Allegedly, Scott Evans Dekraai, who shot up a hair salon where his wife worked in 2011, is a TEA Party member, 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Wood
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by m00
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockntractor
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.
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. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Rockntractor
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockntractor
What was the consensus?Quote:
Originally Posted by m00
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by m00
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockntractor
When did you become Gator? (no, I never got asked "the question")Quote:
If we are that bad why don't you get the fuck out of here and find another place that meets your high standards.
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. 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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by m00
Take some time off.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linda22003
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Starbuck
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/AboutJones...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).