« | »

Internet Trail Of ‘Liberal’ Jared Loughner

From the UK’s Telegraph:


Gabrielle Giffords shooting: strange internet trail of ‘loner’ Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged Tucson gunman

By Jon Swaine, New York, 09 Jan 2011

Loughner, a 22-year-old local man, was named by police as the man arrested for the killings of six people and shootings of 10 others, including Gabrielle Giffords. Witnesses said the shooter "came out of nowhere" and sprayed bullets at the congresswoman and the crowd.

Arizona court records show Loughner has twice been charged with previous offences. The first, in October 2007, related to the possession of drug paraphernalia. It was unclear what the second, a year later, related to. Both charges were dismissed after Loughner completed a "diversion programme".

On Saturday night, Caitie Parker, a singer-songwriter from Arizona, said she had known Loughner when they were both teenagers and that he dropped out of school in 2006 after developing alcohol poisoning.

A detail we have not heard before. But notice that Mr. Loughner appears to be a pot head. Also note that there seems to be a connection between heavy pot use and an increase of odds for developing schizophrenia.

"I went to high school and college, and was in a band with him," she said on Twitter. "I can’t even fathom this right now."

Describing him as a "political radical" and a "loner" who was "very philosophical", Ms Parker claimed Loughner was "oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy", which predicts the world will end next year.

Ms Parker’s comments were ‘tweeted’ yesterday, not long after Loughner’s killing spree was first reported. And yet, apart from the ‘blogosphere’ this is practically the first report of them.

And it had to come from across the Atlantic.

Ms Parker said Loughner had encountered Miss Giffords once before in 2007 and had "asked her a question and he told me she was ‘stupid and unintelligent’."

This is very important corroboration, since this earlier meeting with Ms. Giffords has been since documented by the police.

However she added that when she had known him, Loughner seemed to be liberal or Left-wing

By the way, Ms. Parker has tweeted that she too was a liberal when she knew Mr. Loughner three years ago. But she was just not as extreme as he was.

She has also tweeted that she is pursuing a degree in Political Science. She also claims to be a libertarian and a social liberal. Naturally the lunatic left blogosphere is already claiming she is a "Tea Bagger."

Neighbors said Loughner lived with his parents and kept to himself. He was often seen walking his dog, almost always wearing a hooded sweat shirt and listening to his iPod.

High school classmate Grant Wiens, 22, said Loughner seemed to be "floating through life" and "doing his own thing."

"Sometimes religion was brought up or drugs. He smoked pot, I don’t know how regularly. And he wasn’t too keen on religion, from what I could tell," Wiens said.

In other reports, Mr. Loughner is said to have smoked pot every day.

Lynda Sorenson said she took a math class with Loughner last summer at Pima Community College’s Northwest campus and told the Arizona Daily Star he was "obviously very disturbed." "He disrupted class frequently with nonsensical outbursts," she said.

The Army said he tried to enlist in December 2008 but was rejected for reasons not disclosed.

Websites apparently created by Loughner also came to light after his name was released by police, and law enforcement officials said they were examining the material they threw up.

A page on MySpace, the social network, operated in Loughner’s name contained a photograph of a handgun resting on a book titled "American History".

It also contained an apparent farewell message to his friends in which he wrote: "Please don’t be mad at me… I cannot rest." The page was removed from the internet within minutes.

Unusually, the biography section of the MySpace page was completed in the past tense. It said: "My favorite interest was reading, and I studied grammar."

An account on YouTube, the video-sharing website operated in Loughner’s name contained several home-made videos including one titled ‘"My final thoughts".

The YouTube account stated that among Loughner’s favourite books, most of which were much-loved classic novels, were Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.

One video, which contained a series of text set to music, made reference to revolution and told viewers: "You don’t have to accept the federalist laws".

It called for a return to the gold standard, a common demand of Tea Party activists, and claimed that the government was imposing "mind control and brainwash on the people".

We’re not so sure that a return to the gold standard is a common demand of the Tea Party. Nor are we sure that Mr. Loughner’s bizarre comments should be interpreted that way – or in any way, for that matter. As he was clearly mentally unstable and simply gibbering.

Others contained incoherent statements such as: "My favorite activity is conscience dreaming; the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don’t dream — sadly…"

In a clip endorsed but not uploaded by Loughner, a person wearing a hooded sweatshirt and a black bin liner over his or her legs sets fire to an American flag sitting atop a mound of earth.

It used as its soundtrack the song Bodies, released in 2001 by the Texan heavy metal band Drowning Pool. The song repeats the phrases "let the bodies hit the floor" and "something’s got to give".

The media and the rest of the left has been trying to politicize this tragedy from the moment it occurred. It is clear from his ramblings on his YouTube channel that Mr. Loughner is as deeply disturbed and incoherent as the Unabomber and other mass murdering lunatics of the past.

This appears to be a very unstable, paranoid probably schizophrenic individual, who acted based on nothing but his delusional impulses. So far there is no evidence whatsoever that he had any affiliation or sympathy with any group besides the voices in his head.

To try to put the blame for his actions on anyone else, such as Sarah Palin or the Tea Party or talk show hosts is simply despicable. But it is of course all too predictable. Since we have been down this route with the media numerous times before.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, January 9th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

32 Responses to “Internet Trail Of ‘Liberal’ Jared Loughner”

  1. bill says:

    Should we blame all Muslims for the 10s of thousands killed by a few? What was it Obama said about that???

    • River0 says:

      This happened because of the invasion of illegals. Arizona’s – and the feds’ – lack of diligence regarding the border allowed this psychotic creep to walk around loose because so many resources were going to illegals. A decade or two ago, Loughner would have been hospitalized for his own protection.

  2. tranquil.night says:

    Schizophrenic, sociopath, loner – we all seek the psychological answers to what compels individuals to commit such unspeakable acts. Do NOT fall into the trap that this freak somehow wasn’t in control or cognitive of what he was doing though.

    And it’s also not a stretch to conclude that he was motivated by ideology and politics. It was all planned; his political narrative, however creepy, was well established. He’s clearly a radical anarchist, probably drifting philosophically between Satanism and all out Nihilism. Black and Death Metal are all about parroting the backwards ideas and values of the Religion of Self.

    Again, I have to note the prolific similarities between Loner and Julian Assboy.

    As Steve said, pot use but especially heavier hallucinogens like laced Ecstasy, Mushrooms, and Acid are what split the psyche between the rational side and the emotional side, the constant voices in the head and constantly shifting demeanor and personality leading inevitably to the rambling speaking in tongues and that condition we know as schizo.

    The biochemistry of heavy drug use is such that the mind becomes more and more involuntarily inclined towards self-absorbed introspection, crippling its ability to function in a normal environment. Most druggies are over-the-top conceited and narcissistic because of how they believe the drugs “expand their consciousness” to a greater understanding of living. In severe cases they’re even dangerously so. We probably all have had an unpleasant encounter with a perma-fried homeless person. It’s a lot like dealing with an athlete on too many steroids. Their behavior is completely erratic and contrary to comfort because you know the standard laws of human interaction don’t apply. You just don’t know of what they’re capable.

    Loughner the Loner was giving all the signals, but we don’t live in a society where clearly anti-social behavior is profiled. Instead we’re commanded to tolerate lifestyles different than ours. So people put their heads in the sand because no one wants to be labelled a social nazi, and it’s only a matter of time before this happens.

    He was obsessed with mind control. Makes sense as his was under the command of the devil. Yep, Lucifer is very pleased all across the board with the results of this attack.

  3. proreason says:

    Well, it’s a strange mix of drugs, mental crossed wires, instability, violence, wierd associations, deranged behaviours.

    There really is only one solution for problems like these.

    Taxes will have to be raised.

  4. hushpuppy says:


    1) why are you bringing islam into this discussion?

    2) why do you care if some muslim POS gets his feelings hurt? Wah! Bummer!…

    3) as Rush Limbaugh has said many times before over the years, it’s always some liberal/democrat/lunatic leftie that’s responsible for shootings.

    Now~ to answer your two questions:

    “Should we blame all Muslims for the 10s of thousands killed by a few?”

    In a word – Yes! And if you had studied or read the koran, you’d never have asked that question in the first place, and you’d understand why I said all muslims are violent, homicidal bastards who worship an ancient non-existant moon goddess. It is truly a satanic religion. There are no ‘good’ or ‘peace-loving’ muslims. There are those who have killed, and those who will kill.


    “What was it Obama said about that???”

    1) Why do you feel it necessary to use three question marks when one is sufficient?

    2) I don’t shiv a git what the Obamination says. He too is a muslim. I’ve done my research, I won’t do yours. Don’t just sit there and squawk, or get all self-righteous like libs do when they believe they’re so much more ‘caring’ and superior than us Conservative types.

    Go listen to and study the following (this is a quick look through my audio book collection. I also have a large number of .pdf and hard copy books)

    The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades
    Inside the Jihad
    Children of Jihad
    State of Emergency
    The Nuclear Jihadist
    They Must be Stopped
    Because They Hate
    Marching Towards Hell
    Bin Laden
    America Alone
    While Europe Slept
    Muslim Mafia
    The Siege of Mecca
    The Truth About Mohammed

    The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, The West, and The Future of the Holy City

    Era of the Crusades
    Utopia and Terror in the Twentieth Century
    God Wills It: Understanding the Crusades
    Total Onslaught: The Islamic Connection
    Arab – Islamic Terrorism on the Move

    Study up on the reason why Christopher Columbus tried to find a new route to India.

    Learn what is meant by the Barbary Coast and read up on the Barbary Pirates.

    Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism

    Read how Pershing dealt with muslims… and don’t believe the politically correct crap that the Pershing story is just a fable.

    And to set the record straight about your beloved idiot Obama – read, listen to and study up on these titles like I did:

    Barack Obama – Naked Emperor by David Icke
    The Case Against Barack Obama
    Barack Obama – The Unauthorized Biography
    The REAL President Barack Obama
    The Obama Diaries
    A Slobbering Love Affair
    Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
    Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild
    The Roots of Obama’s Rage

    Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, … Are Scamming Us … and What to Do About It

    Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies

    David Limbaugh’s book on Obama entitled: Crimes Against Liberty.

    This is a partial list of what I have. These are the books and audio books I’ve studied.

    And yes, islam is the biggest festering, most violent, fulminating, metastatic cancer on the body of the world. And by the way, don’t bother with the BS attack on Christianity. You’ll only prove yourself even more ignorant than you already are.

  5. airedale says:

    Do a quick search on the term “conscience dreaming” and you’ll find all kind of new age books and web sites including books on the subject and goddess religion material including face book pages dedicated to it.. Sounds like a real hard core Tea Party member…NOT. More like a liberal.

  6. Mithrandir says:

    Time for the Right Wing to Punch Back

    The left always gets in the first punch, but their popularity is about as low as the Nancy Pelosi congress.

    They jumped the gun, and now they are starting to get exposed for the propaganda machine that they are.

    Use this episode to punch back. Sadly, conservatives never like to rub their nose in it. If they had any strategy at all, they would have hammered the liberals again and again and again over Ted Kennedy, KKK Roberty Byrd, and their support of homosexuality….they would have made it their albatross and liability, but conservatives seem to lose steam on issues like this.

    • hushpuppy says:

      You are obviously unaware of comments indie and conservatives have made regarding those 3 examples. They’re archived in cache and Google searches.

  7. wardmama4 says:

    This is what happens when:
    1) You take over the Education system and hog tie everything about it in an attempt to make sure what you want taught is more important than protecting the students from each other, teaching values (can’t have that as – YOUR values aren’t MY values) and setting rules or limits – many schools have become free for all zones where predators and prey are locked in for 8 hours without intervention or consequences exist at all.

    2) You take control/responsibility away from parents – they can no longer be informed nor have ALL options open to them as to the mental/emotional health of their children – The Left has shut down most Mental Hospitals and done away with a lot of the commitment options that would have been a red flag for someone of this type.

    3) There are places/options to get a gun that don’t involve filling out paperwork and being checked – Not all are illegal either.

    4) This is also what happens when you create a Cult of Personality society – everyone wants their 15-minutes – and how dare you even not consider that a percentage of them won’t get it by doing something Wrong, evil or violent.

    Unlike most – I see all of what this person has done as very calculating and with intent (An Insanity Defense) – which does not make him insane but rather – very dangerous.

    Cast someone aside for long enough – call them crazy, weird or strange (How’s all that TOLERANCE bs working for YOU) and this is what you get – they will either kill themselves or want to do ‘suicide by cop’ and take people with them – and when you combine that with the Cult of Personality (Everyone gets their 15 minutes of FAME).

    I weep for America

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      What’s really going to be mind-numbing is the ongoing “examination” of this nutjob, Loughner. For some time, the lib-tard newsies will be doing “expose’s” on him, as they did their golden child, Jeffery Dahmer. I mean, it’ll be on every network with every “investigative journalist” doing the “rare” interview, etc. Ugh, it just hurts to think about it.

      Sadly because of (2) above, Loughner did not get the help that was so badly needed and all in the name of “fairness” and not wanting to “stigmatize” someone. But, give me a time machine, I’ll roll it back say, even just six months, and get this kid into some sort of treatment and things as of 8 Jan, 2010 would be much different regarding a gathering at a Safeway in Tucson.

      I Gar-Rone-Tee it.

    • TerryAnne says:

      [clap] wardmama4 hit that on the head!

      (I’m glad to see others are pinning this exactly on the selfish liberal takeover/politicizing of everything. I’ve been called the paranoid Conservative by a few lemmings the past two days. Yawn.)

  8. Right of the People says:

    Yep, he looks like your typical, right-wing, neo-Nazi skinhead type to me. You tell by the hair cut, he’s definitely skinhead material. I bet he hates all they there minorities too. Gag me.

    Rusty is right, in the real world before PC this nutter would have confined for his own good until they ran enough electric current through him to cure him of what ailed him.

    It’s like the term BC we should begin dating all things before the advent of PC which by my calculations was about 1985 or there abouts.

  9. confucius says:

    Marijuana has not been shown to cause schizophrenia. There exists only a statistical association for which the pathophysiological connection is unknown.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I don’t believe anyone was claiming it’s a sole cause. Steve paraphrased the study you cited and applied it to this case. You’re reading your own bias into the discussion.

      If there is a sole cause for schizophrenia it’s the individual themselves, or in the case of a damaged child, obviously the parents. My belief is schizophrenia and paranoia are learned behaviors, kind of like the learned helplessness that welfare cases will display after too long subsisting off government. It eventually becomes uncontrollable due to psychological breakdown after years of habitual self-destruction, life on the wrong path. Loughner may now be classified as 100% bat turd crazy, but it’s no excuse and certainly no legal defense. No child is born evil.

      Regarding pot, statistical studies have also shown there’s a greater chance for physical degredation of the brain’s limbic system, especially the amygdala which is greatly involved in critical thinking, learning, via the processing emotions such as stress (cortisol), stigmas of fear, and the effects of adrenaline. THC replaces a natural chemical in the brain, much like (albeit at a significantly lower pace because it’s much less psychologically crucial) how Cocaine hyper-accelerates Dopamine capacity, producing that one snort every fifteen minutes euphoria that becomes so terribly addictive and awful to withdrawal from. Wouldn’t be surprised if Loughner more than dabbled with Coke too.

      But we can skip all the neurochemical talk and discuss this on a traditional level, which is that any chemical addiction is usually about finding false emotional happiness in a state of medicated idleness. And idle hands really are the Devil’s playground.

  10. confucius says:


    There is no bias in my earlier post. It contains two factual statements borne by the medical literature.

    It is your post that claimed marijuana can cause schizophrenia. To wit:

    As Steve said, pot use . . . split the psyche between the rational side and the emotional side, the constant voices in the head and constantly shifting demeanor and personality leading inevitably to the rambling speaking in tongues and that condition we know as schizo.

    –tranquil.night, January 10, 2011 at 12:09 am

    Interestingly, Mr. Gilbert did not say marijuana caused schizophrenia. He said, “. . . there seems to be a connection . . .” which is true. Again, connection and statistical correlation are not the same thing as causation.

    To summarize, you are the one who claimed marijuana can cause schizophrenia . . . and then assigned the claim to Mr. Gilbert.

    Talk about two wrongs not making a right.

    But enough about you; back to the facts.

    Identical twin studies refute your belief that schizophrenia is simply a learned behavior. Comparative studies on behavioral vs. medication therapies also refute your belief.

    The limbic system is involved with emotions and memory but not critical thinking. That is the primary function of the cerebral cortex.

    It is interesting you stated children are never born evil. There are some in the psychiatric and Catholic communities who would take issue with your statement.

    Finally, your statement regarding “100% bat turd crazy” is also wrong. If Mr. Loughner is indeed schizophrenic, he has a legal defense.

    Thank you for your reply. It was informative.

    • tranquil.night says:

      The science doesn’t take interest in the personal decisions that accompany the drug use, the psychological results of those decisions, nor how those decisions are influenced by the medicated state of mind. It simply measures the drugs stand-alone chemical effect on the brain. That’s how they end up with the higher statistics without a clear explanation. Some people have smoked pot for years and appear to be completely responsible or at least functional in their daily lives, not just inclined to sit on the couch in perpetual self-discovery. Same thing with Adderall, Percoset, Vicadin, etc etc. You are right to correct me about the cerebral cortex, which doesn’t really change much of anything except that junkies actually have more control over themselves than I was suggesting, negating your premise.

      Maybe my words weren’t the best chosen but I believe my explanation was very clear that the drugs are a facilitator. They more often than not lead down a path, the end result which more often than not leads to mental illness of all sorts, not just schizophrenia.

      I don’t really care if you lend much weight to my expanded insights on the conventional wisdom of this topic, my response to you was because I thought you were addressing Steve. We all know your inclined to social Libertarianism on a lot matters, I have no interest in defending my beliefs to you.

      If you are interested however, I’ll go Liberal on you for a second and say that all of my insights come from personal experience. On top of being a young drug-addled, lazy and exceptionally smart, philosophically/religiously nihilistic (as in I knew exactly what that means), politically ultra-Libertarian, essentially anarchist, anti-government. I saw a therapist for a year for what was considered schizophrenia. Tranquility-Nighthawk were the names of my emotional and rational ‘avatars’ which when put together meant “at peace with chaos.”

      The truth is I have so much in common in my past with this Loner that I don’t really care to say much more about it out of worry of who watches this site and what they’d gleam. Personally, I think people have the right to wreck themselves with pot and that it’s not much more socially dangerous than alcohol abuse except that a hangover is luxury you don’t get blazing, making it more tempting to fall into addiction. I know this though, I was able to come back from absolute rock bottom, so you’re never going to convince me that anyone else can’t.

      Nevertheless my psychological, political, religious and philosophical analysis of this lunatic has thus far been prophetic, basically because I’ve just been speaking from street experience. Your contributions essentially until this discussion have been nil, and honestly it’s disheartening to see you continue down this path of solely wanting to carry a contrary attitude with posters here. I expect another response, but this is becoming a futile excersize Confucius. I never minded disagreements when they were honest. You were once a very thoughtful poster who had great perspective on a lot of things.

    • confucius says:


      Apparently, you do care about my thoughts otherwise you wouldn’t have responded to my original post so personally. And isn’t it interesting that you, and only you, responded even though my post wasn’t addressed to anyone in particular? And isn’t it also interesting that you responded even though you claim that you thought I was addressing Mr. Gilbert?

      So what’s that all about?

      Congratulations on your climbing up from rock bottom. And all the while maintaining a lofty self-image!

      There are some people, however, who cannot help themselves. If you want to witness this first hand, go visit a long-term mental healthcare facility and spend some time in the lockdown unit. A few minutes is all you’ll need to change your beliefs on schizophrenia.

      Don’t get me wrong. Beliefs are good, but insisting on them despite the facts is insane. After all, it is one of the defining characteristics of liberalism. (Cf. global warming)

      Is it possible that someone can go so far to the right that they actually loop back into liberalism?

      But enough of all this speculation, and let’s get back to some facts:

      (1) There is a statistical correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia, but
      (2) Marijuana has not been shown to cause schizophrenia.
      (3) The converse is true too—i.e. schizophrenia does not cause marijuana use.
      (4) Marijuana use and schizophrenia are not synonymous.
      (5) Mr. Gilbert did not say marijuana causes schizophrenia.
      (6) You did.
      (7) My original post was addressed to no one.
      (8) My original post contained neither bias nor premise. It contained scientific evidence.
      (9) I am not and have never been a social libertarian. For instance, I am totally against their holy grail of legalizing marijuana. Check it out for yourself: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/oakland-allows-industrial-scale-pot-farms. (Note the time stamp, and do inform all those people you refer to as “we.”)
      (10) I do not, as you put it, “want to solely carry a contrary attitude with posters here.” See the link in (9) above and my post at: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/az-rep-giffords-shot-5-killed-by-lunatic. (Again, note the time stamp.)
      (11) For someone who claims disinterest in my opinions, you sure do spend a lot of time addressing them.
      (12) For someone who claims to be “exceptionally smart,” you sure can be slow.

      Thanks again for your reply. It was informative.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Well, you did call my credibility out (without me even knowing at first), so this all is in my public self-defense now. Since we’re noting posting behavior it’s interesting how you didn’t make your post in reply to mine, you know that one in which I apparently said pot definitively causes schizophrenia. Maybe it was a misclick, maybe you have a strategy when it comes to trying to play gotcha with someone about odd and trivial arguments. For instance, I never claimed that mental illness can’t be permanently debilitating in it’s worst forms.

      Anyway, twist what I say and make it look irrational to your heart’s content. If my assertions are so off-base and delusional, I only have to wonder why they’ve provoked you so much. A lot of misinformation out there coming from sources with a lot more weight than a kid like me.

      Ah and regarding “smart” there’s no such thing as a smart drug-addict. It was an oxymoronic pun. The other personal stuff is whatever since I probably got a little hastily personal as well. Still if your view on this matter is as you say, then I’m struggling to see how what I’ve offered is negligent. Maybe I’m just too slow to see my error.

    • proreason says:

      tn, confucious can be like a ravenous dog with a bone. He’s not dumb, but don’t expect him to recognize your side of an issue. (he won’t be able to resist flaming me for saying it)

    • confucius says:

      tranquil.night, [Note the salutation. This is the customary method for addressing someone in particular.]

      Listen to your husband, proreason. I won’t recognize your side of this argument because it’s factually wrong. It’s also why I won’t let go.

      I don’t consider medical science odd or trivial. It’s the foundation for therapeutic intervention. But if you’d rather substitute beliefs for science, then where is your compassion for the mentally ill?

      (And before you go all tangential again, I’m not talking about Jared Loughner. His mental condition is unknown to me.)

      Speaking of tangential, I don’t recall describing your posts as “negligent.” I do recall describing them as “informative” and thanking you for them.

      If you have a sound but contrary opinion to what I posted, then post it. Supporting evidence makes it even better. But if you argue with feelings and personal attacks, I will too. I enjoy my limbic system as much as my cortex. (Good, huh?)

      Just remember, you addressed me first. You also slurred me first. If you can’t take the heat, then don’t throw the first flame. (Thanks to proreason for the analogy.)

      Thank you for your reply. It was informative.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Well since it’s a tangent now to talk about the person whom this thread (and my original post) was attempting to catalog, then just for good measure, here’s another tangent: it’s also my belief that Liberalism itself facilitates Mental Illness (not that it IS one as some credible people assert, or Confucius might claim I’m saying). My backing to this belief is the statistical evidence presented almost every day in one form or another of the negative stimulus Liberal culture has on child development at home, in school, in their community, as well as how the standard policies of Liberal government and family serve nothing typically but to keep a child regressed in juvenile thinking and behavior for at times decades.

      Among all the other free speech excersizes that go on here at S&L are amateurs doing think pieces which, while they may not be based intellectually on academia’s so-called established facts, still attempt to provide independent credible insight into the matters of the day based on the application of personal and collected wisdom. Behavioral studies, religion and morality are all disciplines which analyze cause and effect in the human mind, body, and spirit – not just psychology and neurochemistry. Before psychology and neurochemistry were around, religious ethic was the conventional scientific fact, and people with power loved to manipulate it then to control the conventional wisdom and macro-sociological behavior just as much as it’s done now.

      The way I see it, Confucius (again it’s interesting how your “customary greeting” wasn’t used in the post in which you first addressed me), my interest in this discussion has been to try and provoke more courageous thinking on a topic about which the public discussion is very disjointed and the final science about the truth is still very out. Up until this topic I had specifically kept my assertions out of this issue because I didn’t think it had much place in the public discourse while we have an insurrectionist cabal destroying the country. Since these two have now inevitably intertwined, I reject the growing narrative that it’s simply insanity to try and rationally explain the irrational. We try and do it everyday with the Liberals. The reason we need a public discussion specifically about our argument is both so that government has moral and constitutional clarity when it comes to preemptively dealing with the mentally ill and the causes of it, and so that there’s legal clarity for prosecutors and the jury when the ill snap to criminally destructive behavior.

      You, meanwhile, have served to try and discredit my argument by responding to my personally agitating rhetoric and reciting established scientific wisdom, on which I’ve since agreed with you and tried to further explain. Your response? “Nope, u can’t do that, ur dumb, no facts.”

      This hasn’t been irritating in the least, challenging yes. It was quite clear from the beginning nothing outwardly productive was going to come from this, which is exactly how I expect a national public discussion to go. Admittedly my pride still has me in this as well as the hope that my superior rationality and the passion wih which it’s being presented is what’s irritating you as I both defend myself and have further opportunity to elaborate on my narrative. :)

      “Thank you for your reply. It was informative x3.”

      Likewise. It’s been educational even if we didn’t teach eachother anything.

    • confucius says:


      More of your beliefs? There is no statistical evidence, presented daily or otherwise, that liberalism facilitates mental illness. Just like there is no statistical evidence that marijuana causes schizophrenia.

      More of you assigning words to other people? I thank you not to credit me for things I have never said or might say in the future. (The only person who can do that is my wife. But then again, she isn’t like you. She doesn’t make up stuff.)

      And should you credit me for things I have never said, please note that I can spell. Just because my name is Chinese, it does not mean I was educated in a third world country. (But then again, have you seen the latest test scores of American- and foreign-educated students? How embarrassing for us.)

      More of your grandiose delusions? How can you possibly characterize your recent posts as “think pieces”? You ignore facts, replace scientific evidence with personal beliefs and veer off subject more than children after a sugar binge on Halloween night. You can’t even remember what’s been said repeatedly. Again,

      (1) Marijuana does not cause schizophrenia.
      (2) Mr. Gilbert did not make that assertion. You did.
      (3) My first post on this thread was not addressed to you; as such, there was no salutation.

      Sweet Jesus. Are you back on drugs? Is that why you can’t focus? Is that why you think you can change the meaning of words, dismiss facts and characterize this insanity as “courageous thinking”?

      Do you believe in gravity? Or do you think the science about that “is still very out”?

      Your “superior rationality” and “passion” aren’t what irritate me. (Mostly because you don’t have either.) What bothers me is that somehow we were once on the same side.

      Thank you for your post. It was informative.

      P.S. You shouldn’t call your posts educational. They are factless, not to mention idiotic.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Your topic is a bore to stay on because it’s nothing but a game of semantics, not substance. But whatever, I’ll bite:

      “Genetics, early environment, neurobiology, psychological and social processes appear to be important contributory factors; some recreational and prescription drugs appear to cause or worsen symptoms. Current research is focused on the role of neurobiology, but this inquiry has not isolated a single organic cause. As a result of the many possible combinations of symptoms, there is debate about whether the diagnosis represents a single disorder or a number of discrete syndromes.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

      Oh snap, it sounds to me like the science on the illness is still inconclusive, but that drugs may play a role when involved. Or maybe Wikipedia isn’t a Confucius-approved source and my entire case is once again irrelevant.

      Now let’s look at my quote, the one you were refuting in your post that somehow wasn’t to me even though no one else was even on the subject:

      “As Steve said, pot use but especially heavier hallucinogens like laced Ecstasy, Mushrooms, and Acid are what split the psyche between the rational side and the emotional side, the constant voices in the head and constantly shifting demeanor and personality leading inevitably to the rambling speaking in tongues and that condition we know as schizo.”

      Steve didn’t say that, you’re right, I did. The sentence was bad grammar and I admitted as much. Same with the term “inevitably” now that I read it again since it’s not always a uniform result. Thank you Captain obvious. If you read it as I intended though, what I’m actually doing is elaborating on Steve’s intended message when he brought up the science, by offering personal experience to support the theory drug use does play a role in the development of certain symptoms which commonly get defined in schizophrenia. Wikipedia itself actually uses the word “cause” so you’re welcome to badger them all you want as well. I’m pretty over this myself. Yawn.

      Oh, and if the biggest flames you got are to say I attribute quotes to you and have poor spelling because I summarized your points thus far as “Nope, u can’t do that, ur dumb no facts” then I’ve greatly overestimated you. And the Sweetness & Light of life and God’s truth are my only drug now.

    • confucius says:


      You need to read more carefully.

      Wikipedia says, “. . . some recreational drugs and prescription drugs appear to cause or worsen symptoms.”[sic] This is not a declarative statement of causality. Do you not know the difference between what appears and what is?

      Furthermore, this statement refers to symptoms which are not synonymous with illness. Symptoms are manifestations of an illness and can be shared amongst other illnesses without implying causality. For instance, marijuana intoxication (an illness) can cause high blood pressure (a symptom), but that does not mean marijuana causes chronic hypertension (another illness that shares the symptom of high blood pressure).

      Similarly, marijuana intoxication (an illness) can cause delusions (a symptom), but that does not mean marijuana causes schizophrenia (another illness that shares the symptom of delusions).

      See how that works?

      (And for the record, marijuana intoxication does not cause either chronic hypertension or schizophrenia.)

      You also need to choose your sources more carefully.

      Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed medical journal; consequently, you shouldn’t be using it as a primary source here. But I’ll play along. Something good is about to happen.

      Further down the entry, Wikipedia says, “. . . the role of cannabis may be causal . . . .” That’s right. Your esteemed Medical Journal of Wikipedia cannot say marijuana causes schizophrenia. Or do you also not know the difference between conjecture and fact?

      The fact remains that as of today, 14 January 2011, there is no evidence that marijuana causes schizophrenia.

      More statements from the Medical Journal of Wikipedia:

      A number of drugs have been associated with the development of schizophrenia including: cannabis [sic] …

      “Cannabis is associated with a dose-dependent increase in the risk of developing a psychotic disorders.”[sic]

      As I have said ad nauseum, association is not causality.

      These are not trivial word games, tranquil.night. They are important concepts that separate modern medicine from voodoo.

      So to summarize, snap.

      One more thing. Did you read the statements concerning identical twin studies and cognitive behavioral therapy? They discredit your other belief that schizophrenia is a learned behavior.

      Did you also read the section on environmental factors? It says, “Parenting style seems to have no effect on the risk . . . .” This discredits your other insane belief that parents are “obviously” to blame for schizophrenic children.

      So to summarize, two snaps up and around the world for confucius.

      Before I end this reply, I want to address the second to the last paragraph of your reply. It really takes the cake—particularly if it were laced with marijuana. Did you really expect me (or anyone else) to have known that what you wrote is not what you meant? And that on reading what you wrote, I (and everyone else) was supposed to have known instead what you intended? And that your intention was to elaborate on what Mr. Gilbert intended?

      ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

      You really are an idiot.

    • confucius says:


      Are you schizophrenic?

      You don’t have to answer. But if you are, I apologize for calling you an idiot and ask you to see a psychiatrist. They are the only people I know who can help schizophrenics gain control. And should you be one of the afflicted, I wish you good luck.

    • proreason says:

      I warned you tn.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “Similarly, marijuana intoxication (an illness) can cause delusions (a symptom), but that does not mean marijuana causes schizophrenia (another illness that shares the symptom of delusions) See how that works?”

      Taking my statement literally and logically, I didn’t declare that pot causes the illness, but that continued and exasperated exposure to the symptoms does. I didn’t declare anything about pot being the sole cause, that is a statement you ascribe to me based on your own biased interpretation of my actual statement. This is something you actually acknowledge in citing how I also prescribe blame to parents. In your head the word “blame” means I’m saying “parents are the sole of cause mental illness” – no, not always, I’ve been clear that they’re the one’s that have the best chance at both preventing it and getting treatment for their child before it becomes practically impossible.

      In other words, yes, I understand the difference between declaring something and someone the definitive cause, or saying they play a role. But just for good measure, here’s another money quote by me:

      “It’s my belief that anything – ANYTHING (even an obsession with Christ) – can be mentally unballancing, or the stigma which triggers evil behavior. Obssessing over politics day in and day out, right vs left, religion – what is good, what is evil, all of this can drive someone insane if they forget to appreciate the blessing of life. When it comes to mental illness, it’s my belief that it’s probably due to ALL the negative stigma in an individual’s life, not any single one. That’s why I latch on to looking at this first through the lenses of personal responsibility.”

      Oh sorry, that wasn’t a peer-reviewed assertion, dammit.

      Here’s some more Wikipedia:

      “While the role of cannabis may be causal other drugs may just be used as a way of coping with unpleasant states such as depression, anxiety, boredom and loneliness. [31][ 32] Cannabis is associated with a dose-dependent increase in the risk of developing a psychotic disorders. [33] Frequent use has been found to double both the risk psychosis and schizophrenia. [32] Some research has however questioned the causality of this link. Amphetamine, cocaine and to a lesser extent alcohol can result in psychosis [3] that present very similarly to schizophrenia. [3]”

      Your “superior literacy” is actually what makes you so illiterate to free thinkers. I’ve been testing you with linguistic manipulation this whole time to prove a couple points, which is 1) yes, because I have a history of mental illness and hours upon hours logged with a psychiatrist I do have a credible understanding of the psychoanalysis, which I’m illustrating with some of my purposefully absurd and schizo-type statements and 2) that Yes, many people do in fact actually try and interpret what people are trying to say when it doesn’t make sense to them, whether it’s by associating personal motive to their words or otherwise. It’s called empathy, “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes” – a mindset that some people truly might be incapable of because of a legitimate dopamine deficiency (that chemical which both depression and drugs accentuate the effect of and can blow out the natural levels permanently. Liberals claim moral superiority over Conservatives because they “have more dopamine,” thereby more ability to feel, and yet Dopamine moderators are used specifically to treat psychosis, [going back to my theory of how Liberalism might be the result of some level of mental illness, be it a role in the cause or effect]).

      You do this too, actually: by analyzing the rabidness with which I’ve been arguing for my case, and how I make so many different observational assertions which in your head don’t make sense to the issue as you see it, you’ve rightly been prompted to wonder if I am not in fact schizophrenic, which as I said, I did see a therapist for all of the less extreme symptoms and even some of the heavier ones, treatment which has since I’ve been deemed high functioning and absolutely self-capable (note not cured – there is no cure to that which they can’t specifically define in cause).

      Anyway, only ivory tower pricks convinced of their own moral superiority suppose to argue with someone over how they rhetorically try and express their beliefs. And that’s you, Confucius, not just by this example but many others. You love to be the guy to correct people because you don’t believe they and those reading them are as capable of discerning the truth as you. The person, if any, who’s responsibility it is to correct my intonation that Steve was making the argument I was trying to make is Steve himself, because he was the person whom it could’ve been misinterpreted to think was saying something he wasn’t. Who the hell are you to say whether or not medical precedent is compliant with my thesis? So far you haven’t made one substantive argument that pot isn’t in certain cases based on the psychological impact of the life choices (repeat it with me now, choices that are influenced by pot use), an indirect neurological cause. You’ve just repeated over and over that it’s not the definite cause.

      Other situations in which I specificallt used unspecific language and you filled in the blanks with your own assumptions:

      “I am not and have never been a social libertarian. For instance, I am totally against their holy grail of legalizing marijuana.”

      – You’re working off your own definition of Social Libertarian, as am I. When I said “you’re reading your own bias” and called you socially Libertarian, I was in no way implying you smoke pot, favor pot, or otherwise, although I was implying for you to react as if I did.

      “And should you credit me for things I have never said, please note that I can spell. Just because my name is Chinese, it does not mean I was educated in a third world country.”

      – In response to me characterizing your argument as “Ur wrong, ur dumb,” it’s a cultural reference to the lowest intellectual form of internet trolling. That’s over your exceptionally hip and literate head obviously. Note the racialist element you interjected.

      “It says, ‘Parenting style seems to have no effect on the risk . . . .’ This discredits your other insane belief that parents are ‘obviously’ to blame for schizophrenic children.”

      – Actually to complete the dotdotdot of your quote it says “…although people with supportive parents do better than those with critical parents,” suggesting therefore that healthy parental involvement may play a role in preventing its development, not that it’s 100% preventative.

      – That brings me to your assertion that I said “parents are obviously to blame for schizophrenia.” Here’s my full quote: “If there is a sole cause for schizophrenia it’s the individual themselves, or in the case of a damaged child, obviously the parent.”

      Confucius, if your child were in so much long-term psychological pain that he or she developed schizophrenia, would you not honestly blame yourself, if not by being haunted by every parental choice you made with them, then at the very least for not getting them someone who could’ve been able to help before it became so dire?

      Like I said, before traditional psychological medical therapy (a very politically polluted field) we had philosophy and religion to explain patterns of cause and effect when it comes to human choices and their natural environment.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I appreciate the heads up play, Pro, but I’ve had a few hidden goals of my own in this. One is to demonstrate that he and I both are trying to claim the moral and intellectual high ground in validating our narrative, which is fine, except that I am demonstrating how my moral argument relates to my intellectual ones. His moral argument is the conventionally “intellectual” one: that his interpretation of my overly generalized argument means I was trying to make a point that everybody agrees is factually wrong. Therefore, everything else I say is also wrong.

      This is why the elitist Political Class is so obssessed over political rhetoric, not substance. Their control over grammar is their control over people’s minds and thus behavior.

      Both he and I are trying to influence eachother’s thinking with the rightness of ours. Only I am willing to acknowledge how I’m trying to do it, and that I might not be the be all end all voice on this, but that I believe my observations are valid for others to see and contemplate. Otherwise I wouldn’t bother. My personal life and ego are fine and dandy.

      I do apologize if this has been frustrating for other S&Ler’s though, and if my conduct is unbecoming. Believe it or not, compassion for the mentally ill and how we deal with it legally are what have me in this.

    • confucius says:


      Thank you for your reply.

      Good luck and take care.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Thank you as well. God and peace be with you, Confucius.

  11. wirenut says:

    Yet, one more reason, why parents should not coddle their young. Can more words or ideals make this tragedy go away? Nooooo! Splitting hairs over a madman’s actions, is just as mad. The only thing this nutjob did is to further isolate us from our elected officials. Pull together, not apart. This douchebag was a leftist,anarchist. Remember our civic duty as a representative republic, serve our fellow citizens. To be further divided only serves those who wish to divide us. Game over lefty, Constitution on!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »