Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,109
    vCash
    1500

    Loughner's Friend: "He did not watch TV … he disliked the news"

    This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.

    Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news.

    "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right."
    Source: Mediabistro.com
    So it's still all Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin's fault?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by avrpatsfan View Post
    Source: Mediabistro.com
    So it's still all Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin's fault?
    I don't watch TV either. I dislike the news. And yet I'm very aware of Rush, Glenn, Sarah, and friends.

    How is that possible?

    The internet is making us killers!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,109
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    I don't watch TV either. I dislike the news. And yet I'm very aware of Rush, Glenn, Sarah, and friends.

    How is that possible?

    The internet is making us killers!
    The big part of this story is he wasn't on the right or the left. It makes this event look a lot more like he just was lashing out against the world and a lot less like he did it because of political rhetoric.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Well. He must have played video games or listened to heavy metal music then.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by avrpatsfan View Post
    The big part of this story is he wasn't on the right or the left. It makes this event look a lot more like he just was lashing out against the world and a lot less like he did it because of political rhetoric.
    I don't give a **** one way or another. Like I said, I don't care if he comes out and says "Palin's website made me do it!" All that crap is irrelevant because the guy is ****ing crazy.

    Given that, I'm confused by all this jockeying for position. Why are you trying to tell me that he wasn't on the right? Why are you trying to tell me he didn't watch TV? In other words, you imply that his political leanings are relevant. You imply that if he DID watch FoxNews 24/7 that then FoxNews could be held accountable.

    Seems pretty hypocritical, no?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    I don't give a **** one way or another. Like I said, I don't care if he comes out and says "Palin's website made me do it!" All that crap is irrelevant because the guy is ****ing crazy.

    Given that, I'm confused by all this jockeying for position. Why are you trying to tell me that he wasn't on the right? Why are you trying to tell me he didn't watch TV? In other words, you imply that his political leanings are relevant. You imply that if he DID watch FoxNews 24/7 that then FoxNews could be held accountable.

    Seems pretty hypocritical, no?
    Come on Philab. The entire narrative since the get-go has been to try and link this guy to the rhetoric of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    Come on Philab. The entire narrative since the get-go has been to try and link this guy to the rhetoric of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
    I know. And the entire counternarrative has been that "those responsible for the violence should be held responsible for the violence."

    And I agree with that portion of the counternarrative. That's exactly why I'm confused by all this jockeying coming from the side of the counternarrative.


    If I tried to blame Bill for the actions of Joe, Bill would [correctly] argue that Joe, not Bill, was the actor. If I tried to say, "Well Bill, Joe was your brother. He says that he was inspired by you to act." ... Bill would then [correctly] argue that Joe, not Bill, was the actor.

    So what if Bill tried to argue that Joe was NOT inspired by Bill. Shouldn't that be irrelevant, given Bill's initial argument? Doesn't this new argument imply that Joe's inspiration IS relevant?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    No. That's quite relevant.

    Say you wrote a book. And then someone kills someone. And they say your book inspired him to kill. "He never even read my book" is a pretty good counterargument.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,746
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by avrpatsfan View Post
    Source: Mediabistro.com
    So it's still all Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin's fault?
    No not at all, they are free to continue their hitlists now and keep opposing politicians in their cross-hairs because nothing bad could ever come of it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    No. That's quite relevant.

    Say you wrote a book. And then someone kills someone. And they say your book inspired him to kill. "He never even read my book" is a pretty good counterargument.
    You are forgetting the subject. It's relevant to his inspiration, yes. It's NOT relevant to blame.

    Palin and Beck have both come out saying that "those who are responsible should be held responsible." Hell, they've quoted Reagan and all that ****.

    And I'm holding Loughner responsible. That is the only rational thing to do.

    So why is everyone now trying to convince me that Loughner did not watch TV? That he wasn't on the right?

    That's all irrelevant. If his inspiration doesn't matter, IT DOESN'T MATTER. These arguments are putting focus back on his inspiration, and that's hypocritical.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,109
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    I don't give a **** one way or another. Like I said, I don't care if he comes out and says "Palin's website made me do it!" All that crap is irrelevant because the guy is ****ing crazy.

    Given that, I'm confused by all this jockeying for position. Why are you trying to tell me that he wasn't on the right? Why are you trying to tell me he didn't watch TV? In other words, you imply that his political leanings are relevant. You imply that if he DID watch FoxNews 24/7 that then FoxNews could be held accountable.

    Seems pretty hypocritical, no?
    He is obviously a crazy *** person who hates the World.

    I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm just stating the facts.

    Another fact is democratic politicians and media alike are trying to blame the tragedy on the right wing media.

    They are also trying to use this event as an excuse to take away our 1st amendment rights. That is why this story is a big deal. It's now obvious that the killings weren't even politically motivated at all. It was just a sad man lashing out against the World.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,109
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    I know. And the entire counternarrative has been that "those responsible for the violence should be held responsible for the violence."

    And I agree with that portion of the counternarrative. That's exactly why I'm confused by all this jockeying coming from the side of the counternarrative.


    If I tried to blame Bill for the actions of Joe, Bill would [correctly] argue that Joe, not Bill, was the actor. If I tried to say, "Well Bill, Joe was your brother. He says that he was inspired by you to act." ... Bill would then [correctly] argue that Joe, not Bill, was the actor.

    So what if Bill tried to argue that Joe was NOT inspired by Bill. Shouldn't that be irrelevant, given Bill's initial argument? Doesn't this new argument imply that Joe's inspiration IS relevant?
    You make a very good point. But you have to realize that this new development completely destroys the left wing media's arguments. It's not like Republicans were saying "Well if he really was motivated by Sarah Palin then she should be held accountable" They weren't. But this new development proves that even if Palin should be punished if she were a cause (Even though she shouldn't be punished) she couldn't be held responsible because he didn't watch TV or really care about politics at all.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,109
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    No not at all, they are free to continue their hitlists now and keep opposing politicians in their cross-hairs because nothing bad could ever come of it.
    Didn't Obama say "If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun" Is that okay? Is that encouraging Democrats to shoot Republican senators? Of course not. Just like putting a target over a district isn't encouraging Republicans to shoot Democratic senators or congressmen/women.

    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    You are forgetting the subject. It's relevant to his inspiration, yes. It's NOT relevant to blame.

    Palin and Beck have both come out saying that "those who are responsible should be held responsible." Hell, they've quoted Reagan and all that ****.

    And I'm holding Loughner responsible. That is the only rational thing to do.

    So why is everyone now trying to convince me that Loughner did not watch TV? That he wasn't on the right?

    That's all irrelevant. If his inspiration doesn't matter, IT DOESN'T MATTER. These arguments are putting focus back on his inspiration, and that's hypocritical.
    His inspiration doesn't matter to me. But to the Democratic media and party it seems to matter from what I've been hearing. That's what's important in this discussion. If the democratic media is saying Palin should be held accountable if she was the indirect cause of the shooting, then this new development stops them from casting the blame on the right wing media and Palin.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by avrpatsfan View Post
    You make a very good point. But you have to realize that this new development completely destroys the left wing media's arguments.
    True. It also completely undercuts the right-wing's arguments.

    It's not like Republicans were saying "Well if he really was motivated by Sarah Palin then she should be held accountable" They weren't.
    No, they were saying that the actor, and not the motivator, is accountable. Good day's work put in right there.

    And now motivation is relevant to accountability again?

    But this new development proves that even if Palin should be punished if she were a cause (Even though she shouldn't be punished) she couldn't be held responsible because he didn't watch TV or really care about politics at all.
    He did care about politics. And there is a thing called the internet. These are stupid, albeit irrelevant arguments.

    Back to the point: Palin shouldn't be held responsible for this shooting in any form whatsoever. So why the attempts at a back-door reprieve?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Colorado
    Posts
    23,109
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    True. It also completely undercuts the right-wing's arguments.
    What arguments are those?


    No, they were saying that the actor, and not the motivator, is accountable. Good day's work put in right there.

    And now motivation is relevant to accountability again?

    Because the left wing media is saying if Loughner's motivation was Palin's rhetoric then she should be accountable.

    He did care about politics. And there is a thing called the internet. These are stupid, albeit irrelevant arguments.
    If he wasn't on the left or the right it's very likely he didn't care about politics.

    Back to the point: Palin shouldn't be held responsible for this shooting in any form whatsoever. So why the attempts at a back-door reprieve?
    If you watched CNN and MSNBC then you would know that Palin and Co have constantly been blamed for this. So what this article really shows is the democrats are wrong in 2 ways instead of just 1. He wasn't motivated by Palin and even if he was it isn't her fault.
    .

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •