Thursday, January 13, 2011

Glenn Beck's Guest Host Is Dangerous

There's been a lot of talk the last few days about whether political rhetoric from the right in this country led to the shootings in Tucson the other day. Was Loughner a lefty, as some have maintained? Or was he a conservative? In a sense, this is natural. Everybody wants to believe that Jared Loughner was on the other side of the fence from them.

And, for most of us, anyway, he was, if istead of left or right you place the fence on the dividing line between sane and insane. I assume most of you have a pretty good idea that Loughner was non compos.

Glenn Beck apparently commented yesterday:

Now I think we'd all agree that Truthers are somewhat dangerous, moon hoax believers quite a bit less so, and big government folks not very dangerous at all, at least in the "likely to commit mass murder" sense. But, as Charles Johnson points out gleefully, doesn't that mean that frequent Glenn Beck guest host, Andrew Napolitano, is dangerous?

46 Comments:

At 13 January, 2011 14:07, Blogger NoIdentity said...

Beck is a nut whose anti-government rants are only superficially different from full-blown conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones and Peter Joseph.
What it comes down to is that Beck and extreme Libertarian types like he believe that for nearly 100 years the US government has been unconstitutional and controlled by a cabal with a secret plan that runs against the interests of the American people. If the government is unconstitutional it is illegitimate.
The logical conclusion then is that violence against illegitimate governments is justified and even an obligation, as many of our founders believed.
I'm glad Beck criticizes Truthers and conspiracy nuts but his tone and content is only marginally better than theirs.

 
At 13 January, 2011 15:57, Blogger Triterope said...

So "people who only believe in Big government solutions" are just as nuts as Truthers and moon-landing deniers?

What an asshole.

And as Noidentity pointed out, there's little that differentiates Beck from those he rails against.

 
At 13 January, 2011 17:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Was Loughner a lefty, as some have maintained? Or was he a conservative? In a sense, this is natural. Everybody wants to believe that Jared Loughner was on the other side of the fence from them."

Let's cut to the chase. Shall we?

Loughner didn't just "shoot" anybody. He shot a politician in the head, and by his own admission referred to this act of violence as an "assassination." Are you following me so far?

He stalked Giffords, and then tried to kill her because she's a politician. Loughner is ON RECORD with his belief that "government is the problem" (Gee, where have we heard that sentiment before? Ronald Reagan?).

Of course, Loughner is several cookies short of a full jar. No one debates that he has serious psychological issues. To claim, however, that an act can only be the result of psychological issues or motivated by politics is willful ignorance.

Clearly, Loughner's behavior is both psychotic AND political. Are you still with me?

Continued...

 
At 13 January, 2011 17:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Next, we need to examine the far rights' idiotic belief that says both sides--left and right--are at fault. This assertion is patent nonsense. What exactly did the liberals do? The answer is simple: Nothing, with the exception of get shot. Thus, we are dealing with another logical fallacy offered by the far right--false equivalence. Unless, of course, you believe that liberals are somehow to blame for a right-wing nut pointing a gun at Democrats and attempting to assassinate them.

Let's be clear here: Loughner shot a Democrat. I repeat: LOUGHNER SHOT A DEMOCRAT. Gosh, I wonder what side Loughner is on? He hates the government and believes the government is "the problem." And then he picked up a firearm and shot a DEMOCRAT. Again, I wonder what side Loughner is on? Duh.

Continued...

 
At 13 January, 2011 17:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The far right claims that liberals LOVE "big government." And now the rabid right has the audacity to claim Loughner is a liberal? But one look, however, at Loughner's YouTube videos proves that he thinks "government is the problem." You can't have it both ways. Do liberals love or hate the government?

Give me a break! The last two years are littered with stories of attacks and shootings of government officials and political entities--and every one of them was directed at liberal Democrats.

Of course the far right doesn't manufacture violent psychotics. No sane person would make such a claim. But the far right channels these lunatics against their enemy, the Democrats. The far right CONSTANTLY exploits violent imagery and incendiary rhetoric--Sarah Palin's cross-hairs and "reload," Sharron Angle's "second amendment solutions," or the "tree of liberty" and it's need to be "refreshed" with American blood. Then when a violent far right nut bag acts on that incendiary rhetoric, the far right pretends to be shocked--"shocked I tell you"--and outraged that such and event occurred.

Continued...

 
At 13 January, 2011 17:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That said, the far right has a long history of exploiting tragedy born of violence. For example, the Bushit administration exploited 9/11 in order to get re-elected, not to mention attack Iraq. And that's precisely why the far right is trying to blame the left for Loughner's violent act. Everyone is aware the far right exploits tragedy for political gain. Even the far right.

The fact remains that as long as the far right incites violence, violence will be the result. To pretend that another outcome is possible is a farce. To remain silent, moreover, in the face of the far rights' continued exploitation of violence and tragedy guarantees that this type of tragedy will happen again--and more likely on a larger scale.

Would you like to put a stop to needless political violence, folks? Then we must demand that the leaders of the far right put and end to the incendiary rhetoric that's tearing this country apart, and costing the lives of innocent Americans. Nothing less will atone for this senseless tragedy.

 
At 13 January, 2011 18:00, Blogger Pat said...

Lee Harvey Oswald shot a Democrat too; the guy must have been a big-time conservative, right, Bill?

 
At 13 January, 2011 18:28, Blogger paul w said...

Dude you know nothing!

Oswald was neither a left or right, he was a mind-controlled patsy!!!

FACTS:
Grassy knoll....
Mafia....
Cuba...
Military Industrial Complex...
The elites...
'They'...
Area 51...
'Ginger' from Gilligan's Island...

You, you...sheeple!!!!

Hey, Brian, I got in to derail this thread before you!!

BwaahahahHahahaha!

 
At 13 January, 2011 19:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

I love how Beck casually conflates two paranoid conspiracy cults with "people who only believe in big government solutions", a meaningless piece of boilerplate that's obviously targeted at Democrats.

I don't think one can shoehorn Loughner into a liberal-conservative mold, as the guy was obviously batshit crazy. Still, I think many on the right need to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they honestly believe some of what they've been saying.

You don't agree with Obama? Fine. Vote against him in 2012. Tell your senator and/or congressperson to vote against his initiatives. But if you honestly think the guy represents an existential threat to the US akin to the Soviet Union (you know, an aggressive empire with millions of men under arms and thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us), then you should check yourself into a mental hospital along with the truthers and the moon landing hoax people.

 
At 13 January, 2011 19:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat wrote, "...Lee Harvey Oswald shot a Democrat too; the guy must have been a big-time conservative, right, Bill?"

Lee Harvey Oswald was one hell of a strange "Democrat." After all, he had more connections to the far right than a switchboard. In addition, he worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence, which is hardly a "left wing" outfit.

He was connected to and worked out of Guy Banister's office. Guy Banister was a right winger.

LHO was connected to David Ferrie, another ultra right winger.

Additionally, LHO was connected to George De Mohrenschildt, another ultra-conservative white Russian.

There's every reason to believe that LHO's alleged "left wing" orientation was, in fact, deep cover.

LHO is a bad example, Pat. Don't go there.

 
At 13 January, 2011 20:42, Blogger paul w said...

I would guess that, all things being equal, a leftist would be more likely to murder in a right-wing system, and a rightist more likely in a left-wing system.

That changes, I think, the more extreme the system becomes, when those in power tend to also start murdering their own (but blame it on the opposition).

As the USA is a Capitalist system, I'd figure most of the political murders should be from the left.

But...all things are rarely equal, and I take the point that inflamed right-wing rhetoric could be behind a tend towards more right-wing murders.

After all, when you combine availability of guns, mental illness, drugs and inflamed political speech, it's no wonder some will flip.

I also think it would be the same result if it were left-wing inflamed speech.

Ultimately, mental illness, drugs and guns is a tragic combination.

 
At 13 January, 2011 21:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

He was connected to and worked out of Guy Banister's office. Guy Banister was a right winger.

LHO used the address of Banister's office on a flyer. There is no evidence he ever met Banister, knew Banister used that address, or even set foot in that building.

LHO was connected to David Ferrie, another ultra right winger.

The only connection is their Civil Air Patrol unit. They didn't know each other.

Additionally, LHO was connected to George De Mohrenschildt, another ultra-conservative white Russian.

All the Russians in Dallas knew De Mohrenschildt. Oswald's wife was Russian.

There's every reason to believe that LHO's alleged "left wing" orientation was, in fact, deep cover.

I hope this is a joke. You're smart enough not to fall for that. Start with Gerald Posner's "Case Closed".

 
At 13 January, 2011 23:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT wrote, "...The only connection is their Civil Air Patrol unit. They didn't know each other."

With all due respect, I don't think that's entirely true. Have a look at the following photograph.

Photo: Lee Harvey Oswald is on the right; David Ferrie is on the left.

They didn't know one another? The above mentioned photograph says otherwise.

"...I hope this is a joke. You're smart enough not to fall for that. Start with Gerald Posner's 'Case Closed'."

Thank you for the compliment; however, I read "Case Closed" and for the most part (95%), I agree with the conclusions found therein. In fact, I believe LHO assassinated JFK; however, I don't buy into the LHO was a "left winger" trope. His right-wing connections are too numerous, and too well documented. And then there's LHO's ONI connections. Something stinks. And I often wonder if someone wasn't trying very hard to implicate Castro in JFK's assassination. (And no, I'm not a friend of Castro, far from it). Given LHO's ONI background, it's safe to conclude that LHO was a spook.

Continued...

 
At 13 January, 2011 23:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Additionally, there's the problem of LHO's defection to the Soviet Union. Why was he readmitted to the US with little or no scrutiny? Something is not right, and I fear he was instructed and/or tricked into creating a "left wing" legend.

But that's neither here nor there. LHO is a bad example, because the particulars are too murky. I don't think we'll ever know enough to determine the truth. After all, LHO was a an ONI spook.

"...All the Russians in Dallas knew De Mohrenschildt. Oswald's wife was Russian."

True. De Mohrenschildt, however, was a white Russian and staunch anti-communist. Why would De Mohrenschildt befriend an alleged "left-wing radical"?

Sorry. Does not compute.

 
At 14 January, 2011 00:25, Blogger Pat said...

So we can at least agree that John Hinckley was a liberal? Pay no attention to that Jodie Foster nonsense...

 
At 14 January, 2011 00:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't know, was he?

Hinkley's right-wing family Connections.

And don't get me wrong, I'm a conservative Democrat (and former Republican. I left the Republican Party in 1983). I have no animus toward conservative Republicans. The right-wing of the Republican Party, however, I despise with a passion.

"...Don't associate me with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've done more to damage the Republican Party than the Democrats have." -- Barry Goldwater, urinating on the right-wing of the Republican Party.

 
At 14 January, 2011 06:20, Blogger James B. said...

So? I have numerous left wing connections. Some on the far left, even communist. I believe I have even had photographs taken with them. I guess that makes me a Democrat.

 
At 14 January, 2011 12:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yes, and you also believe Hitler was a "socialist." Care to debate that idiotic idea?

I don't think you do, James.

 
At 14 January, 2011 15:46, Blogger Pat said...

So when a Democrat gets assassinated it's those nasty conservatives and when a Republican gets assassinated it's those nasty conservatives. Riiiiight!

 
At 14 January, 2011 16:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Nice straw man argument, Pat.

Is that what passes for "intellect" in your corner of the woods?

 
At 14 January, 2011 16:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Perhaps you can present evidence that Hinckley is a "liberal." So far, I've read nothing but opinion masquerading as "fact."

And the last time I checked, it was the liberal Democrats who advocate gun control. Right wingers, on the other hand, violently oppose such measures.

You can't have it both ways, Pat.

The evidence that Loughner is a right wing extremist is overwhelming. The evidence for his alleged "liberal" political orientation is nill, at best.

Would you care to present something other than opinion as evidence?

And "honorary Jew" Sarah "Moose Dresser" Palin blubbering about alleged "blood libel" isn't evidence.

 
At 14 January, 2011 16:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And one more point.

The lamestream "news" is working overtime to paint Jared Loughner as a disturbed "lone nut." That said, I'm not willing to argue that Loughner is sane, because all the evidence shows that he's deeply disturbed, if not downright insane. Your argument, however, falls apart, Pat, when we examine Loughner's rhetoric (if you want to call it that). For example, all the vile and insane bullshit Loughner spewed about "the Gold Standard," (which is right out of right winger Glenn Beck's play book), mind control and "currency reform" (aka, Federal Reserve conspiracy theory) is without question right out of The Handbook for Right Wing Nut Insanity. Couple that with his "government is the problem" rhetoric and all fingers point to right wing loony land.

Now, throw in irresponsible right wing incendiary rhetoric of the kind spewed by Sarah "Moose Dresser" Palin, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Ann "the man" Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Sharron Angle, Jim DeMint, Newt Gingrich and their ilk and you have the recipe for a right wing assassin. And guess who Loughner intended to "rectify" with his special brand of "second amendment solution"?

They're lying dead or in a hospital recovering from serious, life altering wounds--and they're not right wingers.

Have a nice day.

 
At 14 January, 2011 17:05, Blogger paul w said...

"Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent..."

But Loughner did, according to Tierney, believe that government is "fucking us over."

Loughner seemed ticked off by what he believed to be a pervasive authoritarianism. "The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar," he wrote in one YouTube video.

"He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: 'Another Saturday, going to go get groceries'—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in."

The latter comments are something that obsesses the truthers.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message

 
At 14 January, 2011 17:15, Blogger Pat said...

I'm just laughing at your ridiculous idea that Oswald was tied in with the conservatives, ignoring the mountains of evidence that he was a radical left-winger. It's called confirmation bias, Bill, and you've provided a boatload of it in this thread.

 
At 14 January, 2011 17:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Loughner is the face of an exclusively 21st century problem. The guy didn't watch TV. The guy didn't listen to the radio (talk nor otherwise).

Loughner's entire world view stemmed from the INTERNET.

Zeitgheist and Loose Change are both movies made for the internet. Loughner hung out on message boards for Above Top Secret, and other conspiracy sites.

Loughner's problem stemmed from her failure to answer a whack-job question that he posed to her at a townhall meeting.

The under pinning's of Loughner's world was to quote Poe "but a dream within a dream" where nothing was real. He didn't believe in anything, so killing the Congress woman and all of those other people was no different than pulling the trigger in a video game.

This is all new, and there are more young men like Loughner out there.

While on one hand I understand the desire to drag a larger political motive the simple fact is that it is wrong to do so.

Giffords is a Democrat, but she is an Arizona democrat. If she were to move to California or New York she'd have to run under the GOP banner.

When more information about Loughner comes out; should it be positively shown that he had acted on behalf of the GOP/Right-Wing/Sarah Palin then I will be the first one to target them.

Until then the facts do not bear this out. Assigning blame based on political belief is not what "Screw Loose Change" is about.

 
At 14 January, 2011 17:40, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I'm just laughing at your ridiculous idea that Oswald was tied in with the conservatives, ignoring the mountains of evidence that he was a radical left-winger.

Debating whether Oswald was motivated by left-wing or right-wing politics is like debating whether Jeffrey Dahmer was motivated by white meat or dark meat. Oswald was a mentally disturbed person who lacked rational motives. A right winger wouldn't have shot at Edwin Walker. A left winger wouldn't have shot JFK. A sane person wouldn't have shot Officer Tippett.

When people kill politicians it's tempting to look for a political motive, but I don't think it's always there.

 
At 14 January, 2011 18:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat wrote, "...I'm just laughing at your ridiculous idea that Oswald was tied in with the conservatives, ignoring the mountains of evidence that he was a radical left-winger. It's called confirmation bias, Bill, and you've provided a boatload of it in this thread."

You just don't get it, do you Pat?

Oswald was a spook.

legend (cover) -- The complete cover story developed for an operative.

Sheep Dipped -- The phrase "sheep dipped", is commonly used in intelligence circles. It's a way of saying someone has been given an alternate identity.

Oswald performed clandestine activities on behalf of the ONI. As a result, his alleged "left-wing" orientation should be taken with a truck load of salt.

 
At 14 January, 2011 18:41, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

The day before a lunatic put a bullet in her head, Giffords was emailing with outgoing Kentucky Republican Secretary of State Trey Grayson, and wrote, "I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. ... (W)e need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down."

Good Advice.

 
At 14 January, 2011 20:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

As a reformed JFK conspiracy kook I guess I have to weigh in here.

Oswald was a wannabe. Wannabees are always a threat because they know just enough to be dangerous. He joined the Marines (which would be enough for most men)but quickly got bored with his job as a radar operator. While in Japan he learned Russian from a tutor in his off-hours.

Then he defects to Russia, probably offering his limited knowledge of the U-2 as incentive. Why? He wanted to be somebody. There were stories in the news about Westerners who'd defected to the USSR who were shown to living like kings in their new home.

Then he gets bored (a reoccuring theme) in Minsk, so he returns home.

At this time in history the US State Department, Military, and CIA had been infiltrated by the KGB in a big way. So if Oswald HAD been CIA/Naval Intel/EIEIO they would have discovered this quickly, and Lee Oswald would have ended his life in Lubianka Prison as a spy.

In the days following the assassination the US was looking - hard - for evidence that Oswald was KGB. They found none. Conversely had the KGB possessed any information that Oswald was CIA they would have shouted it from every rooftop. Instead the KGB sent a "defector" west who's sole mission was to emphasize that the KGB had nothing to do with JFK's death.

While we can only guess as to who Oswald thought he was working for it is pretty clear that he was not important. Today Oswald would certainly have a blog, be a reality TV show personality, or have a political talk-show (or short-wave nutcase show).

Oswald's radio interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9k5C94ENw

The ultimate point lost in all of the JFK silliness is that ultimately it was RFK who was behind the cover-ups. He was the guy who killed anvenues of investigation into Oswald's contacts in Mexico City, and whatever was going on in New Orleans (like Operation Mongoose).

We know this because those documents have become unsealed.

If Oswald was CIA then why has nobody stepped forward to verify this?

 
At 14 January, 2011 21:35, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Okay, here's Loughner in his own words:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jared-loughner-video-20110115,0,7041106.story

Show me any rational discussion of politics.

 
At 15 January, 2011 09:04, Blogger Pat said...

RGT, you got it right. I would say there's a lot more evidence that LHO was a lefty than there is that Loughner is a righty, but both of them (and Hinckley) were loony tunes, which is more important, unless of course you are trying to score points against the political opposition.

GB, you sound just like a Truther with that sheep dip nonsense. Next thing you'll be talking about Honey Pots and Patsies. Sorry, but this site is dedicated to rational thought, not conspiracy theories.

 
At 15 January, 2011 10:18, Blogger James B. said...

The idea that Oswald was a deep cover operative, other than having no evidence, is pretty silly. Why exactly would they pick some barely literate Marine private, who most likely would give the Soviets more intelligence than he could possibly gather?

 
At 16 January, 2011 02:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat wrote, "...GB, you sound just like a Truther with that sheep dip nonsense. Next thing you'll be talking about Honey Pots and Patsies. Sorry, but this site is dedicated to rational thought, not conspiracy theories."

Say what?

Show me where I claimed there was a "conspiracy". Show it to me.

Didn't I just tell you that I believe LHO assassinated JFK?

Don't you dare put words in my mouth, mister. Who the Hell do you think you are, Pat?

My point, for the second time (and I doubt you'll get it this time) is that all your so-called evidence for LHO's alleged left wing orientation is clouded by his intel connections.

Why did he "hang" with so many extreme right wingers?

Why was LHO readmitted into the US after "defecting" to the USSR without the slightest bit of scrutiny?

Sorry Pat, but there are so many aspects of LHO's life that simply don't add up--and they were never explained by Posner, or anyone else.

My point was simple: LHO is a bad example of alleged "left-wing" violence--nothing more, nothing less.

If you can't debate without stuffing words down my throat, then I guess we have nothing more to say.

 
At 16 January, 2011 03:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT, show me where I claimed LHO was "CIA." I said no such thing.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:25, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" big government folks not very dangerous at all, at least in the "likely to commit mass murder" sense."

The 120,000,000 people murdered by communism beg to differ.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:26, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Loughner is ON RECORD with his belief that "government is the problem" (Gee, where have we heard that sentiment before? Ronald Reagan?)"

And Ronald Reagan shot how many people in the head?

That was a pretty fucking disgusting comment.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:32, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Let's be clear here: Loughner shot a Democrat. I repeat: LOUGHNER SHOT A DEMOCRAT."

He also shot a Republican Federal Judge.

What's your point?

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:44, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The far right claims that liberals LOVE "big government."

They do. It's what they do, It's what they are.

" Do liberals love or hate the government?

Liberals LOVE LOVE LOVE government. It's what they do, It's what they are.

"The last two years are littered with stories of attacks and shootings of government officials and political entities--and every one of them was directed at liberal Democrats."

Ummmm.....citation, please.

" But the far right channels these lunatics against their enemy"

Another lie.

"The far right CONSTANTLY exploits violent imagery and incendiary rhetoric--Sarah Palin's cross-hairs and "reload," Sharron Angle's "second amendment solutions," or the "tree of liberty" and it's need to be "refreshed" with American blood."

Um, they were map markers. And what's wrong with "reload"? And whats wrong with quoting.....Jefferson Davis, that slave owning Democrat?

Oh, and you misquote Jefferson, btw: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

"Then when a violent far right nut bag acts on that incendiary rhetoric"

Ummmm, when did this happen?

"the far right pretends to be shocked--"shocked I tell you"--and outraged that such and event occurred."

No, we are shocked--"shocked I tell you"--tha the reactionary left would have the balls to level such insane charges.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"That said, the far right has a long history of exploiting tragedy born of violence. For example, the Bushit administration exploited 9/11 in order to get re-elected, not to mention attack Iraq."

So according to you, defending the American nation is, what, illigitimate? Political exploitation?

Andother really, really fucking disgusting comment.

I guess FDR used Pearl Harbor for partisan poltical purposes, too.

Oh, wait. He did. But he was a Democrat and so gets a pass.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:47, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The fact remains that as long as the far right incites violence"

Another lie.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:48, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"To remain silent, moreover, in the face of the far rights' continued exploitation of violence and tragedy guarantees that this type of tragedy will happen again--and more likely on a larger scale."

Stop lying.


"Would you like to put a stop to needless political violence, folks?"

Tell the reactioanry left to shut up.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:50, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I don't think one can shoehorn Loughner into a liberal-conservative mold"

Tell that to the mainstream media and the reactionary left.

Then tell them to apologize for their lies.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Lee Harvey Oswald was one hell of a strange "Democrat.""

Oh shit here we go again.

LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS A COMMUNIST.

A menber of the reactionary left herd.

Try to deny it, moron.

 
At 16 January, 2011 13:53, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"There's every reason to believe that LHO's alleged "left wing" orientation was, in fact, deep cover."

Sweet Cthulu on a bagel, you sound like a truther.

Oswald was a communist.

Learn it, love it, eat it.

 
At 16 January, 2011 20:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, show me where I claimed LHO was "CIA." I said no such thing.

I don't think I said that.

Look -- I can see how JFK makes more sense as an inside job than 9/11 does. There's no debate that somebody shot him with bullets. A team of snipers is inherently more plausible than a team of demolition engineers working in invisible silence for months planting undetectable stuff in massive buildings, etc. etc. Add to that the fact that the JFK conspiracy has entered pop culture as the kind of thing that doesn't get you the odd looks that 9/11 Troof will get you.

That said, I just don't believe that Oswald was anything more than another stupid, troubled kid with a gun. His "connections" to intriguing figures are tenuous at best. Some of the points brought up here are received wisdom in the JFK conspiracy buff circle, but please entertain some alternative explanations. You don't have to believe it, just see what you think.

Now can we please stop giving GB a lot of shit over this?

 
At 27 January, 2011 20:15, Blogger N/A said...

How about we just settle this and say he was a disturbed individual that may have been a liberal earlier in life (high school) but moved on to nutty Libertarianism like most truthers.

That's why Zeitgeist and other conspiracy theorist documentaries are so effective. They grasp on a mutual hatred like Bush and brainwashes/tricks them into extreme right Libertarianism (expecially when even a lot of the right disliked Bush and only backed him to save face for their side). It's a perfect recipe to reel in younger liberals rebelling. What politically confused kid wouldn't want to be able to do whatever they want instead of having to give "handouts" to others at the same time? It satisfies their selfish and self centered ways, especially the ME Generation.

Another trend is politically confused liberals with conservatively rooted values from family or surroundings trying to explain or rationalize why they are right by illegitimizing liberals on the basis that they are not operating the way they are supposed to. This can explain the lho's and jh's. This also happened with the far right when they rationalized the bad that was happening during Bush's era but they did not act out against their own side since they were just trying to save face. Just look at the principal values from both sides. Which side would have more incentive to rebel against government? It's a no brainer unless you are drinking some Koolaid. Who's going to be the first to reach for a gun or even have a gun? (nothing against gun control). You take the good and the bad on both sides but unfortunately most of the paranoid schizo's, lunies, and crazy rednecks pick the far right because of how easily it aligns with their thinking and values.

Most people, whether on the left or the right, do not like or want to associate with the extremes and that makes sense. It's just unfortunate that people can act out more easily when they are on the far right in the US. You don't see Communist cults or rebel groups seeking to overthrow the government and install their communist or government spending based system. You can even base this just on the fact that it would be too difficult to carry out. It's much easier to create chaos and overthrow the government and install a limited government with few rules...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home