Skip to main content

View Diary: Rep. Virginia Foxx says Loughner was "liberal of liberals" (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Political terrorism does not depend on Party ID. (0+ / 0-)

    but if the language he used doesn't remind people of what we hear from the RW lunatic fringe (which has grown to include much of the GOP Congressional Caucus) then folks just haven't been listening.

    The last youtube and testament of Loughner is being written off by the likes of David Brooks as incoherent ramblings about "grammar".  

    Just before his killing spree, Loughner made one called "My Final Thoughts." In it he writes about different levels of consciousness and dreaming. He tries to build a rigid structure to organize his thinking. He uses the word "currency" as a metaphor for an inner language to make sense of the world.

    The examples of Loughner's thoughts which Brooks omits from his article gives an important insight into what Brooks is trying to do.

    In that same youtube video, Brooks ignores the following to get to his desired conclusion:

    The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution.

    You don't have to accept the federalist laws.

    Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the treasonous laws.

    You're literate, listener?

    This is somehow unrecognizable to Brooks as "political"?

    Given that the GOP-initiated, Tea Party-inspired, bipartisan reading of the Redacted Constitution on the floor of the House took place January 6, and the shooting took place 2 days later, does that reference to the Constitution and "treasonous laws" mean nothing?  Random coincidence?  Maybe.  But we'll see.

    I'd suggest Brooks try doing a web search for "Obamacare treason constitution", then get back to us on the apolitical aspect of this rant.  

    Brooks also ignores this:

    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.

    No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!
    No! I won't trust in God!

    Not sure how Brooks reconciles his "currency as metaphor for inner language" with wanting to go back to a gold (or silver) standard, but he may be more on this guy's wavelength than I am.  

    And in light of the FOX News allegations of Loughner's connections with (Samuel) Jared Taylor's American Renaissance (from the New Century Foundation - an anti-government, anti-immigrant "think tank" and journal) it would also be interesting to know what "ratifications" (presumably of Const. Amds) Loughner was referring to in this "second United States Constitution".  

    And the last slide echoes the calls of rigid constitutional fundamentalists, tenthers, anti-14th Amendment crowd, Birthright Citizen zenophobes and advocates of 'watering' the tree of liberty as a 'reset button' everywhere:  

    What's government if words don't have meaning?

    To characterize this as an incoherent question obscures what is pretty obvious, especially in context of the other slides Brooks ignored.  

    Interestingly, this last slide does not appear on some of the versions of Loughner's last posting floating around.  

    I find that curious, because according to one of Loughner's friends, it is also pretty much exactly the question he is said to have asked Rep. Giffords back in 2007:

    'What is government if words have no meaning?"

    The whole video is here:

    transcribed here:

    The reports concerning the New Century Foundation are described here:

    An earlier slide in that vidoe described how Loughner evidently wanted to be seen:


    If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

    I define terrorist.

    Thus, a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

    If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.
    You call me a terrorist.
    Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem

    This too is ignored by Brooks, perhaps because it is difficult impossible to reconcile it with his conclusion that this act of terror was not political.

    Andrew Sullivan also had difficulties with Brook's "see no evil" approach:

    It is not Class Warfare. It is more than that; it is a war for the survival of democracy.

    by Into The Woods on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 06:24:23 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site