upflying Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 My heartfelt wishes for full recovery. Just shocking news. Word on the news is Jared Lee Loughner is the shooter in custody. Motives could be in his YouTube post. Strangely it hasn't been blocked yet. http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/1/nHoaZaLbqB4 Link to comment
Motodan Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Agreed...what a nut. He'll have plenty of time to conjure those nine digits and one placeholder and whether it's A.D.E. or not, while sitting in the Big House. Which, I hope, is only a temporary stop on the way to the chamber. Too bad he didn't get taken out or took himself out...a useless animal is worth more than that person's soul. Link to comment
LandonBlueRT Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 +1. Beheading with a dull ax in public would be appropriate. Link to comment
lawnchairboy Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Bad experience in an elementary philosophy class is what I get from that rambling drivel. Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Quite surprised that his video has only had about 325 views at this point; I figured about a zillion people would have looked at it by now. It does seem to point to his state of mind, but not to what he figured he could accomplish with today's actions. Link to comment
Twisties Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Shows 324 views now. Is that B.C.E. or A.D.E math? Tragedy. My heartfelt wishes for peace and the best of outcomes to those still living and their friends and families. My condolences to the survivors of those who have died. That is some pretty tortured and shallow thinking there. Time for some discussion of that in a few days. Link to comment
Selden Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Quite surprised that his video has only had about 325 views at this point; I figured about a zillion people would have looked at it by now. Something must be wrong with the counter; as of 6:45pm EST, Youtube is showing 324 views. Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Quite surprised that his video has only had about 325 views at this point; I figured about a zillion people would have looked at it by now. Something must be wrong with the counter; as of 6:45pm EST, Youtube is showing 324 views. 324 is about 325. Link to comment
Twisties Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Giffords, a member of the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus, says she wants to some day ride her motorcycle to Argentina. Obviously this is from profile info and not a post-attack statement. Link to comment
markgoodrich Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Has the "lone madman" stuff already started? I'm not suggesting an organized conspiracy but do think the climate has something to do with this horror. 20+ shots from a pistol. I'd call that an assault weapon. Before you jump on me, yes, I own weapons, and yes, I know how to use them, and yes, I would not hesitate to defend myself. Link to comment
Selden Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Quite surprised that his video has only had about 325 views at this point; I figured about a zillion people would have looked at it by now. Something must be wrong with the counter; as of 6:45pm EST, Youtube is showing 324 views. 324 is about 325. 10:33 EST: 310 views. Must be BCE/ADE math. Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 10:33 EST: 310 views. Must be BCE/ADE math. I think you're looking at the "Hello" video; the second one, "Introduction: Jared Loughner" still has 324 views. Link to comment
Selden Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 This is another one of those threads that is going to be difficult to keep non-political. Yes, the shooter was mentally disturbed. Was he encouraged by political rhetoric that suggested reloading, and put crosshairs on Representative Giffords' district? Too soon to tell, but rhetoric like that couldn't have helped. Link to comment
beemerman2k Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 This is another one of those threads that is going to be difficult to keep non-political. Yes, the shooter was mentally disturbed. Was he encouraged by political rhetoric that suggested reloading, and put crosshairs on Representative Giffords' district? Too soon to tell, but rhetoric like that couldn't have helped. If I have it my way, both issues will get national attention. We need to learn how to debate our political differences in a civil manner for sure. We also need to reassess our national attitudes toward mental health and illness. We don't take such ailments seriously, and we view the criminally insane as using their condition as an excuse for their inexcusable actions. I would like to see people getting help to prevent incidents like this from happening in the first place. I often tell my children that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Link to comment
Deadboy Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 She's the co-chair of the congressional motorcycle caucus I believe. Hoping for the best for all the victims and their families........ Link to comment
Danny caddyshack Noonan Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 First time in a very long time I was mentally taken back to the mental ward in the jail talking to one of the nutjobs. Wonder what the staff at MEPS had for an impression of him when, and if, he was there. Also wonder if he in delay entry. Link to comment
Whip Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 This is another one of those threads that is going to be difficult to keep non-political. Yes, the shooter was mentally disturbed. Was he encouraged by political rhetoric that suggested reloading, and put crosshairs on Representative Giffords' district? Too soon to tell, but rhetoric like that couldn't have helped. If the mods knew what you are referring to I think your statement would be removed. ...and As more info comes out you are heading down the wrong path....180 degrees wrong. just sayin Link to comment
Roadwolf Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 As more info comes out you are heading down the wrong path....180 degrees wrong. just sayin And you know this how? From my following the story so far, I haven't seen anything or read anything that ascribes motive. At this point it is only conjecture. You are guessing just like we all are Whip. "Just sayin" Link to comment
lawnchairboy Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 you just took it political. Link to comment
Whip Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 As more info comes out you are heading down the wrong path....180 degrees wrong. just sayin And you know this how? From my following the story so far, I haven't seen anything or read anything that ascribes motive. At this point it is only conjecture. You are guessing just like we all are Whip. "Just sayin" Fair enough. ...you could be right. Ya wanna bet? Link to comment
EffBee Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Enough. At this point, this post has become less about the shooter and the victims and more about what each of you thinks the other's motives are in their posts. Has this thing gone political? Not by the strictest interpretation of the rules. But suggestions that a political figure's actions had something to do with it, even if that political figure isn't named, certainly help inflame what's being discussed. Consider this post as one across the bow. There is much still to be learned about what happened and why. Let's stick to the facts and leave the speculation and veiled accusations out of it or this thread, and perhaps a couple of participants, won't make it past the weekend without moderator action. Link to comment
Selden Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Quite surprised that his video has only had about 325 views at this point; I figured about a zillion people would have looked at it by now. Something must be wrong with the counter; as of 6:45pm EST, Youtube is showing 324 views. 324 is about 325. 10:33 EST: 310 views. Must be BCE/ADE math. Youtube's counters must have unfrozen overnight; as of 10:00 EST, 1,157,279 views Link to comment
David13 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Is this the lady? As I understand it, she encouraged people to ride a motorcycle. dc Link to comment
StuGotz Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Domestic terrorism my BMW friends..get used to it. We breed it here in this country. Especially in the last decade. I'm old enough to remember what happened in the sixties. As fashion and design go, we are also bound to repeat history. Some are recreating it for particular causes. I'd like to think that we as a people can see above this stuff, but sometimes I am so terribly disappointed. And ashamed. What is really disappointing is the political posturing here on this board. I find myself distancing myself from those I don't agree with. Shame. Maybe I can get the moderators to block political threads so I can't see them AT ALL. Maybe I need a break. Sorry for the ramble, MB> Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Explain how this is terrorism? Link to comment
CoarsegoldKid Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Simple. Ask anyone present at the shoot spree if they felt terrorized. He terrorized people. He's a terrorist. Link to comment
JustJean Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim"[1]; according to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". By either description the fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions. The behavior of a fan with overwhelming enthusiasm for a given subject is differentiated from the behavior of a fanatic by the fanatic's violation of prevailing social norms. Though the fan's behavior may be judged as odd or eccentric, it does not violate such norms.[2] A fanatic differs from a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or probably wrong, such as a belief in a Flat Earth. In contrast, the subject of the fanatic's obsession may be "normal", such as an interest in religion or politics, except that the scale of the person's involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity or cause is abnormal or disproportionate. President Reagan and three others were shot and wounded by John Hinckley, Jr. Motive in love with Jody Foster. Hoping for a speedy recovery of everyone involved. Link to comment
Selden Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Explain how this is terrorism? Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act: A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Simple. Ask anyone present at the shoot spree if they felt terrorized. He terrorized people. He's a terrorist. Except that's not what terrorist means. That definition would include almost any act of violence, or for that matter non-violence, where someone was terrified. Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Explain how this is terrorism? Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act: A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. So it meets section iii, not that I think the 'Patriot' Act gets to define the language even if it defines the law. Link to comment
philbytx Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I received this from a friend this morning. It is by Erick Erickson and redstate.com. I thought it well balanced commentary: QUOTE This morning we pray for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her family, and the other victims of the heinous violence in Arizona. It should not be, but the media, under the guise of “a full exposition” of the evil in Arizona, is back to subtly and not so subtly pinning the blame for the attempted assassination of the Congresswoman and the related shootings on the tea party movement, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, me, you, and everyone right of center. Let’s be crystal clear: this is the supposedly objective news media doing this, not the openly, partisan left, though it is fueling the media witch hunt. And from what we now know, it is not just media malpractice, but a lie. Ironically, by perpetuating the lie — by even treating it as a legitimate topic of consideration to revisit the accusations of violence and hate the media tried to run with prior to the November election — that the right and the tea party incited this evil act, the left and media may very well incite violence against the right. Today, the Sunday Shows will all be from Arizona. There will, I have no doubt, be many of them wanting to know if “rhetoric” and “tea parties” and “opposition to Barack Obama” did this. They will also bring up, as they did yesterday, Sarah Palin putting Gabrielle Giffords on her target list for defeat with a rifle scope symbol over her district. Here is what will either not be brought up, or if brought up, will only be mentioned in passing. Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, the largest left-wing community online, put Gabrielle Giffords on a target list with a bullseye. Just as Sarah Palin removed her post, Markos has removed his. Another Daily Kos writer, just the other day, penned a post saying Congresswoman Giffords was dead to him. But then there is the real culprit — the shooter himself. A friend of the shooter’s described the shooter as decidedly “left-wing” as recently as 2007. On YouTube, he flagged as a favorite video one of a person dressed as a terrorist burning the American flag. Only a lunatic or a leftist would do that. His favorite work was not a Glenn Beck book, but a staple of every left-wing bookshelf, the Communist Manifesto. In the Communist Manifesto, there are numerous, frequent calls for violence against the bourgeoisies. Left-wing cartoonist Ted Rall’s most recent book calls for a violent response from the left against the right. Barack Obama himself told left-wing activists, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” The point of all of this is not to blame Ted Rall, Mr. Obama, Media Matters, MSNBC, any other particular person or group on the left, or the left in general. It is also not to say in any way, shape, or form that the guy is of the left. If, however, we take the evidence as presented and not as the media and left would have it presented, the shooter very clearly is not of the right. More precisely, the shooter is neither left-wing nor right-wing. He is crazy and evil — a word not used enough. The guy is very clearly not of the tea party movement, not a Dittohead, not led by Sarah Palin, me, or anyone else on the right. But the media, at least as of this morning and its accumulated coverage so far on this matter, could not care less. The media is intent on yet again exploring right-wing rhetoric and tea party hate. Left-wingers yesterday were falling all over themselves to blame everyone on the right for the horrific shooting. The media today, as it begins more expansive reporting, will not let the facts get in the way of making the right, yet again, responsible for violence it neither incited nor enabled. In the process, the media’s credibility will continue to shrink. By the way, as an exit thought, the tea party movement won in November. Winners don’t go on shooting sprees. UNQUOTE Yup! You know, only "Right wingers" carry weapons....! Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 1) I'm a liberal, a very leftish liberal. 2) I don't like or respect Sarah Palin or the Tea Party. 3) We are not related, even through her husband. I agree fully with the article Philby posted with regard to this event, it's absurd to point the finger at SP*. The shooter was apparently associated with some white supremacist group though it hasn't been shown that they were involved in this either. He was a raving loony, no question about that. *Which is not to say I think her poster is appropriate, I don't. Link to comment
ESokoloff Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Explain how this is terrorism? Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act: A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. So it meets section iii, not that I think the 'Patriot' Act gets to define the language even if it defines the law. How about (i)? And for that matter (ii) may come to play if/when his intentions become known. Also Definitions of domestic terrorism The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth. According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."[2] Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and © occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3] This per Wiki Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 We don't know what his motivation was so (i) is not shown yet IMHO. Link to comment
ESokoloff Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 OK, technically that is correct as of yet his intent is not proven. Link to comment
Selden Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I didn't say I agreed with USAPA, but it currently is the law of the land. Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I didn't say I agreed with USAPA, but it currently is the law of the land. Looks like it, I was thinking linguistically, I play to much Scrabble it seems! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.