Giffords: What should be the legislative reaction?

[drl2]

Jared Loughner was not right wing, was he? He was reported as being left wing and radical. Is the right wing extremism giving rise to violent left wing radicals who believe in mind control over grammar and 2012 predictions?

He's been reported as both, depending on who you listen to. His reading list mentioned both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx; what little coherency could be found in his videos seemed to contain echoes of some right-wing anti-government talking points, but taken in weird conspiratorial directions that would make Glen Beck scratch his head and wonder what was wrong with the guy.

There was an account somewhere of an interview with someone who knew him who claimed Loughner was probably just motivated by a desire to stir up chaos. Current political realities simply made this very easy for him to do.

[Coito ergo sum]

I keep seeing this crap about him being left wing because he believed in 2012 conspiracies or whatever. Get a grip, the left-right political spectrum is purely economic and in term of political discourse is regarded by most academics as completely outdated. Certainly, you can't place a man who owns both Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto on a purely economic spectrum....

His friend who was interviewed on MSNBC described him as left wing and liberal with extreme views. He also had an issue with "In God We Trust" on the money and claimed to have been handed a Bible at a recruiting station or in connection with the army (and he didn't like it). His writings mostly sound deranged, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

Jared Loughner was not right wing, was he? He was reported as being left wing and radical. Is the right wing extremism giving rise to violent left wing radicals who believe in mind control over grammar and 2012 predictions?

He's been reported as both, depending on who you listen to.

Someone who knew him personally was the one who reported him as being Left Wing. Who is reporting him actually being "right wing?"

His reading list mentioned both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx; what little coherency could be found in his videos seemed to contain echoes of some right-wing anti-government talking points, but taken in weird conspiratorial directions that would make Glen Beck scratch his head and wonder what was wrong with the guy.

Left wingers can be and often are "anti government" too. In fact, traditionally, left wingers WERE the antigovernment folks and it was the right wingers that were pro government. It's only this weird "liberals are now conservatives" culture we seem to have gotten into in the 21st century. I think Abbie Hoffman would have been viewed by today's liberals and left wingers as someone who should be locked up because of his anti-government vitriol....lol

There was an account somewhere of an interview with someone who knew him who claimed Loughner was probably just motivated by a desire to stir up chaos. Current political realities simply made this very easy for him to do.

That seems pretty reasonable, given his writings. They are all over the map and seem psychotic.

[maiforpeace]

It's probably just me, but I find it hugely ironic that you are beating this drum about 'vitriolic rhetoric". If you haven't noticed, you have driven away quite a few people with your own rhetoric. I seem to be the only American left on this board with a liberal viewpoint who is willing to discuss this with you.

What a shame since it is a very interesting subject. So I'll give it a shot (I'm not sure I'll last long either),

Other than not agreeing that there's a reason to blame the general tone of political discourse - well specifically only one side of that political discourse - what in the world was inappropriate about what I've posted? Did I personally attack anyone? Have I even been "vitriolic" or "uncivil?" I mean - I've analyzed the issue. What's did I do wrong?

My statement wasn't specific to this thread. Nor did I say your rhetoric was vitriolic either, but your needling and poking, and your rhetoric in general is very off putting to many people. I now have a standard response I give people when they express frustration to me over discussing with you.

You are one of several people here on this forum who find it challenging to have a discussion with CES - some simply refuse to now, and, I might add, level headed, patient and reasonable types. So, you are not alone. He will not admit he's wrong, or he misunderstood you, or made a mistake, and he will ALWAYS have the last word. As long as you accept that, you can get along in a discussion with him to an extent.

Just sayin'.

but only after you address this link I posted earlier that you conveniently just rolled right over.

DHS Reported in 2009 and Warned of “Lone Wolf” Attacks, Long Before Tucson

Two years before the Tucson massacre, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report that right wing extremism was on the rise and could prompt "lone wolves" to launch attacks. But the agency backed away from the report amid intense criticism from Republicans, including future House Speaker John Boehner.

Jared Loughner was not right wing, was he? He was reported as being left wing and radical. Is the right wing extremism giving rise to violent left wing radicals who believe in mind control over grammar and 2012 predictions?

And, speaking of "glossing over" - how come you've not expressed a view on the martial metaphor used by Democrats?

I wasn't glossing it over, I was simply waiting for you to respond to me first. The martial metaphor, and the map is the first time I've seen it...I'm surprised it hasn't been circulated more widely since this debate over civil discourse has come up. I am dismayed by it and cannot defend it. They are as shameful as the metaphors and the crosshair maps of the Tea party.

The report, which warned that the crippled economy and the election of the first black president were “unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment,” described the rise of “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology [as] the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

In the wake of last weekend’s attempted assassination of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which left six dead and 14 wounded, the report’s warning of a lone wolf attack from someone with extremist tendencies seems prescient.

How in the world does it "seem prescient?" He doesn't fit the profile of a right wing extremist, didn't rail against president Obama, and didn't seem to have any particular interest in the economy other than some delusional desire to create his own currency. So, he was a "lone wolf" (probably). That makes the DHS "prescient?"

Apparently he was very much against Health Care reform...that is mostly a right wing stance, isn't it? And, he was a registered Independent...aren't a lot of Teabaggers Independents? So yes, that makes the report by the DHS somewhat prescient.

But when the April 2009 report was issued, it was overwhelmingly criticized by conservative commentators and lawmakers who derided it as political propaganda from the Obama administration. Some experts worry that its findings were ignored due to political blowback.

Within days of the controversy erupting in April 2009, Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to war veterans for the way they were cast in the report and had the report removed from the department’s website.

LOL! "Forced?" "Forced????" Really? Appointed by the Democrat President, and confirmed by the Democrat controlled Senate, and also with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives, Napolitano was "forced" by Republicans to apologize? As I recall, the reason people were pissed was because it seemed odd that the DHS would cite as the major source of terrorism "returning veterans." It seems she apologized because nobody - not even Democrats - wanted to be on the side of calling our returning soldiers "terrorists."

Where does it say that Republicans forced her to apologize? All I read is that Republicans exerted the pressure...for all we know it was the Democrats that forced her to.

And, that has nothing at all to our boy Jared, who never served in the army and was rejected by the Army as unfit to serve.

And, you posted this DHS article - but, you didn't connect it up with what you actually assert it to prove or show or demonstrate or evidence. What's the import of it in your mind? So what? Since Jared was not a member of any extremist group we're aware of, yet, and was not in the military or even sympathetic to the military, what in the world is the relevance?

You are focusing on just those particular parts of the article...the lone wolf business seems pretty relevant to me.

There has been only one report, from a friend, that he was left wing and radical. There have been a lot of reports that he was radical...that could mean anything. I may be wrong, but as far radical goes, the Tea Party fits that category more than any other group that is currently in media.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's probably just me, but I find it hugely ironic that you are beating this drum about 'vitriolic rhetoric". If you haven't noticed, you have driven away quite a few people with your own rhetoric. I seem to be the only American left on this board with a liberal viewpoint who is willing to discuss this with you.

What a shame since it is a very interesting subject. So I'll give it a shot (I'm not sure I'll last long either),

Other than not agreeing that there's a reason to blame the general tone of political discourse - well specifically only one side of that political discourse - what in the world was inappropriate about what I've posted? Did I personally attack anyone? Have I even been "vitriolic" or "uncivil?" I mean - I've analyzed the issue. What's did I do wrong?

My statement wasn't specific to this thread. Nor did I say your rhetoric was vitriolic either, but your needling and poking, and your rhetoric in general is very off putting to many people. I now have a standard response I give people when they express frustration to me over discussing with you.

You are one of several people here on this forum who find it challenging to have a discussion with CES - some simply refuse to now, and, I might add, level headed, patient and reasonable types. So, you are not alone. He will not admit he's wrong, or he misunderstood you, or made a mistake, and he will ALWAYS have the last word. As long as you accept that, you can get along in a discussion with him to an extent.

Just sayin'.

'course --

I have admitted to being wrong on other threads.

I have acknowledged to having misunderstood people, and quite often ask for clarifications of what people actually mean (to avoid such misunderstandings) - of course, I've been called to task for asking such clarifying questions too...but, that's another issue.

I, on the other hand, rarely get the same courtesy from others.

Your response there is fine, if that's how you feel - but, I don't see you or anyone else "admitting you're wrong" any more than I do. And, why would you, if you think you are right?

This message from you, though, is enlightening, and I thank you for it.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

I wasn't glossing it over, I was simply waiting for you to respond to me first. The martial metaphor, and the map is the first time I've seen it...I'm surprised it hasn't been circulated more widely since this debate over civil discourse has come up. I am dismayed by it and cannot defend it. They are as shameful as the metaphors and the crosshair maps of the Tea party.

But, did it cause this shooting? Is that "vitriolic rhetoric" to blame here? Surely, you see the concerted effort to make this not about "rhetoric" but about "tea party" or "conservative" rhetoric....sure, you condemn it - but, I notice that you didn't attribute it to our boy Jared, like you did the other rhetoric....why? there is precisely the same connection - zero.

The report, which warned that the crippled economy and the election of the first black president were “unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment,” described the rise of “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology [as] the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

In the wake of last weekend’s attempted assassination of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which left six dead and 14 wounded, the report’s warning of a lone wolf attack from someone with extremist tendencies seems prescient.

How in the world does it "seem prescient?" He doesn't fit the profile of a right wing extremist, didn't rail against president Obama, and didn't seem to have any particular interest in the economy other than some delusional desire to create his own currency. So, he was a "lone wolf" (probably). That makes the DHS "prescient?"

Apparently he was very much against Health Care reform...that is mostly a right wing stance, isn't it? And, he was a registered Independent...aren't a lot of Teabaggers Independents? So yes, that makes the report by the DHS somewhat prescient.

Sure - yes and yes - HOWEVER - many non-teabaggers are independent and in fact most "independents" are not "teabaggers." Further, while Jared baby may have been against health care reform, he was also anti-god on the money and anti handing out bibles at recruiting offices. Why do you attribute the cause to the right wing view, and not the left wing view?

Can I ask, though - where did we find evidence that Jared-monster was concerned about the health care bill? I found that Giffords was taking heat from conservative nutjobs over her support for the health care bill - but, I've done some searching and haven't found anything to suggest JARED LOUGHLER was among those guys....have you?

The way this blew up to go all over conservatives as if their vociferous public discourse is the cause of murderous psychotic violence surprised me, because when I first heard about the killings and early on found out he was an anti-god guy - I figured THE RIGHT would try to make this about the lack of god and morals in the public square and public debate. They had an easy opportunity - "see! this is what happens when we don't ground our kids in god!" -- but, we didn't hear it. then when the intellectually dishonest argument that Rush Limbaugh or the Tea Party are to blame in just that same way came out with a vengeance I was taken aback -- shocked that it would come from supposed liberals...

And, NOW - when we have liberal government officials openly calling for the censorship of ideas and the stifling of free and open debate (from the right) because of a psychotic, I am shocked to see many liberals just jumping riight on the bandwagon and swallowing it whole! Have we lost our minds completely? We can't get angry about politics now because Jared Loughner is psychopathic delusional nut job?

[

But when the April 2009 report was issued, it was overwhelmingly criticized by conservative commentators and lawmakers who derided it as political propaganda from the Obama administration. Some experts worry that its findings were ignored due to political blowback.

Within days of the controversy erupting in April 2009, Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to war veterans for the way they were cast in the report and had the report removed from the department’s website.

LOL! "Forced?" "Forced????" Really? Appointed by the Democrat President, and confirmed by the Democrat controlled Senate, and also with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives, Napolitano was "forced" by Republicans to apologize? As I recall, the reason people were pissed was because it seemed odd that the DHS would cite as the major source of terrorism "returning veterans." It seems she apologized because nobody - not even Democrats - wanted to be on the side of calling our returning soldiers "terrorists."

Where does it say that Republicans forced her to apologize?

In the thing you posted and excoriated me for not addressing in detail. "Within days of the controversy erupting in April 2009, Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to war veterans.."

[


All I read is that Republicans exerted the pressure...for all we know it was the Democrats that forced her to.

The President is the only person who could force her to do anything. She either apologized on her own, or did that at the behest of her boss. According to what you posted, though, they say she was "forced." Clearly, that's carefully chosen language meant to paint the picture of a public servant who was in the right, but because of the mean and nasty boys, she was "forced" to apologize...

[

And, that has nothing at all to our boy Jared, who never served in the army and was rejected by the Army as unfit to serve.

And, you posted this DHS article - but, you didn't connect it up with what you actually assert it to prove or show or demonstrate or evidence. What's the import of it in your mind? So what? Since Jared was not a member of any extremist group we're aware of, yet, and was not in the military or even sympathetic to the military, what in the world is the relevance?

You are focusing on just those particular parts of the article...the lone wolf business seems pretty relevant to me.

In what way? What's the relevance?

[
There has been only one report, from a friend, that he was left wing and radical. There have been a lot of reports that he was radical...that could mean anything. I may be wrong, but as far radical goes, the Tea Party fits that category more than any other group that is currently in media.

Radical generally means left, and "reactionary" generally means right. But in any case - radical generally doesn't mean tea party, and even if the tea party is considered a radical group, there are plenty of other extremist, radical groups operating around the US and Jared-monster had a bevy of radical views - hardly any of which are shared by the teabaggers - they'd have drummed him out just for his anti-god on the money views alone.

But, the reality is - so fucking what? If a psychopath is motivated by his political views to kill, that's not a reason to blame the political views. I wouldn't blame atheism for an atheist committing murder. I mean -politics is a very common reason reason for killing throughout history. We don't react to that by suggesting that everyone who doesn't kill must shut up about their politics just in case some jackass is going to resort to violence - or, do we now?

[maiforpeace]

I wasn't glossing it over, I was simply waiting for you to respond to me first. The martial metaphor, and the map is the first time I've seen it...I'm surprised it hasn't been circulated more widely since this debate over civil discourse has come up. I am dismayed by it and cannot defend it. They are as shameful as the metaphors and the crosshair maps of the Tea party.

But, did it cause this shooting? Is that "vitriolic rhetoric" to blame here? Surely, you see the concerted effort to make this not about "rhetoric" but about "tea party" or "conservative" rhetoric....sure, you condemn it - but, I notice that you didn't attribute it to our boy Jared, like you did the other rhetoric....why? there is precisely the same connection - zero.

*How many times do I have to say this? Unlike the metaphors and crosshair maps of the Democrats, Sarah Palin's map, and corresponding tweet on Twitter, SPECIFICALLY TARGETED MS. GIFFORDS. MS. GIFFORDS WAS THE ONE WHO WAS SHOT. That's the connection. That is much more likely to be a cause for the shooting OF MS. GIFFORDS, than any map that the Democrats drew that IS NOT the cause for the shooting OF ANYONE BESIDES MS. GIFFORDS.

The report, which warned that the crippled economy and the election of the first black president were “unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment,” described the rise of “lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology [as] the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”

In the wake of last weekend’s attempted assassination of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which left six dead and 14 wounded, the report’s warning of a lone wolf attack from someone with extremist tendencies seems prescient.

How in the world does it "seem prescient?" He doesn't fit the profile of a right wing extremist, didn't rail against president Obama, and didn't seem to have any particular interest in the economy other than some delusional desire to create his own currency. So, he was a "lone wolf" (probably). That makes the DHS "prescient?"

Apparently he was very much against Health Care reform...that is mostly a right wing stance, isn't it? And, he was a registered Independent...aren't a lot of Teabaggers Independents? So yes, that makes the report by the DHS somewhat prescient.

Sure - yes and yes - HOWEVER - many non-teabaggers are independent and in fact most "independents" are not "teabaggers." Further, while Jared baby may have been against health care reform, he was also anti-god on the money and anti handing out bibles at recruiting offices. Why do you attribute the cause to the right wing view, and not the left wing view?

Can I ask, though - where did we find evidence that Jared-monster was concerned about the health care bill? I found that Giffords was taking heat from conservative nutjobs over her support for the health care bill - but, I've done some searching and haven't found anything to suggest JARED LOUGHLER was among those guys....have you?

The way this blew up to go all over conservatives as if their vociferous public discourse is the cause of murderous psychotic violence surprised me, because when I first heard about the killings and early on found out he was an anti-god guy - I figured THE RIGHT would try to make this about the lack of god and morals in the public square and public debate. They had an easy opportunity - "see! this is what happens when we don't ground our kids in god!" -- but, we didn't hear it. then when the intellectually dishonest argument that Rush Limbaugh or the Tea Party are to blame in just that same way came out with a vengeance I was taken aback -- shocked that it would come from supposed liberals...

And, NOW - when we have liberal government officials openly calling for the censorship of ideas and the stifling of free and open debate (from the right) because of a psychotic, I am shocked to see many liberals just jumping riight on the bandwagon and swallowing it whole! Have we lost our minds completely? We can't get angry about politics now because Jared Loughner is psychopathic delusional nut job?

Again, SEE ABOVE* for why I think the Tea Party deserves the blame much more that any other extremist group.

But when the April 2009 report was issued, it was overwhelmingly criticized by conservative commentators and lawmakers who derided it as political propaganda from the Obama administration. Some experts worry that its findings were ignored due to political blowback.

Within days of the controversy erupting in April 2009, Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to war veterans for the way they were cast in the report and had the report removed from the department’s website.

LOL! "Forced?" "Forced????" Really? Appointed by the Democrat President, and confirmed by the Democrat controlled Senate, and also with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives, Napolitano was "forced" by Republicans to apologize? As I recall, the reason people were pissed was because it seemed odd that the DHS would cite as the major source of terrorism "returning veterans." It seems she apologized because nobody - not even Democrats - wanted to be on the side of calling our returning soldiers "terrorists."

Where does it say that Republicans forced her to apologize?

In the thing you posted and excoriated me for not addressing in detail. "Within days of the controversy erupting in April 2009, Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to apologize to war veterans.."

All I read is that Republicans exerted the pressure...for all we know it was the Democrats that forced her to.

The President is the only person who could force her to do anything. She either apologized on her own, or did that at the behest of her boss. According to what you posted, though, they say she was "forced." Clearly, that's carefully chosen language meant to paint the picture of a public servant who was in the right, but because of the mean and nasty boys, she was "forced" to apologize...

According to what I posted? I didn't post anything. You write that like I was the one that wrote the article. You read it the way you want to. What I hear you saying is that the article is suggesting it's all the Republican's fault that Napolitano was forced to apologize. I read it quite differently. I read it that it's both Obama the Democrats fault she was forced to apologize. They are so wimpy and willing put up with the whining of Boehner and the Republicans that they caved in to Republican pressure. I don't think she should have apologized at all, because I don't believe the DHS would arbitrarily pop out a report you claim is so partisan, simply because Obama and the Democrats were in power when it came out. But that's another discussion.

And, that has nothing at all to our boy Jared, who never served in the army and was rejected by the Army as unfit to serve.

And, you posted this DHS article - but, you didn't connect it up with what you actually assert it to prove or show or demonstrate or evidence. What's the import of it in your mind? So what? Since Jared was not a member of any extremist group we're aware of, yet, and was not in the military or even sympathetic to the military, what in the world is the relevance?

You are focusing on just those particular parts of the article...the lone wolf business seems pretty relevant to me.

In what way? What's the relevance?

The comments about the LONE WOLF IN THE ARTICLE. HE WAS A LONE WOLF, WASN'T HE? (this repeating the same thing over and over to you is getting really tedious...**)

There has been only one report, from a friend, that he was left wing and radical. There have been a lot of reports that he was radical...that could mean anything. I may be wrong, but as far radical goes, the Tea Party fits that category more than any other group that is currently in media.

Radical generally means left, and "reactionary" generally means right. But in any case - radical generally doesn't mean tea party, and even if the tea party is considered a radical group, there are plenty of other extremist, radical groups operating around the US and Jared-monster had a bevy of radical views - hardly any of which are shared by the teabaggers - they'd have drummed him out just for his anti-god on the money views alone.

But, the reality is - so fucking what? If a psychopath is motivated by his political views to kill, that's not a reason to blame the political views. I wouldn't blame atheism for an atheist committing murder. I mean -politics is a very common reason reason for killing throughout history. We don't react to that by suggesting that everyone who doesn't kill must shut up about their politics just in case some jackass is going to resort to violence - or, do we now?

My mistake...you did know what I meant by the use of the word radical though. There's a big difference between having extreme political views, versus actually targeting a specific individual on a crosshairs map and then tweeting "Lock and Reload". But I've already said that ad nauseum, so I'm done now**.

[Coito ergo sum]

In what way? What's the relevance?

The comments about the LONE WOLF IN THE ARTICLE. HE WAS A LONE WOLF, WASN'T HE? (this repeating the same thing over and over to you is getting really tedious...**)[/quote]

Sure he was a lone wolf, but that was the ONLY thing the report got right about him. Everything else was off base. Being a lone wolf is a common feature among murderers and criminals. It's not particularly prescient to say that there is a risk of there being "lone wolves" out there.

Did it predict his eyes might be blue too?

My mistake...you did know what I meant by the use of the word radical though. There's a big difference between having extreme political views, versus actually targeting a specific individual on a crosshairs map and then tweeting "Lock and Reload". But I've already said that ad nauseum, so I'm done now**.

Dem Congressman who called for GOP Gov. to be put against a wall and shot now pleads for civility --- Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... z1ApTxtL9m So, if that guy he said to put up against the wall and shoot actually does meet an untimely end, we know who to blame, right?

You really can't see how this furor to attribute this tragic murder to Palin and the "the right" is a contrived ploy for political gain? Ah, young grasshopper...so naive, so innocent...

I've nothing else to add.

[GreyICE]

Oh for fucks sake Coito, spin some more.

The fucking political discourse in this country is shot to shit. Look at healthcare reform. At any point was any of the rhetoric on it sane? Was anything said about Obama in the past two years sane? We haven't had sane fucking discourse in this country for nigh on a decade. And look at the fucking speeches. Who are they mentioning? Oh wait, besides Sarah Palin (whose been so far over the fucking top that the cunt needs the kick), it's generally neutral.

Who is reading that and yelling "it's targeting us?" Well, the Republicans. Look at the editorial your little rant was whining about:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opini ... .html?_r=1

Three decades later we were both members of Congress — he as a Republican from Missouri, I as a Democrat from Pennsylvania — and we continued our debate about balancing members’ security with the imperative to remain accessible.

It wasn’t idle talk. During the run-up to the first Persian Gulf war there were threats from Middle Eastern terrorists against Congress, and the sergeant at arms tried to persuade Congress to install an iron fence around the Capitol and to encase the House gallery in bulletproof glass. We both strongly objected, and the plan was rejected.
...
We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.

"Oh no, scream the Republicans! We're being targeted!"

Both sides have actually been plenty uncivil. I just think you're afraid that if we lose incivility, you'll have no arguments left. Me? I use it for emphasis, but facts and figures stand on their own (and also Rationalia has about as much to do with political discourse as a plankton does with the ocean - and you're fucking annoying).