Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Prof. Jacobson. Surely you must know that this is simply not 'Revelant'. How could this possibly have anything to do with this nice young man committing this act? You surely haven't been reading the NYT or you would realize what really was to blame.

"So will all the people claiming that right-wing rhetoric inspired Loughner now run corrections?"

Sure, right after he follows through with the left-wing rhetoric and target a Republican congressman.

What's that?! Oh, he didn't shoot a Republican congressman?

Oh, in that case, right-wing rhetoric is therefore not an issue, he was a lone gunman never influenced by anything (except for the left's hate, doan'cha'know).

All you have to do Robot is show the evidence that right-wing rhetoric. And not post hoc ergo propter hoc "evidence". Straight up evidence.

"All you have to do Robot is show the evidence that right-wing rhetoric. "

This is what happens when you don't read the whole article posted, and just the selected blurb from a biases observer...from the piece linked...

"[Loughner] became an echo chamber for stray ideas, amplifying, for example, certain grandiose tenets of a number of extremist right-wing groups — including the need for a new money system and the government’s mind-manipulation of the masses through language. "
--
"A few days later, during a meeting with a school administrator, Mr. Loughner said that he had paid for his courses illegally because, “I did not pay with gold and silver” — a standard position among right-wing extremist groups. "
--
"And employees at the Sacred Art Tattoo shop would not forget that day in November — the same month in which Mr. Loughner bought a Glock — when he walked in wearing jean shorts and a muscle shirt and holding up a 9-millimeter bullet that he said he wanted replicated on his right shoulder.

It took less than a half-hour and cost $60. And when it was done, Mr. Loughner insisted on shaking the artist’s hand.

Then, a week later, he returned to get a second bullet tattoo. "
--
"Late the night before, he had dropped off a roll of 35-millimeter film to be developed at a Walgreens on West Ina Road. Law-enforcement officials would later say the roll included many photographs of Mr. Loughner wearing a bright red G-string and posing with a Glock."
--

Yup, ranting about the government out of control, a currency not backed by gold and silver, and getting tattoos of bullets are all pretty much standard extreme-left behaviour. Yup.

Of course, all of this is trumped by the fact that Bush, the least popular President in recent history, set him off.

BTW, it should be noted that Loughner, now 22, was 11 when Bush was elected.

From some reason I don't think the rhetoric at the time was much a motivator.

But please, protest some more.

Once again, Robot, you refuse to show evidence. I only have one simple request. Please show me evidence that right-wing rhetoric caused the shootings. That's all. Just because Loughner held views similar to those held by some extreme right-wing groups does not constitute evidence. Right now, that's merely a coincidence. For blaming all this on right wing rhetoric, my request should be easy to meet. Please show me evidence that because of the right-wing rhetoric, the shooting was carried out. Unless, of course, you have no evidence.

What was really in Loughner's head when he murdered people in Tuscon? Answering that question feeds into the agenda of the illogical leftists who have promoted the issue.

Lefties say "Loughner was crazy, but he killed because he was motivated by vitriolic political speech from the Right." The typical answer is "No, if anything, he was motivated by the political speech of the Left". Unfortunately, this gives credibility to the Leftist premise, even if it defends the issue this time and is correct.

A better response to the Lefties is:
== ==
Loughner was crazy, and his motivations Left or Right are of no concern. A group can only be smeared by Loughner's actions if they support those actions. If you support violence, then you deserve criticism, Loughner or no Loughner. You are insane if you want to control my political speech, of whatever crudity, because there exist crazy people like Loughner.

Going further, we observe that the entire Lefty argument is not based on minimal facts. The premise is that political speech of greater crudity leads to more violence than political speech of lesser crudity. Even if you believe that premise without proof, we know that Loughner was a Lefty, to the extent he had any political philosophy. It is laughable to call him a conservative. It is irrational to care about Loughner's motivations. You are irrational to force the "facts" to fit your made-up argument.
=== ===

Political speech of whatever crudity is a central part of our Democracy. We intentionally tolerate any side effects because that speech must remain free, beyond the control of our government. Being a free and independent people enriches and saves more lives than are destroyed by paranoid schizophrenics. Loughner hated Gifford in part because she did not answer, to Loughner's satisfaction, his crazy question at a 2007 political meeting. That is what it means to be crazy.

Consider this average of death and disability from using automobiles. On the day that Loughner shot 16 people, killing at least 6, there were about 123 deaths from automobile accidents, and about 685 additional injuries. We tolerate these deaths and injuries because driving automobiles supports a freer life and a higher standard of living. Driving automobiles is a vital part of our society, although the lifetime risk of dying from an auto accident is 1%.

Free speech, and especially free political speech, is much more important and causes much less death. The Left is trying to shut down political discussion, and can't even present a truthful argument, however slight it might be.

"Please show me evidence that right-wing rhetoric caused the shootings. "

I'm sorry, but your strawman isn't what you think it is.

I'm not saying CAUSED. Never have, never will. Not until the guy doing it does (like the one that shot up the ACLU and the one that shot up the cops that he thought Obama sent after his guns).

What I am saying, and have said repeatedly, and have now laid out the evidence for (from a link on this very site no less), is how extreme right-wing rhetoric very obviously influcened the actions of the crazy guy who shot someone previoulsy targeted by *other* violent right-wing rhetoric.

Now if y'all can quit playing "insurrection" tough guys, and threating the whole country with revolution, maybe less nuts will actually think you are serious about "taking up arms" and "watering the Tree of Liberty".

Geesh. This is tough. Ok then, show me how extreme right-wing rhetoric very obviously influenced the actions of the crazy guy. And, to be clear, because they have similar view points is not evidence to show how extreme right-wing rhetoric very obviously influenced the actions of the crazy guy.

To follow up on the good arguments made by Andrew: on that same day more than 20 people lost their lives here in Australia due to a flood. Who was to blame?

The issue of why the floods near Brisbane got out of control is one that is not easily resolved. There are many who bear the blame associated with inaction. This includes the Watermelon Peter Garrett who refused to allow the building of a dam on the St. Mary's River for ecological reasons - some stupid fish. It also involves the lack of timely action to release water from the Wivenhoe dam, and on top of that it involves people who bought into the "we will never have big rains again" or something like that from globull warmists.

See, different scenario, but there are many unanswered questions. The high level of deaths is the major concern.

The shooting of Congresswoman Giffords had nothing to do with any conservative rhetoric. It had nothing to do with left-wing hate mongering either. Loughner had it in for Giffords since 2007.

If Loughner was a reader of Daily Kos, and perhaps a contributor by the name of Blueboy, then it could be argued that the targeting of Giffords by Markos Moulitas in Kos could have been a factor. That is more likely than some campaign map where an opponent was targeted because she was one who had said yes to Abominablecare.

"To follow up on the good arguments made by Andrew: on that same day more than 20 people lost their lives here in Australia due to a flood. Who was to blame?"

Well it certainly wasn't the rain. Everyone knows that excessive rain and flooding have no correlative or causative relationship.

Aferall, sometimes it rains and it doesn't flood and sometimes it floods without raining.

Therefore it should be as obvious to everyone that violent political rhetoric never leads to violent political action, as it obvious to everyone that rain doesn't lead to flooding.

What's one little raindrop/map with crosshairs have to do with the flood?