Bob Costas should be fired off NBC for his guns comment

[Openmind]

so what is your solution for mental health professionals failure to report patients who are a danger to themselves and others ?

Mental health professionals are few and far between. . .and many people with mental health do NOT see mental health professionals.

Maybe if you would embrace the "mental health " component of Obamacare, this will change. . .slowly but surely. In the mean time, without more funding for mental health services, MANY people with mental health will continue to be misdiagnosed as "losers," or "anti-socials" or "drug addicts" or "alcoholics."

By the way, mental health professionals are restricted by anonymity requirements. . .and ONLY people who are ACTIVELY a danger to self or others AT THE TIME they see a mental health professional are being kept under observation in safe facilities.

You seem to believe that all those homeless people are only homeless because they are too lazy to work and keep a roof over their head! WRONG. the percentage of people with mental health issues (many who also "self-medicate by using alcohol and drugs) is extremely high among homeless people. Some do not get mental health services because their refuse them (and no one can oblige them, unless they are ACTIVELY a threat to others or to themselves. . .and even then, they are released again as soon as they are "stabilized.") or because the mental health services in the county where they live is so overwhelmed and so under founded that they can't address everyone's needs.

And, it is as a health care professional that I am answering this.

Now. . .what would have helped in the Connecticut case is if the MOTHER and family had reached out to mental health, instead of pushing the kid's problems under the rug in shame. And. . what would have helped ALSO is if the mother had not kept 6 guns in her home and given this kid the opportunity to try his hand at shooting at a firing range.

 

[dogtowner]

Mental health professionals are few and far between. . .and many people with mental health do NOT see mental health professionals.

Maybe if you would embrace the "mental health " component of Obamacare, this will change. . .slowly but surely. In the mean time, without more funding for mental health services, MANY people with mental health will continue to be misdiagnosed as "losers," or "anti-socials" or "drug addicts" or "alcoholics."

By the way, mental health professionals are restricted by anonymity requirements. . .and ONLY people who are ACTIVELY a danger to self or others AT THE TIME they see a mental health professional are being kept under observation in safe facilities.

You seem to believe that all those homeless people are only homeless because they are too lazy to work and keep a roof over their head! WRONG. the percentage of people with mental health issues (many who also "self-medicate by using alcohol and drugs) is extremely high among homeless people. Some do not get mental health services because their refuse them (and no one can oblige them, unless they are ACTIVELY a threat to others or to themselves. . .and even then, they are released again as soon as they are "stabilized.") or because the mental health services in the county where they live is so overwhelmed and so under founded that they can't address everyone's needs.

And, it is as a health care professional that I am answering this.

Now. . .what would have helped in the Connecticut case is if the MOTHER and family had reached out to mental health, instead of pushing the kid's problems under the rug in shame. And. . what would have helped ALSO is if the mother had not kept 6 guns in her home and given this kid the opportunity to try his hand at shooting at a firing range.

bums dont go on murderous binges.
i cant recall one of those who have done so not being known by mental health professionals. our own krazy korean and even the wealthy brat at uva who beat yeardly love's head against a wall enough to kill her were both known to be unstable as was this kid in conn.

somehow there is no accountability and that has to be rectified. we dont need to enrich bo's friends we need to lock them up when their malpractice is exposed.

 

[TheJPRD]

Maybe when you stop calling me "kid" and address me with a minimum of respect, I may debate with you. In the mean time, your rants are a moot point for me.. . .KID!

Address you with "a minimum of respect"? I WAS addressing you with the respect you deserve! I believe I was more respectful to you than you were to Gipper when you called him: "Sick", "arrogant", "stupid", "ridiculous", "a hypocrite", and told him to "shut the F up"! I'm only too happy to address you with the respect you deserve. So far, I've been doing exactly that! You can debate me or not debate me, your choice of course. I understand your reluctance to do so, for unlike most of my Conservative brothers and sisters, I'm only too happy to fight fire WITH fire.

 

[Openmind]

Address you with "a minimum of respect"? I WAS addressing you with the respect you deserve! I believe I was more respectful to you than you were to Gipper when you called him: "Sick", "arrogant", "stupid", "ridiculous", "a hypocrite", and told him to "shut the F up"! I'm only too happy to address you with the respect you deserve. So far, I've been doing exactly that! You can debate me or not debate me, your choice of course. I understand your reluctance to do so, for unlike most of my Conservative brothers and sisters, I'm only too happy to fight fire WITH fire.

Yes dear. Now go play with your little friends.

You do not impress me.

Tata!

 

[Openmind]

bums dont go on murderous binges.
i cant recall one of those who have done so not being known by mental health professionals. our own krazy korean and even the wealthy brat at uva who beat yeardly love's head against a wall enough to kill her were both known to be unstable as was this kid in conn.

somehow there is no accountability and that has to be rectified. we dont need to enrich bo's friends we need to lock them up when their malpractice is exposed.

So dunny how you believe in "privacy rights" but you also seem to believe that people who have any form of mental illness should have their whole life displayed as an open book!

There is such a thing as "confidentiality" that needs preserving.

And, by the way, psychiatrist try to avoid giving mental health diagnosis to children and teenagers because they do not want to stigmatize them, since diagnosis can evolve when they reach adulthood.

And, since many states (and all gun shows) do not have background checks at this time anyway.

Hopefully this will change soon. And I am hoping that, .to obtain a gun licence, EVERYONE Will be required to take a psychological exam! After all, even to get in the military they require a psych evaluation. . .

 

[Gipper]

Come on Gipper. You have shown enough bad will and you have spewed enough mistatements of MY WORDS to fill a book!
I have NEVER said that I was in late term abortion. . .NEVER. . .with the exception of what the LAW allows. . .which is physical or emotional danger to the mother AND/OR serious disability and/or non-viable fetus.

You can go back as far as you want. . .you will NEVER be able to quote me saying that I was for abortion until the last minute for no reason. And. . .I believe I even said that one of my greatest blessing had been. . .after the birth of my children. . .to have NEVER have to make that terrible decision to abort or to not abort. . .but if I had had to face that decision, it would have been MINE, and MINE ALONE (with the support of my husband, since he is an involved husband and father) to make.

You can continue to repeat your interpretation of the second amendment as often as you want. . .I still disagree with it. The Supreme Court ruling of 2008 doesn't change my opinion. . .no more than, it appear that the Supreme Court ruling on Roe vs Wade is changing YOUR opinion on abortion.

And again. . .the silly right extremist view that pro-choice people are really "pro-abortion" and are baby killers is just the typical hyper religious, ridiculous BS that you have accepted.

Why don't we leave it at that?

If you are trying to claim that you NEVER believed late term abortions were okay, then I don't believe you. I suspect that when it became law in 1973 and for many years thereafter, you had no problem with late term abortions, just like most libs. You claim a fetus less than 5 months old is nothing more than a cluster of cells. This is what the lying scum abortionists, eugenists, lib media and Ds told us all back in the 70s. I never believed it then and don't know. But you likely did and still do....at least to five months of development.

Your opinion on this is most absurd and proven incorrect. A human fetus takes a human form very early in development and certainly much earlier than 5 months. It is more than a cluster of cells after just a couple weeks. And at any rate, your argument is meaningless and illogical. Abortion even in the first weeks of pregnancy STILL TERMINATES A HUMAN LIFE. But that is okay with you.

You claim you are for protecting life, but I don't believe you. So stop the crocodile tears over the children murdered in Newtown. If they were less than five month old fetuses, killing them would not bother you in the slightest.

 

[TheJPRD]

Yes dear. Now go play with your little friends.

You do not impress me.

Tata!

Well, what a well-considered, mature, and meaningful reply. However, I guess this means you won't enter the debating ring with me?

To my Conservative brothers and sisters, please note that "Openminded" continues to whine about me doing to her what she does to others here herself all the time. She's ridiculed and belittled other posters on this board regularly, but she whines and cries when I simply referred to her as a "kid". Leftists are happy to use Alinsky's rules on Conservatives, but they sure do turn wimpy when we do the same thing to them. Luckily, we Conservatives know that our positions are the right ones, and we're confident in ourselves as worthwhile individuals. Most leftists are wannabes and losers. Their constantly hateful attacks on Christians, Jews, white males in general, black Consevratives, female Conservatives, and all who are smarter and more self-confident than them, is their attempt to convince themselves that they have "worth". Few of them do.

 

[Gipper]

Well, what a well-considered, mature, and meaningful reply. However, I guess this means you won't enter the debating ring with me?

To my Conservative brothers and sisters, please note that "Openminded" continues to whine about me doing to her what she does to others here herself all the time. She's ridiculed and belittled other posters on this board regularly, but she whines and cries when I simply referred to her as a "kid". Leftists are happy to use Alinsky's rules on Conservatives, but they sure do turn wimpy when we do the same thing to them. Luckily, we Conservatives know that our positions are the right ones, and we're confident in ourselves as worthwhile individuals. Most leftists are wannabes and losers. Their constantly hateful attacks on Christians, Jews, white males in general, black Consevratives, female Conservatives, and all who are smarter and more self-confident than them, is their attempt to convince themselves that they have "worth". Few of them do.

Many libs THINK they are right (BO tops the list). To them this means silencing those who disagree with them, by any means possible, is warranted and justified. As such, they do not believe the Bill of Rights applies to anyone other than themselves. Removing Constitutional rights from their political opponents is okay with them.

 

[TheJPRD]

Many libs THINK they are right (BO tops the list). To them this means silencing those who disagree with them, by any means possible, is warranted and justified. As such, they do not believe the Bill of Rights applies to anyone other than themselves. Removing Constitutional rights from their political opponents is okay with them.

You're right Gip! There have been occasions when I've been accused of a "personal attack" on one board or another. In every one of those cases, however, I was simply returning fire with fire against an arrogant, bigoted comment by a leftist. "Personal Attacks" must be judged on the basis of the post to which the alledged attack responded. When a leftist ridicules and attempts to minimize a brother or sister Conservative, that leftist cannot be treated with kid gloves. Simply return fire in kind, and do to them what they've been doing to us for more than 50 years. Afterall, leftists are much more easily ridiculed, as their positions are illogical, self-serving, and WRONG! Our job is easy, since we need only point out their incompetence.

 

[dogtowner]

So dunny how you believe in "privacy rights" but you also seem to believe that people who have any form of mental illness should have their whole life displayed as an open book!

There is such a thing as "confidentiality" that needs preserving.

And, by the way, psychiatrist try to avoid giving mental health diagnosis to children and teenagers because they do not want to stigmatize them, since diagnosis can evolve when they reach adulthood.

And, since many states (and all gun shows) do not have background checks at this time anyway.

Hopefully this will change soon. And I am hoping that, .to obtain a gun licence, EVERYONE Will be required to take a psychological exam! After all, even to get in the military they require a psych evaluation. . .

hyperbole is your response ? figures...
where did I say all forms ? any professional should be able to discern potential violence.
you really should educate yourself on gun sales what you say simply isnt true.
Columbine was unusual in that it involved minors.

i know accountability is not in the medical lexicon but that needs to change as every one is not dr kildare

 

[TheJPRD]

So dunny how you believe in "privacy rights" but you also seem to believe that people who have any form of mental illness should have their whole life displayed as an open book!.

Please notice how the lady who was so offended when I called her a "kid", easily refers to her opponent in this post as a "dummy". She wants to be treated wirh the respect she deserves??? I think we're definitely doing that. As for her contention that the poster to whom she replied advocated that people who "have ANY form of mental" illness should have their whole life displayed as an open book, one only needs to read to see that her claim is false. A competent medical doctor should know whether a patient requires hospitalization, or even isolation should the patient have a highly-communicable disease. A psychiatrist should be equally competent to diagnose a mentally-ill person who needs to be isolated! Such a mental patient need not have their whole life displayed as an open book". They need only be diagnosed properly, and put away from society until their normal, or forever if recovery isn't possible. The high possibility of harming one's self or others is much like a highly-communicable disease! It appears that some folks can't seem to understand that.

There is such a thing as "confidentiality" that needs preserving.

This is another "red herring" from the very sensitive, leftwing lady. Confidentiality does indeed need preserving in most all cases. However, a person who is diagnosed as a danger to himself and/or others is NOT one of those cases! Following her logic can cost lives!

And, by the way, psychiatrist try to avoid giving mental health diagnosis to children and teenagers because they do not want to stigmatize them, since diagnosis can evolve when they reach adulthood.

The poster who might well tell young children and teenagers that God doesn't exist, that it's a "right" to kill the unborn, and that depending on the Government instead of on one's own abilities are good things, tells us that telling children and teenagers the truth is a BAD thing to do. If the mental illness of the child or teenager can be cured, I think it's very wise to explain to them why they're being treated as they are, and that they can get better. If recovery isn't possible, they needn't be told, just put them away to protect themselves and others!

And, since many states (and all gun shows) do not have background checks at this time anyway.

I cannot argue the lady's point here, as I pretty much agree with her. I'd only clarify my concurrence with her position by saying that the guidelines for "background checks" must be clear, detailed, Constitutionally sound, and unambiguous!

Hopefully this will change soon. And I am hoping that, .to obtain a gun licence, EVERYONE Will be required to take a psychological exam! After all, even to get in the military they require a psych evaluation.

Again, I'd agree with the lady, adding the same qualification as I did above. At least in this one case, left and right have some common ground.

 

[dogtowner]

Please notice how the lady who was so offended when I called her a "kid", easily refers to her opponent in this post as a "dummy". She wants to be treated wirh the respect she deserves??? I think we're definitely doing that. As for her contention that the poster to whom she replied advocated that people who "have ANY form of mental" illness should have their whole life displayed as an open book, one only needs to read to see that her claim is false. A competent medical doctor should know whether a patient requires hospitalization, or even isolation should the patient have a highly-communicable disease. A psychiatrist should be equally competent to diagnose a mentally-ill person who needs to be isolated! Such a mental patient need not have their whole life displayed as an open book". They need only be diagnosed properly, and put away from society until their normal, or forever if recovery isn't possible. The high possibility of harming one's self or others is much like a highly-communicable disease! It appears that some folks can't seem to understand that.



This is another "red herring" from the very sensitive, leftwing lady. Confidentiality does indeed need preserving in most all cases. However, a person who is diagnosed as a danger to himself and/or others is NOT one of those cases! Following her logic can cost lives!



The poster who might well tell young children and teenagers that God doesn't exist, that it's a "right" to kill the unborn, and that depending on the Government instead of on one's own abilities are good things, tells us that telling children and teenagers the truth is a BAD thing to do. If the mental illness of the child or teenager can be cured, I think it's very wise to explain to them why they're being treated as they are, and that they can get better. If recovery isn't possible, they needn't be told, just put them away to protect themselves and others!



I cannot argue the lady's point here, as I pretty much agree with her. I'd only clarify my concurrence with her position by saying that the guidelines for "background checks" must be clear, detailed, Constitutionally sound, and unambiguous!



Again, I'd agree with the lady, adding the same qualification as I did above. At least in this one case, left and right have some common ground.

all of which calls into question her reported background. again.

she has always been shown the respect she deserves if not more.

 

[Openmind]

If you are trying to claim that you NEVER believed late term abortions were okay, then I don't believe you. I suspect that when it became law in 1973 and for many years thereafter, you had no problem with late term abortions, just like most libs. You claim a fetus less than 5 months old is nothing more than a cluster of cells. This is what the lying scum abortionists, eugenists, lib media and Ds told us all back in the 70s. I never believed it then and don't know. But you likely did and still do....at least to five months of development.

Your opinion on this is most absurd and proven incorrect. A human fetus takes a human form very early in development and certainly much earlier than 5 months. It is more than a cluster of cells after just a couple weeks. And at any rate, your argument is meaningless and illogical. Abortion even in the first weeks of pregnancy STILL TERMINATES A HUMAN LIFE. But that is okay with you.

You claim you are for protecting life, but I don't believe you. So stop the crocodile tears over the children murdered in Newtown. If they were less than five month old fetuses, killing them would not bother you in the slightest.

Please notice how the lady who was so offended when I called her a "kid", easily refers to her opponent in this post as a "dummy". She wants to be treated wirh the respect she deserves??? I think we're definitely doing that. As for her contention that the poster to whom she replied advocated that people who "have ANY form of mental" illness should have their whole life displayed as an open book, one only needs to read to see that her claim is false. A competent medical doctor should know whether a patient requires hospitalization, or even isolation should the patient have a highly-communicable disease. A psychiatrist should be equally competent to diagnose a mentally-ill person who needs to be isolated! Such a mental patient need not have their whole life displayed as an open book". They need only be diagnosed properly, and put away from society until their normal, or forever if recovery isn't possible. The high possibility of harming one's self or others is much like a highly-communicable disease! It appears that some folks can't seem to understand that.



This is another "red herring" from the very sensitive, leftwing lady. Confidentiality does indeed need preserving in most all cases. However, a person who is diagnosed as a danger to himself and/or others is NOT one of those cases! Following her logic can cost lives!



The poster who might well tell young children and teenagers that God doesn't exist, that it's a "right" to kill the unborn, and that depending on the Government instead of on one's own abilities are good things, tells us that telling children and teenagers the truth is a BAD thing to do. If the mental illness of the child or teenager can be cured, I think it's very wise to explain to them why they're being treated as they are, and that they can get better. If recovery isn't possible, they needn't be told, just put them away to protect themselves and others!



I cannot argue the lady's point here, as I pretty much agree with her. I'd only clarify my concurrence with her position by saying that the guidelines for "background checks" must be clear, detailed, Constitutionally sound, and unambiguous!



Again, I'd agree with the lady, adding the same qualification as I did above. At least in this one case, left and right have some common ground.

How do you get "dunny" to mean "dummy?"
Actually, it was obviously a typo. . .what I met to say, I don't even know. . .but I DO KNOW it wasn't "dummy"

Now. . . .all of you seem to have a field day trying to put me down and telling me that I am a liar, that I am dishonest, and that I don't know what I am talking about. . .
But obviously, none of your remark is at all "insulting" or "belittling," right?

Obviously, none of the moderators will find anything wrong with this bunch of posters to band and attack ONE poster.

You are all so funny!

Have fun. . .Obviously, your main intent is NOT to debate, it is just to attack anyone who doesn't think like you do.

Whatever. . .have a great Christmas, enjoy your self-righteous stands on just about everything, and your ignorance and bad faith on everything.

I do not post in order to convince anyone, but I also do not post to be systematically attacked by a half dozen people with an UNIQUE mindset who know nothing better than to attack.

I'll be back when I feel like it, and I will answer the posts that I feel are worth answering. Too bad the two or three people in this forum who have demonstrated a sense of fairness and balance seem to be withdrawing from this "conversation," or maybe it is because they are "balanced" and have a sense of fairness that they choose not to engage in this. . .because their tendency would be to agree with your extreme stands. . .but they do not want to fall into this witch hunt that you have going on.

Thank you PLC and BigRob. . .I appreciate that you do not join in for the killing.

 

[cashmcall]

Please notice how the lady who was so offended when I called her a "kid", easily refers to her opponent in this post as a "dummy". She wants to be treated wirh the respect she deserves??? I think we're definitely doing that. As for her contention that the poster to whom she replied advocated that people who "have ANY form of mental" illness should have their whole life displayed as an open book, one only needs to read to see that her claim is false. A competent medical doctor should know whether a patient requires hospitalization, or even isolation should the patient have a highly-communicable disease. A psychiatrist should be equally competent to diagnose a mentally-ill person who needs to be isolated! Such a mental patient need not have their whole life displayed as an open book". They need only be diagnosed properly, and put away from society until their normal, or forever if recovery isn't possible. The high possibility of harming one's self or others is much like a highly-communicable disease! It appears that some folks can't seem to understand that.



This is another "red herring" from the very sensitive, leftwing lady. Confidentiality does indeed need preserving in most all cases. However, a person who is diagnosed as a danger to himself and/or others is NOT one of those cases! Following her logic can cost lives!



The poster who might well tell young children and teenagers that God doesn't exist, that it's a "right" to kill the unborn, and that depending on the Government instead of on one's own abilities are good things, tells us that telling children and teenagers the truth is a BAD thing to do. If the mental illness of the child or teenager can be cured, I think it's very wise to explain to them why they're being treated as they are, and that they can get better. If recovery isn't possible, they needn't be told, just put them away to protect themselves and others!



I cannot argue the lady's point here, as I pretty much agree with her. I'd only clarify my concurrence with her position by saying that the guidelines for "background checks" must be clear, detailed, Constitutionally sound, and unambiguous!



Again, I'd agree with the lady, adding the same qualification as I did above. At least in this one case, left and right have some common ground.

Because of the fragility of a Leftist's ego, anything that threatens it is intolerable and provokes rage. So most Leftist can be summarized in one sentence: "How DARE anybody question what I believe!". Rage and abuse substitute for an appeal to facts and reason.Again ,I am not talking about all Democrats

 

[dogtowner]

How do you get "dunny" to mean "dummy?"
Actually, it was obviously a typo. . .what I met to say, I don't even know. . .but I DO KNOW it wasn't "dummy"

I was guessing hunny aka honey given your tendency to refer to people you abhor as "dear"

Now. . . .all of you seem to have a field day trying to put me down and telling me that I am a liar, that I am dishonest, and that I don't know what I am talking about. . .
But obviously, none of your remark is at all "insulting" or "belittling," right?

they point out what you do and that is attacking ?

Obviously, none of the moderators will find anything wrong with this bunch of posters to band and attack ONE poster.

try re-thinking your definition of what a personal attack is. 'dog is a hypocrit is a baseless subjective personal attack as its a judgement on a member. 'that concept is hypocritical because...' is not . think about it. Pocket generally understands the difference and respects the line by avoiding crossing it.

You are all so funny!

a barrel of monkeys

Have fun. . .Obviously, your main intent is NOT to debate, it is just to attack anyone who doesn't think like you do.

two way street.

Whatever. . .have a great Christmas, enjoy your self-righteous stands on just about everything, and your ignorance and bad faith on everything.

hope your Christmas is joyous and filled with praise for the greatest God could ever give us and that your new year better than the last. also hopes for a speedy resolution to any further recovery your husband may yet require from his medical issues.

I do not post in order to convince anyone, but I also do not post to be systematically attacked by a half dozen people with an UNIQUE mindset who know nothing better than to attack.

hmmm so what is the goal ?

I'll be back when I feel like it, and I will answer the posts that I feel are worth answering. Too bad the two or three people in this forum who have demonstrated a sense of fairness and balance seem to be withdrawing from this "conversation," or maybe it is because they are "balanced" and have a sense of fairness that they choose not to engage in this. . .because their tendency would be to agree with your extreme stands. . .but they do not want to fall into this witch hunt that you have going on.

yeah we figured that out already

Thank you PLC and BigRob. . .I appreciate that you do not join in for the killing.

hmmm kinda curious given your accusations against them as well as Walter who I see remains on your 'naughty' list. do you think people fail to take note of these sorts of things ?