Congresswoman shot.
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
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?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
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
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.....
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
Banned
Huh? I don't care about any of that. Just Lisa Ann.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
OSLER (LOUGHNER'S friend): He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left; he wasn't on the right.
/thread
/thread
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I beleive and gots said it time and time again dat da damn two party system and da damn increasin' vitriole spewed fum each side at da damn oda' is destroyin' de America we love. No one side gots all de evil, no one side gots all de baaaad. Dere is baaaad ideas all around, but we is becomin' mo'e and mo'e blind t'dem as we ahere tighta' and tighta' to party-line dogma. WORD!
Dat said ah' real plum dought it wuz about here dat AintHoppuh' would chime in wid sump'n ambiguous, vague, and condescendin' in fake ebonics. So's here ya' go! Right on!
Dat said ah' real plum dought it wuz about here dat AintHoppuh' would chime in wid sump'n ambiguous, vague, and condescendin' in fake ebonics. So's here ya' go! Right on!
thank you wikipedia
(not that I wanted to know any of that, but now I do...)
anyhow, as I mentioned much, much earlier in this thread, I don't think right-leaning or left-leaning political beliefs really were that strong of an influence in the actions of the shooter.
(not that I wanted to know any of that, but now I do...)
anyhow, as I mentioned much, much earlier in this thread, I don't think right-leaning or left-leaning political beliefs really were that strong of an influence in the actions of the shooter.
It's this kind of attitude that will prevent me from taking advantage of the tragedy in getting elected to a public office. Thank goodness not everyone is as well reasoned.
????
I'm not sure to what degree you're critiquing my post, or whether you're commenting on my attitude or Loughner's. At any rate, your potential constituents should probably be grateful that you're planning to give others the opportunity to serve! ;-)
At any rate, what I'm saying is that I don't think partisan politics played much of a role in his actions. He definitely had political thoughts, at least to the extent that the U.S. Constitution is part of our political process, and to the extent that the Tucson community is as polarized as Kicky has described, then I can go along with some political motivation for his action. However, I'm not convinced it was a primary motivating factor.
I am also unconvinced that political rhetoric (or whatever we're calling it on here) had anything to do with the shooting. I do think that overheated rhetoric and vehement speech (and images and writings) from all sides does contribute to a climate of mistrust in our society, and that there are those in the media who take advantage of that mistrust, whether it's done because they are true believers, to boost their ratings, or for some other reasons.
LOL I was being sarcastic and making fun of thoses that are trying to blame one side or the other for political gain. If anything I was complementing you on you reasoned take on the situation. I'll even +1 you for good measure.
Loughner had a rap sheet with a lot of scared folks complaining they felt he was threat. As I've gone over it, he did not like anyone pigeon-holeing him or defining him, so he was deliberately all over the political map. Reports have it he previously asked Giffords some question and was treated to a dismissive response, and thence bore a hate grudge. He hated authority, yet even on the day he shot Giffords and the rest, his father was after him for some reason, and often he was not permitted to go with his friends because of his controlling father. . . .
His path to significance involved causing a sensation in class or among his friends with some unexpected statement; his internet activity was an attempt to carve out some unique place for himself. Ultimately, he acted out. . . .
A lot of folks are passing out the paranoid schiz dianosis. . . . I think it's more deliberate and rational. Just a lonely boy looking for his place. . . . his fame. . . . in all the wrong ways.
reading Hitler and Marx and everybody else, just so he could impress . . . . whoever.
The telling thing. . . . he actually expected a rational respectful response from a politician????
So if I may, as someone who has read maybe five books on economics aside from Econ 101, just ask: Did Keynes believe the gov could run deficits for say 78 of 83 years with impunity? Did Milton Friedman believe that the gov could do anything good to help run an economy? And why are the Austrians to be feared?
Offhand, even the Brit gov is taking care to keep their debt within a margin they consider manageable, meaning I think their debt is less than one years GNP. If that were my debt I'd think I was doing well, but a house costs three years' income more or less. . . . The Germans are doing very well remembering the lessons of the Post WWI era, while all of the countries with more relaxed attitudes for some decades are on the ropes now because of it.
What would be your major policy if it were in your hands to set the priorities?
Imma stick my neck out as I'm not sure you sincere.
1. Keynes. No. See Paul Krugman's "Wonkish" post against the heterodox MMT/Chartalist notions of our govt. printing whatever they want. That'll represent Keynes good enough. https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2...hing-for-stimulus-but-i-wont-do-that-wonkish/
2. Friedman. No. He is largely responsible for the modern system (open money flows). According to Friedman, Fed interest rate are meant to do the job when necessary. The floating rate system was supposed to work as a feedback mechanism that smooths the cycle, but that has failed. To name names, see China, Germany, and Japan. Friedman had some deficit spending ideas, but they required an entirely new banking system. He threw around ideas but never completed many. He promoted full-reserve banking at one time to avoid the problem Vinylone will tell you about. Friedman, like any sane person who understands a basic theory of money, also would have gone for counter-cyclical govt. spending within the proper system. He realized it wasn't practical with popular opinion and congress' philandering ways.
3. I'll let Kicky answer your incorrect inference re Austrians. He said that's where the current intellectual argument is centered and nothing about fearing them (although I'm sure he could give you reasons why you should).
4. All debt is not created equal. There's no comparison between your debt and debt of an entity that is paid in a currency they print. When you borrow money in the currency your Lexmark spits out then you'll have a starting point.
5. Germans. Mercantilism policies create huge problems. While the right praises Germany for their tax policy, it creates huge imbalances, both inside the Eurozone and out, that will have to be equalized sooner or later. Ask low powered Greece what they think about Germany's tax policy that effectively subsidized exports. You're not a fan of subsidizing business production are you? Huge trade imbalances end in world wars and great depressions. Careful what you praise.
So since I think I'm the guilty party from another thread, you're welcome to enlarge upon your reason if you want. Don't get me wrong, I know some serious marxists of differing stripes. Some read Marx and just feel betrayed by the statist versions of "communism"; some really do follow the party line laid down by Castro or other strong-man leaders. Don't think I won't be willing to hear your case. There's been a few times when I was wandering in a jungle when some marxists of some particular rural stripe picked me up and gave me a ride, even a meal, in exchange for the simple task of having me as a listener.
Shall I start a thread on the origins and purposes of Marxism?
Maybe another on the origins and purposes of Fascism?
How about world-stage puppeteer operations?
yes, it was a sincere question. Having noted some posters in here with some actual education to share.
On point 5, my direct experience with Germans will allow that Germans work hard for low wages, and are frugal shoppers in broad terms. I will also accept that German business also has a large sway over their national policies including tax. I guess I think Japan and China might be gearing up for war, too. I recognize the term Mercantilism as something I think the English practiced in the general span from the British Far East Trading Company days on to the twentieth century or so. Wasn 't that the force behind pax brittainica? And wasn't it pretty much the same thing behind the American-dominated era since then?
Still, it does smack as something like my father wanting to be a multimillionaire so bad he made my mom and her kids live like paupers. . . .
On point 4, I checked my Primer on Govt Spending by Heilbroner and found him arguing that national debt is ok cuz we owe it to ourselves. Problem is, I don't owe it to me, I owe it to Rockefeller and a few others. . . . . and to the Chinese and other nations nowadays. . . . in addition to a lot of people's 401(k)s I guess. That book was written in the 1960s. I like your example of all debt not being created equal.
I know Lyndon LaRouche takes a dim view of Friedman. Is he one of those "Austrian" types? He talks about govt credit being issued in large quantities for public works projects which he argues will increase our productivity. . . .
Brigham Young issued notes on good faith from the LDS tithing office which people used to good effect where there was little real currency. People rolled outta bed and went to work and grew crops and made clothes and tools, raised cattle and made wagons, and at the end of the day people had food and stuff they needed. A lot of folks don't realize the influence of a Utah Mormon banker named Eccles who was chosen by FDR as Fed Chariman, who sorta did the same thing during his time in the Fed. Maybe a slightly different idea than Keynes, maybe some common elements.
But I'm taking notes. Hope Kicky will come here soon, and VinylOne.