Judging from what I've seen of Jared Lee Loughner's paranoid, Beck-like ramblings on youtube, he wasn't reading Naom Chomsky and listening to NPR. Anyway, I haven't said he was aware of this stuff or acting on it, but "to pretend this nutcase acted in a vacuum with no influences from his environment is naive."
[We are at an impass. I think you're deceiving yourself to say it's any different know than it was then. The only difference for you is that back then, you agreed with the rhetoric (some referred to it as vitriolic) coming from the left. So in your mind it was justified.
If you say so. You're not offering any specifics, which fits into your false equivalency. I'm saying that it's very different now, and much more violence-oriented. It's a fact, for instance, that Obama gets many more death threats than Bush did. It's a fact that we didn't have Democrats treating Bush with open disrespect in the Chamber during his SOTU addresses, while 2 Republicans have done so to Obama so far. It's a fact that there was never any liberal equivalent to conservative talk radio during the Bush years. It's a fact that no Democrats ran for office in 2004 or 2006 suggesting that there should be a violent insurrection if the Republicans won, but in 2010 we had several Republicans saying there should be one if Democrats won.
But some dudes called Bush Hitler! So it's just the same now as it was then! Because everything is always the same, or something.
Yeah. I say so. You seem to be operating from the "it's defferent because we're right" perspective.
But what of it? Let's pretend your right. That this guy is a right wing extremist who spent everyday getting charged up listening to Glenn Beck while jerking off to pictures of Sarah Palin's crosshair marked congressional map. What then?
Do you think they should be prosecuted as accomplices? What's your endgame?
Judging from what I've seen of Jared Lee Loughner's paranoid, Beck-like ramblings
C'mon.....I've read his ramblings and they were pure lunacy....unless Glenn Beck is squawking about changing the alphabet, grammar police and other unfortunate results of mental illness....the only connection between them to my knowledge is they're both nuts.
I understand the concept that every raving lunatic is "Beck-like" but that doesn't connect them in real life.
Let's pretend your right. That this guy is a right wing extremist who spent everyday getting charged up listening to Glenn Beck while jerking off to pictures of Sarah Palin's crosshair marked congressional map. What then?
Do you think they should be prosecuted as accomplices? What's your endgame?
I can't speak for BobDesperado, but it would be nice if we could put a stop to the escalating hate rhetoric of the right and its very specific calls to armed violent action, if those who indulge in such rhetoric would refrain from doing so from here out.
[We are at an impass. I think you're deceiving yourself to say it's any different know than it was then. The only difference for you is that back then, you agreed with the rhetoric (some referred to it as vitriolic) coming from the left. So in your mind it was justified.
If you say so. You're not offering any specifics, which fits into your false equivalency. I'm saying that it's very different now, and much more violence-oriented. It's a fact, for instance, that Obama gets many more death threats than Bush did. It's a fact that we didn't have Democrats treating Bush with open disrespect in the Chamber during his SOTU addresses, while 2 Republicans have done so to Obama so far. It's a fact that there was never any liberal equivalent to conservative talk radio during the Bush years. It's a fact that no Democrats ran for office in 2004 or 2006 suggesting that there should be a violent insurrection if the Republicans won, but in 2010 we had several Republicans saying there should be one if Democrats won.
But some dudes called Bush Hitler! So it's just the same now as it was then! Because everything is always the same, or something.
Yeah. I say so. You seem to be operating from the "it's defferent because we're right" perspective.
But what of it? Let's pretend your right. That this guy is a right wing extremist who spent everyday getting charged up listening to Glenn Beck while jerking off to pictures of Sarah Palin's crosshair marked congressional map. What then?
Do you think they should be prosecuted as accomplices? What's your endgame?
I've made it clear that I'm not interested in any such prosecutions.
My "endgame" is that I'd like more reasonable and truthful political discourse in this country. My opinion is that most of the craziness in that field is being driven by the right-wing and has been for decades, for a variety of reasons.
I find it interesting that you claim I'm the one who is so biased, but when I talk about actual events and offer actual evidence for my position you don't even bother to try to offer any for your own. So your position seems to be that political discourse is always static, with an equal amount of noise coming from the left speaker and the right speaker, all the time, regardless of what's actually happening.
Okay. It seems like you'd have to know nothing about history in order to maintain that fantasy, but if it helps you sleep at night carry on.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Hey,
Here is a post from some years ago (2008) where I discussed the negative ramifications of Obama's election among the majority:
Hey Willie,
Excellent observation on your part, and given prior theory and research, I predict that you'll see a spike in anti-minority sentiments among Whites compared to just a few years ago. Also, there were reports of anti-minority violence, perpetrated by angry Whites, shortly after Obama's election win, which corroborates group position theory (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1999). In this theory, members of high-status groups are predicted to become more hostile in response to perceived threats to their privileged status position in society. To some, President-Elect Obama personifies this form of threat. It will be interesting to see the implications that the economy and relevant events have for race relations in the near future.
References:
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3-7.
Bobo, L. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445-473.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
It seems particularly, though indirectly, relevant these days, huh?
you dont really need academic research to see that, but this particular incident had very little to do with race. i fail to see how bringing that into the dicussion is relevant.
My favorite interest was reading
I had favorite books
looks like he had planned to kill himself
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Possum Tom said:
you dont really need academic research to see that, but this particular incident had very little to do with race. i fail to see how bringing that into the dicussion is relevant.
Hey Tom,
I'm getting at the violent backlash and imagery that has occurred after Obama's election. Supposedly, the shooter was vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, suggesting some racial overtones. So, at best, the connection is indirect; however, it's interesting how references to violence weren't prevalent during Bush's two administrations but have increased during the Obama administration. I don't see this as coincidental.
6 people have died. RIP. Speedy recovery to the wounded.
I wish there was not 6 pages of 2 people refusing to listen to each other, but I have been there.
A few points I would like to make.
There used to be a government regulation requiring broadcast networks to air opposing views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
FOXNews and all the talk radio shouting, and Obermann are a result of the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine.
Government regulation in the form of it's reinstatement is possible.
I was in AZ on election day, and again just last week.
I can assure you the atmosphere there is more intense than most anywhere else I know about.
Gabby was talking about cooling down the overheated rhetoric last summer. She called out Palin.
Gabby is not a random Representative. Last summer opponents were making a big show of bringing guns to her public events, her office was vandalized, she was 'targeted' and put in the 'crosshairs'. If this had happened to my Rep I would say just a random thing. Rep Blummenauer has never had a contested election, never been the target of right wing outrage. Gabby has been.
The accused seems completely nuts, and the sheriff who is the lead investigator has said as much.
The sheriff has also called for an end to the overheated, violent, rhetoric, that Palin and FOX commentators often use. Maybe we should listen.
I do not have strong views on gun control. We are so awashed in guns it is hard to imagine getting them under control again. Semi-automatic with multiple 30 round clips is what the shooter was using. Hopefully few people think we should be making those kinds of arms readily available.
AZ does have some crazy gun laws. There was a law saying school children could bring guns to schools. It was later amended to say only children in middle and high school. Currently a law is pending to allow guns on college campuses. There is also a law specifically allowing guns in bars and taverns. Best I know you can't bring guns into the state capitol building.
Feel free to disagree or call me names. I don't mind.
Here is a post from some years ago (2008) where I discussed the negative ramifications of Obama's election among the majority:
Hey Willie,
Excellent observation on your part, and given prior theory and research, I predict that you'll see a spike in anti-minority sentiments among Whites compared to just a few years ago. Also, there were reports of anti-minority violence, perpetrated by angry Whites, shortly after Obama's election win, which corroborates group position theory (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1999). In this theory, members of high-status groups are predicted to become more hostile in response to perceived threats to their privileged status position in society. To some, President-Elect Obama personifies this form of threat. It will be interesting to see the implications that the economy and relevant events have for race relations in the near future.
References:
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3-7.
Bobo, L. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445-473.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
It seems particularly, though indirectly, relevant these days, huh?
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
No question. Obama's the perfect storm for the right-wing. Funny foreign-sounding name, Ivy League education, un-white, pro-choice, left of center, relatively young, able to beat the pants off of their candidate, and very, very calm as he basically dismisses their concerns as not very important. That someone like him could be president would have struck them as absolutely impossible 5 years ago.
Judging from what I've seen of Jared Lee Loughner's paranoid, Beck-like ramblings
C'mon.....I've read his ramblings and they were pure lunacy....unless Glenn Beck is squawking about changing the alphabet, grammar police and other unfortunate results of mental illness....the only connection between them to my knowledge is they're both nuts.
I understand the concept that every raving lunatic is "Beck-like" but that doesn't connect them in real life.
In Loughner's crazy ramblings you might have noticed a couple of familiar themes. He wants to go back to the gold standard. He believes the flag to be unconstitu??tional because, using a strict interpreta??tion of the Constituti??on, the flag is not in the Constituti??on. Question: who in America is talking about the Gold Standard? Answer: Libertaria??ns like Republican Ron Paul and that talking hemorrhoid Glenn Beck. Who is demanding a strict interpreta??tion of the Constituti??on? Libertaria??ns and the Tea Party. Who is most active in reporting the doings of Libertarians and the Tea Party in a favorable light? Fox News.
It's not airtight, but there's an indication there that he was influenced by Tea Party/Fox rhetoric.
There used to be a government regulation requiring broadcast networks to air opposing views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
FOXNews and all the talk radio shouting, and Obermann are a result of the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine.
Government regulation in the form of it's reinstatement is possible.
In the age of cable? Not a chance. But even if it was, the Doctrine was basically bullshit.
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented."
MSNBC comes a lot closer to "equal time" by giving Newt Gingrich's towel boy Joe Scarborough all that time every morning than many broadcasters did under the Doctrine. In practice the Doctrine was a joke long before it died. Maybe there'd be some other legislation you could attempt, though I doubt it would pass current SCOTUS scrutiny.
i find it interesting this time around that the majority of the response to this tragedy has been revolved around the political discourse that might have contributed to this event and very little mention yet of hand gun regulation that definitely contributed to this event..
probably a win for the NRA that these horrible events (Tucson, V-Tech) seem to bring up less and less discussion about hand gun regulation, and more and more about how other factors (media's role in politics, social media, psychiatric issues of assailants, etc.) contribute to violence.
Also (and i don't know this answer) does the NRA differentiate the types of 'arms' in its Charter/Manifesto for gun regulation? Although I don't know this for sure (so please feel free to correct), I continue to find it odd that there seem to be similar rules from owning different types of guns. The primary purpose/use of a Hunting Rifle and a Semi-Automatic handgun seem so blatantly different (bar marksmanship), but my understanding is the the regulation to purchase them are similar.
I am sure the NRA is working up a PR campaign as we sit talking about how more people should have had handguns in this scenario so that this assailant could have been stopped sooner.
The wild west indeed
I'm sure this will all get hashed out in recent days. It's really a lose-lose for some of these Right-Winger types -- in that they are not going to be able to have it both ways. On one hand, he was more or less expelled from community college for not undergoing a mental exam. I'm not sure how the background checks for firearms work in Arizona, but that happened before he got a gun and you would wonder if education and employment are checked when someone wants to buy an automatic weapon. And on the other hand, if he was/is mentally imbalanced, what happens with his trial? Here's a guy who has killed a large amount of people; would he be allowed to plead insanity? Then, no death penalty or even, possibly, prison? He's either a crazy guy who ended up with a gun. Or he's not crazy and likely was politically motivated, at least in part, by people in high places saying some down-low, dirty things.
There was actually a Palin spokesperson in a Times article saying that the targets on the map were "surveyor marks." That's some BS.
I actually am surprised at the unmittigated gall of the Palin camp to immediately start crying about the critcisms towards Sarah's rhetoric and map and playing the victim. She is THAT stupid...you would of thought she had the downhomey wisdom to shut the fuck up and let people mourn. Sarah is such a brave cunt.
Disgusting. Back during the Bush years, what were liberals all up in arms about? A needless war in Iraq and tax cuts to people who didn't need them. I truly cannot understand how people get so upset -- and actually resort to violence -- because government passed a law to provide better access to health care. Pick a new cause, people.
Disgusting. Back during the Bush years, what were liberals all up in arms about? A needless war in Iraq and tax cuts to people who didn't need them. I truly cannot understand how people get so upset -- and actually resort to violence -- because government passed a law to provide better access to health care. Pick a new cause, people.
You're forgetting what most conservatives think of as the most horrible human tragedy of all time - the possibility that sometime, somehow, a tax might be raised.
I can't speak for BobDesperado, but it would be nice if we could put a stop to the escalating hate rhetoric of the right and its very specific calls to armed violent action, if those who indulge in such rhetoric would refrain from doing so from here out.
THAT'S THE KIND OF SENTENCE FINNA GET A SURVEYOR MARK ON YOUR HEAD BRO WTF
B/W
WHEN WILL THIS DIE DOWN A LITTLE SO I CAN USE "BOEHNER KILLER?"
has this event changed anyone's views on gun control?
On a populist level? I doubt there's a massive shift; it might convince undecided folks but I don't see much that is going to move staunch supporters on either side to cross over.
However, it can create a greater impetus for legislators and rework the political equation to make gun control laws more possible.
I can't speak for BobDesperado, but it would be nice if we could put a stop to the escalating hate rhetoric of the right and its very specific calls to armed violent action, if those who indulge in such rhetoric would refrain from doing so from here out.
THAT'S THE KIND OF SENTENCE FINNA GET A SURVEYOR MARK ON YOUR HEAD BRO WTF
B/W
WHEN WILL THIS DIE DOWN A LITTLE SO I CAN USE "BOEHNER KILLER?"
There's not a single opinion going to be changed with this discussion. Gun people really will come with some "Safeways need to have bazookas" argument. Foxnewsers will call it an isolated incident. The creepy left will continue to almost be stoked on it, as they see Palin as some Charles Manson pulling psycho puppetstrings.
Never had a chance to be discussed objectively. Completely removed now. Not like anyone ever changes their minds anymore.
has this event changed anyone's views on gun control?
The reaction by people who support gun rights is always: If more people had guns, someone would have shot him dead before he killed all of those people. It's never less guns, always more guns.
Comments
Yeah. I say so. You seem to be operating from the "it's defferent because we're right" perspective.
But what of it? Let's pretend your right. That this guy is a right wing extremist who spent everyday getting charged up listening to Glenn Beck while jerking off to pictures of Sarah Palin's crosshair marked congressional map. What then?
Do you think they should be prosecuted as accomplices? What's your endgame?
C'mon.....I've read his ramblings and they were pure lunacy....unless Glenn Beck is squawking about changing the alphabet, grammar police and other unfortunate results of mental illness....the only connection between them to my knowledge is they're both nuts.
I understand the concept that every raving lunatic is "Beck-like" but that doesn't connect them in real life.
I can't speak for BobDesperado, but it would be nice if we could put a stop to the escalating hate rhetoric of the right and its very specific calls to armed violent action, if those who indulge in such rhetoric would refrain from doing so from here out.
I've made it clear that I'm not interested in any such prosecutions.
My "endgame" is that I'd like more reasonable and truthful political discourse in this country. My opinion is that most of the craziness in that field is being driven by the right-wing and has been for decades, for a variety of reasons.
I find it interesting that you claim I'm the one who is so biased, but when I talk about actual events and offer actual evidence for my position you don't even bother to try to offer any for your own. So your position seems to be that political discourse is always static, with an equal amount of noise coming from the left speaker and the right speaker, all the time, regardless of what's actually happening.
Okay. It seems like you'd have to know nothing about history in order to maintain that fantasy, but if it helps you sleep at night carry on.
Here is a post from some years ago (2008) where I discussed the negative ramifications of Obama's election among the majority:
It seems particularly, though indirectly, relevant these days, huh?
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
I had favorite books
looks like he had planned to kill himself
Hey Tom,
I'm getting at the violent backlash and imagery that has occurred after Obama's election. Supposedly, the shooter was vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, suggesting some racial overtones. So, at best, the connection is indirect; however, it's interesting how references to violence weren't prevalent during Bush's two administrations but have increased during the Obama administration. I don't see this as coincidental.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
I wish there was not 6 pages of 2 people refusing to listen to each other, but I have been there.
A few points I would like to make.
There used to be a government regulation requiring broadcast networks to air opposing views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
FOXNews and all the talk radio shouting, and Obermann are a result of the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine.
Government regulation in the form of it's reinstatement is possible.
I was in AZ on election day, and again just last week.
I can assure you the atmosphere there is more intense than most anywhere else I know about.
Gabby was talking about cooling down the overheated rhetoric last summer. She called out Palin.
Gabby is not a random Representative. Last summer opponents were making a big show of bringing guns to her public events, her office was vandalized, she was 'targeted' and put in the 'crosshairs'. If this had happened to my Rep I would say just a random thing. Rep Blummenauer has never had a contested election, never been the target of right wing outrage. Gabby has been.
The accused seems completely nuts, and the sheriff who is the lead investigator has said as much.
The sheriff has also called for an end to the overheated, violent, rhetoric, that Palin and FOX commentators often use. Maybe we should listen.
I do not have strong views on gun control. We are so awashed in guns it is hard to imagine getting them under control again. Semi-automatic with multiple 30 round clips is what the shooter was using. Hopefully few people think we should be making those kinds of arms readily available.
AZ does have some crazy gun laws. There was a law saying school children could bring guns to schools. It was later amended to say only children in middle and high school. Currently a law is pending to allow guns on college campuses. There is also a law specifically allowing guns in bars and taverns. Best I know you can't bring guns into the state capitol building.
Feel free to disagree or call me names. I don't mind.
No question. Obama's the perfect storm for the right-wing. Funny foreign-sounding name, Ivy League education, un-white, pro-choice, left of center, relatively young, able to beat the pants off of their candidate, and very, very calm as he basically dismisses their concerns as not very important. That someone like him could be president would have struck them as absolutely impossible 5 years ago.
In Loughner's crazy ramblings you might have noticed a couple of familiar themes. He wants to go back to the gold standard. He believes the flag to be unconstitu??tional because, using a strict interpreta??tion of the Constituti??on, the flag is not in the Constituti??on. Question: who in America is talking about the Gold Standard? Answer: Libertaria??ns like Republican Ron Paul and that talking hemorrhoid Glenn Beck. Who is demanding a strict interpreta??tion of the Constituti??on? Libertaria??ns and the Tea Party. Who is most active in reporting the doings of Libertarians and the Tea Party in a favorable light? Fox News.
It's not airtight, but there's an indication there that he was influenced by Tea Party/Fox rhetoric.
In the age of cable? Not a chance. But even if it was, the Doctrine was basically bullshit.
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented."
MSNBC comes a lot closer to "equal time" by giving Newt Gingrich's towel boy Joe Scarborough all that time every morning than many broadcasters did under the Doctrine. In practice the Doctrine was a joke long before it died. Maybe there'd be some other legislation you could attempt, though I doubt it would pass current SCOTUS scrutiny.
I'm sure this will all get hashed out in recent days. It's really a lose-lose for some of these Right-Winger types -- in that they are not going to be able to have it both ways. On one hand, he was more or less expelled from community college for not undergoing a mental exam. I'm not sure how the background checks for firearms work in Arizona, but that happened before he got a gun and you would wonder if education and employment are checked when someone wants to buy an automatic weapon. And on the other hand, if he was/is mentally imbalanced, what happens with his trial? Here's a guy who has killed a large amount of people; would he be allowed to plead insanity? Then, no death penalty or even, possibly, prison? He's either a crazy guy who ended up with a gun. Or he's not crazy and likely was politically motivated, at least in part, by people in high places saying some down-low, dirty things.
There was actually a Palin spokesperson in a Times article saying that the targets on the map were "surveyor marks." That's some BS.
Also like this
You're forgetting what most conservatives think of as the most horrible human tragedy of all time - the possibility that sometime, somehow, a tax might be raised.
THAT'S THE KIND OF SENTENCE FINNA GET A SURVEYOR MARK ON YOUR HEAD BRO WTF
B/W
WHEN WILL THIS DIE DOWN A LITTLE SO I CAN USE "BOEHNER KILLER?"
On a populist level? I doubt there's a massive shift; it might convince undecided folks but I don't see much that is going to move staunch supporters on either side to cross over.
However, it can create a greater impetus for legislators and rework the political equation to make gun control laws more possible.
Too soon b/w lay off the caps lock, dude.
There's not a single opinion going to be changed with this discussion. Gun people really will come with some "Safeways need to have bazookas" argument. Foxnewsers will call it an isolated incident. The creepy left will continue to almost be stoked on it, as they see Palin as some Charles Manson pulling psycho puppetstrings.
Never had a chance to be discussed objectively. Completely removed now. Not like anyone ever changes their minds anymore.
WHABOUT 'BOEHNER SOFTENING STYLE?"
The reaction by people who support gun rights is always: If more people had guns, someone would have shot him dead before he killed all of those people. It's never less guns, always more guns.
http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/09/loughner_not_though
yeah the context/location/timing of the event was totally coincidental dude. he clearly was just out to shoot any old body.
pls be srs.
One classmate decribes nutbag as a "Left wing pot smoker" giving the anti-drug crowd a new scapegoat.
b/w
So-called "Satanic" shrine found at his home giving the Occult fearing christian a horse in the race as well.
I believe dude was a nut.....like Hinckly....Chapman.....etc..........the only horse in my race is insanity.
Demonizing specific, unrelated issues/people for his actions is emotionally self serving at best.