Was Jared Loughner's Act Political?

Was Jared Loughner's act in shooting Rep. Giffords political? Apparently this is what's being debated with a straight face now. Is this a joke? He shot a politician in the head. He called it an "assassination." What part of that was unclear?

He didn't shoot Gabrielle Giffords randomly and it turned out she just happened to be a politician. He sought her out, targeted her and then tried to kill her based on the fact that she was a politician. He thought the government was the problem and it was unresponsive to his psychotic demands on grammar and currency.

So, is Loughner a psycho? Obviously. And that's not just because he shot all of those innocent people, but also because it is abundantly clear from his writings and videos that he has significant mental issues.

But why does the act have to be either psychotic or political? It's obviously both. It was a psychotic act driven by his political beliefs. What's so hard to understand about that?

Then, the next question is whether both sides are equally at fault. Again, I'm confused by this question. What the hell did the Democrats or liberals do here? Nothing, except get shot. How can the media possibly attach false equivalency to this? Are the Democrats equally culpable for getting shot as the conservatives are for shooting them?

Loughner shot a Democrat. Gee, I wonder which side he was on? He hated the government and thought they were out to get us. Gee, I wonder which side he was on?

I thought conservatives said liberals love big government. But now some have the audacity to claim Loughner was a liberal . But if one thing is obvious from Loughner's political writings, it was that he hated the government. So, which one is it -- do liberals love or hate the government?

Come on, this is all a smoke screen to make sure people don't see what's going on here. In the last two years, there have been dozens of attacks and shootings aimed at government officials and political organizations. Every single one of them was directed at liberals, Democrats or the government. Now we're to believe that's the world's largest coincidence?

The conservative hate-mongers don't create psychos. We get that there will always be disturbed individuals out there. But the right-wing directs these lunatics to a source. They channel their fear, anger and paranoia -- and they point them toward the Democrats. They use them as hate seeking missiles.

They load them up them up with violent imagery, whether it's talk of cross-hairs or second amendment remedies or the tree of liberty being refreshed with blood. Then when they get a violent reaction they pretend to be surprised and outraged that anyone would suggest they were the least bit culpable. The reality is that it is a simple formula -- violence in, violence out. Violent imagery in, violent results out.

If pretending this isn't political or that somehow it is both-sided doesn't work (which they shouldn't worry about because so far it has worked perfectly in white-washing their culpability in the media), then they say it's political exploitation to point out what they have done.

How the hell are we supposed to point out the problem if we can't mention the issue for fear of being charged with political exploitation? Would it be exploiting the tragedy of the BP oil spill to point out that maybe we should be a little careful about oil drilling? Or are we not supposed to make the most obvious points so that we don't offend the other political side's delicate sensibilities?

You know who exploited a tragedy for political gain? George W. Bush and the entire Republican Party. They used 9/11 as a gimmick to get re-elected. Then they exploited it to attack a random country that had nothing to do with 9/11. It is nearly impossible to exploit a tragedy anymore than they did with 9/11. And maybe that's why they level the charge against us now, because they know that's the first thing they'd do.

But pointing out that conservative commentators and politicians have been inciting their followers isn't done to get anyone elected. I don't even know whose election this would theoretically effect. This isn't done to press some policy agenda (again, outside of gun control, I can't even think of what agenda we are supposed to theoretically be pushing for). This is to point out an obvious fact that is getting people killed -- if you incite violence, you get violence.

To pretend that isn't happening all across the country everyday on talk radio, etc. is to be willfully blind to reality -- and to allow it to happen again. And trust me, next time they'll also say no one could have seen it coming and that whatever we do we mustn't talk about it. Preventing another tragedy like this would be such terrible exploitation. Better to be quiet and let them do it again.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Clarifications:

I didn't think these clarifications were necessary, but apparently they are for some. So, here it goes.

1. I am not saying all conservatives are responsible. I got an e-mail from a conservative saying I am blaming him for breathing. I am not blaming him at all (unless he had a national platform and talked about "targeting" liberals, Democrats, etc.), let alone for breathing.

2. I don't believe the proper remedy is limiting anyone's freedom of speech. I never suggested that. In fact, I am sure if anyone passed such a law, not only would it be unconstitutional, but it would be almost exclusively used against the left.

2A. Of course, I don't mind Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin attacking Democrats. That's their job. I am asking them to use some caution in how they frame their attacks and not to use violent imagery that eggs people on.

On the show, I was very specific on what kinds of language I was referring to (I also have a link in the story above to examples). Here is the video where I list some of the examples of conservatives using violent imagery.

3. I don't think that Jared Loughner necessarily listened to an episode of the Glenn Beck show and then went and did this (although others, like Byron Williams did specifically do just that). I am saying that these conservative leaders are purposely creating an environment in which this type of violence festers.

4. Lastly, I am not saying that these conservative leaders celebrated this news or wanted this specific outcome. I assume they are still human. But they knew, or should have known, that they were creating the environment that led to this kind of violence -- and they didn't give a damn.

What did you think was going to happen when you kept telling people to grab their guns, the government was endangering their family and way of life and that they should defend themselves? This was going to happen. Don't pretend otherwise.
Watch Cenk Discuss Huffpo removing this blog post from its site

< Brentalfloss Pointing Out Bill O'Reily Hypocrisy | HuffPo Statement On Removing Cenk's Loughner Blog >
 Display:
This excellent blog has been pulled from the Huffington Post. Even the Huffington post refuses to have this discussion. Shame. WTF?

by ambermt on 01/11/2011 12:35:33 PM EST

Do you know the reason it was taken down?  Depending on that reason, we should be prepared to boycott the Huffington Post.  If they just took it down because they didn't like it, well it's clear that they have become a propaganda machine and not a news site.  If Cenk pulled it, that's a different story.  I hope Cenk will let us know what's up.

by fromthatshow on 01/11/2011 01:25:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know I'm a drop in bucket in there daily readers. But if they kicked it for him making too much sense. HP can kiss my arse goodbye!!! Sorry there isn't one liberal/democrat I watch, listened, or read. That's says violence is the only way to deal with republican politics. Innocent people here are being killed all based on fear of a damn gun. 

by Hereallyear on 01/11/2011 02:31:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I baled on Huffpost.

by lowfiron on 01/11/2011 03:46:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hi,

HuffPost has not deemed questions as to why Cenk's blog was pulled in under 14 minutes worthy a reply.
And when I attempted to ask Arianna via her blog posting, they refused to even let my question appear on the board.
As the other poster said, HuffPost can kiss my arse.
I am hugely disappointed in them.

by tdowning666 on 01/13/2011 08:06:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Huffington Post decided to pull the blog down. They used their editorial discretion. I disagree with their decision, but it is their decision to make. The blog is now up on our website. I stand 100% behind it."

by Tom Hanc on 01/11/2011 03:52:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
did not go far enough.

Lets lay this at the feet of Obama where it belongs. His refusal to prosecute a single one of the Bush crimes, ranging from spying to torture, as well as political prosecutions has perpetuated the insanity. Then there is Wall Street…….
Let’s put this in perspective, these nut jobs have been threatening to kill people and vandalizing buildings over the concept of trying to extend healthcare coverage, yes healthcare. Yet they were, and remain silent on torture, illegal wars, corporate looting, the WTO agreements that hand over US sovereignty to foreign courts, usury rates, mass illegal foreclosures and the real loss of our constitutional right to secure in our person.
It’s pure insanity.  

by sisco66 on 01/11/2011 07:11:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Huffington Post pulled this?? WHY??? That just makes me ill. How sad that even they refuse to address this issue. Pathetic.

by jmechanic on 01/12/2011 08:05:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]

It's things like this that need to be discussed.  We shouldn't just stand by and silently watch as our progressive brothers & sisters are gunned down, we need to talk about what is happening in our country right now.  Cenk, I just want to say thank you for standing up and not staying silent, because I think you and the rest of the Young Turks are the only ones brave enough to do so. 

 

On another note...other than pointing out what is happening in our society, what do we do?  Although it's a bit silly, sometimes when I hear what is going on throughout our country I feel a bit hunted...

by blacknight on 01/11/2011 01:31:05 PM EST

It says on the page where the blog is supposed to be:

 Editor's Note: This post is no longer available on the Huffington Post

Unless there's some really weird reasoning for it, HuffPost took it down because it "politicizes" the shooting.

 When it comes to crushing the conversation over this, they're just as culpable as Rush Limbaugh at this point.

by ksbsmom on 01/11/2011 02:04:37 PM EST

Huffington Post pulling this blog from their website is shameful. Cenk, one of the bravest and logical progressive voices, is being cencored to avoid controversy and to appear as taking the "high road". The facts are dirty and the conversation difficult but nothing will change unless we confront the bastards head-on.

 The TYT Army needs to rise to the occasion and barage HuffPo with emails expressing dissaproval of the censoring of this blog!

by ambermt on 01/11/2011 03:19:06 PM EST

he said "emails", as opposed to bullets and "2nd amendment" remedies. Maybe you're too fucking stupid to understand the distinction?

by thedeans on 01/12/2011 03:07:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you're too "fucking stupid" to recognize harmless facetiousness.

Also: "TYT Army" is the militaristic speech LA Doc was speaking about.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 01/18/2011 02:00:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I love that!  Seriously Cenk that is a meme you really need to get out there and keep hammering home till it catches on.  The conservatives have proved time and time again how effective a simple, concise, easy to remember talking point/slogan can be at turning public opinion on an issue and this is one of the best I've heard from the left in a long time. 

Go get'em!

by alphasigmookie on 01/11/2011 03:27:46 PM EST

It doesn't even make sense.

A heat-seeking missile is a missile that homes in on a heat source.

A hate-seeking missile would be a missile that homes in on a source of hate.

Ooopsy doopsy!

by huwrj on 01/11/2011 06:24:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk has just stepped outside the MSM box.  It is a very tight little box for liberals.  Lets see if he gets a daily rant about this topic.  

by vjames on 01/11/2011 04:57:13 PM EST

Why would they take this down?  Are they trying to purge their site of liberal viewpoints out of fear of a right-wing backlash?  Dear Huffpo, once the cattle are out of the barn, you can't put them back in. 

by qsoundrich on 01/11/2011 04:58:38 PM EST

Some loser who disagreed with Cenk and decided to censor the blog, perhaps a guy who has 50/50 fake-neutral conventional-wisdom lazy hack leanings. (Should go and work in MSM).

That guy has soft hands, as Wes would say.

by huwrj on 01/11/2011 06:36:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Ever try posting ANYTHING even slightly negative about Sarah Palin? It gets "disappeared". You can't call any Republican "crazy" - it's just too out there. Even when they say crazy things. They censor just about everything if it's slightly mean-spirited towards Repukes.

It's definitely love/hate with HP.

by thedeans on 01/12/2011 03:32:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not afraid to speak (or blog) the truth. Cenk's blog is just pure common sense and it's a JOKE that other media outlets don't have the balls to stand up and say something right now.

It's a teachable moment people! But unfortunately nobody's teaching... except Cenk, of course.

by ilovecenk99 on 01/11/2011 06:05:37 PM EST

If this guy was a Muslim would the conversation even be about his mental health? 

by extraordinaryboy on 01/11/2011 06:31:38 PM EST

It would be cause to invade Iran or Yemen or Venezuela or the fucking moon.

by thedeans on 01/12/2011 03:33:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]

HP has given Thom Hartmann a hard time in the past too. THOM "FRIGGEN" Hartmann! Well, I can see why. Everybody knows Thom Hartmann is an excitable, overly emotional man that blows his top at the drop of a hat.

To me, Salon blows HP away. That's just MY opinion.

Shame on you HP.

by kurd55 on 01/11/2011 06:38:07 PM EST

Am I wrong? Isn't Cenk supposed to do the Tuesday daily rant on Ratigan? The daily rant today sucked!

by ambermt on 01/11/2011 07:05:13 PM EST

The reason people say this wasn't politically motivated is because Loughner's views are not confined to a left-right spectrum. The kid is insane and relates with extremism on both the left on the right.

Do conservatives list the "Communist Manifesto" as one of their favorite books?

Are conservatives known for being atheists? And discussing how much they hate god?

Are conservatives typically known for being stoners, heavy metal fans who are referred to as 'liberals' by their classmates?

Loughner didn't latch on to Giffords because she was a democrat, he latched on to her because he is pyscotic and she failed to answer his ramblings in the way she wanted him to - oh and by the way, this was in 2007, pre-palin, pre-tea party, when the country was still very much in agreement that they hated bush and the GOP:

"He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?'"


Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."




It's simply pure idiocy to try put an insane person neatly inside a political definition/label. There minds don't function the way ours do, and they don't view the world in the right-left spectrum that is common these days.

As far as this nonsense:

"But the right-wing directs these lunatics to a source. They channel their fear, anger and paranoia -- and they point them toward the Democrats. They use them as hate seeking missiles.

They load them up them up with violent imagery, whether it's talk of cross-hairs or second amendment remedies or the tree of liberty being refreshed with blood."

The DLC & The DCCC used the same imagery on "targeted" districts, only the DCCC put the congressmen/womens pictures on the map... are they too loading up pyscho's with imagery? How about Obama? He told his followers to bring a knife to a gunfight, was he inciting his followers to shoot conservatives?

There's lists and lists of this kind of language being used by people on both sides. It's common jargan, to try and put any culpability on common political jargan is just asinine.

Those on the left that are trying to blame this on a political ideology/position are only doing themselves a disservice. One they look morally bankrupt by attempting to use this tragedy for political gain... and two, the facts are coming out now and they're very clear. This guy has been obsessed for a long time, it pre-dates Palin, it pre-dates the tea party and it has absolutely nothing to do with 'heated' conservative rhetoric. It has do with a tragically derranged young man who acted out on his delusions and took innoncent peoples lives.


by verbal138 on 01/11/2011 07:49:43 PM EST

"One they look morally bankrupt by attempting to use this tragedy for political gain..."

Gain? What gain? We're trying to stop the next right-wing lunatic from carrying out their Glen Beckian wet dream and inflicting irreversible damage to human life. Who's trying to win elections (i.e. political gain) by addressing the elephant in the room? Political Gain? Turn off the Fox news or at least stop parroting their talking points. The underlying tenor of hate and fear that prompts people to conduct themselves in a destructive manner is a real problem and if you can't see that then your not subscribing to the facts.
 


"and two, the facts are coming out now and they're very clear. This guy has been obsessed for a long time, it pre-dates Palin, it pre-dates the tea party and it has absolutely nothing to do with 'heated' conservative rhetoric."

Really? Why wasn't he compelled to grab a gun and commit a tragedy back then? It surely coundn't be a result of the heightened rhetoric that has intensified ever since Obama has been in office? The right-wing hate machine has been ramped up in recent years and it promotes a culture of fear, hatred and glorifies gun-toting intimidation. Your logic is upside-down.

by ambermt on 01/11/2011 09:12:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Gain? What gain? We're trying to stop the next right-wing lunatic from carrying out their Glen Beckian wet dream and inflicting irreversible damage to human life."

No you're not. 1. this guy wasn't a right-wing lunatic 2. he was not inspired by glen beck 3. the gain is pure politics, pin this act of a crazed lunatic on your political enemies, and use it to discredit them and some of their positions.

Its a pretty cynical game you're playing.

"The underlying tenor of hate and fear that prompts people to conduct themselves in a destructive manner is a real problem and if you can't see that then your not subscribing to the facts."

This has nothing to do with an "underlying tenor of hate and fear" this is about a young man who broke from reality. Read the article from motherjones, he thought words meant nothing and that his dreams were real, and that he could control them. He latched on to the congreswoman because she couldn't answer his rantings the manner he was looking for. He did this in 2007, back when the 'tenor of hate and fear' was predominantly coming from the left and towards Bush.

"Why wasn't he compelled to grab a gun and commit a tragedy back then? It surely coundn't be a result of the heightened rhetoric that has intensified ever since Obama has been in office?"
 
Just because you can make the suggestion, doesn't make it so and it doesn't give you any grounds. You're making basless accusations out of pure ignorance. Again, read that article... he began his hatred for her in 2007, and over the last year or two he stopped self medicating with pot & booze... his friends say his break from reality got worse.

You're trying to fit the actions of a crazy person into a nice little timeline that makes sense in YOUR opinion, because you are desparate to pin this on those who do not agree with your politics. It doesn't work like that. This kid thought he could control his dreams and his reality, and you think you can explain his thought process because of what YOU'VE seen in the news cycle over the last 18 months? Get real.

by verbal138 on 01/12/2011 11:48:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The kid didn't even watch TV, and didn't like the news:

"This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.

Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news.

He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right"

http://www.mediabistro.com/ tvnewser/jared-loughners-fr iend-says-suspect-did-not-w atch-tv-disliked-the-news_b 48040



...I suppose the facts in this case are incredibly inconvienent for people like you who are trying to exploit this tragedy. Political tone/rhetoric played zero role in this. This is a story of a deranged young man and that is the entire story.


by verbal138 on 01/12/2011 01:41:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I see LA Doc isn't the only one trying to justify Limbaugh's bullshit. Now that you know that this guy hasn't hung out with Loughner for 2 years, are you still going to post your nonsense?

by David F on 01/13/2011 09:12:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It's all just an incredible coi ncidence that Democrat offices are being vandalized. It's only a coincidence that he killed an important Democrat at a Democratic event. It's only a coincidence that the main motivation for his insane actions wa s his hatred and mistrust for the government. No---Republicans "know" it was things like that evil, black-based heavy metal music. And as every Republican knows--anything having to do with black people is evil! Lol! Your so stupid it hurts my feelings. You have ZERO grip on the history of music and yet you throw around bigoted talking points like you think you know something. That's a typical Republican tactic--speak authoritatively and damn the facts. 'Cause anyone that speaks authoritatively must know what they're talking about, right?

Your attempt at stereotyping p eople by what music they listen or recreational drugs they partake in--Ru$h "The Pill Popper" Limbaugh and Ted "Heavy Metal" Nugent come to mind--is a lame Republican bigot tactic that only works in the dipshit Tea-Party dream world . Also, Isn't Tipper Gore a Democrat? Didn't she try to stifle such music by imposing a draconian labeling system and therefore hindering the distribution of "objectionable" music? Anyway, if you're gonna use such such cliche pigeonholing, your an idiot, period.

Lastly, why did Palin take down her Democrat bullseye target map if it was so very innocuous and innocent? Why can't she "man-up" and stand up for her convictions and actions? 'Cause she's a cowardly phony that stays in the black by duping bigoted racist suckers like you.

Ta, moron.

PS: Now I know you'll be "OUTRAGED" at being called a racist and bigot. That's because you are extremely ignorant and uninformed. Your lack of music history is only 1 specific sample that I used to exemplify and illustrate your all-around, abject, and dreadful ignorance. Facts are facts, bud. Tough darts if you can't see that--whatever the reason.

by kurd55 on 01/11/2011 10:20:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"One they look morally bankrupt by attempting to use this tragedy for political gain..."

Gain? What gain? We're trying to stop the next right-wing lunatic from carrying out their Glen Beckian wet dream and inflicting irreversible damage to human life. Who's trying to win elections (i.e. political gain) by addressing the elephant in the room? Political Gain? Turn off the Fox news or at least stop parroting their talking points. The underlying tenor of hate and fear that prompts people to conduct themselves in a destructive manner is a real problem and if you can't see that then your not subscribing to the facts.
 


"and two, the facts are coming out now and they're very clear. This guy has been obsessed for a long time, it pre-dates Palin, it pre-dates the tea party and it has absolutely nothing to do with 'heated' conservative rhetoric."

Really? It predates this tragedy? Why wasn't he compelled to grab a gun and commit a tragedy back then? Could it be that through all of this hateful rhetoric he got the idea that, given all the nutty talk about grabbing your guns, that he would do just that and be a hero? Your logic is incredibly flawed.

by ambermt on 01/11/2011 09:01:12 PM EST

So you're calling YOUR logic intact?  You make a simple-minded, single, linear assumption that this schizophrenic, anarchist, skull-worshipping nutcase got the idea from conservative talk?  Do you know the shooter personally?  It turns out he listened to Drowning Pool's Bodies before the killings, should be extrapolate blame to that song.  I'm sure a lot of you tough "poseurs" like Drowning Pool ( I do) but shouldn't we blame them too? If not, then you are not really thinking logically, either, you're just expressing opinion masquerading as fact.  Good grief, what level of education did you actually finish?
This blog is one of the most simple-minded and childish I've ever seen.

by LA Doc on 01/11/2011 10:18:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]

that I have read.

 I find it disturbing that Ariana removed it.

by pebblebrook on 01/11/2011 09:22:44 PM EST

So you post a link of "dozens of attacks and shootings aimed at government officials and political organizations" which lists some valid occurences and a lot of weak cases, then you extrapolate them to claim that the latest tragedy is yet another example of how conservatives are complicit because they create oh such a scary environment for this to happen. You hyperventilate about how you self-pitying little wussbags are such victims.  And then you suggest that there is no guilt to bear on behalf of the Left.  In fact, the Democratic Leadership Council used almost the exact same targeting map in 2004. Incidences like a MoveON member choking a TeaParty member last year in Giffords district, or shots and bricks thru military recruiting offices, or scumbag union SEIU thugs beating on town hall attendees, or activists violently disrupting conservativ e speakers at colleges, or rioting at every G12 meeting, or destroying property and disrupting the lives of banker's family members, or the vile, immature insults and lies written about members of the conservative movement, including gang-raping Palin or exploding Rush Limbaugh's head with a CO2 cartridge, or basically anything that comes out of Rep. Grayson's mouth. Let's not forget about ex-Rep Kanjorski calling for the gov-elect of FL to be put against a wall and shot.  And further back, the left is supposed to be allowed to call General Petraeus a traitor in the NYT and accuse Bush of 9/11, stealing elections, comparing him with Hitler (ala MoveOn.org) and all manner of vile things while at the same time portraying him being murdered on film. Even John Kerry made a joke about killing one bird with one stone (referring to Bush).  Let me tell you pious, bratty, pseudointellectual poseurs something. The rhetoric cuts both ways.  It's been like that for thousands of years of civilization.  What was the atmosphere like when Reagan was shot?  Or when the hippie nutjob shot at Ford.  Or when the professed communist shot JFK?  It goes on and on.  So don't go around pretending your sh-- don't stink.  You sound like the typical, underachieving, bitter liberals, who go around blaming your shortcomings on everything and everyone BUT YOURSELVES.  Pathetic, immature, victim-baiting losers.   Ya'll need to get out of your momma's basement and get laid, or something.

by LA Doc on 01/11/2011 10:10:01 PM EST

I must say I've only voted left, but I can't stand hypocrisy, Cenk is using this tragedy to push his agenda and I think it's wrong.

by knec on 01/11/2011 10:17:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm actually an Independent, pro-marijuana, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun, fiscal conservative, social liberal. 
But I cannot STAND hypocrisy, though I'm sure I've indulged in it myself on occasion, unknowingly. 

by LA Doc on 01/11/2011 10:26:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're lying your ass off. Your a Tea Baggin conservative and you voted for Bush...   twice.

by ambermt on 01/11/2011 10:42:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If Cenk's agenda is not wanting people to die, I certainly support that.  That's the only thing I've heard from Cenk's commentary on what happened.  You could sum it up as, "Hey, let's figure out why people are getting shot, and stop them."  Not blaming someone for this murder is akin to someone getting killed and the judge saying, let's not find out who did this, let's just say this is a horrible act and leave it at that.

by fromthatshow on 01/13/2011 03:18:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

But if you used the occasional period and paragraph, it would make your comments more intelligible.

"In fact, the Democratic Leadership Council used almost the exact same targeting map in 2004."

No, they didn't. Nice try though.

"or shots and bricks thru military recruiting offices"

How are those unsolved crimes, "liberal" related? AFAIK, the FBI thinks the person in DC shooting at USMC recruitment stations is probably a disgruntled marine/recruit.

"or the vile, immature insults and lies written about members of the conservative movement"

You really think that's the equivalent of violence?

"exploding Rush Limbaugh's head with a CO2 cartridge"

I hadn't heard about that one, it's actually pretty funny.

"Let's not forget about ex-Rep Kanjorski calling for the gov-elect of FL to be put against a wall and shot."

Was he?

"And further back, the left is supposed to be allowed to call General Petraeus a traitor in the NYT"

This is the equivalent of violence? You seem to be losing focus.

"and accuse Bush of 9/11, stealing elections"

Focus.

"comparing him with Hitler (ala MoveOn.org)"

Oh, you mean the user post that was taken down when discovered? See, that's how rumors get started and then nuts like you repeat them.

"portraying him being murdered on film."

You do realize that was a foreign film?

"Even John Kerry made a joke about killing one bird with one stone (referring to Bush)."

So you feel any violence at all in a metaphor is wrong? Then I suppose you are pretty incensed about Palin's constant violent rhetoric?

"What was the atmosphere like when Reagan was shot?"

Oh Gee, the President has been shot!? I hope he is OK. Etc...

"Or when the hippie nutjob shot at Ford. Or when the professed communist shot JFK?  It goes on and on."

Sure does. We could also spend all day reminiscing about all the RWnut jobs who shot MLK, Governor Wallace, Bobby Kennedy, etc... and let's not forget the #1 RWnut job of all who blew up a Federal Building (and the day care).

Thanks for posting. Please come back when you're sobered up. I look forward to it.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 01/11/2011 10:31:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So obsessing over grammer?  Isnt' that what the shooter did too?  Pretty petty there, RobRob. 
And here's the link to the DLC map, liar.
http://www.verumserum.com/? p=13647
We're talking about vitriol rhetoric and the supposed violence it causes, so poo-pooing Left wing rhetoric and vitriol while associating Right-wing vitriol with violence is the height of simple-minded hypocrisy. 
As for MoveOn's ad, which over reddened footage of Hitler and Nazi troops marching, read, “A nation warped by lies, lies fuel fear, fear fuels aggression, invasion, occupation. What were war crimes in 1945, is foreign policy in 2003.”  Does the fact that it was pulled negate the fact it was created and posted to begin with?
It seems you're the petty nitpicky type who desperately perused my post for any ammunition, however weak your comebacks may be.  You must frequently miss the forrest for the trees, so I'll make it simple for you.
It's childish to assume that rhetoric and political violence are some kind of new development.  It's existed since the dawn of civilization and will continue.  To make assumptions that this particular tragedy was due to such rhetoric is pathetically simple-minded, unless you know all the facts. In addition, it's the height of hypocrisy to assume that only Right-wing violence and vitriol exist today.  I hate Palin, by the way, but I don't believe what she says is any different than what anyone else has said for the past 200 years in this country.  Your silly smugness over my grammer (lol) and nitpicking over my posts has completely blinded you to what I was trying to say.  How about this, "It cuts both ways so don't assume you're better than anyone else"  There, is that easier to understand, child?

by LA Doc on 01/11/2011 11:11:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nooo, I said if you used periods and/or paragraphs we might be able to read your post. If you want to remain incomprehensible (as you seem to) feel free.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 01/11/2011 11:17:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"It seems you're the petty nitpicky type who desperately perused my post for any ammunition"
 
Well you certainly gave him enuff didn't you? And it only counts as "desperate perusal" if it took longer than five minutes of searching, not the two or three minutes it most likely took him. The great thing about forums like this is that you generally get to say what you want but if you spit out bullshit as if it were gospel, don't get all defensive and pitch a hissy fit when someone calls you out. The truth is while you do make some valid points,  the majority of examples you used to support them were just plain wrong, as he quite humorously pointed out. Next time make sure ur facts are tight and on point and you'll avoid future public spankings. LOL

by Razinlilhell on 01/12/2011 01:46:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're criticizing me for making supposedly non factual points, yet you clearly agree with the inaccurate assumptions and associations in Cenk's blog?  That renders any comment from you as moot in my eyes, coming from a brainwashed far left loon who views the world thru filtered glasses.  And by the way, take any example I stated earlier and Google it.  For instance, you can Google Chris Matthews and CO2 cartridges.  Or the DLC and target mapping (which by the way was invented by Bob Beckel, google him too).  Or any of the other incidents I've mentioned.  Nice try, pal, although I understand.  I am aware of the liberal propensity towards revisionist history. 

by LA Doc on 01/12/2011 02:22:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I could almost read your post this time.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 01/12/2011 10:26:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Although I'd have to say you kind of made your place with your tone.

by bfaul on 01/12/2011 11:18:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Read this guys post above. Aside from his weak arguments and refusal to conceed that righty shock-jocks incubate hatred, his comments are lost on the fact that he has some kind of intellect complex.

Yes, we're all a bunch of underachieving liberals who don't profess to be Doctors (LA Doc) as in our poster name. I'm sure your way too smart for us "Pseudointellectuals&q uot;.

You need to turn off the Limbaugh and Beck, your post sounds like an echo-chamber. The choking at the tea party rally was in retalliation to physical heckling and could have been considered self defense (just one example of the Rush-esq approach to facts.) And WE'RE the pseudointellectual s. Yamon

by ambermt on 01/11/2011 10:39:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OK, bimbo, here it is again.
Simply put, the vitriol that exists on the Right (there, is the concession enough for you?) and Left is nothing new.  So it's hypocritical to assume one side or the other owns a monopoly on such rhetoric and the supposed violence it causes.  Do I need to explain my point again for you, or do you get it this time?  Maybe you should read and THINK about my WHOLE post this time.  Jeesh.

by LA Doc on 01/11/2011 11:17:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"Let me tell you pious, bratty, pseudointellectual poseurs something. "

Ooh. Everyone listen!  Ignatius J. Reilly is about to say something important.

by bfaul on 01/12/2011 10:49:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have a 9 year little girl at home, and for folks like yourself to exploit the death of a child to score some cheap, simplistic, obtuse political point is absolutely, utterly, repulsive.  You and your parents should be very ashamed.  It's lame dude, and very low-class. 

by LA Doc on 01/11/2011 10:34:34 PM EST

Then I'm sure you were positively incensed by Rush Limbaugh's comments?

"Hold your heads high and turn this back on the media and the Democrats."

I'm sure the parents of the 9 year old girl will be comforted by Rush's concern.

 

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 01/11/2011 10:43:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Did you even read Cenks post or understand anything about his motives here. Obviously not if you think he's scoring "cheap political points". Either that or your being intentionally dense because you feel your political views are being attacked or villified. 

by ambermt on 01/11/2011 10:48:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Any attempt to hold the right responsible will be called "trying to score cheap political points."  This is how they will skirt responsibility.

by fromthatshow on 01/13/2011 03:19:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
now lets not get personal about this. while worded terribly, does he know how terribly it's worded? probably not, but at least he clarified it. He's not using it against conservatives as a whole, just that the shooter was motivated by violent right-wing rhetoric. While I disagree, violent rhetoric does exist and trancends the ideological spectrum.

by Abacus of Soho on 01/11/2011 11:09:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree with you, the rhetoric and violence has existed for eons, but as I mentioned in a prior post, it's simplistic and ignorant to extrapolate the motives of this shooter unless you know all the facts. And by making such accusations and assumptions to make political argument while victims are not even buried yet, is creepy and vile at best. 

by LA Doc on 01/11/2011 11:22:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I'm assuming you also agree this was "creepy and vile" as well?

"Hold your heads high and turn this back on the media and the Democrats."

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 01/11/2011 11:31:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He was merely defending himself against accusations that were prematurely leveled against him immediately after the shootings.  Not to say he's not guilty of opportunism, but not so much in this case.  Certainly not as much as the Left has been in this particular instance.

by LA Doc on 01/12/2011 02:05:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Shocking... so out of character.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 01/12/2011 10:20:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
... to stand idly by and say nothing when a lunatic snaps an mows your little girl down with a gun he bought legally without a background check? We hear you.

by Zajuts149 on 01/12/2011 05:02:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Any thought on the possibility of this guy being an anarchist?

 

just a thought.

 

-peace out.

by Abacus of Soho on 01/11/2011 10:36:44 PM EST

He was an anarchist (loosely defined) who worshipped some kind of skull in his backyard, thinks Bush caused 9/11, hated the Congresswoman because she snubbed him at an event in 2007, and thru his ramblings, it's evident he is clinically schizophrenic, with the classic delusional, self-centered, and grandiose thought processes and associations.  In other words, he's crazy.  A red balloon or barking dog could have set him off, as much as any political rhetoric or books or TV show, or songs or whatever.

by LA Doc on 01/11/2011 11:29:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You know I agree with you that it's hard to pinpoint what caused him to finally snap and act on his anger towards Giffords.  Sometimes you build yourself up and build yourself up to do something and never do it and then just one day you do.  It really could be as arbitrary as that.  And trust me I'd love to blame the right wing but in this case I think it's hard to do.

But having said that, if the right wing doesn't want some sort of violent act pinned on them then why do they continue to provoke it?  I mean, maybe this guy hadn't seen an episode of Glenn Beck in his life but surely the right wing talking heads must be aware that when some crazy sh$t goes down they just might get blamed for it.  Or at least share some culpability.  Because maybe the violent calls to action had nothing to do with recent events but they certainly couldn't have helped create an environment where it wouldn't have happened.

Idk.  I think blaming the right wing exclusively is irresponsible but surely we can all concede they could tone it back a little.  And I'll admit there is some violent rhetoric from the left but not nearly as much as from the right.

by frownonfun on 01/12/2011 12:28:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
..and I don't completely disagree with your points regarding rhetoric, particularly the ramped up vitriol coming from the Right the past 2 years.  But it really boils down to a subjective, individual viewpoint regarding the DEGREE of heated rhetoric and it's influence on violent behaviors.  In other words, to someone on the Right, who reads mostly Right-leaning news, the amount of vitriol from the Left, esp during the Bush years, may seem equal in tenor and intensity than what you see from the Right today.  And someone on the Left who concentrates mainly on Left-leaning news sources, may feel Right-wing rhetoric and violence is worse today than ever before.  No one is omnipotent, so subjective observation matters.  It's also important to consider how each side expresses their political discourse and thru what medium.  But regardless of who is louder and nastier, my overall point is that it is nearly impossible to quantify and set a hard threshold on the discourse, over which the level of political rhetoric becomes dangerous.  Assassination attempts, political violence, threats, insults, etc. is part of human civilization.  Do we limit free speech because of it?  To what degree?  And who makes those judgements, especially in light of the subjective nature of how each of us view the other side as a "threat?"  Discourse is discourse, there no such thing as "toning it down" when it comes to politics, at any time in history.  That's the price of free speech, to bring up a tired euphemism.  I know that death threats against Obama are more frequent than they were against Bush, but does that make it more dangerous for Obama than Bush?  All it takes is one crazy person.  Does it make it more pressing that we regulate speech?  Does it make it more dangerous today to be a politician?  Has it crossed that threshold?  During every administration there has been some sort of political violence during his tenure.   Is the rhetoric responsible, and was the line crossed at that time?  I guess the point I'm making is that this is just the way it is.  Look up some of the political rhetoric during the time of Lincoln, or Kennedy, or even Washington. You will not find anything different.  We just have to trust in the decency of civilized society and take our chances.  Blaming rhetoric and claiming the high ground when it comes to political violence is a fool's errand.  What is "toned down" to some, can still be "hate speech" if someone disagrees politically.  The only thing we can do is try to refrain from making spurious and weak accusations before all the facts are known.  Both sides are guilty of forgetting that.  All that does is worsen the environment for all.  This blogger Cenk is as culpable as those he criticizes. But overall, this is the nature politics, this is the way it is.  It will not change.  In a free democracy, it will wax and wane, but it will not change.  We just live with it, do our best to preserve our rights and freedoms as best we can, and live with the consequences, because it's better than the alternative.  Most tyranny derives from one side claiming public safety and welfare as a reason to suppress political opposition.

by LA Doc on 01/12/2011 02:02:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]

they represent a positive force despite all the evidence these past two years that the government is corrupt and cares little what the people want.  When the government ignores the people, left or right, then violence is the result.  The language of the tea party is the language of the dispossessed.  The action of Jared is the action of the dispossessed.

Obama just gave tax cuts to the rich and cut jobs for the poor.  America supports universal health care, but it was not given.  There is no plan to create jobs only to protect banks.  If the government continues to ignore the disenfranchised then it has itself to blame and inflammatory language is just the evidence.

If there is a message here, it is that government is the problem and that if government doesn't change there will be more violence.  Cenk blames the language, but its the policies, the language is an expression of frustration.  Change the policy and the language will change too.

Join the 99%, Join Americans Elect and throw the bums out. Vote Mike Ballantine in 2012

by Mcamelyne II on 01/12/2011 02:32:55 AM EST

For the most part I agree that government is the problem, although I differ slightly with you on a couple issues, not worth mentioning. However in this particular case, I think this shooter was completely unhinged and truly organically ill, from a psych perspective.  In other words, his target could have been anything.   He was supposedly "anti-government" but it's important for folks like Cenk to inquire more closely as to what way, and why, the shooter was anti-gov, before making a generalization about right-wing political opinion and rhetoric.  Was he against the gov because he agreed with the Tea Party about fiscal responsibility?  Highly unlikely without any current evidence.  Was he against the gov because of the slight he recieved from the congresswoman back in 2007?  Was he against the gov because they wouldn't fix the crack in his sidewalk?  He actually thought the gov controlled people thru grammer, hardly the message of any anti-gov group I know of.  He was clinically insane.  Cenk claims that because of the anti-gov rhetoric from the Right, the shooter was encouraged by a political "atmosphere" as a contributing factor. First of all, unless you know the shooter personally, at th is point it's unclear whether Right-wing rhetoric caused it, or even if he even listened to Right-wing rhetoric.  Maybe he listened to too much Drowning Pool.  He could hate the gov because he's an anarchist Goth devil-worshipper who hates society.  He could hate the gov because of a personal beef with the Congresswoman.  When it comes to schizophrenics, anything and nothing is a contributing factor.  ANYTHING can encourage them to act.  If it wasn't the congresswoman, it could have been his yoga instructor, or his girlfriend.  Cenk's claims wouldn't even have much credence if a SANE man did the shooting, but that wasn't the case either.  There will always be a "political atmosphere", there always has been, and crazies will respond unpredictably.  So accusations and more regulations are completely short-sight ed at best, and at worst, cracks open the door to tyranny a little more, and makes the potential for violence worse.

by LA Doc on 01/12/2011 03:49:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
then we can find solutions.  The Tea party is not the enemy of progressives, they might become our partners in defeating corrupt politicians.

Join the 99%, Join Americans Elect and throw the bums out. Vote Mike Ballantine in 2012

by Mcamelyne II on 01/12/2011 05:25:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This is all I had to read to realize you had no idea who Cenk was, what he says daily, or what progressives in general are about. LOL!!!  You are so so sooooooo full of it.  Please....shut up!

by dirtflyer on 01/12/2011 09:31:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Democratic in the upcoming election?  Does Cenk root for Democrats in Congress?  Cenk is disgusted with Obama and the Democrats but he has not abandoned them.

Join the 99%, Join Americans Elect and throw the bums out. Vote Mike Ballantine in 2012

by Mcamelyne II on 01/13/2011 04:13:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves> <w:TrackFormatting> <w:PunctuationKerning> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-CA</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables> <w:SnapToGridInCell> <w:WrapTextWithPunct> <w:UseAsianBreakRules> <w:DontGrowAutofit> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx> <w:Word11KerningPairs> <w:CachedColBalance> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkBin m:val="before"> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"> <m:dispDef> <m:lMargin m:val="0"> <m:rMargin m:val="0"> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabla normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.000 1pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan ; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} </style> <![endif]-->

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson points out the the vitriol today is coming almost exclusively from the right.

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id /3036677/vp/40983021#409830 21/

by Artemis Eneldo on 01/12/2011 04:26:20 AM EST

UnhideWhenUsed="false& quot; QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" ; UnhideWhenUsed="false& quot; QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" ; UnhideWhenUsed="false& quot; QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography&quo t;> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--& gt;<!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabla normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes;

 

So there.

by bfaul on 01/12/2011 10:51:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]

As long as I'm busting your chops a little, here is a handy dandy guide to doing things like linking or embedding youtube videos in a post without getting all of that silly garbage.

We've all been there.

   


by bfaul on 01/12/2011 11:04:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Since Mueller was sent almost immediately to Arizona, Obama apparently wants to stay on top of all this. But was he sent there to defuse the situation for the time being, or cover it up completely? We have a lot of upset liberals out here, so toning it down, right now, might be the best thing to do. I sure would hate to see any retaliation from a mentally deranged liberal. Could this be the reason why Huffpo pulled Cenk's article? Or, was it because they, like so many others, have succumbed to the bluedog bullshit? Duh, which way did he go, George, which way did he go?

For the past 2 years, I have learned that I (we) can trust the current administration as much as the previous one, so I don't expect we'll ever hear the truth. Look at what the FBI has given us so far. They rifled through this psychopath's crap, and then expect us to believe that this guy only had two books, one nazi and the other commie. Talk about a jump ball. Next they'll probably let the neocons get away with wiretapping, torturing and judge stacking.

by David F on 01/12/2011 05:57:51 AM EST

Cenk nailed it...again.  We can all agree or disagree til we are blue in the face but the bottom line is that this was indeed a political assassination carried out by someone who had a few screws loose.

 The focus of whether Jared was operating from a conservative or liberal stance will never ever be determined and will never fall within strict boundaries or definitions of what is "conservative" or what is "liberal"

One thing that IS clear is that certain conservative political leaders and members of the mainstream media are proactively turning people who have mental issues into these "hate seeking missiles".

 Whether or not he actually listened or watched a certain political show or what not is irrelevant.  All this person needs to do is just catch whispers of what is going on.  Akin to viral marketing.  He just has to take in and listen to chatter on the street or classrooms in his music or whatever.

 What Cenk wants is for these clowns to accept responsibility for the fact that they did indeed have a hand in creating this environment.  Instead, what do we see...they are now trying to hide and cover things up and go....nope wasn't me.

 Cenk nailed this YEARS ago and you can research it in his youtube videos where he addressed this very issue.  And, of late it is intensifying and it will keep intensifying because as soon as Jared is yesterday's news, the rhetoric from the right will ramp up again.

It's fine that everyone can accept a share in responsibility and is quite noble...but that doesn't make it the truth.

 If you don't think that these people don't know what they are doing...time to wise up because they do and Cenk knows it and others know it as well.  And, they need to know that we know what they know! Ha! lol yeah..didn't think that'd come up in this response lol.

 

by Upochapo on 01/12/2011 08:01:51 AM EST

What we can say about Jared is that this whole scenario does play out closely to the right wing rhetoric as of late.  They can now take out their mission accomplished banner and take down their strategic maps...

 And, don't think for one damn minute that some of those conservative nut jobs who have been spewing out this rhetoric aren't smiling on the inside.

by Upochapo on 01/12/2011 08:14:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
They just love to "double down" on any situation, so the "middle" means nothing.

"Environmentalists say WE'RE destroying the environment, do they? Well, we think it's THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS who are destroying the environment."

Well, there's two points. I guess the right answer's in the middle of both. Or so the media would seek that position, to remain "unbiased."

by Dradeeus on 01/12/2011 08:09:12 AM EST

The writer's argument consists entirely of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and has no logical validity. The writer appears to be another irrational Liberal seizing upon a tragedy to launch a rhetorical diatribe against people with political views different from his own. Shameful!

by GaJoe on 01/12/2011 09:25:10 AM EST

If you have the mental capacity, would you please be more specific?

by David F on 01/12/2011 09:58:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
from those opposing Cenk's view. While my heart goes out to those who were killed or wounded during this terrible tragedy, I believe that Cenk is posing some valid questions.

The sarcasm and insults from those opposing the post, do little to increase respect for their viewpoints.

'Self pitying little wussbugs' is neither the mark of a reasoned argument nor an intellectual one.  As for saying that 'discourse is discourse and there's no such thing as toning it down when it comes to politics' is missing the point. The sheer apathy of the statement is disturbing. Since when does one accept that hate filled rants (by any side), are acceptable if they're made in the spirit of political commentary.

If you are to have 'decency in in a civilized society' then surely political commentators can make their arguments without resorting to violent diatribes that serve only to incite people and raise the level of disagreement far beyond rational arguments.

As for Limburgh stating "What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country…the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame." It's ludicrous. If those types of comments are acceptable to anyone and they would champion it as free speech, then they should hang their heads in shame.

But what do I know, I'm not an American. But from the outside looking in, it's not a pretty sight.

by Aussie on 01/12/2011 11:26:13 AM EST

yet, the media is fixated on calling this a crazy gunman that has nothing to zilch with all the right wing hatred of Democrats, calling them evil socialist, and everything to do with guns guns and crazy.

it was a political assassination, plain and simple. 

 

by dameondevl on 01/12/2011 11:28:15 AM EST

"right wing hatred"

This kid wasn't right-winged, and he didn't even watch the news, by denying this you're only showing yourself to be as delusional as Loughner:


"This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.

Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news.

He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right"

http://www.mediabistro.com/ tvnewser/jared-loughners-fr iend-says-suspect-did-not-w atch-tv-disliked-the-news_b 48040

by verbal138 on 01/12/2011 02:06:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]

He has not been diagnosed as mentally ill, he may be, but not based on any medical evidence so far presented by a doctor that has examined his case.(fact)

However, he IS a right wing hate mongering murderous example of the extremists right wing hate groups that hate this country and want to destroy it.(fact)

Unless the facts are addressed and recognized more murders will go on under the excuse of mental illness and such excuses.

Whats next, Death Squads?

by dameondevl on 01/12/2011 04:23:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"He has not been diagnosed as mentally ill, he may be, but not based on any medical evidence so far presented by a doctor that has examined his case.(fact)"

Everyone who knew the kid said he had a serious detachment from reality... his statements, blog postings, and videos make it pretty clear he has some mental capacity issue. Unless you'd like to argue that thinking you can day dream and control your reality through it is a position sane people hold.

"However, he IS a right wing hate mongering murderous example of the extremists right wing hate groups that hate this country and want to destroy it.(fact) "

Where is your evidence for this? You have none. Here are some facts for you:

He listed Communist Manifesto as a favorite book

He believed Bush was behind 9/11

He burned flags and put it on youtube

He is a registered independent

He is an atheist who rants about religion and those who believe in God


Those are all cold, hard established facts. Now, are you delusional enough to argue that someone like that is a right-wing extremist? This kid doesn't subscribe to any one ideology, he embraces the extremes from both sides as his mental capacity lends itself to such notions.

What's hilarious is we have ample evidence that the kid is deranged and mentally unstable, but yet you're not willing to admit that it's likely. On the other hand you say it's a fact that he is a right-wing extremist when every known fact we have about him (to this point) says he was not married to any one ideology except his own crazed ramblings.

How old are you? I'm guessing not a day over 20, that would be the obvious reason for the ignorance you've displayed above.


 

by verbal138 on 01/12/2011 06:05:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Since you can not even address any of my points which are factual at this time until more evidence comes out. You infantile little brain can not even comprehend big words so I will try to keep it simple.

 "Everyone who knew the kid said he had a serious detachment from reality... "

Everyone? That may be the case, or not, we really do not know all the facts. This again is a narrative and not based on anything at this time.

 "He listed Communist Manifesto as a favorite book"

You left out Mein Kampf (fact)and at this time it is not known what else he read or even has heard off.. again, your opinions are not fact and are apparently ramblings like the poor fellow that shot a room full of people. It is well known fact that right wing murderous fanatics(like yourself?) read quotes from Communist Manifesto to scare people, and paint liberals as communist to justify murderous evil in their own minds.

 "He is a registered independent"

So is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, and the a whole bunch of Rethuglican pigs.

 "He is an atheist who rants about religion and those who believe in God"

Maybe the right wing needs to recruit better?

 The rest of what you wrote is not even worth responding to because it is an obvious trollish post.

by dameondevl on 01/13/2011 11:22:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Since you can not even address any of my points which are factual at this time until more evidence comes out. "

You have no points... only paranoid delusions and personal attacks.

"Everyone? That may be the case, or not, we really do not know all the facts. This again is a narrative and not based on anything at this time."

...it's the only explanation for your drivel. You're too young and idealistic to step back and look at a situation without your heavily biased opinions driving what you see.

No, it's based on ALL of the people who have stepped forward who knew the kid... since you're clearly not in touch with reality, how about I quote them:


"Yeah, that's him," says Kent Slinker, when I read him some of Loughner's syllogisms over the phone. "That kind of nonsensical, disconnected thinking." Slinker, an adjunct philosophy professor at Pima Community College, taught Loughner in Introduction to Logic during the spring semester of 2010. Slinker's impression of Loughner was that of "someone whose brains were scrambled."

http://www.slate.com/id/228 0653/

“We have past incidents where other various local agencies have had concerns about his mental health. Does that mean he’s insane? I don’t know,” Captain Chris Nanos of the Pima County sheriff’s office tells The Daily Beast/Newsweek.

“I saw him two days ago and I said hello. He turned and walked back into the house. He had a look in his eyes like something wasn’t right,” Johnson says. “You know how it is when you talk to someone who’s mentally ill and they’re just not there? It was like he was in his own world
http://www.thedailybeast.co m/blogs-and-stories/2011-01 -10/is-jared-lee-loughner-m entally-ill/


Anyway... I could post link after link after link, something tells me you still won't admit the obvious, you are just too married to your flawed way of thinking to see what everyone else can see now.

Don't you think it's telling that you're the only one left defending this line of nonsense? I don't see Krugman out there still advancing his bs... come to think of it, all of the biggie liberals who pushed this seem to be pretty fucking quite right now... I wonder why that is? Maybe because they're not a teenager and they know that by ignoring the obvious, they are only discrediting themselves... like you're doing here.

"You left out Mein Kampf (fact)and at this time it is not known what else he read or even has heard off.. again, your opinions are not fact and are apparently ramblings like the poor fellow that shot a room full of people. It is well known fact that right wing murderous fanatics(like yourself?) read quotes from Communist Manifesto to scare people, and paint liberals as communist to justify murderous evil in their own minds."

That's because I addressed it above... he pulled from BOTH extremes, right & left... I've said this countless times. So let me get this straight... you think that this kid lists communist manifesto as a favorite book because he is secretly trying to discredit liberals? hahahah The same guy who thinks government is controlling us through grammar is with it enough to plan some vast conspiracy to pin his deeds on liberals????

Wow... you sound as delusional as Loughner.


 

"Maybe the right wing needs to recruit better?


The rest of what you wrote is not even worth responding to because it is an obvious trollish post."

The rest of my post demonstrates (for anyone with a passable IQ) that loughner was not acting out of ideology, he was acting out of his own delusions. He focused on Giffords not because of her party affiliation, but because she couldn't answer his ramblings and she became a symbol for all he hated about 'government'... you know that they are controlling us through grammar and all... it has NOTHING to do with the tea party, or palin, or any of the other nonsense that out to lunch leftists suggested over the weekend. They, like you, are attempting to use this tragedy for political gain... and they, like you, are disgusting indivduals for being so callous. 

by verbal138 on 01/13/2011 04:37:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Indeed, one piece of evidence collected so far is a 2007 letter from Giffords's office to Mr. Loughner, thanking him for attending a meet-and-greet event. On it is scrawled a death threat to Giffords. In 2007, Sarah Palin was a little-known Alaska governor and the tea party movement did not exist.

http://www.csmonitor.com/US A/Politics/2011/0112/As-por trait-of-Jared-Loughner-sha rpens-vitriol-blame-fades

So what now? Now that you're theories have been exposed as faulty? Ready to admit you have been using this tragedy for your own ideological reasons?


by verbal138 on 01/13/2011 05:30:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Violence or the threat of violence to achieve political ends. Specific individuals who happen to be associated with the republican party, the tea party, and the various 892 hate groups in the US have in fact used terrorism to achieve political ends.

The problem is that we have no law regarding culpability other than copyright. It is not about speech. It is about holding people responsible for their words and actions. It is also about how faulty current law is. If Sarah Palin was a Muslim inciting murder, her websites would be taken down, her accounts closed, her finances cut off, and she would be in solitary confinement awaiting trial as the leader of a terror network. 

If you think Beck and Palin are doing anything other than celebrating right now, you are naive. They are getting exactly the results they want. They declared war on liberals and progressives. Leading their followers to acts of terrorism. These people are terrorist leaders and until we have consequences for them the violence and murders will continue. Not really by chilling speech, but by making legal consequences for inciting murder and violence. These people will not be stopped otherwise. Also, there must be culpability for all those who fund such pundits and perpetual campaigners, just like the material support law for terrorist organizations.

You better believe this is happening for political gain. By definition, this is terrorism. If we cannot buy or cheat our way in, we will kill people. And they are. It is working exactly as their corporate psychopathic task masters have intended.

Before we destroy the old systems, rebuild the replacements!

by Ground Zero Press on 01/12/2011 12:03:56 PM EST

Good grief, what a drama queen you are!  Get a life, little "victim." &n bsp; Your generalizations about folks on the other side of the political spectrum from you as "terrorist leaders" basically lumps you into the same group as those you criticize.  Pathetic, dude.  Perhaps you should reflect on what's wrong in your OWN life, that you have to blame your shortcomings on everyone but yourself.

by LA Doc on 01/12/2011 01:33:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]

There's nothing worse than a quack in the house.

Before we destroy the old systems, rebuild the replacements!

by Ground Zero Press on 01/13/2011 11:40:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]

of the right wing rhetoric. Loughner could easily have been a right wing nut job, who ARE a real danger, especially for Obama, but also Democrats in general. Given the rising threats leveled against him that can't be denied, and Palin, Beck and Limbaugh are driving it.

But the fact that the right wing encourages violence does not mean that all violence MUST be a result of that. There is now evidence that anyof that had any influence on Loughner, and from the looks of it this guy was perfectly capable to go on a killing spree without any right wing influences and against any political party.

To link him to the right wing propaganda without any evidence is intellectually lazy and just unsupported by facts, as of yet. So HuffPo has a point.

by tomjane7 on 01/12/2011 12:30:37 PM EST

an inconvenient truth that simply unravels that myth that he was non-political

he was anti government, and hated democrats..

 

sounds like Glen Beck in a nut(s) shell..

 

by dameondevl on 01/12/2011 04:30:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There has been absolutely nothing that has indicated he hated democrats. He hated Giffords because she didn't answer his question at a 2007 rally in the way he thought she should.

He is anti-government, that is true. He also rambles on and on about currency and the gold standard, something you see on the far right.... but he also believes that Bush was behind 9/11, communist manifesto was a favorite book, he is an athiest...does that sound like Glen Beck to you????

Bottom line, his politics were a confused mess that incorporated extremes from across the spectrum.


by verbal138 on 01/12/2011 06:11:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There has been absolutely nothing that has indicated he hated democrats. He hated Giffords because she didn't answer his question at a 2007 rally in the way he thought she should.

He is anti-government, that is true. He also rambles on and on about currency and the gold standard, something you see on the far right.... but he also believes that Bush was behind 9/11, communist manifesto was a favorite book, he is an athiest...does that sound like Glen Beck to you????

Bottom line, his politics were a confused mess that incorporated extremes from across the spectrum.


by verbal138 on 01/12/2011 06:12:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Guys like him hate people in power, hence the goverment and democrats specifically.
And by the way, in America he doesn't have much of a choice, the chances to pick a democrat are nearly at 50%.

Of course it was political, but that doesn't mean there has to be a connection to the right wing rhetoric, and every indicator speaks against it.

Not every violent action against a democrat has to be related to Glenn Beck, just because he encourages it and we don't like him. You have to show some sort of connection to have a case.

by tomjane7 on 01/13/2011 01:52:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
After having been a Huffpo poster and having over 500 followers, I stopped posting there when I noticed that I had over 100 "posts" pending approval. I never used foul language, never used violent rhetoric. I spoke the truth and questioned some of the bloggers about their positions on certain issues ... I have now not been anywhere near their website for close to a year, have not reposted any articles that come from them, do not follow them in any way, shape or form, and will not allow them access to me. In my opinion, they have their own agenda and I refuse to be a part of it.

by TurboKitty on 01/12/2011 12:33:25 PM EST

From the shooter's best friend...
 "He did not watch TV.  He disliked the news.  He didn't listen to political radio." 

GREAT JOB Cenk.  You and the rest of the irresponsible leftist opportunists should shut your ignorant yaps now. 

by LA Doc on 01/12/2011 01:29:03 PM EST

but having never listened to or seen any political programming isn't proof that it wasn't political.  That probably sounds kinda silly but living in Texas I've come to realize that a lot of people don't keep up with current events but still find reasons to hate Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.  It really is a word of mouth, atmospheric kind of thing in some cases.  And it does seem a little interesting that this particular shooter does live in a heated area when it comes to politics.  I imagine it's much like where I live.  People watch their UFC and their NFL and go to work and hate the Democrats.  They don't need some show to justify any of their feelings toward the other party.

As I said before it's hard to pinpoint one single cause or reason for his actions but in the same way I truly believe you can't rule anything out either.

And I have to disagree with your claim that "toning it down" is too subjective a thing to define.  Saying you would like to kill Michael Moore is crossing a line.  Saying we might have to take up first amendment remedies is crossing the line.  Rush Limbaugh's overall hateful attitude is crossing the line.  And to be honest I feel the same about Keith Olbermann.  So don't think I'm being biased here.  I really think people just kinda know when things are over the top.  I'm not saying there should be any rules prohibiting certain kinds of speech like that, but that people in positions like that should realize the impact of their words.  They should be policing themselves out of respect for Democracy.

Will that happen though?  Probably not.  And I find that unfortunate.

by frownonfun on 01/12/2011 03:55:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's what you conveniently missed:
(mark 2:58)
REPORTER: Eventually, Jared's bizarre behavior drove Osler away. That was 2 years ago.

OSLER, Loughner's friend: I forgot about Jared. I stopped thinking about this kid because thinking about him was something I didn't want to do.
A lot can happen in 2 years, so wouldn't this make Osler's statement outdated? Here's another clip. It refers to an incident from a couple months ago.
(mark 2:58)
DON COOROUGH, Loughner's college classmate: One woman had a poem that had something to do with um -- a abortion, and he made a comment to the effect of a - that she was like a terrorist killing a baby, and then he laughed about that.
Ok, LA Doc, you've just got yourself a timeout, mister. Go sit on the stairs for 5 minutes, and your timeout won't end until you apologize to Cenk and the rest of the responsible leftists first.

by David F on 01/12/2011 07:17:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
...you still haven't shown shit, other than this kid embraces extreme positions. He believes Bush was behind 9/11... does that sound like a glen beck, sarah palin clone to you?

You "leftists" who are trying to make this case are throwing logic and coherent reasoning out the window... everything about him screams mental disorder, and yet here you still are, trying to fit him neatly into a political definition YOU have created for him. It doesn't work like that.

by verbal138 on 01/13/2011 11:15:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I never tried to "fit him neatly into a political definition." All I did was point out that it had been 2 years since Loughner and Osler had hung out with each other, so, because of this, Osler's statement(s) was outdated. And then I quoted from a clip which pertained to a much, much, much more recent incident. Now if this has triggered something in your head that would cause your outburst, then I don't know what to tell you. What part of what I had said was not true? How is this "throwing logic and coherent reasoning out the window"? I don't get it, please explain.

Also, isn't Rush and Fox using the interview with Osler as justification that Loughner didn't listen or watch their hatemongering programs? By me pointing this out, did this make you upset?

by David F on 01/13/2011 07:25:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What you said was...

"until you apologize to Cenk and the rest of the responsible leftists first. "

So are you really going to say that you weren't trying to imply your two quotes proved Cenk's point? That this was political and ideological?

Who cares that he felt that way about abortion, he held extrem views that correspond with the left as well. That's the point people like you aren't accepting... this kid was right or left anything, he was deranged and embraced extreme views from all angles.

On top of that, the letter he received from the congresswoman in 2007 had a death threat written on it... meaning it's impossible for his hatred to have derived from anything that he "may" have heard over the last two years, he hated her then and she became a focal point for his mental disorder. That is consistent with countless assassains and would be assassains over the years.

"What part of what I had said was not true? How is this "throwing logic and coherent reasoning out the window"? I don't get it, please explain."

You concluding that Cenk was correct due to the two quotes you posted, and that LA Doc should apologize.

"Also, isn't Rush and Fox using the interview with Osler as justification that Loughner didn't listen or watch their hatemongering programs? By me pointing this out, did this make you upset? "

No, you concluding that LA Doc owes Cenk an apology was where you strayed from reality.

Ok... so this kid hasn't spoke with him in 2 years, fine. That doesn't change the fact that 2 years ago he didn't watch or listen to political shows... and 3+ years ago he became obsessed with Giffords. The point is simple, when this began it wasn't because of any blowhard jackass like Limbaugh, it was because this kid is delusional and Giffords was unfortunate enough to try and answer his question.

by verbal138 on 01/13/2011 07:40:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, so now we're talking about "when this began." I guess what happened a month, two months or even six months to 2 years ago has no relevance. Face it, Fox and Limbaugh's retreat doesn't wash.

No one is arguing if Loughner is crazy or not. I'm just wondering how the words "terrorist killing a baby" got into his head. Do you know? Have you ever heard this phrase, or a similar phrase, before? If so, where?

by David F on 01/13/2011 08:34:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
...what about this don't you understand? The kid was mentally ill... he latched on to her in 2007 as an object for his hatred because she couldn't answer his deranged question. Who cares what happened over the last year or two... until you produce some actual evidence that he has even heard or supports the beck/palin extreme viewpoints your argument is total horse shit.

"No one is arguing if Loughner is crazy or not. I'm just wondering how the words "terrorist killing a baby" got into his head. Do you know? Have you ever heard this phrase, or a similar phrase, before? If so, where? "

I don't really care or know, and neither do you... do you wonder why or from whom he got the impression that he can control his reality through his day dreaming? Do you wonder who put the idea in his head that Bush was behind 9/11? Was that Palin/Beck's fault too???

The bottom line is the kid was crazy and why he did what he did is never going to make sense from a sane person's perspective. Any attempt by you to define his actions (or thoughts) by reasoning that makes sense to YOU and YOUR political biases only exposes your true intent... use this tragedy (at all costs) for political gain.

by verbal138 on 01/14/2011 03:59:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who cares what happened over the last year or two...
You don't care because it might not fit into your perfect little scenario. What happened two weeks ago has a hell of a lot more weight than your two year old asumptions.

Plus, thinking that Bush is a scumbag doesn't make you insane:
...half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International.
Your loyal efforts to defend Fox and Limbaugh is pretty amusing.

by David F on 01/14/2011 06:44:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Listen, you were wrong... cenk was wrong, everyone with a shred of honesty is willing to admit as much, like for instance Obama:

"Let's remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy. It did not,"
http://www.startribune.com/ politics/113346664.html

It's just too bad you're a dishonest person at heart... because I haven't been defending limbaugh, fox or palin... I can't stand any of them. What I've been doing is defending common sense and reason... two things you are blatantly unfamiliar with.

As far as you're BS poll... for one, knowing and failing to act is different than being the cause, and secondly... thats a poll of new yorkers. New Yorkers are overwhelmingly liberal... so you mean less than half of a group of overwhelmingly liberal people are willing to believe the worst about a conservative president? Holy shit, stop the presses. Tell you what... why don't you throw out some obama conspiracies and poll them in OK and see how many people believe them.

All the poll proves is the impact of ideology on conspiracy theories.

by verbal138 on 01/18/2011 03:23:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Police said Friday they have semi-naked pictures accused Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner took of himself posing with a Glock 9mm gun while wearing a g-string, police said Friday.

In photos turned over to the cops by a Walgreens drug store, Loughner posed bright-red g-string underwear with the same type of gun recovered at Saturday’s shooting at a Tucson Safeway.

In some photos, Loughner is holding the gun near his crotch, The New York Times reported. In others that appear to have been shot using a mirror, he is holding the gun next to his nude buttocks.

Loughner is accused of killing six people and wounding 14 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

Police, who have not made the photos public, did not yet know when Loughner took the photos or whether he had ordered prints of any of them.

http://dyn.politico.com/pri ntstory.cfm?uuid=50735670-8 C1D-43E0-9FDD-2368C20D6D5F


...must have been from Beck, right? Or Palin? That's apart of their schtick, right??? Face it... the only thoughts you're "concerned" with, are ones that you THINK you can pin on those who don't agree with your politics... facts be damned.

by verbal138 on 01/14/2011 04:56:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
During grad school, I came across this article which states in part:

BEGIN QUOTE

“What do we learn about recovery from schizophrenia from this study, spanning, as it does, the last quarter of the 20th century, conducted in a broad array of sociocultural settings? First, the course of illness and outcome from schizophrenia is superior in the developing world (see Table 1). Five of the 10 centers with the highest proportion of patients rated ‘recovered’ on the Bleuler symptom scale were in developing countries: only one developing country fell among the eight lowest rated centers. Most of the advantages for the developing countries became apparent early, during the first 2 years of illness; but, even for those with a poor initial course, the likelihood of later recovery favored those in the developing-world centers. More importantly, perhaps, Kraepelin’s view that a deteriorating course is a hallmark of the illness just is not true. Heterogeneity of outcome, in terms of both symptoms and functioning, is the signature feature. Good outcome was evident in over half the ISoS patients. In Agra, India, for example, no longterm disability was detected in 60% of patients. In Cali, Colombia, two-thirds of patients were working full-time at follow-up, whereas in Nottingham, UK, over 60% were free of all psychotic symptoms. Less good outcomes were apparent in other centers, but the conclusion is clear: bad outcome is not a necessary component of the natural history of schizophrenia, it is a consequence of the interaction between the individual and his or her sociocultural and economic world.”

END QUOTE

I keep thinking about the phenomena discussed in the quoted section above as I consider this topic in Cenk's blog.  For anyone to claim that their hate speech does not impact others...including people with mental illness seems naive to me. 

I recently read a book by Bert Hellinger called, "Love's Hidden Symmetry".  Excellent book.  The title is somewhat misleading, it's the only thing I'd change about it.  I'd call it "Guilt's Hidden Symmetry".  Read the book and you'll see why.  The book begins by discussing how relationships are used as a means to deal with one's personal sense of guilt.  Hellinger teaches, "Guilt feels like exclusion and alienation when our belonging is endangered.  When it is well served, we feel innocence as intimate inclusion and closeness....Guilt feels like indebtedness and obligation when our giving and taking are not balanced.  When they are well served, we feel innocence as entitlement and freedom....Guilt feels like transgression and as fear of consequences or punishment when we deviate from social order.  We feel innocence with respect to social order as conscientiousness and loyalty" (p. 6).

What Ms. Palin is doing when she is assigning guilt to those who question her hate speech is attacking back at them so she doesn't have to be burdened with fear, indebtedness, obligation, and the big one...exclusion.  She is saying, "If you exclude me, I will have to face my internal sense of guilt."  Not in those words of course (it's Sara Palin, she doesn't talk like that, but this is the basic psyche driving her response to this situation).  The problem here is that in order to be negatively reactive to her critics, she must first (if only briefly) react to something, in this case her internal sense of guilt and shame.  She knows her gun targets were wrong, why else would she react in this manner to the recent headlines? (Rhetorical question).

I pointed out Palin, but this argument applies to all who have made violet hate speech against the left-leaning politicians.  This argument can also be applied to the general sense of denial by the right-wing politicians and media.  Makes sense.  But, my logical arguments to this is:  A denial of the truth is still an acknowledgement of the truth. --Tara G.

Reference:
Warner, R. (2009). Recovery from schizophrenia and the recovery model.  Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22, 374-380.

by tarag on 01/12/2011 03:30:50 PM EST

As far as I know.. no.

Loghner has been declared insane, crazy, mentally ill by the MEDIA.. not by any doctor by a examination or study.

Interesting fact, but an important one. Most of the 'crazy' theories that are being droned on and on on media are baseless. The media does not need to examine motives or causes.. because it was 'crazy'.. how convenient.

 

by dameondevl on 01/12/2011 04:15:24 PM EST

It's not just the media... it's his friends, his professors, people who actually knew him and interacted with him. We have his youtube videos and his ranting in chat rooms for gaming online... it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a kid who thinks the government is controlling our minds through grammar, and thinks he can control his reality by controlling his day dreaming is not a person with a stable mental makeup.

Sounds like you simply are just ignorant to the facts of this case... the real ones, the ones backed with substance, not the discredited Krugman angle that this was the work of a right-wing extremist.

It's actually pretty sick that people like you and Krugman rush to such judgements... it says a lot more (and it's not flattering) about you than it does about conservatives or loughner.

by verbal138 on 01/12/2011 06:21:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Like a bunch of cowards they typically will do anything once the shit hits the fan to distance themselves from all blame.

In this case it says volumes of people like yourself that keep trying to pin the blame on the victims and not on the perpetrators.

Loughner is the child of the Reich Wing, and violence is the currency of the Rethuglicans used over and over.

Words have consequences, the blood is clearly not just on the ground, but on the hands of the so called politicians and hate radio that has been spouting it for years.

 

by dameondevl on 01/13/2011 11:30:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Who is pinning anything on the victims? Certaintly not I... the victims should be beyond reproach, it's sad that losers like yourself are using their deaths/shootings for a time to score cheap political points.

"Loughner is the child of the Reich Wing, and violence is the currency of the Rethuglicans used over and over."

Riiigghhh... he's a right winger who is an athiest, thought bush was behind 9/11, and lists communist manifesto as a favorite book. Sure, that makese sense.

by verbal138 on 01/13/2011 04:42:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]

At the very least it would be helpful to know why HuffPo pulled the blog.  Could we get that clarification?  It would help to know better how to respond to their action. 

 

John Arthos

by John Arthos on 01/12/2011 04:19:49 PM EST

It takes guts to stand up to ruthless tyrants. sadly lacking in most of our media.

Germany 1933.. 

by dameondevl on 01/12/2011 04:26:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't feel like finding the quote, but it just said like it was against our guidelines, and had no basis in fact.  That was it summed up.

by fromthatshow on 01/13/2011 03:21:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There's an article that ties the Tea Party to Mein Kampf here:

'The Tea Party's Armed Extremists' by David Neiwert:


This is all good grist to the mill.

by BeveledSpilchOnion on 01/12/2011 10:47:28 PM EST

These liberals cannot further their old, tired and failed political platform, which has been rejected by the voting public, through intelligent, intellectual and rational means and thus desperately engage in cold, callous, calculating, manipulative exploitation of tragedy using irrational tactics which include lies, fear mongering, blood libel, well poisoning and character assassination to foment and further irrational opposition against those holding contesting beliefs and ideologies. An opposition which, if we follow liberal logic, will only manufacture the same type of violent activity they claim to abhor, condemn and want to end. For example, Kenneth Gladney, an African American man, was viciously beaten by Service Employees International Union thugs outside a town-hall meeting hosted by Missouri Democrat Russ Carnahan for being a Tea Party supporter. The liberal media quick to condemn Republicans and conservatives were silent on this violent crime and some on the left even made light of it; the NAACP, for instance, called the victim an "Uncle Tom." Whenever major violent upheaval occurs, like as usually happens at major political events, like economic conferences, like  G8 summits, it is always those on the left that are the perpetrators of violence and other crime, such as  fighting, attacking police and destroying property. Using the logic of the liberals, we should be blaming the rhetoric, messages and images coming from Democrats, liberals and other leftists wherever and whatever they may be for violence committed by their ideological brethren. Liberals tend to be self righteous, selective and hypocritical in their criticism and condemnation, and thus the rhetoric and images and/or the violence of  their ideological and political cohorts will usually be given a pass and be met with either applause, flippant remarks, justification, sarcasm or silence, thus perhaps implying tacit approval.

by Christian on 01/13/2011 03:40:58 AM EST

Conservatives were rejected in 08, was conservatism dead then?  As Cenk has said, the left wins by discussion, facts, presenting our points and showing how they are logical, rational, and the right answer.  The right does not have the answer, that's why they resort to fear and incitement of violence.

 Why do you think they had to do things like scare people with death panels on health care?  They didn't have a legitimate reason to oppose it, except that the insurance companies might suffer, so they needed to create false controversy to scare people.

As far as G8 summit protesters.  Those are mostly anarchists, socialists.  I doubt you'll find that many democrats there.

 

by fromthatshow on 01/13/2011 03:24:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Self-righteous" is just a wordy way of saying "right." Try being right sometime. It'll rock your world.

by OneHitKill on 01/13/2011 08:12:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Finally signed up for an account after years of watching TYT clips.

I just wanted to say how refreshing it was to see Cenk's MSNBC clip point out what clearly other news stations were not willing to challenge - that the suggestive violent rhetoric is not equally proportional. 

Keep up the good work.

Patrick

 

by djtourist on 01/13/2011 06:59:21 PM EST

Please be a better noob than "Christian."

by Spencer on 01/13/2011 08:56:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I am simply appalled that Huffington Post censored this posting. I have un-liked them on Facebook and removed them from the blogroll on my website for this reason.

The good news is that I have added your site to my blogroll to replace them. Welcome! Hope you'll stop by sometime, though you might find me a little boring, since we agree on so many things.

Matt
www.themindofmatt.com

by Matt Butts on 01/13/2011 10:51:41 PM EST

I knew this would happen:

http://www.azcentral.com/ne ws/articles/2011/01/14/2011 0114arizona-shooting-victim -blames-palin-beck-politico .html

And I will also go out on a limb and bet that during the investigations that will be done, it will turn out that the shooter visited Beck's and Palin's websites.

by ilovecenk99 on 01/14/2011 07:06:21 PM EST

and say that when the investigation is finished nobody will cover the findings.

by Spencer on 01/19/2011 02:42:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]

When I read Cenk's post, I had to think about the attempted assassination of then Social Democratic chancellor candidate Oskar Lafontaine in Germany in 1990. The victim was a politician. The assassin was clearly targeting a politician. But was it political?

The assassin believed that there were underground human killing plants. Competent scientists had told her that the earth was in grave danger. She was ordered by Jesus to act upon this and raise consciousness among the population. So this woman started out writing letters to the local newspapers, but nobody believed her. Finally, Jesus ordered her to kill a politician. It didn't matter what politician, left, right or center. The psychiatrist consulted by the court in her trial diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia.

According to Cenk's logic, that would have been a political assassination because the assassin targeted a politician.  But the only reason that this assassin chose a politician was to get attention for her delusions. A culprit like this woman could easily chose an famous actor, a famous athlete or any other celebrity instead. In such cases, it's just an accident if a politician is chosen instead.

To get back to Loughner: Loughner seems to believe in these Zeitgeist-rubbish that the world is controlled by an evil central bank conspiracy and that he had to do something about it. According to press reports, he is neither a liberal nor a conservative, he is just seriously deranged.

Cenk and the supporters of Cenk's position repeatedly point out that the victims are always Democrats. But did this matter to Loughner? I don't know enough about Loughner's deranged world to judge on this, and neither does Cenk or any other person who is not involved in the criminal investigation. But if Loughner is as seriously ill as Lafontaine's assassin, it wouldn't matter to him if this district was represented by a Democrat or a Republican, he would have shot at this district's congressperson anyway. In that case, he would have shot a Tea Party person if this district was represented by a Tea Party person.

I'm not ruling out that Loughner had political motives, but it's way too early to make that claim now.

Here is a report about the trial of Oskar Lafontaine's assassin in German.

by logischabbaubar on 01/15/2011 04:07:43 AM EST

Your first part, yes that is a good example of how you couldn't blame a republican, because of the mental issue. So if you wanted to blame Jesus you couldn’t because you stated there was a mental problem. Beside the fact that you pointed out Jesus told her to do it.

In your second part, "To get back to Loughner." You start by stating, " Loughner seems to believe in these Zeitgeist-rubbish that the world is controlled by an evil central bank conspiracy and that he had to do something about it." Now if you look back at your first statement there is something very clear that says she killed because Jesus told her to. So why is not debatable that Jesus be in some way responsible? As you attempt to make Zeitgeist responsible? Loughner supposedly voted. Now when you look at his voter registration card what does it say? See if you can't find out, and site your sources, and let us know what you find, what is he registered as? You are clearly believing what you are being told, I gather this because you cite the press as your source instead of doing your own research, and making an Educated stab at what caused Loughner to murder.
    &nb sp;        When I look at the cause I see something different. I see that we are a society, (as well as other cultures around the world, so don’t get defensive, leave emotion out for a second) a race, the Human race that hasn't really grasped that concept of how to eradicate aberrant behavior. I see that we as Humans use violence to solve our problems, when we stop using war, and actually want to look at the root cause of violence then it takes an interesting turn. Then you can acknowledge that money is a legitimate problem and the concern of everyone.

Now let’s look at the Zeitgeist movement. Should we hold it as if it is the all truth, well that is not fair. It does point out money as a problem, which you are free to debate, but the Zeitgeist Movement also shows of a possible solution which also (as a good product of our society) we are free to debate. Personally, I have yet to find an argument against a Resource Based Economy (RBE) that would make me think this is not a solution to work towards. It does have a large following. To say that the Zeitgeist movement or The Venus Project leads to Violence is a fear tactic, and used out of ignorance.

by TheRevolutionOf2012 on 01/18/2011 04:14:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: