Gifford shooter was a drug using, Bush hating leftie

[redrumloa]

and "Palin supporter" is a strawman. It is not what is being said. What IS being said by serious people (not people desperately trying to deflect from their own bad behaviour) is that he was an unstable man and may have been influenced by the war-like rhetoric spewing from the right-wing echo chamber - a fact which you simply deny.

BS, there is not a single shred of evidence that he was driven by any rhetoric. OTOH, there are hundreds of these "news" reports claiming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party is to blame. People are making that connection simply because it fits their comfortable little world view, be it fantasy or not.

[youtube:2cot187s]ojWOWyHWj6M[/youtube:2cot187s]

Gee, could he have watched one of the left's favorite movies and got ideas? :roll:

 

[redrumloa]

You're just wriggling now. Straight up you can't stick to your own principles because you didn't say it as a principle of yours, you said it because you don't want other people to use the incident against your team. Well, tough luck. Your "team" have been dolling this stuff out for a decade so now some comes back. You get all butt-hurt about it because you think you are standing up for your team but your team doesn't give a rats backside about you and as soon as they get back in the driver's seat they'll get back to raping you. They don't know you, they don't care about you and they won't thank you for your work. You are an Uncle Tom. You are a middle class slave sticking up for the slave owners. Do you know what it's like to have a personal net worth of half a trillion dollars? No, and you never will, but you are happy to toady for those who do and the beauty of it is that you will never make a dime off it. You are working for free against yourself

Yowsa are you going off into left field, no pun intended. A bit full of sh't too, I must say. Talking about stray men, show me where Sarah Palin or the Tea Party said to get a gun and shoot a democrat congresswoman.

 

[faethor]

... said Jim, before doing exactly that without even a hint of irony, much less embarrassment.

I wasn't the one who did it yesterday, I did the opposite. I am simply reacting to the ridiculousness on display. The claim was made he was "obviously driven by right wing rhetoric". I am simply pointing out this is not true.

Violent rhetoric is violent rhetoric no matter the side. Take a look at Giffords video I linked to when here office was broken by anti-healthcare people. (Though I don't think anyone was charged with the crime but it's immediate proximity to the vote seemingly indicates a tie.) She makes good points about the use of violent rhetoric on each side of the aisle.

 

[redrumloa]

Violent rhetoric is violent rhetoric no matter the side.

I would agree with you, except the media is attacking only one side. The left has been just as bad, if not worse.

[youtube:12zprlwo]ojWOWyHWj6M[/youtube:12zprlwo]

When was the last time you saw something like this from the right? Why does the media ignore this sort of thing as they did for 6+ years of Bush's presidency?

-Edit-
I am cautious to how I reply here, not wanting to be visited by Feds who find my post through Google and misinterpret the conversation.

 

[faethor]

Violent rhetoric is violent rhetoric no matter the side.

I would agree with you, except the media is attacking only one side. The left has been just as bad, if not worse.

A good read for people NYTs Opinion Agree with the opinion or not there's some interesting facts in there.

BTW I think your term 'left has been just as bad' is an important point.

 

[Fade]

McDeath stumbles
quote
"What IS being said by serious people (not people desperately trying to deflect from their own bad behaviour) is that he was an unstable man
and may have been influenced by the war-like rhetoric spewing from the right-wing echo chamber"
-----------------------------------------------
Was it something that Palin said?

Or was it something that Obama said....

* June 14, 2008, 1:29 PM ET
‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’, Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

There is something really Fluffy about this!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

* June 14, 2008, 1:29 PM ET

Got anything... I dunno.. less than two years old?

(Failing that, maybe a bigger font might help)

 

[Robert]

more interestingly, it looks like the types of books people in high school are told to read. Politics or history majors would certainly know of Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto.

Hehehe... true, although I've yet to read either of those two.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

there are hundreds of these "news" reports claiming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party is to blame. People are making that connection simply because it fits their comfortable little world view, be it fantasy or not.

Even Palin made that connection. She immediately sanitized her facebook and twitter.

[youtube:20xxv54r]ojWOWyHWj6M[/youtube:20xxv54r]

Gee, could he have watched one of the left's favorite movies and got ideas? :roll:

Making stuff up again. What makes you think you know what the left's favourite movies are. You are just being a rhetorical twit. You can't just present an exhibit, you have to dribble on it.

For the record, Death of a President was a UK film. Do you know anyone who saw it? Do you know anyone who knew anyone who saw it? It got into almost no theatres because the famously left leaning entertainment industry didn't want to touch it. It got almost no advertising because the famously left leaning TV media wouldn't carry the ads. And it was four years ago. That's twice as old as Fade's excuse.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

It's probably not that weird. Politicians tend to love all that social networking stuff so they "friend" everyone.

On youtube people can send you friend request which you can accept or reject. But subscriptions are totally at the discretion of the subscriber. If you have a youtube account and you watch a video you can click subscribe to be notified of any other videos that the user you subscribe to may then later upload. It takes a bit more conscious effort than accepting a "friend" request. Interestingly the Giffords channel does not have any friends. Of the subscriptions, there are only two and one is the shooter. It is actually a lot weird.

It wouldn't be that weird if it turned out that the giffords account had been hacked. These things happen but I don't think that is what is going on here.

Among the weird things about it is that the user of the giffords page claims to be 27 years old - the real Gaby Giffords probably wouldn't have bothered fibbing about that. A hacker might have changed it but it would be a pointless thing to do.

More likely, since the channel user name is giffords2, this is an account that was set up by a "fan". It hasn't yet been officially disowned as far as I know but then again the person who would most likely know if it is genuine is not able to tell us right now.

I don't think that the joined date can be faked. That is something youtube maintains and I don't think it is hackable so it was probably set up when it says it was set up and the video that are on it were probably uploaded when it says they were uploaded.

If it was maintained by a fan then the fan may have added the link tot he shooter just as an important relevant link. It would be strange to do it without adding context. It also appears that the user of that sight is not uploading anything more nor visiting. News reports of the shooting should be a natural addition if it is a fan site.

This raises the interesting possibility in my mind that the fan may not be able to post because the fan is currently under arrest. It may be that Jared created the giffords2 site two years ago and been obsessively uploading videos of her ever since. The video he links to on his own page under favourites looks like a video that is also made by Jared. The video description and the added overlays all have his mental slant to them, so it's not unreasonable to imagine that he had multiple accounts that he cross linked (there are plenty of egotistical youtube users who do this so that they can subscribe to themselves and thumb up their own videos and leave themselves comments).

IF the above speculation has any merit then it could simply be that he was a schizophrenic (or near enough) person who had an obsession with Gabby Giffords and the trigger may have been something that she said on television that he (in a paranoid mental state) took as a personal message or insult. That would make this shooting personal, in a way. Though we cannot dismiss politics as motive because he does rant (incoherently) about politics quite a lot. Maybe it was a final straw and made his target selection easier.


Update:
Someone logged into the account 9 hours ago and the Classitup10 subscription has been removed. Loughner didn't do that, I'd wager.

 

[faethor]

and "Palin supporter" is a strawman. It is not what is being said. What IS being said by serious people (not people desperately trying to deflect from their own bad behaviour) is that he was an unstable man and may have been influenced by the war-like rhetoric spewing from the right-wing echo chamber - a fact which you simply deny.

BS, there is not a single shred of evidence that he was driven by any rhetoric. OTOH, there are hundreds of these "news" reports claiming Sarah Palin and the Tea Party is to blame. People are making that connection simply because it fits their comfortable little world view, be it fantasy or not.

Red do you really want to deny that violent rehetoric has no impact on it's audience? Come on if the language didn't have impact it wouldn't be used. We know that advertising has impact but somehow this sort of advertising has none? That first statement is simply wrong.

As for hundreds of news reports... I should have saved it for you... Jan 10th the main focus on the CNN website was the shooting. Jan 10th the main focus on MSNBC was the shooting. Jan 10th the main focus on Fox was how they are being blamed. What this seems to indicate to me if you did a good job as Fox's little messenger to get their message out.

We've seen in our recent past how the violent vitrol creates a climate where violence occurs. Talk of deaths to Robert Kennedy set the stage that someone felt it acceptable to kill him. Racism made it okay (or so someone thought) to kill Martin Luther King. The climate of fear the right-wing preached to the nation allowed us to go to war on a nation that never attacked us and didn't have the WMDs of which they were accused. Thinking violent rhetoric has no impact is so clearly wrong. Though I fear you're so far down the denial rabbit hole there's no way of getting you back.

EDIT -- some minor verbage changes.

 

[Robert]

On youtube people can send you friend request which you can accept or reject. But subscriptions are totally at the discretion of the subscriber. If you have a youtube account and you watch a video you can click subscribe to be notified of any other videos that the user you subscribe to may then later upload. It takes a bit more conscious effort than accepting a "friend" request.

Interestingly, a year or so ago I ended up with a whole bunch of subscriptions that I never personally selected. I seem to have accidentally 'block' subscribed to loads of people when I only meant to subscribe to one. I never looked into it any further as it was nothing more than a minor inconvenience. Still no idea how it happened.

Not that it has any bearing on your point, it just rekindled a memory, so apologies for hi-jacking your post.

 

[Glaucus]

Interesting analysis there Fluffy. And you probably know way more about YouTube then I do, I usually only go there when you post a link.

As for the link to Classitup10 being removed, well, could it be that YouTube removed it? Although, I'd have no idea why. It could also mean the shooter had a friend? Could there have been two shooters? Fun stuff to ponder. Maybe you should forward your discovery to the FBI.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

As for the link to Classitup10 being removed, well, could it be that YouTube removed it?

It could have been google maybe but I should think that if they did they did it because someone requested it of them. It's more likely that the account owner did it. Perhaps they were a genuine giffords fan and they linked the shooters site for reference, then unlinked it after sober second thought. Perhaps it is really a giffords controlled page and staff are now logging on to clean up. Perhaps the account was hacked but is now restored to the owner. Could be a lot of things. The obsessed fan with fake account just seemed like a nice and tidy way to make sense of the target selection. They did have a prior connection. Perhaps the sub was real, perhaps he had been pestering her, insisting that she listen to his world changing ideas and perhaps he shot her simply because she "refused to see the brilliance", as it were, of his philosophy. Since he is still alive he may be able to fill us in on his motive.

Maybe you should forward your discovery to the FBI.

I would hope they have already had someone looking at that angle. The shooters youtube channel was found very quickly by the press so a quick call from the FBI to google should have pulled up all the logs of who associates with who (or failing that, a bit of link clicking).

While Classitup10 didn't seem to have any subscriptions (maybe people went in an unsubscribed as soon as the shooter's name came out), the user to which he had linked (which looks like it was himself) had some 130 subscribers when I looked and I watched some of their vids. Seems like the "freedom, guns and bibles" crowd to a certain extent but it isn't completely homogenous.

 

[faethor]

Tom Tomorrow hits it on the head

 

[Robert]

Tom Tomorrow hits it on the head

Hehehe.... indeed.

 

[cecilia]

more interestingly, it looks like the types of books people in high school are told to read. Politics or history majors would certainly know of Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto.

Hehehe... true, although I've yet to read either of those two.

my mother said Mein Kampf was VERY VERY repetitive. It doesn't sound like a fun read. I've always been fascinated by Hitler so someday I may read although it will be a translation.

 

[cecilia]

Tom Tomorrow hits it on the head

hysterical.

"delicate flower" indeed :roflmao:

 

[faethor]

more interestingly, it looks like the types of books people in high school are told to read. Politics or history majors would certainly know of Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto.

Hehehe... true, although I've yet to read either of those two.

my mother said Mein Kampf was VERY VERY repetitive. It doesn't sound like a fun read. I've always been fascinated by Hitler so someday I may read although it will be a translation.

I read it once years ago. I'm scratching my head a bit as it's not very left leaning as far as I recall it was fascist, aka extreme right wing.

Though we accept Red's statement that rhetoric is uninfluential is true it really doesn't matter what the kid read. And we should shutdown the advertising industry as it has no influence whatsoever and therefore can only be a Den of Thieves.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

my mother said Mein Kampf was VERY VERY repetitive. It doesn't sound like a fun read. I've always been fascinated by Hitler so someday I may read although it will be a translation.

I've been reading it. I can see why people are discouraged from reading it, it has some appeal especially in times like these. In the US it could certainly appeal as it really looks at life through a nationalist and populist lens with lots of anti-communist rhetoric.

However, Hitler is one of the important characters of recent history and is often held up in caricature when denouncing others. The Hitler of today is a parody used to bludgeon enemies (or make them). Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, Saddam was not Hitler, and Adolf Hitler was not "Hitler".

I find it personally important to look behind the buzzwords and the "everybody knows".

Other caricatures that we see all the time "Adam Smith", "Karl Marx", "Keynes", and "liberal".

Keynes is used a convenient whipping boy by those who like to mischaracterize the current economic system as "Keynesian". This is a caricature that the "right" like to use to argue against quantitative easing. However you may feel about QE, Keynes is not the grounds to argue against it. It's just a ploy to sound smart and sway simple minds. The assumption that the lowbrow makes is that the speaker must actually have read Keynes (pretty heavy going) and know what they are talking about. It's a form of "appeal to authority".

It's also what Red did above with the Unabomber. The ploy is to go with a knee-jerk "he's a monster" and tag on "he's a lefty" and hope no-one notices that is bull. It doesn't work so well if you have the manifesto at your disposal.

The point of reading these works is not to adopt them or like them or any such though that may happen. It's to know, when the bullshitters try to act like they know something, that they don't. It helps you be able to tell the difference between those who know what they are talking about and the ones who have nothing but mouth.