urluckyday Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Probably a stupid question, but why is this shooting automatically assumed to be politically motivated? Have they questioned the shooter? Is it possible that this guy was just a psychopathic killer just going on a spree in a busy area? I'm only asking b/c I don't know all the details... Okay, so it seems like it was a little bit of both (politically motivated/insanity). It's clear that this guy needed mental help. This is a video compilation of Jared Lee Loughner's youtube videos that he posted. (it's a lot of reading) Quite scary stuff if you ask me. (This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 It's a populist movement with populist rhetoric that pulls at peoples emotions, no matter how uncouthly sensationalist it might be. It'd probably be accurate to say that most of its "grassroots" supporters don't really care about the philosophy or ideology behind the movement, but rather, the apparent meaning and charisma associated with it; "Taking the government back," and other messages can be co-opted by anyone for anything, no matter how disassociated it might be. You forgot to mention that he admired Mein Kampf. However, unlike your Guevara-clad liberal narrative, I don't believe that the shooter adheres to any specific political spectrum, but instead might have been motivated by the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, without identifying himself with it. He's simply co-opting the message to his own gains, without aligning himself with the message. So although the core philosophy of the Tea Party is not what is being debated as conducive to violence and radicalization, but rather, its own rhetoric. Outside of a few cranks, I've yet to see the "tea party movement" advocate violent overthrow (unlike the anti-globalists, anarchists and other fringe movements) of the govt. Just as there may be hotheads found amongst that movement, they are also present in the progressive movement, which itself advocates violent revolution as a legitimate means to bring down what they see as an unjust government. It is a leftist populist movement which, in contrast to the "tea partiers" (and frankly sane Americans) holds to the misbegotten belief that the govt should provide all manner of benefits and assorted entitlements to the people. Sadly, there are many in this country that think that is a good idea.....an expansive federal govt that makes false promises of a cornucopia of wealth if the people would but submit to it. Modern day slavery. The idea that the US govt can/will take care of its citizens is about as believable as saying that the inner cities of America and the Indian reservation system (pre-casinos) are models of efficiency and material (nevermind spiritual) success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Apparently this is another possible youtube channel by the shooter...a lot of his uploads and favorite videos are nonsense or unrelated...but there are a few thrown in there about politics (even one about Gabrielle Giffords) and another video favorited made by his other YouTube name ("classitup10"). http://www.youtube.com/user/bigjared420 It becomes increasingly clear that this guy wasn't conforming to any sort of political group but rather acting upon his emotions and insane thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 It's as if they are saying only the Right can have crazies. You should come to Britain. Some elements of the left are chock full of crazy. It seems to me, from an outsider's point of the view, in addition to the guys obvious mental deficit, that the extreme (to an outsider, at least) rhetoric of both sides of American politics are to blame for this - listening to some networks at times makes it sound as if the US is engaged in a pseudo civil war. Right or left, it doesn't seem surprising that someone started shooting. To an outsider, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 You forgot to mention that he admired Mein Kampf. However, unlike your Guevara-clad liberal narrative, I don't believe that the shooter adheres to any specific political spectrum, but instead might have been motivated by the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement, without identifying himself with it. He's simply co-opting the message to his own gains, without aligning himself with the message. So although the core philosophy of the Tea Party is not what is being debated as conducive to violence and radicalization, but rather, its own rhetoric. And you have some proof that he even read Tea Party literature? All I get so far is him talking about creating his own currency, mind control(through grammar of all things), going back to the Gold standard, and a whole bunch of very random and disjointed thoughts intermingled with pseudo-intellectual nonsense. His comments, at least on his youtube page, seem to be at best the ramblings of a guy who smoked just a bit too many funny cigarettes. Nothing indicates he paid attention to either party. But you have been quite willing to make the leap to him somehow getting his target from the Tea Party. I on the other hand do not ascribe his attack to either left or right. I chalk it up to a random nutjob who believed the government was an evil mind control agency and sadly for Giffords she represented that government to him. She just happened to be the closest to his house(within 5 miles). I mean seriously this guy was at best a tinfoil hat wearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 going back to the Gold standard, That settles it, it is all Ron Paul’s fault. I have little doubt that he had mental problems. However, it does not help that people, politicians and media talking heads are yelling at the top of their lungs that those on the other side of the political spectrum are evil and trying to destroy our way of life just because they disagree with that person. While a mentally staple person may see it for what it is, political rhetoric. Someone mentally unstable may consider it a call to action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Someone mentally unstable may consider it a call to action. I dunno, this guy may have been unstable enough to have found a call to action in Martha Stewart Living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 While that may be very true, it does not mean the next oil executive, doctor or politician that is shot in the head will not be caused by allowing this stupid rhetoric. I may not have agreed with President George Bush policies, or intelligence for that matter, but I do believe he thought he was doing what was in the best interest of this nation. However, people like Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly or Rush shout all over the airwaves that Obama’s and the Dem’s only goal is to destroy this nation (I’ll give Beck a pass because he seems just as mentally unstable as this guy). Don’t get me wrong, the left does it too, but they are nowhere near as popular as these talking heads or at least they put comedic spin on their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Sorry, but the freedom of the press allows those vitriolic b7's on the air in as much as the previous 8 years allowed the vitriolic spewing from the other side. Honestly just because Bill Mauer has a comedic tone does not mean that his hatefulness isn't spread. I don't really like how spite filled they are, but frankly it's not new. What we as a nation need to do is, like you and I do here, relax and realize the other side is not evil incarnate out to destroy everything we believe in. It doesn't help matters when people jump to the conclusion that a person MUST have been influenced by Palin/Rush/Savage/<Talking head of preference> every time some whack job goes out and does stupid and violent things. And ya know what... Actual heart felt apologies might go a long way towards healing the rift. But I'm not expecting those to hit the airwaves any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Where did I say we should violate anyone's Freedom of Speech or Press? Sorry did not read the rest as I could not get pass that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Didn't say you did. Just stating the "problem" in trying to correct said talking heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Problem is that the 1st Amendment is actually there to protect divisive, offensive and often questionable speech. I'm going to guess that a lot of the public fallout from this is going to again be to villify certain povs and make tenuous (at best) links between what people say on air and the actions "unstable" people take. IIRC Rush et al were indirectly blamed by his detractors for the OK bombing for putting out too much "anti-govt" rhetoric. It is in some ways amazing that we want to whitewash words like n***** from Huck Finn, but want to be able to say it on air/in film/in music w/abandon (ie, it seems we're now somewhat schizo about the boundaries of free speech). By all current accounts, this guy was the lone wackjob that the SS and FBI dread having to deal with b/c they often strike w/o warning. It also appears that he had some kind of obsessive grudge vs Giffords for a perceived slight in the recent past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Problem is that the 1st Amendment is actually there to protect divisive, offensive and often questionable speech. Why exactly is that a problem? My problem with the political hacks has nothing to do with what they say beyond their resorting to name calling and outright lies without a thread of evidence. I just find it funny that we hold people like the Dixie Chicks, Dan Rather and Bill Maher responsible for saying something off the cuff (even when it is true or stated as an opinion), but others can say whatever they want and get away with it. I guess it comes from rightwing hatemongering being more profitable than leftwing hatemongering. (please do not think I am putting the Dixie Chicks into the hatemongering level. The entire group was only persecuted because of Maines’ innocent opinion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 During President Bush's term there were a number on the left who used the medium of movies television and print ads who pushed the bounds as far or further than Rush. Some even having veiled recommendations for Bush's assassination(There was a movie regarding this). "Comedy" was used as a medium for some of the most vile insults. Heck one comedian even hoped for Rush to die. There is no reason that we should give them a pass for their brand of hatemongering because it is wrapped in a comedic routine. It's all entertainment. People like Rush, O'Reilley, Hannity, Savage et al are entertainment. They may not be your entertainment, but they are none the less. They are also listed as opinion from the start. Quite frankly I'd give them more of a pass simply because you get exactly what you expect from them. Those who watch/listen to them are almost always already of the same opinion. But when watching regular TV shows, you get the agendas of the actors/producers/writers thrown in. The hidden hatemongering being more likely to get someone to act. Their hate is wrapped in a pretty package. Opinion shows are like the generic form of hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 And you have some proof that he even read Tea Party literature? All I get so far is him talking about creating his own currency, mind control(through grammar of all things), going back to the Gold standard, and a whole bunch of very random and disjointed thoughts intermingled with pseudo-intellectual nonsense. His comments, at least on his youtube page, seem to be at best the ramblings of a guy who smoked just a bit too many funny cigarettes. Nothing indicates he paid attention to either party. But you have been quite willing to make the leap to him somehow getting his target from the Tea Party.And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Did you even read my previous post? I do not accuse the Tea Party for supporting an inherently violent agenda, nor do I see the shooter supporting the Tea Party on any foundation; the guy, by any situation, probably interpreted rhetoric in his own, violent way. And don't ask how/where he could have viewed Tea Party literature; any schizo watching Fox News could have interpreted the slightest hint of counter-administration monologuing as a call to action. The same can be said for any political pundit, but since the Tea Party is the most popular counter-political movement currently, that would obviously be the first source to suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Did you even read my previous post? I do not accuse the Tea Party for supporting an inherently violent agenda, nor do I see the shooter supporting the Tea Party on any foundation; the guy, by any situation, probably interpreted rhetoric in his own, violent way. And don't ask how/where he could have viewed Tea Party literature; any schizo watching Fox News could have interpreted the slightest hint of counter-administration monologuing as a call to action. The same can be said for any political pundit, but since the Tea Party is the most popular counter-political movement currently, that would obviously be the first source to suspect. Yeah, may as well ask me to prove there were no pink elephants on earth anywhere. You claim he saw Foxnews. I haven't seen any evidence to show that he has. For all we know he got his "hate" from the Colbert report. Heck it may have been from the many LIBERAL groups that also disliked Giffords for her strong support of the second Amendment, and border security. There is no evidence that he targeted her specifically because of anything the Tea Party did. The Director of the FBI is refusing to claim any motivation for the attack. I'm sticking with crazy guy went crazy and killed a bunch of innocent people who happened to be in the wrong place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 And you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Did you even read my previous post? I do not accuse the Tea Party for supporting an inherently violent agenda, nor do I see the shooter supporting the Tea Party on any foundation; the guy, by any situation, probably interpreted rhetoric in his own, violent way. And don't ask how/where he could have viewed Tea Party literature; any schizo watching Fox News could have interpreted the slightest hint of counter-administration monologuing as a call to action. The same can be said for any political pundit, but since the Tea Party is the most popular counter-political movement currently, that would obviously be the first source to suspect. So much for innocent until proven guilty. The fact is that YOU are insinuating that the Tea Party rhetoric is what influenced him, but have no evidence to back it up. That is so far proving to be an entirely unsupportable position in light of the facts about Loughner that are coming out. So, if I understand you corretly, it is NOT unfair to insinuate that islamic rhetoric had an undue influence on Maj Hasan and perhaps we should monitor islamic info sources more closely. Afterall, that's what all the libs were cautioning us against in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting. Guess when their favorite objects of hate are convenient scapegoats, such caution goes right out the proverbial window. Nice. Btw, has anyone seen the mug shot of this guy? Immediately reminded me of Uncle Fester from the '60s tv show Adam's Family. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20028069-504083.html Also, regarding poster in OP: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647 Seems like the Dems went there first several years back. @mim: I say problem b/c most of the so called "heated rhetoric/hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment. We really don't want to have committees deciding what we can and can not say b/c someone believes it might affect a crazy person. Self-restraint is all nice and fine, but I see no reason to force people to curb their speech b/c someone, somewhere is going to decide to be offended by it and label it "hateful". (btw, not making any claims about what you're saying one way or another, just spelling out my position). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Isn't it strange that the "Crosshairs" on Palin's sheet look less like gun sights and more like surveyor's crosshairs. Gun sights don't have the cross leaving the circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 So much for innocent until proven guilty. The fact is that YOU are insinuating that the Tea Party rhetoric is what influenced him, but have no evidence to back it up.I am suggesting that there is a possible connection between the vandalism of Giffords' office earlier in the year, the mention of Giffords as a "target" for specific political pressure, and now the shooting, is a currently-valid theory for the shooter's motive. Any investigation which considers the string of incidents to be a pure coincidence isn't being productive whatsoever, even if it means deducing false leads from legitimate ones. I'm not debating that the shooter had a particular, concrete motive to downplay his insanity, I am simply suggesting that his bizzaro world-lens might have been conducive to his violence being influenced by a rather populist political movement. Yes, it could be absolutely anything, but considering all of the evidence provided, to rule out that possibility would be foolhardy. So, if I understand you corretly, it is NOT unfair to insinuate that islamic rhetoric had an undue influence on Maj Hasan and perhaps we should monitor islamic info sources more closely. Afterall, that's what all the libs were cautioning us against in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting.When testimony after documented testimony proved to be accurate, then maybe that was somewhat justified. Any investigation needs a variety of motives, even if they all turn out to be absolutely wrong in the end. Yeah, it often leads to unfair discrimination against a variety of attributes of any given person, but it's pretty damn unavoidable. When it feeds an entire profiling division on strictly narrow paradigms, then it's problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 @mim: I say problem b/c most of the so called "heated rhetoric/hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment. We really don't want to have committees deciding what we can and can not say b/c someone believes it might affect a crazy person. Self-restraint is all nice and fine, but I see no reason to force people to curb their speech b/c someone, somewhere is going to decide to be offended by it and label it "hateful". (btw, not making any claims about what you're saying one way or another, just spelling out my position).I say we should curb this type of speech because this type of name calling is better suited to 7 year olds. They should be attacking the message not just calling people names. Anyone with two brain cells together should want evidence and not the standard 3 year old “I’m rubber and your clue” argument, but I guess even stupid people need entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 @PX--well, it's fair to say you're focusing excessively on only 1 potential source as being a primary motivator. Had you said they should look at ALL possible sources equally and not reject any potential one out-of-hand, you'd be on firmer ground. But, going by your poster pic and subsequent arguments, it's clear you are suggesting that the TP rhetoric is more than merely one possible source of influence. As to your second argument, isn't it interesting that many of the far-left loons posing as serious journalists and commentators have immediately seized on the current vacuum to put forth an unsubstaniated narrative to explain the pyscho's actions. Besides, you don't appear to be overly concerned about the narrow paradigm when it's the TP or other conservatives that are the focus of that kind of problematic analysis. @mim: I agree that such language can be curbed, but see no need for it to be done by edict and not self-control (either on the left, right and anywhere inbetween). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Pastsramix. That would hold more water if you didn't simply focus on the conservative aspects while ignoring his "Liberal" history. I mean it isn't like only Conservatives have been anti-government. Not to mention that as of late both sides have been very vitriolic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi/Sith Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I must say this was very interesting read on one side we have right arguing that he was left. On the other side we have the left arguing that he was right. Now for all that I care about he could be from the right or the left. I believe that he was neither though. My reason well I believe the guy was plain crazy. He just believe that he had to kill this person for some reason which is wrong. Now both of you may argue this over and over but what does that accomplish. I would say nothing would be accomplished except a waste of your time. The thing is that these people were kill by crazy man. The saddest thing is that there was a 9 year old girl that is now died. I do not see any reason for the arguing over this. In this world all people have their faults some bigger than other and the biggest fault is that of taking a life. It is truly sad that people argue over issue like this. There is only one person to blame and that person is who fired the bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 If you believe I've been saying he's left you've missed a lot. I've been saying from the start that it's silly to put this on either party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Working Class Hero Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I must say this was very interesting read on one side we have right arguing that he was left. On the other side we have the left arguing that he was right. Now for all that I care about he could be from the right or the left. I believe that he was neither though. My reason well I believe the guy was plain crazy. He just believe that he had to kill this person for some reason which is wrong. Now both of you may argue this over and over but what does that accomplish. I would say nothing would be accomplished except a waste of your time. The thing is that these people were kill by crazy man. The saddest thing is that there was a 9 year old girl that is now died. I do not see any reason for the arguing over this. In this world all people have their faults some bigger than other and the biggest fault is that of taking a life. It is truly sad that people argue over issue like this. There is only one person to blame and that person is who fired the bullets. My friend, I may hardly ever agree with you on politics, but this post gets my 100% approval. The only thing this has shown me is that our country is even more messed up than I realized....why can't we just come together and just say he was an insane bad dude and leave it at that? Who cares whether he watched Glen Beck or Keith Olberman....I've never known someone to be motivated to kill after watching a punditry show. Isn't it strange that the "Crosshairs" on Palin's sheet look less like gun sights and more like surveyor's crosshairs. Gun sights don't have the cross leaving the circle. Your jesting talent is monstrously underrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.