eym_sirius

There's not much class with anybody named Gingrich - Maybe his sister, who says that the family name is pronounced like a K at the end. The one who is granting the interview (surely for gobs of money!) -- Wasn't SHE Newt's mistress when he was married to wife number ONE??? If he'll do it with you, he'll do it to you. Here's another one: History is the best predictor of future events. (since Newt is The Great Historian). Why do they say, nowadays, that they are "suspending"? 'Cause that way they don't look like quitters???

I think that there's a parting of the ways here that divides sociopaths and psychopaths. A psychopath typically has a narcissistic personality that places his desires above anything and everything, simply because his view of himself is that he is worthy. This is the guy who has friends, may even be married, can be the life of the party -- as long as the party isn't at his house because he has two dozen bodies in his crawlspace. His crimes are usually "organized", which means that he plans out every single detail, and puts a lot of time and effort into the fulfillment of his fantasy. He takes a

LGM there must be a surge of brain-chemicals to initiate the attack and maybe an oversupply puts them in a panic state, possibly? I'm pretty sure that the present "me" is incapable of murdering someone. There's no real test for this, so I guess I'll never know. In my whole life, I've never been enraged. I've never "lost it" I've never cussed anybody out, never beaten anybody up. That said, though, I have to admit that since it's possible that I'm hardwired /chemically balanced to be as I am, something that might mess up the hardwiring (tumor or injury or psychological disorder) co

I think that the biggest harm that such video games have is to stunt the development of communication skills in the child. Violent games are usually not something in which the child shows deference to authority or proper respect. The child isn't learning anything new, deals with adversity rather generically and violently, and is rewarded the more violent and quickly that he learns to react to threats. Sounds like a recipe for disaster!!! No, I think that you're onto something, the link being societal withdrawal and fantasy-violence.

I think that first, the person has to be able to detach himself from others. Can this be something that is recognized early-on? There are the loners, who do not play well with others and retreat into a world of fantasy, where the individual does not want and would not accept intrusion by others into that fantasy. So long does he play out these scenes in his mind, that the fantasy becomes an obsession with him. In this way, the fantasy becomes the object of his affection, his dear friend. When reality comes close to the fantasy, I think that this individual sees it as a natural progression

No doubt, it's a scary world, the scary part being that things can go from everyday-normal to tragically horrific in the blink of an eye. I know - so don't blink, right? It's interesting that you mention mob scenes, which is a different set of dynamics. What is in play regarding mob scenes is relative morality, in which what a person does is determined by his relation to the group and in comparison/contrast with the behaviors/perceptions of others. In the case of the rapist/murderer, the motivation is internal, rather than external and reactionary, rather than calculated.

You're right - and just think -- no, never mind -- It's a more terrifying possibility..... It's too late in the evening to bring up things like that.....

So many people ask this question - How could ___________________ (fill in the blank) do this? What goes through a person's mind when he makes this defining turn toward ultra-violence? Women, children! How can they do this? Specifically, do you have a theory as to what dynamics take an individual down the road of ultra-violence (rape/murder, etc) ??? Not just "he or she is evil" because if that's the case, the person was evil before - what made them or provided the impetus to take this horrible turn that ruins more lives than the immediate victim? Sure, this has to do with the rec

Geez what a great point! The industry will just have to find a way to either use technology to protect their property or they will have to find a new way to market it. Or both.

Whoever is for this legislation is for BIG GOVERNMENT!! Anytime there's new legislation there is a corresponding need for new enforcement. More lawyers, more trials! I don't know about y'all, but I think that we don't need to grow government.

But there's the difference - actually approaching strangers with a sad story and asking them for money. Which of us would do that? Not me, under any circumstances. No ethical person would, which is why it's always a scam. I would call people I know if I were in a desperate situation. Now, I might have to ask to use someone's phone, but I'd go to a business before I'd walk up a driveway and knock on a door. Again - I think everyone has helped others and everyone has been helped. But to beg for money from strangers? I've never seen a situation where that wasn't a scam. I'm fine with whoe

Because the police said they had substantial evidence and they were sure -- that was good enough for me. There were people wanting to know RIGHT THEN what-all evidence they had, or else they were sure that the police had the wrong guy. And that's just not going to happen, that police tell everything even before the guy has been before a judge.

Awesome find!

I'm not fond of the pig, either. It has to do with repitition and I think that it's meant to be annoying.

What sounds more like bullies? I don't see a connection between discouraging panhandling and bullying. Too many of us, I think, have been played for chumps before. Like a woman with her baby, crying - both of them, approach you in the parking lot and the woman says that she needs medicine for her sick child and she's $10 short. "Would you please let me have whatever you can spare? - Won'cha help me???" So you give her the $10 and she heads straight for the liquor store. Like I said - It's always a scam. Next time I'll just call the police who will get the proper help for a person in d

It's like this - If someone needs to give his/her money away so that they can feel good about themselves, who am I to tell them that they shouldn't do that? On the other hand, I personally would under no circumstances give money to a stranger who approached me. If someone is in an emergency situation, I'll call 911 for them. I'll administer CPR or pull someone from a burning car. I'll dive into a lake to rescue a drowning person. But I won't give money to a stranger who asks me for it because it's in nobody's best interests for me to do so. However, the next time someone approaches me f

Flo pregnant? I thought that Flo meant "not pregnant"!

I've said it before - If a stranger approaches you and asks you for money - It's a scam.

There's a reason that Pubby has this as a bullet-worthy topic. People only fight about this issue. Not sure why you'd mention this, anyway, since it is in no way related to the incident that brought about this discussion.

You're saying that you know "justgettingby's" husband better than she? That's quite a claim! This isn't an attack BY liberals! An attack? The liberals are standing up FOR the military and indicating that it's right and proper for these immoral INDIVIDUALS to be punished according to military law and/or international law - both who have standards against corpse desecration. On the other hand, the radical right is indicating that most of the military is scum, that they typically engage in this abhorrent behavior, that they have no respect through our common humanity, for the dead. It's the radic

Again, for those who are morally challenged, whose sense of right and wrong is defined in relation to the behavior of others (that pretty much means that you HAVE NO SENSE OF MORALITY) then just go by the rules of law. If you can't figure out that desecrating a dead body is just plain wrong, then there's no assisting you by talking about morality. It's no surprise to me that it's the ultra conservatives who are condoning this perverted behavior. If you have no moral standards, then pretty much anything goes because you can ALWAYS point to someone who does something worse. It's a good thing th

Really -- How effed up do you have to be to fantasize about peeing on a dead person? Or about other desecrations that are illegal and immoral for good reasons? A dead person has no politics. A dead person has no religion. You don't REALLY believe that you send a muslim to hell by pouring pig blood on his carcass, unless you believe his religion! But like I said before --- If you're that bad with MORALITY that you fantasize about PEEING ON A CORPSE --- Just go by what is legal and what is illegal. Desecrating a corpse can get you 20 years!

I suggest a sit-down discussion, where probably the two of you'll do all of the talking. Approach it from a matter of respect for his coming of age to make his own decisions and to make his own way in the world. He has obviously made certain decisions without considering you, so he is obviously prepared to live his own life when he's out of school.. It's an exciting time! Find out what he plans to do. I think that those Wal-Mart disposable phones don't cost too much. He could get one of those. Or you could get him one to get him started. That would be nice. And when I say "you" I mean both o

Either way, they're looking at 20 years!That said, some people really suck at figuing out "morality". It's not too difficult - Just do right by the other guy. Peeing on his corpse doesn't qualify. Furthermore what adult with ANY sense of morality discerns the conduct of another by comparing it to the very worst conduct possible and to say, "at least he didn't do THAT". I recognize a lot of people here from discussions on religion. Why is it that the people on PCOM who claim to be christian fantasize about urinating on dead people? Why is it that they would even consider desecrating a

FYI - Ultra Right Wing Rags that support immorality are pretty much making my point for me. There's a certain faction of Americans who seem to have a very poor concept of what morality means. That said, it's no big surprise that they have no problem with a number of bad behaviors AGAINST other people, but they are dead-set against marriage between same-sex partners who love each other! The ULTRA right also glosses over the fact that this is both a WAR CRIME by international standards and a violation of US MILITARY LAW!!! It's on the books for a reason, that reason being human decency o