Politics and religion.

[blue]

His book list included Lefty favorites like Animal Farm, Mein Kampf, and The Communist Manifesto. He was also a heavy pot smoker, a liberal past time. He also acted out what many lefties had published over the last decade, a violent outburst.

Hence he is a left leaning loon.

He's mentally ill, but not "left leaning." Neither his infamous books list (which includes Libertarian/Tea Party idol Ayn Rand and is all over the ideological map) nor his weird rants suggest that he's either left or right, and while some themes he hit on again and again in his rants (the anti-government, gold-standard themes) would sound rightwing to most (they're definitely not leftwing themes), some of the links below show those rants plus his obsession with grammar point more toward influence by an ideology that some would call far-right but others would say is so extreme it's outside the standard political spectrum.

http://www.salon.com/books/laura_mil...ist/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us...agewanted=2&hp

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...d-lee-loughner

http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack/...tizen-beliefs/

This is the Wikipedia article on the extremist whose ideas on grammar and government mind control Loughner seemed to be parroting. It says there that Miller is appalled by Loughner's actions and doesn't think his work inspired the shootings, but he does admit he thinks Loughner had been on his website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wynn_Miller


My thoughts and prayers are with Loughner's victims, their families and friends, their community, and our entire nation.

And I do think we need to tone down the political rhetoric in this country, especially the more violent talk. Whatever the political leanings of an unstable individual, constant talk of violence -- and especially self-righteous justifications of violence or suggestions that there's anything heroic about violence -- do make it more likely that unstable individuals will become violent. The over-the-top rhetoric can make people sound foolish, too, to everyone whose views don't exactly mesh with theirs. We need more open-mindedness and less ideology. More listening and less rhetoric.

And I'd hope pet lovers would understand this. After all, we know what constant exposure to displays of violence, threats of violence, verbal intimidation and so on can do to pets. They affect people as well.

[SinbadsMom]

Sigh. Your mind is already made up, and I wouldn't even know where to start debating with anyone who thinks Mein Kampf is a "lefty favorite."

Anyway, the links are there for people who are more interested in additional information.

The NY Times published a detailed look at what's known about Loughner in a long article the other day:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html

Again, this is someone who

is mentally ill;

has abused both alcohol and drugs (according to his friends he'd given up drugs years ago but continued to drink, and in fact he told the cab driver the day of the shooting that he drank too much);

is obsessed with guns, to the point of getting tattoos of bullets;

has felt rejected by his father, his schools, and the US military;

and has been caught up for years in weird anti-government rhetoric and conspiracy theories, especially ideas associated with fringe groups that are sometimes described as off the political spectrum and sometimes described as far right.

This is what we know about him. It's tragic that he didn't get psychiatric help, and that he had access to guns.

[Bonny]

Sigh. Your mind is already made up, and I wouldn't even know where to start debating with anyone who thinks Mein Kampf is a "lefty favorite."

Anyway, the links are there for people who are more interested in additional information.

The NY Times published a detailed look at what's known about Loughner in a long article the other day:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html

Again, this is someone who

is mentally ill;

has abused both alcohol and drugs (according to his friends he'd given up drugs years ago but continued to drink, and in fact he told the cab driver the day of the shooting that he drank too much);

is obsessed with guns, to the point of getting tattoos of bullets;

has felt rejected by his father, his schools, and the US military;

and has been caught up for years in weird anti-government rhetoric and conspiracy theories, especially ideas associated with fringe groups that are sometimes described as off the political spectrum and sometimes described as far right.

This is what we know about him. It's tragic that he didn't get psychiatric help, and that he had access to guns.

Mentally Ill Is What It Is All About. Jared needed the help & didn't get it. Everyone that knew Jared saw it coming & did NOTHING.

Is that where the Bill of Rights Comes in?

[lizbud]

Is that where the Bill of Rights Comes in?

Could you please explain what you mean with this statement?


He was a regular poster to several online sites where a lot of people
were confused by his online ramblings & rants. They suspected he was "off" but what could they have done about it, but avoid him?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/14/....html?hpt=Sbin

[Bonny]

Could you please explain what you mean with this statement?


He was a regular poster to several online sites where a lot of people
were confused by his online ramblings & rants. They suspected he was "off" but what could they have done about it, but avoid him?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/14/....html?hpt=Sbin

Am talking about family, friends, people that knew him that saw this big change in him. What about the school that said he needed mental help? No one helped him. He surely was no longer able to help himself.

Jared had the right to carry a gun but he abused that right. Jared had all the Freedoms the Bill of Rights allows all of us to have & he abused them because he IS mentally ill. Everyone else is getting political so why not add the Bill of Rights if you want to pin it down to something really political.

[Grace]

The State of Arizona has very lenient laws regarding involuntary commitment.

Arizona has one of the least restrictive laws when it comes to detaining apparently mentally ill people against their will. Under the state's broad involuntary-commitment statute, the government can mandate in-patient treatment for anyone determined to be "persistently or acutely disabled." That could include a broad range of seemingly troubled individuals. By comparison, many other states limit involuntary commitment only to people shown to be a danger to themselves or others, or who are found to be completely unable to take care of themselves.

Arizona also goes farther than many other states in defining who may initiate involuntary-commitment proceedings. In Arizona, virtually anyone who had suspected that Loughner had mental problems and needed help could have filed an application to a state-licensed healthcare agency for a court-ordered evaluation. Some states require that the application be initiated by someone close to the troubled person, among other discrete categories.

source

[Edwina's Secretary]

...some years ago, when I was working downtown Chicago, we had an employee who clearly was...well nuts. He complained of little German men who were following him around and some other strange things. I am not sure of whether he was "Righty" or "Lefty" but he did name the Klu Klux Klan and the American Nazi party - along with every employer he ever had and some others in his "pro se" lawsuit about conspiracies.

I worked with our attorney and his parents to get him involuntarily committed. It is not easy (nor should it be or everyone would be getting their ex-spouses or annoying neighbor or the like committed.)

It costs money to do it. And it is frightening. During the process there were a couple of occasions I was very nervous - as the company representative.

At that time, in Illinois, an involuntary commitment was only good for seven days. Which means - he was back out a week later. And I was again a little nervous.

So..it is easy to say "someone" should have had him committed - much, much more difficult to be that "someone."

[blue]

Sigh. Your mind is already made up, and I wouldn't even know where to start debating with anyone who thinks Mein Kampf is a "lefty favorite."

I havent "made up" anything. I also havent made up my mind based on what the MSM wants me to believe.

The Lefts Decade of Hate. Link.

[lizbud]

Ah, welcome to the crazy world of Michelle Malkin. No thanks.!!!

[RICHARD]

Ah, welcome to the crazy world of Michelle Malkin. No thanks.!!!

Hee hee,

Keith and Rachel aren't shining lights on the 'entertainment' planet, either.

Good night and good luck.

[lizbud]

Hee hee,

Keith and Rachel aren't shining lights on the 'entertainment' planet, either.

Good night and good luck.

Keith & Rachel are news commentators, not elected officials with a vote
in Congress. There is a big difference.

[RICHARD]

Keith & Rachel are news commentators, not elected officials with a vote
in Congress. There is a big difference.

MIchelle Malkin is the same kind of arsehat...

----------------


What about this kind of hate/prejudicial speech?

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...bor&FORM=VIRE3



ONE THING about 'qouting quotes' is that it lessens an arguement.

I really don't care who blogs or spews. It's so much funner to hear what a person says.

Not some dumb talking head that sits in front of a laptop next to the pool or some other idiot that sells 'premium subscriptions' to their websites.

I think the days of thinking for ourselves is over-may as well just post a link and not say anything?

[SinbadsMom]

You want links, blue?

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x3790402

http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/pr20101028

http://mediamatters.org/research/201010260050

And look at these quotes in particular:

1. Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus – living fossils – so we will never forget what these people stood for."

2. Senator Phil Gramm: "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

3. Rep. James Hansen on Bill Clinton: Get rid of the guy. Impreach him, censure him, assassinate him."

4. John Derbyshire intimated in the National Review that because Chelsea Clinton had "the taint," she should "be killed."

5. Ann Coulter: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."

6. Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

7. Bill O'Reilly: "ll those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains."

8. Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck said he was "thinking about killing Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"

Malkin is whining about Obama saying he wants to know "whose ass to kick" after the BP oil disaster.

How does that compare to Limbaugh joking about killing liberals, or Glenn Beck musing crazily about killing Michael Moore, or a writer for the National Review saying Chelsea Clinton should be killed because she's a Clinton, or Ann Coulter saying it's a shame Timothy McVeigh didn't bomb the NY Times building?

I don't even like the "whose ass to kick" rhetoric. I wish we could get away from all the silly macho talk that too many politicians are too fond of.

But that's a long way from the most important rightwing pundits talking wistfully of killing liberals and bombing mainstream, centrist publications that aren't rightwing enough for them.

And then there's the "liberal hunting license" graphic that many on the right are so fond of:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...unting-license

Variations of which are offered by various rightwing sites on all sorts of items, from mugs to T-shirts to bumper stickers.

Sick messages. Violent messages. Not in any way funny, except to sick people.

Those have been around for years. Here's a 2004 Free Republic thread about them.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158744/posts

And the Google cache of that in case the link doesn't work -- FR is having computer problems and that link seems to work only about half the time:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

There's nothing comparable on the left, whether similarly violent rhetoric from lots of liberal pundits, or sick "jokes" about hunting conservatives.

Yes, both sides need to tone it down. But the side that finds "liberal hunting license" items amusing needs to tone it down more. That sort of thing can incite real violence by unstable individuals.

And honestly, I'd have to question the mental stability of anyone who thinks the "liberal hunting license" items are amusing.

As for Michelle Malkin -- I think this column by Ezra Klein on her "thuggery" says all that needs to be said about her and her own willingness to make people targets:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/e...=hunting_slugs

Malkin published their personal information on her website, prompting her hordes of orcish mouth-breathers to brandish their pitchforks and inundate the unsuspecting students with death threats (some of which you can read here). When the students frantically called on Malkin to remove their numbers, she posted their contact information again.

Think of that. She knew they were getting death threats from her followers, so she posted their contact info again.

I'm done with this discussion. I'm disgusted by any attempt to justify violent rhetoric, by either side.

Cindy

[blue]

You want links, blue?

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x3790402

http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/pr20101028

http://mediamatters.org/research/201010260050

And look at these quotes in particular:

No.

Seriously. You are linking DU, Think Progress and Media Matters and expect to be taken seriously?

Democratic Underground has threatened every Right Wing pundit of note with harm and/or death. Any attempt of logic or sanity in their discussion threads will get you banned.

Think Progress and Media Matters are not known for their interest in facts either.

I'm disgusted by any attempt to justify violent rhetoric.

And yet that is exactly what you have done.

[Grace]

Has it really been that long ago . . . . 50 years? I remember watching on TV - a cold, snowy day in January.

January 20, 1961 - Washington, D.C. The Inauguration of John F. Kennedy.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/jfk-inaug.htm