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

Don't worry, the new gun control laws will apply to everyone alike, Liberals and Reps.

Originally Posted by Act of God

It was my understanding that the driving force of the Nazi movement was nationalism and scapegoating, this wasn't a crusade nor was it sold as one.

Spot on.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Shooting/murder/bad thing happens
If shooter is tea party/white/conservative: His beliefs are why he did it
If shooter is black/liberal/democrat: crazy is crazy, who cares what his beliefs are.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/when-...ble-restraint/

Originally Posted by badfast

His invocation of religion influenced individuals to commit atrocities. I think that is scary. Not how religion influences one man, but how it can influence an entire society to commit awful acts.

You mention religion over and over again. All the while knowing that religion is but one form of ideology. Political persuasion is another, more secular form of ideology. Conservative or liberal, the same things show up by people espouse political ideology: ignorance, twisted interpretation of texts or dogma, sanctimony, invocation of higher principles, preaching to choirs, bigotry, persecution, self-righteousness, intolerance of others. Never make such a white-washed mistake again; religion didn't lead the people of Germany to commit the atrocities of the Third Reich, political ideology did. Never forget. And to keep this post in line with the topic, we shouldn't forget the main tool used shape that national fervor -- media and its use of political propaganda to shape popular opinion.

Originally Posted by Lair

LTNS
How are things in Neocon land?

backatcha!

Come'on man, we discussed the etymology of "neocon" last year. Columbus is thoroughly blue (as heads the direction of the state, I fear. )

edit:

Originally Posted by sammk

Don't worry, the new gun control laws will apply to everyone alike, Liberals and Reps.

Except the po-po, DHS, and anybody Eric Holder and his pals decides to smuggle weapons to. I suspect they'll be keeping the 7000 AR-based "personal defense weapons" and 30 round mags they bought last year. {voluntarily takes back the tin cap from badfast}

Originally Posted by 00stephen

You mention religion over and over again. All the while knowing that religion is but one form of ideology. Political persuasion is another, more secular form of ideology. Conservative or liberal, the same things show up by people espouse political ideology: ignorance, twisted interpretation of texts or dogma, sanctimony, invocation of higher principles, preaching to choirs, bigotry, persecution, self-righteousness, intolerance of others. Never make such a white-washed mistake again; religion didn't lead the people of Germany to commit the atrocities of the Third Reich, political ideology did. Never forget. And to keep this post in line with the topic, we shouldn't forget the main tool used shape that national fervor -- media and its use of political propaganda to shape popular opinion.

One post mentions religion. You treat the 2 as though they are separate entities. Sorry, but they can influence each other. Religion can be used to influence politics (history is full of examples). Another example is terrorist organizations such as Hamas using religion for its political purposes. Religion becomes the means to their political ends. And it is effective.

Also, I didn't make the claim that religion is what led to the atrocities in Germany, you arrived at that conclusion yourself. However, religion did have its own influences. You can stop with the "never forget" comments. You aren't the teacher here grasshopper.

Originally Posted by 00stephen

{voluntarily takes back the tin cap from badfast}

I had a feeling you might be needing it.

Originally Posted by badfast

One post mentions religion. You treat the 2 as though they are separate entities. Sorry, but they can influence each other. Religion can be used to influence politics (history is full of examples). Another example is terrorist organizations such as Hamas using religion for its political purposes. Religion becomes the means to their political ends. And it is effective.

"Can." "Can." "Can." Practicing to be a showgirl? Yes, this is correct, religion "can" be used by leaders to influence a group of people and move them action. As does invocation of politics. I did not treat them as separate entities; in fact, I clearly stated religion and politics are both forms of ideology... and thus lumped them in the same group. So how did you arrive at the opinion I was treating them separately? Were you not reading?

And speaking of reading comprehension, I asked "Did outlets say they were publishing"... To which you replied "which lefty news organizations are you watching". To answer your question, I don't "watch" any news. I read it. Just because Cooper or another newscaster mentions or word or two, doesn't mean they aren't removing thousands of other words from print. You can attempt to deny it all you want, but Google Cache doesn't lie.

Originally Posted by badfast

(Hitler's) invocation of religion influenced individuals to commit atrocities. I think that is scary. Not how religion influences one man, but how it can influence an entire society to commit awful acts.

Originally Posted by badfast

I didn't make the claim that religion is what led to the atrocities in Germany.

No, of course you didn't. Someone else hijacked your account and wrote it under your name. {Reshapes the aluminum falcon into a dunce cap and hands it back for you to wear}

linked by 00stephen but deserves a c/p

http://www.mediaite.com/online/when-...ble-restraint/

Alleged Los Angeles shooter Christopher Jordan Dorner, influenced by left-leaning media coverage of gun crime in the wake of the Newtown shootings, has virtually paralyzed the City of Angels. Floyd Lee Corkins, a gunman incensed by anti-gay marriage bias after reading articles by the liberal advocacy group Southern Poverty Law Center, took a firearm into the Family Research Council's headquarters with the intention of killing "as many as possible." He hoped to smash Chick-fil-A sandwiches in the faces of as many corpses as he could. These shooters were clearly moved by left-wing media, and we should thank every benevolent force in the universe that they were. Had either shooter possessed even a tenuous link to a conservative group, a media-driven hysteria about the malevolent influence of right-wing broadcasters and commentators would be gripping the nation today. Fortunately, when a crazed shooter's ideology is explicitly and demonstrably left-wing, the media displays admirable restraint about linking a gunman's politics to their acts of violence.

The instinct by many high profile voices in the media to link violence to right-wing politics is not a new phenomenon, but it has enjoyed a renaissance since the tea party began to achieve political power. The broadcasters who subtly implicated former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the 2011 attack on a Democratic congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona, is indicative of this bias. CNN host Piers Morgan exemplifies the lamentable instinct to blame conservatism for senseless violence well.

In a November, 2011, interview with Mark Kelly, Morgan said he was shocked by the "extraordinary" fact that Palin did not reach out to former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) immediately after the shooting. Kelly agreed, saying that the infamous map on Palin's website which featured targets over a variety of congressional districts that Republicans were "targeting" in that year's midterm elections - an infraction which sparked a national uproar about the marshal imagery employed by politicians since the time of Demosthenes - was "not the right thing to do."

The implication was clear: Palin had some influence on the crazed gunman who shot up an impromptu meeting of a Congresswoman and her constituents. Palin's crosshairs map had become a scapegoat for prominent voices from Paul Krugman to Randi Zuckerberg. It did not take much investigation into Loughner's background to learn that he was not especially political, and was certainly not a fan of Palin's. Nevertheless, nearly a year after this tragic incident, Morgan clung to that baseless charge.

Since the Newtown shooting, Morgan has been beating the drum about the need for stricter gun laws. His pro-gun control crusade made a deep impression on Dorner, who praised Morgan in his manifesto. So, having been specifically cited as someone who influenced Dorner, Morgan would engage in some introspection. Instead, he dismissed his influence on the L.A. shooter outright.

Morgan tweeted confidently - just hours after the manifesto in which Dorner praised not just Morgan but MSNBC's programming and a proposed Assault Weapons Ban - that politics has "nothing to do" with Dorner's rampage.

Unfortunately, the spectacularly wrong-headed approach the media took to assigning nonexistent motives to Loughner did not lead the media to impose some restraint on itself when opining on the politics of crazed shooters.

After Aurora, Colorado, shooter James Holmes attacked moviegoers this summer, ABC News reporter Brian Ross - minutes after the name of the suspect had been leaked to the press - sifted through the white pages to discover that there was one James Holmes in Colorado who happened to be a tea party activist. That incident forced ABC's President Ben Sherwood to issue an apology.

In February, 2010, when the deranged Joseph Stack flew his Piper Cub into the headquarters of the Internal Revenue Service in Austin, Texas, few in the elite media waited for the dust to settle before blaming conservatism. "The First Tea Party Terrorist?" asked New York Times columnist Robert Wright.

Even though Wright had Stack's online manifesto in hand - one in which he praises Marxist communism and laments the harsh excesses of American capitalism - Wright used a magicians sleight of hand to nevertheless link Stack to the tea party.

Was he a Tea Partier - or at least a Tea Party sympathizer? Conservatives who say no point to leftish themes in his manifesto. And it's true that - in a line much-quoted by these conservatives - he seems to wish that the government would do something about health care. Then again, who doesn't?
...
In the end, the core unifying theme of the Tea Partiers is populist rage, and this is the core theme in Stack's ramblings, whether the rage is directed at corporate titans ("plunderers***8221, the government ("totalitarian***8221 or individual politicians ("liars***8221.

When the facts make it impossible to indulge the instinct to link a violent extremist to the right - in Dorner and Corkins' cases for example - the media displays appropriate caution about assigning political motives to their actions.

That is an laudable impulse. The motives that drive disturbed individuals to commit heinous acts of violence, whatever they are, should not be glorified. Dorner's manifesto clearly indicates that the media, and its coverage of the gun control debate that has followed the Newtown massacre, influenced him significantly. A responsible media would take that into account and maybe, just maybe, ask what they may be doing to contribute to the increased incidences of mass shootings.

That is a national conversation that Americans deserve. Rest assured, if Dorner or Corkins had been influenced to commit their crimes by right-wing media outlets, we would get it. Sadly, that level of self-awareness is nowhere to be found in today's media landscape.

Originally Posted by 00stephen

Great we have another NFRS2000nyc.

I am surprised the bubble can hold so many paranoid individuals.

BTW, what was the point of your post?

If you can't recognize how religion plays a role of influence in atrocities....well can't help you. Judging by the source of news you read I can't see you as an individual worth wasting time with.

It makes sense though....I imagine any religion connected to Hitler and the Nazis would want to distance themselves. It's bad for PR.

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.

Last time I checked, he isn't crazy. In fact, he is the farthest thing from crazy. Almost everything has been calculated to a serious degree of precision. This man is on a mission, and is 100% dedicated to it.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Last time I checked, he isn't crazy. In fact, he is the farthest thing from crazy. Almost everything has been calculated to a serious degree of precision. This man is on a mission, and is 100% dedicated to it.

Seems more like angry and driven than crazy, it's not like he thinks he's riding around with Jesus sitting shotgun.

Originally Posted by badfast

Blah.
BTW, what was the point of your post?

Clearly your second line is related to your interpretation presented in the first. The point has been explained numerous times, by numerous people... but since you interpret grown-up talk as Charlie Brown trombone riffs, I'll spare the effort.

Originally Posted by badfast

religion plays a role of influence in atrocities

So first you said it led to atrocities. Then you said it didn't. Now you claim it does. Stop equivocating, it weakens your position.

You're not communicating your thoughts consistently, much less effectively. One possibility is that -- with an over-arching and righteous concern to be seen as correct, or as "a teacher" as you put it -- you are more focused on the impression of yourself you create among other people, than the actual content you're using to create it. When a person's overall goal is to be "right", his narrative will suffer in consistency and clarity... as seen in your repeatedly contradictory statements, most of which have nothing to do with the original post. It's a narcissistic trait, one we see Dorner's writing as well. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Seems more like angry and driven than crazy, it's not like he thinks he's riding around with Jesus sitting shotgun.

He is fully aware of his actions, his goals, and his road to achieve them. Yes he's angry, but crazy he is not. He has only killed particular people that are involved in some way in his little scandal, not a bunch of random people eating lunch at Spago.

Originally Posted by 00stephen

Clearly your second line is related to your interpretation presented in the first. The point has been explained numerous times, by numerous people... but since you interpret grown-up talk as Charlie Brown trombone riffs, I'll spare the effort.

So first you said it led to atrocities. Then you said it didn't. Now you claim it does. Stop equivocating, it weakens your position.

You're not communicating your thoughts consistently, much less effectively. One possibility is that -- with an over-arching and righteous concern to be seen as correct, or as "a teacher" as you put it -- you are more focused on the impression of yourself you create among other people, than the actual content you're using to create it. When a person's overall goal is to be "right", his narrative will suffer in consistency and clarity... as seen in your repeatedly contradictory statements, most of which have nothing to do with the original post. It's a narcissistic trait, one we see Dorner's writing as well. Cheers.

you're a joke. Now you are all Dr. Psychology. lol. Keep going doc. I am amused by your effort.

Guys kills three people and vows to kill more, but isn't crazy.

Originally Posted by Lair

Guys kills three people and vows to kill more, but isn't crazy.

Are all gang members crazy? Is someone that kills another person crazy per se? If so, we have a lot of innocent people in jail.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Are all gang members crazy? Is someone that kills another person crazy per se? If so, we have a lot of innocent people in jail.

crazy doesn't imply innocence.

Originally Posted by badfast

crazy doesn't imply innocence.

You can't imprison crazy people, they need to be treated. It isn't their fault.

Face it, saying someone is crazy solely based on them killing someone is an illogical argument.

True, because sane, rational people routinely murder other people.

Originally Posted by Lair

True, because sane, rational people routinely murder other people.

I'm absolutely sane and there are several people I'd like to murder. Are all of our troops crazy?

Your argument is sophmoric, insipid and right on target for your intelligence level

Looks like he's going all Mickey and Mallory

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2013/...hristopher-do/

Originally Posted by Act of God

You can't imprison crazy people, they need to be treated. It isn't their fault.

Face it, saying someone is crazy solely based on them killing someone is an illogical argument.

oh I am sorry I wasn't aware e46's political chat forum also counted as a court. I knew you would go there with the crazy comment. You can drop the wannabe lawyer approach. The term crazy here is used as an amplifier to describe his actions, no one here is implying a clinical/legal definition of the word.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Looks like he's going all Mickey and Mallory

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2013/...hristopher-do/

He has a FB following as well. I find it disturbing.