Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

It is common to be paranoid of the government in schizophrenic themes, but the Constitution and the gold standard? Not so much.

Anything you can think of related to the gov't (as well as religion) can be thematic with schizophrenics. Talk of the constitution isn't especially unusual or esoteric in my experience working w/mentally ill clients.

People are leaping to conclusions here.
 
The solution to bad, awful speech is more better speech.

I agree (I think). What do you mean by "better"?

I don't think anyone should be silenced, but a lot of speech either leads to nowhere or horrible places. Asking people to take it down a notch or reconsider their speech isn't the same thing as censorship, in my book. If that leads to better speech (i.e. accurate yet sensitive and informed speech without the vitriol designed solely to rabble-rouse), then I'm all for it.
 
I agree (I think). What do you mean by "better."

I don't think anyone should be silenced, but a lot of speech either leads to nowhere or horrible places. Asking people to take it down a notch or reconsider their speech isn't the same thing as censorship, in my book. If that leads to better speech (i.e. accurate yet sensitive and informed speech without the vitriol designed solely to rabble-rouse), then I'm all for it.

Yup, what you said.
 
I stumbled on a Los Angeles Times article that mentioned that Loughner's strange ramblings about grammar and mind control appear to have been taken from a "Sovereign Citizen" activist named David Wynn Miller wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wynn_Miller
).

Miller was mentioned in this thread in the CT section. I had never heard of the guy, but I don't keep up with the FOTL stuff. It sounds incredibly bizarre to me.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197109
 
You mean we shouldn't project our own biases onto the situation, cease the wild speculation & finger-pointing, and wait for actual evidence before coming to any conclusions?

I'm with you in principle, but judging by the tone of the earlier half of the thread...whew, brother. You sure let your inner school marm come out. I respect the hell out of you, Matt, but it seemed like you were tut-tutting the class and acting the role of the 'Skeptic Police.' And I say that with all the love in the world as one who's been guilty of the same thing and probably will be again, even though I don't see myself as a particularly gifted or even smart 'skeptic' whatever that means. :D

I'm more than happy to say what is going on in my thought process, but I'm not going to tell another person they should hold off on speculating or drawing a link between two things that may not be related. This story is being written as the minutes pass, and the facts haven't truly been established yet.
 
Last edited:
I don't see tea party themes at all. I think you are reaching. He actually reminds me of my brother who is a truther/conspiracy theorist. He advocates for the legalization of pot and is pretty much a college drop out. Although he did graduate from Oakland. My brother would tack up those lists of books to act like he was well read, when in reality he's basically a skater dude at the wise old age of 32.

Sorry but it's too soon for anyone to say anything about what he believes. It's a ridiculous assertion to say that by following a person on the web you know how he really feels. People troll for ships and giggles on the internet all the time.

What is wrong with waiting for facts before pointing fingers?

Right. I've been saying this too. And just for those still insisting this guy's rhetoric stems from the tea party: The following article suggests the guy had started w/his rants about the constitution since (at least) 2001, while still in college.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_gunman_11

Paranoid schizophrenic will be his formal diagnosis. And that's about all I'm willing to bet on.
 
It looks like a typo and he meant the 2nd amendment. It would be a shallow non-victory to take advantage of that.
 
story on his recent past at school ...

U.S. sees evidence of assassination plot
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn...0904478.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011010904711

planned it and specifically for Gifford calling it "my assassination"

acted alone, without ties to larger anti-government or hate groups.

so violent looking and behaving that a classmate (and the teacher) could clearly see it. classmate writes emails to friends saying he's the type to show up with an automatic weapon and that she always sits by the door ready to run.

posted a series of other videos on YouTube, in which he espoused "bizarre and often incoherent arguments about mind control, grammar and government abuses."
 
Last edited:
Right. I've been saying this too. And just for those still insisting this guy's rhetoric stems from the tea party: The following article suggests the guy had started w/his rants about the constitution since (at least) 2001, while still in college.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_gunman_11

Paranoid schizophrenic will be his formal diagnosis. And that's about all I'm willing to bet on.

2001 "while still in college"? Try again. He's 22 years old. In 2001 he would have been 11 or 12 years old!

:rolleyes:
 
If the Palin camp had the smarts to use language acknowledging how their rhetoric and campaign visuals such as "survey markers" might possibly have been sufficiently misinterpreted by fruitbaskets (such as the one in question) to incite them to violence, and to then express genuine reget for this... they might gain real leverage among quite a number of people.

Then again, were Jerry Springer to get up on stage and admit the whole thing was fake he'd be pelted with tomatoes by the faithful.

Not sure I understand your post but if you think the lie by one Palin aide first mentioned today that the "bullseye" crosshairs Palin was proud of until day before yesterday were misinterpreted survey map symbols, I'd say you might want to hold that opinion in check. There's a lot of evidence the foolish aide was lying.
 
Right. I've been saying this too. And just for those still insisting this guy's rhetoric stems from the tea party: The following article suggests the guy had started w/his rants about the constitution since (at least) 2001, while still in college.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_gunman_11

Paranoid schizophrenic will be his formal diagnosis. And that's about all I'm willing to bet on.

Wait up. He was in college 10 years ago? I thought he was 22 years old? Are you sure that 2001 shouldn't be 2010?
 
The headline on Yahoo: Girl, 9, killed in rampage granddaughter of ex-MLB manager

The push by some people to somehow associate a celebrity with the shooting is downright baffling.
 
Anyone see this yet:

Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman's Grudge Against Giffords

Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a "fake." Loughner's animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says.
. . .
Tierney, who's also 22, recalls Loughner complaining about a Giffords event he attended during that period. He's unsure whether it was the same one mentioned in the charges—Loughner "might have gone to some other rallies," he says—but Tierney notes it was a significant moment for Loughner: "He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?'"
"He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question.' Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."

Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."

Well, obviously no sane person could answer that question to the satisfaction of an insane person. The question actually contradicts itself.
 
Being Canadian I don't know the law but this quote from the Brady Center seems to me to be an obvious problem:

I do not know the details of how that guy got his pistol, but it is a bad idea to rely on the Brady Campaign to tell the truth. They have lied about the law in the past to promote their agenda.

Ranb
 
That sounds horribly like the "freedom of the lands" garbage, terrifying when you see it in the real-world.

Is that right? Do they say that "words have no meaning"? (Which is self-contradictory).

Also, the part about him thinking she was a "fake" sounds familiar. Haven't other mentally unstable assassins used that word about their targets in the past? A Google search on "kill the fakes" also turns up a lot of hits.
 

Back
Top Bottom