L.A. Shooter is a Lefty Liberal, But News Outlets Hide It
 

(I've read through the other thread in the main OT forum, which is covering the crimes and manhunt, but not the media/political aspect of the story.)

There's actually two stories here... One is that the nutcase former cop in L.A. is a lefty anti-gun liberal, which is quite ironic given his most recent personal endeavors.

But the other bigger story is that news media has chosen to hide his political and social views -- which in a different context many might find sensible and agreeable, despite his nonsensical and murderous dive off the deep end. The original manifesto was announced to be 22 pages. Authorities asked media outlets to redact the names of private citizens. But the media went a step further and removed 10 pages political and cultural commentary, all of it left-leaning.

So, question: if the commentary had been right-leaning or conservative in nature, do we believe the media would withhold it as well? Or would we see another attempt to claim 'Tea Partying gun nut goes on shooting spree'? To what degree can we trust the media who seem to be routinely lying, editing, or hiding events and accounts to fit a preferred narrative and shape collective beliefs?

http://www.soopermexican.com/2013/02...-gun-comments/



.

:rolleyes:
http://www.rubyninja.org/wordpress/w...n_foil_hat.gif

Last time I checked crazy knows no political affiliation, but if a psychopaths political leanings make you feel better about yourself, go for it.

I think the point was that if this guy was a tea party, gun-totin' "conservative" that would have been the headline of every story about this guy. They tried it with Holmes and Laughner, but failed because they ran the story before the facts came out.

I know you will say something like well that doesn't make it right, and you aren't wrong. However, the only way to fight this type of bias is to make the lies front and center and part of the debate. Turning the other cheek doesn't work in this sort of situation.

Plus, I've already outlined the murders perpetrated by the left.

So when you impulsively dismiss that, badfast, are you suggesting that what has been published at wikileaks and other other websites is not something Dorner wrote? {Hands your aluminum falcon back, for you to wear.}

I agree with evolved that crazy knows no boundaries (see above)... But don't the sane people in editorial and managerial positions of media outlets have an ethical commitment to publish the whole truth when it comes to reporting?

edit: AoG is spot-on with the concern I attempted to express.

If this is indeed true, it does need to be brought up. However, a sourced named "soopermexican" isn't one I'm going to put a ton of faith in.



que?

Just a little quick research I did after Lair implied that only conservatives kill people in another thread

Wilkes Booth: Anti War, loved "peace more than life"
Guiteau: Commune-ist
Czolgosz: Socialist/Anarcist, incited by a speech from Emma Goldstein
Zangara: sought to "make even with capitalists"
Oswald: Communist, openly
Sirhan: Angry over support for Israel
Bremer: obsessed with bigotry, down with black panthers
Fromme: Concerned with redwoods
Moore: Thought "government had declared war on the left"

Not to mention the 10's of millions killed by Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Che, etc.

I am not dismissing anything he wrote. Just trying to spin this into a finger pointing contest is silly. What are you getting at by describing him as a lefty? Are you looking at one event and trying to scream that people you label as "the left" are nutty gun loving nuts bent on destruction and mayhem?

I think there are bigger issues at hand other than was this guy a liberal, right wing nutter, or whatever label you wish to use. People that automatically run towards the political affiliation this guy, I wonder if they suffer from some type of insecurity?

Is his political affiliation a representation of all those that hold "lefty" views?

You continue to prove you idiocy time and time again. What does political affiliation have to do with someone's intent to kill?

By those standards you have killers on the right:

All religious terrorist organizations (Hezbollah, AQ, etc.)
KKK
Neo-Nazis
The Contras

Among the many many others.

You do realize fascism is a far right ideology? Hitler, Stalin.....both fascists. Not that it matters, really......the political spectrum arches in towards itself at the far extremes.

In any event, taking a scoreboard mentality of far right whack jobs vs. far left whack jobs does nothing but set the conversation back and off track, in my opinion.

I told you, it was in response to your pal Lair saying that ONLY conservatives are capable of murder.

well I'm certainly not going to let idiots dictate what the 'truth' is with falsehoods.

:rofl: I can't believe you even dedicated time to rebut such a frivolous claim.

And furthermore, to what extent is the media culpable for the hate it may foster? For example Dorner wrote this, somewhere between complimenting Michelle Obama on her new bangs and calling Margaret Cho beautiful:

Clearly Dorner bought into the initial media hype that Zimmerman is a violent, abusive person (as if Dorner himself is not?), and that T.M. was a victim (which Dorner narcissisticly believes he, himself, is). If it wasn't for the race angle that the national media outlets tried to play in the initial weeks of the event, the Zimmerman shooting would have remained a fourth page story at the local level.

So to what extent does the media -- by hyping division, scandal, contention... as well as certain political angles or supposed grievances -- affect (or encourage) social and even psychological discord among viewers?

"Do not argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

That many so-called pacifists are just as violence-inclined as anybody else, albeit in a more passive-aggressive, repressed, hyporcritical sort of way?

Like you said, craziness knows no political affiliation. And I agree. But as I focused in the o.p., it's the selective /reporting/ that is troublesome. Or are you fine with reporting that is edited, truncated, or rearranged in way that it no longer paints a complete or true picture?

(edit: "a sourced named "soopermexican" isn't one I'm going to put a ton of faith in" <--- only because you're RAAAACIST. ;) No, not really. I understand a hesitation to put faith in something you haven't heard of before. Wikileaks, you have heard of though.)

Yes. In this situation it does not bother me. His grievances were what drove him to commit these crimes, not because he gave props to Ellen or commented on Michelle Obama's bangs.

But as I stated in the o.p. this isn't about his crimes or manhunt, that's covered in the thead in Main OT. This is about hiding his expression of love and appreciation for gun control, Obama, Biden, Chris Matthews, Hillary, Bill for that matter, and many things lefty and liberal.

As AoG pointed out, when Loughter shot up the Giffords rally, there was a rush by the media to paint the kid as a Limbaugh listening radical conservative, who did so because of one of many cross-hairs put a tv map electoral seats the GOP needed to focus on to take the House. But it turns out that wasn't the case at all. Yet Dorner spouts all sorts of lefty gushing in his manifesto of discontent and the reasons behind his actions, the media *hides* his social and political concerns. A bit of a double-standard, isn't it?

Did outlets say they were publishing an incomplete manifesto? No. Did they say they were removing parts of it because they felt it didn't relate to the killings? No. The presented it as if in entirety, with only names of private citizens removed.... which isn't the case. Again, are you okay with selective reporting as a whole? Or are you okay, on a selective basis, with selective reporting? ;)

I can't believe that you would believe anything AOG posts here. :thumbup:

"Believe an AOG horseshit post at your own peril."