I didn't see any bulls-eyes over any 'faces', was he lying? I like how he 'assumes' facts like it was commentators and politicians that brought this nut to do what he did. But then I guess he's got his rating to be concerned about, he's really nothing but a troll....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > Where do we draw the line. When is direct and more importantly, > > indirect, keep a blind eye to it) violence justified? Oberman > > is pointing in the right direction. However, I sense that we > > must draw the line miles back from where he is pointing to > > before we will live in a true land of freedom and peace. > > Most likely. But maybe it makes sense to *start* drawing it > where he's pointing. Maybe that begins to sensitize us to > the violence occurring outside the line, and we're moved to > draw another one a little further out, and then another one > a little further, and so on in increments. > > We don't want to let "the perfect be the enemy of the good," > a phrase I'm tired of hearing, but it's become a cliche > because it makes so much sense. > > We have a good chance to draw *a* line right now, while the > horror of the shootings is fresh in our minds. We don't want > to say, "Wait, this line isn't far enough out, we have to > draw it miles back," because that just ain't ready to happen > yet. If that's what we insist on, we'll miss our chance to > draw the line closer in and may never get to the point of > drawing the one farther out. > > The journey of a thousand miles, and so on. Baby steps are > better than no steps. >
