It seems discussing Loughner has hit climate blogs. Both Jeff and James commented on the grammar obsessed alleged shooter.
I’ll take a wild guess here. The scumbag who committed this crime has been caught; I’ll bet he’ll turn out to be a Teabagger who listens to a lot of AM talk radio.
Jeff Id suggests otherwise:
The murderer himself was far more likely to be listening to Chavez’s anti-capitalist rants at the IPCC conference than a Sarah Palin poster, …
Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy has been pouring over Loughner postings and today begins a post with:
Now that Caitie Parker has been confirmed as a friend of Jared Lee Loughner’s, it seems relevant to ask whether Loughner was still a left wing radical, as he was when Caitie last saw him over two years ago. Among the clues are his apparent postings under the name Erad3 at Above Top Secret (ATS).
Lindgren goes on to provide evidence that Loughner’s views are those more typically thought to be held by liberals and writes,
Of course, many responsible people think that the current wars are a “war crime.†Perhaps the majority of the world believes that the state owes people health care and a good standard of living. And at least a couple of the bloogers on this site are atheists (including myself). But these views are much more common on the left than on the right.
From reading through page after page of Jared Lee Loughner’s rantings, I see no evidence that he has changed from the radical left winger that he was in 2007. Indeed, less than six months ago, he was calling the Iraq and Afghan Wars “war crimes†under the Geneva Convention.
That Loughner shares views of many liberals does not prove Loghner was liberal, but preliminary evidence suggests Jeff Id’s guess is more likely to be correct than PZ Myers.
By the way, it turns out like Myers, Lindgren and me but not Sarah Palin, Loughner is an atheist. Whatever that tells us.
My guess is that he was a lunatic.
David–
If you read any of the grammar stuff, my guess is you will decide “guess” is too weak a word.
Loughner is lost soul on meth who became a crazy right wing propagandized radical who fills his days with intarnet 9/11 conspiracies, black helicopters, chem trails, drawing diagrams of George Soros and the New World Order with Sarah Palin as President.
.
Always handy to have a gunshop around the corner…
I think “raving lunatic” fits him better personally. When one is insane, any resemblance to the thoughts and beliefs of those who have retained their sanity is purely coincidental.
PZ Myers:
Alright already, enough with the claims that Jared Loughner was a lefty because he read Marx. Does his voting record mean anything?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/another_datum_for_our_armchair.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+scienceblogs/pharyngula+(Pharyngula)
I think it should be rather obvious that if a democrat is shot, the shooter is probably “on the other side”, meaning republican.
This is so blatantly obvious that I can’t understand in which lalaland some people on the nets live, by pretending that these simple reasonings do not exist, put their fingers over their hears and just ignore the truth. Curiously enough, such people are mostly republicans. Go figure.
Of course, I’m not saying that reps are stupid or blind. What I am saying is that if it was a republican who was shot, we would be seeing the same blind spots from many democrat blogs.
So I ask you, why do you deny simple reasonings? Why are you so afraid to just admit the simplest of explanations? The guy was a lunactic and had clear political convictions. For him, democrats are the devil incarnated. If he was a leftist, he would probably hate democrats, but he would shoot a republican.
I mean, doh!
PZ Meyers guessing again? Hmmmmm…. PZ Meyers, the former alter boy who now is the world’s biggest religeon hate monger… not too hard to guess what happened to cause that…
… and while we’re guessing… Loughner… calls the Iraq war a war crime… murders a federal judge who was appointed to the bench by Geo Bush Jr… and shoots one of four remaining moderate Democrats… not too hard to figure his motivation.
Almost by definition, the mentally ill don’t perceive the world as others perceive it, hence there must be a rational explanation why their perception of the world is different.
The choices are
A) I am insane.
B) There is some sort of conspiracy that all these foolish/evil dupes around me have fallen for.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy ‘never met a conspiracy’ he didn’t believe. The guy could very well have copies of Glen Becks and Hugo Chavez’s greatest hits playing in his head simultaneously.
Didn’t anyone see the movie ‘Conspiracy Theory’? The main character had two competing conspiracies going on in his head at the same time.
Luis Dias–
Voting registration doesn’t mean much. I live in DuPage county. If I want my vote in the primary to count at the local level, I vote in the Republican primary. The opposite would hold in the city of Chicago. Lots of people’s registration reflects utility, not political view. So why would I take the simplistic view that what applies to me and lots of people I know would not apply to Loughner.
Has he said or written anything to suggest he thinks this?
There is the other possibility– his victim’s party affiliation was irrelevant to him.
For some democrats, democrats are the devil incarnate.
http://www.democrats.com/put-a-leash-on-the-bush-dogs
Note the “sense of rage”.
OT but hilarious and a little bit scary
Check this out – are you on the green hit list? Put your site and personal details in and find out what they are saying about you!
http://www.twawki.com/?p=10535
interesting twawki… guns don’t kill people, Liberals do
According to standard Communist thinking, those closest to your ideology are the most dangerous opponents. Thus, Stalin urged German Communists to use their resources to oppose the Social Democrats and not the Nazis. The intended target in this case was a centrist Democrat. Thus, the shooter was likely a liberal Democrat …
Or he was a lunatic (raving, as Carrick rightly corrected me).
Luis Dias is dead wrong. The kneejerk assumption that the shooter is (a) motivated by politics; (b) his politics are are on the same spectrum as the rest of society (Democrat – Republican) and therefore (c) his actions are done in sympathy with the interests of the other party is simply stupid.
Was Lee Harvey Oswald a right-winger (after moving to the USSR, joining Friend of Cuba etc); John Hinkley a liberal Democrat?
Lone gunmen typically reject ALL of the choices the rest of us debate. The attempt to construe this act into a generic accusation (a la Krugman) is as irresponsible as it is unfounded.
MikeC (Comment#65284),
“not too hard to figure his motivation”
Say what? He is a raging lunatic! He shot a bunch of people he did not even know, including a 9 year old girl. His motivations (whatever they are) are most certainly disconnected from reality, and most certainly irrelevant. The rest of his life in the loony bin is what logically comes next.
For me it was easy. No conservative would list the communist manifesto or Chavez as an influence, these are acts of a leftie (a crazy one). It doesn’t matter much after that if he wants a gold backed currency or has some insane grammar issues.
It’s early days, but Loughner’s thinking seems to resemble these folks: http://blog.mises.org/. Their ideology is not purely left or right, but totally anti-government. The war crimes stuff, the obsession with the gold standard, the rejection of the constitution as corrupted are all classic features of this mindset. The allusions to government mind control via grammar actually seem to refer to to the work of one David Wynn Miller:
These people self-identify as libertarians, but they are to libertarians as Stalinists are to social democrats. For the most part they are culturally right-wing; their websites are full of racism and resentment towards women, they don’t believe in global warming — or in cfcs breaking down ozone. They are also anti-religious, anti-military, anti-traffic lights.
They aren’t classic leftist or rightists, but if you had to pick, it’s more of a right-wing movement with an isolationalist, anti-religious tone than a left-wing movement.
Jeff ID,
Someone on the right might well list the Communist Manifesto as an influence on their politics. The Bible is, for example, a key influence on my thoughts on religion in general and Christianity in particular, and I am an atheist.
David Gould,
Fair enough. I didn’t do any more research than that for my post which was about the blaming of this dude’s insanity on Palin. I suppose it is up to someone to find evidence that the loser did/didn’t like Chavez or the communist manifesto?
All this discussion as to whether this person was on the left or on the right makes me wonder if it is actually possible to classify anyone so simply. I am a pretty extreme lefty in many ways, but I supported the Iraq war and am a strong supporter of Israel. I also have libertarian views in some areas. Thus, in political discussions I often find myself under attack from both the left and the right. And yet I am most certainly *not* in the centre. If I committed an act of violence, it would be possible for people to construct my politics in whatever way they wished. If it could be a questionable exercise when applied to me, how much worse is it when applied to a lunatic*?
*assumes that I am not a lunatic, of course …
Jeff Id,
We agree that blaming this guy’s actions on Palin or the right generally is irrational.
Jeff Id,
Was Hiler crazy? Yup. Stalin? Probably. Pot Pol? Yup. Even Mao, at least in his later years was likely nuts. Craziness is not limited to any particular ideology… no matter how confused that ideology may be. Crazy is as crazy does. There is no need to (and indeed, it is probably best not to) describe the acts of the insane as being caused by a particular ideology.
This guy was definitely on the schizophrenic spectrum. People with schizophrenia often obsess over language or believe that others are trying to control them with semantics or subtext. I would guess that his political views were shallow and inconsistent, a collage of conspiracy theories he unconsciously used to rationalize feelings of persecution.
SteveF,
I agree that crazy is crazy but none of those you listed could be described as conservative or libertarian. It doesn’t stop some from trying though. IMO, all of the big government disasters of this world have been caused by pro-government insanity initiated by those with the power.
Mental illness is not associated with an increased risk of interpersonal violence. It’s been studied to death, and it just isn’t. Sometimes the mentally ill kill, and sometimes the not-mentally-ill kill. So saying someone is insane does not actually elucidate the cause of their behavior.
Giffords was repeatedly threatened before she was shot. The windows of one of her offices were broken. A protester dropped a gun at one of her rallies. Sarah Palin put a gunsight on her. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask whether violent rhetoric set the stage for violent actions.
Political violence on a large scale is always preceded by a campaign of dehumanization, in which the perpetrators promulgate a narrative of persecution and alienation. This happened in the Weimer Republic, in the Deep South, in the Russian Revolution, and we can see it developing in Pakistan with the assassination of a government minister seen as insufficiently Islamic.
We are a long way from the worst of that in the US, but it pays to be wary. Radicals come in all political hues, but of late the mass media organs of the right have indulged in inflammatory rhetoric, violent invective, and conspiracy theories (witness how, in the realm of the global warming debate, many insist the scientists are not merely wrong but actively lying to the public in a conspiracy to bring about a world government and/or enrich themselves.) Giffords may or may not be an early casualty, but in any case, if things go on as they are, there will be more.
Robert,
If the cause is – for example – that the shooter believed that his target was using language to control him and that the only way he could stop it was by killing her, there is a rational construct in the insane person’s mind but the underlying cause is still their insanity. I am unsure how discovering the internal reason why an insane person killed is of much value.
Yet, the shooter has not been shown to be mentally ill. That’s speculation at this point. All we know for sure is that he is a very poor writer. (He is also not insane, which is a legal term.)
If he proves to be mentally ill, that does not mean that what motives him is of no importance. Political movements of great importance have involved the mentally ill at all levels; witness the literature on depression and suicidality in suicide bombers. And because a mentally ill person responded to a message does not mean those who are not are immune to it.
John Brown was mentally ill — he was also an ideologue (of an ideology I agree with.) A contemporary could dismiss him as insane; but the ideological warfare which resonated with his derangement led directly to a war that killed 600,000 Americans. So I do not think you can dismiss a killer’s ideological foundation quite so easily.
Why are people still trying to claim this is a problem caused by the right?
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
Maybe they are in denial.
Robert (Comment#65306) January 10th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Radicals come in all political hues, but of late the mass media organs of the right have indulged in inflammatory rhetoric, violent invective, and conspiracy theories”
Obviously you don’t read or listen to any left leaning media.
“Why are people still trying to claim this is a problem caused by the right?”
Jeff goes on, awesomely tone deaf, to link to the follow hate-filled screed:
“The Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand. . . ”
In a few words this right-winger has managed to dehumanize his enemies (“ghouls”) lie by gross hyperbole (“criminalize conservatism”) and close with an implied threat (“force our hand.”) And that’s just the first sentence!
You never fail to amuse. 😉
Robert,
There is evidence that he is mentally ill. There is no evidence that any ideology motivated him. There is evidence that an internal construct led him to violence. There is no evidence that an external ideology did so. However, it is true that he may be found not to be suffering any mental illness. It is also true that he may be found to have been motivated by an ideology. But at the moment the evidence points in the opposite direction.
David,
You seem to be confusing assertion with argument. There is ample evidence of an ideology, some of which I cited above. There is no evidence of an “internal construct,” whatever you might mean by that. Again, it is a popular fallacy DISPROVED by evidence that mental illness causes violent crime. You have offered no evidence of mental illness, but even if he proves to be mentally ill, that is no evidence of cause.
Robert,
The acts were all caused by lefties, I’m sorry that nobody came up with a better description for your crowd but as many have attempted to explain to you, crazy comes from all sides.
“In a few words this right-winger has managed to dehumanize his enemies ”
Had you attempted to read the link instead of attack you may have noticed that it is written by a Michelle.
Glad to provide entertainment.
“The acts were all caused by lefties,”
This is a helpful illustration of why we can’t assume mental illness. Jeff is babbling nonsensically here (what acts? What “lefties”?) but he is not incoherent because he is nuts (hopefully!) but merely because he is a poor writer.
But just to be safe, Jeff, please give any guns you might own to your pastor.
Robert,
The link man, check the link!! Jeezus.
Robert,
Someone obsessing over grammar and talking about the government using mind control has an internal construct – by which I mean invented premises on which to build logical arguments that are internally consistent.
As to evidence of mental illness, okay, I will scale back my assertion: there is evidence of mental instability. The notion that this world is an illusion and that the dream world is the real one is not a good start. Add to that his language obsession.
As to ‘no evidence of cause’, there is evidence that his language obsession was a cause of this violent act, as the person in authority who had failed to answer his question about the meaningless of language was the person who he targetted.
Robert,
As to mental illness not causing crime, I am unclear what you are arguing here. Most violent crimes are committed by people acting either in the heat of the moment (emotional) or by people acting through greed, jealousy, revenge et cetera. However, mentally ill people can be violent and often the violence they commit does not have a rational cause. Or the rationality is purely internal, based on fantastical premises.
It’s “poring”, not “pouring”.
I don’t know what Loughner’s motivation was, but I’ll tell you what bothers me: 1) right-wing thug wears firearm openly to Obama political event in NH in 2009, 2) Robert Lowry, a businessman running against Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), stopped by a local Republican event that was held at a shooting range. Lowry stepped up to show his marksmanship, and fired at a human silhouette target — with the letters “DWS” written next to the head.; 3) A California man known for his anger over left-leaning politics said after a freeway shootout with CHP officers that he had been planning an attack on the ACLU and another nonprofit group – he wanted to “start a revolution” by killing people at the American Civil Liberties Union and Tides Foundation (obscure foundation mentioned only by Glenn Beck); 4) Gifford’s opponent, Tea partier Jesse Kelly held a “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly” event; 5) Sarah Palin put Democratic Candidates in cross-hairs, telling republicans to “reload” and aim for Democrats.
That kind of behavior bothers me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotic_disorder#Signs_and_symptoms
It seems that there is evidence that this person has delusions and mild thought disorder, which is in turn evidence of possible psychosis.
And there is evidence that others believed him potentially mentally ill:
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-0111-lopezcolumn-20110110,0,6868616.column
The school finally suspended Loughner, telling him in a letter that he needed clearance from a mental health official stating he didn’t “present a danger to himself or others.”
BTW: PZ myers ran the image that suggested Loughner was a registered republican; myers seems to have updated with a link to a story that indicates Loughner was not a registered Republican.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/jared-lee-loughner-was-a-regis.html
The WAPO article begins
And ends
If someone bothered to fake a registration to buttress the story Loughner was a right winger, that tells us more about the person who wanted to promote the fake story than it tells us about Lougher.
Owen–
Everything you list is bothersome. So are all the examples Malkin gave. You can read those in the link JeffId provided. There are people using violent rhetoric on both the left and right of the American political spectrum. Either end may have influenced Loughner.
It also appears the guy may be unhinged. His thinking process may be so incoherent no one can call him left/right/libertarian/anarchist/socialist/ or apply any conceivable label to him.
And Robert– while it may well be true that there is no link between violence and mental illness, that doesn’t mean this guy can’t be mentally ill. He certainly seems nuts in the non-clinical sense, and it appears he may well be nuts in the clinical sense. Of course, we all wait for further news reports. But this isn’t just some cold blooded hit man who is killing people for business reasons. It’s not about money. He wasn’t about sexual jealousy. It looks just nutso.
Perhaps we can just all agree that crazy people are crazy, and that using them to score cheap political points is distasteful at best.
I found an funny article discussing the flaws in the faked Republican registration for Loughner.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654262/posts
SteveF (Comment#65292)
No steve, and that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard from you yet. I’m wanting to say that the F stands for Forrest… as in Gump.
His motivations are not at all irrational. We all have a politician who we would find chuckle if watching choke on a chicken bone… or an ex-spouse… but the act, that is what is irrational… we don’t go around throwing chicken bones at their mouths… his actions were irrational… unless it can be shown that his mind somehow entertained the notion that the crowd was an immediate harm to his life (in which case I’m sure there is a psychiatric term)… but based on what I’ve read so far, he was just another citizen with political views.
Robert (Comment#65309) January 10th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
“Yet, the shooter has not been shown to be mentally ill.”
The community college he attended recently demanded he submit to a mental health evaluation to certify he was not a danger to himself or others.
Zeke,
Absolutely, nutcases always seem plentiful in the human bag of m & m’s.
@Zeke:
“Perhaps we can just all agree that crazy people are crazy, and that using them to score cheap political points is distasteful at best.”
I’m a little shocked that this has even come up as a topic here, much less the winking editorializing that accompanied it.
I could tick off a laundry list of factors that Lucia apparently has decided not to include which are decidedly not “typically thought to be held by liberals”, but that would be sinking to this unfortunate level.
Here’s hoping for less of this crap from anyone and everyone going forward.
things–
Thought not to include? I quoted. I didn’t try to compile an exhaustive list of the guys political philosophy. I did add that note that, like me, he’s an atheist. My intention was not to suggest that his atheism drove him to kill.
I have no idea what laundry list of factors you allude too but which you think I chose to leave out. I linked to the article discussing his views on the Iraq war, discussions of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and his position that 9/11 was an inside job. It would be interesting to see the constellation of views this guy held simultaneously. But, like Lindgren at Volokh, I think “In either event, the derangement, not his political orientation, is the proximate and ultimate cause of his mass murders.”
The only consideration that he will get for being “crazy” is does he understand the difference between right and wrong. It appears to me that he did.
MikeC– That’s my impression of the law in many states. There is nutso which is not necessarily a medical term but a judgment by neighbors, family, and acquaintances. There is clinically mentally ill, and there is insane in the specific way that can be used as a plea in court.
In the past, I’ve followed news articles where the accused tried to plead insanity, but reading the article I couldn’t help wondering why there seemed to be absolutely no visible symptoms of remotely nutty behavior before the crime. Nothing– no treatment. No neighbors thinking the person was even a tad odd. No strange episode. But in this case plenty of people thought the guy was strange before he killed anyone.
Lucia, He sounds like any number of people I know or communicate with (even on your blog) who are outspoken or who have hardcore beliefs… the difference was that he made a decision that the consequences of his shooting people were worth the damage that will come to him.
Robert said: “mass media organs of the right have indulged in inflammatory rhetoric, violent invective, and conspiracy theories”
That statement has no truth. Name your sources and list your quotes. Or, maybe you are just spouting DNC talking points.
That quote looks like something off of “thingsbreak’s” blog that he links to
bob,
Glen Beck routinely goes on conspiracy theory rants about the left. So that is one source.
Not that I’m a fan of Glen Beck… but can we please have an example of a Glen Beck conspiracy theory?
David that’s Glenn Beck, and he’s a rodeo clown not an actual journalist. Those are pretty much his own words. I happen to agree with him (about him being a clown).
David–
Do you get Beck in Australia?
I don’t have cable. I sometimes do see Beck on one of the 6 tv’s in front of the cardio equipment at the gym (but I prefer watching the Food Network, or… dare I say it… soap operas. Let’s face it, there is not much worth watching at 2 in the after noon.)
… and General Hospital is where you’ll be if you stop going to the gym and watching General Hospital
Robert : “Political violence on a large scale is always preceded by a campaign of dehumanization, in which the perpetrators promulgate a narrative of persecution and alienation.”
Perhaps you are talking about Barack Obama’s statements about political adversaries being enemies. Or, are you talking about prominent Democrats accusing Tea Party members of being racist. Certainly, you are talking about the astro-witch Pelosi’s utterances against any and all Republicans, or others who do not agree with the Demos.
As a matter of fact, the biggest mass murderers and racist in the 20th century were ALL left-wing socialists/communists/facists. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot.
lucia,
If I am working late, I watch him for a laugh (he is shown about dinner time here). I work at parliament house, so we get all the cable news/current affairs/conspiracy theory shows. 😉
Carrick,
He may say that, but many people believe the things that he spouts, yet do not believe that he is a clown. (And likely would not believe him even if he told them – it would be part of the conspiracy).
MikeC,
One example is that George Soros runs the progressive movement worldwide.
Another is that any organisation that has any connection with any organisation that has any connection with George Soros is part of the progressive movement.
Oh, and the progressive movement is aiming to overthrow the constitution – whatever that means.
Those are the basics that I have picked up from him. His board of links is a confused mess, however, so I am sure that I am missing many key elements.
bob… and they were all doing that for power
George Tobin:
Spot on.
MikeC,
George Soros runs the progressive movement, which is an anti-capitalist organisation that aims to overthow the constitution – whatever all that means.
Lucia,
Yes, I see it here if I am working late. At parliament house, we get all the cable news/talk shows/conspiracy hours – Fox, CNN, BBC, NBC et cetera.
Carrick,
He may say he is a clown, but his followers do not seem to believe it (although obviously Bill O’Reilly thinks he is spinning rubbish, based on the expression on his face during their interviews …)
Hmm. My posts are not coming through for some reason.
David: “Glen Beck routinely goes on conspiracy theory rants about the left. So that is one source.”
I gotta be careful, here, because I am not a Glen Beck fan.
However, the few episodes I have seen he quoted his sources, and nobody on the left has bothers to address them that I know. He does push the conspiracy thing a bit. Beck offers proof, not like Hillary did about her non-existent right wing conspiracy.
Beck’s trashing of Van Jones, for example, was done primarily with video tapes of Jones’ own words. Jones hanged himself.
MikeC, does this count.
… no, George Tobin is wrong. (a) is entirely incorrect because there is plenty of evidence that his actions were motivated by politics… he shot a politician and a judge at a political event, not to mention he was obviously passionate about his politics… (b) and (c) are conveniently incomplete because Geo leaves out Libertarian
bob,
You can always offer evidence for conspiracy theories. 9-11 Truthers present reams of evidence. While I personally attempted to respond piece by piece to a lot of it for the benefit of friends sucked into it, in the end it became overwhelming. When you do show something to be wrong, they move on to something else. That is what pretty much defines a conspiracy theory: anything that happens can be used as evidence for it, making it unfalsifiable *even if any particular individual piece of evidence or claim is falsified*.
David
Thanks for mentioning that. I fished them out of spam.
great… now I have to wait for the video to d/l
David:
“You can always offer evidence for conspiracy theories. 9-11 Truthers present reams of evidence.”
I never thought the Truthers offered anything but speculation. Certainly, I never saw any documentary or other evidence offered.
Beck does a lot of circumstantial stuff, along with guilt by association. By the time he makes his case, it is fairly convincing to a lot of people.
I don’t understand why people don’t take him on, point for point, instead of stooping to invective and ad hominem stuff. It makes the lefties seem as if they are afraid Beck is right.
David, I watched the video that carrick linked and didn’t see what you put up.
Carrick, I don’t think going after Soros makes a conspiracy theory. Soros is a well known passionate Leftie with plenty of cash who gives generously to his friends on the left. The FEC web page lists what looks like millions in contributions to candidates and organizations… and those are just those who the law requires filing for (where an actual election is involved)… nothing about giving to organizations who are not required to file. It looks like Beck is offering Soros’ political agenda and his efforts to change policy and government to fit his views and financial interests.
A conspiracy theory for me would be more along the lines of the trilateral commission or a group of high power individuals sending guys to the grassy knoll… or Dick Cheney and defense contractors doing the 911 truthers thing.
… reams of evidence were really claims about anything that was in the news about 911… but there was evidence such as the video of the jet fuel exploding from between floors as they pancaked when the buildings collapsed, the truthers tried to say that was from explosives
Lucia, do I have a comment in moderation mode or something?
Carrick, I looked at the Glen Beck video you offered and didn’t see a conspiracy being offered
Hmm… How about this one? At least it doesn’t involve downloads.
I think I gave you the O’Reiley version. Bill, it seemed to me, was taking great pains to not make Glenn look like a madman.
Of course Jon Stewart (the Glenn Beck of the left) has no such problem of course.
Of couse Loughner is insane: a loner, all the usual conspiracy theories, incoherent intellectuallised claptrap – and then he shot about 15 people with no obvious motivation. Drug use as well reputedly.
A lot more pretension than intelligence in some of you.
If he had any definable political philosophy at all it was probably (but not certainly) leftist. That is what his acquaintances say, albiet from 2 or 3 years ago.
.
He did kill a democrat, not a republican.
bugs (Comment#65372)
He did kill a democrat, not a republican.
So?
JFK was a Democrat and was killed by a Marxist. She was a blue dog Democrat. Heretics are often more hated than opponents.
Need some eyeballs Lucia?
I’ve read: Loughner registered to vote in 2006, identifying himself as an Independent.
Sen. Giffords IS a blue dog Democrat …BarryW. 🙂
She is also Arizona’s first Jewish Congresswoman.
She supports gun rights is also a gun and truck owner and chairs the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus.
Palin and Giffords have more things in common then not. Maybe Loughner was listening to the Palin haters on TV and radio. Maybe maybe he got mixed up…maybe he was in love with either one and didn’t want anybody else to have them. Maybe he didn’t like the Senator because she was Jewish…Maybe that skull in his shrine told him to shoot people…
The hardcore left/liberals are already well-grounded in dehumanization.
Abortion, euthanasia, demonizing any political opponent… -they have taken it upon themselves to be judge and jury and sometimes executioner. All part of the leftist/liberal cultural structure. It’s what they do.
Andrew
Liza… it’s the same skull which tells us the world is gonna boil
MikeC, my last post was eaten by the spam troll.
See this for a bit more detail. Specifically this appears to be an accusation of conspiracy:
I gave you the O’Reilly interview because it was shorter (beats 3 hours). O’Reilly seemed embarrassed by the whole debacle as far as I was able to tell, and appeared to me to be steering Beck towards the saner edges of his rhetoric.
MikeC, my skull says, enough already!
Andrew_KY they want to save the planet for only certain people. 😉
Eli
What if I did?
Hi Liza! 🙂
And FYI we are having a Global Warming Storm (for you Deniers, it’s “snow”, which is evidence of Global Warming) right now. They expect several inches of Global Warming (again, “snow”) the rest of the day! 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#65384) January 11th, 2011 at 8:20 am
It’s super cold here for So. Cal. low 40’s F night and morning and only barely hitting high 50’s low 60’s during the day…miss the sunshine (we barely had any this summer!) (Global Warming!) My sister in law sent us pictures from Atlanta yesterday tons of snow there too…another friend in Washington state says the news is out of control with Snow Storm!!!!!! warnings (creating unwanted fear and stress on and already stress out community)there today.
Go figure! I am worn out with all the drama.
Good God. Trying to make this guy out to be a lefty or righty or libertarian is beyond stupid. What, is your ideology automatically right and someone else is wrong because this one particular individual happens to espouse the beliefs of your “enemy”? The bluster form all sides trying to pin a certain political label on this guy is pathetic. My fellow liberals were especially bad is trying to link this to the tea party movement.
That said, maybe no more crosshairs and reload comments for Sarah Palin? Even if it’s unfair, language like that will just draw negative attention. It would be nice to have a rational conversation about politics for a change.
I agree with Boris. The media and our leaders are obviously in the business of division. There’s no point in trying to apply political labels to this guy when we don’t really know what he was about.
Andrew
MikeC,
“We all have a politician who we would find chuckle if watching choke on a chicken bone… or an ex-spouse…”
.
Really? How exactly do you know that I would chuckle watching someone choking on a chicken bone? You are completely mistaken about this; I would in fact try to help them if I could, even if I disagreed with them politically… and I would extend that to include my ex-wife. Heck, I’d even try to help you! 😉
.
I think it is most likely that the guy is just nuts, as several people from his past have suggested. He was banded from the local community college campus because the staff believed he was mentally unstable and represented a threat of violence. I’m betting he will end up being committed for insanity, regardless of if he is convicted for murder or not. Ascribing the acts of the insane to their delusional political inclinations is just silly.
Boris
Sure. And people trying to connect a loon on a killing spree to the Tea Party will also draw attention. Once the connection to the Tea Party is raised in venues like “Meet the Press”, people are going to look for evidence one way or the other, and the issue of whether or not Loughner was a Tea Party member, right or left wing is going to be discussed.
When it turns out the loon has no apparent connection to the Tea Party, that ‘negative’ side of the attention will fall to those who dreamed up the connection to the Tea Party out of the foo-foo filling the crevices of their own heads.
Carrick, Once again, I’m not a Glen Beck fan. But the conspiracy thing still doesn’t play out. George Soros doesn’t make a conspiracy. Not to mention that Soros does donate a lot of money to organizations who are pretty far to the left. The FEC lists millions of dollars to candidates and PACs by Soros (surprise since he is a convicted felon)… not to mention the many organizations who do not require FEC reporting. Now, weather or not Soros supports collapsing the US economy is another story, but he did make a lot of money shorting currencies which helped their collapse. I do not think he has enough money to short US currency… that would take hundreds or even thousands of times more money than he has.
When I think of a conspiracy theory (let’s use 911 truthers for example) it would require powerful people in finance, government, business, media, military and a host of labor assets to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.
ok… sumptins happenin to my comments … here it b again
.
Carrick, Once again, I’m not a Glen Beck fan. But the conspiracy thing still doesn’t play out. George Soros doesn’t make a conspiracy. Not to mention that Soros does donate a lot of money to organizations who are pretty far to the left. The FEC lists millions of dollars to candidates and PACs by Soros (surprise since he is a convicted felon)… not to mention the many organizations who do not require FEC reporting. Now, weather or not Soros supports collapsing the US economy is another story, but he did make a lot of money shorting currencies which helped their collapse. I do not think he has enough money to short US currency… that would take hundreds or even thousands of times more money than he has.
When I think of a conspiracy theory (let’s use 911 truthers for example) it would require powerful people in finance, government, business, media, military and a host of labor assets to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.
Yeah, Steve… that’s why you sent me that bucket of KFC last night…RIGHT??? RIGHT????
3RD ATTEMPT…
Carrick, Once again, I’m not a Glen Beck fan. But the conspiracy thing still doesn’t play out. George Soros doesn’t make a conspiracy. Not to mention that Soros does donate a lot of money to organizations who are pretty far to the left. The FEC lists millions of dollars to candidates and PACs by Soros (surprise since he is a convicted felon)… not to mention the many organizations who do not require FEC reporting. Now, weather or not Soros supports collapsing the US economy is another story, but he did make a lot of money shorting currencies which helped their collapse. I do not think he has enough money to short US currency… that would take hundreds or even thousands of times more money than he has.
When I think of a conspiracy theory (let’s use 911 truthers for example) it would require powerful people in finance, government, business, media, military and a host of labor assets to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.
Re: Boris (Jan 11 08:26),
I agree with Boris.
A person who uses a gun (knife, bomb, whatever) to kill people might intend to make a political statement. (That’s one of the big stories of the 20th century.) On the other hand, he might be living in a tinfoil-hat world that is hidden from everyone else.
Dealing with the former issue is hard enough. Whether or not the killer’s ostensible goals seem “worthy”.
Trying to place the motive of a mentally disturbed individual onto the map of “normal” politics doesn’t seem like such a useful exercise. Especially in the service of re-confirming already-held beliefs.
[Edit — grist for the mill at Steve Sailer’s site, Mother Jones v. New York Times.]
Lucia, I tried to respond to Carrick on the soros thing 3 times now and it’s getting gulped down somewhere by the spammer or sumptin (just put in the last one if you can) thx
… that’s about 6 comments now which haven’t shown up… sorry Carrick, I tried
“out of the foo-foo filling the crevices of their own heads”
Lovely turn of phrase, lucia. This thread needed a good chuckle. 🙂
Sorry MikeC–
I don’t know what’s up with the Spamfilter.
probably doesn’t like certain words
MikeC-
Let’s hope it doesn’t become grammar obsessed! 🙂
Yeah, no kidding… especially the way you try to take my typoe title
Owen (Comment#65325)
January 10th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Owen, what you list are construct outlets for anger and angression. In other words, no one is hurt, killed or threatened. You seem to miss the difference between punching a “punching bag” and punching a person. The former is a way to let off steam without infringing on anyone’s “life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness”. The latter is destructive and often deadly.
Many on the left practice the latter regularly. They are the ones that have not yet found a punching bag, and so use real people to act out their frustrations. That is why one is theatrics (the punching bag) and the other is violence (Malkin’s list).
When I watch Glenn Beck occasionally I am impressed with his attempts to educate and bring some history to his story lines. Unfortunately, like Carrick has noted here, he hints rather strongly at some Progressive conspiracy going on. It is not that I would object to his “teachings” against the Progressives and to better understand what they might have wanted to accomplish it is that he attempts to connect that to the motivations of most left and other politicians of today. That is an over simplification of what today’s politicians think and gives them far too much credit for the deeper thinking that approach would require.
I think he saves himself from the lunacy label when he does thoughtful monologues like he did criticizing the Republicans for avoiding the 3/5 article in the Constitution and the Prohibition amendment in their Constitution recital. He at the same time criticized some publishers of school books for eliminating the N word in a Mark Twain book. I heard the same criticisms, with which I would agree, from all sides of the political spectrum on those two issues.
I suspect that in the MSM and mainstream politics Glenn Beck is considered rather far out. Unfortunately, when we hear main stream media and politicians attempting to connect a lunatic murder to political dialogue and with veiled implications of culpability, I wonder if this is the kettle calling the pot black.
Ken, Beck carries about 40% favorable rating which does not make him a political outlier
“When it turns out the loon has no apparent connection to the Tea Party, that ‘negative’ side of the attention will fall to those who dreamed up the connection to the Tea Party out of the foo-foo filling the crevices of their own heads.”
Agreed, except perhaps it’s more fair to go after the people on Meet the Press than it is Sarah Palin.
I will admit that when I first heard of the shooting, I did think it was likely some wacko right winger. If John Boehner gets shot, I think I’d assume it was some crazy left winger. So I can understand the first impulse response in this sort of tragedy. But I would also hope that people would, you know, think about it before going on the teevee?
MikeC (Comment#65394) January 11th, 2011 at 8:58 am
“Yeah, Steve… that’s why you sent me that bucket of KFC last night…RIGHT??? RIGHT????”
WRONG, WRONG.
Boris
I don’t remember what I thought.
It seems to me we agree on Meet the Press. Where I fault Meet the Press and guests on Meet the Press is packaging and presenting these thoughts for public consumption. That the thought might occur to them does not bother me so much. It’s a bit disturbing that Meet the Pressdon’t seem to filtering prior to setting up their discussions and the people appearing on a widely watched perceived as “newsy” television program don’t filter what they say. But I guess if guests on Jerry Springer get to say whatever just pops into their heads, so can people on Meet the Press!
E.M.Smith has something to say about Wolf Blitzer’s leftist spewing on CNN
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/loony-left-blitzed/
Steve, let me try and explain it a different way. There is nothing irrational about this guy disagreeing with the congresswoman… even passionately. What was irrational was that instead of voting or campaigning against her, he goes to her rally and plugs her in the head… then goes after the crowd.
bob (Comment#65359) January 10th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
“I never thought the Truthers offered anything but speculation.”
The truthers trotted out some half baked ‘metallurgical expert’ who blathered on about the melting point of steel and that the jet fuel fire could not have possibly melted steel.
Rosie O’Donnel has explained this numerous times.
Jet fuel not burning hot enough to melt steel is actually true.
1st rule of successful propaganda, always include a grain of ‘truth’.
Of course for a steel building to collapse the steel doesn’t need to melt it merely needs to become malleable(easily deformable). The temperature at which steel becomes malleable is well below the temperature that jet fuel burns.
Rosie O’Donnel struggles with this concept.
For an at home experiment try melting a metal fork, then try heating it to the point that it bends easily(the cheap ones bend easily at room temperature).
Loughner is said to have asked Giffords at an event back in 2007, and I can’t give an exact quote as I wasn’t at the event and have lost the link, “Do words have meaning?”. She is said to have reacted as if she was surprised, paused for a moment thinking about it and replied to him in Spanish. If Giffords answer provoked laughter in the crowd he may have hated her for having, in his warped mind, caused him to lose face. She is also said to have sort of cut him off by jumping to another person’s question.
He is crazy, with shaved head impersonation of DeNiro in Taxi Driver.
But how many right wing activists post at Daily Kos how Gifford was dead to him for voting against Pelosi on a bill.
The shooter did.
How many right wing activists worship at a skull altar in their back yard?
The shooter did?
How many right wing wackjobs are called ‘left wingers’ by their classmates?
The shooter was.
So the really interesting question for me is why do so many leftist opinionators get out in public and say he was a right winger?
Ignorance? Cynicism?
How many conservatives, when Hollywood was making movies about murdering President Bush called for restricting movies about killing conservatives. Few? None?
How many lefties are out now saying that a psychopathetic lefty murdering a Judge (republican, by the way), a little girl and four others and shooting a Congresswoman is not only Sarah Palin’s fault but talk radio and Fox News, as well?
Many? More?
So is it ignorance, pathology or cynicism in the lefties doing this?
I would like to know.
I agree with Boris, that it is a waste of time to try to link this crazy guy to either the left or the right.
It is nothing more than guilt by association, which I think is frowned upon in America.
Whether this guy was left or right or neither has no bearing on the left or the right.
Even the Palin crosshairs attempted association is silly.
Both sides use that allusion – “we have you in our crosshairs” or ” target so and so for defeat . . .”
What – is the FBI or homeland security going to put extra security on all the other people in Palin’s crosshairs poster – just silly.
I thought MSNBC looked kind of silly going on and on about the dangerous rhetoric from the right – as if thousands of examples don’t exist from the left.
What about the warmers who want to beat particular skeptics up – or Hanson who wants to put executives in jail – is that dangerous rhetoric?
I don’t like Beck much, but what do you call a sustained, fact free series of accusations by ‘progressives’ that talk radio was responsible for what a crazy lefty guy did, and that the solution they all have to crazy people shooting is to restrict free speech on the right?
Not, ‘hey, let’s revisit how we handle the mentally ill!’
Not, ‘hey, maybe his postings at a place like Kos, where extremists vent their spleen is unhealthy.’
Not, ‘hey, where was his family when he was building the skull alter and posting weird junk about ‘conscience dreaming’?
Not, ‘hey, mabe smoking way too much dope, combined with other mental issues, leads to bad things.’
No- the only answer is censor political free speech of conservatives!
Hal, That article shows E.M.Smiths ignorance… Blitzer doesn’t write the news… he reads it
This thread needs more humor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&feature=player_embedded
I like when the animated man asks “What about when the weather is normal?”
The cowardice displayed in many of these comments is shameful. Nobody here is mentioning that this Loughner should have been arrested or put into a mental institute. If my kid made a fake altar with a human skull, he would be seeing a pyschologist, no question asked. There is a big connection here between the failings of the Pima country sheriff’s office and the idiotic rant that the sheriff of the station went on. To no surprise, the sheriff is a far left hack who took this occasion to attack Rush Limbaugh. All of this sissy boy talk about “toning down the language and rhetoric” is trash.
Let’s ask a simple question that will yield very dishonest answers but will thereby tell us where most people’s political affiliations lie.
Who is that is trying to to change our culture through politics? The left wing. The language and rhetoric has heated up because the left is trying to impose their will on people. I am sure Lucia would describe herself as a moderate but I can tell by her writing she is a pretty blue voter. How many Republicans have you voted for in your lifetime, Lucia? I bet you can count on one hand. Yet, this is not surprising. Self-described moderates always lean heavily left.
What the media is doing is nothing new. All of the reporting is an attempt to silence Rush Limbaugh. Rush is the epitomy of the American dream. He did not graduate college, he was fired 7 times (several times due to feminist hiring directives) but he would not stop. He is so much more intelligent and his analysis is so much better than anyone in the media today that they have been sent into a maddening jealous rage.
So it appears that this homicidal shooting doesn’t fit into any convenient political narrative. The real world is sometimes messy. It is, however, instructive to see the opportunism with which some have tried to exploit this tragedy. It is shades of the Duke lacrosse debacle where another convenient narrative turned out rather inconveniently to be untrue (great AJR article on the rush to judgment at http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4379)
Let’s see if the more honorable apologize for initial reckless claims.
Iraq and Afghan Wars-voluntary and Bush did not raise taxes or institute a war tax. You had a CHOICE not to participate.
(note: some idiots will immediately say “oh well what if your in the army and you object to the war?)
answer: if you sign up for the military and don’t think you will be asked to fight you are the biggest idiot in the world. If you don’t think Saddam Hussein was worth taking out, your an idiot.
Obamacare-forced, there is no CHOICE and my taxes will be raised as a result.
global goring-forced, you must pay the ghg tax.
There is no comparison. The left is trying to force change.
hunter asks:
“So the really interesting question for me is why do so many leftist opinionators get out in public and say he was a right winger?”
Rahm Emanuel:
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Shoosh–
Do you have a link supporting the claim the Pima county sheriff who did not previously arrest Loughner acted improperly and/or that he was a “far left hack”?
Where does Dr. Shooshmon stand? He must be a big righty. I will walk everyone through my typical day. I work 9-6, 5 days a week. I go home, go to the gym and play some video games and then go to bed.
What do I want? I want my taxes lowered, thereby allowing myself to choose what I do with my surplus money, not the idiot government. I want to be able to pick and choose which doctors I go to and when. I want the welfare system totally eliminated. The government does not have God’s best intentions at heart and individuals could better help the poor. I want no global warming tax. I want global warming funding to be cut by around 80%. Finally, I would pull out our military from all of the places they are currently stationed at in the world. This last point requires heavy explanation that I shall not get into. A short summary is that the rest of the world has shown us no respect (especially France) and does nothing to combat global problems. “Stop the killing in Darfur.” Guess what loser, holding up a sign doesn’t stop anything, it just makes you look like a stupid coward. Another point is that Muslim countries like Afghanistan have extremely rigid, unchanging cultures. Their strength is fighting. Therefore, we remove our military and instead send in massive boats. Offer to ship the women to places around the world where they can start new lives. I guarantee it would work. Now somebody tell me how this “right wing” thinking is wrong and bad, and how I’m telling somebody what to do.
Lucia, I’m betting that he doesn’t.
I suspect that Loughner getting kicked out of Pima Community College because of worry over his mental stability and fear he might attack somebody can’t be used as a basis for arresting him.
If he had made a tangible threat towards Gifford prior to this attack, finger pointing might be in order. So far I haven’t seen any evidence of this.
By the way it’s my assumption that it’s the word “c0nspir@cy” together with links that is tripping the spam filter. Just guessing.
MikeC, we can agree to disagree on this one. Most references I’ve seen on the web refer to this particular theory of Beck as the Soros C0nspir@cy Theory.
Shoosh… pulling our military from around the world is neither “righty” or a good idea… stick to being a fake internet PhD… you’re much better at it than a global political analist
OK that last comment got spammed filtered.
I thought it might be the c_o_n_s_p_i_r_a_c_y word. Maybe it was S0r0s?
Ok shoosh, I found this:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/sheriff-dupniks-criticism-of-p.html
“political fornickaboobery,” This is almost as good as “Zimbabwefication”.
Jeff ID (who sees “leftist socialists” under his bed and a mortal threat to the U.S) is a hypocrite. In his related post, he writes:
“It is even sadder when lunatics with agenda’s turn this into an anti-conservative political moment, taking gains from the nightmares of good people.”
He then takes to task people who are quick to make a connection between insurrectionist,vitriolic right-wing demagoguery in the the U.S. (which is obvious to anyone who watches Beck and listens to Limbaugh) and the shooter’s actions.
Fair enough. Then at the end of his post, Jeff suggests:
“The murderer himself was far more likely to be listening to Chavez’s anti-capitalist rants at the IPCC conference than a Sarah Palin poster.”
Early in this thread, he elaborates on how he came to this conclusion: “For me it was easy. No conservative would list the communist manifesto or Chavez as an influence, these are acts of a leftie (a crazy one).”
Lefties obviously haunt Jeff’s dreams. It must be a terrible burden to bear.
I think you’re right Carrick… I kept having the same problem
Carrick–
I can’t figure out what’s putting the spam filter on overdrive. It’s akismet– not NOSpamx. (NOSpamx would just delete.)
My blacklist words don’t include conspiracy.
From today’s WSJ Political Diary:
by John Fund
And
(it’s a consp1racy invollving Lucia and the military industrial complex)
MikeC,
“There is nothing irrational about this guy disagreeing with the congresswoman… even passionately.”
.
Agreed, but there is something terribly irrational about suggesting that everyone would chuckle at certain politicians (or ex-spouses) choking on a chicken bone, which appears to be your position:
“We all have a politician who we would find chuckle if watching choke on a chicken bone… or an ex-spouse”.
.
My only motive for engaging you on this is to point out that your statement is simply wrong; not everyone wishes harm to come to those they disagree with politically. BTW, the F stands for Fitzpatrick. What does the C stand for? Crazy?
No Stevie… there is nothing wrong with it at all… anger and other negative emotions are very normal and healthy… what is unhealthy is when you act on them like this guy did.
And it stands for Carson
Keith Kloor,
.
“Lefties obviously haunt Jeff’s dreams.”
.
I don’t known about Jeff’s dreams, but political extremists (of all stripes) haunt mine. I do not think it is a bad thing to be concerned with people who clearly wish to use the power of government to guarantee equality of outcomes…. or to guarantee inequality of outcomes. And people who attempt use the actions of a lunatic as a means to advance their political agenda are contemptable.
No Mikie, your argument is nonsense. I will waste no more time on it.
Of course you wont because you have no arguement
Liza… check
Robert… check
MikeC… check
Stevie’s having a hard day… let’s all give him a group hug and a collective tissue
SteveF:
I found this video played on Letterman “A Tribute to Gerald Ford”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F96KZeYf0Lw&feature=fvw
He is making fun of the former president by pretending he “hates” this video. You can tell that the audience is hesitant to laugh but there is laughter and I am sure there was no outrage.
That’s just one example …I got more. There isn’t anything “wrong” here. I laugh at stuff I wouldn’t laugh at in “proper” circles …everyone does. It certainly wasn’t conservative people who made it more “main stream” to air something like this. I don’t think so at least. (I grew up in the entertainment industry)
I think he checked you then went into his corner to sulk
What makes me mad is that the two Democrats right away went to blame Palin and whoever else, therefore drawing in the Hannitys, Coulters, Becks of the world to jump on this. That both sides are so quick to score points on this horrific tradgedy makes me proud to be a registered independent and centrist. Its disgusting really, when tradgedy like this where an innocent child is murdered get this political gotcha treatment. I hate it and I vote.
Not only that, the freak church is at it too. Where has dignity gone in our world?
MikeC
What is the point of having troops stationed abroad when they can’t fight? The media has wrecked the military, they can’t do anything. Example, some terrorist who was captured in Iraq got punched in the nose by one of our marines and the marine got court martialed. There is no point in fighting these wars until we get a president who tells the media they can’t cover wars. I’m sorry, it is somewhat censorship but we have idiot people here who think Gitmo is bad and should be closed. You have to be an idiot to think that, I’m sorry. Nobody wants those guys to have a civilian hearing in their state.
@Dewitt Payne
Oh my, Dewitt Payne just laid a massive smack down with that post. Awesome analysis, awesome quote of the day.
Lucia, I nailed your political ideology perfectly, huh?
hahahaha, I think one thing everyone can agree on is that idiot group that protests all the funerals, are in fact, idiots.
“Zeke (Comment#65330)
January 10th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Perhaps we can just all agree that crazy people are crazy, and that using them to score cheap political points is distasteful at best.”
May I agree with the above. And add that the dilusional murderer of a child, a number of older people, a Republican Judge and the wouding of others is responsable for his actions. He made the decision to do those things, no one made that decision for him. Conservatives don’t have some mystical force that produces mind control.
“Ken, Beck carries about 40% favorable rating which does not make him a political outlier”
MikeC, that is part of my point. Beck is not viewed favorably by the MSM or probably most politicians of either party and certainly not by the current day intelligentsia. Therefore they dissect his shortcomings when it comes to applying motivations to current day politicians that could imply a conspiracy. At the same time the mainstream takes an incident like the lunatic shooting and blow it into something very big in attempts to make a political point. They even on one hand say tone down the political rhetoric while on the other hand attempting to rile the political waters themselves. It is that inconsistent silliness that makes even the so-called intelligentsia difficult to take seriously.
Shoosh… that’s easy, in WW2 the Japanese were stopped at Midway Island… but if we did not extend our military reach so far abroad, they may have been stopped where?? Santa Barbra? Kansas?
As for the Marine who punched the POW, that is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and if caught, you can get court martialed.
As for the media being embedded with our troops, it’s a price we pay for the 1st ammendment. But I think it’s fine that the media is on the front lines with our troops…
As for Gitmo, it’s a political and legal strategy… call them POW’s and they never get released… give them a trial and they may someday go back to blowing up a bus… but just because some people disagree with that strategy doesn’t mean you dump our security intrests abroad.
Ken, your first point; that Beck is not viewed favorably by the MSM is not correct. He may not be viewed favorably by many reporters with political slants such as those often seen on MSNBC or CNN… but didn’t Beck come up on CNN HLN? He certainly does not get much unfavorable coverage by the biggest news outlet (FOX) where I recall he is currently employed.
The rest of what you said is pretty much correct when you include what I wrote above. However, that’s politics… and those politics and the rhetoric has not changed on just about any issue… you should see some of the things they used to call each other back in the 17 and 1800’s.
MIKEC
I have always heavily supported the military. Let’s take Korea for example, though. I think we should support South Korea but China does absolutely nothing. They may in fact support North Korea over South Korea for all we know. Secondly, none of the European countries offer us any support. And you said “our security interests abroad”. Well, these are also security interests for some of our allies and they don’t act like it. Maybe if we pull out the troops it will signal to them that more is expected of them. Would you agree that our allies are not doing near enough to support us?
Shoosh, that’s bogus. The current French president is pro-American. We did not get French cooperation in the Iraq war because France and Iraq were trading partners. The same goes with Iran. We get plenty of support from our allies in Europe, particularly Great Brittan. Just because there are (often minority opined) opposition in some countries who get headlines does not mean we get no support. And China does a lot to keep N Korea in check. They do not want another Korean conflict. Especially now that the US is their biggest customer for commercial goods.
MikeC (Comment#65451) January 11th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Shoosh… that’s easy, in WW2 the Japanese were stopped at Midway Island… but if we did not extend our military reach so far abroad, they may have been stopped where?? Santa Barbra? Kansas?
= = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
The Japanese were stopped by the diggers at in New Guinea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guinea_campaign
If they could not take Port Moresby from the convicts I don’t think Kansas was on the menu.
China took about 20 million casualties fighting Japan and tied down about 3.5 million troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
The British and Indians also tied down several hundred thousand in SE Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Campaign
WWII was largely fought for the allies by China and the Soviet Union.
You can have your make believe climate nonsense, but at least get your history somewhere near the ball park.
Dr. Shooshmon, phd. (Comment#65453) January 11th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Secondly, none of the European countries offer us any support.
= = = = = = = = = = =
Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country
USA: 1,381*
UK: 349
Canada: 153*
France: 53
Germany: 49
Denmark: 40
Italy: 34
Spain: 30*
Netherlands: 25
Poland: 22
Australia: 21
Romania: 17
Norway: 9
Estonia: 8
Georgia: 5
Sweden: 5
Hungary: 4
Czech Republic: 3
Latvia: 3
Portugal: 2
South Korea: 2
Turkey: 2
Belgium: 1
Finland: 1
Jordan: 1
Lithuania: 1
New Zealand: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan
Sickening lack of respect for the people who have died for American foriegn policy objectives.
Even something as simple as who is dying besides your troops is too much effort to get the basic facts right on.
Bet most of the Americans do not know 50 French soldiers have died on the US led operations in Afgahnistan.
Sounds good Dorlomin… care for some chicken?
dorlomin,
did those people die because they believed in the US Objectives or because their Politicians preferred to suck up to Uncle Sam?
I do not know and am open to education on the issue.
kuhnkat (Comment#65459) January 11th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
“did those people die because they believed in the US Objectives or because their Politicians preferred to suck up to Uncle Sam?”
An Article 5 event as defined by the NATO charter occurred.
It’s not a question as to whether they ‘suck up to Uncle Sam’, it’s a question as to whether they fulfill their NATO treaty obligations.
More on Kanjorski of the ‘Put him against the wall and shoot him’. Today he had an article in the NYT decrying political rhetoric. When I pointed out this hypocrisy by the NYT to Keith Kloor at his blog ‘Collide-a-Scape’, he shut me down, but not before attempting to trip me up with strawmen. Go read it if you want a laugh.
=================
Dr. Shooshmon, phd. (Comment#65448) January 11th, 2011 at 1:07 I “I think one thing everyone can agree on is that idiot group that protests all the funerals, are in fact, idiots.”
No they are not idiots.
They protest at funerals because they know it will outrage someone to the point of taking a swing at them.
Then they sue in civil court for damages.
The wife of the head of the “westborough baptist church’ is a lawyer. They have a very profitable business going on.
I find it disgusting that they would deliberately provoke violence against themselves in order to profit by that violence, but there is nothing ‘idiotic’ about people who figure out to manipulate the system to make money.
… except that it was the church which was successfully sued… so yeah, idjits
Kim (whoever you are):
Near the end of our exchange, I tried twice to email you at the address provided in your comment info, but it bounced back both times. In that email, I reminded you of what I said in the my last comment at the thread–to you–that we had already past the point of diminishing returns in our particular exchange, and that it was time to move on and see if the thread could go in another direction.
I also said that you were welcome to keep commenting, but I asked you to move on from the tit for tat that we were engaged in.
Keith, you were pitiful on that thread, and continue to be.
================
Well, thanks for reinforcing my point about diminishing returns.
Keith Kloor:
Wow. Another hate-filled lefty.
Thanks for the lesson in tolerance, Keith.
Keith, I read the thread and Kim seemed to effectively throw your claims back in your face… and you seemed to try to shut her out/up
Loughner was not a member of the Tea Party, but his views would have put him in good standing with the Party had he decided to join.
What Loughner’s friend Alex Montanaro said about him, as reported in the January 10 Wall Street Journal, indicates he has a typical right-wing extremist view of government:
Mr. Montanaro recalled his friend developed “a hate for government and just how everything was systematic…He thought government controlled people too much.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071191163461466.html
Loughner’s own words on YouTube express his disdain for the “current government” The following is an excerpt from a CNN report on his YouTube comments.
“What’s government if words don’t have meaning?†and provides a concluding statement that “reading the second Unites States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ramifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar”
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-537880
It doesn’t do the Tea Party’s image any good when a fire-arm carrying anti-government ideologue shoots a Congressional Democrat the Tea Party has identified as an enemy.
Max_OK:
“Loughner was not a member of the Tea Party, but his views would have put him in good standing with the Party had he decided to join.”
Does this include his views on patriotism (flag burning, anti-military, anti wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), government responsibility to citizens (should provide public housing and jobs), religion (atheist/agnostic), views on law enforcement (hated police), and his admiration for the communist manifesto? Oh, and the fact that he came across as left wing/liberal to those who knew him seems to indicate that he really wasn’t a real Tea Party type of guy.
One the other hand, he wouldn’t seem too out of place burning giant paper mache dolls of Bush Jr and smashing up Starbucks.
Keith,
Can you separate the difference between the claim that right wing politics is responsible for inciting the killings and pointing out that the idiot in question was a leftist?
Hint: One is about scoring political points from murdered people, and one points out the fallacy of the arguments being used to score those points.
Perhaps you are suggesting that we conservatives are not allowed to disagree with the original argument as posed. Is it just another instance where we should accept what the ever-brilliant left says without discussion?
I think you owe an apology to me for stating that I’m a hypocrite but I doubt you have the guts after the wild statements you made above.
Max_OK (Comment#65470) January 12th, 2011 at 3:20 am
“Loughner was not a member of the Tea Party, but his views would have put him in good standing with the Party had he decided to join.”
That’s the stupidest logic I’ve read yet. Sen. Giffords’ views would have too. You know the one lady that was shot in the head? She is a gun owner and wanted more border protection and patrols.
Some of my views about the country agree a little bit with some the Tea Party stuff so I guess I am just like Loughner ! (Funny how the Tea Party who “hates the government” endorsed and elected so many men and women recently into that government they hate so much)
And what the heck is “the second U S Constitution” ?
I believe Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, even Socialist and Communists in this country, know there is only one US Constitution. Do you?
The point I have been trying to make clear and will try again is this:
The shooter’s main attribute is being crazy, not in being ‘left’ or ‘right’, ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’.
It is not what he heard or read or wrote that drove him to commit the crimes that led him to the murders of six people and the terrible wounding of Giffords.
It is that he is crazy.
Rush Limbaugh did not drive him crazy. Sarah Palin did not drive him crazy. Keith Olbermann did not drive him crazy.
Politics did not drive him crazy.
He was crazy, smoked dope, produced bizarre Youtube videos about ‘conscience dreaming’, made criminal threats to more than a few people which the Sheriff ignored, and decided to shoot up a group of people.
ALL of the talk about which political group he belonged to is a waste of time. He belonged to the party of crazy.
ALL of the talk about political rhetoric causing this is a disgusting waste of time.
It was crazy that caused this.
The only thing that is making this criminal tragedy worse is the cheap hacks trying place the blame outside of where it belongs:
The shooter’s craziness.
Contrasting this event with the Ft. Hood terror attack leaves our political leaders and media looking pitiful hypocritical and ignorant.
Max_OK,
When you find us a tea party group that engages in satan worshiping, dope smoking, stalking and threatening people get back to us.
Otherwise, you might want to consider that you are just writing vile made up bs.
If you think political groups don’t target opponents for defeat and use military imagery all of the time, you are not thinking on that one, either.
Jeff, please. Joe Romm, your mirror opposite on the left, is fond of asking for apologies, too. He also traffics in the same sweeping, generalist labeling, characterizing all skeptics as “anti-science deniers.”
What’s the differences between your hyperbolic rants against dems and enviros (who you invariably refer to as either leftist/socialist/marxists) and his hyperbole?
None. But you’re already heard that before from me.
Keith Kloor:
What’s the difference between your hyperbole and Romm’s for that matter?
“insurrectionist,vitriolic right-wing demagoguery in the the U.S” is quite a mouthful for people who are semi-sane.
We simpletons obviously need a political education from Keith, who can maybe explain why this image posted by James Annan is perfectly OK.
I understand that people naturally want to put a reason on senseless acts and try to find solutions, but I disagree with everyone who says that we need to tone down our political (right or left) speech because of the acts of this crazy person. Loughner was responsible for his actions. It was the devil in his own head that caused him to kill people, not Karl Marx or Glenn Beck. I don’t care if he visited every racist, anarchist, loony website out there.
And it is hyperbole to say that things are more tense now than any time in our political history. Has everyone forgotten the riots and protests of the Civil Rights and Vietnam eras?
As Hillary Clinton stated: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you are not patriotic. And we should stand up and say, ‘We are Americans and we have a right to disagree with any administration.'”
“Glock Pistol Sales Surge in Aftermath of Arizona Shootings” (Bloomberg)
.
.
Like I said, it’s good to have a gunshop around the corner (and that’s the real problem…)
keith kloor,
Why do losers in a debate so often seek, as y9ou have done, to equate two things that are unequal.
Equating Joe Romm to Jeff Id is like equating a pirannha with a can of tuna.
(no offense to Jeff)
Tamara,
Exactly right.
the bizarre-o call of so many on hte left to restrict our freedoms because of this shooting is becoming more troubling than the terrible crime itself.
Mr. Obama is a fork in the road today. his actions and words in Tuscon may well define his Presidency in important ways. If he chooses to continue the path of blaming political free speech for the actions of a madman, he will have taken a path that will lead him to a dead end, and the justified disregard of history.
Carrick,
Why don’t you tell us what is wrong with it?
And while you are at it, please show us the diference between this democrat party map that was in use prior to Palin’s, and why it is OK if Palin’s is not?
http://american-conservativevalues.com/blog/democrats-have-their-own-target-map-and-bulls-eye-map.html
Lefty hacks blaming this shooting on Sarah Palin are only showing that they have a problem with reality.
Everytime that idiot Sheriff makes this slanderous charge, he only helps to make sure the shooter gets off.
Do you like the idea of crazy violent poeple walking free?
The Sheriff apparently does, since he declined to prosecute the shooter for his prior violent threats.
the left keeping this up guarantees that America is going to be even more repulsed by what the left in America is becoming.
No Carick, what you need to do is call out inflammatory, insulting rhetoric from your fellow climate skeptics. I do it regularly with Joe Romm and it earns me nothing but spitballs and boos from his side.
Who does it with Jeff ID? Anybody on this thread take issue with Jeff’s routine labeling of the President/Dems/enviros as leftist/socialists/marxists?
You don’t like the denier label attached to you? Fair enough. (I don’t use it–never have. And I’ve tried mightily to define the broad spectrum of skeptics on my blog in many posts. And that gets me plenty of grief, as well.) So how about taking offense when one of your favorite climate bloggers uses similar labels to tar a group of people?
hunter:
Take another look at the image.
Annan has modified the image by drawing a red line through Giffords name and replaced the “bulls-eye” with a red dot.
poor Jeff… he’s nothing but little pieces of a big fish
Carrick????
Hello!!!
“For a more literal example, the map below appeared on the website of the Democratic Leadership Committee back in 2004. It refers to Republicans as the “enemy” and refers to some congressmen as “ripe ‘targets’ for Democrats.”
http://theromreport.blogspot.com/2011/01/in-crosshairs-of-insanity-democrats-and.html
Carrick,
Wow. Who is Jeff Annan? what a creep.
Sorry to have missed that and jumped you.
Fortunately I am getting my new glasses in the next couple of weeks and will be able to once again easily see such mischief.
Oh sorry Carrick! I missed your link. I just saw it.. (holy cow!!)
Ho ho ho ho! Wow, this is big fun. MikeC, I’m well aware that France and Iraq were trading partners during the Iraq War. I think that I don’t care and the French were cowards for not helping us. On one of the first pages of my international relations textbook, it said that France and Germany immediately set about to undermine U.S. war efforts in Iraq. I’m also aware that mostly the Chinese and the Russians fought the most during WWII and they had much higher casualties than the U.S. I can’t believe I’m getting all of these attack posts for simply pointing out that the rest of the world does nothing about global problems. Also, I know Sarkozy is pro American but his popularity is about where Obama is in the U.S. One of the first things Sarkozy did when he became president is to ask school teachers to read a letter a WWII pilot wrote to his wife…the crazy left wing French teachers roundly rejected the request.
“I bet know one knows 50 French soldiers died in Afghanistan.” Hoo boy, a whole 50. Let us try again. “Stop the killing in Darfur.” Somebody tell me, who is doing anything about it? I know, let’s go in alone with no allies and run the debt up even higher. Europe doesn’t give a damn about Sudan. I’m calling on all sign wavers of this cause to put the sign down and buy a plane ticket to Sudan if you care so much. Otherwise, shut up because your not doing anything either.
Lucia, great post by the way. I always love to see everyone disagree on a simple issue like this. I think you should listen to Rush today if possible. He and this sheriff are really going at it. Does anybody think that Loughner himself is responsible for this attack? At this time, I’d like to make the simple point that it is ashame there wasn’t a law abiding citizen carrying a gun at this event because he could have shot Loughner and possibly saved numerous lives. I really don’t understand the idiots focused on gun control and bullseyes and crosshairs on an electoral map. Loughner could have killed just as many people and maybe more if he went to that event with a samurai sword. He not have been able to injure or wound as many but he would have been harder to subdue, as not many people want to tackle somebody holding a samurai sword. It is the person, not the gun. Furthermore, he could’ve built a bomb. On the point about bullseyes and crosshairs, who is prepared to tell Nerf that they can no longer display these images on their foam dart guns?
I would also caution everyone to be very careful as this case unfolds because undoubtedly, Loughner is going to make a bogus statement to the media to further deflect blame at political discourse. I would be very surprised if he doesn’t end up getting a very soft sentence because the media has turned things into a circus, surprise surprise. Finally, let nobody forget that the left wing started the blame game here, no denying it. 2 Hours after the shooting, disgraced Princeton grad Paul Krugmann started the attacks on the right wing. Lucia, even you have to admit that the left started this one.
hunter:
James Annan is a distinguished member of the climate community.
Steve Sailer, again.
And Bill Ayers was just an English professor who lived in the neighborhood. 😉
Reading some of the comments on that page comparing the Democrat map and the Republican map is hilarious. Carrick, I don’t see any difference between having a bullseye or a crosshair, or maybe I was looking at a different map. I keep seeing these comments “The extremist views from the left come from the fringe but the right has extremist views coming from the majority”
Well, maybe because their not extreme. Maybe Rush Limbaugh represents the majority of what conservatives think, I believe he does.
Example: Death Panels. The left wing screamed and cried over this characterization, yet it is perfectly accurate. When you have a panel of 5 people that can decide to make a drug available or unvailable, and also do it on the basis of age, that is death panel. When you say “sorry, we’re not allowing this drug because it’s too expensive,” that is a death panel. Now, people will say “oh oh, well insurance companies don’t cover pre-existing conditions”. This is totally false, most insurance companies do in fact carry pre-existing conditions. So I see very rational points being made, not extreme views.
*cover* not *carry*
Shoosh? Is this how you normally behave after a session at the mental health clinic? Emotional, unintelligible ranting, and demanding that people do as you wish? Are you related to the subject of this thread?
As for those portions of your diatribe which I could decipher, it was someone else who mentioned the French losses in the ‘stan and the Chinese losses in WW2. My only reason for bringing up WW2 was as an example of why we keep forces abroad in peacetime. However, the French president did get elected on a pro-American platform and I’m guessing you forgot to consider that his and Obamas poor approval rating are related to a bad economy.
And what is this about people attacking you? I saw disagreements and maybe a humorous jab… but attack? Dude, the next time you see a mental health professional, let him know that you exhibit behaviors consistent with paranoia and controll/rage issues when you do not get your way… kinda like Loughner… might save a crowd of people… and yourself.
James Annan is weird.
Why didn’t you post a link to his blog Carrick?
I am sure people would get a kick out of his ravings.Hard to believe a man who writes this garbage is a man of science
Watching the film “The US vs John Lennon” last night” (not really our usual style, but it was Now Cheap on iTunes) it became more apparent to me than it was previously, that the US has had a surfeit of rabid violent nutters for a very long time indeed. Of course there is little motivation for the politicians to attempt to tame them, because they serve a useful purpose in enabling intimidation and even assassination by proxy. Not that the politicians are necessarily above the latter all the time anyway, but it’s obviously more convenient and much cleaner if the trigger is pulled by some delusional nutcase rather than a directly paid operative.
And then this morning’s news, of course, which is why a random cynical thought has actually turned into a blog post. Oh, I updated Sarah Palin’s poster for her
End
Respected by who Carrick?
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2011/01/us-nuttery.html#comments
Also, this question is for Lucia and Liza. Would you both agree that it is total crap that some health care plans will cover women’s birth control totally free but will not give men condoms for free under the same plan. I realize that women’s birth control is a lot more expensive and I think it would be reasonable to cover most of it, but women should have to pay at least 20 bucks.
I predict Lucia will disagree with me but Liza will agree.
MikeC
Wow. So it’s crazy to suggest that France our “so-called” ally should put aside trading interests (mostly of which were personal lavish expenditures by Saddam himself) to help us fight a war.
“China does a lot to keep North Korea in check.” No, your wrong. I haven’t seen one statement condemning their actions from Ju Jintao. I’m just so crazy.
Shoosh, Now you’re delusional. You mentioned the Chinese losses, in WW2 which was a response to another commenter. When China deals with N Korea, they do it behind closed doors. They don’t hold a summit. And as for the French and their trading status with Sadam, there you go again with your power and control issues… everyone has to agree with Shoosh and do as he insists or be any number of colorful metaphors.
…oh… and if a guy can afford to properly wine and dine a girl then he can afford to put 3 quarters in the condom machine on the bathroom wall
There is no getting around the fact the Tea Party’s image has been damaged because a gun loving anti-government ideologue shot a Congressional Democrat the Tea Party identified as an enemy.
The reaction of the Tea Party reminds me of a skunked dog franticly trying to get rid of the horrible odor. The dog’s solution is to disperse the stink by rolling in dirt. The Tea Party’s solution is to throw dirt.
Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips described the shooter as “a leftist lunatic” and urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on Giffords. This is similar to the tactic the Party tried to use when accused of racism by the NAACP. When accused of racism, they called the accusers racists.
Will the Arizona tragedy cause the Tea Party and the right-wing commentators to tone down or abandon the hateful rhetoric so successfully used to rouse fear and anger in their followers ? We shall see.
Max_OK–
Huh? This shooting doesn’t reflect in anyway on the tea party except in so far as some kooks on TV, or bloggers like PZ Myers tried to smear it on them. Of course you are going to get responses. It happens that people who actually met Loughner were under the impression he was left wing not right wing. His “writings” contain a range of incomprehensible ravings, many of which can be read as left wing, some as right wing and most as just wingless ravings.
These murders were not caused by right or left wing rhetoric. The guy was bat shit crazy.
Shoosh–
You’d have to show me a specific plan for me to answer your question. There are usually divisions between prescription medication vs. over the counter. But I’d prefer to not discuss birth control and healthcare on this thread. I have absolutely no interest into delving into any specific health care plan to determine whether I think, on the balance, it is “fair”.
Keith says:
Who does it with Jeff ID? Anybody on this thread take issue with Jeff’s routine labeling of the President/Dems/enviros as leftist/socialists/marxists?
I would think this one would be pretty easy for you. Instead to engaging in rhetorical devices and urging us to take Jeff to task for his routine labeling. You simply present your stable of President/Dems/enviros who are strongly in favor of free markets and individual freedoms. You then directly falsify Jeff’s premise. Heck, I bet Jeff would even have the mental fortitude to rethink his position given direct refutation by a sizable list of dems/enviros who hold a free market/individual freedom stances. From my experience, Jeff seems pretty well persuaded by solid objective evidence.
I must admit to a certain curiosity about who would be on such a list.
Oh that is a surprising answer Lucia. I don’t know the specific plan, one of my girlfriend’s from Colorado told me she got hers for free and I told her that it’s bogus I can’t get condoms for free.
MikeC
I’m done with the talk about our strategic international military obligations. I’ll take your word for it that China handles North Korea behind closed doors but you won’t agree on anything. We both just disagree and for different reasons. I do have to say though, I have never purchased a condom out of one of those machines in a gas station bathroom and I suspect they do not work well.
Max_OK
Max, will you at least concede that the Democrat party had a supermajority in congress and could have passed any bill they wished? Will you concede that they were foolish to wait until the last minute to either extend or remove elements of the Bush tax cuts? If they were that upset about the tax rate, they should have changed it months or a year ago. They should not have dragged their feet on the healthcare bill, the longer they let it go, the more upset people became. I don’t think it’s fair to blame it on defiance from conservatives.
I don’t know if I would call Obama Marxist but I definitely find him to be socialist and leftist. Keith, would you agree that Obama wants America to resemble a more European governmental system? It seems to me he does.
Max_OK
Actually, your example regarding racism is both fitting and ironic. The Tea Party is composed of a lot of white people, therefore it is racist. The NAACP is composed of a lot of black people, therefore it is also racist.
The Tea Party supports Constitutional rights, of which gun ownership is one. Loughner purchased a gun. Therefore, they are both “gun loving” and Loughner can be tied to the Tea Party.
Fun! Lets try some more.
Gabrielle Giffords was a white person who supported gun rights. Giffords’ House seat was targetted by the Tea Party. Gifford’s was attacked by gun-loving Loughner who can be tied to the Tea Party and may have visited racist/anti-semite websites. Therefore Giffords was clearly an undercover operative working for the NAACP.
Some of you objective people (MAX_OK) seem to be forgetting that other people besides a Democrat were killed on Jan 8 2011
John Roll:
“Other plaudits came from Senator John McCain, who had recommended Roll for appointment to the federal bench; from Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik; and from Bishop Gerald Kicanas of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson, who noted that Roll was an active parishioner who “lived his faith”.[12] Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes Arizona, stated that “Judge Roll was a widely respected jurist, a strong and able leader of his court, and a kind, courteous and sincere gentleman”.[12] President Barack Obama commented on Roll’s death in his statement issued after the shooting, noting that Roll “served America’s legal system for almost 40 years”.[13]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roll
Christina-Taylor Green, 9, of Tucson. Green was accompanied to the meeting by a neighbor.[28] Green died at University Medical Center.[6][92] Born on September 11, 2001, she had appeared in the book Faces of Hope: Babies Born on 9/11 (page 41).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
Dorothy “Dot” Morris, 76. A retired secretary from Oro Valley. Her husband George survived two gunshot wounds while attempting to shield her.[90][98]
Phyllis Schneck, 79. Homemaker from Tucson.[90][100]
Dorwin Stoddard, 76. Stoddard was a retired construction worker.[101] He was shot in the head while shielding his wife Mavy from the gunman. She spoke with him for 10 minutes before he died of his injuries.[90]
Of course there are others…
Pray, pray, pray.
Andrew
Nolene:
Let’s just say he’s not on my blog roll now. I’m not going to add traffic to people who behave like this…
As to respected…I think it’s true that he is generally well respected in the climate community for his contribution to climate modeling. He has in the past been critical of some of the more overheated rhetoric within the community and critical the method used by the IPCC to combine model outputs (“truth centered paradigm”), both of those initially attracted my attention to his blog.
Thanks for the reply Carrick.
I googled his name.I will not be visiting his blog again.
I read that this mass murderer listened to Slipknot.Googled their lyrics.Quite sick and full of profanity.
If people believe that words and pics can influence somebody to commit mass murder then this is the band that tipped him over.
Lyrics to Blackheart
and all the pain you caused
left my mind blank and my soul was lost
and now the thoughts are in my head and drifting side to side
you know I’m gonna get you cause there is nowhere to hide
headlines will read on the night she died
one of these days I’m gonna get you
find your body
in a valley
in the alley
in a ditch
with a 45 chrome to the back of your dome
having everybody wondering what is going on
where did you go
never be back again
End
If it’s ok to blame a politician and radio hosts,then it’s ok to blame a band.Maybe Congress should be banning all the violence in songs,films,games etc.
That’s sarcasm by the way,although sometimes I do wonder if unbalanced people get pushed over the edge by listening to a certain song or watching certain movies.
Tamara:
Thanks! But you haven’t really gotten to the heart of it.
Rep. Giffords — may she recover and be well — is a representative of Arizona. Arizona has been criticized recently for policies against illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a source of funds for Mexican criminals. Therefore, Loughner carried out his atrocity because he was sympathetic to Mexican criminals.
Just to be clear: I’m being sarcastic with the “logic” here. It is not my fault that other persons are serious in putting forth arguments as insubstantial as this.
Keith,
I find your inability to disaggregate disingenuous. There is a big difference between proclaiming that a story is related to conservative political talk and exposing that the idiot in question wasn’t a conservative. What points are there to gain for me? What points are the media trying to gain by falsely insisting the guy was a conservative?
While it is clear that you don’t want me to call Obama a leftist but calling my explanations of why this guy wasn’t motivated by conservatives hypocritical, is simply false. I wonder, in what way am allowed to explain why an idiot like this who worked on democrat campaigns, looks up to Chavez and reads the communist manifesto for political pointers, is not a conservative.
Perhaps next time I could write to you and ask your permission and direction on the correct method to critique liberals of the media when they are lying for political gain? Would that be satisfactory?
Max_OK,
The only fact that cannot be gotten around is that you are acting more and more like a troll.
Your non-resonse to my point that you cannot find a tea-party that endorses pot smoking, stalking, criminal threats, skull worship, etc. and until you do you should re-consider connecting the shooter to the teea party only shows that you are not really engaging on this except to demonstrate your lack of integrity.
Noelene,
Loughner couldn’t have been influenced by the musical exploits of groups like Slipknot. You see Al Gore solved that problem back in the 80’s. Back then Al and Tipper made it their mission to clean up the music industry by putting warning labels on offensive lyrics. Al was universally hated by everyone in the entertainment industry because he was an unhip bible thumping censoring conservative democrat. He was pro-life, pro-tobacco, anti-fun. It was later that he decided to rebrand himself and became a pro-choice, anti-tobacco, pro-hollywood eco-dork. Now he is saving us from CO2 the same way that he saved us from offensive lyrics.
lucia in her Comment#65507) January 12th, 2011 at 11:18 am said:
Max_OK–
Huh? This shooting doesn’t reflect in anyway on the tea party except in so far as some kooks on TV, or bloggers like PZ Myers tried to smear it on them. Of course you are going to get responses. It happens that people who actually met Loughner were under the impression he was left wing not right wing.
——
I don’t thinks so, but I’m willing to review those impressions with you. If you will quote those who thought Loughner was left wing, I will quote those who thought he was right-wing.
And if you will quote Loughner’s left-wing thoughts from his YouTube video, My final thoughts: Jared Lee Loughner, I will quote his right-wing thoughts.
hunter said in his Comment#65476, January 12th, 2011 at 8:04 am
Max_OK,
When you find us a tea party group that engages in satan worshiping, dope smoking, stalking and threatening people get back to us.
—–
Hunter, neither you or I know what Tea Party members do when no one is looking. I do know one very prominent right-wing commentator got in trouble over illegal purchases of a controlled substance. Was it called Hillbilly Heroin?
MAx_OK,
So you do not know of any tea partiers who do what the shooter did But they could be in their hillbilly oxycotin haze doing something like this. When I look at tea party rallies on TV they sure look like meth and oxy addicts to me! And of course the police, when lookin for groups to check for public drug use always know that some lefty rally will yield no dope, but that tea party rally- there are the dopers!
And your sad attempt to claim you can find people who say he was a right winger is limited only by the problem you face in that those who say he was a righty are lying.
I always said he is only a member of the crazy party. You are the one who needs to blame your political enemies.
No,you decided to link the shooter to the tea parties because it was trollish and you are a cheap shallow person.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Ben Hale has some worthwhile things to say
————————
Friend and fellow philosopher Jeremy Bendik-Keymer (Case Western Reserve) put it to me this way:
My partner, Elaine, is a seasoned therapist. We watched Loughner’s YouTube site last night. He’s insane. But Elaine had no doubt that politics *channeled* or *guided* the direction of his insanity. Imagine your head has gone wild with internal anxiety -even voices. You cast about for a direction, an outlet, some way to turn the mess into relief. Now comes a message that for some idiosyncratic reason speaks to you and allows you a modicum of rationality inside your paranoia. And it tells you that you feel so bad because the government and the system –anything that’s not your head- has warped reality & that you must tear it all down. And now there’s a target over this one public officer’s face. And others have shouted -others who say things like you- that she should be shot, or “taken outâ€. And now you think one day when your head is going nuts — this has been building for you for a while, you may even have been planning it as an apotheosis- this is the chance. Now I will do this.
. . .
Similarly, if I wander through the halls of an insane asylum shouting that the doctors are plotting to harvest the organs of the inmates, that they must be stopped by any means necessary, I am committing a wrong. Again, I am committing this wrong whether or not the inmates do kill their doctors. If the inmates do in fact kill the doctors, they may have been plotting so for other reasons–perhaps their craziness was what motivated them–but my hands are dirtied in the killing of the doctors by my act of shouting falsities and inciting crazy people to take action even if the causal link is not made.
Finally, if I screech over the airwaves that some politician is destructive to the fabric of America, and must be targeted and stopped, or that we must not retreat but reload, or that we must begin the revolution, then I open myself to culpability for willing this rule, effectively, into a law; into execution; for having universalized it.
It’s my right to do this, of course, just as it is anybody’s right. It is my right to say awful things to children and my right to tell insane people that they are being persecuted, but it is still grossly irresponsible, terribly immoral, unacceptably impermissible. The banshees of the airwaves—Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the many others—as well as their defenders, must acknowledge this.
“Hunter, neither you or I know what Tea Party members do when no one is looking.”
MAX_OK,
I can tell you as a Tea Partier myself, what I do when no one is looking.
I go to work and work (no one seems to care but me). I come home and eat. I go to the bathroom. I pray. I read newspapers and books. I sleep. I shower. I get up and go to work again…
Andrew
Max_OK,
The thing of it is, you’re expending a lot of energy to tie Loughner to right-wing politics, when the truth is that he was a nutcase and as you say, spouted various things, and one can find statements which are sympathetic to more or less any political persuasion.
But what have you got at the end of the day, assuming that you’re successful in convincing people that Loughner was really a Republican (or tea partyist, or whatever)? All you’re trying to build is a guilt-by-association fallacy. To wit:
(1) what Loughner did was reprehensible;
(2) Lougher was a Republican; ergo
(3) Republicans are reprehensible.
You’ll get pretty much everyone to agree with premise#1. Hard to sell premise#2, but even those who agree with that aren’t allowed to conclude #3. Of course some will; but the process is one of rationalization not logic, in which they start out believing #3, and use the faulty syllogism to justify it.
Re: Eli Rabett (Jan 13 07:35),
Eli, that’s a Fail for Ben Hale’s partner. Do you see why?
Suppose 50 blue marbles and 50 red marbles. Or 25 blue, 25 red, 25 green, 25 yellow, etc. Something marble-related happens, causing Dr. Blue to examine the red marbles for defects. By golly, she finds them! Conclusion: the awful red marbles and their awful defenders must acknowledge that her analysis gets to the heart of the matter.
Dr. Red’s dissections of the blue marbles — which are also exhibited in these comments, often enough — aren’t any better.
Eli–That’s quite a stretch. That your friend and fellow philosopher’s partner is a ‘seasoned therapist” does not make her idiosyncratic musings any less of a stretch. BTW: Fellow philosopher? Are we to assume this fellow’s philosophical ruminations are on the same level as yours? Hmm…..
“The banshees of the airwaves—Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the many others—as well as their defenders, must acknowledge this.”
What a bunch of bologna. Then you’d better close down the Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago , lock up Rosie O’donell for her blasts and arrest some filmmakers.
I am pretty down the middle in my politics. The Democrats offer up Al Gore one year and John Kerry for President the next and then complain, whine, rage, hate, scream, in every single media outlet possible how horrible President Bush is no matter what he does for EIGHT YEARS and now these same people are going to explain and dictate how everyone should behave? What a joke. I just watched a very pleasant movie this past weekend on cable. One that was in the theater a few years ago but I missed it. I swear they wrote a scene at the end just to bash Bush. The scene didn’t have to be there. Didn’t have anything to do with the story and a little girl delivered the lines in a song; at a school talent contest.
The “rightwing violence” is gonna run amuck if right wingers don’t shut up is a myth.
Liberalism is Dead:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/12/liberalisms-death-knell-keeps-tolling/
On drinking coffee I see it’s Ben Hale’s fellow philosopher. Interesting to see that philosopher’s provide such tenous arguments, and their fellow philosophers seem to imply they are right by apparent claims to authority (i.e. “seasoned therapist”.)
Eli:
Did Elaine just say she’s channeling Loughner?
Thought so. LMAO.
Truthfully, this is just another example of the pathetic state of the American mental health care industry (hardly worthy of the term science, IMO), when people who are supposed to be members of that community produce drivel like this.
Another question for MAX,
What do Climate Scientists do when no one is looking? 😉
Andrew
Eli:
This is probably the most nonsensical post I have ever seen you make. It shows that some will stoop to any depth to justify and advance their political goals; really very sad.
I miss Bob Hope.
Ben met Bunny,
Made a hit.
But Bun thought Ben
Knew a …..
Shinola!
=======
Ah, heck. ‘Shinola Shine’ would’ve been a lot better. And ya gotta give me the five little signs.
============
The rain. It falls. Like water from the sky. To the earth.
Is Eli suggesting that left wingers like the shooter are all crazy?
When the eco-terrorist stormed the Discovery Channel and took hostages, was he influenced by the hype and crisis mongering of people like, say Eli or Romm?
Or is Eli and the person who wrote the pitiful screed Eli excerpts just acting like a compleat jerks on this?
The shooter was a member of one party; the crazy party. Even if he was a registred democrat (which he was at some point prior to going indepnedent) he was still crazy.
when that other Tuscon poster at Kos said that Guiffords was ‘dead to him’ and Kos put crosshairs on Guiffords, was that inciting crazies as well?
Usually Eli is just pompous. On this Eli is showing that AGW true believers are as reactionary in their politics as they are in the social manias.
If prosecutors seek the death penalty for Loughner, will they have to convince a jury he was a sane person who murdered with premeditation for a reason or reasons? If so, the evidence for motive is found in the posting he made on YouTube (My final thoughts: Jared Lee Loughner) shortly before his attack on Congressional Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.
Loughner said “What’s government if words don’t have meaning?†and provides a concluding statement that “reading the second Unites States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ramifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammarâ€
The prosecution has in Loughner’s own words that he had a motive in his mistrust and fear of the current government. Why did he target Gifford? As a Democrat, she represents the current government, and in a previous encounter with Loughner in 2007, she was not responsive to his question about the meaning of words and government control, and he may have felt disrespected and embarrassed.
The Sheriff by his irresponsible prejudicial blame placing has made the case very hard to prosecute.
the feeble minded, like Max_OK for example, could easily be manipulated by a good lawyer into taking what the crazy guy wrote in the context of some coherent political thought and decide that he was acting under orders from anyone from the Daily Kos who used a target site against Giffords, to President Obama, who called on his supporters to get angry and to take a gun to a knife fight, or any number of other stupid connections. Just enough to raise reasonable doubt in a weak minded fool about what this lone gunman criminal wackjob did to get him off, or at least a reduced level of responsibility.
Another rtactic for the feeble minded to embrace is the idea of ignoring the dead Judge, the dead little girl and the other four murdered victims. By keeping the feeble minded focused on finding blame in the general world we live in, instead of focusing on the person who planned and executed his crime, it allows for them to avoid what they clearly do not like to do: think.
Perhaps we should also protect Max_OK, along with Paul Krugman, the shooter, the Sheriff, and others from hearing things like this:
“Of course, examples of Democrats speaking loosely about violence toward Republicans have been piling up in blithe contradiction to this nitwit’s asseveration. The inimitable James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal cites Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, joshing with Bill Maher about how “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird [George W. Bush] with one stone.” Mr. Taranto adds that in 1988, Mr. Kerry joked about the Secret Service being under orders, if George H.W. Bush were killed, “to shoot Quayle.”
He quotes then-Rep. Paul Kanjorski in October saying (as Jeffrey Lord first reported in the American Spectator), “That [Rick] Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him [sic] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.” Mr. Kanjorski alleged that Mr. Scott’s transgression was stealing “billions of dollars from the United States government.” Mr. Kanjorski was defeated in 2010. Mr. Scott was elected. Yet Mr. Kanjorski resurrected marvelously. He appeared Sunday on the op-ed page of the New York Times, counseling on the proper response to the Tucson shooting.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/12/liberalisms-death-knell-keeps-tolling/ (kudos to liza for this great link)
Afterall, if a metaphor using targets to point out….targeted districts or candidates could cause the user of the metaphor to be liable for terrible violence by the criminally insane, surely the actual call for violence would be much worse?
Tea Party followers may be facing a dilemma over the prosecution of Loughner. I think most of them they are pro death penalty and want him executed. However, to beat an insanity defense, the prosecution needs to provide compelling evidence Lougnher had a motive and knew what he was doing when he planned and carried out his attack.
The prosecution has evidence of motive in Loughner’s YouTube statements (My final thoughts: Jared Lee Loughner) made shortly before his attempt to kill Congressional Democrat Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner’s final word express his mistrust and fear of the current government, and of course Gifford represents that government.
If the prosecution uses Laughner’s statements about the government in an attempt to get a murder conviction and an execution, this will again call attention to the Tea Party’s mistrust and fear of government, and comparisons with Laughner’s thoughts and motives will be made.
Will the trial turn out to be a Catch-22 for the Tea Party? We shall see.
“Tea Party followers may be facing a dilemma over the prosecution of Loughner. I think most of them they are pro death penalty and want him executed.”
Most of America is pro-death penalty. I think the figure I have read is 70% approval.
Andrew
Max-OK–
Why would you think the Tea Party is particularly wound up by Loughner in particular? He doesn’t seem to have ever been affiliated with the Tea Party.
I don’t happen to be familiar with AZ laws, particularly with regards to the death penalty. I don’t know where the tea party stands on the death penalty– for all I know it’s just not a big deal one way or the other to them. (My impression is they are small government and want low taxes. That seems to be the major thrust.)
I also don’t see how the prosecution bringing in youtube videos that in now way mention the Tea Party would call much attention to the tea party. Anyway, would trials in AZ be televised? Are you really so sure people are going to be following the details of a long drawn out court case– this isn’t OJ!
Re: Max_OK (Jan 13 14:45),
There are at least as many tin-foil hat level folks on the left that believe in government conspiracies as there are on the right. How about Oliver Stone and his movie JFK as just one example. It can’t have been Lee Harvey Oswald who shot JFK because he was a communist. Therefore it must have been a CIA plot to discredit communism as well as replace JFK with, if anything, an even more leftist LBJ. Talk about cognitive dissonance. We don’t trust the government but we want to give it even more control over our lives.
Max_OK,
Your devolution into a troll is nearly complete.
Come back towards the light. You can do it.
Unless, of course you are a journalist for a mainstream media organ or a democratic party operative. Then it is already too late.
Your persistence in trying to fit two things together that do not fit is possibly pathological on your part. Do you have any psychiatric disorders you would like to discuss rather than demonstrate for us?
Not being a Tea Party member, but knowing a few, I think you would be amazed (although normal people would not be) to find they would like the shooter found guilty and executed, but will not be surprised to see him found not-guilty by reason of insanity.
I think you would be surprised at how lacking in knowledge of tea party political positions your increasingly odd claims actually are.
But do consider coming back towards the light. Trolldom is a sad thing.
Eli,
Is there any evidence at all that Loughner ever listened to the “banshees of the airwaves”? Any piece of evidence that he paid them any attention? Show me evidence of the connection.
Or was it a teleconection? Maybe there is some right-wing positive feedback mechanism that made his mental illness worse than we thought. Please explain.
Re Loughner’s political leanings. Conservatives and Tea Party types don’t burn American flags.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDiq06K5Z
Ray
lucia said in Comment#65759) January 13th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Max-OK–
Why would you think the Tea Party is particularly wound up by Loughner in particular? He doesn’t seem to have ever been affiliated with the Tea Party.
I don’t happen to be familiar with AZ laws, particularly with regards to the death penalty. I don’t know where the tea party stands on the death penalty– for all I know it’s just not a big deal one way or the other to them. (My impression is they are small government and want low taxes. That seems to be the major thrust.)
———–
The Tea Party is mostly middle-aged White Republicans who decided they wanted small government after America elected a Black Democrat as President, and decided they wanted low taxes after previous Republican Administrations ran up the national debt by borrowing while cutting taxes.
The Tea Party idealizes an impractical laissez faire (government hands-off) economic model from the dust bin of history, a model of capitalism discarded by every developed nation in the world. They see no role for government direction in the U.S. economy, even as China’s state-directed capitalism is capturing an increasing share of the world market.
Like Jared Lee Loughner, the Tea Party fears our current government and believes it has too much control. Fear is manifested through anger. The Party vents its anger with words and symbols. Loughner vented his anger with bullets.
if the prosecution seeks the death penalty, what can it point to as motive other than Loughner’s fear and mistrust of the government as expressed in the YouTube video shortly before the attack, and as implied in his question to Congresswoman Gifford a few years ago?
I doubt the Tea Party will want a trial that reminds the public the party’s followers also are motivated by fear and mistrust of government
Max_OK–
You seem to have a nice talent for fiction and drama. Have you considered a career writing story lines for soap operas or mock-u-mentaries?
Max
Outdated system, a model of capitalism discarded, right.
Tax rates,tax revenues and national debt in reality do not behave quite the way things do in the zero sum world you live in.
lucia, thanks for the compliment, but it’s undeserved. I suppose if I did want to write a fictitious profile of the Tea Party I would say:
The Tea Party is a demographically diverse progressive political movement representing Americans of all races, ethnic groups, religions and sexual orientations. The movement favors neither the rich or the poor, but has equal compassion for all.
The Tea Party is not bound by economic or political ideology, and is willing to cooperate with different political and interest groups in seeking solutions to the nation’s problems.
The Tea Party believes the long-term goal of reducing the nation’s debt will require both an increase in tax revenues and a decrease in spending, and embraces both measures.
The Tea Party is aware raising taxes or reducing spending during a recession could cause an even deeper or prolonged recession, which could necessitate temporary postponement of efforts to reduce the national debt.
How’s that for fiction?
The rightwing commentators who are criticizing the Arizona memorial are at least as distasteful as the liberal commentators who tried to blame the whole mess on Palin.
Max_OK (Comment#65885) January 14th, 2011 at 1:46 am
The guy didn’t even watch TV or listen to the radio according to his closest friends. I guess his skull at the shrine told him all about the Tea Party. Maybe he had a tea party with the skull.
Boris– I don’t get cable so I probably missed the distasteful comments. Do you have a link so I can see who you mean and read what they said?
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/12/branding-the-tuscon-massacre-together-we-thrive-in-white-and-blue/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am5Odzti4Ho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKJ3p-v4NM
Boris… hmmm… I’m feeling a bit “on the one hand, on the other hand.” It does look a bit campaignish and out of the ordinary after a major shooting. We didn’t see that sort of thing after the shootings at Northern Illinois University in Dekalb ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Illinois_University_shooting Note– this was during the Bush Administration.)
On the other hand, a congresswoman and a judge were involved. Politicians always get more involved when other politicians are killed. I think Malking is mostly getting bent out of shape for no particluarly good reason, but I wouldn’t put her comments in the league with the commentors who tried to blame the whole mess on Palin!
The whole point given by those opinions Boris was that the memorial service was completely distasteful and orchestrated like a political event. Talk about a circle jerk logic. I agree with all those people for the most part about the service; I found it hard to watch and it was because I was embarrassed. “taste” is something other then political or scientific “smarts” and a matter of opinion.
Sailer annotates the New York Times editorial on Loughner’s spree, “As We Mourn.”
Yes, when communities come together to recover form a tragedy, it can look a lot like a “rally.”
But public memorials often get “political” and raucous. This is not distasteful, it is an outpouring of emotion. I’m sorry, but you do not get to dictate how a community chooses to mourn and the real distasteful people are the ones trying to score political points over the memorial.
See this Va. Tech poem, which was far more political and the reaction from students:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cSuidxE8os
Liza
I’m afraid you and some others here have misinterpreted my comments. While I have a low opinion of the Tea Party, I don’t believe Loughner is affiliated with the movement, nor do I believe they told him to kill Rep. Giffords.
Did the Tea Party’s angry rhetoric influence Loughner? I have no idea. I don’t even know if he was aware of the movement.
I do know both the Tea Party and Loughner regarded Giffords as an enemy, and I do know both mistrust our current government and fear it has too much power over their lives.
I think everyone is disturbed by this tragedy and it’s toll on innocent victims. Can we learn from it so those lives will not have been lost in vain?
Max_OK
The test for the insanity plea is not whether Loughner had a reason. Fear of the government is not a reason to kill someone in any case.
The test for the insanity plea is whether Loughner knew that what he was about to do was wrong. He left his friends a note saying “Don’t be mad.” This could be used as evidence that he knew he was about to do something society would disapprove. Also, Arizona does not have a “not guilty by reason of insanity” plea. They have a “guilty but insane” plea. So, his views could only possibly be used to avoid execution, not avoid a murder conviction.
I don’t see how any of this is a problem for the Tea Party. On the surface, I share some of Loughner’s views. I think people abuse grammar. I have some pet peeves about word usage. I can see the advantages of a gold-backed currency, rather than a fiat currency. None of this causes me any embarrassment, just because a crazy person happened to take these views to extreme.
You keep trying to force the meme that the Tea Party fears government. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The Tea Party is very much for the rule of law (think the immigration debate, second ammendment rights). They support the conservative ideal of limited government which does not over-reach the primary rolls of national defense, law enforcement, infrastructure.
Loughner had a problem with Giffords in 2007. Can you explain to me how that would have anything to do with the Tea Party?
Max_OK (Comment#65952) January 14th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Sure we can but stop pointing fingers at only certain people.
Even the current President on a radio broadcast spoke to Latinos directly and called anybody who wanted laws already in place about immigration to be enforced their “enemies” What is my family supposed to learn from that since their uncle was robbed and shot dead 20 yrs ago by a crook in this country from Mexico illegally?
“I do know both the Tea Party and Loughner regarded Giffords as an enemy, and I do know both mistrust our current government and fear it has too much power over their lives.”
I can rephrase this so you will understand “I do know both Liberals and The Democratic Party regarded G.W.Bush as an enemy; and I do know both mistrusted the government in the war on Terror…the voting booths….the soldiers and their leaders how can we forget : “General BetrayUs”…etc. I will add myself this: I do know that the Republicans and the President spoke on the floor of the senate BEFORE the housing crisis came into being and wanted Fannie and Freddie etc to be looked into and regulated but people on the other side said no; Barney Frank said everything was fine…I can provide the video…
I also gave examples up thread of John Kerry uttering the same type of “gun slinging” lingo and he ran for President too.
These same people told us over and over that “dissent was patriotic” and printed it on T-shirts.
Sorry I think all the whining is dumb. Stop global whining.
chuckr (Comment#65882) January 13th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Max
Outdated system, a model of capitalism discarded, right.Tax rates,tax revenues and national debt in reality do not behave quite the way things do in the zero sum world you live in.
——
Yes, chuckr, the laissez faire economic model is outdated and discarded. We haven’t had laissez faire (government hands-off) capitalism in more than one-hundred years.
Most Tea Party followers extol the virtues of a free-market economy without knowing what it actually means. A free-market, a market without regulations, would permit businesses to form monopolies and engage in other practices harmful to the general public, which is what our country found out in the 19th Century.
As a successful real estate investor and landlord, I know it would be foolish of me to think the way to reduce business debt is to is reduce both expenses and revenue. The Tea Party is foolish in thinking the the national debt can be reduced by reducing both government spending and tax revenue, and that’s why I don’t take the Party’s followers seriously when they say they are committed to fiscal responsibility.
Max_OK
As a landlord, do you feel that your revenue is larger when your renters are poorer?
As a real estate investor, do you sell more property to people with plenty of capital or to people who can barely afford taxes and groceries?
Tamara said in his Comment#65967, January 14th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Max_Ok
You keep trying to force the meme that the Tea Party fears government. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The Tea Party is very much for the rule of law (think the immigration debate, second ammendment rights). They support the conservative ideal of limited government which does not over-reach the primary rolls of national defense, law enforcement, infrastructure.
—–
Does that mean the Tea Party wants to do away with Social Security and Medicare and all other social programs, or just some of them?
The Tea Party’s idea of a limited government includes an ill defined commitment to a laissez faire(government hands-off) economy, or maybe at least one hand off. Does the Party really knows what economic model it wants?
If our government isn’t involved in directing our nation’s economy, how does the Tea Party propose to keep pace with Chinese state directed capitalism, which in effect makes China the world’s largest and most powerful corporation?
Max
Your description of the Tea Party is not accurate. A comparison would be if I described the Democratic Party as wanting a pure form of Socialism to replace our Republic.
Tamara said in Comment#65982, January 14th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Max_OK
As a landlord, do you feel that your revenue is larger when your renters are poorer?
As a real estate investor, do you sell more property to people with plenty of capital or to people who can barely afford taxes and groceries?
————
Yes, the larger my revenue, the poorer my renters. That’s why they don’t welcome rent hikes.
Buyers must be able to pay me if they are to buy what I sell, but what’s your point?
I think MAX would rather try and beat up (his idea of) the Tea Party with philosphical hammers rather than address any specific issues.
Andrew
Andrew_Ky
In my Comment 65983, I asked for specifics on what the Tea Party wants?
MAX,
One of the things a lot of us Tea Partiers want is the repeal of ObamaCare.
Andrew
Andrew_KY
Well, that’s one specific thing. Now, how about the other specific things?
Another Thing,
We want to prevent any Cap and Trade legislation from becoming law.
Andrew
Re: Max_OK (Jan 14 11:21),
Herbert Hoover didn’t think much of laissez faire either. I believe the derogatory term at the time was ‘lazy fairies’.
There’s a school of thought that minimal barriers to entry or exit are the only true requirement for competition and that all barriers are due to coercion, either from government or criminal activity among businesses and individuals. See here for more detail.
We’ve been through this before with Japan. A heavily state directed economy will always eventually fail because the planners can never have as much information as the individual players in a distributed economy. If it isn’t heavily directed, it will lead to more freedom for the Chinese people. I believe that would be a good thing. We do have to watch out for anti-competitive practices like what’s happened in the rare earth metals market. But that’s why the WTO exists. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are state directed enterprises. Do you really suggest this is a good model?
Andrew_KY
You have told me two specific things the Tea Party is against. I would like to know the specific things the Tea Party is for as we move forward. Does the Tea Party have a vision of the future which includes doing anything different than we are doing now?
Before you take time to respond, I should tell you I have some business to take care of now, and won’t be commenting further anytime soon.
Max_OK the doctor is in and he has answers for you. As a tea party supporter, I would like to see our currency backed by tangible assests such as gold, diamonds and oil. It is clear to me that every since we dropped the gold standard, people do not treat money with the same value. Now, I do not think there is enough gold in the world to back all the currency, so I think it should be backed by a multitude of tangible assets. Secondly, we should completely remove the capital gains tax. If you compare our capital gains tax to other countries around the world, you find that ours is much higher than other countries. I would also like to see a massive expansion of oil exploration and oil refinery building. I would like to see the screws put to OPEC and see oil price per barrel drop to the 40-50$ dollar range. There are many instance throughout recent history where we have done something for nothing. Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal for 0$. George H.W. Bush did not ask for any money from Kuwait for our assistance in pushing back Saddam Hussein, even wow the rich Sheiks sat in some luxury hotels in New York. George W. Bush seemingly has not brought the U.S. compensation from the 2nd Iraq War. That said, I have heard that the U.S. has massive holdings in the Iraqi Dinar and if that currency value rises, we may be paid off in a big way.
http://theiraqidinar.com/2010/10/16/post-from-investors-iraq-rising-dinar-may-be-worth-watching-101210/
Please read this Max. And please don’t think that I am very sure of this because it is dependent on many variable things. I think it is interesting though and I doubt many people know about this.
Boris–
Of course I or Malkin don’t get to dictate what the funeral should look like. I certainly wouldn’t try. I think Malkin has gone over board in her criticism and said so. But you wrote,
Really?
A) One group tries to blame a mass murder on a political opponent who is totally unconnected to the murder.
B) Another person (Malkin) criticizes politicians for making a funeral that is bound to be televised appear like a political rally.
And (B) is at least as distasteful as A? As in, either the two are equally distateful of (b) might be more distasteful? I would suggest Malkin lost her sense of proportion and so have you.
Max
A government can cut expenses but can not raise or lower revenue through tax rates. History proves this and I shouln’t have to list the examples. Economic expansion will increase revenue more than any government policy. Now what government policy will assist economic expansion? It’s not a zero sum game Max.
I don’t think to many conservatives advocate a complete laissez faire economic model. That has never existed in the US. But there is a balance between laissez faire and complete central control. You must agree with that Max. I look at the historical record and it tells me to resist the central control model. I look at the most successful model in world history. I don’t want to emulate others not as successful.
And Max as a preemptive strike, I am not suggesting improvements are not warranted. My solutions are probably causes to you.