Congresswoman shot.

[One Brow]

I think it's wise to condemn all the right-wingers who claimed the shooter was a left-wing nut.

Someone responded in a rep: "Circular thought."

I just meant to note that early in the weekend, it was the right-winger calling the shooter a leftist whacko. Everyone seemed to be focusing on the accusations flowing in one direction only.

 

[PearlWatson]

Funny, you say "Limbaugh", but it sure sounds like you meant to say "Buckley". At least, the sources I read concerning Limbaugh are much more concern with his reliance on untruths, simplistic thinking, and false characterizations. People dislike Limbaugh because he's Jon Stewart, except he expects to be taken seriously.

The media takes him serious enough to blame him for murders...and make him a news topic every day.

 

[franklin]

Franklin: You're going down a rabbit hole.

What links do any of those things have to statements in Loughner's videos? The three things I picked aren't totally random. Watch his videos.

Or you can keep making the unfounded assumption that I'm ignorant, but there's a lot lower hanging fruit on this board if that's the kind of targeting game you want to play.

What are you talking about? You've clearly detached from the train of thought somewhere along the line. Are you still married to the notion that the right has a monopoly on conspiracies, hard money, and constitutional interpretations, even though you're attempting to sweep the issue under the rug here?

Let me get this straight. You believe that Loughner holds opinions that are typical of right wingers, and as such, must have been influenced by right wing media. Correct me if this is not what you are implying.

I challenge your straw man that these are only right-wing ideas. I understand how you would think this way as you're sheltered by ideologically biased media. I've had a little wider exposure and have provided examples as proof that you're stereotype is fallacious. Calling this a rabbit hole is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep and backtrack your radical claim.

 

[The Pearl]

Someone responded in a rep: "Circular thought."

I just meant to note that early in the weekend, it was the right-winger calling the shooter a leftist whacko. Everyone seemed to be focusing on the accusations flowing in one direction only.

The right wing didn't call him a leftist whacko, his classmate did. The right used her characterization of him to combat the Palin accusations. Is she (his classmate) a right-winger? I don't know, could be.

 

[One Brow]

The media takes him serious enough to blame him for murders...and make him a news topic every day.

I guess we agree his expectations are met, then.

 

[One Brow]

The right wing didn't call him a leftist whacko, his classmate did.

Which was then picked and repeated by right-leaning news organizations such as Fox, using a preference for books like "Mein Kampf" (of all things) to justify it.

You don't think only one side engaged in the blame here, do you?

 

[Deleted member 365]

The right wing didn't call him a leftist whacko, his classmate did. The right used her characterization of him to combat the Palin accusations. Is she (his classmate) a right-winger? I don't know, could be.

Of course, the right would never engage in smear tactics to advance their agenda, right?

https://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...painted-az-shooter-as-hitler-marx-devotee.php

That's in large part because Glenn Beck framed it in his own inimitable way on his Fox News show Saturday evening.

"This kid thinks the Mars rover, the landing, was faked. He thinks George W. Bush was behind 9/11. He believes in big government solution. His favorite books include 'The Communist Manifesto' and 'Mein Kampf'.... I could tell you right now this guy is a textbook study of everybody I've warned against. But I'm not going to do that."

I highly doubt Beck has been warning us about mentally ill students. I'll give you a guess who Beck has been "warning" us against.....

 

[Deleted member 365]

Lisa Ann?

You know who I'm talking about. Yes, you.

LOL.

I love it how the right brings up the teleprompter thing with Obama. Pretty obvious that Palin is using one too. The only difference is that Obama can actually read it. What's HEROism?

I love Palin's references to praying to God for guidance, avoid fingerpointing (she does this all the time), Reagan, Constitution, calling good evil (is this a conference talk?), and blood libel.

 

[sirkickyass]

You've clearly detached from the train of thought somewhere along the line. Are you still married to the notion that the right has a monopoly on conspiracies, hard money, and constitutional interpretations, even though you're attempting to sweep the issue under the rug here?

My contention is and has been that the specific identifiable strands that are seen in Loughner's videos are more easily tied to mainstream Republican figures than they are to leftist figures. I identified three that were present in the videos.

1) Hard currency: We have a lot of right wing bigguns on this. Ron Paul, Glenn Beck etc.

2) The Constitution as a document with specific meaning that is universally ascertainable: That is a foundational belief of the Tea Party branch of the Republican party, embraced by all four candidates for RNC chair two weeks ago, and ascribed to by Palin etc. The Left is far less "married" to this idea.

3) Specific government thought control style conspiracies: Less ideologically centered (hippies and all that) but the rhetoric that "the government is your enemy" has been pushed significantly more strenuously by the right side of the aisle.

Most of the crap you listed (moon landings, etc) isn't in any way related to the content of his videos. Some of it, like Lyndon Larouche, are examples of peole who have been routinely shut out of the mainstream Democratic party. Larouche's supporters were the ones running around with Obama with Hiter moustache imagery last year for crissakes.

Let me get this straight. You believe that Loughner holds opinions that are typical of right wingers, and as such, must have been influenced by right wing media. Correct me if this is not what you are implying.

That is not what I am implying. You're simply not reading what I'm saying. Nothing close to the words "typical of right wingers" has come out of my (digital) mouth. You're trying to crush an argument that is different than the one I'm making.

I'm making an argument that relates to the ways in which transient mental illness expresses itself to say that the presence of those familiar strands indicates something other than the "purely crazy" theory.

You appear to operate from the assumption that everyone else knows nothing and you are the repository of all relevant information. Sorry dude, that's my ecological niche on the board and you can't have it.

Read a ****ing book: https://www.amazon.com/Mad-Travelers-Reflections-Transient-Illnesses/dp/0813918235

I challenge your straw man that these are only right-wing ideas.

Could you find some left-wing people who believe these things. Sure.

I don't think my statement that those are more part of the core fabric of the conversation that occurs on the right hand side of the aisle during the last few years is particularly controversial.

I've had a little wider exposure

Cards on the table: who are you, what is your background, and what is your exposure?

If you want to make these claims you need a little more than faith.

 

[franklin]

That is not what I am implying. You're simply not reading what I'm saying. Nothing close to the words "typical of right wingers" has come out of my (digital) mouth. You're trying to crush an argument that is different than the one I'm making.

I'm making an argument that relates to the ways in which transient mental illness expresses itself to say that the presence of those familiar strands indicates something other than the "purely crazy" theory.

Maybe I'm just being a stupid dick then. You're rambling post on page 10 was pretty incoherent in connecting random thoughts. My takeaway from all that ambiguity was that you were implying the right side is somewhat responsible for this attack. From the responses I've received I feel pretty comfortable that others were under the same impression.

If this isn't your position then I retract my responses as irrelevant.

You appear to operate from the assumption that everyone else knows nothing and you are the repository of all relevant information. Sorry dude, that's my ecological niche on the board and you can't have it...

Cards on the table: who are you, what is your background, and what is your exposure?

If you want to make these claims you need a little more than faith.

My arguments with One Brow don't count.

Yeah, I've gotten annoyed in economic discussions when some pretty stupid stuff gets passed off as fact. I actually have a little more patience with you than others because you obviously value education and professionally formed opinion. I used to choose the route of providing NBER papers and summaries of them, but they're ignored. Now I provide simple examples but they're often written off by those who don't understand them [remember doing this with your loose policy post? (which, btw, was a rewording of the Keynes and Friedman agreed on this stuff idea I've written around here more than once)]. Maybe I get overly annoyed and end with a hey-idiot-bitch-shut-the-hell-up-and-read-a-little-you-moron comment. I'll use your comment here regarding people who don't understand intricate systems yet believe they have the answers to pass the correct sentiment across.

Some read fiction. I read conspiracy theories for entertainment. I can tell you from a lot of experience that the crowd comes from both extremes, so much so that any discussion quickly becomes maddening.

 

[sirkickyass]

You're rambling post on page 10 was pretty incoherent in connecting random thoughts. My takeaway from all that ambiguity was that you were implying the right side is somewhat responsible for this attack. From the responses I've received I feel pretty comfortable that others were under the same impression.

I've frankly acknowledged my views on the issue are squishy and sort of unfocused.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?3841-Congresswoman-shot.&p=94862&viewfull=1#post94862

I can't control how others interpret what I'm trying to say. I'm positive if I think about it for another week or so I'll be able to state in more concisely, concretely, and eloquently. Message boards being what they are, you're seeing me digitally cogitate in the moment. In reality, I think it's a prickly nest with a lot of different issues woven together. Both sides want an exceedingly clean kill and it just doesn't exist.

Yeah, I've gotten annoyed in economic discussions when some pretty stupid stuff gets passed off as fact. I actually have a little more patience with you than others because you obviously value education and professionally formed opinion.

Well, I'm not totally out in the woods on the economics topics, simply since that was my major in college and at one point I was seriously considering going to grad school in the subject. Most people haven't a clue.

I think it is clear that you want a higher level of specificity in terms of modelling than I do. Part of this is simply time constraints on my end (I don't have the resources to create or locate and analyze models on the fly) and some of it is that I've seen "how the sausage is made" enough to know that any complex model is just going to get picked apart on the assumptions and that the worldview of how perceive economics inevitably shapes the model you put together.

So around here I generally stick to ideas out of the Keynes and Friedman toolbox and try not to wander off too far down the dark side roads unless absolutely necessary (like if underlying data just flatly denies someone's descriptive views of how things are operating).

[remember doing this with your loose policy post? (which, btw, was a rewording of the Keynes and Friedman agreed on this stuff idea I've written around here more than once)].

I think the post you're referring to I wrote specifically with respect to their disagreement regarding the causes of the 1937 downturn; but I don't think the idea that they would agree on a lot of present issues is all that controversial. The controversy now is with the Austrians.

Some read fiction. I read conspiracy theories for entertainment. I can tell you from a lot of experience that the crowd comes from both extremes, so much so that any discussion quickly becomes maddening.

Sure. At some point the spectrums loop around the back end and touch. That's part of the reason the 9/11 conspiracy crowd is so scary.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

LOL.

I love it how the right brings up the teleprompter thing with Obama. Pretty obvious that Palin is using one too. The only difference is that Obama can actually read it. What's HEROism?

I love Palin's references to praying to God for guidance, avoid fingerpointing (she does this all the time), Reagan, Constitution, calling good evil (is this a conference talk?), and blood libel.

Huh? I don't care about any of that. Just Lisa Ann.