Correction; repeatedly piss off the heavily armed and unstable constituents.

"Every now and then we get an angry constituent in that reminds us everyone's not happy in the world," City Clerk Julie Jordan added.

What world does she live in?

Charles Thornton is my new hero.

hahah, that's pretty brilliant

Wow, a government that actually fears the power of the people? I don't agree with the way that particular citizen handled his grievance, but at least he woke somebody up.

Pardon me while I armor my bulldozer.

oh, yeah that makes sense.
why would we want to keep our fellow citizens safe?
if not to ensure that every nutcase that comes in the door has an opportunity to go bananas and shoot everyone.

Strange tag? Well, I guess it is pretty strange to actually have a politician who realizes the true answer to terroristic acts. Maybe if we didn't piss of the Arabs, we wouldn't have had 9/11. I'm not saying we need to cater to their every whim, just like the city council in the story shouldn't do exactly as they're told every time. I'm just saying that when you negatively impact someone's life, they might try to negatively impact yours or the lives of those close to you.

Solution? The councilman had it right. Maybe our national leaders should look to this as policy.

ScubaDude1960 2008-02-17 03:10:37 PM
Charles Thornton is my new hero.


Yeah, Cookie Thornton, a guy who refused to follow the same city ordinances that everyone else has to follow. Refuses to pay his fines for breaking said violations and instead decides to murder innocent people.

Your hero?

You're an asshole.

Why was the STRANGE tag used here and not OBVIOUS?

HERO tag for the quoted councilman.

ox45tallboy 2008-02-17 04:01:01 PM
Strange tag? Well, I guess it is pretty strange to actually have a politician who realizes the true answer to terroristic acts.


Ahhh, so that *is* the way to put an end to abortions or other instances where people don't get their way. Violence right?

That's what YOU said.

((....waiting breathlessly for the " wait, that's not what I meant " nonsense ))

This only works with normal people. Get a real nutter around, insisting that the city council stop spying on him, and suddenly decent security measures means he stabs you outside the building.

And you don't want to piss off armed former city security employees, especially.

IM IN UR TOWN HALL
FLATTENIN UR SECURITY

/Maybe there's something to this idea of not pissing off your constituents

Do they really think that additional security is going to help someone that they have really pissed off? It's going to be about as effective as today's airport security.

The 9/11 hijackers, if we believe the tale that the current administration has given us, used boxcutters to take over the airplanes. Many commercially available boxcutters today have a plastic sheathing, with a tiny blade that could easily be hidden behind a belt buckle or Ipod.

The main thing keeping airlines safe right now is that there will never again be a plane full of Americans who submit to the will of hijackers, no matter what kind of weapons they have. "Terrorists" could sneak a freakin' Uzi on board and Americans would not submit.

But the point I think is most valid in regards to the headline is that we need to look at why people want to hurt us. Are we really messing up their lives so bad that they feel the need to take ours? To be honest, some people are just screwed up.

Take the guy who shot up the council meeting in the article. Would you believe it was over parking tickets (new window)?

But what happens when we retaliate by imprisoning him, setting fines so high that it bankrupts his family, keeping him out of work, and putting his wife and kids on the street? Have we solved the problem? Maybe, but we've created a new social problem in its wake, as well as the additional social cost of tighter security.

I guess what I mean is that our leaders need to be more responsible not just to those who elected them, but to those whose lives they affect. Not necessarily to the death as Mr. Thorton believed, but maybe they should be more aware of how their decisions affect other people, and sometimes those people may want to take revenge on them.

IM IN UR TOWN HALL
FLATTENIN UR SECURITY

/Maybe there's something to this idea of not pissing off your constituents

ox45tallboy: But the point I think is most valid in regards to the headline is that we need to look at why people want to hurt us. Are we really messing up their lives so bad that they feel the need to take ours? To be honest, some people are just screwed up.

People don't like that idea. If you mention it, you love terrorists and "Blame America First(TM)!"

libbynomore2: Ahhh, so that *is* the way to put an end to abortions or other instances where people don't get their way. Violence right?

That's what YOU said.


*sigh.*

It seems rather silly to quote someone and then say that they said something they didn't. Violence is rarely the answer to life's problems, but one should not be surprised when someone resorts to it after everything they have to live for is gone. Instead of thinking about religious nutjobs bombing abortion clinics, think about a retiree whose lifelong home was taken away through Eminent Domain, or a father whose health insurance provider won't pay for his son's lifesaving operation. In their positions, would you resort to violence? Actions of those in authority have negatively affected your life in a personal way, and you have no recourse.

When you tell someone, "Sorry, dude, you didn't do anything wrong, but I'm taking everything you ever lived for because I think we'll be better off financially," don't be surprised if this person has a negative response to this, and if this negative response manifests itself in a violent manner.

Think before you post.

/just sayin'

Firetini: "Every now and then we get an angry constituent in that reminds us everyone's not happy in the world," City Clerk Julie Jordan added.

What world does she live in?

When she walks through a storm, she should hold her head up high
and not be afraid of the dark....

if you want to avoid pissing off anyone, you'll never do anything.

Bucky Katt: if you want to avoid pissing off anyone, you'll never do anything.


I'll grant you that, but we're talking about pissing someone off and screwing with their business to the point they go off the deep end. Imagine what you would go through psychologically if you had a cop following you around all the time, and if you did something wrong (such as park somewhere the cop felt that you weren't supposed to) the cop would write you a ticket, or, if you were outside of his jurisdiction, he would call local law enforcement to come write you a ticket. Although this a bit of an exaggeration of the actual events that led to this tragedy, this is pretty much what the guy felt was going on.

That wouldn't mess with your head?

one thing for sure, no amount of arbitrary killing will ever too far for some farkers.

so much hate...so little time to spread it around, it seems.

m2thek: one thing for sure, no amount of arbitrary killing will ever too far for some farkers.

so much hate...so little time to spread it around, it seems.

I don't think you get it. It's not about hate, it's about despair. The victim can be seen crying on TV later, saying, "How could he do this? I have a family!" and everyone sympathizes, never realizing that the perp did it because the victim voted to take away his livelihood, causing his house to be forclosed, or he made some phone calls to have the police harass the guy to the point he became mentally unstable.

Despair is not hate; it's an expression of, "you don't give to shiats about me and what I've worked for all my life, why should I care about you?"

Ugh ... This again ... I'm a few miles from Kirkwood and have heard enough about this. I went to a Blues game a week ago and when they called for a moment of silence, I did not stand. Had this guy gone and killed a family of four in some residential neighborhood it would have been on the news for two nights tops and we would have moved on. But, take out a cop and some city politicians and we can't seem to get over.

Government afraid of it's constituents? Damn right ... That's the way it should be.

Strange? This guy deserves the "Hero" tag.

What is strange is when the neocons murder and kill innocents they are called heroes. Get over yourselves, government sucks. Never has and never will be by the people or for the people. Governments are always against the people.

Example.....See what your Constituitional rights are today.
Compare them to what they were in 1949.........

What do you expect when the government allows a developer to take over a piece of land because it will get more in taxes from it being a business than being a private residence. Thanks, US Supreme Waste of Time Court. That has set a horrible precedent.

I came for the Killdozer and was not disappointed.

Anyone can stand up to City Hall with a gym bag full of guns and ammo, and be called a crazy dumbass. It takes a real genius to build an almost invincible machine and destroy City Hall without hurting anyone.

/window seat please

Yeah, let's just not do anything because it might piss someone off. I don't think words can fully articulate how retarded that statement is.

You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

geosprint: What is strange is when the neocons murder and kill innocents they are called heroes. Get over yourselves, government sucks. Never has and never will be by the people or for the people. Governments are always against the people.

Example.....See what your Constituitional rights are today.
Compare them to what they were in 1949.........

You might want to look at that yourself. In the U.S. constitutional rights have expanded a great deal since its inception and have continued to expand especially since the '40s (the red scare, internment camps, etc.). While not everything is perfect, it's far from what it was even in light of domestic spying and Guantanamo Bay.

ox45tallboy: Do they really think that additional security is going to help someone that they have really pissed off? It's going to be about as effective as today's airport security.

The 9/11 hijackers, if we believe the tale that the current administration has given us, used boxcutters to take over the airplanes. Many commercially available boxcutters today have a plastic sheathing, with a tiny blade that could easily be hidden behind a belt buckle or Ipod.

The main thing keeping airlines safe right now is that there will never again be a plane full of Americans who submit to the will of hijackers, no matter what kind of weapons they have. "Terrorists" could sneak a freakin' Uzi on board and Americans would not submit.

But the point I think is most valid in regards to the headline is that we need to look at why people want to hurt us. Are we really messing up their lives so bad that they feel the need to take ours? To be honest, some people are just screwed up.

Take the guy who shot up the council meeting in the article. Would you believe it was over parking tickets (new window)?

But what happens when we retaliate by imprisoning him, setting fines so high that it bankrupts his family, keeping him out of work, and putting his wife and kids on the street? Have we solved the problem? Maybe, but we've created a new social problem in its wake, as well as the additional social cost of tighter security.

I guess what I mean is that our leaders need to be more responsible not just to those who elected them, but to those whose lives they affect. Not necessarily to the death as Mr. Thorton believed, but maybe they should be more aware of how their decisions affect other people, and sometimes those people may want to take revenge on them.

I can't believe people actually use Thorton as a positive example. His case is far from an example of the poor downtrodden man. He knew what he was doing was illegal, he blocked and potentially damaged neighborhood roads (notice none of his neighbors have spoken out in favor of him). He wanted to have and use public resources only for himself, which is illegal. It was pointed out to him numerous times and he was fairly ticketed it for it. Instead of intelligently debating it or trying to do something about it, he came to meetings to spout gibberish and make mule sounds. He was a moron and deserved every farking ticket he got.

Of course this Fark, for all of the "OH NOEZ" government types it seems none of you have much faith in your beliefs considering none of you have severed the social contract and gone to live off the grid (and let's not pussyfoot around, there are many places in the world you could move to and accomplish the act).

No matter what you do, you'll always piss someone off.
Sometimes you just have to do whats best for the majority, not the individual.

/Works as a Surveyor for Local Council.
//Had people yell at me for laying new Water Supply lines
///Suggested that he use the fact that he never showered as an excuse to not need the pipe
////Didn't go down well with the boys upstairs.