PDA

View Full Version : Question: When Was The Last Time A Mass Murderer Turned Out To Be Conservative?



NJCardFan
12-18-2012, 02:43 PM
I ask in earnest because every time one of these whacko's goes off and kills a bunch of people, the left try like hell to paint them as crazed right wingers only to find out that these nuts had a liberal/left win ideology.

djones520
12-18-2012, 03:23 PM
I think whoever tries to paint a loony nutball in a political light is going to come off the worse.

People who do this are insane, that's all that matters.

linda22003
12-18-2012, 03:32 PM
I haven't seen any indication that this one had any kind of political ideology at all.

Starbuck
12-18-2012, 03:34 PM
Hitler, if you want to step outside the American system.

Branch Davidians;

Jonestown (Peoples Temple Agricultural Project)

I'd like to think that all crazies are liberals, but it's easier to show all liberals are control freaks than mass murderers.

m00
12-18-2012, 03:41 PM
Depends on how you define "conservative" ... do you mean social conservative, fiscal conservative, or evangelical, etc. Or do you mean "Republican voter"?

NJCardFan
12-18-2012, 03:53 PM
Depends on how you define "conservative" ... do you mean social conservative, fiscal conservative, or evangelical, etc. Or do you mean "only Ron Paul voters"?

FTFY

As for this idiot's political ideology, it's safe to say he leaned to the left considering he considered himself an artist by vocation.

NJCardFan
12-18-2012, 03:57 PM
Hitler, if you want to step outside the American system.

Branch Davidians;

Jonestown (Peoples Temple Agricultural Project)

I'd like to think that all crazies are liberals, but it's easier to show all liberals are control freaks than mass murderers.

Branch Dividians didn't kill anyone. Chances are no one in their compound would have died had it not been for Reno trying to invade it. The Jonestown people weren't conservatives either. They were a collective. Anything with the term "People's" is far from conservative. As for Hitler, would he really be considered conservative considering Nazism is far from conservative?

Starbuck
12-18-2012, 05:33 PM
Branch Dividians didn't kill anyone. Chances are no one in their compound would have died had it not been for Reno trying to invade it. The Jonestown people weren't conservatives either. They were a collective. Anything with the term "People's" is far from conservative. As for Hitler, would he really be considered conservative considering Nazism is far from conservative?

Well, there ya go, then.

I guess there just haven't been any conservative wacko's.

m00
12-18-2012, 05:39 PM
The only ones I can think of are Timothy McVeigh, and Anders Breivik. Don't worry though, the Ron Paul people have Ted Kaczynski.

JB
12-18-2012, 06:43 PM
The only ones I can think of are Timothy McVeigh, and Anders Breivik. Don't worry though, the Ron Paul people have Ted Kaczynski.McVeigh voted for Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, in the 1996 presidential elections.

Adam Wood
12-18-2012, 07:11 PM
Allegedly, Scott Evans Dekraai, who shot up a hair salon where his wife worked in 2011, is a TEA Party member (http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/10/scott_evans_dekraai_tea_party.php), though the evidence of this claim is pretty thin.



Anders Brievik is alleged to be some sort of right-wing extremist, but based upon what I've seen of his ramblings, he strikes me as just a Nazi-type statist.

m00
12-18-2012, 07:38 PM
Anders Brievik is alleged to be some sort of right-wing extremist, but based upon what I've seen of his ramblings, he strikes me as just a Nazi-type statist.

Well, his brilliant plan was to go to a youth camp for future liberal leaders and kill everyone there. You know, because liberalism is a disease and needs to be stamped out at the source... because if liberals keep gaining power their lip-wristed immigration policy will see Norway overrun by stealth Muslim terrorists within a generation.

Gonna say something very unpopular now. I had left CU for a number of years (returning only recently-ish) after a thread where members were "joking" about what caliber bullets were best suited for killing liberals. Guys like Brievik take the "liberals will ruin society, must be stopped at any cost" rhetoric to its absurd-but-logical conclusion. Which is... stopping them at any cost. This is what nuts do.

It's also why I'm very uncomfortable with the "liberalism is a disease" type posts that one reads from time-to-time on CU. There's people out there who take that sort of thing seriously. Because what do you do with a disease? You eradicate it.

I will say that there are a lot more liberal shooters than conservative, for the exact same reason we laugh at DU. Liberal boards are waaaaaaay worse about this sort of thing and talking about crazy extreme measures. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of shooters got their ideas from places like DU, which is why they (coincidentally) tend to be liberal.

Rockntractor
12-18-2012, 07:52 PM
Gonna say something very unpopular now. I had left CU for a number of years (returning only recently-ish) after a thread where members were "joking" about what caliber bullets were best suited for killing liberals. Guys like Brievik take the "liberals will ruin society, must be stopped at any cost" rhetoric to its absurd-but-logical conclusion. Which is... stopping them at any cost. This is what nuts do.

It's also why I'm very uncomfortable with the "liberalism is a disease" type posts that one reads from time-to-time on CU. There's people out there who take that sort of thing seriously. Because what do you do with a disease? You eradicate it.

You left about a year and a half ago because you were mad because I called you a liberal and then came back before the election trying to hawk Ron Paul until you found out that was an unpopular thing to do. You had better be able to produce the thread where CUers talked about the best calibers for shooting liberals. Liberalism is a disease and you have a chronic case of it you piece of shit!

m00
12-18-2012, 07:57 PM
You left about a year and a half ago because you were mad because I called you a liberal and then came back before the election trying to hawk Ron Paul until you found out that was an unpopular thing to do.

As for "hawking Ron Paul" you have a tendency to read what you want to read. I supported Cain, Paul, and Gingrich as all sensible choices for the nomination. You latched on to the Paul thing and ran with it. I actually had hoped it would be Gingrich, which I've said before... because while I agreed with Paul on the issues, I never thought he would make a good Executive.

My observation (and to be fair, annoyance) is that I think you label anyone who disagrees with some arbitrary viewpoint you may hold as "the enemy." And because "liberal" is also "the enemy" anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal. That's just not how my mind operates.



You had better be able to produce the thread where CUers talked about the best calibers for shooting liberals.

Search history doesn't go back far enough (I just checked). I assume there was a database crash or something, which also explains why I had to re-register my nickname. :p


Liberalism is a disease and you have a chronic case of it you piece of shit!

See above.

JB
12-18-2012, 08:00 PM
...members were "joking" about what caliber bullets were best suited for killing liberals.What was the consensus?

Rockntractor
12-18-2012, 08:01 PM
As for "hawking Ron Paul" you have a tendency to read what you want to read. I supported Cain, Paul, and Gingrich as all sensible choices for the nomination. You latched on to the Paul thing and ran with it.



Search history doesn't go back far enough (I just checked). I assume there was a database crash or something, which also explains why I had to re-register my nickname.

You don't make accusations that you can't back up, I can't believe that even you would be stupid enough to say something like that here right after the shooting. If we are that bad why don't you get the fuck out of here and find another place that meets your high standards.

m00
12-18-2012, 08:56 PM
You don't make accusations that you can't back up, I can't believe that even you would be stupid enough to say something like that here right after the shooting.

As opposed to the premise of this thread, which is that mass murder is somehow related to being conservative or liberal? And not just related to be crazy?


If we are that bad why don't you get the fuck out of here and find another place that meets your high standards.

When did you become Gator? (no, I never got asked "the question")

First, I did get out of here. Secondly, you are assuming that 2 or 3 people are representative of the board. Thankfully, this isn't true. This is a board with many differing viewpoints, and I appreciate that.

But you know... you kind of prove my point... crazy people go on the Internet and read all sorts of hyperbole nonsense about how this group or that group will be the end of civilization. I think there is no contradiction in having a majority of right-leaning positions (making that person a conservative) but not feeling like they should demonize people who disagree with those positions. And that someone chooses not to demonize liberals doesn't make them one.

I prefer the Reagan philosophy -- that liberals are our friends; but they are simply wrong. Not the Ann Coulter philosophy of Liberalism and terrorism: stages of same disease (http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2002/07/06/liberalism_and_terrorism_stages_of_same_disease). Or the DU "I punched a RW-er in the face today, praise me" thread which is the same thing.

I mean, just in the practical sense. I used to be pro-choice about 10 years ago but I was playing devil's advocate and talked myself into a pro-life stance. Are pro-choice people evil? No, they just haven't thought it through... and I love debating the pro-life viewpoint with them. This is the "Reagan approach" -- show liberals where they are wrong in a civilized fashion. But the scorched-earth "Ann Coulter approach" is in vogue (more on the left than the right these days), and quite frankly it feeds crazy people.

So lets get real.

The seemingly modern day prevalence of shootings and bombings isn't due to guns or access to the materials. It's due to a combination of crazy and that modern society is sick. Part of this sickness is perpetuated by online pundits who speak in apocalyptic terms, and use bombastic and catchy phrases to make their point... but often there are real people at the business-end of that point. This trickles down to secondary online discussion forums. Another part is we don't raise children to think for themselves, and form their own opinions about the issues. So while it's helpful to advertisers, it's not helpful generally that we have a generation of people very susceptible to suggestion. The irony is that the coming downfall is entirely self-inflicted, and the inability of Americans to collectively have adult conversations about real issues with those who have different viewpoints (see: recent presidential election). Also, this issue (when liberals say "lets ban guns" it is them not willing to have an adult conversation).

/just my 2c.

edit: and if you are going to post an image of cheese as a response, don't worry I already have a reply. :cool:

Hawkgirl
12-18-2012, 09:58 PM
WI had left CU for a number of years (returning only recently-ish) after a thread where members were "joking" about what caliber bullets were best suited for killing liberals. .

How dare you come on this board and rehash some nonsense about killings after what happened this last weekend in the senseless murder of innocents in CT.


Take some time off.

NJCardFan
12-19-2012, 12:13 AM
The point is, the left is quick to politicize events like this to try to take guns away from law abiding citizens by not only blaming the gun but blaming the ideology of the majority of the gun owners. Face facts. Most gun owners are right leaning. Not all but most(in like a 55-45 majority is my guess). Well, my point is that in most cases(at least in recent memory) that in these mass shootings, the shooter's worldview is left leaning. We need to call this out. They are and as insensitive as it may sound, we need to point this out as well.

Odysseus
12-19-2012, 10:06 AM
I haven't seen any indication that this one had any kind of political ideology at all.


Hitler, if you want to step outside the American system.

Branch Davidians;

Jonestown (Peoples Temple Agricultural Project)

I'd like to think that all crazies are liberals, but it's easier to show all liberals are control freaks than mass murderers.

Hitler was a National Socialist, which was a movement of the left (their association with the right was one of Stalin's greatest propaganda coups).

The Branch Davidians were pretty harmless, and if the ATF hadn't gone in shooting, there would not have been a standoff, and the FBI killed 80 people, not the Davidians.

Jim Jones was a Marxist who used religion as a cover for tax exemptions and as a means of fundraising. The following comes from a paper (http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume10/Introvigne.htm) examining Jone's political beliefs:


“My Marxist Views”: Jim Jones and Liberation Theology

Jim Jones’s fascination with Marxism is well-known. It has been used as a key interpretive tool in at least one of the important books about Jonestown, John R. Hall’s 1987 Gone from the Promised Land (Hall 1987). Hall appears to be genuinely puzzled by Jones’ Marxism. He vacillates between taking it seriously and regarding it as just another recruiting tool for a prophetic show aimed at feeding Jones’ megalomania rather than truly promoting social or political revolution.

Hall duly notes that as a teenager Jones “became enamored of Stalin and the Soviets” (Hall 1987, 13), and later reconstructed his experience as nothing less than a Marxist infiltration into Christianity. “By Jones’ account, he was associating with Communists, who told him, ‘Don’t become a member of the Party; work for the Party’ … ‘How can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, “infiltrate the church”’” (Hall 1987, 16-17). Hall wisely notes that “aside from his own accounts, there is no confirmation of the communist inspiration” (Hall 1987, 17), or that Jones was a man sent on a mission by the Communist Party. On the other hand, “Jones eventually read some Marx,” which made him somewhat different from your average country preacher. “’In the early years,’ Jones recalled, ‘I approached Christendom from a communalist standpoint with only intermittent mention of my Marxist views. However in later years there wasn’t a person that attended my meeting that did not hear me say at some time that I was a communist’” (Hall 1987, 26).

txradioguy
12-19-2012, 10:55 AM
The answer is never.

Novaheart
12-19-2012, 11:03 AM
The point is, the left is quick to politicize events like this to try to take guns away from law abiding citizens by not only blaming the gun but blaming the ideology of the majority of the gun owners. Face facts. Most gun owners are right leaning. Not all but most(in like a 55-45 majority is my guess). Well, my point is that in most cases(at least in recent memory) that in these mass shootings, the shooter's worldview is left leaning. We need to call this out. They are and as insensitive as it may sound, we need to point this out as well.

It's a rather pointless pursuit, kind of like arguing over whether Hitler was a liberal or a conservative.

Anyone offered as an example will be discounted by the left or right as it suits them.

Novaheart
12-19-2012, 11:06 AM
Hitler was a National Socialist, which was a movement of the left (their association with the right was one of Stalin's greatest propaganda coups).

The Branch Davidians were pretty harmless, and if the ATF hadn't gone in shooting, there would not have been a standoff, and the FBI killed 80 people, not the Davidians.

Jim Jones was a Marxist who used religion as a cover for tax exemptions and as a means of fundraising. The following comes from a paper (http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume10/Introvigne.htm) examining Jone's political beliefs: .........

Like I said, any example offered will be defined-out. This is nothing new.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

Odysseus
12-19-2012, 04:00 PM
Like I said, any example offered will be defined-out. This is nothing new.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

So, you are arguing that the assertion that conservatives don't do mass murder is unreasoned, and that the counterexamples, Hitler, Branch Davidians and Jim Jones were not not countered, but that I was modifying the origininal assertion so as to exclude them? Nice try, but I specifically explained why Hitler and Jim Jones didn't qualify as conservatives, and the Branch Davidians didn't qualify as mass murderers (for that matter, one has to wonder if they were conservatives, either, since nobody, to my knowledge, ever produced anything from them that was remotely political). However, let's start with an objective rule: In order to qualify as a conservative, in the sense of the term applied today in the United States, let us stipulate that the following are conservative positions:
Economic issues: Free market capitalism, private property rights and limited government
Social Issues: A basic belief in (or respect for) religion. Opposition to welfare statism, abortion, gay marriage and other attempts at redefining marriage.
Political Issues: Favors individual right to gun ownership, national sovereignty, free speech and the basic constitutional norms. Opposition to illegal immigration.

Now, let us look at the Nazis. Hitler was a socialist and his party was called the National Socialist Workers Party, we can see that it's platform was explicitly socialist. Here it is:

The Program of the National-Socialist (Nazi)
German Workers’ Party
(1933)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time. The leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.

1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.

2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.

3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.

4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation. No Jew can therefore be a German National.

5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.

6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.

9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.

We therefore demand:

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.

Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.

20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.

21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.

22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.

23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:

a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;

b) non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;

c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.

Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.

The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of:

Public Interest before Private Interest.

25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points.

Munich, February 24, 1920.

Das Programm der NSDAP

("The Program of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party"), Berlin [1933].


Hitler was not, by any measure, a conservative.

Jim Jones was not a conservative, but a Marxist. Again, I provided proof of this in the previous threads.

In the case of the Branch Davidians, the shooting was initiated by the ATF, which launched the raid. The subsequent mass killing was done by the FBI. Now, one can argue that ATF and FBI agents might be more conservative than the general population, but it's a stretch.

Now, there have been some persons who meet enough of the criteria that I described to be considered conservatives, and who have resorted to political violence, but they are fairly rare. The first example are the fringes of the pro-life movement, who have bombed clinics or killed those who worked there.
In the U.S., there have been eight murders of abortion providers or supporting personnel, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort. Please feel free to explain how this meets your "no true Scotsman" argument.

JB
12-19-2012, 06:54 PM
Like I said, any example offered will be defined-out. This is nothing new.Forget the socialist in the name of the party. Hitler was a dictator and the Nazis wanted the state to control everything...Lefty ideals. Hardly arguable at all.


In the case of the Branch Davidians, the shooting was initiated by the ATF, which launched the raid. The subsequent mass killing was done by the FBI. Now, one can argue that ATF and FBI agents might be more conservative than the general population, but it's a stretch.Ordered by Reno and Clinton...therefore, Liberals.