Forum:Gabrielle Gifford shooting

< Index | General discussion

Word is coming out that Gabrielle Giffords (Dem. Arizona) has just been shot at an event. Doesn't sound good.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Update:Sounds like 12 others were either wounded or killed as well.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the sociopathic propaganda that has come out of the mouths of people like Glenn Beck and Michael "The Savage" Weiner, or even CONservapedia, is this any surprise? In my opinion: no. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

When an extremist right-wing nut goes out and shoots someone then obviously it's because they're misinterpreting the true message of Palin et al. just because a commenter laces their language with gun analogies, and in some cases not very subtly suggest that their opponents should be shot - no-one should interpret this as being endorsement or encouragement of violene. It's similar to the problem in which some religious believers incorrectly believe that their religion endorses murder and homophobia - simply because their holy book endorses and encourages the same. No true conservative nut would actually go out and shoot someone in the back of the head. It's obviously a liberal plot, totally nothing to do with these cunts who earn a comfortable living by riling up people belonging to a demographic not exactly known for being mentally stable or even intelligent enough to operate their own bowels without assistance. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 20:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

From the state that brought us Sharron "Second Amendment Remedies" Angle. Anyone at all surprised? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New reports suggest that she's still alive but undergoing surgery. Hope she makes it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, same here. Mind you, I'd say the same if someone took a shot at Beck, and I think most of us here would feel the same way. The news reports have been damn confusing. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, word from the hospital press conference is that Giffords was lucid enough to follow instruction before surgery, has undergone neurosurgery and the prognosis is considered good, considering the situation, and that the next 24hours will tell.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd calm down on accusing the shooter of being right-wing and inspired by Glenn Beck and co. It could be true, but we don't know anything about the shooter yet, and these kinds of accusations can come back and hit you in the ass pretty hard. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. To quote General Buck Turgidson "I'd hold off judgment on something like that until all the facts are in." Could turn out to be an illegal alien for all we know, in which case Beck and company get to jizz their pants. DickTurpis (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yah well I've been blocked and slandered already by a trusted and overzeolous RW Bureaucrat, implying somehow I was responsible for this shooting.

• 19:38, 8 January 2011 Gooniepunk2010 (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31416 seconds (about 9 hours) (account creation disabled) ‎ ([1]This one's for Congresswoman Giffords. It's no wonder, in my book, why shit like this happens])

Can somone rescind the block & oversight the slander? Thany you. RobSmith nobs

It's not an illegal alien, it seems to be an above average crazy. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob, he unblocked you two minutes later. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob, have you no comprehension skills? Like most of your fellow sysops at CP you just read what you think is there, not what is actually said.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your question is "no". Although to quote Canadian Cynic, "If shooting is random, whingers who have never admitted being wrong about anything will be loudly demanding apologies from everyone." --Kels (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ From HuffPo:

Jared Laughner, the man who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), was described by eyewitnesses as a young white man who looked like a "fringe character."

Eyewitnesses have described Laughner as "young, mid-to-late 20s, white, clean-shaven with short hair and wearing dark clothing."

If that is the guy then it looks like a secessionist crazy. But it's probably all just guesswork at the moment. There should be a press conference at 01:00UTC from the police, so we might find something out then.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Obama's live press conference here on MSNBC. --Leotardo (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Largely defensive weapon of gun? My fucking arse!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if it was a secessionist crazy then that would explain why he targeted that event, a federal judge was killed along with the others.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords on Sarah Palin's 'hit list'

Part of the problem?

Febrile politics of Giffords shooting, BBC.com - "The congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, had been one of 20 names on a "hit list" issued by Sarah Palin, complete with graphics of a rifle-like telescopic sight. Ms Palin, of course, meant that she was to be targeted by voters in the mid-term elections." --Leotardo (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is it. To what degree is Palin responsible for this tragedy? Discuss. Blue (pester) 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, leave aside any right or wrong in what she's done there, that's enough now to have cost her any chance at a Presidential run.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Alleged shooter left social media hints, Politico - The police have named a suspect in the shooting of Gabriel Giffords, Jared Loughner. A person under that name has a YouTube account that includes suggestions of anti-government political views. "You don't have to accept the federalist laws," the video above says; It also insists on the gold and silver standard, talks of revolution, and suggests that the government is imposing "mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar." --Leotardo (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If that is the guy then it looks like a secessionist crazy. But it's probably all just guesswork at the moment. There should be a press conference at 01:00UTC from the police, so we might find something out then.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The video in the Politico article mentioned above, if it is him, starts getting political at 2:42. --Leotardo (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Expert on NPR: 'America has a long history of political violence, and this was without doubt a political act because that is how [Gabrielle Giffords] came in to public view.' --Leotardo (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Deborah?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh - who knows where I got that from. Fixed. --Leotardo (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)He has already been branded left wing by WorldNutDaily. - π 22:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, he can't be left-wing, not if he was a secessionist. By defintion, if he was left-wing, he'd have to be working towards the NWO, and I for one can't wait to hail our Lizard Overlords. Actually, on a serious note, it's frightening just how quick the far-right wing press has been to try and the claim the shooter as a liberal, and all of it in response to the media pointing out the Sarah Palin poster.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Using this video we may be able to refer to him as a "civil rights activist". Plus all the BCE & new age conscience raising stuff. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

the stuff about language, illiteracy and BCE not starting suggest to me off-the-scale crackpottery, possibly even mental illness. Rrose selavy (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)No Nobrot, using that video we can refer to him as a sodding nutter. Unless you're really saying that this guy is the same as, say, Mandela. Crawl back under your bridge until you've learnt something, or indeed anything, of what you speak.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

JEEZUUZZ. Just watched all 5 videos. I wonder if he's a public school grad who got into Pima Community College with a Pell Grant? Your tax dollars at work. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob, how about you quit being a dick for say... 24 hours or so... Just go watch a movie or something. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 23:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps go have your fascinating discussion at CP instead. Oops! I forgot! No community. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call this guy left wing or right wing with current info. For certain is that he exhibited a problem endemic to the right, which is fetishizing the Constitution, thinking of it as a holy writ, when from the beginning it was flawed and the people who wrote it disagreed about what some of the language meant. --Leotardo (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He seems to be arguing education is a constitutional right which I would deem a distinctly leftist, and non-conservative, view. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just be honest and say "I don't like liberals so someone who committed a crime is a liberal by definition"? ^{d hominem} 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Even better than that, Nobrot doesn't actually appear to have watched the video. Oh what am I saying, he's watched the video and has distorted everything in it so he can claim it says whatever he wants it too say. Rob, Rob, Rob, we've been through this before. The slack-jawed morons you're used to dealing with might be willing to swallow what you say whole. People whoes IQs actually make it into triple digits will, however, check any source that you put up. Worse, it's yet another prime example of conservative deceit, and it's taken place at a site where you can't burn the evidence and salt the ground. What a shame. You keep digging that hole Nobrot, the rest of us will just admire that wonderful latrine you've got going there. Oh, and Rob, it's obviously passed you by, but Jared Lee Loughner is an Afghanistan veteran, and that isn't a resume that screams leftist to me.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Loughner is an Afghanistan veteran, and that isn't a resume that screams leftist

Wow. That's a beauty of a non-sequitur. Got a source on this one? John Kerry? Wesley Clark? Oliver Stone? nobs

And yet "He read Mein Kampf, so he must be a liberal" is just fine, hey Rob? --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 16:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

^{don't bother me} 16:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Association fallacies. Association fallacies everywhere. Sen (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I don't know why people are trying to describe a political ideology of a person who was clearly disturbed and unlikely to have coherent enough thoughts to have a logically consistent set of beliefs. This is just cheap political opportunism and an insult to the victims. - π 00:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. The written text of his five videos is also available at Youtube. He seems to be railing about how all police in the U.S. are unconstitutionally working. He claims he's a victim of torture. He criticiozes the current government. Presumably, he's arguing since education is a constitutional right, he is fraudulently being charged tuition. He's a complete nutcase. At best, we're back to the discussion, "Is liberalism a mental disorder". But remember, this whole thread got started by blaming Sarah Palin -- without any facts, or evidence. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Asserting something about a public figure without facts or evidence? Perhaps you should search CP using the keywords 'Obama' and 'Muslim'. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nob, Nob, Nob, please show where, exactly, this thread blames Sarah Palin. Once again, you're claiming to quote or reference something, and yet again are caught lying. Back to the bridge, you really are getting boring trying to pull the same tired bullshit over and over again.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Giffords_on_Sarah_Palin.27s_.27hit_list.27. You gonna oversight that too, along with my block moments after the shooting? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So, Rob, you agree with Pi that it's silly to "to describe a political ideology of a person who was clearly disturbed and unlikely to have coherent enough thoughts to have a logically consistent set of beliefs". Yet Fred Phelps, a clear nutcase whose one and only consistent political stance (very anti-gay) is decidedly conservative, is somehow a liberal, eh? Care to explain that one? (You can do it in another forum if you like.) DickTurpis (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"to describe a political ideology of a person who was clearly disturbed and unlikely to have coherent enough thoughts to have a logically consistent set of beliefs"

Are you talking about Ronald Reagan or Ken Doll? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on replying with another nonsensical, off-topic statement. I'm not talking about either, shitforbrains, I'm asking about Phelps (Reagan is dead and Ken is an adult, semi-functional retard). If, as you seem to believe, a nutjob without a coherent political stance shouldn't be described as liberal nor conservative, why do you insist that Phelps (who fits that description to a T) is liberal? Answer the goddamn question without using the word "commie", if you're capable. DickTurpis (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's try these:Phelp dishonors American servicemen, pickets thier funerals & says Dick Cheney will burn in hell for his crimes against America. Sounds like liberal talking points, no? nobs^{don't bother me} 15:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even slightly. Show me some "liberal talking points" that reference picketing servicemen's funerals. Is that somewhere on the Democratic platform that I'm not aware of? As for being against certain Republicans, I guess Andy is a liberal as well, as he's been very critical of guys as conservative as Orrin Hatch. Let's try this out. Phelps is a fundamental christian, against socialistic countries such as Sweden, and his one and only consistent political stance is being anti-gay. Every other political view he has stems from that. Sounds a bit like conservative talking points, no? Conservapedia lists many alleged traits of liberals at cp:liberal, which of these does he fit? Is it support of same sex marriage? opposition to the Bible? Opposition to classroom prayer? Abortion? Gun control? I suppose we can give him "Withholds support to our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms", so that's one out of several dozen (and that's only because he sees the US as insufficiently anti-gay). Apparently you're a liberal for supporting criminal rehabilitation (I assume that's what your "prison ministries is all about). Likewise you promote arrogance through what you consider superior lifestyles (conservative Christianity). Phelps is Falwell taken to the next logical step: Falwell said 9/11 was the result of US tolerance for homosexuality; Phelps thinks troop deaths are too. Phelps is just going along with God's plan of punishing us for not condemning homosexuals. If the US took up Ed Poor's "incarcerate homosexuals" policy he openly endorsed, Phelps would stop his picketing immediately. I'm not going to say Phelps is necessarily conservative (he's a nutjob whose political stance is inconsistent in every way but one) but he ain't liberal. I suspect you know this but are once again lying out your ass, like you so often do. DickTurpis (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Phelps is Falwell taken to the next logical step -- is that a logical non sequitur or literary device?
• Likewise you (presumably me) promote arrogance through what you consider superior lifestyles (conservative Christianity). -- careful, it is the conservative, and the Christian, in me that does not scream "BIGOT" in your face; "be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel" 2Tim 1:18 nobs^{don't bother me} 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Another non-response. OK, so I know logic is not your specialty (understatement of the year right there), but do you not see how Phelps and Falwell (and Robertson) are saying pretty much the same thing? Falwell blamed civilian deaths during 9/11 on homosexuals (and others, but we'll concentrate on the gays for now), Phelps blames them for US troop deaths in the Middle East today. Very little difference there. The difference is that Phelps celebrates the deaths, apparently seeing them as a good thing (it being God's plan and all, and God being inherently good). I guess he thinks it's the best way to get people's attention to what the gays are doing to the country, and the best way to get them to change. I'm just sort of guessing here. As I said, the guy's a complete nut who makes little sense, so you're obviously in a much better position to figure him out than I am. I'm sure he loves the publicity, really. Sure, any old bigot can rant against the gays all they want and no one will raise an eyebrow (Conservapedia is an excellent example), but to do what he does really grabs people's attention in a way that a mentally retarded adult writing about obese lesbians on another manchild's blog doesn't garner any attention beyond a certain amount of ridicule.

Oh, and saying that "the only reason I'm not calling you a bigot is because I'm too much of a Christian to do so" is, in fact, calling someone a bigot. So man up and call me that in a less backhanded way. DickTurpis (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Did you know the founder of the modern conservative movement was gay? or at least publicly admitted to seeking out homosexual relationships at one point in his life? admitted publicly, after dispicable attempts to blackmail him by (fill in the blank). Trust me, I've discussed this with Andy, and CP's policy is not highlight a persons sexuality (outing) unless the subject somehow is proud out it and wants it to be thier claim to fame. And it get's tiresome to hear ignorant, yes ignorant people, refuse to discern the difference between loving the person, and hating the person's conduct. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which guy is this you're talking about (modern conservatism has more than one father)? Not that I care much. I'm sure most modern conservatives of the Schlafly variety have distanced themselves from him (or denied these claims). Great, so CP doesn't out homosexuals. Good for you. But if you're going to try to sell that "love the sinner, hate the sin" bullshit you're going to have to do better than that. From Ed "throw gays in the slammer" Poor to Ken "Summa Homosexualita" DeMyer, you'll forgive me if I somehow don't see much love for homosexuals in Conservapedia. But, as always, you're getting off topic. We were discussing the political views of Fred Phelps, and which liberal traits he possessed. So far you've said that, like so many liberals, he pickets the funerals of servicemen, celebrating their death. Since I don't know of any liberals who have ever done this I find it hard to see that as a liberal trait. Then he condemned Cheney, but he condemns all sorts of liberals too, so that's hardly meaningful. He seems to go after anyone who doesn't hate gays as much as he does, and, like Andy thinking anyone less conservative than him is liberal, he therefore thinks 99.9% of the world is pro-gay. So, yes, his one and only consistent trait is absolute hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality, which, I think you'll agree, is not a liberal trait. Or is it, suddenly. Do you now need to go to cp:Homosexual Agenda and remove all references to liberalism? DickTurpis (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So maybe Phelps is like Loughner without the homicidal tendencies; we'll assign him to the political right until evidence comes in otherwise. Then, rather than assign him to the opposite side of the spectrum, we'll just label him mentally unbalanced. Oh wait a minute, maybe that is the opposite of conservativism. I forgot. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There you go again. When you can't address the facts, go off on some moronic tangent. I didn't say Phelps was conservative; you said he was liberal. Can you come up with any justification for this, or do you have to make up shit and change the subject as you always do? If "mentally unbalanced" has associations with a side of the political spectrum, you, Ken, and Andy pretty well establish which side that is. Take your fucking meds. DickTurpis (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The examples of such people are numerous. - π 02:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Rob, you really are moronically stupid, aren't you. The first post on this thread links to an article on the BBC that quite categorically states that certain elements have already started making partisan accusations against each side, but the article itself quite clearly doesn't attack Palin, nor does the post that links to the BBC article. The next post asks the question 'To what degree is Palin responsible for this tragedy? Discuss.' which obviously doesn't accuse Palin of anything and then the next post is mine which states 'Well, leave aside any right or wrong in what she's done there, that's enough now to have cost her any chance at a Presidential run.' which, again, obviously doesn't accuse Palin of being guilty of instigating this tragedy. And then that's pretty much it for discussing Palin in this thread until my post, which once again doesn't accuse Palin of anything, and then your bullshit about this thread blaming Palin. Here's the thing Rob, your post is now more than enough for me to call you an out-and-out liar and not somebody I would ever consider employing, or even associating with because your fundamental dishonesty makes you fundamentally untrustworthy as an individual. And if you haven't been able to work this out yet Rob, this is why you are utterly despised by so many people.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahh,commie rot. Who gives a shit. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Rephrased: Not surprising you engage in ad hominems since you can't reply to specific points. Typical. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This comment is the most deserving of this image: - π 02:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone think the Saints can still win it? I think they are done. - π 00:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Press Conference

Well, so far it's come out that the shooter is 'mentally disturbed', and a criminal history, so the nutter call was right. Apparently they are also looking for a second individual, which is interesting, and that there is a suspicious package at Gabrielle Gifford's constituency quarters that is being dealt with. Oh, and the Sheriff has come out and has said that he blames the vitriol and bigotry coming from radio and some TV for either triggering this situation or exasperating it, and described Arizona as 'a Mecca for prejudice and bigotry' . The second person they are seeking is in his fifties, if I heard right. Although I'm thinking that I didn't hear that properly, or at least the BBC isn't referencing it.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. This discussion sure camew to a halt after MSNBC reported Loughner is "left wing, quite liberal." C'mon. Andy needs material for the "Liberal reaction" in the mass murder article. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder what it's like to be a decent human being, Rob? --Kels (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, MSNBC didn't describe him as that, one person they interviewed did. Who knows if she's reliable. While including The Communist Manifesto might make him seem left wing, Mein Kampf and We the Living certainly make him seem quite the opposite. DickTurpis (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow based on the Twitter statements of someone who went to school with him and last saw him three years ago, truly concrete evidence and no other is needed, right? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess MSNBC's standards for inclusion aren't quite as stringent as, oh, say Wikipedia. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, his YouTube videos, favorite books, and such make him look like a rather confused libertarian conspiracy theorist. I mean, We the Living, anti-government videos, a wish to return to the gold standard... Rodlen (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. His views are typical for the stuff you can find at any conspiracy forum. (By the way, yesterday the GLPers were convinced that this was a "false-flag operation".) --ZooGuard (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My first thought when I heard about this was "Oh, God. One of those Teabagger lunatics has actually taken their bullshit seriously." I may have been wrong, but the mere fact that this WAS my first reaction ought to worry the less-insane rightwingers, if there's any left. --Gulik (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting point you raise. My first reaction to the murder of John Wheeler was along similiar lines, but I kept my thoughts to myself. After the November shellacing, it has come home to the 20% liberal base of the Obama constituency, that 2008 was not a bellweather shift in American politics from a center right to a center left nation. This is genuine news for that minority of 1 out of 5 Americans who deluded themselves they were part of a governing majority for the past two years. I personally have felt the venom, hatred, and animosity (apart from Rationalkwiki) from this group since the November elections. Many just go off in hysteria at the mere mention of the buzzword, "Republican", which they thougt was dead & buried two years ago. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment it looks to me like he was a lunatic with a grudge against the government. But "government" in general, any government. On the other hand it's very easy to take some facts, use a bit of confirmation bias, and create a narrative which fits those facts. (At least that's what the black swan told me). --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Freeman on the land looks to be a possibility.Geni (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Need to read some of his stuff, but Freeman nutjobs tend to stand out quite easily, and they truly are fucking nuts. Don't tend to be violent though. Worm^{(t | c)} 11:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget, he's 21 years old and fresh out of (persumably public) school. His views are an amalgam of crap he's picked up from network, social media, and popular culture. That mixed with drug use and innate mental instability is an explosive mix. Whose knows how many more like him? The net result I suspect will be Congresspeople will become more remote & disatant to voters. The Townhall may be3come a thing of the past. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He compared abortion to terrorism. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To Rob on the net result: I'm personally hoping that, instead of that happening, we'll end up with one or two security guards at events like those. Enough to discourage and possibly prevent attacks, without being enough to get in the way of public meetings. Rodlen (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This will be the excuse for the GOP Congress & Democrat led Senate to do increased Homeland Security stimulus spending. Each member will need a small contingent detail on the stump, at Townhalls, and travel home on weekends (this could have helped keep Larry Craig out of the airport men's room a few years ago). nobs^{don't bother me} 18:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. Hmm...get rid of the TSA scanners (which cost huge amounts of money and don't actually seem to work), and throw some or all of that money into actual security? Rodlen (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Possiblt links to anti-govt, anti-immigration, anti-semitic group American Renaissance. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FOX News. How in the hell can you believe tht crap? nobs^{don't bother me} 18:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we branch this out into a forum space post? It's getting a little big and clogging everything up. ^{d hominem} 19:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

“”An old schoolmate of Mr Loughner told the Associated Press news agency he was a cannabis-smoking loner.

[2] Looks like he was a pot-smoking librul after all. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In related news, we're all awful people for connecting this to politics. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm working in DC today, and I can see the Capitol building when I go up to the roof to continue slowly killing myselffor a smoke break. I noticed the flags as half-staff. Dang, that's sobering. MDB (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to share that article. It sort of seems quite positive, really, that perhaps this shooting could calm US politics down a little and perhaps the more nutty politicians and pundits will realise what twats they are being. Well, we can hope. ^{d hominem} 15:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fox Noise disgusts me. Especially after I read this

After reading this swill from the mouth of the American Pravda, I just about threw my computer out the fucking window in horror. The audacity of those psychopaths!!!! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Rush needed to weigh in as well with this random pile of horsecrap. I like to see one of his points is flogging that "Heavy Metal made him do it". ~ Subsound ~ 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)