't bullshit.

I guess that makes this not bullshit too.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/History-Wrong-Erich-Von-Daniken/dp/1601630867/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364337420&sr=1-5]History Is Wrong: Erich Von Daniken, Nicholas Quaintmere: 9781601630865: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am VERY familiar with Altemeyer and the authoritarian personality. You best be careful with that kind of knowledge, because what Prof. Robert Altemeyer found in his studies is a small, maybe 1% of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

This is not opinion, Altemeyer has tested literally tens of thousands of first-year college students and their parents, along with others, including some fifteen hundred American state legislators, over the course of some three decades. He has tested in the South and North of the United States. There is no database on authoritarians that even comes close in its scope to that which he has created, and, more importantly, these studies are empirical data, not partisan speculation.

That is pure bullshit.

So convincing, backed up with documentation and footnotes...LOL

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Let's see, you start with the premise that authoritarians are right wing, and then document all the right wing authoritarians you find, and that proves you are right because, well, you don't find any left wing authoritarians.

No, for it to not be bullshit, you should be able to show all the peer reviews that support his findings, and the scholarly studies that expand on his work to show that he hit the nail on the head.

On the other hand, all I have to do to prove he is wrong is find a single example of an authoritarian who is not right wing. or, perhaps, a single study that contradicts his conclusion that, wile not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.

Care to see which one of us would actually win that contest?

Spoiler alert, it would be me.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2029435

 

[Bfgrn]

I would follow Hitler? What evidence do you have that I have aver agreed with anything Hitler has said? I get accused all the time of being an anarchist, yet I am suddenly a follower of a big government blowhard?

You want to know who supported Hitler in the US? Margaret Sanger. What else is she known for? Planned Parenthood.

Want tot ell me again how people like you wouldn't like Hitler?

Joe Kennedy was a big hitler fan too, go figure.

Support for Hitler (or Fascism) in the United States

THE AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE
A roll-call of the most powerful American capitalists, including J.P. Morgan, the DuPonts, Andrew Mellon, the Rockefellers, E.F. Hutton, and Joseph Pew of Sunoco.

THE AMERICAN LEGION
In 1922, before the Fascists had even taken control in Italy, Colonel Alvin Owsley, then the Commander of the Legion, declared that the Legion was poised to fight "Soviets, anarchists, I.W.W.'s, revolutionary socialists and every other 'red'." Owsley invited Mussolini to speak at almost every yearly convention of the Legion. "Do not forget," he said, "that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States."

THE AMERICA FIRST COMMITTEE
The America First Committee was a different animal than the German American Bund or the homegrown Fascists, and they were far more powerful. These were Americans from many different backgrounds who shared a desire to end the war with Germany and Japan, but not out of any pacifist streak. The most prominent member to us today would be Colonel Charles Lindbergh, an internationally known figure due to his solo flight from New York to Paris in 1927. Along with Lindbergh, other prominent members of the Committee included: World War I air ace Eddie Rickenbacker, industrialist Henry Ford, Thomas McCarter, the Director of Chase National Bank, Robert Wood, Chairman of Sears Roebuck, Douglas Stuart, a member of the Quaker Oats family and owner of the Fascist publication Scribner's Commentary, and even Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Teddy Roosevelt's socialite daughter and a distant cousin of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

[Mustang]

[

The NRA is actually responding in opposition to "republicans" like you. They used be refered to as "Negotiate Rights Away". They learned their lessons from the growth of groups such as Gun Owners of America that aren't willing to "compromise" with statists and sacrifice rights for political expediency.

Thank God your ideas are being marginalized. Why don't you just admit you're a democrat? If it wasn't for spineless republicrats like you the likes of McCain wouldn't have had the chance to loose against the moonbat messiah. We'd be looking at the second term of Fred Thompson.

.

Yeah. Fred Thompson. that idiot!

Hey, how'd that work out? Oh, yeah, that's right. When Dick Wolf wasn't writing dialog for him, he wasn't half as impressive.

I guess the problem is, I don't see keeping guns out of the hands of a guy like Adam Lanza or Joker Holmes as being a Comprimise of "Rights". I see it as just common fuckin' sense. I don't want those guys wandering the streets with military grade weapons and I'm not sure why you do.

Have you ever wondered how someone like Hitler was able to carry out his murderous ways? He had to have a very large group of followers who would kill without conscience. Well, meet people like Pete, M14, Quantum, 2nd amend etc. They would be the ones who follow a Hitler. Not liberals.

This is probably as good a place to make a point about conservative evangelical Christians whose politics and social conservatism put them firmly on the right of the political spectrum. As much as these people may criticize Islam (and Muslims, in general), if they were born in a Islamic fundamentalist country like Saudi Arabia, they would be among the MOST devout followers of Islam. I don't say that to be provocative although I'm sure people will be angered by that statement, and they'll see the statement as intentionally provocative. It's just that conservative authoritarian type personalities who are also religious tend to gravitate to organizations where a very strong leader takes charge, and, as authoritarian personalities, they naturally have an inclination to follow their leaders on issues of orthodoxy without seriously questioning the validity of the leaders' statements on what represents the "true path" to salvation.

 

[Mustang]

That is pure bullshit.

No it isn't. Read Jonathan Haidt's excellent book,

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

In case it matters to you, the book is highly recommended by Mary Matalin.

Wow, a book, that proves it ain't bullshit.

I guess that makes this not bullshit too.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/History-Wrong-Erich-Von-Daniken/dp/1601630867/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364337420&sr=1-5"]History Is Wrong: Erich Von Daniken, Nicholas Quaintmere: 9781601630865: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Is this what passes for enlightenment in your world? You find a book that's clearly based on rampant speculation which is wholly unproven and undocumented in any meaningful way, and that book (or others like possibly Hal Lindsey's, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and you use the publication of that (or those) book(s) to discredit any book ever written if you don't like the conclusions of those books regardless of the how carefully the research and documentation supports the conclusions of the authors of those books?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it isn't. Read Jonathan Haidt's excellent book,

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

In case it matters to you, the book is highly recommended by Mary Matalin.

Wow, a book, that proves it ain't bullshit.

I guess that makes this not bullshit too.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/History-Wrong-Erich-Von-Daniken/dp/1601630867/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364337420&sr=1-5"]History Is Wrong: Erich Von Daniken, Nicholas Quaintmere: 9781601630865: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Is this what passes for enlightenment in your world? You find a book that's clearly based on rampant speculation which is wholly unproven and undocumented in any meaningful way, and that book (or others like possibly Hal Lindsey's, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and you use the publication of that (or those) book(s) to discredit any book ever written if you don't like the conclusions of those books regardless of the how carefully the research and documentation supports the conclusions of the authors of those books?

You tried to back up bullshit with a bullshit book, I sneered.

What was your point? I am willing to give you the same chance I just gave the other idiot posting this bullshit to prove that all authoritarians are conservative right wingers, just keep in mind that I actually have a study to back up my position that it is bullshit, and all I need is one example to prove it wrong.

 

[Mustang]

Wow, a book, that proves it ain't bullshit.

I guess that makes this not bullshit too.

History Is Wrong: Erich Von Daniken, Nicholas Quaintmere: 9781601630865: Amazon.com: Books

Is this what passes for enlightenment in your world? You find a book that's clearly based on rampant speculation which is wholly unproven and undocumented in any meaningful way, and that book (or others like possibly Hal Lindsey's, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and you use the publication of that (or those) book(s) to discredit any book ever written if you don't like the conclusions of those books regardless of the how carefully the research and documentation supports the conclusions of the authors of those books?

You tried to back up bullshit with a bullshit book, I sneered.

What was your point? I am willing to give you the same chance I just gave the other idiot posting this bullshit to prove that all authoritarians are conservative right wingers, just keep in mind that I actually have a study to back up my position that it is bullshit, and all I need is one example to prove it wrong.

Well, first of all, I certainly wouldn't put Von Däniken in the same intellectual category as Haidt unless you think that a work of pure speculation is somehow fundamentally equivalent to careful scientific research which ends up producing a theory which is supported BY the research.

It MAY interest you to know that Haidt's book states quite clearly that he believes that American conservatives have an electoral advantage over liberals in most elections because conservatives' moral foundations (versus liberals' moral foundations) are more equally divided between the six moral foundations listed below.

Perhaps you should read a little bit about it before you summarily dismiss it?

Moral Foundations Theory

Haidt is best known for what he dubs "Moral Foundations Theory", which has been reported in publications such as The Atlantic,[7] Boston Globe,[8] and The Huffington Post.[9] It is the basis of his first TED talk.[10]
Moral Foundations Theory considers the way morality varies between cultures and identifies five (later revised to six) "foundations" that underlie morality in all societies and individuals. He names them using pairs of opposites to indicate that they provide continua along which judgments can be measured.[11] These are:

1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
2. Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions, giving them their "just desserts".[12][13] (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.)
3. Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
4. Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
5. Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
6. Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

Haidt found that the more politically liberal or left-wing people are, the more they tend to value care and fairness (proportionality), and the less they tend to value loyalty, respect for authority and purity. Conservatives or right-wing people, tend to value all the moral foundations somewhat equally. Similar results were found across the political spectrum in other countries.[14]
Haidt has also described the liberal emphasis on care as "one foundation morality", contrasting with the conservative moral balance.[3][15]

Or do you find that objectionable?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is this what passes for enlightenment in your world? You find a book that's clearly based on rampant speculation which is wholly unproven and undocumented in any meaningful way, and that book (or others like possibly Hal Lindsey's, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and you use the publication of that (or those) book(s) to discredit any book ever written if you don't like the conclusions of those books regardless of the how carefully the research and documentation supports the conclusions of the authors of those books?

You tried to back up bullshit with a bullshit book, I sneered.

What was your point? I am willing to give you the same chance I just gave the other idiot posting this bullshit to prove that all authoritarians are conservative right wingers, just keep in mind that I actually have a study to back up my position that it is bullshit, and all I need is one example to prove it wrong.

Well, first of all, I certainly wouldn't put Von Däniken in the same intellectual category as Haidt unless you think that a work of pure speculation is somehow fundamentally equivalent to careful scientific research which ends up producing a theory which is supported BY the research.

It MAY interest you to know that Haidt's book states quite clearly that he believes that American conservatives have an electoral advantage over liberals in most elections because conservatives' moral foundations (versus liberals' moral foundations) are more equally divided between the six moral foundations listed below.

Perhaps you should read a little bit about it before you summarily dismiss it?

Moral Foundations Theory

Haidt is best known for what he dubs "Moral Foundations Theory", which has been reported in publications such as The Atlantic,[7] Boston Globe,[8] and The Huffington Post.[9] It is the basis of his first TED talk.[10]
Moral Foundations Theory considers the way morality varies between cultures and identifies five (later revised to six) "foundations" that underlie morality in all societies and individuals. He names them using pairs of opposites to indicate that they provide continua along which judgments can be measured.[11] These are:

1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
2. Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions, giving them their "just desserts".[12][13] (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.)
3. Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
4. Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
5. Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
6. Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

Haidt found that the more politically liberal or left-wing people are, the more they tend to value care and fairness (proportionality), and the less they tend to value loyalty, respect for authority and purity. Conservatives or right-wing people, tend to value all the moral foundations somewhat equally. Similar results were found across the political spectrum in other countries.[14]
Haidt has also described the liberal emphasis on care as "one foundation morality", contrasting with the conservative moral balance.[3][15]

Or do you find that objectionable?

Here is what I say is complete bullshit.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.

I wouldn't put anyone that supports that bullshit nearly as high as I do Daniken, and I hold Daniken in utter contempt.

If Haidt agrees with that statement he is not worth my time. If he doesn't, why the fuck are you using him to defend it?

 

[Mustang]

You tried to back up bullshit with a bullshit book, I sneered.

What was your point? I am willing to give you the same chance I just gave the other idiot posting this bullshit to prove that all authoritarians are conservative right wingers, just keep in mind that I actually have a study to back up my position that it is bullshit, and all I need is one example to prove it wrong.

Well, first of all, I certainly wouldn't put Von Däniken in the same intellectual category as Haidt unless you think that a work of pure speculation is somehow fundamentally equivalent to careful scientific research which ends up producing a theory which is supported BY the research.

It MAY interest you to know that Haidt's book states quite clearly that he believes that American conservatives have an electoral advantage over liberals in most elections because conservatives' moral foundations (versus liberals' moral foundations) are more equally divided between the six moral foundations listed below.

Perhaps you should read a little bit about it before you summarily dismiss it?

Or do you find that objectionable?

Here is what I say is complete bullshit.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.

I wouldn't put anyone that supports that bullshit nearly as high as I do Daniken, and I hold Daniken in utter contempt.

If Haidt agrees with that statement he is not worth my time. If he doesn't, why the fuck are you using him to defend it?

I didn't write that sentence. And frankly, I generally stay away from absolutes in my writing if for no other reason than it only takes ONE exception to make an absolute statement invalid.

However, if someone doing research on human behavior finds an extremely high percentage of one kind of behavior or belief in one personality type and how it corresponds to his social/political views, that's a significant finding. And any kind of research that measures human behavior, and/or beliefs and how a particular personality type relates to the world around him (or her) can't just summarily be dismissed as not being a relevant finding if different studies conducted by different people at different times discover similar findings across cultures.

With that said, I think it's generally accepted at this point that authoritarian type personalities are overwhelmingly conservative-leaning in their politics. And from what I've read of Haidt, I don't believe his research (at least not the ones I've read about) started out trying to prove that. He reached those conclusions based on his research. This is fairly recent research in the field of psychology since his book was only published last year.

 

[Bfgrn]

You tried to back up bullshit with a bullshit book, I sneered.

What was your point? I am willing to give you the same chance I just gave the other idiot posting this bullshit to prove that all authoritarians are conservative right wingers, just keep in mind that I actually have a study to back up my position that it is bullshit, and all I need is one example to prove it wrong.

Well, first of all, I certainly wouldn't put Von Däniken in the same intellectual category as Haidt unless you think that a work of pure speculation is somehow fundamentally equivalent to careful scientific research which ends up producing a theory which is supported BY the research.

It MAY interest you to know that Haidt's book states quite clearly that he believes that American conservatives have an electoral advantage over liberals in most elections because conservatives' moral foundations (versus liberals' moral foundations) are more equally divided between the six moral foundations listed below.

Perhaps you should read a little bit about it before you summarily dismiss it?

Or do you find that objectionable?

Here is what I say is complete bullshit.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.

I wouldn't put anyone that supports that bullshit nearly as high as I do Daniken, and I hold Daniken in utter contempt.

If Haidt agrees with that statement he is not worth my time. If he doesn't, why the fuck are you using him to defend it?

Professor Altemeyer is not stating an opinion. It was information he and others drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where the subjects conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it was conservatives by their answers that proved conservatives and not liberals were the authoritarian personalities.

 

[hortysir]

No one's home was 'raided'.

Sorry, Gramps, but Politico is right.

****** From Ernie's link:
Moore said he asked the investigators and police officers whether they had a warrant to search his home. When they said no, he asked them to leave. One of the child welfare officials would not identify herself when Moore asked for her name, he said. The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, it was a long time ago... but to the point, most of the population doesn't need guns. If they want guns, the rest of us are entitled to an assurance that you aren't a crazy person.

Seems reasonable to me.

There are no assurances in life. We just had a cop lose his mind and go on a murderspree until they roasted his ass in a mountain cabin.

It seems reasonable to me that people are responsible for their own security among other things, and not dependent on the state.

Actually, no.

A regular citizen with a gun vs. a psycho with a gun, the psycho almost always wins. Period.

 

[Pete7469]

Actually, it was a long time ago... but to the point, most of the population doesn't need guns. If they want guns, the rest of us are entitled to an assurance that you aren't a crazy person.

Seems reasonable to me.

There are no assurances in life. We just had a cop lose his mind and go on a murderspree until they roasted his ass in a mountain cabin.

It seems reasonable to me that people are responsible for their own security among other things, and not dependent on the state.

Actually, no.

A regular citizen with a gun vs. a psycho with a gun, the psycho almost always wins. Period.

Got any evidence of that? Most of the stats I've seen make the conclusion more crimes are prevented by private gun ownership.

The bottom line is, the psyco will still have the gun, and even if your bullshit statement were true, I'd rather have the regular citizen given the chance of winning.

"People" like you would give them NO CHANCE.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Actually, no.

A regular citizen with a gun vs. a psycho with a gun, the psycho almost always wins. Period.

Got any evidence of that? Most of the stats I've seen make the conclusion more crimes are prevented by private gun ownership.

The bottom line is, the psyco will still have the gun, and even if your bullshit statement were true, I'd rather have the regular citizen given the chance of winning.

"People" like you would give them NO CHANCE.

Yeah, I do.

11,101 gun murders a year. of those, only 201 are ruled "justifiable homicides.

Not to mention 19,000 sucides.

Probably just better to get as many guns out of the equation as possible, and leave it at that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There are no assurances in life. We just had a cop lose his mind and go on a murderspree until they roasted his ass in a mountain cabin.

It seems reasonable to me that people are responsible for their own security among other things, and not dependent on the state.

Actually, no.

A regular citizen with a gun vs. a psycho with a gun, the psycho almost always wins. Period.

Got any evidence of that? Most of the stats I've seen make the conclusion more crimes are prevented by private gun ownership.

The bottom line is, the psyco will still have the gun, and even if your bullshit statement were true, I'd rather have the regular citizen given the chance of winning.

"People" like you would give them NO CHANCE.

Joey doesn't do "evidence". He just flames and trolls like the 12-year old I am beginning to believe he is.

 

[bodecea]

So...any arrests yet? Any guns taken away yet?

 

[Mustang]

So...any arrests yet? Any guns taken away yet?

My guess would be no.

But wait. Don't be surprised if you see a lawsuit on the horizon seeking damages in the millions of dollars if for no other reason than the hope of a quick out of court settlement with a nondisclosure agreement tacked on for good measure.

Ah, yes. People and their principles.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Blog: Police raid man's home over Facebook photo of son with rifle
...

We have all heard the stories of crazed shooters who go on rampages after having posted their intentions on social media sites

Thank gawd police are doing their job ""Brown said their role is not to go out and search Facebook for photos of children holding weapons. "In general our role is to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect," she said."