One more chance to show you actually know something useful, same question back at you:

Do you know how jobs are created in a free market economy? Hint, it’s a consequence of wealth creation. Wealth is created via voluntary exchanges based on comparative advantage. For you to suggest that creating jobs via borrowing money and spraying it out through government programs tells me that you don’t have a grasp on even the basic economic concepts at issue in a discussion of this type, but that doesn’t stop you from making comments about the topic. It’s like you don’t understand quantum physics, but want to build a nuclear reactor anyway.

As for the one substantial point you tried to make, what is it again? That Arizona gun laws caused the killing? Again, your STUPIDITY is showing. There is statutory authority aplenty to deal with the likes of Loughner on the books already in AZ. He could have been referred by campus security to the police for a mental health evaluation when he as thrown out for his disruptive behavior – anyone can do it in Arizona. Loughner was out of control and clearly very threatening for years before he shot Gifford. Students in classes complained they were afraid he would come in with a gun one day. As well, he was handled a couple of times by the Sherrifs dept but let go without a psych evaluation. He was rejected for military service too because of mental health issues – in other words, plenty of warnings. Why didn’t that big mouth sheriff act on all this information? That’s where the failure is here. It’s a failure of execution, not statute, but hey, that doesn’t fit into a neat little sound-bite on Rachel Maddow, right?

The only possible legitimate argument – and it’s the one you’ve borrowed from Laurence O’Donnell (a self-professed socialist) – is based on the sale of high capacity magazines being legal in Arizona. This of course rests on the assumption that he couldn’t have reloaded another clip – something that can be done very quickly anyway, and we’ll never be able to know conclusively whether this is so. He didn’t buy the gun at a gun show, so that argument is out the window. And he was refused for an ammo purchase that morning at Walmart, due to his demeanor – without any laws at all, amazing yes?

So your thin argument is reduced to whether a law restricting high capacity magazines in the state was killed by right wingers, and there is no evidence of that. Look at the legislative record in AZ – there was no such battle. In fact, Giffords has been a staunch supporter of 2nd amendment rights as are many democrats in the south and west, you know that right? She might have opposed such a law, lol. There has been talk of the feds doing this for years, but it turns out there are real limitations on what can be done because of our pesky constitution.

So, yes, I’m nasty to you, but it’s because your arguments are so vacuous. Apparently, you are used to being an arrogant ponce without folks calling you out on it. Sorry if it hurts your feelings to have your “thoughts” shown for the empty bag of progressive nonsense that they are, but there it is.

So, if you are actually educated and committed to being governed by reason, respond to my arguments about wealth/job creation (one in the same, buddy) with a different model of how our economy actually works. Or recognize that the feds can’t create meaningful economic growth with stimulus money. Also, try to come up with some facts to support your contention that right wingers actually caused the sale of high capacity magazines in AZ, Or else, admit that you are just spouting rhetoric mouthed by others that you don’t even really understand. But please, don’t waste your time commenting on my style – or is that all you’ve got?

You posted on Daily Kos that you wanted to engage people. I have a friend who is Libertarian and very sharp, so I tried to take you up on it with a couple of innocuous points. You respond with “mushpot of a mind,” What a fool,” absurd little creature,” “stupid.” WTF? Are you two people? Does good Gollum post at DKos and bad Gollum here?

You seem to have trouble understanding what I wrote. For example, you seem to think that I said that right-wing rhetoric was responsible for the shooting in Arizona. I don’t believe that, so I did not. For example, you seem to think i stated that liberal gun laws cause more violence, but my (accurate) statement was restricted to the incident in Arizona. For example, on a different post you seem to think I am disagreeing with your contention that going into debt doesn’t create wealth, but I wasn’t.

In conclucion
1) You have read some things that I have not read. Congratulations! Big deal.
2) Your reading comprehension needs work.
3) You don’t express yourself well.
4) You are not interested in exchanging ideas.
5) You are a waste of time. Have fun playing in your own sandbox.

A little advice: Tell bad Gollum to go away and never come back.

p.s. By “deny”, in response to your other post, I meant “disagree with.” Must have been bad Gollum who interpreted that as a personal assault.

p.p.s. On DKos, you called yourself a “Libetarian.” D’oh!

His killer wasn’t at all motivated by Bill O’Reilly or anyone else. Take a look at the court case in some detail and the public statements of the guy who killed Tiller and you will see, once again, how very ignorant and thoughtless you are.