"A staged incident to distract the media." Right.......
"If he had really intended to kill the congresswoman...."? I have read reports that she was shot through the temple. How much more intent to kill can one show? Jeezuz, Rivero is disgusting enough anyway, but how out of touch is he? A child was killed too, but for Rivero the shooter "hadn't really meant to kill the congresswoman". And a child's murder isn't as "attractive to the media" as that of a Congresswoman, according to Rivero.
So, instead of the child being a victim of one of those amongst Rivero's own audience ("the movement") rather he'd have us believe it is "staged" and "fake":-
The dead child was faked? What?
And nevermind that the shooter appears to have been fuelled by the very propaganda that Rivero lives off and which he describes as "the history the government doesn't want you to learn".....? This shooter was probably a big fan of Rivero and Alex Jones, and likely an adherent to the "ideas" that characterise and distinguish what they like to call "the movement". This "movement" (911 Troof, patriot movement) is essentially an american fascism - a populist ultranationalism based on conspiracy theory. (Amongst all the posts on the Arizona/Gifford shooting Rivero includes a link to a Google Translation of some Holocaust denial. Google translate your pro-Nazi history? Great stuff, Mr Rivero, I'm sure.)
Rivero also links to two articles from the Alex Jones stable (here and here), both of which seek to spin the Gifford shooting with a view to distancing themselves from any responsibility and even suggesting any such charges of responsibility are evidence of 'the establishment' exploiting the attacks to attack "the movement". It's all a setup see, and nothing to do with "the movement" at all. Well, of course, what else? [It's a neat way of escaping having to deal with any responsibility, isn't it? And notice how Rivero lacks any irony when he says this story will be everywhere and is being "spun" by everyone for their own ends? Nevermind he's doing it too?]
One of the articles ends
"Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirectSo, it's not people like this shooter who pose a threat, it's people like this shooter. Eh?
For the elite, the problem is not violence. It is the existence of and threat posed by a viable and growing constitutionalist movement that demands the Federal Reserve be closed down and the banksters responsible for the unfolding global economic crisis be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity."
The other Prisonplanet article, penned by the idiot Paul Watson, claims that
Despite the fact that Jared Lee Loughner was a psychotic loner with “left-wing” beliefs according to those who knew him, the establishment has hastily exploited yesterday’s tragic shooting in Tucson to demonize conservatives, libertarians and gun owners while ordering Americans to “tone down the rhetoric,” which is nothing more than a euphemism for stifling dissent and coercing people to roll over on Obamacare, bailouts and whatever big government is preparing to unleash next.So....the supposedly "leftwing" shooter attacked a "big govt. socialist Democrat"? And thus it's going to be exploited to attack conservatives and libertarians? How does that make any sense at all? [It illustrates how far-gone "the movement" is that such utter crap can be posted at Alex Jones and echoed throughout the movement's propaganda organs such as Rivero's WhatReallyHappened.]
Here's an advert that accompanied the Prisonplanet article quoted above:
More soberly The Guardian writes
Of course, there's no suggestion that the suspected gunman – a college graduate from Arizona who lists reading as his favourite pastime – was particularly inspired by Sarah Palin or Jesse Kelly. But it's this kind of rhetoric that is lighting a fire under extremists who believe that Obama is, in fact, the devil – and, by association, so are all Democrats.Elsewhere the Guardian adds that the attack is.....
That may sound ludicrous, but last year, civil rights organisation the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) said extremist groups had exploded in the United States since Obama's election. These groups, it said, had increased by 244%, were "steeped in wild, anti-government conspiracy theories" that exploited populist anger across the country and had infiltrated the mainstream.
.....
Much of this is clearly the paranoid ramblings of a messed-up conspiracy theorist. But, if the SPLC is to be believed, these are paranoid ramblings that have been gaining currency.
Following the release of the SPLC report, I interviewed an armed militia group in west Texas. Many of their fears, I discovered, were of a kind of post-apocalyptic future in which the very infrastructure of civilisation collapses – something that could come about, apparently, if the government imposes public healthcare or increased gun control. One man recruiting for a new militia in Oklahoma told me he wanted to be "prepared to put down a tyrannical government". A member of a group in Mississippi said that if the government "did something crazy" – like take away their guns – he couldn't predict what people would do: "This could get real ugly, real quick."
SOURCE
....disturbing set against a background of heated rhetoric. Much debate has painted American politicians in general, and the federal government in particular, as somehow being a force for evil. Indeed many rightwing commentators have portrayed President Barack Obama and senior Democrats as socialists or even Marxists bent on fundamentally changing the American way of life. Some fringe groups and conservative politicians have even hinted at resorting to illegal measures in order to defend the nation from what they see as a dire threat. Giffords's own offices were vandalised after she voted for healthcare reform.Sad to read all this:
Elsewhere, there has been a rash of attacks on government targets from individuals pursuing extremist aims. Last year in Texas Joseph Stack flew a private aeroplane into a branch of the Internal Revenue Service tax authorities. He left a rambling suicide note that contained numerous anti-government statements. Neo-Nazi James von Brunn shot dead a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington in 2009. In the same year a doctor who performed abortion was killed in Kansas City and several incidents occurred in which people with links to white supremacists killed people or were found with explosives caches.
Gun-rights advocates across America have made a point of turning up to some political events carrying weapons, including powerful rifles, in order to demonstrate their right to bear arms. That is a fact that might become relevant given that the shooting of Gifford occurred in public at an open "meet and greet" political event.
The rise of political extremism in recent years has been tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Centre which issued a report in 2009 that warned of rising numbers of potentially violent right-wing militia groups. The numbers of hate groups grew from 602 in 2000 to 926 in 2009, the organisation has found.
SOURCE
Surgeons at the University Medical Center said Giffords, a 40-year-old Democratic member of the House of Representatives, was communicating with them and able to follow simple commands, such as holding up two fingers when asked. A single bullet travelled the length of her brain on the left side, doctors said.It's despicable.
"This is about as good as good can get," said Dr Peter Rhee. Giffords had undergone surgery to remove bone fragments and some damaged brain tissue, and remains in a critical condition.
Six other people, including a nine-year-old girl, a federal judge and a member of Giffords's staff, were killed when a gunman opened fire outside a supermarket in Tucson where the politician was meeting with constituents, shooting 18 people.
A 22-year-old, identified by investigators as Jared Lee Loughner, was arrested at the scene and remains in federal custody.
The nine-year-old girl who was killed has been named as Christina Taylor Greene. Born on September 11 2001, her parents described her as the "best daughter in the world". She was featured in a book called Faces of Hope: Babies Born on 9/11. She had a keen interest in politics, was on her school council, and had wanted to go to the event to learn more about the political process.
The other victims were named today as John Roll, 63, a federal district court judge; Gabriel Zimmerman, Giffords's 30-year-old director of community outreach; Dorwin Stoddard, 76, a pastor; Dorothy Murray, 76; and 79-year-old Phyllis Scheck.
At a press conference following the attack, the Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, blamed political vitriol for fuelling the attack.
"People tend to pooh-pooh this business that we hear about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living doing that," he said. "That may be free speech – but there are consequences."
He said Arizona had become "a Mecca for prejudice and bigotry" and that "people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol".
SOURCE
Poor little girl.
But of course, the shooter probably wasn't trying to kill a woman and a small child, instead he likely imagined he was killing a Congress Critter and some of her sheeple. The shooter surely thought he was making his stand against the dark forces of "the New World Order", fighting for "his rights", life, liberty, the American way, blah blah blah.
Pathetic. And dangerous. Obviously.
123 comments:
So by the end of your post you imply that this Jared Loughner was a Tea Party guy? operating under the auspices of "Life, Liberty and the American Way, blah, blah, blah...."?
Not likely, but nice try.
In our polarized society, mendacious ideologies are proffered for public consumption, like so much candy sold at movie theaters. The more we read about hatred of our government, the more unbalanced people, like Jared Loughner feel empowered to "save" our society from "evil government minions." Similarly, this perversion of totalitarianism results in a society in which people cannot make original or differing comments about our way of life. In that society, all must succumb to the establishment. We likewise suffer from the product of "truthers," conspiracy theorists and reactionary politicos whose intentions are to maintain a culture in which white, Christian men continue to rule our society. In this, Loughner walks hand in hand with the Tea Party.
Jared Loughner has informed us of his love for Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and others who promote totalitarian regimes. He loves “Mein Kampf” and the greatest perpetrators of mass genocide in history. He attempted to assassinate a Jewish Congresswomen. His You Tube site eviscerates the government and “Jewish controlled” media. Jared and the contemporary Tea Party obviously hate all things government, preferring fascist regimes in which individual rights are a meaningless artifact of the former rights of minorities and in which elitist contributions are derided because they were proffered by a minority, a Jew or a liberal. Of course, the conservative movement is appalled to think that Loughner is “one of theirs.” Yet, the comparison is logical.
It is not wrong to support our government. It is wrong to want it obliterated. It is not wrong to support gun rights. It is wrong to use easy access to a gun in order to murder a political opponent. It is not wrong to complain about politicians with differing views. It is wrong to murder them. It is not wrong to love the Constitution. It is wrong when a political party manipulates the clear intent of the Constitution (“federal law supersedes state laws”) in order to employ a double standard for states rights. And, the historical eventuality of the states’ rights movement was the Civil War, in which the states’ rights proponents defended slavery as their innate right of commerce and a “civilized society.”
Our society is more polarized now than it has been since the Civil War. Today, our government fights against terrorism abroad and at home. Abroad, it fights against Islamic terrorists who despise us as “infidels, Crusaders and Jews.” At home, it fights against the persecution and oppression of minorities, the poor and the weak. It fights against blind hatred, religious superiority and racial prejudice. Most importantly, it fights against intolerance. Only when we learn to value the differences among us, rather than fear them, will America emerge from its antagonism and bigotry. Only when we learn to appreciate those who are different can we reach our potential as a society. We were once a “melting pot.” Now, we are warring classes, consumed by hatred of all who are different, unique or singular.
We are a nation of individuals, deluded by concepts of superiority, living in fear of those who are different. When we learn to value those differences, we will emerge from our delusions of supremacy. When we again become a melting pot, we will achieve societal and cultural pre-eminence.
Charles Weinblatt
Author, Jacob’s Courage
http://jacobscourage.wordpress.com/
Thanks for the reply, Charles.
I didn't know Gifford was Jewish, and that surprises me: I'd have thought some of the coverage might have mentioned it as it's possibly (probably) part of the killer's motivation. Maybe the media don't want to raise the subject yet?
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find Jews occupying a special place in Loughner's worldview, just as they do for seemingly all conspiracists. It would be coherent and if nothing else maybe Loughner is at least evidence that anti-semitism is mental illness (as if any more evidence were needed.)
Good luck with your book, btw, Charles - I hope it (and you) are doing well. ;)
@anon - no, I'm not really implying Loughner was 'a Tea Party Guy' - I don't really care about that, the "Tea Party" being an especially vague political description/affiliation.
I have no intention of implying Loughner = TeaParty nut. (Anti-semitic) conspiracist nut, maybe, but not necessarily TeaParty nut.....though as you perhaps understand, there's a considerable shared constituency there. For example, American fascism considers the Tea Party and RonPaul far more acceptable than they did Obama or Bush - most simply they share conspiracism and a loathing of liberal democracy.
I see Loughner more in the "patriot movement" mould than the teaparty, though again, that's something of a shared constituency. I see the 911 Truth and patriot movement as representing an incipient American fascism, hence my interest in the rush to self-excuse displayed by self-styled "patriot" agitators such as Alex Jones and Mike Rivero. It's the same old routine everytime - some nut takes the content of conspiracy and patriot movement BS seriously, and acts upon it as directed, only for the purveyors of the BS to babble about how they're not responsible (even as they suggest it is all "a media distraction", fake, false-flag, blah blah blah.)
Conspiracy theory is mind-bending; it is mentally destabilising; it leads to mental illness itself, and of course it attracts the mentally ill. Just look at any conspiracy website? It's a cult of the batshit insane. No problem, except it has a political agenda too......apparently best-expressed by the patriot movement/teaparty. Hopefully this episode gives everyone pause for thought.
The most appalling aspect for me is the little girl who wanted 'to learn about politics'. Chilling, and hugely sad.
Oh pllllllease, you two morons are peddling the same crapola that all the liberal media is dishing out. Put it to rest. This guy was ANYTHING but right wing and with the tea party movement. Giffords was a stong supporter of border control andthe 2nd amendment, 2 things that tea partiers strongly support. Odd target for someone who supposedly is part of a movement that advocates those very things.
Charles, please tell me what "conspiracy theorists" have to do with this? Im sick and tired of stupid morons like you who sit back and cannot wait for the next shooting so they can pin it on the very people you already despise. Nevermind that Loughner's favorite books were Mein Kempf and The Communist Manifesto, two EXTREME left books.
You even admitted that Loughner loves Hitler, yet you say he's in the tea party. LOL. How can he hold these two beliefs simultaneously??
You say this:
"It is wrong when a political party manipulates the clear intent of the Constitution (“federal law supersedes state laws”) in order to employ a double standard for states rights. And, the historical eventuality of the states’ rights movement was the Civil War, in which the states’ rights proponents defended slavery as their innate right of commerce and a “civilized society.”"
There are so many thing wrong with that statement, I dont know where to begin! First of all, it is CLEAR to anyone who understands the Constitution that the founders believed in state sovereignty and the ONLY power the federal government was meant to have was the powers DELEGATED by the states. Th civil war was NOT about slavery, for slavery was CONSTITUTIONAL as a result of the Dred Scott decision in 1857. Lincoln said in his first inaugural address that he had NO INTENTION of interfering with southern slavery. Lincoln was a racist and he supported slavery---he only pretended to abhor it for political gain [to gain the abolitionist votes]. The states are supposed to be free, independent and sovereign but morons like YOU have adopted the Hamiltonian view of the Constitution: that there are NO states rights and the federal government is King.
Funny you should think that since the American Revolution was ALL ABOUT defeating a tyrant who ruled over us in the very SAME manner that Hamilton wanted the Federal government to rule over us. Lincoln succeeded in obliterating states rights by invading the South on his crash course in forever destroying the Constitution.
What is wrong with having hatred of our government? Isnt it funny that when that guy walked into the Discovery Channel building with a bomb a few months ago because of his anger at the channel because of their programming and views on global warming [he was a global warming alarmist] no one talked about "toning down the rhetoric" on global warming, did they??
Also, the Daily Kos had crosshairs on the state of Arizona on their website and in one of their stories, they said these EXACT words just TWO days before the shooting in a hit piece about Giffords:
"My Congresswoman voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now dead to me!"
Left wing website that was posted on. Is anyone talking about it??
"Conspiracy theory is mind-bending; it is mentally destabilising; it leads to mental illness itself, and of course it attracts the mentally ill. Just look at any conspiracy website? It's a cult of the batshit insane. No problem, except it has a political agenda too......apparently best-expressed by the patriot movement/teaparty."
LOL---despite the FACT that you have NEVER debunked me---even ONCE about ANY issue we have EVER talked about! If I am "nutty" because of my beliefs, and you fail to debunk me and resort only to ad hominem attacks [in which you STILL resort to even in the above post....calling us "insane" without providing one BIT of evidence to support it] what does that make YOU, the one who fails to debunk the "nuts"??
All your site is is a litany of accusations and name-calling and you NEVER EVER present FACTS, nor do you EVER give PROOF of what you say is right----EVER! When I posted pictures of wtc7 "supposedly" emitting smoke and posted the others that showed that the smoke was really coming from wtc5, you posted a story about MY story but did not post the EXACT SAME pictures---did you?? Did you?? And you call US insane when you INTENTIONALLY give out disinfo!Hilarious buddy!
I have caught you OVER and OVER in outright LIES and contradictory statements, but yet WE are "nutty". The proof of me schooling you time and time again is right here on your site for all....well make that the 3 people that come to your site, to see.
"American fascism considers the Tea Party and RonPaul far more acceptable than they did Obama or Bush - most simply they share conspiracism and a loathing of liberal democracy."
PROVE that ridiculous statement is true! You cant, that'swhy I will be IGNORED....again!
Have a little read, Larry?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t588834/
An example of Nazi Stormfront's view:
...estimates are there could be 100's across the country. What's so encouraging is that the organizers and participants are pre-dominantly whites. The remnants of traditional 1950's. Old white America. The historical, traditional population.
Might prove to be signifigant.
Might be a meaningless last gasp.
Have to see how it plays out.
I'm going to take the day off and attend the local one, carrying my Gadsden flag. Encourage others to do the same. Hopefully the beginning of a sense of ethno-centrism."
and
That's exactly what we have been discussing with Whites Forward - how to make the Tea Party crowd our own, educate them to racial reality, and take power or partial power.
We agree that the Tea Party movement and the general situation in America should be met with activism, and that the Tea Party masses should be steered away from the Republicans.
We both agree that this should be done in an indirect way.
oh, and LArry, keep posting in your present vein and I'll just delete all your comments. Ok?
"oh, and LArry, keep posting in your present vein and I'll just delete all your comments. Ok?"
Of course you will, because you're a Nazi
"Your present vein..."? Translation: Larry, if you post one more thing I cant refute and cant counter with a shred of evidence, I will delete it"
You ALREADY deleted a commnt of mine on the other thred.
Loughner is a LEFT winger!!!
Why, oh why do you keep posting things about White Supremacy and RIGHT wing shit when Loughner was a LEFT winger??
You didnt address ONE thing in ANY of my posts!
Funny you say he's a leftie, Larry - you usually lie and claim there's no such things as left/right.
Your casual comments say otherwise.
So, let's see what makes someone "leftwing" in your view? Though how you can do that when you insist "there's no left/right" I can only wonder. Your mental gymnastics never tire you out?
From the “Communist Manifesto” to George Orwell’s “Animal House” to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” “the theme is the individual versus the state,” Potok said. “That is the thread that runs through his reading list.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47345.html#ixzz1Ad8RtcBr
Wow..this entire forums posts are proof the thier is a Conspiracy..which is not meant to mean "more than one" People say Conspiracy when they are being "decieved". There are no such things as CONSPIRACY THEORISTS...Only a wide spectrum of people who label a persons view or often facts as "Un-acceptable",thus dismissing no matter what the facts are..
I mean you guys are Experts so why not realize that George W Bush announced for the first time Nationally his concept of a NEW WORLD ORDER.on 9/9/91 (true) the Fed which is privately owned by the Rothchild family (who are admited Free Masons) prints American Money..Within the Dollar bill alone there are Numeros recorded and documented symbols and in latin words below the seal EVEYONE should know translated means "New WorlD Order" (no joke ..Plus the Real Conspiracy besides the JFK incident is CLEARLY 9/11, and tower 7 that 1200 enfineers, family of the dead,reporters and video confirm as much as it be possible..No building falls to pwder in 5 seconds..unless imploded..like Mr. Silverstien who bought the Towers said to do when he told Men to "PULL IT" Slang for take it down" in destruction circles..Silverstien got a upgraded insurance policy 3 weeks prior to the Crashes and won over 6 BILLION dollars after proving in court 2 lanes meant 3 pull outs. These 9/11 nuts are so annoying..In fact the 9/11 Girl is a coincidence and this was not a mistake,,It was what date 1/9/11?Hmmmmn..to show you a coincidence that came out just before all this..... try typing in Backwards ILLUMINAT .Yes Go Backeard
Sorry...Big Brother was my Spell checker.. and Remember THEY WANT U Illuminati.com
ITANIMULLI.com
Just a Coincidence?
"From the “Communist Manifesto” to George Orwell’s “Animal House” to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” “the theme is the individual versus the state,” Potok said. “That is the thread that runs through his reading list.”"
So, are the founding fathers terrorists too? They were the original ones that established that the individual has freedom and liberty and were against the American system and big government.
Ive told you a thousand times [but you keep ignoring it] that whenever I talk of "left" and "right", Im saying it in the context that their views are CONSIDERED "left" or "right"----NOT that that concept actually exists!
Larry: whenever I talk of "left" and "right", Im saying it in the context that their views are CONSIDERED "left" or "right"----NOT that that concept actually exists!
---------
So, the concept "doesn't exist" but you use it anyway.
To what end, exactly?
@ TestOne - you can keep your conspiracy claptrap.
---------
The point here is about the rhetoric of eliminationists. Violent racists and deluded conspiracists agitating for violence to 'takeback a degenerate state' from the NWO.....from a grand conspiracy of Globalists, Jooos, lizards, whatever.
You spend years promoting this crap then deny it's of any consequence when someone follows through on what you like to suggest "real patriots" really should do.
Nobody swallows it.
Jared is a flower child of "the movement." He likely saw in Sarah Palin's crosshairs a target of opportunity. Yet, this was not an act of impulse. Rather, it was carefully planned, from the weapon and ammunition to the "Goodbye friends..." messages he posted on the Internet.
Giffords represented a terrific target for "the movement." She is the first Jewish Congresswoman from Arizona (Jared loves Hitler's "Mein Kampf"). She is a Democrat. She represents government. And "the movement" hates all things government.
You're correct that Loughner and "the movement" represent a fascist political movement, egged on by the Tea Party and other reactionary American elements. They don’t promote a political position because they have none. They want “less government, states’ rights and strict adherence to the Constitution.” Yet the Constitution clearly states that “Federal laws supersede state laws.” They want “less spending,” but lack the courage to attack entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. Their heroes, Reagan and Bush II created the two greatest federal deficits in history, prior to today’s recession-required spending. Talk about a double-standard! They want America to be a “Christian nation.” yet the Constitution clearly prohibits that. They want an end to gun control legislation, including bans on assault weapons, even as their own proponents use guns and bombs to attack innocent Americans.
So, how much difference is there between The Tea Party and “the movement?” Are they separate wings of the same American political movement? Does Sarah Palin place some Jewish Democrat Congresswoman in crosshairs so that the military wing can follow though? Is this the American version of Hamas or Hezbollah, fascists with a political wing and a military wing?
One thing is certain, our nation is polarized more so than at any time since the Civil War. And, that antebellum American society was not nearly as well-armed as we are today. Talk show rhetoric fuels hatred which explodes into violent outbursts, such as the Arizona mass murder. Surreptitious conversations among discrete militia movements also contribute to this age of uncertainty. Our fingers are on the trigger as hate-filled talk show hosts drive us to the very brink of sanity. And then, someone simply does it. Some militia wannabe pulls the trigger on anyone who represents government, minorities, liberals, socialists or others deemed un-American or “undeserving of being an American.”
It’s true that many of America’s home-grown terrorists have had weak minds, easily persuaded to produce mendacious acts of violence. And, if we’ve learned anything from Oklahoma City, Fort Hood and Arizona, it’s that far too many guns are in the hands of mentally disabled and emotionally driven people. Of course, guns are not the cause. But, they are way too handy.
What America needs today is to turn it down a notch. Talk show hosts can and should be held accountable for the damage done by individuals motivated by their hate-fueled rhetoric. Politicians must become more accountable for their actions, such as placing the faces of their more liberal peers inside of Internet crosshairs and using that picture for the purpose of political persuasion. Groups and individuals must pause before proffering messages of hatred towards opponents. Congressional leaders must foment a spirit of partisanship, not aggression.
The one thing we all have in common is that we are Americans. America stands for freedom and democracy. If you don’t like that, move to Venezuela. It is time for us to stand up for tolerance and oppose political rhetoric that foments dissention. In reality the vast majority of Americans want the same thing. We simply do not tolerate anyone who is different. Sadly, this can be our undoing.
Charles Weinblatt
Author, Jacob’s Courage
http://jacobscourage.wordpress.com
So, Loughner was "taking back" his government by shooting someone who AGREED with Tea Party issues like border security and gun rights? Makes no sense. Why would Loughner want the government to WIN by having his ass locked up the rest of his life??
Charles, youre insane.
You said:
"They want “less government, states’ rights and strict adherence to the Constitution.” Yet the Constitution clearly states that “Federal laws supersede state laws.”
Sho me WHERE the Constitution says FEDERAL laws SUPERCEDE state laws! The states are free and independent---show me where it says OTHERWISE. When King George signed the peace treaty, he signed it with EACH INDIVIDUAL state---NOT some consolidated entity called "The United States".
"Giffords represented a terrific target for "the movement." She is the first Jewish Congresswoman from Arizona (Jared loves Hitler's "Mein Kampf"). She is a Democrat. She represents government. And "the movement" hates all things government."
Giffords is a MODERATE Democrat. He also killed a REPUBLICAN Federal judge---no one talks about that! Odd behavior or a right wing guy to kill a REPUBLICAN judge!
"You spend years promoting this crap then deny it's of any consequence when someone follows through on what you like to suggest "real patriots" really should do."
Show me ONE of my articles or anything I EVER posted that says or even IMPLIES I advocate killing political figures. Show me ONE---just ONE!
You CANT, asshole!
I dont like Obama and I DEFENDED him on my blog against that nutcase Pastor Steve Anderson! Sorry to burst your bubble dickweed.
Here's Larry writing as his own blog:
-------
"In my Martin Luther King, Jr story 2 weeks ago on this site, I made the observation that King would be treated just as bad today if he were still alive and that the right-wing, fear mongering nut-jobs would demonize King as a traitor if he made similar statements about Iraq as he did about Vietnam."
http://realtruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/01/limbaugh-you-with-al-qaeda-if-you.html
-------
When it's over an issue you agree with (the illegality immorality of Iraq war?) you assert that "right-wing, fear-mongering nut jobs" exist. And that they "demonise" people and ideas.
Yet somehow suddenly it doesn't exist today and people making reference to it are "insane".
Care to clarify, Larry?
Here's Larry again:
-----
What is sad is, that if King were still alive today, to some extent he would be treated the same way he was in 1968. FOX News would vilify King as a traitor or a communist, or both. How do I know? We've already seen this happen with others. O'Reilly would tell him to shut up repeatedly, cut his microphone off and boot him off his show. Mike Gallagher would want him sent to an detention camp. Sean Hannity would call him a left-wing, liberal, American-hating kook and agree with Gallagher that he should be locked up until the war ends. I'm sorry to say, Dr. King, that things haven't changed too much since you once graced the streets of America with your presence.
-----
Oh, but things have changed, haven't they Larry? Apparently these things no longer exist.....at least in Gifford's case, according to you.
This is an example of what appears at your own website, Larry. You published it, and it's written by your former publishers, Prisonplanet:
------------
The wholesale looting of America and the transfer of wealth and power over to a private banking elite who are setting up a world government, along with the complete obliteration of any remaining freedom to protest, resist, or even speak out against this agenda, is now entering its final phase as numerous different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place and portray a clear picture of tyranny.
We are about to sound the death knell for the United States if every one of the following attacks on our liberty, free speech, sovereignty, and right to not be ruled over by an unelected banking dictatorship is not fiercely opposed and crushed."
---------------
What do you think the impact of that is going to be on the reader, Larry?
You can see how it is fear-mongering? How it creates a sense of crisis? How it seeks to propel the reader into unspecified but "fierce" and "crushing" action?
We all know that article's source, Prisonplanet, to be a place full of discussion about "gun rights", an incipient police state, tyranny.....and we all know the place is replete with calls to "lynch them!" etc.
Alex Jones' whole spiel is that "this is the end!"......right now! Unless we do something!!!!
To which his audience answers with "Gun rights!"....."The NAzis took peoples' guns away too!"...."Over my dead body!" "Lynch em!" etc.
You are playing fast and loose when you both criticise right-wing demonisation and extremism and also claim it doesn't exist.
When it is ranged against things you support, you can see it. Otherwise you insist it doesn't exist. Hardly coherent, is it?
On the left/right thing, and political associations and their negations, read this, Larry?
IT's from Nazi Stormfront......speaking about how antithetical to Nazism Jones' conception of the NWO is:
------
Javatime84
05-09-2009, 08:02 PM
[Alex Jones is] something of an anomaly. He frequently invokes the Nazis, yet he must realize that the "New World Order" people are doing the exact opposite of what the National Socialists believed. The National Socialists were racial separatists, they believed Germany should belong to Germans. The "New World Order" believes Germany should belong to Arabs and Asians and Africans, and the United States should belong to Mexicans. The National Socialists were not big fans of merging different racial groups and breaking down racial barriers, so what is this so-called parallel between the National Socialists and the NWO? It's more like they were on opposite ends of the battlefield.
--------
So, crudely using your method, we have:
1) Jones opposes the NWO.
2) The NWO is antithetical to Nazism.
3) Jones supports Nazism.
Crude, but it does also tally with the notion that Jones' issues with supposed NWO is really his issue with social liberalism and socialism rather than fascism (which is what he usually tends to suggest the NWO represents, and with which you agree)
If the NWO is understood to mean socialism and liberalism then we can understand both Jones' opposition to it, AND that of the Nazis. But that of course puts Jones et al closer to Nazism than it does to liberalism or socialism, and you simply won't accept that, I'm sure.
Larry - do you think Gifford is part of the NewWorldOrder? Do you think she is part of the processes, institutions and ideas which Alex Jones said must be "fiercely opposed and crushed"?
Seems the ADL believe there's no evidence that anti-semitism was the motive.
I notice WRH/Rivero are touting it as fact that Loughner's parents were Jewish, thereby discounting the possibility of anti-semitism. However, other sources are more reticent and there seems no way to confirm either way at present. We shall see, I guess.
Having looked at the photos of the guy I can only say he looks completely deranged. He looks absolutely crazy. He's a skinhead too.
So, maybe I'm wrong to see Loughner as some expression of incipient american fascism and/or a product of mindbending conspiracy etc. Maybe anti-semitism had no part in it. We shall see, perhaps.
Nevertheless there must be some reason, however sketchy, for him to have attacked Gifford as opposed to one of the supermarket workers, say.
And of course the issues over eliminationist and extreme rhetoric are important, and have been raised over this incident. That can't be a bad thing whether Loughner was a clear effect of it or not.
Lordy knows there will surely be more like this? Copycat type stuff. I'm amazed there haven't been far more such events already, such is the mind-bending of conspiracism, the hate of the patriot movement, the availability of guns, etc.
I came across a very interesting comment on all this:
---------
This reminds me a little of what I call the Walt-Mearsheimer taboo taboo (why doesn't anyone ever adopt my fab neologisms? Don't answer.) It goes like this: I can break the "taboo" against criticizing Israel, but no one may break the taboo of questioning whether the language I use, the tropes I invoke, are rooted in anti-Semitism.
Here, Shafer (joined by a gaggle of conservatives, including the RJC) is saying: Harsh political language should not be taboo. Examining it, critiquing it however -- that's taboo!
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2011/01/10/2742487/instant-tweetification
---------
Very good.
This is good comment too:
-----
And then there are Shafer’s examples of the kind of violent language we use every day, which, he points out, he uses too. There is a big difference to be considered, however. Shafer is relentlessly rational, never suggests that people should be ready to commit violence, and never tries to foster paranoia in other people. Compare this to the sickening vomitous mass of radical right rhetoric in this country. If Shafer regularly told a bunch of people on the border of paranoia that everything is out to get them, if he exhorted them to carry guns to political rallies, if he told them to be ready for “Second Amendment solutions” to their problems, if he was leading a growing number of people to reclaim the idea of the right of revolution (armed), then his use of violent language would look different. Especially if there had been a growing number of violent incidents–an attack on guards in the Holocaust Museum (killing one), the killing of three Pittsburgh police officers, an attempted attack on the Tides Foundation, and innumerable others–directly linked to the atmosphere of hysteria being created by the right wing since a black president came into office.
.......
The point is to make it clear that these apostles of hate are being criminally irresponsible and no decent person should support them or even give them any legitimacy. If they continue with their unshakable base of support, and continue to be enabled by the “centrist” media, things will get worse before they get better. There is nothing wrong with taking the occasion of this horrific attack to start fighting back.
http://www.zcommunications.org/of-free-speech-bullseyes-gabrielle-giffords-and-sarah-palin-by-rahul-mahajan
Once again, you debunked NOTHING. Tell me where I EVER said the nasty talk is not on BOTH sides. My point is clear: The "left" act as if it NEVER comes from them. My latest article about Ostroy proves that wrong.
Seems you know alot about these Nazi, white supremacist sites!
I NEVER said in ANY article that the hate talk does NOT come from the "right" too. My point was: There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that Loughner is "right" wing and conservative. Show me PROOF since you disagree.
by the way, how did ANY of your posts address this?
"Show me ONE of my articles or anything I EVER posted that says or even IMPLIES I advocate killing political figures. Show me ONE---just ONE!"
L: "Show me ONE of my articles or anything I EVER posted that says or even IMPLIES I advocate killing political figures. Show me ONE---just ONE!"
--------------------------
You used to advertise Willis Carto's AFP.
You still cheerlead for his chums.
You're better than they are, I have no problem in admitting it. You personally are not the worst offender. But that's why I get onto you for supporting those people so avidly.
You appear to be saying that although you don't openly call for political assassinations you know people who do, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Nothing wrong with it, even though you certainly wouldn't wish to do it? Hmmm....ok.
What do you think about the play that story had, the one about Loughner being Jewish? It featured at both Rivero's WRH and Rense.com and both of them openly linked to their source - the Nazi Jamie Kelso's WhiteNews.
They are openly linking from national news stories to Nazi propaganda - and claiming the Nazis are the honest ones. People are claiming that the supposed fact that "nobody is reporting the news that Loughner is Jewish" proves the media are compromised. Because all the media is Jewish, right? And they're not reporting Loughner was Jewish and his family was tight with the mosque and everything......damn them Joooos!
Only it just isn't true.
Or rather, there's almost nothing that says Loughner's family was Jewish and closely tied to Gifford's synagogue etc. And there's plenty of evidence suggesting they weren't.
Regardless of the facts, the far-right has taken the opportunity to insinuate the idea that there's something up here, and that it's Jewish.
And whilst you personally might not call for political assassinations, you defend these people who really *do*.
And of course, people are a little smarter than to go around calling for assassinations.
I'd like you to keep in mind the facts about the lack of evidence for Loughner's being Jewish whenever you read people using it as a reason to be cynical. And remember where the story came from? It came from Jamie Kelso's WhiteNews - the Nazis.
That's whose narrative is being propagated when people tell that tale - it's a Nazi narrative.
And look how it has penetrated your own circles?
All very well to say everyone should have a voice.......but when the voice says what Nazis do, should one give them uncritical support? Simply on the grounds that "tha's freedom, folks"? Rubbish!
At the very least Nazi ideas should be presented in a context of criticism, not in a moral vacuum or worse a generally supportive perspective, including Holocaust denial, etc - which is how Rivero and 911 Troof and all the 'patriots' usually do it.
Joooo Joooo Joooo! They say,,,,,
and you know it.
In such an atmosphere, how do you think this story about Loughner's being Jewish plays?
I can easily see it as an effort at shifting attention from anti-semitism as a cause for the shooting. Instead it brings into being a sense that anti-semitism is a justified result of the shooting - it's all them Jooos together, the media's covering it all up (because they're all Joooos!) on behalf of the politicians (Joooos!) who are working for the central bankers (Joooos!) who are working for the Ultimate Prize of a Globalist New World Order..........Joooos!!!
Hmmmm.
You don't have to agree with my politics Larry, but don't keep insisting none of this is true, or that it doesn't matter even if it is true.
People are using Nazi propaganda to promote anti-semitism. That's shocking whne you consider it was a Jewish woman who was shot (and others of course - but nobody is making a deal out of other victims sharing a Welshness or whatever with the shooter....plus Nazis have a thing about Jews, not the Welsh, remember?)
So, a Jewish congresswoman is shot and 6(?) others killed outside a supermarket on a "meet and greet" day......and certain parts of the so-called 'alternative media' are trumpeting it as if it's a story exposing (Jewish) manipulation of (Jewish) media towards nefarious (Jewish) ends.
Do you understand me?
Dipshit, show me ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE that the Loughner shooting was prompted by ANYTHING even POLITICAL, let alone Palin or right-wing people. I want you to show me EVIDENCE that it was politically motivated.
YOu will IGNORE me on this because you CANT. Keep in mind I said "EVIDENCE"---not your own ramblings or opinions.....EVIDENCE.
I also love how youve ignored my blog these past few days and have IGNORED the left-wing hate speech by Ostroy. Cant handle the truth huh?
Keep on in that vein, Larry, and you won't be posting here.
What do you mean, it wasn't "political"? There's nothing to say it wasn't. Loughner attacked a meeting by a congresswoman.....that clearly suggests a potential political motivation. Also, she was Jewish, and Loughner's profile is - if anything - that of someone with an array of ideas that come from the far-right conspiro crowd. Until we have more evidence otherwise, you can't rule out a political motivation.
So....I haven't ignored you, but you have me. Keep it up along with the verbal abuse and I'll remove your comments. k?
"So....I haven't ignored you, but you have me. Keep it up along with the verbal abuse and I'll remove your comments. k?"
LOL--translation: Keep posting stories and posts I cant debunk with a 10 foot pole and you will be removed. lol
"What do you mean, it wasn't "political"? There's nothing to say it wasn't."
Nope. Youre right--nothing at all---just his best friend Zach Osler who said he didnt watch tv or listen to political radio, nor was he left or right nor did he take sides!! Your buddy Neiwert even posted a link to the very video in which Osler says this but didnt mention ONE WORD of it in his story. He only brought up the film Zeitgeist! LOL. I tear him a new asshole in my latest article [which you have failed to debunk, I'm guessing because youre staying as far away from my stories as possible...lol]
I also noticed the left wing blogs are DEAD SILENT on the man who said "youre dead" at a Tucson town hall a few days ago to a Tea Party candidate. A man says "youre dead" and you dont hear ONE WORD from YOU or the rest of your liberal buddies----why is that??
I LOVE how you totally IGNORED my last story on Andy Ostroy when I posted the same picture of Hillary Clinton he posted on his blog of her with a big machine gun and it saying "Conservative Body Count" on the bottom. Of course you'd ignore it, that would completely ruin your false agenda that the left wing doesnt take part in eliminationist rhetoric.
What say you? Let me guess....nothing? LOL
I haven't seen your story on Ostroy. Also, not knowing whom Ostroy is, why should I even care about it?
Is Hilary Clinton a leftie now then? Yet Poplawski and Vonn Brunn aren't extreme rightwing? And left.right doesn't exist.....
There is no need to prove the entire left guilt-free of inciteful rhetoric before one can criticise the right's near ubiquitous use of it.
What's your position then Larry - that it's ok for both to use it, or neither?
"I haven't seen your story on Ostroy. Also, not knowing whom Ostroy is, why should I even care about it?"
Funny, you have posted comments under OTHER Ostroy stories I posted, but not these recent ones about Loughner, because they are impossible to defend huh?
"Is Hilary Clinton a leftie now then? Yet Poplawski and Vonn Brunn aren't extreme rightwing? And left.right doesn't exist....."
You missed my point [or purposely played stupid....maybe it wasnt playing?]---Ostroy posted a picture of Hillary with a machine gun in her hand in 2007 and underneath her on the picture it says "conservative body count"---and you and other liberals claim there is not ONE BIT of violent imagery on the left. THATS why you ignore my story!
L: you and other liberals claim there is not ONE BIT of violent imagery on the left.
------
No, I don't claim that at all.
Funny you go on about ignoring things when you are trying to make this a thread about Ostroy all the while you ignore Arizona, Loughner and the right.
Ostroy (who he?) can answer for himself. I don't know anything about him.
You are trying to make an equivalence between left and right.....though you claim there is no left/right. And Ostroy is about all you have. And a Daily Kos article, once? Hmmm. That's your "left" deluge of violent and hateful rhetoric, is it? That's what you want to equate with far-right influence upon conspiracism? With Limbaugh et al? With Alex Jones' paranoid guff?
You are silent about YOUR OWN sources, and political fellow-travellers whom are included in the accusations of rightwing hate and eliminationist rhetoric. You used to link to Willis Carto, right? Because he was leftwing, I suppose? [HE isn't leftwing btw]
That isn't equivalence, nor is it any evidence that you really believe "there's no left/right".
What you personally stand as an example of (with Willis Carto) is how easily rightwing conspiratorial types are proving to be a beach-head for the far-right. Whether knowingly or not, it's happened and is happening.
Your conspiracy freak-friends reported Kelso's WhiteNews claims that Loughner was Jewish.....Rense, Rivero etc.
They don't care that the source is a Nazi propaganda organisation......just as they never care about promoting Nazi proaganda. They do it all the time, as I have been telling you for 2 years or so.
Add this far-right conspiracy rubbish to the rhetoric of popular rightwing media pundits and we have something that simply doesn't appear in the left. If you can't see that, well........
"You are silent about YOUR OWN sources"
Im silent??? REALLY? Did Palin ever mention anything about wanting anyone DEAD??? She used crosshairs, BIG DEAL. The word "target" has been a part of political speech since 1776. Ostroy [who you CLAIM you "dont know about" yet you have posted MANY comments under stories I wrote about him] posts a picture with Hillary with a goddamned machine gun and the picture says "CONSERVATIVE BODY COUNT"!!!!! That implies DEATH!
and you fucking IGNORE it and blow it off!!! As if you claiming "you dont know Ostroy" is enough for it to be a non-issue. You pathetic sack of shit!
"Add this far-right conspiracy rubbish to the rhetoric of popular rightwing media pundits and we have something that simply doesn't appear in the left. If you can't see that, well........"
The movie Zeitgeist is considered FAR LEFT asshole! It says Jesus never existed and talks about 9-11 beng an inside job-----pretty fucking FAR LEFT!
If I killed a bunch of Jews, would you blame Schindlers List? I want an answer to that.
You IGNORE my stories because its IMPOSSIBLE to defend the liberals that I debunk in my stories, so you just IGNORE it!
That makes you a COLOSSAL FRAUD!!
So, you're claiming Ostroy's stupid use of "conservative body count" amounts to a campaign of violent rhetoric?
Is that your point?
Or is your point that the 2 examples you can find of (what you call) leftwing use of violent imagery etc proves there really isn't much out there?
Which is it?
And btw - you're pushing it, Larry. Keep going with your profanity and abuse and I'll delete you. Your choice.
"So, you're claiming Ostroy's stupid use of "conservative body count" amounts to a campaign of violent rhetoric?
Is that your point?
Gee, not at all, douchebag. Clinton holding a giant machine gun with bullets over her shoulders and "conservative body count" printed under her doesnt amount to ANY violent rhetoric whatsover, but Palin's crosshairs amounts to MASSIVE amounts of violent rhetoric, huh??
Goodness, youre a colossal dicknut.
"And btw - you're pushing it, Larry. Keep going with your profanity and abuse and I'll delete you. Your choice."
TRANSLATION: You mentioned EXCELLENT points that I couldnt debunk Larry [as well as comments I didnt even address, so I ignored them], so I will just focus on your language and make pretend that it offended me so I can delete you, so my 2 other readers wont see the comments I failed to debunk.
L: TRANSLATION: You mentioned EXCELLENT points that I couldnt debunk Larry [as well as comments I didnt even address, so I ignored them], so I will just focus on your language and make pretend that it offended me so I can delete you, so my 2 other readers wont see the comments I failed to debunk.
-----------
Well, don't stoop to such vitriol and you won't give people a reason to avoid your supposedly "good points".
"Well, don't stoop to such vitriol and you won't give people a reason to avoid your supposedly "good points"."
You use my language as a smokescreen to AVOID addressing great points I make. Thats why you have COMPLETELY AVIODED posting on my blog, you cannot debunk the shit I posted on Ostroy, Neiwert, Olbermann---anyone. So, you simply IGNORE it. Ive argued with assholes like you all the time, when they cant refute something, they either focus on side issues like language, bad manners, or minor points. They avoid the major points because they cant debunk them, so they have to PRETEND to be offended so they can have an excuse to end the debate.
If Im wrong about Ostroy, PROVE ME WRONG! But, you wont.
L:If Im wrong about Ostroy, PROVE ME WRONG! But, you wont.
--------
You don't even understand what the issue is, Larry.
I'm quite happy to accept Ostroy might have posted something with "conservative body count" written on it.
The point is you condemn Ostroy but are silent about your fellow-travellers' use of violent language, imagery, lies and distortions, far-right agendas etc. all of which is deployed incessantly - as opposed to one instance you can find of Ostroy's use of such.
And whilst you condemn the single example of Ostroy, you're silent about the deluge of similar stuff from your own favourites.
The fact you can only find this one example says a lot. Likewise the fact you refuse to recognise the mass of similar such stuff from those whom share your paranoid fantasies. Let alone do you condemn it in the manner you do Ostroy.
And look at your own conduct, eh, Larry? Look at your own behaviour and attitude?
---------
Having looked at your article, and the picture of Hilary with guns and the words "Conservative Body Count" I can only conclude you are probably mistaken in your assessment. It appears to me that the picture Ostroy used to illustrate his story (Hilary, guns, conservative bodycount) is a product of the right not of the left.
You may as well say that antifascist organisations are hypocritical because they post examples of the hate spewed by Nazis.
So, where did that picture come from Larry?
What is it doing alongside Ostroy's article? Is it OStroy's own work - does it represent something he supported or is it to illustrate what his article was criticising?
Do tell?
Here's Larry writing at his own blog Oct '08:
Of course we know what a real terrorist is here at Real Truth. The irony here is that the only thing more dangerous than a terrorist (a real one) is the mental instability of a McCain-Palin supporter!
http://realtruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/10/terrorist-bloodlines-mccain-palin_10.html
"Here's Larry writing at his own blog Oct '08:
Of course we know what a real terrorist is here at Real Truth. The irony here is that the only thing more dangerous than a terrorist (a real one) is the mental instability of a McCain-Palin supporter!"
Post the link to ONE story Ive EVER written that indicates I LIKE Sarah Palin....just ONE.
L: Post the link to ONE story Ive EVER written that indicates I LIKE Sarah Palin....just ONE.
Well, you don't support Palin - at least not openly.
But you're in the uncomfortable position of being one of the teapartier's whom was there before Palin managed to co-opt it for the Republicans and make herself the head of it?
You're mad at Palin because she's sucking away life from your conspiro stuff and Ron Paul in particular? She's herding your fellow-travellers, not Ron Paul, so you're mad at her?
I would suggest to you Larry that your liberal impulses are always betrayed by people like Palin. And yet you're so illiberal that you inevitably end up alongside those like her.
You're perhaps the social liberal wing of Palin-ism. The less mystical side of Palinism and Teaparty-ism? But she isn't a million miles away, is she, Larry?
If she were so really very different then she couldn't have stolen all your thunder?
Apart from saying how stupid she is, what do you disagree with her about that's of any substance? With what do you agree? You tell us?
You're mentally ill buddy.
"Well, you don't support Palin - at least not openly."
Actually, not at all. Im a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist. She doesnt even know what the VP's job is---nuff said. Palin is a moron who got thrown into the spotlight because she's an attractive MILF that has no brains...every Republicans' wet dream. I support people who adhere to the Constitution...period, even if it's a purple, one-eyed gorilla.
"But you're in the uncomfortable position of being one of the teapartier's whom was there before Palin managed to co-opt it for the Republicans and make herself the head of it?"
"Uncomfortable? huh? Palin and Beck hijacked the tea-party, true. My position has always been: where were these tea-partiers during the Bush years?
"You're mad at Palin because she's sucking away life from your conspiro stuff and Ron Paul in particular? She's herding your fellow-travellers, not Ron Paul, so you're mad at her?"
Have no clue what that even meant.
"I would suggest to you Larry that your liberal impulses are always betrayed by people like Palin. And yet you're so illiberal that you inevitably end up alongside those like her."
With me, it's not about left/right, lib/conserv---it's about truth/lies....constitution/unconstitution. period.
"You're perhaps the social liberal wing of Palin-ism. The less mystical side of Palinism and Teaparty-ism? But she isn't a million miles away, is she, Larry?"
Nope. Not a socialist. The Constitution is anti-socialist. It's about individual liberty and accomplishment and not to suck the tit of the government. Where in the fuck do you get im a socialist?
"If she were so really very different then she couldn't have stolen all your thunder?"
????????????????
"Apart from saying how stupid she is, what do you disagree with her about that's of any substance? With what do you agree? You tell us?"
Name it, and I disagree with her [policy-wise]. I do agree it wasnt her fault that Loughner is a nut and killed people. Other than that, when she opens her mouth, my disagreeing begins. She's not a radical. She's an establishment stooge and a neo-con, two things Im highly against.
Crikey, some reasonable answers.
---
L: Nope. Not a socialist. The Constitution is anti-socialist. It's about individual liberty and accomplishment and not to suck the tit of the government. Where in the fuck do you get im a socialist?
---
I don't think you are a socialist.
But there you were saying there's no such thing as leftwing and rightwing.....and now you're saying you are definitely no socialist.
And whilst you dislike Palin, you both share a deep hostility to anti-socialism.
And much else....
---
L: Palin and Beck hijacked the tea-party, true. My position has always been: where were these tea-partiers during the Bush years?
---
Funny they can politically hijack a movement without sharing anything with it? But of course in fact they do share a considerable amount with it - they're rightwing conservative.
Part of Palin's appeal is to Ron Paul's constituency - which is partly why you dislike her, I'm sure.
Palin's appeal even has resonance amongst the far-right (Stormfront was active in TeaParty from early on too)
---
L: I support people who adhere to the Constitution...period, even if it's a purple, one-eyed gorilla.
---
mysticism? The constitution can transform mutant gorillas into leaders!
--
L: With me, it's not about left/right, lib/conserv---it's about truth/lies....constitution/unconstitution. period.
--
But isn't that a bit disingenuous when you also say that the constitution is anti-socialist?
That makes you de facto anti-socialist......so....err....rightwing, right?
You tend to despise the left and embrace the right then insist yours is an apolitical position or something. Come off it?
Whatever you think of left/right, it's surely clear that there's a coalition of forces around "the teaparty" that embrace conservatism, constitutionalism, libertarianism, capitalism, conspiracism, and even fascism and Nazism.
And these forces are essentially all anti-socialist, correct?
[The way to fight back against a degenerate capitalism is to ......recast capitalism!! And form a coalition of forces set against...socialism!! Because bankers are big socialists, right? Crazy....but sounds all too familiar...1930s anyone?]
--
L: Name it, and I disagree with her [policy-wise].
--
Well, for starters, you agree with all this, right:
"I support flexibility in government regulations that allow competition in health care that is needed, and is proven to be good for the consumer, which will drive down health care costs and reduce the need for government subsidies. I also support patients in their rightful demands to have access to full medical billing information."
Any disagreements so far Larry? Thought not....
"I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska’s youth."
Disagree with this "idiot-woman's" views?
# Wall Street violated public trust & caused mortgage crisis. (Sep 2008)
# Governor must act as effective CEO on behalf of Alaskans. (Nov 2006)
# Encourage small business growth by reducing business taxes. (Nov 2006)
# Death penalty for adults who murder children. (Oct 2006)
# No special hate-crime laws; all heinous crime is hate-based. (Jul 2006)
Cap-and-Trade is a Cap-and-Tax program. (Nov 2009)
Lift moratorium on offshore drilling. (Jul 2008)
# Cyclical temperature changes affect climate change. (Oct 2008)
# Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)
ABC method: back to basics, plus patriotism & ethics:
Supports ending D.C.’s 32-year-old ban on handguns
Lifelong NRA member & champion of right to bear arms:
Supports Constitutional right to bear arms:
Health care must be market-and business-driven:#
Take personal responsibility for personal health & all areas
Doctors should manage health care, not bureaucracies
More affordable health care via competition:
Lift moratorium on offshore drilling:
Convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR:
Raising taxes hurts small business and hurts jobs:
As mayor, cut property taxes & increased sales tax
No income tax; no taking the people’s dividends:
no amnesty for illegals
Firm believer in free market capitalism
-----------------
Doesn't sound like you at all, Larry? Oh, hold on, it does....
:D
"And whilst you dislike Palin, you both share a deep hostility to anti-socialism.
And much else...."
And like Hitler, you and him share a love FOR socialism. What's your point?
You just ADMITTED that Im not a socialist, then you said in your very next sentence that I share a love for ANTI-socialism? How can it be BOTH?
Larry or Sarah, you decide...
----
So, yes, those rationing “death panels” are there, and so are the tax increases that the president also promised were “absolutely not” in his bill. (Aren’t you tiring of the untruths coming from this White House and the liberals in Congress?)
Higher costs and worse care – is it any wonder why people are overwhelmingly in favor of repealing and replacing Obamacare? Politicians who have vacillated on this issue need to be fired. Candidates who don’t support “repeal and replace” don’t deserve your support. No amount of money spent on Washington’s “government-wide apolitical public information campaign” (otherwise known as “propaganda”) will convince Americans that this awful legislation is anything other than a debt-driven big government train wreck. We need to repeal and replace it, and that can only happen if we elect a new Congress that will make scrapping Obamacare one of its top priorities. We can replace it with pro-private sector, patient-oriented reform that the GOP has proposed.
We have to send Washington a message that it’s not acceptable to disregard the will of the people. We have to tell them enough is enough. No more defying the Constitution. No more driving us off a financial cliff. We must repeal and replace Obamacare with patient-centered, results-driven, free market reform that provides solutions to people of all income levels without bankrupting our country.
--------------
Larry will back a mutant gorilla so long as it's constitutional, but he won't back Sarah Palin?
It isn't unconstitutional to hold religious beliefs. Nor to be a woman.
Hitler was not a socialist.
It's funny how you believe Bush and Obama, and everyone else in a position of authority or responsibility, to be brazen liars, engaged in a massive deception and swindle of 'the people'.
Yet you believe everything Hitler and Stalin ever said.
Hence Stalin was "communism" and Hitler led the socialist party.
------------
Seems to me you are incapable of recognising the danger, as you have no way to spot it. Hitler and Marx were both "national socialists" apparently. Hitler was "a socialist", apparently.
It's no wonder you and your fellow-travellers are so open to the entryism of fascism into your 'movement'. You've no idea how to spot it. Nor do you really oppose it: rather than anti-fascism the agenda is anti-socialism, so there's a mutual benefit in coalescing around it. And the targets are femin-nazis, zio-nazis, liberal-fascism, eco-fascism, islamofascism........not "fascism" - which is actually embraced, because hey, it's constitutional, right? And they hate the gubmint! So....it's all good, right?
And then you say "there's no left or right".
Crazy. Doublethink, isn't it? I can't but help see a nation in danger when its population thinks like that.
example:
----
L: You just ADMITTED that Im not a socialist, then you said in your very next sentence that I share a love for ANTI-socialism? How can it be BOTH?
----
Eh? Why do I bother.......
Half the things you listed under Palin's stances I dont believe that SHE even believes, she just SAYS she believes them---the other half weren't POLICIES [ex: right to bear arms...that's 2nd amendment---not a "policy"]---so your point is???
I dont believe or trust in ANYTHING she says about oil, for she's an oil person.
Here are some off the things you are completely wrong on:
"# Encourage small business growth by reducing business taxes. (Nov 2006)"
Palin raised the sales tax in her own state of Alaska. She's not for lower taxes.
"# Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)"
Global warming is a hoax. Palin apparently believes in it.
I re-read your list, MOST things you list arent "policies". Most of them come from just adhering to the Constitution, and in those cases, I dont consider it "taking Palin's side", it's taking the Constitution's side.
In your view, if someone shoots 15 people in a mall and later you find out the shooter believed in the right to free speech, then you would demonize anyone who believes in the first amendment. I didnt hear you say one goddamned word about James Lee, the guy who threatened to blow up the Discovery Channel last year despite the FACT that he was a global warming alarmist and believed in eugenics like you "left" wingers do. Not a WORD about him. Hmmmm, I wonder why.
Your buddy and pal Neiwert CONVENIENTLY OMITS James Lee from his list of domestic terrorists in this article he did AFTER the Loughner shooting.
http://crooksandliars.com/
david-neiwert/terror-
arizona-just-another-isolated
Gee, I wonder why he LEFT JAMES LEE OUT of his article?? Hmmm, could it have had SOMETHING to do with the fact that Lee was inspired by Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth???
Did YOU mention a WORD about James Lee on your blog????? NOPE. Did you mention Joe Stack being a Democrat? NOPE. Did you mention Von Brunn hated the Bush's, McCain and FOX News??? NOPE.
You sure do leave a HELL of alot out there buddy! ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY when [or if] you respond to this, you wont say one goddamned thing about James Lee. You will ignore him like you ALWAYS have, because youre a disinformationist lying FRAUD.
Obamacare is unconstitutional. This is why several states are now filing lawsuits against the Federal goverment over it, and guess what? NONE of them mention Palin. It isnt unconstitutional to hold religious beliefs? Youre right, but it IS unconstitutional to change the constitution to incorporate religious beliefs. What does religion have to do with Obamacare anyway?? LOL.
"It's funny how you believe Bush and Obama, and everyone else in a position of authority or responsibility, to be brazen liars, engaged in a massive deception and swindle of 'the people'."
Yet you believe everything Hitler and Stalin ever said."
Cant recall ever saying I did. At least Hitler never deceived anyone, his views and intentions were always clear and out in the open.
"L: You just ADMITTED that Im not a socialist, then you said in your very next sentence that I share a love for ANTI-socialism? How can it be BOTH?
----
Eh? Why do I bother......."
You DIDNT bother [to answer the question]! That's always been my point! You acknowledge questions but never ADDRESS them, and you continually think "acknowledging" and "addressing" are the exact same thing.
Idiots like you actually declare there is a big difference between national socialism and socialism. There's not. Both include a master race imposing socialism on the inferior races---the only difference is who is actually carrying it out! Who cares who is carrying it out? It would be like you being taken to a room for torture and instead of your prime minister administering the electric shock to your balls, he leaves the room and sends in a regular citizen to administer it.
Your balls are still toast, and youre gonna sit there and say "well, but it wasnt the PM who did it, it was that regular guy"?
Being the dumbass you are, you probably would.
So, there's nothing of substance you disagree with Palin on.
Thanks for making that clear.
L: At least Hitler never deceived anyone, his views and intentions were always clear and out in the open.
You really are ignorant, and yet you parade around as if you are very familiar with the subject.
Hitler never deceived anyone? Well, well, well.....there's a thing to say.....
You think planning war against Europe whilst publicly claiming not to is "not deceiving anyone"?
Building an illegal and secret navy whilst still under the terms of Versailles, is not deceiving anyone?
Exterminating the sick and elderly but telling their family they had 'passed away' is not deceiving anyone?
The fake Polish soldiers at Glauwitz etc....not deceiving anyone?
Come on Larry, don't pretend to know?
L: "Idiots like you actually declare there is a big difference between national socialism and socialism. There's not. Both include a master race imposing socialism on the inferior races---the only difference is who is actually carrying it out!"
--
haha. idiots like me? you say that after writing what you did...... You really should try reading something about the things which you claim to be so knowledgeable, Larry. It really could help.
This is schoolkid stuff you're saying here Larry - crude, ignorant, prejudiced.
You don't know, and you don't know you don't know.
----
L: "Palin raised the sales tax in her own state of Alaska. She's not for lower taxes."
She raised sales tax, and wants to cut/abolish income tax. That's a rightwing, free-marketeer approach - which is opposed by the left because it is regressive ie poor people pay a higher effective rate because they spend all their money and are taxed on it all, whereas the wealthy are only taxed on what they spend, so only taxed on a fraction of it.
Like you, Larry, Palin doesn't like income taxes....doesn't like "stealing" from people. Right?
---
L: Gee, I wonder why he LEFT JAMES LEE OUT of his article??
---
Have there been a spate of such incidents?
If you want to include James Lee, fine. But let's include all the others too, eh?
Like McVeigh? And everyone else, huh?
"L: Gee, I wonder why he LEFT JAMES LEE OUT of his article??
---
Have there been a spate of such incidents?
If you want to include James Lee, fine. But let's include all the others too, eh?"
LOVE how you just brush off James Lee....move along, nothing to see here. James Lee is insignificant right?? While others' actions are of utmost importance huh?
You dismissed the Hilary Clinton picture that Ostroy posted too. You liberals just dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dont you? Never take responsibility, do you?
Funny how you keep removing that comment that I addressed to Socretes huh? Now why would you keep deleteing that?
I wonder.
You still haven't addressed my questions about that Hilary picture. You made a deal out of it, now you want it to go away.
Was the picture to illustrate what the rightwing say about Hilary, rather than anything Ostroy supports?
Your whole point is predicated upon Ostroy's positive endorsement of that picture.
But does that seriously look like something a liberal/Democrat such as Ostroy would support? Black helicopters in the background, explosions, war.... Hilary is 'gunning for conservatives'.
It's a picture critical of Hilary. It's surely coming from the forces he was criticising.
But don't let being 100% wrong interfere with your train of thought, eh?
-----------
On James J. Lee......what are you saying? What's your point?
That he was some sort of liberal terrorist? A leftwing terrorist?
1) Why does it matter what his politics were if he was just "mad"?
2) What were his politics?
He left us the Lee Manifesto, amongst other things. There's much in there that is really illiberal and anti-socialist. And there are definite aspects of the right - why wouldn't there be when it's so illiberal?
James J. Lee: "Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution."
Children as pollution? Socialist?! hardly.
James J. Lee: "All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization
and infertility must be pushed."
Hmmm. Sterilisation and infertility? A goal of socialism? I don't think so....
James J. Lee: "keep out the fraudulent peace
movements. They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE!"
Ah - conspiracism! Same old loony tunes?
James J. Lee: "Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies.
FIND SOLUTIONS! FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH!"
Hmmm......hardcore socialism, eh? A real bleeding heart liberal? I don't think so.
James J. Lee: "Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it!!"
Well, Marx was a debunker of Malthus. And Nazism was social Darwinism. This really doesn't suggest James J Lee was a socialist.
James J. Lee: "Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy. Find solutions for their disasterous Ponzi-Casino economy before they take the world to another nuclear war."
That's language I'd associate with the right. No leftie mention of class, ownership of means of production etc.
James J. Lee: "You're also going to find solutions for unemployment and housing. All these unemployed people makes me think the US is headed toward more war."
Well, most everyone complains about unemployment? Can't see that as evidence of Lee being "a leftie".
His next line reads:
"Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture."
I have never come across such sentiments in anything "leftwing". It sounds like a Nazi description of Jews.
James J. Lee: "All human procreation and farming must cease!"
Hmmm. Lefties are always saying this sort of thing, of course?
James J. Lee: "war must be halted. Not because it's morally wrong, but because of the catastrophic environmental
damage modern weapons cause to other creatures."
Fair point, perhaps, but leftwing?
James J. Lee: "The humans? The planet does not need humans."
Hmmm. Obviously it's true, but humans need humans.....
One would have to be a bit crazy to entirely neglect that? Lee was obviously pretty far out.
James J. Lee: "I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so. I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.
These are the demands and sayings of Lee."
Sad, isn't it? Pathetic.
Whilst there's a smattering of left/liberal sounding themes in there, Lee was clearly more inclined to something more authoritarian and particular - he was a real eco-fascist?
He was clearly a danger, and had a thing for authority and force, obviously. But how does any of it suggest he was a leftie or a liberal? This is more like the paranoid style of the ecological rather than socialism or liberalism.
So what was your point about James J Lee, Larry?
Larry, you run around threatening people with libel even as you post such delights as this:
===
"You will ignore him like you ALWAYS have, because youre a disinformationist lying FRAUD."
===
Ask your lawyer about that, next time?
And ask what he thinks about your using IP addresses to identify users so that you can monitor and publish their browsing activity......?
See what he thinks of that?
And I find it hard to see how someone holding the opinion that you're a little...err....nuts....is libellous.
It's very hard not to come to such an opinion of you Larry.
How can such a view be libellous?
Mr FreeSpeech is off to the libel lawyer. Shock!
Re James Lee
In the months before the incident FAIR (anti-immigration group) released a document - "The Environmentalist's Guide to Immigration Policy".
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/enviroguide_2010_rev2.pdf?docID=4721
Reducing immigration is environmentally friendly, they say - somewhat unsurprisingly.
Save the environment - stop immigration?
Hardly socialism.
Interesting:
"""Population stabilization has been taboo for progressive greens since the late 1970s. But anti-immigrationists like FAIR founder John Tanton, a former Sierra Club activist, cut their teeth on the overpopulation anxiety that permeated the environmental movement earlier in that decade. Subsequently, they used the Malthusian lingo of resource scarcity, carrying capacity (the maximum population an environment can sustain indefinitely) and overshoot (when a population exceeds its carrying capacity) to launder the image of the white nationalists with whom they became allies. When climate change became a public issue, it gave fresh impetus to what population specialist Betsy Hartmann has called the “greening of hate.”"""
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/01/discovery-gunman-immigration/
The greening of hate? Ah.....
"That he was some sort of liberal terrorist? A leftwing terrorist?
1) Why does it matter what his politics were if he was just "mad"?
2) What were his politics?"
Ah ha!!!!!! Gotcha you prick! What you JUST SAID about Lee could also VERBATIM be said about LOUGHNER, can it not?????
What does it matter what his POLITICS were if he were just "mad"??? What WERE his politics??? EXACTLY! What were Loughner's politics??? NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS! But the liberals sure as hell THINK they know ALL about him, dont they???
"Larry, you run around threatening people with libel even as you post such delights as this:
===
"You will ignore him like you ALWAYS have, because youre a disinformationist lying FRAUD.""
First of all when I call someone a FRAUD, it's right after I just PROVED it in my story. Socrates' comment about me had NO PROOF whatsoever, it was just a conclusion based on OPINION, and there was not ONE aforementioned FACT to support it. That constitutes Defamation.
"And I find it hard to see how someone holding the opinion that you're a little...err....nuts....is libellous.
It's very hard not to come to such an opinion of you Larry.
How can such a view be libellous?"
Calling me nuts can just be an opinion based on a statement that you THINK was crazy [and in that case you'd have to prove me wrong...which you never do...so in essence, everytime you call me nuts, that could be libel as well]
But in this case, it's much different because under the 3 things that proves libel is libel, I can surely prove number 3 is true:
1. First, the person must prove that the statement was false.
[this can be easily proved]
2. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm.
[this one remains to be seen]
3.third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.
[Socrates sure as hell committed this one, and this can be easily proved]
By the way, Socrates removed the comment from his blog. That alone proves he was scared that his comment was defamation [which it was].
L: Ah ha!!!!!! Gotcha you prick! What you JUST SAID about Lee could also VERBATIM be said about LOUGHNER, can it not?????
----
Oh yes, well done.
Nevermind that's exactly why I was asking you.
L: "NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS! But the liberals sure as hell THINK they know ALL about him, dont they???"
But how has that got anything to do with Jason J Lee and your half-arsed effort to taint him as "a liberal"?
You're allowed to (wrongly) claim Jason J Lee was a liberal killer, but Neiwert can't reference Loughner in terms of the right's malevolent influence? Sure, Neiwert and everyone else might be wrong to suggest Loughner was particularly influenced by the right/far-right.....but regardless, the atmosphere he speaks of is real, whether Loughner can be directly tied to it or not. Likewise Jason J Lee. Likewise Poplawski et al?
We will likely learn more about Loughner - it's recent and information is scarce. Rightly so, I guess, before a trial etc.
However, there is no doubt about Poplawski, Von Brunn, Curt Maynard, McVeigh.....these are all Nazi influenced, far-right, fully signed-up members of conspiracism - "the movement" as you call it.
And you are to be found defending the movement from criticism over them - you say they're not far-right, and that anyway their politics (which you just happen to share) have nothing to do with it! Then you proceed to claim "the liberals are killers too!" and you wave around a few inaccurate examples as if to illustrate......wicked liberals!
Sheesh.
And why are you so keen to slough off the label of "rightwing", eh? For yourself, for your sources and for these killers?
Of course, Poplawski being a member of Stormfront and Prisonplanet means nothing, but James J Lee being (a crazy) environmentalist shows he's leftwing, a liberal, Al Gore's Manchurian Candidate. Karl Marx lives!
Maybe Neiwert is wrong.....but it doesn't mean he's a hypocrite because he omitted James J Lee.
Rather it looks like you are scrabbling around in quite undignified fashion trying to find any killer you can connect to "liberalism".
That alone proves he was scared that his comment was defamation
--------
And that would be success for you?
You like making people "scared" do you, Larry?
Mr FreeSpeech, Mr Constitution, Mr blah blah blah?
You really are pathetic, Larry. All the things you say.....and then you run to a lawyer as soon as someone says they believe you're nuts, or something?
And hey - how do expect to succeed in court when it's all run by masons, jews, illuminati and the NWO?
So you're being awfully optimistic aren't you, to imagine that the US Justice system would give little ole you some 'Justice'?
Or are you saying the average Joe can in fact easily get Justice and the supposed total NWO conspiracy you go on about is actually a load of guff?
Interesting..... You immediately dispense with your conspiracist worldview as soon as you think your interests are effected. hehe. Proof of the pudding in the eating.....
The Gubmint can do 911 but it can't stop Larry!
"Oh yes, well done.
Nevermind that's exactly why I was asking you."
Youre a lying asshole. YOU was the one saying Loughner was POLITICALLY motivated, NOT ME. YOU and your other liberal buddies completely IGNORED James Lee from the list of nutballs who have gone nuts in the past few years---why is that????? Because he WAS politically motivated and a liberal, that’s why!
"But how has that got anything to do with Jason J Lee and your half-arsed effort to taint him as "a liberal"?"
Because he was a global warming alarmist--and THAT is a liberal view. He also loved Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie. Why do you keep saying "Jason"? It's JAMES you douche!
"And you are to be found defending the movement from criticism over them - you say they're not far-right, and that anyway their politics (which you just happen to share) have nothing to do with it! Then you proceed to claim "the liberals are killers too!" and you wave around a few inaccurate examples as if to illustrate......wicked liberals!"
Any moron would know by reading my stories that I am CLEARLY illustrating the absurdity of labeling someone “left” or “right” because nutballs come from EVERYWHERE and have all different views. When I bring up someone who is nuts who is LIBERAL, I am illustrating that it is not the VIEW they hold that causes murder, it is the fact that they have mental instabilities, but the “left” and the “right” love to demonize each other and hence label these killers as such. It’s all bullshit---and you fall for the bullshit.
"Maybe Neiwert is wrong.....but it doesn't mean he's a hypocrite because he omitted James J Lee."
LOL. Ok. Yeah, he just happened to omit him by "accident". God youre an asshat. He omitted Amy Bishop as well----hmmmm, I wonder why???? Because she supports Obama???? Maybe you think that's why????? Hmmm?????
"And that would be success for you?
You like making people "scared" do you, Larry?
Mr FreeSpeech, Mr Constitution, Mr blah blah blah?"
The first amendment does not protect one from defamation. You cant yell "fire" in a crowded theater because you have free speech---havent you ever heard that???
"And hey - how do expect to succeed in court when it's all run by masons, jews, illuminati and the NWO?
So you're being awfully optimistic aren't you, to imagine that the US Justice system would give little ole you some 'Justice'?"
Is there a point there? I cant find it.
"Interesting..... You immediately dispense with your conspiracist worldview as soon as you think your interests are effected. hehe. Proof of the pudding in the eating....."
When did I ever say judges and lawyers are in on some big conspiracy? Never. That's when.
This was the ONLY article Neiwert wrote about JAMES Lee. From Sept 6, 2010:
http://crooksandliars.com/
david-neiwert/least-
right-wingers-are-
now-admittin
It doesnt say ANYTHING bad about Lee's politics or that his political views INSPIRED his actions. In fact, he calls Lee a right winger and says he was right AND left!!
LOL. So when someone is a liberal, they are BOTH "right" and "left", but when they have some conservative views [or even views found in the CONSTITUTION.....like money be backed by GOLD] they are RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS! LOL
Here is the ONLY article Neiwert wrote about Amy Bishop:
http://crooksandliars.com
/david-neiwert/glenn-
beck-uah-shooter-killed
-profs
He ADMITS that Bishop is a liberal and likes Obama, but THEN says [to remove political motivation], "But then, so were her victims. All three of the slain colleagues were nonwhite, and one of them had decorated his office door with Obama signs."
So even whn Neiwert ADMITS the person is a lefty, he dismisses any political motivation. Dont ya just love it??
He writes a story about Loughner in which he posts a video of his friend SAYING OUT LOUD LOUGHNER WAS NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED and still Neiwert insists it was!! Why? Because Neiwert is a hypocritical, lying fraud!
Neiwert still insists Bishop's murders was not political because the people she killed were Obama fans---DESPITE the fact that the people Loughner shot were either innocent people or held views similar to him IF LOUGHNER WAS A TEA-PARTIER [despite the fact that NOBODY KNOWS THIS YET]. Giffords was strong on immigration and gun rights, two big tea party views. The judge he killed was a REPUBLICAN and the 5 others were innocent random people, one being Giffords' intern.
Neiwert says this about Bishop:
"Indeed, there's no indication whatsoever that the shootings were politically motivated. All signs indicate this was about Bishop's disgruntlement with having been refused tenure."
Hmmm. Kinda sounds like Loughner being kicked out of college and not accepted in the military huh??? But do you see Neiwert saying this is THE EXACT SAME MOTIVATOR with Loughner?
OF COURSE NOT
Here's what appears as an article at your site -
"MIAC is attempting to radicalize the police against political activity guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
If Missouri police indoctrinated by MIAC propaganda overreact to political activists and supporters of Ron Paul in their state and injure or kill people involved in entirely legal and legitimate political activity, MIAC, the governor of Missouri (his name appears on the MIAC document), and the DHS and federal government should be held directly responsible and prosecuted the fullest extent of the law.
http://realtruthonline.blogspot.com/2009/03/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob.html
Please explain why?
Why would the DHS and FedGov be "directly responsible" when all they did was 'indoctrinate the police that Ron Paul supporters were dangerous'?
Somehow that's quite different to you and Alex Jones et al telling people the Government is evil and corrupt beyond imagination.....and then them murdering politicians, federal workers, etc?
........All the following quotes come from your website Larry - they're either you or Alex Jones:
"the New World Order wants you to know what they have in mind for you....a one world government with a high-tech control grid overlay designed to usher in a brave new world of hellish serfdom and eventually the dream of our eugenicist rulers: a mass culling of the herd who are considered little more than useless eaters."
"The plan is clearly to swallow up disenfranchised groups like prisoners, immigrants and Muslims at first and then extend the policy to include ‘Fifth Columnists,’ otherwise known as anyone who disagrees with the government or exercises their Constitutional rights."
"The Obama phenomenon is a hoax......."
"We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order’s plans."
"Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany"
"David Rockefeller and his globalist, anti-American scumbags control everything---not the politicians or the President. They want us DEAD, do you think they sit up at night worrying if we cant feed our families?"
The Constitution says to defend it, against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC---and I FIRMLY believe the founders knew that the domestic enemies could be in Washington---and holy shit were they right!
we need another Revolution---and no, I dont mean that symbolically----i mean that LITERALLY-----with real people, real guns and real action to overthrow the government...."V" style.
-----------------------
Crikey.
Funny, 9-11 was an inside job and America's a police state....but Larry's confident his lawyer and the system will see justice done. haha.
Ask your lawyer if she'll keep you out of FEMA camp?
I will post my post again since you IGNORED THE ENTIRE THING:
This was the ONLY article Neiwert wrote about JAMES Lee. From Sept 6, 2010:
http://crooksandliars.com/
david-neiwert/least-
right-wingers-are-
now-admittin
It doesnt say ANYTHING bad about Lee's politics or that his political views INSPIRED his actions. In fact, he calls Lee a right winger and says he was right AND left!!
LOL. So when someone is a liberal, they are BOTH "right" and "left", but when they have some conservative views [or even views found in the CONSTITUTION.....like money be backed by GOLD] they are RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS! LOL
Here is the ONLY article Neiwert wrote about Amy Bishop:
http://crooksandliars.com
/david-neiwert/glenn-
beck-uah-shooter-killed
-profs
He ADMITS that Bishop is a liberal and likes Obama, but THEN says [to remove political motivation], "But then, so were her victims. All three of the slain colleagues were nonwhite, and one of them had decorated his office door with Obama signs."
So even whn Neiwert ADMITS the person is a lefty, he dismisses any political motivation. Dont ya just love it??
He writes a story about Loughner in which he posts a video of his friend SAYING OUT LOUD LOUGHNER WAS NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED and still Neiwert insists it was!! Why? Because Neiwert is a hypocritical, lying fraud!
Neiwert still insists Bishop's murders was not political because the people she killed were Obama fans---DESPITE the fact that the people Loughner shot were either innocent people or held views similar to him IF LOUGHNER WAS A TEA-PARTIER [despite the fact that NOBODY KNOWS THIS YET]. Giffords was strong on immigration and gun rights, two big tea party views. The judge he killed was a REPUBLICAN and the 5 others were innocent random people, one being Giffords' intern.
Neiwert says this about Bishop:
"Indeed, there's no indication whatsoever that the shootings were politically motivated. All signs indicate this was about Bishop's disgruntlement with having been refused tenure."
Hmmm. Kinda sounds like Loughner being kicked out of college and not accepted in the military huh??? But do you see Neiwert saying this is THE EXACT SAME MOTIVATOR with Loughner?
OF COURSE NOT
You IGNORED every word of this one too:
"Oh yes, well done.
Nevermind that's exactly why I was asking you."
Youre a lying asshole. YOU was the one saying Loughner was POLITICALLY motivated, NOT ME. YOU and your other liberal buddies completely IGNORED James Lee from the list of nutballs who have gone nuts in the past few years---why is that????? Because he WAS politically motivated and a liberal, that’s why!
"But how has that got anything to do with Jason J Lee and your half-arsed effort to taint him as "a liberal"?"
Because he was a global warming alarmist--and THAT is a liberal view. He also loved Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie. Why do you keep saying "Jason"? It's JAMES you douche!
"And you are to be found defending the movement from criticism over them - you say they're not far-right, and that anyway their politics (which you just happen to share) have nothing to do with it! Then you proceed to claim "the liberals are killers too!" and you wave around a few inaccurate examples as if to illustrate......wicked liberals!"
Any moron would know by reading my stories that I am CLEARLY illustrating the absurdity of labeling someone “left” or “right” because nutballs come from EVERYWHERE and have all different views. When I bring up someone who is nuts who is LIBERAL, I am illustrating that it is not the VIEW they hold that causes murder, it is the fact that they have mental instabilities, but the “left” and the “right” love to demonize each other and hence label these killers as such. It’s all bullshit---and you fall for the bullshit.
"Maybe Neiwert is wrong.....but it doesn't mean he's a hypocrite because he omitted James J Lee."
LOL. Ok. Yeah, he just happened to omit him by "accident". God youre an asshat. He omitted Amy Bishop as well----hmmmm, I wonder why???? Because she supports Obama???? Maybe you think that's why????? Hmmm?????
"And that would be success for you?
You like making people "scared" do you, Larry?
Mr FreeSpeech, Mr Constitution, Mr blah blah blah?"
The first amendment does not protect one from defamation. You cant yell "fire" in a crowded theater because you have free speech---havent you ever heard that???
"And hey - how do expect to succeed in court when it's all run by masons, jews, illuminati and the NWO?
So you're being awfully optimistic aren't you, to imagine that the US Justice system would give little ole you some 'Justice'?"
Is there a point there? I cant find it.
"Interesting..... You immediately dispense with your conspiracist worldview as soon as you think your interests are effected. hehe. Proof of the pudding in the eating....."
When did I ever say judges and lawyers are in on some big conspiracy? Never. That's when.
My excellent points [above] about Bishop are COMPLETELY IGNORED by Socrates and TLNL----Im guessing because it just cannot be addressed without putting your feet [maybe even legs too] in your mouths?
LOL, I see this thread has been abandoned in light of my EXCELLENT research skills into Dave Neiwert's COLOSSAL contradictions concerning James Lee and Amy Bishop in comparison to his Loughner stories. Socrates and the Last Child Molester Left obviously are IGNORING my outstanding points because IGNORING is their ONLY option when they can't defend their hero when they commit the unforgivable sin of massive FRAUD like Neiwert has.
You don't have a point, Larry, how can I ignore it?
I think it's pathetic that you bring up Bishop - what is remotely political about her actions? She attacked her workmates.
Please explain how anything she did was political or was motivated by a culture of violence spewed to her by ideologues?
And as for Jay Lee, I already addressed it : he's closer to your own mentality than he is to a socialist/liberal. He's an eco-fascist, and crazy with it too. Obviously?
"You don't have a point, Larry, how can I ignore it?"
I made GREAT points! I noticed that any other time where you THINK youre debunking me, you actually copy and paste portions of my post and then respond, but given the fact that I made an EXCELLENT point about Lee and Bishop in comparison to Neiwert's articles about Loughner, do you notice what I DONT see in your response? COPIED AND PASTED PORTIONS OF MY TEXT! Because you know youve been fucking OWNED on this particular point im making.
Ive also noticed tha whenever I make GREAT points that you cant possibly have a defense for, your default answer is ALWAYS "you dont have a point, Larry" or "it's not worth addressing"----similar to Davin Coburn's responses to Charles Goyette when Goyette tore him a new asshole in 2006 over the 9-11 issue.
"I think it's pathetic that you bring up Bishop - what is remotely political about her actions? She attacked her workmates.
Please explain how anything she did was political or was motivated by a culture of violence spewed to her by ideologues?"
That's my entire POINT asshole! It was NOT political,but Neiwert immediately dismissed it was political because she was an OBAMA SUPPORTER [ie: LEFT wing], but he called Loughner RIGHT wing immediately even though there were key similarities in the Loughner and Bishop shootings [as I stated].
"And as for Jay Lee, I already addressed it : he's closer to your own mentality than he is to a socialist/liberal. He's an eco-fascist, and crazy with it too. Obviously?"
Oh yeah sure, he LOVED Al Gore's movie, which I do not. He believed in eugenics, which I do not! Two major liberal stances.
Now, answer my question asshole. Was Thomas Jefferson a terrorist?
I will post this again, since The Last Asshole Left IGNORED it:
"He [NEIWERT] writes a story about Loughner in which he posts a video of his friend SAYING OUT LOUD LOUGHNER WAS NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED and still Neiwert insists it was!! Why? Because Neiwert is a hypocritical, lying fraud!
Neiwert still insists Bishop's murders was not political because the people she killed were Obama fans---DESPITE the fact that the people Loughner shot were either innocent people or held views similar to him IF LOUGHNER WAS A TEA-PARTIER [despite the fact that NOBODY KNOWS THIS YET]. Giffords was strong on immigration and gun rights, two big tea party views. The judge he killed was a REPUBLICAN and the 5 others were innocent random people, one being Giffords' intern.
Neiwert says this about Bishop:
"Indeed, there's no indication whatsoever that the shootings were politically motivated. All signs indicate this was about Bishop's disgruntlement with having been refused tenure."
Hmmm. Kinda sounds like Loughner being kicked out of college and not accepted in the military huh??? But do you see Neiwert saying this is THE EXACT SAME MOTIVATOR with Loughner?
OF COURSE NOT"
I guess youre still gonna ignore the fact that Neiwert posted a VIDEO of LOUGHNER'S FRIEND saying it was NOT POLITICAL and then Neiwert proceeds to say "it was political"???? All Neiwert mentioned from the clip of his friend is Loughner being obsessed with the film Zeitgeist [a FAR left film], but he completely OMITS the part where Loughner's friend said his shootings were NOT POLITICAL. Hmmmmmm. I wonder why he OMITTED that????????
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
L:"I made GREAT points!"
----
You don't think your supposed brilliance is undermined by your own arrogance? At all? I see.......
Shine on....why not?
L:"I made an EXCELLENT point about Lee and Bishop in comparison to Neiwert's articles about Loughner"
----
Excellent indeed, your highness.
L: "you know youve been fucking OWNED on this particular point im making."
----
Absolutely your majesty. And your point was.....errr.....?
L: "That's my entire POINT asshole! It was NOT political,but Neiwert immediately dismissed it was political because she was an OBAMA SUPPORTER [ie: LEFT wing], but he called Loughner RIGHT wing immediately even though there were key similarities in the Loughner and Bishop shootings [as I stated].
-----
But your highness....
1) She was apparently a Democrat/Leftie/teachery-science type - with no political axe to grind.
2) Loughner displays evidence of far-right influence, and he attacked a politician.
So what are these key similarities you speak of, oh mighty one?
L: he LOVED Al Gore's movie, which I do not. He believed in eugenics, which I do not! Two major liberal stances.
-----
Eugenics is a liberal position? PRO eugenics....is a typical "liberal" position? Is that what you're saying, your highness?
Oh, and just because some random person says something is not political in no way means it's true. Especially in America, probably.
Neiwert is allowed to think what he likes. He thinks Loughner's motivation was political? Well, there's good reason to.
But for Bishop? There's no reason to see it as "political".
Anyway, what are you really trying to say? That everything is ok? That the far-right shouldn't be criticised? What?
"1) She was apparently a Democrat/Leftie/teachery-science type - with no political axe to grind."
According to Loughner's friend, who was IN THE VIDEO NEIWERT POSTED IN HIS STORY, LOUGHNER WAS NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED EITHER!
"2) Loughner displays evidence of far-right influence, and he attacked a politician."
Care to provide the EVIDENCE?
"So what are these key similarities you speak of, oh mighty one?"
Already told you, asswipe, but since you dont read posts or IGNORE them, you are required to ask over and over. Since you have a reading disability, here it is again, if you want to find a 3rd grader to read this to you:
"Neiwert says this about Bishop:
"Indeed, there's no indication whatsoever that the shootings were politically motivated. All signs indicate this was about Bishop's disgruntlement with having been refused tenure."
Hmmm. Kinda sounds like Loughner being kicked out of college and not accepted in the military huh??? But do you see Neiwert saying this is THE EXACT SAME MOTIVATOR with Loughner?"
"Oh, and just because some random person says something is not political in no way means it's true. Especially in America, probably."
It was HIS FRIEND, not some "random person". Funny how this "random person" said he was obsessed with Zeitgeist and that "random person's" word was taken as gospel truth when they wanted to smear the movie Zeitgeist for being "anti-government". I noticed you didnt DENY Zeitgeist being FAR left.
"Neiwert is allowed to think what he likes."
Sure he is, but he is NOT allowed to PUBLISH what he likes. He should only publish FACT, not "what he likes".
"He thinks Loughner's motivation was political? Well, there's good reason to."
Yes he "thinks", doesnt "know". "Good reason to"? But yet you have FAILED to name ONE of those reasons! Hmmmm.
"But for Bishop? There's no reason to see it as "political"."
If you read posts [which you dont] you will see that I AGREED with you on that, then proceeded to say that Loughner's shootings were similar and that they too were NOT political [to even which HIS FRIEND stated as well....which Neiwert AND you IGNORE]. But you IGNORE that, right?
Fuckstick.
According to loughner's friend? Fair enough - one person says it. For you that makes it gospel.....
Nevermind the other contradictory evidence. Like making videos for youtube...joining conspiracy sites.....working for Gifford.....shooting a politician in the head?
Does this evidence not count for anything?
And for Bishop there's what? Nothing.
Also, you suggest Loughner was just like a disguntled employee....like someone going mad coz they were refused tenure? Only 6 months later? And instead of shooting up the school or army at the time he shoots up a politician's meeting months later? Come off it.....you're stretching.
I notice you've abandoned reference to Ostroy's use of a political cartoon about Hilary.
So what are you left with? A complaint that Neiwert didn't mention some single piece of evidence which you believe he should? Big deal.
L: Funny how this "random person" said he was obsessed with Zeitgeist and that "random person's" word was taken as gospel truth when they wanted to smear the movie Zeitgeist for being "anti-government". I noticed you didnt DENY Zeitgeist being FAR left.
----------------------
Oh, so now Jared - "I'm not at all political" - Loughner is "obsessed" with a "far-left anti-government film"?
Only a moment ago you were saying he wasn't political at all.
But suddenly he's "a lefty obsessed with Zeitgeist."
Sort yourself out? Which is it?
Words can mean whatever you want them to mean, huh? Sure, Larry.
What is SIMILAR about Loughner's supposed 'obsession' with the film Zeitgeist and Bishop's lack of such an obsession?
You tell us?
"Nevermind the other contradictory evidence. Like making videos for youtube...joining conspiracy sites.....working for Gifford.....shooting a politician in the head?"
LOL. So making videos for YouTube alone makes you shoot people? That means hundreds of millions of people should be going on shooting sprees every day! LOL
Joining conspiracy cites? And what's your EVIDENCE he did this? This alone makes you kill people? I used to write for one, and I have not killed ONE person-----you are DEBUNKED.
"working for Gifford...". Actually it's GIFFORDS [with an "S"] assfuck. He worked for her? Really????? I've never heard that before, not even from the left wing blogs. Evidence of this????
"Shooting a politician in the head"???? That makes him "RIGHT" wing? You mean, DESPITE the fact that he shot a moderate Democrat and a REPUBLICAN judge? Hmmmmm.
"Also, you suggest Loughner was just like a disguntled employee....like someone going mad coz they were refused tenure? Only 6 months later? And instead of shooting up the school or army at the time he shoots up a politician's meeting months later? Come off it.....you're stretching."
So, you're suggesting that a complete NUT who shot innocent people, despite the fact that the act of killing in and of itself is senseless and crazy, should then MAKE SENSE of the who and why of the crime? The guy was already NUTS to begin with, so to suggest he could [or SHOULD] have the mental capacity to care WHO he shoots is as crazy as Loughner himself!! He fucking shot and killed a 9 year old girl. Even if that was the ONLY one he killed, that ALONE would solidify my point that you focusing on whether it makes sense WHO his targets were is complete and utter lunacy.
"So what are you left with? A complaint that Neiwert didn't mention some single piece of evidence which you believe he should? Big deal."
Of course it's no big deal to you...a liberal said it, so it's no biggie to you. However, if Rush Limbaugh had said the exact same thing....you'd be writing articles demanding his execution. Right?
"Oh, so now Jared - "I'm not at all political" - Loughner is "obsessed" with a "far-left anti-government film"?
Only a moment ago you were saying he wasn't political at all.
But suddenly he's "a lefty obsessed with Zeitgeist.""
As Ive ALREADY STATED, but as always you fucking IGNORE....even a 3 year old would have understood that my pointing out that liberals and the media focus on the anti-government portion of Zeitgeist to make Loughner look like a far right extremist who hates the government, they COMPLETELY leave out the portions of Zeitgeist that would make him appear LEFT wing.....the portions about 9-11 being an inside job and bashing Christianity.
Why is being anti-government considered RIGHT wing??? Michael Moore makes anti-government films. Is HE RIGHT wing????
"Oh, so now Jared - "I'm not at all political" - Loughner is "obsessed" with a "far-left anti-government film"?
Only a moment ago you were saying he wasn't political at all."
I wasnt the one who said he was obsessed with it!! NEIWERT was!!!! Do you fucking read ANYTHING I post??? You are a fucking retarded shithead! NEIWERT posted a video from ABC news saying Loughner was obsessed with the film, and in that same clip his friend says he had NO POLITICAL MOTIVE for this shooting. But when Neiwert writes the article, he ONLY mentions Zeitgeist, but NOT his friend saying "it wasnt political". Learn to actually READ what I say dipshit!
"What is SIMILAR about Loughner's supposed 'obsession' with the film Zeitgeist and Bishop's lack of such an obsession?
You tell us?"
You are such a deceptive, moronic shithead, you know that? First of all, I ANSWERED your fucking question on what the similarities were and since YOU DIDNT LIKE WHAT I SAID, you ATTEMPTED [but did not succeed] to shoot them down. THEN, you make the above nonsensical statement. That statement above has NO meaning. That's like asking "What is similar about Loughner's interest in football and Bishop's lack of interest?"
It's a nonsensical question. I NEVER SAID HE HAD AN OBSESSION WITH ZEITGEIST-------ABC NEWS DID AND NEIWERT POSTED THEIR TRANSCRIPT! I'm making the point that it is NOT political and I am obviously using the examples that LIBERALS like you give for motives in the shooting to expose the lunacy of saying it WAS political! And YOU KNOW THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING ASSHOLE!
Why dont you copy and paste portions of THIS post I made?:
"He [NEIWERT] writes a story about Loughner in which he posts a video of his friend SAYING OUT LOUD LOUGHNER WAS NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED and still Neiwert insists it was!! Why? Because Neiwert is a hypocritical, lying fraud!
Neiwert still insists Bishop's murders was not political because the people she killed were Obama fans---DESPITE the fact that the people Loughner shot were either innocent people or held views similar to him IF LOUGHNER WAS A TEA-PARTIER [despite the fact that NOBODY KNOWS THIS YET]. Giffords was strong on immigration and gun rights, two big tea party views. The judge he killed was a REPUBLICAN and the 5 others were innocent random people, one being Giffords' intern.
Neiwert says this about Bishop:
"Indeed, there's no indication whatsoever that the shootings were politically motivated. All signs indicate this was about Bishop's disgruntlement with having been refused tenure."
Hmmm. Kinda sounds like Loughner being kicked out of college and not accepted in the military huh??? But do you see Neiwert saying this is THE EXACT SAME MOTIVATOR with Loughner?
OF COURSE NOT"
I guess youre still gonna ignore the fact that Neiwert posted a VIDEO of LOUGHNER'S FRIEND saying it was NOT POLITICAL and then Neiwert proceeds to say "it was political"???? All Neiwert mentioned from the clip of his friend is Loughner being obsessed with the film Zeitgeist [a FAR left film], but he completely OMITS the part where Loughner's friend said his shootings were NOT POLITICAL. Hmmmmmm. I wonder why he OMITTED that????????
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....."
L: "So making videos for YouTube alone makes you shoot people? That means hundreds of millions of people should be going on shooting sprees every day! LOL"
-----
No, the point is it makes you "politically active" if the videos you make and so distribute are "political".
Come on Larry, keep up?
Loughner wasn't posting videos of him dancing to Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot bikini.
L: He worked for her?
----
I read somewhere he'd canvassed for her or something. Maybe that was just more Nazi lies? We certainly have reports he had spoken to her before....
Why do supposedly "nonpolitical" people seek out Giffords to ask a question about the government controlling people with grammar?
L: Joining conspiracy cites? And what's your EVIDENCE he did this? This alone makes you kill people? I used to write for one, and I have not killed ONE person-----you are DEBUNKED.
-------
Sites. Websites.
No, joining conspiracy sites does not make one a killer.
But it is hardly the action of someone who is "not at all political".
True, his posts were about Moon Landing "hoax" and the "faked" Mars Explorer rather than the flawed premises of anarchism, the contradictions inherent in the system etc. But still....the point is he had conceptions of government as grand conspiracy, of government control over the people, and was active enough to join and partake at at least one (which we knopw of) major conspiracy site. Conspiracism is "political" - when you speak of government conspiracies, dictatorship, mind control etc.
The point is, all this severely undermines your assertion that Loughner was "not political".
It also points to the differences between Loughner and Bishop.....Bishop didn't have a youtube channel with meandering claims about government conspiracy and mind control.....wasn't a member of conspiracy websites claiming the government was corrupt and a dictatorship mind controlling the people.....etc.
Bishop showed none of these characteristics.
So how were they similar, Larry?
How were they both non-political?
-------
You've already exposed yourself anyway, Larry - by asserting both that
1) Loughner was "not political"
2) that Loughner was "obsessed with leftwing Zeitgeist film"
Come on Larry.....get with it?
------
L: you focusing on whether it makes sense WHO his targets were is complete and utter lunacy.
----
Lunacy you say? To try to make sense of his actions? Ok....
L: the portions of Zeitgeist that would make him appear LEFT wing.....the portions about 9-11 being an inside job and bashing Christianity.
------
What is leftwing about 911 being a government conspiracy?
What is leftwing about "bashing Christianity"?
Zeitgeist appears to be "The Money Masters" coated in a superficially liberal/left veneer.....so as to appeal to leftys, presumably, so as to give them the ole Money Masters BS.
L: Why is being anti-government considered RIGHT wing??? Michael Moore makes anti-government films. Is HE RIGHT wing????
------
No, technically Moore makes films critical of government - he is not anti-government.
Being anti-government is "libertarian" and anti-socialist view.....that the state is evil/source of all things bad.
Anti-government types stand in opposition to the collectivism and statism of socialists.
You know the way it goes - "lefties like big government, the right wants none at all"
Generally, the left is critical of governments, whilst the right is critical of (all) government ie the state.
And notice Michael Moore does not agitate for a bloody revolution, with guns and everything? You do.
But you're both "anti-government"? Clearly, there's a little more to it. Come on Larry, don't be so obstinate.
L: If you read posts [which you dont] you will see that I AGREED with you on that [that Bishop shooting was not "political"], then proceeded to say that Loughner's shootings were similar and that they too were NOT political [to even which HIS FRIEND stated as well....which Neiwert AND you IGNORE]. But you IGNORE that, right?
-----------
There you are saying Loughner's shootings were NOT political, and therefore the same as Bishop's.
Wrong!
You claim/admit "he was obsessed with Zeitgeist"....had a youtube channel about his various views....member of conspiracy forum...had previously spoken with Giffords (about govt mind-control)....etc
That's UNLIKE Bishop.
So why do you keep saying they were similar, and that Neiwert should have included her? They aren't similar, there's no reason to include her.
"No, the point is it makes you "politically active" if the videos you make and so distribute are "political"."
Being politically active makes you shoot people???????? Again, this would be millions on shooting sprees every day!
"I read somewhere he'd canvassed for her or something. Maybe that was just more Nazi lies? We certainly have reports he had spoken to her before...."
You ADMIT you repeat lies then??? LOL
"
True, his posts were about Moon Landing "hoax" and the "faked" Mars Explorer rather than the flawed premises of anarchism, the contradictions inherent in the system etc. But still....the point is he had conceptions of government as grand conspiracy, of government control over the people, and was active enough to join and partake at at least one (which we knopw of) major conspiracy site. Conspiracism is "political" - when you speak of government conspiracies, dictatorship, mind control etc."
Even if everything you just mentioned is TRUE, I mean moon landing hoax being true, conspiracies being true.....what is the connective thread between those things being true and killing people?
"It also points to the differences between Loughner and Bishop.....Bishop didn't have a youtube channel with meandering claims about government conspiracy and mind control.....wasn't a member of conspiracy websites claiming the government was corrupt and a dictatorship mind controlling the people.....etc."
Your point is???????? I bet they both had different favorite football teams too and that they watched different TV shows. Your point????????
"So how were they similar, Larry?
How were they both non-political?"
I told you THREE fucking times how they were similar. Read my fucking posts you fucking twat.
BISHOP WAS AN OBAMA SUPPORTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"2) that Loughner was "obsessed with leftwing Zeitgeist film""
You fucking little prick! READ MY FUCKING POSTS!!! I DIDNT SAY LOUGHNER WAS OBSESSED WITH ZEITGEIST-----ABC NEWS AND NEIWERT DID!!! Thats the THIRD fucking time Ive said it!!!
"What is leftwing about 911 being a government conspiracy?"
9-11 connected to Bush/Cheney/---right wing people. 9-11 truthers hate Bush and Cheney---get it now???????
"What is leftwing about "bashing Christianity"?"
Zeitgeist doesnt just bash it, it asserts Jesus never existed. Cant get more LEFT wing than that!
"No, technically Moore makes films critical of government - he is not anti-government."
I dont have enough time to tell you how wrong you are.
"Being anti-government is "libertarian" and anti-socialist view.....that the state is evil/source of all things bad."
So the founders were anti-government?? LOL. They CREATED it! LOL
"And notice Michael Moore does not agitate for a bloody revolution, with guns and everything? You do."
He doesnt? Really?? Look at this story from March 16 called:
Michael Moore: 'Waiting To See If People Rise Up - And If So, I'll Rise With Them'
http://crooksandliars.com
/susie-madrak/michael-
moore-waiting-see-if-
people-r
You wont look at it. You ignore everything.
"You claim/admit "he was obsessed with Zeitgeist"...."
For the FOURTH FUCKING TIME NOW-----ABC NEWS and DAVE NEIWERT said he was obsessed with Zeitgeist---not me! YOU MOTHER FUCKING FAGGOT. REPEATING LIES doesnt make it true shithead!
L: Being politically active makes you shoot people???????? Again, this would be millions on shooting sprees every day!
---------------
The point was you claimed Loughner to be non-political - like the incident with Bishop.
Having been proven wrong (by your own statements) you are now just changing tack.....
If something is important when true, it's likely important when false. You just slough-off being proven wrong Larry. Like it doesn't matter to your view. Tut tut.
We seem pretty settled that there is far more evidence for Loughner's motivation being "political" than there is for Bishop.
Loughner seems obviously to have been quite sick - vulnerable, and possibly dangerous (clearly, as it turns out).
His references are to mind control run by governments, conspiracy over moon landings etc, the FED conspiracy and the bunk about silver/gold. Really not the profile of a lefty.....
Anyway - whatever Loughner might have been, he's clearly unstable and not a little mad. Presumably he was influenced by whatever sources were giving him stuff about moon landing hoaxes, FedRes being illegal, gold/silver stuff, government brainwashing.......you know, the usual sort of guff that appears at rightwing conspiracy sites........
Just coincidence, huh?
L: You wont look at it. You ignore everything.
---------
He says about supporting people "rising up". He does not agitate for bloody revolution with guns and everything.....as you do.
Oh, and any more attitude and lingo like that, and you won't be posting anymore, ok?
Seriously Larry - you can shut it with the crybaby nonesense, the insults and the language: you've had rope to hang yourself - more than enough.
Make your points calmly, or you won't be making any at all.
Your choice.
Big shock - Larry's deleted because he couldn't restrain himself.
Unlucky, twat.
Unlucky, Lars.
:D
Can't keep it polite, don't get invited.
No, Larry - you lost your posting rights with your persistent abusiveness.
Can't behave when asked, don't get invited again.
As for your abuse of Sitemeter at your own website, I offer this quote of yours taken from your own website:
L: I know exactly WHEN and how long you stay on my site .......So, if you're on my site and then go to BigCocks.com after being on my site, I will know about it.
That's a threat by way of an abuse of privileged private information.
That you don't recognise your own abuses says a lot. Night/
No, you can't post here anymore Larry. You were warned over and over and you've proven yourself incapable of the most basic civility.
You made your choice. Bye. :D
No larry, spamming me won't help.
Don't want to play by the rules, don't play.
The loser always leaves the fight first. Youre no exeption.
No. You refuse to abide by the simplest of rules about civility. Over and Over. *You* were given the *choice*. You made your choice. Byeeeee.
Post a Comment