Sen. Creigh Deeds stabbed, son shot

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/20/politics/virginia-politician-attack/

Article says Creigh was stabbed about 10 times and son shot himself with a rifle.

davidmcbeth said:

With a rifle? Story keeps on changing? --snipped--.

Click to expand...

What doesn't change is your way of speculating on information not confirmed and making innuendos not in good taste.

Grapeshot said:

What doesn't change is your way of speculating on information not confirmed and making innuendos not in good taste.

Click to expand...

Grape, this guy is not a friend of our RKBA ... just close the thread if you wish to defend his actions and not allow discussion.

peter nap said:

He talked pro and voted anti....every once in a while he would cross a line.

He was much like Lori Haas. Lori always claims to be pro gun, she and her husband own guns....but she believes in tight regulation.

Deeds talked a little more pro than she does. You can't represent a place like Bath and be blatantly anti.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Call for better response to mental health crisis.

http://www.nbc12.com/story/24026779/therapists-acknowledge-need-for-better-mental-health-care

Grapeshot said:

SNIP I wish no man ill will, especially under the circumstances as depicted on the news. This is a day that no member of his family will ever forget. It is said that Sen. Deeds loved his son very much. By any account it is a tragedy.

To paraphrase Thumper from Bambi, "If you can't say sumthin nice, put a sock in it."

Click to expand...

Strawman argument.

McBeth did not wish Deeds ill. He balked at going so far as to pray for him. There's a difference. One could wish him well. Have no wish for him one way or another. Or, wish him ill. McBeth was unwilling to wish him well, which is not at all the same as wishing him ill.

I think some here are letting their PCness, such as it is, get it the way.

Separately, there is no reason why a situation can't be both tragic and worth celebrating when it happens to an enemy of freedom. For example, some might say its tragic that the younger Tsarnaev brother got sucked into his older brother's extremism and was nearly killed for it, while also celebrating that he was caught, swiss-cheesed, and will be on trial for his life.

Automatic sympathy noises for Deeds are worse than McBeth's speculation. At least he's thinking rather than just automatically applying some social convention that says a person ought make polite sounds when something bad happens to another.

Personally, if Deeds is an enemy of freedom I would feel entirely justified in actively hoping he doesn't recover. And, I dare any man to take me to task by saying I should actually hope for the recovery of an enemy who would then continue to reduce my freedom and the freedom of my fellow Virginians, taxing away more of our produce, saddling us with more government. I'd be fine if he recovered and stopped being an enemy of freedom, but since that doesn't happen all that often, I would wish for the former.

davidmcbeth said:

Grape, this guy is not a friend of our RKBA ... just close the thread if you wish to defend his actions and not allow discussion.

Click to expand...

There is a time and place to discuss most things. Right now is neither when the man has just lost his son and he still remains hospitalized.

Discussion? Not allow? You mean like suggesting that maybe there were other crimes afoot or that there could have been better results with a different horrific outcome?

No, I won't close the thread unless it goes into those areas, but I will delete or edit those remarks that are entirely inappropriate. Any questions?

Grapeshot said:

SNIP No, I won't close the thread unless it goes into those areas, but I will delete or edit those remarks that are entirely inappropriate. Any questions?

Click to expand...

Yeah. I got a question. Which forum rule covers "entirely inappropriate remarks"? Which rule covers "when a man has just lost his son?"

Is that the rule where the moderator makes it up as he goes along?

Citizen said:

Yeah. I got a question. Which forum rule covers "entirely inappropriate remarks"? Which rule covers "when a man has just lost his son?"

Is that the rule where the moderator makes it up as he goes along?

Click to expand...

Gee your sharp tonight, not too far off base either. Suggest your read rule #2.......sure hope I got that right.

Grapeshot said:

Gee your sharp tonight, not too far off base either. Suggest your read rule #2.......sure hope I got that right.

Click to expand...

So, how exactly is your deletion threat supposed to work when the receiver can't know what you are going to consider inappropriate?

You undermined the effectiveness of your own threat!!

Why don't you just say, "I'm going to apply my own version of PC and just delete whatever I feel like without warning. You'll know it was inappropriate when it disappears."? Oh. Because there wouldn't be any point in making a threat. Can't vent frustration doing it that way, can you?

Citizen said:

Yeah. I got a question. Which forum rule covers "entirely inappropriate remarks"? Which rule covers "when a man has just lost his son?"

Click to expand...

A lot of fine people in Lexington and Warm/Hot Springs, Goshen and Staunton that personally know Deeds and family could probably ask if you had kids or relatives that had mental problems - check out those shoes, or try on some other ones just as troubling - alcoholism, drugs, etc. Just about all of the voters in his district I have met are pro-2A, but somehow this guy carried their district - there is more than one dimension to a person. I think I'm on pretty firm ground that all of voters I know in his district would agree that teachings of Christ even instruct you to pray for your enemies, let alone a family dealing with an illness that is invisible to the eyes and something modern medicine really just tweaks on the margins but doesn't have a clue on how to cure.

When Deeds gets back to politics, join the fight then about convincing him of the errors of his ways, and I'm sure he'll take into consideration how you treated him and his family when they had a tragedy. That could energize him to fight against you till his last breath, or to perhaps reflect on how you might have some valid points as it relates to life outside of the liberal-infested cities.

Since this is the VA subthread, go all the way back to Patrick Henry's wife to start discussion on how much progress Virginia has made in treating mental illness in 230 years.

Citizen said:

So, how exactly is your deletion threat supposed to work when the receiver can't know what you are going to consider inappropriate?

You undermined the effectiveness of your own threat!!

Why don't you just say, "I'm going to apply my own version of PC and just delete whatever I feel like without warning. You'll know it was inappropriate when it disappears."? Oh. Because there wouldn't be any point in making a threat. Can't vent frustration doing it that way, can you?

Click to expand...

Presumes a certain level of intellect doesn't it.

Also a modicum of desire to be self-moderating and responsible. I know, I know, strange words not defined in the written rules clearly enough for some.

Any frustration would appear to be in your lack of control over site rules, calls and explanations. I have no such problem - sleep well also.

Meanwhile back on topic if you please.

HPmatt said:

A lot of fine people in Lexington and Warm/Hot Springs, Goshen and Staunton that personally know Deeds and family could probably ask if you had kids or relatives that had mental problems - check out those shoes, or try on some other ones just as troubling - alcoholism, drugs, etc. Just about all of the voters in his district I have met are pro-2A, but somehow this guy carried their district - there is more than one dimension to a person. I think I'm on pretty firm ground that all of voters I know in his district would agree that teachings of Christ even instruct you to pray for your enemies, let alone a family dealing with an illness that is invisible to the eyes and something modern medicine really just tweaks on the margins but doesn't have a clue on how to cure.

When Deeds gets back to politics, join the fight then about convincing him of the errors of his ways, and I'm sure he'll take into consideration how you treated him and his family when they had a tragedy. That could energize him to fight against you till his last breath, or to perhaps reflect on how you might have some valid points as it relates to life outside of the liberal-infested cities.

Since this is the VA subthread, go all the way back to Patrick Henry's wife to start discussion on how much progress Virginia has made in treating mental illness in 230 years.

Click to expand...

OK.

So, what I get from your post (in no particular order) is that I'm supposed be sympathetic to my enemies just because they have problems in life. (Nevermind the problems they create for me.) I'm supposed to apply Christian principles. And, that because he has supporters, I am supposed to be sympathetic to him.

Not a chance.

On the other hand, you have a somewhat valid argument with how he might remember our words when he gets back to government. But, all you're doing is validating my point that he might be worthy of ill wishes. It might be counter-productive to type them here--that's your point I consider valid. But, I can still have ill wishes for enemies even if I don't type them. Its having the ill wishes that is being criticized, not the counter-productivity of typing them here.

Citizen said:

OK.

So, what I get from your post (in no particular order) is that I'm supposed be sympathetic to my enemies just because they have problems in life. (Nevermind the problems they create for me.) I'm supposed to apply Christian principles. And, that because he has supporters, I am supposed to be sympathetic to him.

Not a chance.

On the other hand, you have a somewhat valid argument with how he might remember our words when he gets back to government. But, all you're doing is validating my point that he might be worthy of ill wishes. It might be counter-productive to type them here--that's your point I consider valid. But, I can still have ill wishes for enemies even if I don't type them. Its having the ill wishes that is being criticized, not the counter-productivity of typing them here.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight... this guy was your sworn enemy, so much so that you would wish him to have his son die and him almost die? Why exactly? Because he didn't vote a certain way you wanted? Am I missing something? I guess you quick to label guys enemies...

Primus said:

So let me get this straight... this guy was your sworn enemy, so much so that you would wish him to have his son die and him almost die? Why exactly? Because he didn't vote a certain way you wanted? Am I missing something? I guess you quick to label guys enemies...

Click to expand...

Where the **ck did you read that, you distortionist? Show me where I wrote that.

Citizen said:

Where the **ck did you read that, you distortionist? Show me where I wrote that.

Click to expand...

I did not read your post as such .....

Primus said:

So let me get this straight... this guy was your sworn enemy, so much so that you would wish him to have his son die and him almost die? Why exactly? Because he didn't vote a certain way you wanted? Am I missing something? I guess you quick to label guys enemies...

Click to expand...

Citizen said:

Where the **ck did you read that, you distortionist? Show me where I wrote that.

Click to expand...

Post #46 - "Personally, if Deeds is an enemy of freedom I would feel entirely justified in actively hoping he doesn't recover."

Citizen said:

OK.

So, what I get from your post (in no particular order) is that I'm supposed be sympathetic to my enemies just because they have problems in life. (Nevermind the problems they create for me.) I'm supposed to apply Christian principles. And, that because he has supporters, I am supposed to be sympathetic to him.

Not a chance.

On the other hand, you have a somewhat valid argument with how he might remember our words when he gets back to government. But, all you're doing is validating my point that he might be worthy of ill wishes. It might be counter-productive to type them here--that's your point I consider valid. But, I can still have ill wishes for enemies even if I don't type them. Its having the ill wishes that is being criticized, not the counter-productivity of typing them here.

Click to expand...

How can I distort that? You were talking about this guy, since it's what the thread was about. And you were being slapped down because you guys were getting out of line.

Grapeshot said:

Post #46 - "Personally, if Deeds is an enemy of freedom I would feel entirely justified in actively hoping he doesn't recover."

Click to expand...

There's a wide difference between what Primus says I wrote and what you bolded.

Are you joining the distortions, now?

Aren't you the one who railed against quoting out of context?

Citizen said:

There's a wide difference between what Primus says I wrote and what you bolded.

Are you joining the distortions, now?

Aren't you the one who railed against quoting out of context?

Click to expand...

I QUOTED then BOLDED what you said.