Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/9/11 07:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In the wake of the Giffords shooting, many have been raising the issue of vitriol in politics.

Two questions:

Do you believe this had any effect on the shooter?

No, he was a psycho that killed 6 people and shot a Congresswoman, that's the only thing political about the shooting itself. The rammifactions of this is a different story, but that's for another day.

Has politics become dangerously caustic? If so, what should be done about it?

Politics is a dirty business, no doubt about that, but compared to politics in Africa or Russia, American politics are much tamer and not as violent, with this being an exception to the rule. There is really nothing we can do to stop something like this from happening in the future, we can only hope that it doesn't get any worse from here.

At 1/10/11 06:22 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Just don't confuse "left wing nuts" with liberals. And we won't consider "right wing nuts" as examples of conservatism. K?

Your words don't mean a whole lot when a young man who was an athiest, regarded the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite readings, and who burned the American flag, shot a Democrat congresswoman and killed a conservative judge, suddenly provokes left wingers to bitch and whine "It's the Republican's fault!"

At 1/11/11 12:52 AM, Memorize wrote: Your words don't mean a whole lot when a young man who was an athiest, regarded the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite readings, and who burned the American flag, shot a Democrat congresswoman and killed a conservative judge, suddenly provokes left wingers to bitch and whine "It's the Republican's fault!"

Well, of course. If a left winger suddenly shoots a liberal congressman...well, he OBVIOUSLY started listening to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh...

At 1/9/11 11:22 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, the most important thing we can do at this point is to find out why he did it. We need to understand his feelings and mindset before we know exactly who to blame for making him to this. With any luck, the rest of society will change its behavior to prevent people from having violent impulses.

Yeah the problem is people are stupid and would rather just throw the death penalty at people like him.

At 1/11/11 03:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Well, of course. If a left winger suddenly shoots a liberal congressman...well, he OBVIOUSLY started listening to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh...

Don't forget Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, the Tea Party, and Fox News.

At 1/11/11 03:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/11/11 12:52 AM, Memorize wrote: Your words don't mean a whole lot when a young man who was an athiest, regarded the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite readings, and who burned the American flag, shot a Democrat congresswoman and killed a conservative judge, suddenly provokes left wingers to bitch and whine "It's the Republican's fault!"

Well, of course. If a left winger suddenly shoots a liberal congressman...well, he OBVIOUSLY started listening to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh...

The congresswoman who was shot was not considered to be a liberal at all, more like a blue dog(Moderate) democrat, so get your facts straight.

And since when did Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh advocate for the assassinations of democratic congressmen? I mean, just because they're ultra-right wingers doesn't mean that they wish death upon a few democrats in Congress.

At 1/11/11 09:02 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: And since when did Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh advocate for the assassinations of democratic congressmen? I mean, just because they're ultra-right wingers doesn't mean that they wish death upon a few democrats in Congress.

Dude, it doesn't matter to the uber-left partisan hack jackasses. Of course it is all Glenn's, Rush's, Palin's, and the Tea Party's fault for everything. They don't care, as long as they can make bullshit political points out of a tragedy like the Arizona shooting.

At 1/10/11 05:06 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Haha, it sounds familiar. The guy was screaming to be noticed. Maybe youtube makes it easy to put yourself out there.

Yes and no. It gives you the illusion that you're putting yourself out there, but if nobody cares it hardly even matters. You're just a little dot on the hard disk of some server farm and a URL on the Internet.

I hope no would-be assassins post on this forum.

Lots of people here may be rambling idiots, but most of them are probably stable rambling idiots.

Many people are obsessed with fame and being noticed in the US, for one. Blogs, youtube, forums, it's easier than ever to put yourself out there, but everyone else is out there too. If you're looking to differentiate yourself in a culture that values standing out, and not necessarily in a positive way, your desire to be recognized may bring you to extremes. Could you see it happening?

This impulse is nothing new; see: Herostratus.

At 1/9/11 11:57 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: give state agents liscence to become even more autonomous from their subjects.

I stopped reading there.

It will give agencies license (by that I assume you mean reasoning), to become 'autonomous' from those who 'lived under the state'.

The State does not govern itself. It is a system of governance that 'lays down the law' on other people.

Autonomy is defined as for the individual.

Self governance
Self guidance
and Self control.

Autonomous societies are known as 'states of nature'.

Whoever taught you that idea needs either a kick in the head, or you just need to listen properly...

Or you just need to explain it better, in which case it is my fault, and I apologize for any harm done.

How can a state become autonomous from the people it governs?

That doesn't really make sense.

At 1/10/11 07:39 PM, Proteas wrote: Look at this guy's hobbies and what people in his personal life are saying about him and then tell me he's not a left winger. Tell me that his ideaology didn't play some part in all this.

let's see..

the "some student said he was a liberal" claim came from one person on twitter who hadn't seen him in three years. she did say that she remembered him as a liberal. she later elaborated on this by saying that he was more libertarian, but definitely socially liberal and that he was very different from the man he became today.

i find it interesting that some have mentioned that the Communist Manifesto was included on his favorite reading list and yet neglect to include the books from the rest of his reading list like Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Ayn Rand's We The Living. Hitler and Ayn Rand, as you may know, were ardently anti-communist . We the Living was a statement against communism!

The rest of his list can be found on his youtube channel, someone posted a link to it upthread.

also,, described by a man who sat behind him in a poetry class the previous semester described him as a "troubled young man" and "emotionally underdeveloped." There was an incident in the class where after another student read a poem about getting an abortion, Loughner compared the young woman to a "terrorist for killing the baby." Not exactly a left-wing position either.

then there is his political affiliation, according to this, he was a registered Independent and did not vote in the 2010 election.

he also seems to hold an anti-government stance, as he made a statement in a YouTube video that said "the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar." he also seemed obsessed with currency and the gold standard. i don't think the advocation of the gold standard was a left-wing position.

considering this evidence, it looks more like he was all over the place, i really don't think we can pin a simple left-wing or right-wing label on him. i do note that there are some trying to cherry-pick evidence to claim he was a left-winger while at the same time complaining about people who are trying to tie him to the right-wing. oh, the hypocrisy.

so what was he really? eh, i'll just go with what the first person who replied ITT said and say that he was clearly insane.

At 1/11/11 06:55 PM, Powerage wrote: considering this evidence, it looks more like he was all over the place,

^This^

i really don't think we can pin a simple left-wing or right-wing label on him.

I agree. However, tell that to ideologues like Paul Krugman and Jane Fonda, who have both tried to blame this incident on Republicans/Sarah Palin/Tea Party.

i do note that there are some trying to cherry-pick evidence to claim he was a left-winger while at the same time complaining about people who are trying to tie him to the right-wing. oh, the hypocrisy.

I agree with this. But at least we know that SOME (not all or a majority) on the Left started the cherry-picking. Oh, those hypocrites.

so what was he really? eh, i'll just go with what the first person who replied ITT said and say that he was clearly insane.

Exactly.

At 1/11/11 06:42 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 1/9/11 11:57 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: give state agents liscence to become even more autonomous from their subjects.

I stopped reading there.

It will give agencies license (by that I assume you mean reasoning), to become 'autonomous' from those who 'lived under the state'.

The State does not govern itself. It is a system of governance that 'lays down the law' on other people.

Autonomy is defined as for the individual.

Self governance
Self guidance
and Self control.

Autonomous societies are known as 'states of nature'.

Whoever taught you that idea needs either a kick in the head, or you just need to listen properly...

Wanna kick yourself in the head?

Autonomy defined (at dictionary.com) has three definitions:
1. independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.
2. the condition of being autonomous; self-government, or the right of self-government; independence: The rebels demanded autonomy from Spain.
3. a self-governing community.

You only think autonomy can be defined for the individual, but what about for a corporation, government or other organization?

If you look at the first meaning it simply means the independence to act according to one's will. So a government that has autonomy is one that is free to act according to its own will or desire. In a republic governments are not autonomous, but rather their ability to act is not constrained by their own will or desires but rather by some guiding legal document and/or political philosophy which constrains them by the will of their people.

So Smilez was absolutely correct to use the word "autonomous" to make his point that some will use this tragedy to distance themselves from those who elected them to office.

At 1/11/11 06:55 PM, Powerage wrote:

Sorry to nitpick...because I do agree with your conclusion but...

i find it interesting that some have mentioned that the Communist Manifesto was included on his favorite reading list and yet neglect to include the books from the rest of his reading list like Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Ayn Rand's We The Living. Hitler and Ayn Rand, as you may know, were ardently anti-communist . We the Living was a statement against communism!

Yes Hitler was fought the USSR but this doesn't mean he was ardently anti-communist. Much like Loughner he took pieces of differing political philosophies and hammered them into a Frankenstein political philosophy. In fact Hitler was very socialistic when it came to domestic policy. The Autobahn was envisioned as a way of allowing the common "volk" to move about Germany to more freely work and vacation. Also, ever wonder where the name Volkswagon comes from? It literally means: "People's Car". The VW "bug" was designed by the Nazis to be a cheap car for the masses.

So actually...Hitler can be viewed as either Right or Left wing.

he also seems to hold an anti-government stance, as he made a statement in a YouTube video that said "the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar." he also seemed obsessed with currency and the gold standard. i don't think the advocation of the gold standard was a left-wing position.

1. Being anti-government is not only a right-wing position. Many on the Left are anti-government and either want to change the system to something far left (inclusive of violent means ie: revolution) or take governments down completely (anarchists/extreme Communists).
2. The gold standard is a tricky thing to make either Left or Right. After all...it was Nixon who got us off the gold standard (and he was hardly a "liberal").

considering this evidence, it looks more like he was all over the place, i really don't think we can pin a simple left-wing or right-wing label on him. i do note that there are some trying to cherry-pick evidence to claim he was a left-winger while at the same time complaining about people who are trying to tie him to the right-wing. oh, the hypocrisy.

The thing is as I read the mainstream punditry very, very few on the Right are trying to make him out as a Left-winger. I watched Beck on Monday just to see how he would handle it and he said what you said: Loughner is not a Left-wing nutjob or Right-wing nutjob...but just a nutjob.

Meanwhile you have the Sheriff of Pima County making speculative statements on an on-going criminal investigation tying his actions to talk-radio and "incivility" in American politics.

Then economist turned political scientist Paul Krugman coined the term "eliminationist" before having any facts.

Then you have the American apologist Michael Tomasky writing for the UK paper The Guardian about how "Hate & Rage" is a genetic disorder suffered by anyone who votes against his ideology.

Now let's talk about policy makers.

I expected this. Gun controlers usually seize upon such tragedies to push emotional legislation that will no more save lives than banning depression will make mentally ill ppl healthy.

But what really scares the ever living HELL out of me is THIS.

What I have yet to see (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Right-wing/Conservative/Libertarian policy makers capitalizing on the deaths of the shooting victims to limit our civil liberties and freedoms.

At 1/10/11 06:31 PM, blackattackbitch wrote:

At 1/10/11 05:16 PM, Proteas wrote: *blows referee whistle*

TIME OUT!!

The only people here pointing fingers are (1) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, and (2) the media.

... Directly after the incident was first reported and before the Sheriff spoke, I visited many sites discussing this issue. Almost every single thread discussing this incident devolved into a game of finger-pointing, with the exception of Newgrounds ... . This might just be a symptom of the internet community that's especially crazy when something even the least bit political is mentioned, but when it's that widespread, it's hard to consider them isolated opinions. ...

I've edited the quotes for brevity's sake.

I have thought about you original post and Proteas' reply a lot over the past few days.

I agree w/Proteas that there was many, many ppl who jumped on the band wagon and used this tragedy to score political points against the other. Specifically, it was commentators on the Left who are exploiting the event to score political/rhetorical points against Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Parties.

That said, I think you make an interesting point that on the web and in forums it turned into a very partisan fight. However, if you look at the major commentators in the mainstream "old" media (ie: Fox, CNN, MSNBC on TV and The New York Times newspapers) it is predominately the Left using this as a means to attack the Right. Pima County Sherrif Clarence Dupnik (a Democrat and vocal opponent of Tea Parties and Immigration reform) touched this off by blaming talk-radio and Right-wing commentators as creating a vitriolic political climate. Then Paul Krugman coined the term "eliminationist" for the rhetoric of ppl such as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin's to motivate ppl to vote out legislators who do not agree with them. Here are a few things from his commentary:

"It's true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn't mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate."

Really Paul? It doesn't matter that the guy was a totally deranged individual who began obsessing over the Congresswoman in 2007 before anyone knew about Sarah Palin or the Tea Parties?

So the truth that the individual was not influenced by the "national climate" should be disregarded because you think there is a chance of violence (no matter how insignificant) from the right?

"Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance: it's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It's hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be "armed and dangerous" without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P."

This is more hypocracy. We have Democratic lawmakers wishing that Palin had been on a plane that crashed killing an Alaskan lawmaker...then lamenting that she would actually be more dangerous dead than alive. You have Obama talking about the other side bringing a knife to a political fight so his side should bring a gun. He's also talked about punishing Democratic enemies and "kicking ass".

Then in the 1960s you have Leftist revolutionaries actually killing cops and planting bombs at military buildings. Now these ppl are professors teaching that violence may become necessary to achieve political means.

The hypocracy or naivete or just plain lying is sickening.

But if you look at the heavy-hitting, mainstream commentators there is a major public affairs campaign on the part of the Left to use this as a means to acheive rhetorical points on the opposition and advance policy.

It is the last that is most scary. Rep Brady wants to make it a criminal act to use speech that can be misconstrued to incite violence to be ajudged as threatening to members of Congress. This scares me more than the idiotic attempts by a democratic Congresswoman (blanking on her name) to put restrictions on the size of handgun magazines.

So while yes there are ppl on the Right in the blogosphere who may be going on the offensive I think it is largely an offensive (both as a military term and its insulting usage) campaign by the Left against the Right. Now I think it is purely defensive on the part of the Right. Furthermore, what public policy agendas can the Right pursue in light of this tragedy?

What is particularly depressing is that all we're getting on this side of the world is a lot of 'gunsight maps' and 'she said Palin would get her killed last year', and I know for a fact a lot of people I know do not have the common sense to compare this to other tragedies committed by people suffering from serious undiagnosed delusions and presumably a level of psychopathy.

like really, even though Derrick Bird killed 12 people and himself in Cumbria, UK last year and we didn't give a shit

and every time it's reported here and discussed here like 'aren't Americans so silly', like V-tech - 'oh me oh my, why don't they get rid of handguns', or this Tucson thing 'why don't they get rid of free speech', when you don't need to make radical changes to your human rights because there exist people who can't be trusted with them

like it always gets twisted into some distorted picture of the truth, like some 'UK has nothing to learn from America' thing, and I betcha a majority of people in the UK would think Palin shoulders some responsibility for this event and would even agree that political discourse in the USA needs toning down

but if you ask them about spree killers in a month's time they'll be like 'no understanding them, crazy people', like a normal person would think, but they're willing to suspend disbelief because the national press is telling them that it's all because Palin had some gunsights on a map and omg Giffords even said that this discourse is unhealthy, aren't the Tea Party all crazy, jeez we'd never vote for them in Hammersmith, I hope Palin doesn't stop Jesus from lasting all eight years

yeah you should look at the reporting from another country

Also does anyone really care that Palin (who we over here appear to view basically as a stupd white-trash ultra-Christian Satan) used the phrase 'blood libel' to describe accusations that she was responsible? Because I think it's a nice turn of phrase, tbh, but I suppose it has an anti-semetic history. But it's not like she was saying anything directly negative about the Jews, she was just saying that she was being called responsible for blood, which is libellous.

At 1/12/11 07:56 AM, TheMason wrote

So actually...Hitler can be viewed as either Right or Left wing.

It depends on your definition of left and right, but he was strongly anti-communistic. He argued for class collaboration, communism is about removing the classes and surely not through collaboration. I mean, even if you manage to fit some definition of socialism in there in that the means of production were state owned (though it was a dictatorship, so not publicly owned, therefore not socialistic), there's no way you can connect nazism with communism; not even with stalinism and the like (and I know that you are familiar with why stalinism isn't communism as mentioned above, you've been around long enough to know that).

So basically, while you MIGHT fit in some skewed version of socialism in nazism, Hitler was clearly anti-communistic in every way. Communism is largely about class war, regardless of race, while Hitler was all about race war, and class war was opposite to his ideas on class collaboration.

At 1/12/11 05:20 PM, Earfetish wrote: Also does anyone really care that Palin (who we over here appear to view basically as a stupd white-trash ultra-Christian Satan) used the phrase 'blood libel' to describe accusations that she was responsible? Because I think it's a nice turn of phrase, tbh, but I suppose it has an anti-semetic history. But it's not like she was saying anything directly negative about the Jews, she was just saying that she was being called responsible for blood, which is libellous.

Blood Libel

Palin is not the first person on the right to use the term. Furthermore, as I've researched the term I think it is actually very apt for the situation. The Left, led by Paul Krugman, barely waited for the blood to be mopped up before they started placing blame on the right's rhetoric while ignoring similar rhetoric from their own side.

Furthermore, they are using this to advance policy initiatives regarding gun control and (even more frightening) restrictions on political speech (the main speech protected by the 1st Amendment).

Blood libel simply means a group or individual being falsely held response for either actual or imagined murders and/or ritualistic sacrifices.

That is what the Left, predominately, is doing and it is disgusting.

At 1/12/11 05:37 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: At 1/12/11 07:56 AM, TheMason wrote

So actually...Hitler can be viewed as either Right or Left wing.

It depends on your definition of left and right, but he was strongly anti-communistic.

He was also strongly anti-capitalist. This was my point; Hitler was a nutjob who was able to translate a fractured and self-contradicting political philosophy into a national movement.

As such I can see how someone can read the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf and gel them into a totally fucked-up worldview. Afterall this guy (Jared Lee Loughner) appears to have been an occultist, believed the government was using grammer for mind control, one could acheive better living through grammer and believed in a dream reality that mirrored reality.

At 1/12/11 05:37 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: It depends on your definition of left and right, but he was strongly anti-communistic.

Being anti-communist doesn't make Hitler right-wing. There are in fact many different 'far-left' ideologies that are totally incompatible to one another. 'Left' and 'right' is just a convenient simplification.

I mean, even if you manage to fit some definition of socialism in there in that the means of production were state owned (though it was a dictatorship, so not publicly owned, therefore not socialistic),

Only some of the means of production was state owned. German businesses still existed and in fact worked with the Nazi government.

there's no way you can connect nazism with communism

Except for the fact that in both, the state exercised absolute power (-- and of course when I mean 'communism', I refer to the use of the term in practice, not the ideal society) and that both emphasized collective welfare over that of the individual. Their goals were different -- obviously -- but they utilized similar means to achieve their ends.

At 1/12/11 08:37 PM, TheMason wrote: He was also strongly anti-capitalist.

Hitler wasn't anti-capitalist. Of course, he didn't exactly believe in a free market, but there were still businesses in Nazi Germany. He was generally ignorant of (or unconcerned with) economics, and consequently treated them as secondary to the interests of the state. At times, he was a pragmatist; at others, a complete idiot.

As such I can see how someone can read the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf and gel them into a totally fucked-up worldview.

Many people read both and end up just fine. A book is just a book. And anyone who holds both texts as valid must not be right in the head for the simple reason that Hitler actually rails against the communists throughout his entire book. It even has a chapter called, "Das Ringen mit der roten Front" (Wrestling with the Red front) where he chronicles his early dealings with them.

Chances are, he probably didn't even read through either of them and is just an angsty kid who listed them as his favorites so he could appear edgy and knowledgeable. The media just latched onto this little tidbit of information because it makes him look like a radical, and of course every warm-blooded American knows that communists are scary and evil. If someone like me couldn't finish either book (simply because they were so boring to read), then I doubt some crazy kid who can't even construct a logical if-then statement would be able to complete them, let alone comprehend them.

Neither book is worth reading anyway. Mein Kampf is just some garbage about Hitler's experiences and worldview -- there's no inspiration to be found in it, it's just rubbish. The Communist Manifesto just posits a theory of history and then goes on to some ideological rambling and petty moralizing; if you really took some time to analyze it you can probably dismiss most of it.

At 1/13/11 09:04 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 1/12/11 08:37 PM, TheMason wrote: He was also strongly anti-capitalist.

Hitler wasn't anti-capitalist. Of course, he didn't exactly believe in a free market, but there were still businesses in Nazi Germany. He was generally ignorant of (or unconcerned with) economics, and consequently treated them as secondary to the interests of the state. At times, he was a pragmatist; at others, a complete idiot.

Hitler was an odd duck. If something impacted his life in a negative way he tended to be against it. For example he was a victim of a Mustard gas attack in WWII. Thus when German chemists came up the G-Series of nerve agents he would never authorize the use of Chemical Weapons.

Thus with economics he had suffered as a starving artist and grew up in less than opulent surroundings and this had a definite effect on him. Thus his political philosophy sought a "third way" between Communism and Capitalism.

As such I can see how someone can read the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf and gel them into a totally fucked-up worldview.

Many people read both and end up just fine. A book is just a book. And anyone who holds both texts as valid must not be right in the head for the simple reason that Hitler actually rails against the communists throughout his entire book.

You miss the point a little. My point was when someone is as severely mentally ill as Loughner is, their mind can make fantastical leaps and connections that can be contradictory. I mean this is a dude who told his teacher: "You say it's a 6, and I'm saying its 18." I'm just saying its a sign of just how fucked up his "philosophy" has become.

At 1/13/11 10:18 PM, TheMason wrote: Hitler was an odd duck. If something impacted his life in a negative way he tended to be against it.

So would anybody else. If you felt wronged by someone or something, even for completely ludicrous reasons -- or just needed a scapegoat to direct your frustration -- it would be perfectly explainable.

Of course, he took this to an entirely new level. Hitler blamed the Jews for his (and Germany's) problems -- in Nazi racial ideology, the Jews were not only labeled as inferior, but even parasitic and evil. Philosophers called this sort of hatred ressentiment.

For example he was a victim of a Mustard gas attack in WWII. Thus when German chemists came up the G-Series of nerve agents he would never authorize the use of Chemical Weapons.

Which, of course, was a move that made no sense militarily.

Thus with economics he had suffered as a starving artist and grew up in less than opulent surroundings and this had a definite effect on him. Thus his political philosophy sought a "third way" between Communism and Capitalism.

Hitler was no philosopher, much less an economist. The whole idea of a 'third way' is a farce -- it was just the bending of the national economy to serve the needs of the state. For example, it made no sense economically to nationalize industries and collectivize agriculture, and laissez faire policies did not conform to the aims of a fascist dictatorship. The 'third way' is just authoritarian centrism that arose simply because Hitler never really thought the economy was all that important at all.

You miss the point a little. My point was when someone is as severely mentally ill as Loughner is, their mind can make fantastical leaps and connections that can be contradictory. I mean this is a dude who told his teacher: "You say it's a 6, and I'm saying its 18." I'm just saying its a sign of just how fucked up his "philosophy" has become.

I still don't think the books give him any ideas. As you said, he was already making completely illogical connections in other subjects. (Also, everything he writes in the videos follows this pattern: "X implies Y. X is true. Therefore, Y is true." But you probably know this already.) It was only a matter of time before he ended up doing something drastic.

I doubt he actually read them. Mein Kampf is flat-out boring. A reader who is not intimately familiar with the history of the era Hitler lived in will not even understand what the author is talking about half the time, and even if he does manage to decipher it, he would be unable to relate to any of Hitler's supposed experiences anyway. The Communist Manifesto is an easier read, but it's still rather dull and I doubt this guy was able to draw any conclusions from it, seeing as how he is evidently confused as to how to arrive at any conclusion in the first place.

He also listed The Republic and The Odyssey as among his favorites. Given his lack of critical thinking ability and his odd, imperfect use of language, as well as my own experiences of trying to read some of these texts, I think he just name-dropped the books. I tried to read Mein Kampf and eventually gave up on it, and I only read maybe the first chapter of the manifesto. I wouldn't put them on my favorites list if I didn't complete it, unless maybe if I wanted to appear intellectual and sophisticated.

(Admittedly, I do sometimes bring up Nietzsche here and there, but only when it's somewhat relevant and when I've actually read the work in question.)

Of course, this is all just speculation. We'll never know all the details.

At 1/12/11 05:20 PM, Earfetish wrote: Also does anyone really care that Palin (who we over here appear to view basically as a stupd white-trash ultra-Christian Satan) used the phrase 'blood libel' to describe accusations that she was responsible? Because I think it's a nice turn of phrase, tbh, but I suppose it has an anti-semetic history. But it's not like she was saying anything directly negative about the Jews, she was just saying that she was being called responsible for blood, which is libellous.

She certainly wasn't accused of the actual murder or of grinding children into her Matzah (which is what the blood libel typically refers to), so it isn't 100% appropriate, but I see where you're all coming from if you're saying its kind of close. Because it is kind of close; but it isn't the same at all either.

No intelligent person said she caused this, but some nuts did say her rhetoric contributed to an atmosphere that made it possible, and that's something entirely different from accusing a person of actual murder, which was always connected with the phrase blood libel.

That said, less than 50% of self described republicans take this woman seriously. The only reason she keeps coming up is because she's an easy news story and a lightning rod for controversy. Somehow she managed to actually be a nexus point for political commentary. You either hate her or love her, and that makes her a great trick for our sensationalist news society.

The way I look at Palin is the way I look at Final Fantasy VII and video game nerds. Its roughly the same reaction.

Somewhat serious political bloggers have taken up the mantra "everytime a reporter writes a story about Palin, God kills another kitten." But the page views!

At 1/11/11 09:02 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: The congresswoman who was shot was not considered to be a liberal at all, more like a blue dog(Moderate) democrat, so get your facts straight.

And since when did Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh advocate for the assassinations of democratic congressmen? I mean, just because they're ultra-right wingers doesn't mean that they wish death upon a few democrats in Congress.

It's called sarcasm. It mocks the idea to get a point across.

Please tell me this was a failed attempt to be ironic?

At 1/12/11 05:37 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: It depends on your definition of left and right, but he was strongly anti-communistic.

He was also strongly anti-capitalism. Communists were a specific party in Germany. So being anti-communist was not disagreeing with their philosophy, but fighting a rival party.

He argued for class collaboration, communism is about removing the classes and surely not through collaboration. I mean, even if you manage to fit some definition of socialism in there in that the means of production were state owned (though it was a dictatorship, so not publicly owned, therefore not socialistic), there's no way you can connect nazism with communism; not even with stalinism and the like (and I know that you are familiar with why stalinism isn't communism as mentioned above, you've been around long enough to know that).

Even most communists regarded Hitler as a hybrid who would bring about Communism in Germany. Given that state control of every aspect of the economy is not terribly different than state ownership, it's not a stretch to compare the two,

So basically, while you MIGHT fit in some skewed version of socialism in nazism, Hitler was clearly anti-communistic in every way. Communism is largely about class war, regardless of race, while Hitler was all about race war, and class war was opposite to his ideas on class collaboration.

There's many problems with this:

1. The attack on the Jews was more an economic than religious or racial one. Jews were seen as outsiders, running in and taking all the German money, Jews were blamed for the treaty of Versallies and were seen as benefitting from German misfortune.
2. Hating the Jews is consistent with socialism, as the Russians were deeply anti-Semetic too.
3. Socialism was hardly "skewed" in Nazism, as Hitler and the Nazis were virulently anti-capitalist and anti-business. Many of Hitler's proposals in his speeches were about improving the plight of the working class against the rich ones.

It's pretty clear that Hitler was a racist socialist, and not a deviation from socialism at all.

We don't know if the guy was politically motivated, but Sarah Palin was moronic in her decision to literally put cross-hairs across the candidates.

Just my thinking.

At 1/18/11 10:18 AM, Athos wrote: We don't know if the guy was politically motivated, but Sarah Palin was moronic in her decision to literally put cross-hairs across the candidates.

No she wasn't. I'm no big Palin fan (I won't be voting for her in the primary), but fair is fair. The kind of 'inflammatory' rhetoric she 'spewed' is a staple in American politics. In 2008 the Democrats posted a map with targets on states where they thought they should focus their campaign efforts.

Now I've heard ppl talk away the Dem's map as there being a fundamental difference between cross-hairs and targets. But I think that dismissal is self-serving, hypocritical and (most of all) as idiotic as the Palin supporter who tried to pass off the cross-hairs as "surveyor" cross-hairs instead of gun cross-hairs.

I'll hesitantly join Alex Jone's camp and say that Laughner was a CIA, manchurian-candidate style brainwashed assassin.

On a more serious note, if this conversation proves anything, it proves that the left right dichotomy is broken and serves to obfuscate more than it does elucidate.

Secondly, even if Laughner was an ardent tea-party-sarah-palin-loving-'fiscal-con servative', Do you think anyone in the fairly broad liberty camp is actually *Glad* that this event occured? That a national tragedy is being used so predictably and opportunistically as a spring board to shame the American Cattle into silence and further expand the powers of the state?

It seems to me that it's our friends the Statists who are jumping for joy at the fact that this woman almost died.

At 1/19/11 11:25 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: It seems to me that it's our friends the Statists who are jumping for joy at the fact that this woman almost died.

The first way to attack an opponent is to dehumanize them. You calling an entire group of people Statists and lumping them together with some sort of "mind-meld-plot" is a practice of the same type you're speaking against.

Vitriol in politics can just be boiled down to the human condition and humanity's xenophobic vein of thought.

I wouldn't say this guy belonged to any one group or that he was particularly following any one stratagem. As an individual, he seemed to be aligned with anti-statist sentiments towards the end of his emotional spiral; and a confused one at that. But I wouldn't imply that meant all statists were ready to go and murder a congress woman. He railed against our banking system; the fed; burned the flag, etc.

The only thing about vitriol that should worry us as a people, is the moment it becomes unavoidably decisive. At that point, only a war and a lot of real suffering would diminish our hate other worries enough for us to just move in.

If the American people are lacking anything right now, it is perspective. And that's what happens when the people who experienced the problems die off and leave their children without an emotive experience that's comparable.