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/



.

Originally Posted by 00stephen

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

Originally Posted by evolved

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.

Originally Posted by badfast

tin foil hat

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.

Originally Posted by Act of God

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.

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.

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

que?

Originally Posted by evolved

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.

Originally Posted by 00stephen

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Act of God

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Act of God

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.

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.

Originally Posted by badfast

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

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

Originally Posted by evolved

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.

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

Originally Posted by Act of God

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

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:

"If you continuously followed me while I was walking at dusk/night I would confront you as well. Too bad Trayvon didn’t smash your skull completely open, Zim. While Trayvon’s body erodes to bones 6 feet under, Zimmerman has put on no less than 40 pounds while out on bail. Zimmerman was arrested for battery on a Peace officer and avoided jail/prison because he completed a diversion program. Thats a history of being an asshole. Zimmerman couldn’t get hired by a LE agency because of poor credit/and a history of violence/restraining orders with women. So what does he do? Designate himself, neighborhood watch captain and make complaints to his city council about the horrible work ethic and laziness of the officers patrolling his neighborhood. Good one Zim. How classy that your father attempts to use his veterans status “disabled veteran” during your bail hearing but doesn’t state what his disability percentage is. Prior service personnel know it can be 5% disability to 100%. You and your attorneys always avoid mentioning your fathers occupation as a magistrate/judge because I’m sure he’s utilized his position to get you out of way more jams then the public has discovered and that your family is not indigent. Oh, tell your wife to stop perjuring herself in court."

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?

Originally Posted by Act of God

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

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

Originally Posted by badfast

What does political affiliation have to do with someone's intent to kill?

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.)

Originally Posted by 00stephen

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?

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.

Originally Posted by badfast

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?

Originally Posted by badfast

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

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

Originally Posted by evolved

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

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