GOP Congressman shot at baseball practice, Gunman likely dead

[rexlunae]

The left will not go quietly into the night.

I hope you wouldn't expect them to.

 

[rexlunae]

:nono: They guy was criminally insane, NOT politically motivated.

Honestly, this looks like the desperation it is:
Loughner was about as politically motivated as Chapman was hating "Give Peace a Chance." :nono:

Nope, that's too easy. He wasn't insane. He clearly had a strong political motivation...influenced by toxic masculinity and rage stoked by populism.

 

[rocketman]

I hope you wouldn't expect them to.

So, then are you ready for civil war? are you ready to trade lead with those you politically disagree with to compel them to agree with your worldview? It seems there are those on the left that do align with this viewpoint which proves that the left are violent marxist/socialists, or at least that there is a violent sect on the left that is ready & willing to start a civil war , and that is exactly what this is starting to look like. The right will not go quietly either...

 

[Lon]

Nope, that's too easy. He wasn't insane. He clearly had a strong political motivation...influenced by toxic masculinity and rage stoked by populism.

Seen a lot of people with opinion on this. It seems clear to me he was paranoid schizophrenic and heavily ruined mentally by drugs. He didn't wind up in a mental institution, but such things make him a different kind of discussion than political in my mind.

 

[rexlunae]

So, then are you ready for civil war? are you ready to trade lead with those you politically disagree with to compel them to agree with your worldview? It seems there are those on the left that do align with this viewpoint which proves that the left are violent marxist/socialists, or at least that there is a violent sect on the left that is ready & willing to start a civil war , and that is exactly what this is starting to look like. The right will not go quietly either...

There are quite a few graduations between "not going quietly into the night" and "going to war". Are there principles I would fight for, with violence if need be? Yes. Are we at that stage? No, I don't think so. And I would expect that most people on any side of the political spectrum would say the same. I don't know why anyone would think the other side, representing tens of millions of people, would just somehow disappear.

 

[rexlunae]

Seen a lot of people with opinion on this. It seems clear to me he was paranoid schizophrenic and heavily ruined mentally by drugs. He didn't wind up in a mental institution, but such things make him a different kind of discussion than political in my mind.

I haven't seen any evidence he was actually mentally ill, and it's too often where people go to explain away the violent choices people make. And even if he were deranged, the political motivation is still clear. I read through his facebook feed, and it really was frankly a lot like mine. I think he got caught up in te drama of the Trump era, and decided he wasn't going to wait for the process to work.

 

[musterion]

Seen a lot of people with opinion on this. It seems clear to me he was paranoid schizophrenic and heavily ruined mentally by drugs. He didn't wind up in a mental institution, but such things make him a different kind of discussion than political in my mind.

Lougner was found insane but also politically motivated. He didn't randomly shoot up a Sears or a daycare or a Denny's. He targeted a politician and also took out a judge and some others. To the degree that he knew what he wanted to do, he did what he set out to do.

Exact same thing with the guy yesterday.

 

[musterion]

From what I remember reading, Lougner had not been diagnosed until he was on trial. The court ordered he be put on antipsychotics in order to later determine whether he was even competent to stand trial. Does that mean he was not schizo before the murders? No. But he had political drives fueled by the Left's incessant hate during the Bush era culminating with Palin. Finally it tipped him into action.

We may never know if the guy yesterday was clinical, but he had much more in common with Lougner than conservatives...politically motivated hate that both chose to act on.

Remember the registered Democrat that flew his airplane into an IRS building? Same thing.

Do we really need to start a list of verified Democrat/Leftist violence versus verified Republican/conservative violence?

 

[musterion]

Did you prefer Obama's temple-like Greek columns, or video of black people praying, by name, TO Obama, or the comedian who called Obama his lord and savior, or the women shrieking that Obama was going to take care of them out of his stash, or Obama inciting violence?

We would be getting things very similar right now, possibly worse, had Trump lost.

I suggest you enjoy America's last few moments in the dimming sun because it's not going to last.

 

[exminister]

No, it isn't. It's not about who gets targeted as much as who does the deed. Almost invariably, it's a leftist like yourself.

Loughner was a leftist radical according to his old school friend, and then psychotic.

Deep confirmation bias.
You are what's wrong with Americans. Extremes on both sides, left and right, are terrorist and/or crazy and will undo what the Founding Father set up and warned us about. Trump and the Republicans are manipulated by the extreme right and using it are to do things in darkness. They fear the light. They are not for the American people or transparency.

I was nauseous from the shooting yesterday. The shooter was not a leftist but crazy extremists and a terrorist. No better than any radical Islamist or Dylann Roof. Your No True Scotsman rhetoric is not helpful.

 

[musterion]

Deep confirmation bias.
You are what's wrong with Americans. Extremes on both sides, left and right, are terrorist and/or crazy and will undo what the Founding Father set up and warned us about. Trump and the Republicans are manipulated by the extreme right and using it are to do things in darkness. They fear the light. They are not for the American people or transparency.

I was nauseous from the shooting yesterday. The shooter was not a leftist but crazy extremists and a terrorist. No better than any radical Islamist or Dylann Roof. Your No True Scotsman rhetoric is not helpful.

Fake spin. Take it elsewhere, NeverWasaMinister. Someone who knew him well before the murders said he was a liberal and a radical. He's one of yours. So was your dead Bernie bro from yesterday.

 

[jeffblue101]

New York Times Resurrects Ugly Lie From 2011 In Editorial About Steve Scalise Shooting

In an editorial that was as predictable in its point as it was just sad, the New York Times used the shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise to once again call for gun control. However, that is not the controversy generated by their column – it was, as I said, predictable.

No, the scandal here is that the New York Times used a debunked myth or, rather, a straight-up, disproven lie to make the case that political rhetoric is a problem on both sides of the political aisle.

"Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs."

In 2011, the media, including the New York Times, was quick to jump on Palin’s graphic as the cause for Loughner’s rampage. The only problem is that Loughner was not a conservative seeking to stop a liberal agenda. He was a crazed leftist who was upset that Giffords would not take his calls.

It was proven virtually immediately after the media tried to tie the shooting to the Tea Party. No one disputed this, and the media dropped it.

Not content with just mentioning the lie again as truth, the Times doubles down mere sentences later.

"Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right."

 

[musterion]

liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

And risk losing the base that they deliberately fired up to the point of violence? Won't happen. They cannot go backwards now.

 

[exminister]

Did you prefer Obama's temple-like Greek columns, or video of black people praying, by name, TO Obama, or the comedian who called Obama his lord and savior, or the women shrieking that Obama was going to take care of them out of his stash, or Obama inciting violence?

We would be getting things very similar right now, possibly worse, had Trump lost.

I suggest you enjoy America's last few moments in the dimming sun because it's not going to last.

Just like Trumps first televised cabinet meeting. He has to tell or pay people to complement him. It must so get his goad that Obama had many people genuinely liking him

Well, it is that kind of attitude that will destroy America. Maybe you shouldn't hang so long in the dark side. America has gone through worse. Name a country you would rather be in.

 

[exminister]

Fake spin. Take it elsewhere, NeverWasaMinister. Someone who knew him well before the murders said he was a liberal and a radical. He's one of yours. So was your dead Bernie bro from yesterday.

No.

Then you get all the new-Nazi's, KKK, Dylann Roofs.

You are such a child.

 

[musterion]

You really want to start this list comparing leftist death tolls versus conservative death tolls? Are you really ready to be humiliated with that?

 

[rocketman]

There are quite a few graduations between "not going quietly into the night" and "going to war". Are there principles I would fight for, with violence if need be? Yes. Are we at that stage? No, I don't think so. And I would expect that most people on any side of the political spectrum would say the same. I don't know why anyone would think the other side, representing tens of millions of people, would just somehow disappear.

I guess my question is what specifically are you ready to violently fight for? The Constitution? or the right to dissolve it without an overwhelming consent of the governed? What we are seeing all over this country is a minority of the citizenry that believes that it can use violent insurrection to force it's worldview, and that is totally unacceptable. We do have a constitution, we do have laws, we do have a democratic government all defined by the former and it seems there is an entire sect that intends to undermine all of it. Well if this is what you are willing to fight for, the usurpation of our constitution, expect a fight. The "other side" as you say is on the wrong side of the law & of civil discourse within the laws of the country.

 

[rexlunae]

I guess my question is what specifically are you ready to violently fight for? The Constitution? or the right to dissolve it without an overwhelming consent of the governed?

It would depend on the specific circumstances. I don't actually think we have a very good Constitution. I do support the constitutional order, because I think it's still a bulwark for the protection of human rights. If Trump and the cast of Daily Stormer rejects he's brought into office with him successfully reverse that pattern over the long run, I'd fight it. All this talk about the "deep state" is corrosive to the Constitutional order, and it's emanating from the very top.

So, ultimately, human rights matter more to me than the Constitution. Don't cross the former with the later.

What we are seeing all over this country is a minority of the citizenry that believes that it can use violent insurrection to force it's worldview, and that is totally unacceptable.

Any movement starts with a minority, and I'm not sure what makes you think it's tiny.

We do have a constitution, we do have laws, we do have a democratic government all defined by the former and it seems there is an entire sect that intends to undermine all of it.

The Constitutionally established democracy has been under prolonged assault from people within the government structure. That precedes Trump, but he is the culmination of it. The 2016 Presidential election was the least democratic in American history, and he's acting like he has a mandate. What it exposes is a flaw in the Constitution. What it exposes is how undemocratic the system that we have can be. What it exposes is how ineffectual the imagined safety mechanisms in the Constitution are. And as Americans we need to work to fix those, if we can agree long enough to recognize the problems.

Well if this is what you are willing to fight for, the usurpation of our constitution, expect a fight. The "other side" as you say is on the wrong side of the law & of civil discourse within the laws of the country.

We will see which side has the balance of the law on their side. I would have disqualified Trump Constitutionally from being President when he refused to address the issue of emoluments adequately, but the people empowered to make that call, the electoral college and then the Congress, have shown very little interest in what the laws says. And ultimately, the law only works as well as the people whose duty it is to enforce it adhere to it.

 

[rocketman]

It would depend on the specific circumstances. I don't actually think we have a very good Constitution. I do support the constitutional order, because I think it's still a bulwark for the protection of human rights. If Trump and the cast of Daily Stormer rejects he's brought into office with him successfully reverse that pattern over the long run, I'd fight it. All this talk about the "deep state" is corrosive to the Constitutional order, and it's emanating from the very top.

So you are a subversive bent on the destruction of this nation under this constitution...nice to know who your enemy is.

So, ultimately, human rights matter more to me than the Constitution. Don't cross the former with the later.

What part of the U.S. Constitution violates human rights? "All men are created equal? or the Bill of Rights in general?

Any movement starts with a minority, and I'm not sure what makes you think it's tiny.

It is tiny, and just a disorganized violent rabble at this point....better arm yourself though because I will be, that I can assure you.

The Constitutionally established democracy has been under prolonged assault from people within the government structure.

Yes,under assault from marxist leftists that pine for socialism...nothing new here.

That precedes Trump, but he is the culmination of it.

Oh, it does precede him no doubt but, he is the anti-marxist left which really chaps you commies to your core.

The 2016 Presidential election was the least democratic in American history,

False... it is the same democratic system which has been used from the beginning, you just don't like it...tough beans. Outside of violent insurrection your minority is powerless to change it, and with your violence you will surely meet violence with those that are willing to fight for the constitution, and the nation that is formed under it. Good luck in that endeavor. :thumb:

and he's acting like he has a mandate.

He does have a mandate, the executive branch & both houses of congress to enact it as well. Sucks being in the minority doesn't it? It will take more than minor insurrection to form a strong enough army to violently overthrow this government formed under this constitution. The fact the left has resorted to it's violent side only proves they are bankrupt in the arena of ideas, and cannot form a cogent message that they can sell to the American people, and it was the reason you lost power to begin with. Quite a pickle I would say....

What it exposes is a flaw in the Constitution.

No, it exposes the strength of the constitution to resist minority rule, or the usurpation of the constitution by a minority voice.

What it exposes is how undemocratic the system that we have can be.

Why, because a fringe minority doesn't get it's way? Grow up!

What it exposes is how ineffectual the imagined safety mechanisms in the Constitution are. And as Americans we need to work to fix those, if we can agree long enough to recognize the problems.

What you see as problems I find to be "imagined", and you will find a majority or Americans don't see it your way as well. If people did agree with your world view outside of California maybe you could sell it to the masses, so far you haven't.

We will see which side has the balance of the law on their side. I would have disqualified Trump Constitutionally from being President when he refused to address the issue of emoluments adequately, but the people empowered to make that call, the electoral college and then the Congress, have shown very little interest in what the laws says. And ultimately, the law only works as well as the people whose duty it is to enforce it adhere to it.

Now that is funny, a liberal speaking of holding Trump to emoluments but, were perfectly willing to give a pass to a woman has broken the laws in numerous places, in numerous ways, and used government for the sole purpose of profit her entire career...you have no credibility with this statement at all but, it did make me laugh though...thank you for that.