Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And here is a Limbaugh rant (I heard part of it in my car)--which he is so proud of that he posted the transcript on his own website.
....


Nowhere in all this, of course, is the slightest indication of why Jared Lee Loughner would have chosen to shoot a Democratic Congresswoman if he was acting out of leftist resentment.

I think that this crime was not politically motivated and we would all be better off to take a time out. Too much finger pointing by both sides,

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It's interesting that he defuses the phrase 'shoot me in the head' by applying it to himself before he starts talking about a red-blue shooting war that might be pending. He seems to know he is using inflammatory rhetoric, and is building in an excuse for why it shouldn't be considered inflammatory.

But he is talking about values lock. He's asserting that the Blue population cannot move off of Marxist values, that one has to shoot people as it is impossible to use reason to get any sort of values change. From my perspective, it is entirely false. In my experience, liberals believe Marx saw real problems in the culture of his time, but the solutions he proposed didn't work and are never apt to work. From my perspective, this is a strawman argument with deadly overtones.

Bob, I believe you may have taken this out of context. I actually watch Glenn Beck's show and remember this quote. It was in reference to the Dems using what some refer-to as the "far-left" for their(Dems') Ends. What he was saying is that the "far-left" are radicals and that if the Dems don't achieve what the far-left wants, the far-left will rebel against the Dems. He was saying that he believes the Dems don't know that they're playing w/fire by trying to co-opt the far-left.

I'm not trying to make a statement here, or to defend Glenn Beck for that matter. I'm trying to clear-up any mis-interpretation and I believe there may be one in your post b/c of you saying "starting a red-blue shooting war". I seriously believe he was talking about a Dem vs Far-Left conflict.

PoC67

PS: FWIW, I believe the same could be said about the GOP in reference to the Tea Party although I don't believe the average TP-member is seriously condoning a violent revolt. Of course I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

... FWIW, I believe the same could be said about the GOP in reference to the Tea Party although I don't believe the average TP-member is seriously condoning a violent revolt. Of course I could be wrong.

H-m-m-m. Since they're the only ones carrying guns to political rallies, my money's on them. It only takes one.

Originally Posted by radind

I think that this crime was not politically motivated and we would all be better off to take a time out. Too much finger pointing by both sides,

As I have said before, although Loughner is clearly a major league nut case, I simply do not see how anyone can believe that a Democratic Congresswoman at a public event could be regarded as a randomly chosen target.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Bob, I believe you may have taken this out of context. I actually watch Glenn Beck's show and remember this quote. It was in reference to the Dems using what some refer-to as the "far-left" for their(Dems') Ends. What he was saying is that the "far-left" are radicals and that if the Dems don't achieve what the far-left wants, the far-left will rebel against the Dems. He was saying that he believes the Dems don't know that they're playing w/fire by trying to co-opt the far-left.

I'm not trying to make a statement here, or to defend Glenn Beck for that matter. I'm trying to clear-up any mis-interpretation and I believe there may be one in your post b/c of you saying "starting a red-blue shooting war". I seriously believe he was talking about a Dem vs Far-Left conflict.

PoC67


PS: FWIW, I believe the same could be said about the GOP in reference to the Tea Party although I don't believe the average TP-member is seriously condoning a violent revolt. Of course I could be wrong.

First of all, it was me, not Bob, who gave the quote, and it is clear who Beck is referring to: "radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep’s clothing." (I wouldn't be surprised if he actually said "you in Washington" instead of "you and Washington.") These are people who believe in Communism, he says, and, according to Beck, they must be shot in the head. There are no such people in the Congress or the Obama Administration. It's a totally incendiary, violence-inducing straw man. And a Democratic Congresswoman has just been shot in the head.

The idea that certain Americans must be shot for the sake of our freedom is totally contrary to every fundamental tenet of American life. There's no excuse for allowing some one to peddle it to an audience of millions.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

First of all, it was me, not Bob, who gave the quote, and it is clear who Beck is referring to: "radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep’s clothing." (I wouldn't be surprised if he actually said "you in Washington" instead of "you and Washington.") These are people who believe in Communism, he says, and, according to Beck, they must be shot in the head. There are no such people in the Congress or the Obama Administration. It's a totally incendiary, violence-inducing straw man. And a Democratic Congresswoman has just been shot in the head.

The idea that certain Americans must be shot for the sake of our freedom is totally contrary to every fundamental tenet of American life. There's no excuse for allowing some one to peddle it to an audience of millions.

Sorry KD for not recognizing that you were the originator of the posting of the Beck quote. I'll attempt to be more thorough in the future.

PoC67

Originally Posted by The Rani

How about all the other targets that he hit?

Yeah, like the republican judge that had just recently made a major ruling against dem policy?

I assume, that is, that we are continuing to pretend that the parasites are the only significant targets...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

As I have said before, although Loughner is clearly a major league nut case, I simply do not see how anyone can believe that a Democratic Congresswoman at a public event could be regarded as a randomly chosen target.

Loughner didn't pick Congresswoman Giffords at random, and nobody is saying that he did. In fact, there are plenty of things that are now common knowledge that point to his reasons for targeting her.

First of all, Giffords was the representative of his district. Second, she prized open and unmediated communication with her constituents, which made her vulnerable. Third, she refused to answer one of Loughner's questions at a public forum several years ago, which his friends suggested humiliated him and pissed him off immensely.

Oh, and this is probably important:

The female tellers at his local bank knew him as the crazy guy who'd angrily tell them women shouldn't be in positions of power or authority over him. And he was frustrated that women turned him down for dates after getting to know him. And he mused that loneliness was the true cause of rape and that women deserved it for drinking and putting themselves into such situations. And he hated "cunt educators" (like his female math teacher at his community college, who he freaked out at over a math problem) telling him what to do.

And I'll point out one more thing that might be relevant:

His mother was a figure in the local government (in the Parks & Recreation department, if I recall correctly).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Yeah, like the republican judge that had just recently made a major ruling against dem policy?

I assume, that is, that we are continuing to pretend that the parasites are the only significant targets...

To be fair, people who knew him have said that he had a long running grudge against Congresswoman Giffords, not Judge Roll.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

As I have said before, although Loughner is clearly a major league nut case, I simply do not see how anyone can believe that a Democratic Congresswoman at a public event could be regarded as a randomly chosen target.

It was not random. He had encountered her before and seemed to have a grudge. Trying to make this 'political' just fuels the fires.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I've never been one for pretense.
He shot up a whole bunch of people, on purpose, who have nothing to do with the government whatsoever.
Whatever is wrong with that dude goes a lot deeper than politics.

I certainly have never disagreed with that.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Loughner didn't pick Congresswoman Giffords at random, and nobody is saying that he did. In fact, there are plenty of things that are now common knowledge that point to his reasons for targeting her.

First of all, Giffords was the representative of his district. Second, she prized open and unmediated communication with her constituents, which made her vulnerable. Third, she refused to answer one of Loughner's questions at a public forum several years ago, which his friends suggested humiliated him and pissed him off immensely.

Oh, and this is probably important:

The female tellers at his local bank knew him as the crazy guy who'd angrily tell them women shouldn't be in positions of power or authority over him. And he was frustrated that women turned him down for dates after getting to know him. And he mused that loneliness was the true cause of rape and that women deserved it for drinking and putting themselves into such situations. And he hated "cunt educators" (like his female math teacher at his community college, who he freaked out at over a math problem) telling him what to do.

And I'll point out one more thing that might be relevant:

His mother was a figure in the local government (in the Parks & Recreation department, if I recall correctly).

May I ask where you are getting all this information?

Originally Posted by Semo '75

To be fair, people who knew him have said that he had a long running grudge against Congresswoman Giffords, not Judge Roll.

Oh, I know. Of course, the whole argument that he was politically-motivated relies on completely ignoring or discounting what people who know him say about him. So I was just riffing off that premise.

---

-edit-
looking over my previous post, i noticed it could have been taken as derogatory to rani. that was merely an artifact of the 'reply to' feature and my own supreme laziness -- i meant her no disparagement.

Welcome back, Semo!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

May I ask where you are getting all this information?

Sure thing!

Here's a pretty good overview that appeared in the New York Times. Mother Jones broke the story of Loughner's visit to one of Congresswoman Giffords' campaign events, while the Wall Street Journal covered his postings on an online video game forum.

That should cover just about everything that I said in my earlier post.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Oh, I know. Of course, the whole argument that he was politically-motivated relies on completely ignoring or discounting what people who know him say about him. So I was just riffing off that premise.

Fair enough. I just wanted to make it clear that Congresswoman Giffords was definitely the target (he apparently sent a note to her office on the day of the shooting with the eloquent message, "DIE BITCH!").

Originally Posted by Odin

Welcome back, Semo!

Thanks, Odin. I probably won't stick around very long, but it's nice to see you (and everybody else) again.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And here is a Limbaugh rant (I heard part of it in my car)--which he is so proud of that he posted the transcript on his own website.

RUSH: Now, let me suggest something here. We could all say just as easily that the Democrats, the left is responsible for Tucson. We could say it. We didn't. But we could.

How? Very simple.

The left -- which continues to agitate, abuse, punish, name-call, whatever -- create an environment in which the individual is smothered. They treat people, individuals, as worthless. They come up with these conspiracy theories that Bush knew about 9/11. Imagine yourself wandering aimlessly through the murk as a disturbed young man, you see one of your cities practically blown off the map and then you go out and watch a movie by Michael Moore and you listen to Democrats and you read websites -- and you watch movies, documentaries --about how Bush was behind it. What do you think it's gonna do to an already disturbed mind?

And who did all that? Who plants ideas like these in people's heads? Bush knew of 9/11? What kind of a mass murderer does that make Bush? And don't forget, 35% of the Democrats in this country in a poll say they thought so, that Bush knew about it. That means that by extension, Bush knew about it and didn't do anything to stop it. Therefore he is complicit. The left is constantly telling anybody who will listen how rotten this country is, how rotten we are, how rotten the nation is, how unfair and unjust our economic system is. They create this environment of pessimism, self-hate, and desperation. They tell victims -- and they try to make as many people victims as possible by putting them in groups of victims.

They tell these people that they've got no chance in this unjust and unfair country. "If you're Hispanic, you got no chance. If you're African-American, you got no chance. If you're a woman and African-American, you are doomed! You have no chance. The only out for you is the military, and if you do that, you're stupid, but you really can't be blamed because this economy was so destroyed by George W. Bush, you have no future." What is this going to do to people? And this went on for eight years. And before Clinton got to ten it went on for 16 or 12 years, during Reagan and the first term of Bush. This has been a constant refrain: Uunjust, unfair America is.

And now, as though to put an exclamation point on it, we got a president who runs around the world basically affirming this all by apologizing for it to anybody who will listen. So you take some uneducated, ill-informed, mal-informed, disturbed young people, and you subject them to this stuff: Lying propaganda, movies, documentaries, who knows what the hell else, political speeches. Sure, we could sit here and blame the left for this. We could say they've got blood on their hands, that they create this kinda climate. Because the Democrats, the left in this country, they turn citizen against citizen.

They want people to hate each other over wealth or race, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever. They love talking about hate speech! They love talking about hate. They want people to hate each other. It's a distraction to boot. You get men and women at war against each other, they're distracted. You get blacks and whites at war with each other, they're distracted. No matter what war you set up, it equals a distraction while the left marches on down the highway of socialism. How can you be a liberal and be proud of yourself when you're told you don't sacrifice enough for the state? We've heard that refrain, too.

"The American people have not been asked to sacrifice during the Iraq war! We have not been asked to sacrifice," meaning we're not paying enough taxes. Or your ancestors committed some horrible offense. Or conversely, if you're not able to succeed it's because of the Founders who were inherently racism, racist; or it's the unfair unjustness of capitalism. Or basically a system built to deny you your just rewards -- and other than that, you've gotta find a way to get your "benefits," because country is stacked against you. This is the message of the Democrat Party every day, and it is ratcheted up during every election.

This is the message. So who is it that is creating the message of desperation and despair and pessimism playing on fears and weaknesses? It is them. It isn't us. We're the ones who are optimistic! We continue to tell people this country provides excellent opportunity for anybody who wants to seek it, whatever ambition level you have. We are warning people that that magic, that this wealth of opportunity, is threatened by the current regime and its socialist policies --and we threaten that because we want people to oppose it because our warnings are rooted in love. Love of country, love of this nation's history, love of its potential, and love of its existence. Love of its future.

And there isn't any of that on the left. This stuff needs to be turned around on these people. If you are a victim, and you have been victimized by other citizens or society generally, as the left preaches, are you not more likely to become violent? They tell you that the deck is stacked against you, that the rich are taking everything from you, or that the Republicans want to kick you outta your house and take away your Social Security, or the Republicans want you to die, or their oil companies want you to go broke, or what have you? What are you gonna be prone to do here after a lifetime of hearing this stuff?

Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big This, Big That, Big Insurance. Every American institution that exists, according to the Democrats, is out to veritably kill you at one point or another. If you were told that you are put upon by the system, that you have no hope unless society is transformed and made more just, unless there is fairness -- are you not more likely to become violent? If you're told every day that your future doesn't exist, that it's been robbed and stolen from you already, what are you gonna do -- particularly if you have (sigh), you know, mental disturbance going into this all this?

You're told the rich are ripping you off. If not for them, you would be living well. If not for them, you'd have the boat and you'd have a house on the beach and you'd have three cars. Are you not at least gonna be resentful? And don't forget this is not something they say now and then. It's every day. It is their platform. If you're told that America is a racist nation and there's nothing you can do about it, are you gonna get kicked off and form the New Black Panthers, maybe, and try to get in the way of people electing people that you oppose?

Who knows? Anything's possible when that's the message. When you got community organizers like Obama running around agitating on all this stuff, on street corners every day in urban areas of this country, what the hell do you expect to happen? And they blame us. Turn it around on them, folks, damn it. They're the ones this create climates of hate, negativism, pessimism, desperation. "All is lost," despair, they create it. That's how they benefit. They profit from all that.


Nowhere in all this, of course, is the slightest indication of why Jared Lee Loughner would have chosen to shoot a Democratic Congresswoman if he was acting out of leftist resentment.

Two words:

Congressman Cohen

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And here is a Limbaugh rant (I heard part of it in my car)--which he is so proud of that he posted the transcript on his own website.

RUSH: Now, let me suggest something here. We could all say just as easily that the Democrats, the left is responsible for Tucson. We could say it. We didn't. But we could.

How? Very simple.

The left -- which continues to agitate, abuse, punish, name-call, whatever -- create an environment in which the individual is smothered. They treat people, individuals, as worthless. They come up with these conspiracy theories that Bush knew about 9/11. Imagine yourself wandering aimlessly through the murk as a disturbed young man, you see one of your cities practically blown off the map and then you go out and watch a movie by Michael Moore and you listen to Democrats and you read websites -- and you watch movies, documentaries --about how Bush was behind it. What do you think it's gonna do to an already disturbed mind?

And who did all that? Who plants ideas like these in people's heads? Bush knew of 9/11? What kind of a mass murderer does that make Bush? And don't forget, 35% of the Democrats in this country in a poll say they thought so, that Bush knew about it. That means that by extension, Bush knew about it and didn't do anything to stop it. Therefore he is complicit. The left is constantly telling anybody who will listen how rotten this country is, how rotten we are, how rotten the nation is, how unfair and unjust our economic system is. They create this environment of pessimism, self-hate, and desperation. They tell victims -- and they try to make as many people victims as possible by putting them in groups of victims.

They tell these people that they've got no chance in this unjust and unfair country. "If you're Hispanic, you got no chance. If you're African-American, you got no chance. If you're a woman and African-American, you are doomed! You have no chance. The only out for you is the military, and if you do that, you're stupid, but you really can't be blamed because this economy was so destroyed by George W. Bush, you have no future." What is this going to do to people? And this went on for eight years. And before Clinton got to ten it went on for 16 or 12 years, during Reagan and the first term of Bush. This has been a constant refrain: Unjust, unfair America is.

And now, as though to put an exclamation point on it, we got a president who runs around the world basically affirming this all by apologizing for it to anybody who will listen. So you take some uneducated, ill-informed, mal-informed, disturbed young people, and you subject them to this stuff: Lying propaganda, movies, documentaries, who knows what the hell else, political speeches. Sure, we could sit here and blame the left for this. We could say they've got blood on their hands, that they create this kinda climate. Because the Democrats, the left in this country, they turn citizen against citizen.

They want people to hate each other over wealth or race, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever. They love talking about hate speech! They love talking about hate. They want people to hate each other. It's a distraction to boot. You get men and women at war against each other, they're distracted. You get blacks and whites at war with each other, they're distracted. No matter what war you set up, it equals a distraction while the left marches on down the highway of socialism. How can you be a liberal and be proud of yourself when you're told you don't sacrifice enough for the state? We've heard that refrain, too.

"The American people have not been asked to sacrifice during the Iraq war! We have not been asked to sacrifice," meaning we're not paying enough taxes. Or your ancestors committed some horrible offense. Or conversely, if you're not able to succeed it's because of the Founders who were inherently racism, racist; or it's the unfair unjustness of capitalism. Or basically a system built to deny you your just rewards -- and other than that, you've gotta find a way to get your "benefits," because country is stacked against you. This is the message of the Democrat Party every day, and it is ratcheted up during every election.

This is the message. So who is it that is creating the message of desperation and despair and pessimism playing on fears and weaknesses? It is them. It isn't us. We're the ones who are optimistic! We continue to tell people this country provides excellent opportunity for anybody who wants to seek it, whatever ambition level you have. We are warning people that that magic, that this wealth of opportunity, is threatened by the current regime and its socialist policies --and we threaten that because we want people to oppose it because our warnings are rooted in love. Love of country, love of this nation's history, love of its potential, and love of its existence. Love of its future.

And there isn't any of that on the left. This stuff needs to be turned around on these people. If you are a victim, and you have been victimized by other citizens or society generally, as the left preaches, are you not more likely to become violent? They tell you that the deck is stacked against you, that the rich are taking everything from you, or that the Republicans want to kick you outta your house and take away your Social Security, or the Republicans want you to die, or their oil companies want you to go broke, or what have you? What are you gonna be prone to do here after a lifetime of hearing this stuff?

Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big This, Big That, Big Insurance. Every American institution that exists, according to the Democrats, is out to veritably kill you at one point or another. If you were told that you are put upon by the system, that you have no hope unless society is transformed and made more just, unless there is fairness -- are you not more likely to become violent? If you're told every day that your future doesn't exist, that it's been robbed and stolen from you already, what are you gonna do -- particularly if you have (sigh), you know, mental disturbance going into this all this?

You're told the rich are ripping you off. If not for them, you would be living well. If not for them, you'd have the boat and you'd have a house on the beach and you'd have three cars. Are you not at least gonna be resentful? And don't forget this is not something they say now and then. It's every day. It is their platform. If you're told that America is a racist nation and there's nothing you can do about it, are you gonna get kicked off and form the New Black Panthers, maybe, and try to get in the way of people electing people that you oppose?

Who knows? Anything's possible when that's the message. When you got community organizers like Obama running around agitating on all this stuff, on street corners every day in urban areas of this country, what the hell do you expect to happen? And they blame us. Turn it around on them, folks, damn it. They're the ones this create climates of hate, negativism, pessimism, desperation. "All is lost," despair, they create it. That's how they benefit. They profit from all that.

Nowhere in all this, of course, is the slightest indication of why Jared Lee Loughner would have chosen to shoot a Democratic Congresswoman if he was acting out of leftist resentment.

Rush Limbaugh is a pathological liar who not only gets away with it but gets rich off his lying. He's not much of a thinker; he offers little more than a watered-down Nietzsche without the soaring prose. Take away the soaring prose and Nietzsche is mere madness. Limbaugh speaks almost entirely in code.


He's preaching to the choir of people who show little capacity to reflect upon what they hear and understand consequences. The people who have looked into his speech for meaning and consequences no longer listen to him.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Rush Limbaugh is a pathological liar who not only gets away with it but gets rich off his lying. He's not much of a thinker; he offers little more than a watered-down Nietzsche without the soaring prose. Take away the soaring prose and Nietzsche is mere madness. Limbaugh speaks almost entirely in code.

He's preaching to the choir of people who show little capacity to reflect upon what they hear and understand consequences. The people who have looked into his speech for meaning and consequences no longer listen to him.

But outside of this, does he have redeeming qualities?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But outside of this, does he have redeeming qualities?

After reading Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh's quotes I think we can put to rest Mr. Laughner's motives. It doesn't matter. The real question is, is he the only paranoid psychotic in town? Because if Beck and Limbaugh are not paranoid psychotics, what are they, who is paying them to do what they do, and why. Follow the money, as always.

Doesn't it disgust you. To see such loathsome scum wrap themselves up in the flag, calling themselves godly, setting fire to pathetic old strawmen like Marx. Maybe that's the real reason the Romans had vomitoriums. All empires end up the same way.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

My words on non-violent civil war are drawing some odd reactions.

Eric thought I meant I wanted peaceful secession. I do not.

What I am saying is that although the right pushes gun ownership and uses violent rhetoric--and I agree with the Newsweek article above that their rhetoric contributes to the decision of a young lone nut to target a Democratic political event and Congresswoman, instead of, say, his school--the right is winning this new civil war largely by political means, using a degraded form of American democracy and appeals to various strong emotions. And if they bring it off, as they seem to be doing, I am willing to accept their triumph during this crisis rather than advocate opposing it violently. I am not suggesting actual violence should not be dealt with, but I think it will remain very small-scale. And I do think that maintaining our democratic structure is a value in itself, even if I do not like the existing result. Just the idealist in me, I suppose.

If the US broke up, that would not in any way mean not maintaining our democratic structure. A lot of folks who discuss the civil war say that the issue was maintaining our democratic institutions. That's what Lincoln said. Perhaps so, at that time in our history. But both North and South were democratic. Today breaking up our union would in no way mean an end to democracy. Personally I would be happier in a smaller country than to be ruled by the right-wing as it now exists. But if such a break-up becomes too violent, then it might not be worth it. And there is no reason to suppose that the right wing is "winning" this 4T just because they are leading right now.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Most if not all ideologues have their hearts in the right place. They really do believe that they know what is best for everyone else.

It is not a matter of ideology. It is a simple matter of what the law should be. I am no different than anyone else who has opinions about what the law should be. The obsession belongs to those who insist that we need guns. Guns are an American obsession and masculine inferiority complex.

I am arguing we should live in a civilized society. That is one, yes, where the cops and the criminals have all the guns, although fewer criminals and cops would have or need them in that case. It simply does not work to take the law into your own hands. There are many ways of self-defense, and many other sports to pursue! Noone needs to depend on methods that are as harmful as guns are and have been to this nation. Just think how much better our country would be had JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Malcolm X, Harvey Milk etc had lived. Just think how much better our society would be if we did not live in a culture of fear and violence, where mass murders happen every few months.

We do not live in a civilized society, but a somewhat barbaric one. We have the potential to be civilized. We need to learn and practice the ways of peace. Yes, relieving poverty and feelings of exclusion and rootlessness would help too. Other countries do not have our murder and gun death rates. Gun control can't go anywhere right now, or anti-poverty programs either for that matter, because Americans have been duped into voting Republican, among other reasons. That does not mean it can't go somewhere in the future, when Americans decide they'd rather live in a civilized and peaceful society. It is our choice.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We do not live in a civilized society, but a somewhat barbaric one. We have the potential to be civilized. We need to learn and practice the ways of peace. Yes, relieving poverty and feelings of exclusion and rootlessness would help too. Other countries do not have our murder and gun death rates. Gun control can't go anywhere right now, or anti-poverty programs either for that matter, because Americans have been duped into voting Republican, among other reasons. That does not mean it can't go somewhere in the future, when Americans decide they'd rather live in a civilized and peaceful society. It is our choice.

Again, the United State's murder and gun death rates are comperable to other developed countries if one excludes blacks. We have problems with race, gangs, poverty and drugs. Our policy regarding gun control is not what divides us from other countries.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Nowhere in all this, of course, is the slightest indication of why Jared Lee Loughner would have chosen to shoot a Democratic Congresswoman if he was acting out of leftist resentment.

Because she wasn't liberal enough? I seem to recall that the Daily Kos had some pretty nasty things to say about her before this incident.

In any case, Limbaugh is absolutely right in what he said. I'm not his biggest fan, but when he's right, he's right. His "rah rah America" thing is typical of the shallow mindset of the Boomer right, but what he said about the left is entirely true.

In particular:

They love talking about hate. They want people to hate each other. It's a distraction to boot. You get men and women at war against each other, they're distracted. You get blacks and whites at war with each other, they're distracted. No matter what war you set up, it equals a distraction while the left marches on down the highway of socialism.

It doesn't matter whether Loughner was motivated by right wing politics, left wing politics or whether he was just plain crazy. The real issues are the competing narratives around the shooting (actual evidence does add credibility to the competing narratives though sometimes even that is not really necessary), which one wins and then what effect this has on events. Note that later on in history the "winning" narrative can easily change (multiple times), though that would be easier if Loughner had died at the scene or is later executed to leave people free to spin whatever story they like.