Democratic Congresswoman Clings to Life in Arizona ( Part 2)

Asking people to use their own discretion, and cool it with the inflammatory rhetoric isn't anti-free speech.  It would, however, cut into the bottom lines of Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the entire talk radio industry on both sides of the border.  I mean, who wants to listen to informed and nuanced positions on complex topics when you can have your prejudices justified by simplistic hate-slinging spittle-flecked diatribes?

Expect the far right to start getting their knickers in a twist about not letting the actions of a single deranged individual interfere with their 1st amendment rights (not to mention the 2nd amendment).

fencedin wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Some clown in Pakistan making home made knock-off's of Ak-47 is no big deal.

Quote:

But I don't believe that the average Afghan or Pakistani has the means to setup munitions factories and factories for assembling rifles.

My point is that anyone with a modicum of mechanical skill, plans and recipes can make all the weapons, including full-auto ones, they want. There are thousands of backyard arms factories in Waziristan, may of which sprung up during the anti-Soviet Mujahedin insurgency. These make cheap AK-47s, SKSs and Lee Enfields by the thousands, ammunition and even very destructive weapons like RPGs. This is done with oldschool lathes and hand tools, by people with no formal training. Guns are not very sophisticated things and ammunition is less involved to manufacture than drugs like crystal meth. As I mentioned, CNC machining equipment is now very cheap and can crank out perfect copies of any metal-framed gun you desire. The Sten Gun is a great example of a battle-proven full-auto weapon that lends itself to quick 'n' dirty manufacture. And it's impossible to control the precursor chemicals used to make primers and propellants. If you're so inclined, you can find plans for various firearms on the internet, along with primer and powder recipes.

No joke. Anyone can make a Saturday Night Special, IED, rockets, and small arms. Tell me something new? None of that has anything to do with curbing the production and sale of mass produced weapons for profit. You make it sound like the Taliban made there BRT-80's in tha backyard.

You can forget the "Soldier of Fortune" trivia. None of the above has anything to do with the mass production and sale of large quantities of small arms. Indeed, 99% of all AK-47 used in throughout Asia almost certainly started out life as weapons sold through legitimate means to state authorities, same with those weapons in the hands of the South American drug cartels. I doubt anyone actually bothers making an Ak-47 in Warizistan, since you can pick one up for less than $300 dollars, less than half the cost of used Fender Stratocaster.

So the fact that someone can produce something does not mean that you contribute to that trend by flooding the market with the "real deal", and not some backwoods hack job, just because "anyone can do it". That is the same argument used by crack dealers to sell crack to school kids: "if I don't someone else will."

You should think about where you are going with that.

Legislation aimed at reducing the availability of guns is only going to drive up the profits for those selling them on the black market, and is akin to picking up the small time pot dealers while taking a pass on knocking out the production facilities. At the end of the day the only solution is for a serious international effort to reduce the production and sale of weapons for the sake of all of us who don't want to have to lug a handgun around everytime we want to make a trip to the local grocery store.

Papal Bull wrote:

Mmmm, I love the attacks on 'crazies' and such. The internet is just crawling with suppositions of mental illness regarding this man. Unhinged, psycho, crazy...

 

How about just plain old angry or disgruntled? Lots of 'sane' people are angry and do horrible things.

You really just have to look at his youtube clips to see that he was not all there.

Lee Loughner's alleged note wrote:

In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

 Regardless of whomever wrote it, they were on the right track. U.S. constitutional framers hated two things,  monarchy and democracy. They wrote a document to ensure that Americans would have neither. And we can be sure they made use of grammar. Officially the U.S. became a military dictatorship in 1947 with the signing of the National Security Act.

I can confirm that video I posted above was posted on a Youtube channel under the name Jarred Lee Loughner, where I originally saw it last night.

With the exception of the harm bought to innocent bystanders, It's difficult to be moved by any of this. A salvo from one reactionary individual to another only leaves us puzzled as to why more extreme incidents such as this one don't occur more often. One has to compartmentalize outbursts of this nature alongside an awareness that the congresswoman's voting pattern would likely assist in the silencing of countless innocent voices. Leftists in this country should take note, as if we need another reminder, of the right wing propensity to do away with even the barest trappings of democracy through extreme vitriol and violence whenever and wherever it serves their purpose.

Fidel wrote:

Lee Loughner's alleged note wrote:

In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

 Regardless of whomever wrote it, they were on the right track. U.S. constitutional framers hated two things,  monarchy and democracy. They wrote a document to ensure that Americans would have neither. And we can be sure they made use of grammar. Officially the U.S. became a military dictatorship in 1947 with the signing of the National Security Act.

Many people on babble would agree that mistrusting the US government is a sane and rational response to the way the US abuses its power.  But Mr. Loughner thinks the US government controls grammar.  This is a signature paranoid delusion.

takeitslowly wrote:

how does sentence structure contributes to the U.S becoming a military dictatorship? I dont get it!!

lol

I'm not sure either. Cosmetic US Govs don't declare war anymore, and annual budgets might as well be written by Wall Street bankers for all it matters to We the people. There are very many frustrated Americans, and I think they have reason to be frustrated.  Many of the same people who were in US government George H.W's and Clinton's governments had hands in Russia during the perestroika years. They planned to become really rich off the misery of millions of Russians. Some of them are there in Obama's government and will be attempting to do to Americans what they did to Russians in the nineties, which is that they will try to pauperize a nation even more than now.

Fidel wrote:

And I'd like to bet it was he who posted it, too.

Sorry to say, Fidel, not everything that happens in the world, even failed assassination attempts against relatively insignificant congress critters, is part of some kind of clever operation where people you can not identify, plot elaborate false flag operations, the existence of which can only be proven on the basis of the supposition that the plot and the plotters must exist because there is absoluteyl no evidence that they exist, or that there was any plot at all -- they are just so damn good at plots and plotting that the absence of evidence is the only evidence.

Here is the original source: Original source

Sineed wrote:

This is not a well person.

Were it not the reference to not believing in god, and the use of numbers and percentages..however jumbled, he would sound like just the sort of individual the tea party are looking for.

Cueball wrote:

Fidel wrote:

And I'd like to bet it was he who posted it, too.

Sorry to say, Fidel, not everything that happens in the world, even failed assassination attempts against relatively insignificant congress critters, is part of some kind of clever operation where people you can not identify, plot elaborate false flag operations, the existence of which can only be proven on the basis of the supposition that the plot and the plotters must exist because there is absoluteyl no evidence that they exist, or that there was any plot at all -- they are just so damn good at plots and plotting that the absence of evidence is the only evidence.

Here is the original source: Original source

Take Sirhan Sirhan, for instance. He didn't murder RFK. It's more probable that [url=http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmorales.htm]this guy[/url] did. But it doesn't matter to the USA now just like the HSCA determined in 1979 that Oswald probably did not act alone, if indeed he was even part of it. And discovering who shot 18 people including a "lefty" Congress woman won't matter anymore than finding out who actually orchestrated 9/11 eventually won't matter to WW III once warmongering fascists are able to get full head of steam behind it. Fascism is a three-ring circus. It's a light show with lots of glitz and exploding cannons shooting clowns in expensive suits across the big top for mass hypnotic effect. It's designed to keep a whole nation off balance with a continuously entertaining light show, vicious rumors, drugs and cotton candy for maximum effect.

It's all circumstantial evidence much like the case against Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, going to war over Gulf of Tonkin false flags,  and going to war against "al-Qaeda" over a lot of circumstantial evidence and much of it on the flip side implicating the Gladio gang themselves. You wouldn't send anyone to the chair on circumstantial evidence, would you? We know that our Americano friends do it all the time, but would you?

Oswald was murdered so that the press couldn't get to him. It's not a hard rule, like they've stashed away Khalid Sheihk Mohammed(former anticommunist jihadi, pro mujahideen and 9/11 "mastermind"/patsy) at Gitmo and Ali Mohammed(authentic 9/11 Gladio) somewhere safe from truthers and any newz journalists who might actually want to do their jobs.

Sirhan Sirhan is there in prison and probably still doesn't know what in hell happened that day.

When it comes to war, though, any phony pretext will do. Wage war now and have a real investigation later to sometime never.

As I was saying before, the US became a military dictatorship in 1947. There are a few hyper-paranoid capitalists and their hirelings in cosmetic and shadow government who fear any whiff of socialism and democracy in the US. Every once in a while they have to scare hell out of "pragamitists" on the centre-right down there to remind them who's really running the show. And it's not the American people or any of the executive branch or cosmetic Congress men or women down there, that's for darned sure.

Cueball wrote:

I know! Sirhan Sirhan was hypnotized, and probably doesn't even remember confessing or even writing about killing Kennedy in his journal, and therefore the twin towers were blown up using thermite.

And here I was under the impression that you knew the difference between circumstantial evidence and hard, irrefutable proof. Boy was I wrong. They should just bring out THE PILLOWS now and extract a real confession from him, and just quit with the small stuff. My god poor Canada.

Slumberjack wrote:

I certainly wouldn't need any more convincing if there was hint of a grassy knoll anywhere near this incident in Arizona.

Oswald didn't act alone, and James Earl Ray probably did not act alone according to the evidence. That was the conclusion of the last House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979. And according to assassination researchers, the HSCA files released in the 1990s points to a more disturbing reality surrounding Oswald's connections to the intelligence community, which is the other half of US  Government running things.

I don't know if this 22 year-old acted alone or was part of a conspiracy. But it looks like some babblers are ready to lynch Jared Lee Loughner, "the lone gunman" without knowing all of the details. And there are always details. I don't think he's another Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan patsy, but you never know.

Cueball wrote:

Your particular delusional streak outdoes Donald Rumsfeld's "Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" by taking it a step further up to "Absence of evidence is evidence". Solution to any crime is simple, just find the person or persons who have the least apparent connections to the event, and who no one accuses of committing the crime, and there is your most likely suspect.

Just send him to the chair now and be done with it, right? Not much different than let's send 58000 troops to VietNam based on a lie. I think they call that Yeehaw justice, or something.

Cueball wrote:

The biggest problem with your idea is that Giffords is a completely unimportant person in the hierachy of government, and in all likelyhood surviving this attack will be the most notable thing in her completely undistinguished career.

You're saying the Republicans and all their billionaire health insurance industrial-complex friends had great affection for Giffords?

If you show me where the hawks and jobbers in the CIA and executive hit squad department sent her so much as a Happy Festivus card over the holidays, maybe I'll think more highly of the elephant party and all their appallingly greedy friends. But if you can't produce even a Happy Festivus, Gabrielle sentiment, then I'm afraid I won't be crossing them off my list of suspects.

It doesn't matter now. The Dumbocrats will be more apprehensive than ever and think twice about introducing communist health care ideas to the USSA. They have to be shown where the bear crapped in the buckwheat once in a while. FYI, this wasn't another highschool shooting incident or nutbar shootist picking random names from a phone book. Giffords and most of the people shot were all connected to a specific political party pushing for socialized medicine in the US if only a little. Apparently you have no idea how deathly afraid of socialism and democracy in general the hawks are down thataway.

Cueball wrote:

No evidence at all except the 20 odd witnessess...

Is that all?  There were more witnesses in the pantry at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968.

There were thousands of eye witnesses in Dallas in 1963.

There were more than 20 people who saw MLK Jr shot to death. Remember what the HSCA concluded about those two people dying at the hands of "lone gunman." The evidence says something else altogether.

So what are you really trying to say? That you don't understand how real criminal investigations are carried out? Because I think we knew that already from your posts above.

Kloch wrote:

Fidel, you realize that the Federal Judge who was killed was a right-winged Conservative?  Or was that part of Crazy George II Gladio, false-flag operation?

Didn't he rule in favor of awarding millions in damages to a civil rights outfit? Hawks do things with purpose, kloch. When they murder people, it's for a reason. Most of the time. They are not total psychopaths 24-7 as some on the left tend to believe.

Ah, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10judge.html]here[/url] it is. He crossed a bigoted Texas rancher who wanted to be able to round up Mexicans treading on his private property. Down there they think they should be able to shoot people on the spot for trespassing.

That judge sure learn'd his lesson, didn't he. Don't cross Amurricans with any o' that equality and human rights bs.

Most of what goes on down there is totally ridiculous. What's laughable is people trying to make sense of it. You can't. Fascism just happens I guess.

Fidel wrote:

Cueball wrote:

No evidence at all except the 20 odd witnessess...

Is that all?  There were more witnesses in the pantry at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968.

There were thousands of eye witnesses in Dallas in 1963.

There were more than 20 people who saw MLK Jr shot to death. Remember what the HSCA concluded about those two people dying at the hands of "lone gunman." The evidence says something else altogether.

So what are you really trying to say? That you don't understand how real criminal investigations are carried out? Because I think we knew that already from your posts above.

No. Actually the only evidence that RFK was not shot only by Sirhan Sirhan, that might really be called evidence as opposed to supposition, conjecture and wild eyed fantasies is that one audio expert who did an audio analysis of recordings made at the Ambassador Hotel says that he thinks more shots were fired than the eight that could possibly have been fired from Sirhan Sirhan's gun.

Indeed, even Sirhan's last appeal did not contest the fact that he shot Kennedy, and only claimed that he was hypnotized into doing it allegedly on behalf of a government agency. In other words no one contests the overt evidence that Sirhan Sirhan shot Robert Kennedy, not even Sirhan Sirhan.

The allegation is that there is a possibly a second shooter (possibly Morales as you have suggested). However, the idea that the expert hypnotizers would require a second gun man to kill Kennedy is pretty doubtful. Why Morales, or anyone else would put themselves at immediate risk when the patsy Sirhan Sirhan was ready, able and willing to do the job is hard to explain.

In other words you have fuddled yourself with motivationally based conjecture and cherry picked facts so badly, you don't even have your conspiracy theories right.

No. It showed that he was killed by one bullet to the back of the head upward from close range. This evidence is used to suggest there was a second shooter. No one, not even Sirhan Sirhan's last lawyer claims that Sirhan Sirhan was not in the room shooting at Kennedy.

You suggested here that the fact that the witnessess in the Gifford attack were wrong in there belief that Jared was the shooter, because there "were more witnesses in the pantry at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968".

Fidel wrote:

Cueball wrote:

No evidence at all except the 20 odd witnessess...

Is that all? There were more witnesses in the pantry at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968.

You are just making shit up as you go along and changing your story as you are doing it in order to come to the conclusion you want to come too, which is that "absence of evidence is evidence" every time. If 10 people say they saw Sirhan Sirhan with a gun shooting at Kennedy, or 20 people saw Jared shooting people at the Gifford event it can not be true, and guilt must apply to those who there is no evidence against.

In neither case do witnessess suggest that either of the prime suspects were not armed assailants. The idea is not that Sirhan Sirhan was not present and armed in the assassination of RFK, the argument is that he was hypnotized and used as a patsy.

The latest about the shooter... 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_gu...

Quote:

Mistrust of government was his defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system ("a New World Order currency" one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world.

Gee that sounds like some of you guys...

Fidel wrote:

Well we've sidetracked a bit about another shooting of a completely different Lib-Dem politician from another era. But this thread is not about RFK or his alleged killer. If do you want me to correct your own misconceptions and bad information surrounding the RFK murder, start another thread. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, I know, witnessess is in the RFK assassination who say that Sirhan Sirhan was the person they saw shooting at Kennedy must be wrong so therefore 40 years later different witnessess, in a different state at a shopping mall all are wrong about who they saw shoot Gabby Gifford.

For one thing Sirhan Sirhan has confessed to killing Kennedy as well, so a single statement by him saying he didn't is pretty much worthless. But that is what cherry picking facts to fit the fantasy is all about, isn't it Fidel?

Saying he "did not kill Kennedy" is not the same as saying I did not have gun and was not shooting at Kennedy. Even your audio expert who doesn't believe that Sirhan Sirhan killed Kennedy does not say he thought that Sirhan Sirhan was not shooting at Kennedy. What he believes is that because Sirhan Sirhan was intercepted by bystanders his bullets went wide and wounded other people in the room.

Do you understand the difference between "not killing" and "not shooting"? As I have pointed out repeatedly no one but Fidel from Rabble actually thinks that all the witnessess were wrong and that Sirhan Sirhan was not in the Ambassador Hotel shooting at Robert F. Kennedy, and trying to kill him.

Quote:

"Kennedy entered the kitchen. Sirhan leapt up on the serving area. Pointed a gun at him and fired. He was wrestled... Kennedy fell... he was wrestled to the ground, and then there were other shots".

John Pilger -- eyewitness to the assassination.