It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jared Loughner’s friend says suspect ‘Did not watch TV … disliked the news’

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Marulo

However, these claims that we are all noticing, the claim that vitriolic and inflammatory language will lead to violence, are not unfounded.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Both sides, to some degree, are responsible. Unfortunately, the right clearly uses vitriolic language far more often.


Are you serious? Did you not see any of the posts by flyersfan showing picture after picture after picture of people advocating cutting off Bush's head or lynching him? Did you also not see my thread quoting a democrat congressman saying that the Republican candidate for Florida governor needs to be put up against a wall and shot? Or the thread showing democrat campaign literature using bullseyes and talking about "targeted Republicans"?



You also seem to be saying, "Never mind the facts in evidence. I'm still going with what has been dis-proven for the reasons behind the shooting because I want to place the blame elsewhere."

What is with people that keep wanting to claim things like it is society (or the gun) that kills people and not the individual that pulls the trigger. That it is the pen (or computer) that mis-spells words and not the writer, etc.?

When is a person finally held responsible for their own actions?


Oh my. Did I give you the impression that I would ignore the facts and evidence?

What specifically gave you that impression?



To address what you said about the gun killing people or the person.

Their are two types of reality that are commonly called Materialist and Idealist.

In the Materialists world, the gun killed the human. More specifically the bullet killed the human. You can get far more specific to that, in fact a true materialist would cite particulate matter. That is the reality of truth.

An Idealist says a human killed another human and in this instance it just happened to be a gun. That is the reality of appearances.

They are both right.




Edit: I realized I might give the impression that I don't think Jared Lee Loughner should be held responsible. He pulled the trigger, he should be held accountable for his actions.

I have not marinated on gun policy. I have no real solution at this time.

Would you sacrifice your pleasure for the well being of other humans?


I have noticed that, for the most part, people who are pro-gun are so in the name of sport. I have nothing wrong with that. But would you sacrifice your pleasure for the well being of others?

I know at this point it is silly to suggest we get rid of all guns, not to mention impossible.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Marulo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marulo
We don't really know. We don't really know anything, if you really want to get into that sort of logic.

I think it is safe to say that people have indeed been shot, considering the University of Phoenix Medical Center has given several press reports on the status of the surgeries of the injured victims.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Marulo because: (no reason given)


That's about all I'm willing to accept at face value, given the nature of this shooting and the people involved and the tendency of the government to lie to us all through the media about nearly everything. To be sure a lot of people were killed. The hospital you mention says 10 people with 30 to 40 bullet holes in them. I find it hard to believe this guy popped off 30 or 40 rounds from a single pistol. That would be, what, 2 clips in a typical Glock? The 911 call suggests he fired for a few seconds then fled the scene. Can you fire 30 or 40 rounds from a Glock in a few seconds? Is this kid SWAT or something? Let's assume a reasonable rate of fire and say he managed to get off 17 shots. Is that likely to cause 30 or 40 wounds in 10 people? And the peculiar head injury said to occur, the Representative is conscious and able to follow simple instructions, the described injury and behaviour is similar to lobotomy.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marulo
Edit: I realized I might give the impression that I don't think Jared Lee Loughner should be held responsible. He pulled the trigger, he should be held accountable for his actions.


You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that he's guilty. Have you seen any actual evidence demonstrating that? Maybe he left some DNA on the murder weapon. Maybe he left fingerprints in the blood he used to sign his name on the wall. Maybe there's some video, this was in front of a Safeway, show me one chain grocery store that isn't covered with CC cameras. And is this Safeway on the moon? There must have been dozens of cameras pointed at it. Where are the recordings? I'm not as quick as everyone else seems to be to judge him guilty just because the internet says so. Show me the evidence, or I vote to acquit.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
LOL

in the internet he cant read anything, he cant know whats happening around the world right


god, this thread is a total fail!!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Seriously. He is a Extremist Profound Radical Crazy Stoner Loner Lunatic posting his hatred of the government in many youtube videos. That's what I'm hearing from several news outlets. AS FOR ONE, I never seen him curse or use any hatred in anything he posted. It's ridiculous. Wonder why he didn't watch the news? Like you said, "If he is a loner, how in the heck does he have all these friends that know what he does during day?" On the other hand, he had some kinda cookoo postings, but I have seen wayyyyy more COOOKOOOO people on the internet. Actually a few of videos made sense to me. Everyone makes it sound like he typed so weird. Any decently smart person would understand how he breaks it down. We use to do the same thing in HS. Something more to all this. It doesn't add up. AS for the flag burning....Please. For one he was demonstrating how the flag is not in constitution and therefor means we do not have a flag and it has no meaning. He was not burning the flag IMO for a radical cause, but to demonstrate it doesn't exist, in a sense(Heck maybe he is on to something?. Also How in heck could anybody know that was him? His entire body is padded, he is wearing flared pants that disguise the shape of his legs, wearing a mask, no sound or voice.

He sounds smart, but took it to far.
Perhaps he wasn't conscious?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marulo
reply to post by SeesFar
 


You know very well any of us can provide blogs with grossly misleading images from both political parties.

I made a mistake in claiming the right used more vitriolic language. Perhaps that is not the issue. The issue is the intent of the vitriolic language. At this point, everything becomes speculation.

The intent of the vitriolic language obviously varies from person to person.

In my opinion, Sarah Palin is an idiot. In fact I honestly believe the world would be a better place if she had not been chosen as John McCain's candidate back in 2008. She seems to be wholly ignorant on international matters, particularly concerning South America and the Middle East. I find her mannerisms to be quite embarrassing for our already # covered image as a country. As long as we are talking about how the third world views us, which is the majority of the world population.

This woman does not deserve to die, yet. She should however be ostracized by society to the point where she can no longer polarize this country.

I absolutely hate to judge people I do not know, but we both know it can't be helped that easily.

This is indeed an incredibly complicated issue. We have both sides fueling an increasingly inflammatory debate over politics. Both sides seem to contradict themselves on a daily basis.

Are we against vitriolic language? Or is it alright in certain circumstances?

It seems many of us, including myself, condemn vitriolic language and turn around and use it ourselves because it is in line with our ideologies.

At any rate, I did not choose my words that carefully in the previous post.

Sorry if this does not flow very well. I am trying to articulate my ideas as they are changing.

Finally. I was open to vitriolic language in certain circumstances. But I realize now that that is not the answer.
Fighting violence with violence is never the answer. In this case fighting vitriolic rhetoric with vitriolic rhetoric.


That it was a blog doesn't matter and it most certainly does not contain "grossly misleading images" ~ everything contained on it can be easily verified, as i said. I even said it did not matter whether or not one liked the site, it was the facts on the site that could not be dismissed as all are easily verified for oneself. If you can provide a blog that contains facts as verifiable as the one i provided, i will be glad to overlook the source of the information and focus only on the factual information.

You stated "Unfortunately, the right clearly uses vitriolic language far more often." Your use of the word "clearly" in your statement does not indicate that you made 'a mistake.' It indicates that you were not checking facts for yourself and/or that you were mimicking what you've heard/read. Be better than that. Research for yourself.

So, now your claim has changed to one of it being the intent of the vitriolic language, rather than the quantity of it? Then what might the intent of all that vitriol from the Left as shown on Malkin's blog have been? Or were those the "certain circumstances" to which you were once open to vitriol?

And why the rant about Palin? Do you know Palin? If not, you certainly overcame your hatred of judging people you do not know where she is concerned. None of this is about Palin. Who is Palin, really? She was the Governor of Alaska (who quit that job) and she was a (losing) Vice Presidential candidate over 2 years ago and now she's what? She's someone else with a blog, a social page or two, some kind of reality show on some cable/satellite television channel and someone who probably doesn't charge very much to show up and speak a little at small rallies. So, what real impact does Palin have? What is her purpose? Her purpose now is that she is an easy object at which the finger of the Left can point when it wants to take the attention off itself and project it elsewhere.

Palin does not have the power to polarize anything. She does not have the power to rally any significant portion of Americans into doing anything. Does some Americans still like her? Sure, but so what? She wouldn't have a snowball's chance in any election. In fact, if the main stream media and the finger-pointers on the Left (and, frankly, people like you) would ignore her, she would have long since faded into anonymity.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marulo

Though i do not necessarily align myself with the Right, i do believe your statement to be very incorrect. It is the media and certain others that would project the misdeeds of the Left onto the Right.


To what degree does the Liberal media project those misdeeds onto the Conservative Media?

Re-read my post. Where do I state that the Liberal media projects misdeeds onto the Conservative media?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SeesFar
 


Okay fine. To what degree does the media and certain individuals project the misdeeds of the left onto the right?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SeesFar
 


This is just to humor myself and you.

Not doing sufficient research and then publicly stating your conclusions is not a mistake?

That is a grave mistake.


I have a feeling both of us are misinterpreting each other.


Important: I did not read your entire post, I am on my way out the door.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Marulo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marulo
reply to post by SeesFar
 


This is just to humor myself and you.

Not doing sufficient research and then publicly stating your conclusions is not a mistake?

That is a grave mistake.


I have a feeling both of us are misinterpreting each other.


Important: I did not read your entire post, I am on my way out the door.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Marulo because: (no reason given)


Thus far, I do not share your opinion that we are misinterpreting one another.

Since you are in a hurry and admittedly did not read my entire post, I will wait until you DO read my entire post before responding to the questions/statements you've made in your last two posts. Because, at this point, neither of your previous two posts make any sense to me.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
LOL

in the internet he cant read anything, he cant know whats happening around the world right


god, this thread is a total fail!!


My thoughts EXACTLY! I wonder how he maintained his Myspace page and uploaded his YT videos?

TOTAL FAIL.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
In this day and age you pretty much have to live under a rock to not have some idea what's going on in the world around you.

And for such a loner, this guy seems to have had a lot of friends who had intimate knowledge of his political habits.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
In this day and age you pretty much have to live under a rock to not have some idea what's going on in the world around you.

And for such a loner, this guy seems to have had a lot of friends who had intimate knowledge of his political habits.


Sad.

Paraphrasing statements like these, we get: "This new evidence doesn't fit with my prejudged conclusions, so I'll have to say something to try and discredit it".

Now there's a real "deny ignorance" point of view - not.


My point in posting this thread was simply that there is NO EVIDENCE that the shooter was motivated by things from Palin - OR ANYONE ELSE.

That means anyone still posting that kind of BS is motivated by their own hate for the person they are attacking (Palin or otherwise), and not any evidence from the shooting.

Why?
edit on 1/13/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
My point in posting this thread was simply that there is NO EVIDENCE that the shooter was motivated by things from Palin - OR ANYONE ELSE.]

Fair enough. But just for grins, let's review OP, shall we?

Originally posted by centurion1211
There you have it. The shooter didn't even watch the news. So, he couldn't have been influenced to do the shooting by something Palin, Limbaugh or anyone else said.


OK, so far so good, I'm buying it.....Steady, steady........



Will this be enough to get liberal members here, the MSM and democrat politicians to back down from their cynical and self-serving rhetoric?


CRASH. Ooooppppssss. Just hit a big honking contradiction tree.

edit on 13-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: fix typos, tame down tone

edit on 13-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: spacing



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Simple. I've had sort of a change of heart since I posted that. Read some speech threads.

Know also that this thread and some of my other posts were basically in defense of people I think are being wrongly singled out and accused of being the reasons behind this tragedy. It also bothers me to see people use something like these shootings for political and/or financial gain. Bottom line. If no one had done that, this thread wouldn't exist.

However, I do stand behind what I posted just before yours above.
edit on 1/13/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


I respect your honesty as I'm striving to do the same and tone down my rhetoric. Sorry for my sarcasm, I'm still trying to find the right balance but always looking to point out contradictions. (I'm not exempt from them.) I suppose we are more alike than dissimilar. Althogh I have NEVER directly blamed Palin, I have used some of her own words as examples.

I believe the assassain was a nut job an no words could have singularly caused nor prevented his actions.

Regards...kk
edit on 13-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


We simply don't have enough evidence from the shooting, sure, we can rely on FOX News for information which has been on a "Don't blame US!" campaign ever since this happened.

I find it interesting that for two years now, the right has had a free for all, threatening lawmakers, (either directly, or indirectly), and when an event occurs that fits the narrative of those threats, these same people want to shift blame away from themselves. Creating a narrative of, "Oh we have been peace loving non hate filled innocents that could never have precipitated events like this."

I thought that taking personal responsibility was a hallmark of this conservative movement. Apparently I was wrong in that line of thinking.

I believe that if the truth is actually disclosed, we will find out that these "Friends" of the shooters who have come forward to say that his actions were in no way politically motivated will evaporate and this was indeed a politically motivated tragedy.

I am not buying the "Don't blame US!" story.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by centurion1211
 


We simply don't have enough evidence from the shooting, sure, we can rely on FOX News for information which has been on a "Don't blame US!" campaign ever since this happened.


Since you are now admitting that you don't have enough evidence, this is exactly why you and other people shouldn't be trying to blame this tragedy on Palin or any other conservative.


I find it interesting that for two years now, the right has had a free for all, threatening lawmakers, (either directly, or indirectly), and when an event occurs that fits the narrative of those threats, these same people want to shift blame away from themselves. Creating a narrative of, "Oh we have been peace loving non hate filled innocents that could never have precipitated events like this."


"for two years now"? Perhaps you haven't seen all the pictures and quotes on the other threads showing people saying kill Bush and other conservatives. Quite hypocritical to only single out one side for the hate rhetoric - or to use the pathetic "well, the other guy did it too" "logic". Conservatives have not blamed anyone for the shootings except the guy who pulled the trigger.


I thought that taking personal responsibility was a hallmark of this conservative movement. Apparently I was wrong in that line of thinking.


Taking personal responsibility IS the hallmark of conservative thought. However, you have to have actually done something to take responsibility for it. So, let's turn it around for the sake of fairness. This whole "rhetoric controversy" since the shootings has been started and owned by one group. Within minutes of the shootings, there were already MSM news reports and blogs trying to place blame on every conservative liberals could name. Even the democrat sheriff of Pima County was seen overstepping his bounds - and possibly tainting the investigation - by placing blame without evidence. He was forced to publicly admit that later. Then we see democrat senator Sanders using a political fund raiser to profit off the dead and wounded. Where is your or anyone else's outrage over that? Where are your calls to take personal responsibility?

So, conservatives - me included - did respond IN DEFENSE of those we consider wrongly accused. We correctly pointed out that there was NO EVIDENCE linking the shooter to any conservatives. We also pointed out the hypocrisy by showing tons of examples of liberals doing the same and worse as what they were WRONGLY accusing conservatives of. And it's really not enough for liberals when "caught" to now say you don't support those actions either. You needed to have spoken out against it then - at the time it was being perpetrated by other fellow liberals.


I believe that if the truth is actually disclosed, we will find out that these "Friends" of the shooters who have come forward to say that his actions were in no way politically motivated will evaporate and this was indeed a politically motivated tragedy.

I am not buying the "Don't blame US!" story.


Again, then please do wait for the REAL EVIDENCE to come out before contributing your own version of the blame game. And while you are doing that, how about some real introspection. Sadly, if you do that I think you'll find that you've been just another one of many exploiting a tragedy for political gain.

Now, honestly, I am not being mean with what I've said. I am attempting to rationally answer a post by another member. That said, I will continue to post in this "reduced volume" style.
edit on 1/14/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join