Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Shooting At Holocaust Museum (DC)

11617181921

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    His motivation is a moot point, there's no way to prove what fringe message did or did not push him over the edge or when he was pushed.

    A large portion of the right-wing media regularly engages in dialogue that is hateful, paranoid, and incendiary. They are not giving a message to Von Bruun, they are creating an environment in which Von Bruun's message can more easily endure.

    There will always be psychopaths, terrorists, nutballs, murderers, and extremists. But that there always will be does not mean there is no variance in their number or in their capacity for violence. By creating and encouraging a paranoid, warlike propaganda, these extremist pundits and speakers provide cover and confirmation for the worst of the fringe. Whether Von Bruun specifically was pushed to violence by Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter or anyone in that circle is a moot point; the media support these pundits give to the fringe encourages them. Von Bruun might have planned his attack after a vicious screed by Beck, he might have planned it on his 18th birthday (he is 88 now, which is an important number for insane white supremacists).

    There are other potentially violent, mostly insane fringe terrorist extremists out there. Thanks to Fox News, they have a major media outlet that, at least partially, validates their paranoia and call to arms. Whether a specific individual is pushed over the edge by Fox News is a moot point, there's no way to prove it. However, it is painfully obvious that encouraging and validating the extremists' paranoia is only going to make them bolder. "Hey man, Obama is secretly a muslim terrorist" might have mattered to Von Bruun, it might have not. There are more extremists out there than just Von Bruun, and that message could very well be enough for some of them.

    There is no evidence linking him to Fox news, though, and strong evidence suggesting that he wasn't a fan.

    It's hard to suggest that an episode of Beck pushing him over the edge is an "equal possibility" when he wanted to shoot up Fox News.



    I don't disagree that Fox is validating SOME extremists, but I don't want Von Brunn to get swept in to that pile and forgotten, because there are other, deeper issues that are apparent in Von Brunn's hate speech.

    It's not a question of whether Fox is good or bad. It's a question of whether they had anything to do with this incident, and there simply isn't any good evidence saying that they did.



    also, as far as Fox "creating an environment" for Von Brunn, Von Brunn was shooting up the Fed before Fox news existed. Framing him as a product of Fox's environment just doesn't pan out.

    georgersig.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Maybe this will teach right-wingers a lesson, but I doubt it.

    Nope, right-wing pundits and bloggers are too busy trying to sell the idea that James Von Brunn was actually a big ol' lefty.

    Because, you know, he said bad things about Bush. And because liberals all hate Jews, and Nazi is short for National Socialist and you know who else endorses socialism doncha and he's anti-Christian!

    the point that ACTUALLY need to be made is that this man was so much of an extremist and a nutball that he opposed BOTH the right AND the left.

    Except that trying to paint Von Brunn as opposing both the right and the left equally is disingenuous at best.

    While white supremacist groups usually dislike mainstream conservatives for not being conservative enough (or not framing their conservative views in racial terms), they're still an example of right-wing extremism. The ideology espoused by Von Brunn and other white supremacists is still a right-wing ideology.

    It's like saying that the various American communist groups oppose both the right and the left because they criticize mainstream politicians who are both conservative and liberal.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Maybe this will teach right-wingers a lesson, but I doubt it.

    Nope, right-wing pundits and bloggers are too busy trying to sell the idea that James Von Brunn was actually a big ol' lefty.

    Because, you know, he said bad things about Bush. And because liberals all hate Jews, and Nazi is short for National Socialist and you know who else endorses socialism doncha and he's anti-Christian!

    the point that ACTUALLY need to be made is that this man was so much of an extremist and a nutball that he opposed BOTH the right AND the left.

    Except that trying to paint Von Brunn as opposing both the right and the left equally is disingenuous at best.

    While white supremacist groups usually dislike mainstream conservatives for not being conservative enough (or not framing their conservative views in racial terms), they're still an example of right-wing extremism. The ideology espoused by Von Brunn and other white supremacists is still a right-wing ideology.

    It's like saying that the various American communist groups oppose both the right and the left because they criticize mainstream politicians who are both conservative and liberal.

    I'm not denying that Von Brunn lies on the far right end of the spectrum.

    The point, howevere, is that he is SO FAR on the fringe that he really cannot be associated with other peole just because they also happen to lean right. He himself CLEARLY has beefs with much of what you and I would consider moderate, or even far right wing politics.



    Condemning the entire right because of Brunn would be akin to, well, calling Obama a socialist because Socialists are ALSO left-wing.

    georgersig.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Maybe this will teach right-wingers a lesson, but I doubt it.

    Nope, right-wing pundits and bloggers are too busy trying to sell the idea that James Von Brunn was actually a big ol' lefty.

    Because, you know, he said bad things about Bush. And because liberals all hate Jews, and Nazi is short for National Socialist and you know who else endorses socialism doncha and he's anti-Christian!

    the point that ACTUALLY need to be made is that this man was so much of an extremist and a nutball that he opposed BOTH the right AND the left.

    Except that trying to paint Von Brunn as opposing both the right and the left equally is disingenuous at best.

    While white supremacist groups usually dislike mainstream conservatives for not being conservative enough (or not framing their conservative views in racial terms), they're still an example of right-wing extremism. The ideology espoused by Von Brunn and other white supremacists is still a right-wing ideology.

    It's like saying that the various American communist groups oppose both the right and the left because they criticize mainstream politicians who are both conservative and liberal.

    I'm not denying that Von Brunn lies on the far right end of the spectrum.

    The point, howevere, is that he is SO FAR on the fringe that he really cannot be associated with other peole just because they also happen to lean right. He himself CLEARLY has beefs with much of what you and I would consider moderate, or even far right wing politics.

    Condemning the entire right because of Brunn would be akin to, well, calling Obama a socialist because Socialists are ALSO left-wing.

    I agree that the entire right shouldn't get lumped in with people like Von Brunn, but I don't think there's a firewall between the white supremacist fringe and far-right American politics, just as there isn't one between Socialists and far-left American politics.

    For example, the Ron Paul campaign attracted some pretty unsavory "racialist" support based on his opposition to the federal government, the Federal Reserve, and some of his (disputed) mid-90s writings about racial issues. When it comes to the "pro-life" movement, that dividing line is much muddier.

    Speaking of Fox News, it's not like Glenn Beck and his apocalyptic "we surround them" rhetoric about fascism and looming violence is that out of sync with how the folks on the far, far, right fringe see the world, especially now that Obama is President. To me, there's not that many dots between Beck's rantings and the Turner Diaries.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I agree that the entire right shouldn't get lumped in with people like Von Brunn, but I don't think there's a firewall between the white supremacist fringe and far-right American politics, just as there isn't one between Socialists and far-left American politics.

    For example, the Ron Paul campaign attracted some pretty unsavory "racialist" support based on his opposition to the federal government, the Federal Reserve, and some of his (disputed) mid-90s writings about racial issues. When it comes to the "pro-life" movement, that dividing line is much muddier.

    Speaking of Fox News, it's not like Glenn Beck and his apocalyptic "we surround them" rhetoric about fascism and looming violence is that out of sync with how the folks on the far, far, right fringe see the world, especially now that Obama is President. To me, there's not that many dots between Beck's rantings and the Turner Diaries.

    I think the area where I feel like you and I are discontecting is over the direction that this sort of propaganda disseminates from.

    Fox News doesn't fabricate these talking points about Obama wanting to ban all guns, or not having an American birth certificate. These talking points actually ORIGINATE on the fringes, next to other points about the Jews and lizardmen pulling all the strings, and Bush being a tool fo the libeals because he is supporting big government. As these points trickled down from the fringes, some of them get filtered out, but a few (like bithcertificates) hit the airwaves.

    The fringe isn't getting these ideas because they heard them on Fox. Fox is airing these ideas in an attempt to court the fringe. This is ABSOLUTELY dispicable behavior, which Fox deserves to be held accountable for.



    Oddly enough, though, likely thanks to all of his other paranoia, Von Brunn saw through Fox's atempts to court him, and they were actually one of his potential targets. Fox's behavior definitely needs to be held up and criticised in light of the Tiller murder, but in regards to Von Brunn, Fox is oddly uninvolved.

    It's important not to lump Von Brunn in with Tiller's killer, as well, because it makes it that much easier for assholes like Limbaugh and Beck to brush it all off. The evidence is there to distance Von Brunn from Fox, so if you lump him in with everyone else, the are going to COMPLETELY ignore all of the otheracts of violence, and ONLY work to defend themselves from accusations of encouraging Von Brunn, which ultimately they'll be validated on, and they will use that as "proof" that they are innocent on all charges (which they are absolutely not.)



    What I'm getting at here is that by trying to blame Fox in some regard for Von Brunn's actions, or the environment surrounding them, you are both obscuring the ACTUAL forces that pushed Von Brunn to do what he did, and ALSO giving Fox an easy out on the accusations that they have moral culpability for the OTHER recent killings.

    georgersig.jpg
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I agree that the entire right shouldn't get lumped in with people like Von Brunn, but I don't think there's a firewall between the white supremacist fringe and far-right American politics, just as there isn't one between Socialists and far-left American politics.

    For example, the Ron Paul campaign attracted some pretty unsavory "racialist" support based on his opposition to the federal government, the Federal Reserve, and some of his (disputed) mid-90s writings about racial issues. When it comes to the "pro-life" movement, that dividing line is much muddier.

    Speaking of Fox News, it's not like Glenn Beck and his apocalyptic "we surround them" rhetoric about fascism and looming violence is that out of sync with how the folks on the far, far, right fringe see the world, especially now that Obama is President. To me, there's not that many dots between Beck's rantings and the Turner Diaries.

    I think the area where I feel like you and I are discontecting is over the direction that this sort of propaganda disseminates from.

    Fox News doesn't fabricate these talking points about Obama wanting to ban all guns, or not having an American birth certificate. These talking points actually ORIGINATE on the fringes, next to other points about the Jews and lizardmen pulling all the strings, and Bush being a tool fo the libeals because he is supporting big government. As these points trickled down from the fringes, some of them get filtered out, but a few (like bithcertificates) hit the airwaves.

    The fringe isn't getting these ideas because they heard them on Fox. Fox is airing these ideas in an attempt to court the fringe. This is ABSOLUTELY dispicable behavior, which Fox deserves to be held accountable for.



    Oddly enough, though, likely thanks to all of his other paranoia, Von Brunn saw through Fox's atempts to court him, and they were actually one of his potential targets. Fox's behavior definitely needs to be held up and criticised in light of the Tiller murder, but in regards to Von Brunn, Fox is oddly uninvolved.

    It's important not to lump Von Brunn in with Tiller's killer, as well, because it makes it that much easier for assholes like Limbaugh and Beck to brush it all off. The evidence is there to distance Von Brunn from Fox, so if you lump him in with everyone else, the are going to COMPLETELY ignore all of the otheracts of violence, and ONLY work to defend themselves from accusations of encouraging Von Brunn, which ultimately they'll be validated on, and they will use that as "proof" that they are innocent on all charges (which they are absolutely not.)



    What I'm getting at here is that by trying to blame Fox in some regard for Von Brunn's actions, or the environment surrounding them, you are both obscuring the ACTUAL forces that pushed Von Brunn to do what he did, and ALSO giving Fox an easy out on the accusations that they have moral culpability for the OTHER recent killings.

    Fox isn't just trying to court the fringe, they're also disseminating the information to create new fringe members.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fox isn't just trying to court the fringe, they're also disseminating the information to create new fringe members.

    You're giving them too much credit.



    Fox doesn't care what folks believe, as long as they are getting ratings.

    The reason that they air extremeist views is because they want to get the ratings from those extremists.



    The creation of NEW extremists IS a byproduct of this whole tactic, and Fox SHOULD be held accountable for that, but it isn't their goal. They are perfectly happy with some one being a moderate instead of an extremist, as long as that person is watching Fox.

    georgersig.jpg
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fox isn't just trying to court the fringe, they're also disseminating the information to create new fringe members.

    You're giving them too much credit.



    Fox doesn't care what folks believe, as long as they are getting ratings.

    The reason that they air extremeist views is because they want to get the ratings from those extremists.



    The creation of NEW extremists IS a byproduct of this whole tactic, and Fox SHOULD be held accountable for that, but it isn't their goal. They are perfectly happy with some one being a moderate instead of an extremist, as long as that person is watching Fox.

    You contradict yourself. By creating new fringe members, they increase their viewership and ratings.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fox isn't just trying to court the fringe, they're also disseminating the information to create new fringe members.

    You're giving them too much credit.



    Fox doesn't care what folks believe, as long as they are getting ratings.

    The reason that they air extremeist views is because they want to get the ratings from those extremists.



    The creation of NEW extremists IS a byproduct of this whole tactic, and Fox SHOULD be held accountable for that, but it isn't their goal. They are perfectly happy with some one being a moderate instead of an extremist, as long as that person is watching Fox.

    You contradict yourself. By creating new fringe members, they increase their viewership and ratings.

    You're getting cyclical.

    Fox can't create fringe members out of people who aren't already watching them.

    georgersig.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Your entire argument rests on "But Glenn Beck makes people crazy!" You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.

    Skeptical sure, retarded no.

    My argument doesn't rest on that. I'm not aware of any argument in the thread that rests on that.

    Aside from yours, of course.

    you're being silly again:
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    He makes normal people a bit odd, odd people a little bonkers, and guys like von Brunn he pokes towards the edge lightly.

    Given that he posted three minutes after I did, at the time he was writing he was probably right. Also, I oversimplified my argument above.

    A WHOLE THREE MINUTES

    IT'S CERTAINLY AS IF PEOPLE HAVE NEVER DREDGED UP THINGS FROM TWENTY PAGES AND A WEEK BACK AND USED THEM AGAINST THEIR AUTHOR

    WHAT IS THIS BLACK MAGIC, WITH THE QUOTING OF RECENT WORDS TO PROVE SOMEONE WRONG

    He didn't say Beck makes people crazy, though, he said that he makes people more crazy. Seriously, you're more wrong than your predictions of Obama losing.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    That is to say, there is definitely some correlation here in timing and talking points, but I've still seen absolutely nothing to link this shooting, directly OR indirectly, to anything else you've mentioned. Similarities don't automatically make two things the same.

    Add to that the fact that Von Brunn hated neo-cons and Christians, and considered attacking Fox News violently. With those, we actually have strong evidence suggesting that he WASN'T influenced by these same groups.

    So, we have no evidence linking his to the other shootings, beyond a couple of talking points that originated in the fringe to begin with. We DO, however, have evidence that shows a divide between him and the media that encouraged the other shootings.



    It seems to me to be a stretch to try to claim that Glenn Beck influenced Von Brunn, when there is nothing to connect them other than a talking point that chronologically actually came FROM Von Brunn's camp TO Beck's camp.

    There are extensive links between Richard Poplawski and his rhetoric and James Van Brunn. They both frequented Stormfront, both were or had strong white supremacist and antisemitic leanings, and both were spurred to violence because they were afraid Obama was going to take their guns. In the former case, we know that Poplawski was directly influenced by both Beck and Ron Paul and his rhetoric, not simply as a source of ideas but as a as someone who reinforced those ideas as in some way legitimate.

    So we have two cases within a few months of each other. Both shooters shot cops. Both shooters were antisemitic, white supremacists. Both were attributed the motivation that Obama was going to take their guns. Both frequented the same websites. Both supported Ron Paul. One we know factually was a big fan and was influenced by Glenn Beck, a conservative media member on Fox News. The other repeated the specific talking points that were invented by the right wing media - that is that Obama lacked a birth certificate to prove his citizenship.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fox isn't just trying to court the fringe, they're also disseminating the information to create new fringe members.

    You're giving them too much credit.



    Fox doesn't care what folks believe, as long as they are getting ratings.

    The reason that they air extremeist views is because they want to get the ratings from those extremists.



    The creation of NEW extremists IS a byproduct of this whole tactic, and Fox SHOULD be held accountable for that, but it isn't their goal. They are perfectly happy with some one being a moderate instead of an extremist, as long as that person is watching Fox.

    You contradict yourself. By creating new fringe members, they increase their viewership and ratings.

    You're getting cyclical.

    Fox can't create fringe members out of people who aren't already watching them.

    Advertising, dude. How do you think they get new viewers in the first place? Then they hook them with the crazysauce.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    That is to say, there is definitely some correlation here in timing and talking points, but I've still seen absolutely nothing to link this shooting, directly OR indirectly, to anything else you've mentioned. Similarities don't automatically make two things the same.

    Add to that the fact that Von Brunn hated neo-cons and Christians, and considered attacking Fox News violently. With those, we actually have strong evidence suggesting that he WASN'T influenced by these same groups.

    So, we have no evidence linking his to the other shootings, beyond a couple of talking points that originated in the fringe to begin with. We DO, however, have evidence that shows a divide between him and the media that encouraged the other shootings.



    It seems to me to be a stretch to try to claim that Glenn Beck influenced Von Brunn, when there is nothing to connect them other than a talking point that chronologically actually came FROM Von Brunn's camp TO Beck's camp.

    There are extensive links between Richard Poplawski and his rhetoric and James Van Brunn. They both frequented Stormfront, both were or had strong white supremacist and antisemitic leanings, and both were spurred to violence because they were afraid Obama was going to take their guns. In the former case, we know that Poplawski was directly influenced by both Beck and Ron Paul and his rhetoric, not simply as a source of ideas but as a as someone who reinforced those ideas as in some way legitimate.

    So we have two cases within a few months of each other. Both shooters shot cops. Both shooters were antisemitic, white supremacists. Both were attributed the motivation that Obama was going to take their guns. Both frequented the same websites. Both supported Ron Paul. One we know factually was a big fan and was influenced by Glenn Beck, a conservative media member on Fox News. The other repeated the specific talking points that were invented by the right wing media - that is that Obama lacked a birth certificate to prove his citizenship.



    Do I need to pull up a list of all the similarities between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassiniations?



    You can draw similarities between these two en, but the one thing that you CAN'T do is find anything linking Fox itself to Von Brunn, nor can you find anything suggesting a CAUSITORY link between any of this stuff.

    Meanwhile, to try to blame Fox in any regard, you are having to completely overlook the fact that Von Brunn wanted to SHOOT them.



    As for the origin of the claim that Obama lacked an American birth certificate, I'm researching the origin of the rumor right now (if you have any links that would hel there, I'd appreciate them) but as most of this stuff is originated in the fringe, and only POPULARIZED by Fox, not fabricated outright, I'm assuming that this one took that path too. I DO rememebr that the accusations came about during the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, which suggests sources other than Fox News, who was far more concerned with Hillary at the time.

    georgersig.jpg
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    At the very least, Fox started the terrorist fist bump thing.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fox isn't just trying to court the fringe, they're also disseminating the information to create new fringe members.

    You're giving them too much credit.



    Fox doesn't care what folks believe, as long as they are getting ratings.

    The reason that they air extremeist views is because they want to get the ratings from those extremists.



    The creation of NEW extremists IS a byproduct of this whole tactic, and Fox SHOULD be held accountable for that, but it isn't their goal. They are perfectly happy with some one being a moderate instead of an extremist, as long as that person is watching Fox.

    You contradict yourself. By creating new fringe members, they increase their viewership and ratings.

    You're getting cyclical.

    Fox can't create fringe members out of people who aren't already watching them.

    Advertising, dude. How do you think they get new viewers in the first place? Then they hook them with the crazysauce.

    That just doesn't make sense.

    For these people to be willing to buy in to Fox enough for Fox to turn them extremist, they would ALREADY have to be believers in the fox line.



    People don't just walk down the street, see a billboard, and say to themselves "I never thought of that before, but now I think I should take up arms against the government."



    Also, what do you believe Fox's motivation for creating all of these extremists would be?

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    At the very least, Fox started the terrorist fist bump thing.

    absolutely

    Fox starts TONS of idiotic buzzwords

    georgersig.jpg
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fox isn't just trying to court the fringe, they're also disseminating the information to create new fringe members.

    You're giving them too much credit.



    Fox doesn't care what folks believe, as long as they are getting ratings.

    The reason that they air extremeist views is because they want to get the ratings from those extremists.



    The creation of NEW extremists IS a byproduct of this whole tactic, and Fox SHOULD be held accountable for that, but it isn't their goal. They are perfectly happy with some one being a moderate instead of an extremist, as long as that person is watching Fox.

    You contradict yourself. By creating new fringe members, they increase their viewership and ratings.

    You're getting cyclical.

    Fox can't create fringe members out of people who aren't already watching them.

    Advertising, dude. How do you think they get new viewers in the first place? Then they hook them with the crazysauce.

    That just doesn't make sense.

    For these people to be willing to buy in to Fox enough for Fox to turn them extremist, they would ALREADY have to be believers in the fox line.



    People don't just walk down the street, see a billboard, and say to themselves "I never thought of that before, but now I think I should take up arms against the government."



    Also, what do you believe Fox's motivation for creating all of these extremists would be?

    How does advertising work period? You get them to tune into your channel/show in some manner, and then hook them with providing crazy material. Obviously, these are people who are easily manipulated with flashy colors and slogans like "War on Christmas", but the point still stands that there will be something drawing them to the channel.

    As for the other question: $$$

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Adding: I guarantee there were people who had never tuned into Glenn Beck's show before, but after seeing the clip of him dousing someone in gasoline and yelling about socialism thought to themselves, "You know, this is something I could get behind!"

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    You can draw similarities between these two en, but the one thing that you CAN'T do is find anything linking Fox itself to Von Brunn, nor can you find anything suggesting a CAUSITORY link between any of this stuff.

    Meanwhile, to try to blame Fox in any regard, you are having to completely overlook the fact that Von Brunn wanted to SHOOT them.



    As for the origin of the claim that Obama lacked an American birth certificate, I'm researching the origin of the rumor right now (if you have any links that would hel there, I'd appreciate them) but as most of this stuff is originated in the fringe, and only POPULARIZED by Fox, not fabricated outright, I'm assuming that this one took that path too,

    Why do you keep saying Fox? Are you under the impression that its the only right wing media outlet?

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Adding: I guarantee there were people who had never tuned into Glenn Beck's show before, but after seeing the clip of him dousing someone in gasoline and yelling about socialism thought to themselves, "You know, this is something I could get behind!"

    I'm not sure this is relevant. There is probably some sort of curve / break point where a very limited number of people "go off the deep end" after exposure to Fox News, but there's also some sort of break point in reverse where people say "what the fuck am I listening to?" and then back out.

    Exposure to Fox News doesn't make you crazy. Well, outside of Clockwork Orange torture scenarios. If you're already crazy, however, exposure to Fox News validates your paranoia, and might add a little bit of flair to it. I seriously doubt any reasonable individual changed from "moderate" to "psychopath" just because Glenn Beck doused himself in gasoline (*edit* I realize this isn't an accurate description of what happened but GOD A MAN CAN DREAM). I find it much easier to believe that an already insane, potentially dangerous individual watched Glenn Beck and said "See? I was right! They are coming for my guns! The liberal media is out to destroy us!"

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Adding: I guarantee there were people who had never tuned into Glenn Beck's show before, but after seeing the clip of him dousing someone in gasoline and yelling about socialism thought to themselves, "You know, this is something I could get behind!"

    I'm not sure this is relevant. There is probably some sort of curve / break point where a very limited number of people "go off the deep end" after exposure to Fox News, but there's also some sort of break point in reverse where people say "what the fuck am I listening to?" and then back out.

    Exposure to Fox News doesn't make you crazy. Well, outside of Clockwork Orange torture scenarios. If you're already crazy, however, exposure to Fox News validates your paranoia, and might add a little bit of flair to it. I seriously doubt any reasonable individual changed from "moderate" to "psychopath" just because Glenn Beck doused himself in gasoline (*edit* I realize this isn't an accurate description of what happened but GOD A MAN CAN DREAM). I find it much easier to believe that an already insane, potentially dangerous individual watched Glenn Beck and said "See? I was right! They are coming for my guns! The liberal media is out to destroy us!"

    This is exactly what I am saying.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Adding: I guarantee there were people who had never tuned into Glenn Beck's show before, but after seeing the clip of him dousing someone in gasoline and yelling about socialism thought to themselves, "You know, this is something I could get behind!"

    I'm not sure this is relevant. There is probably some sort of curve / break point where a very limited number of people "go off the deep end" after exposure to Fox News, but there's also some sort of break point in reverse where people say "what the fuck am I listening to?" and then back out.

    Exposure to Fox News doesn't make you crazy. Well, outside of Clockwork Orange torture scenarios. If you're already crazy, however, exposure to Fox News validates your paranoia, and might add a little bit of flair to it. I seriously doubt any reasonable individual changed from "moderate" to "psychopath" just because Glenn Beck doused himself in gasoline (*edit* I realize this isn't an accurate description of what happened but GOD A MAN CAN DREAM). I find it much easier to believe that an already insane, potentially dangerous individual watched Glenn Beck and said "See? I was right! They are coming for my guns! The liberal media is out to destroy us!"

    This is exactly what I am saying.

    Besides that, he doesn't even need to have watched it himself, all he needs is for one of his buddies on Free Republic or Redstate to say "see? If that RINO Beck said it, it must be true."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Eugene Robinson has a pretty good article on this subject in WaPo here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/11/AR2009061103038.html

    Supposedly his personal financial situation may have been a trigger for this guy.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    $$$

    Does not compute.

    If they have some perfectly good moderates who are already loyal to Fox, how do they make money by turning them in to extremists?

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Adding: I guarantee there were people who had never tuned into Glenn Beck's show before, but after seeing the clip of him dousing someone in gasoline and yelling about socialism thought to themselves, "You know, this is something I could get behind!"

    I'm not sure this is relevant. There is probably some sort of curve / break point where a very limited number of people "go off the deep end" after exposure to Fox News, but there's also some sort of break point in reverse where people say "what the fuck am I listening to?" and then back out.

    Exposure to Fox News doesn't make you crazy. Well, outside of Clockwork Orange torture scenarios. If you're already crazy, however, exposure to Fox News validates your paranoia, and might add a little bit of flair to it. I seriously doubt any reasonable individual changed from "moderate" to "psychopath" just because Glenn Beck doused himself in gasoline (*edit* I realize this isn't an accurate description of what happened but GOD A MAN CAN DREAM). I find it much easier to believe that an already insane, potentially dangerous individual watched Glenn Beck and said "See? I was right! They are coming for my guns! The liberal media is out to destroy us!"

    This is exactly what I am saying.

    Except that this man A) was already off the deep end BEFORE Fox News existed, and B) did not appear to be a guy who sat around watching Fox News and being influenced by it (he wanted to SHOOT them.)



    I'm not saying that this doesn't happen for other extremists, but there is nothing to tie this stuff in to Von Brunn spoecifically, and in fact, there is evidence to refute it.



    And, as I said earlier, it is actually DETRIMENTAL to keep trying to force Fox in to the list of causes here, because it allows the REAL culprits to avoid attention, AND it gives Fox an easy strawman for them to use to defnedn themselves, so that they don't even have to touch things like Tiller where they ARE responsible.

    georgersig.jpg
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    It doesn't matter if Fox is responsible or not. They were already given a green light to lie and call it the news.

    Places like Stormfront is where this shit is at. That's not even the deep fringes, as I imagine most of the severely out-there motherfuckers don't communicate much over the internet.

    Spoiler:
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Adding: I guarantee there were people who had never tuned into Glenn Beck's show before, but after seeing the clip of him dousing someone in gasoline and yelling about socialism thought to themselves, "You know, this is something I could get behind!"

    I'm not sure this is relevant. There is probably some sort of curve / break point where a very limited number of people "go off the deep end" after exposure to Fox News, but there's also some sort of break point in reverse where people say "what the fuck am I listening to?" and then back out.

    Exposure to Fox News doesn't make you crazy. Well, outside of Clockwork Orange torture scenarios. If you're already crazy, however, exposure to Fox News validates your paranoia, and might add a little bit of flair to it. I seriously doubt any reasonable individual changed from "moderate" to "psychopath" just because Glenn Beck doused himself in gasoline (*edit* I realize this isn't an accurate description of what happened but GOD A MAN CAN DREAM). I find it much easier to believe that an already insane, potentially dangerous individual watched Glenn Beck and said "See? I was right! They are coming for my guns! The liberal media is out to destroy us!"

    This is exactly what I am saying.

    Except that this man A) was already off the deep end BEFORE Fox News existed, and B) did not appear to be a guy who sat around watching Fox News and being influenced by it (he wanted to SHOOT them.)

    That's not exactly true. I mean, back in 81 he tried to rob a bank. Lots of people do that without being fringe loonies.

    This latest escapade was nothing but murder-suicide. Which says to me that between 1981 and today, his crazy rose exponentially.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Adding: I guarantee there were people who had never tuned into Glenn Beck's show before, but after seeing the clip of him dousing someone in gasoline and yelling about socialism thought to themselves, "You know, this is something I could get behind!"

    I'm not sure this is relevant. There is probably some sort of curve / break point where a very limited number of people "go off the deep end" after exposure to Fox News, but there's also some sort of break point in reverse where people say "what the fuck am I listening to?" and then back out.

    Exposure to Fox News doesn't make you crazy. Well, outside of Clockwork Orange torture scenarios. If you're already crazy, however, exposure to Fox News validates your paranoia, and might add a little bit of flair to it. I seriously doubt any reasonable individual changed from "moderate" to "psychopath" just because Glenn Beck doused himself in gasoline (*edit* I realize this isn't an accurate description of what happened but GOD A MAN CAN DREAM). I find it much easier to believe that an already insane, potentially dangerous individual watched Glenn Beck and said "See? I was right! They are coming for my guns! The liberal media is out to destroy us!"

    This is exactly what I am saying.

    Except that this man A) was already off the deep end BEFORE Fox News existed, and B) did not appear to be a guy who sat around watching Fox News and being influenced by it (he wanted to SHOOT them.)



    I'm not saying that this doesn't happen for other extremists, but there is nothing to tie this stuff in to Von Brunn spoecifically, and in fact, there is evidence to refute it.



    And, as I said earlier, it is actually DETRIMENTAL to keep trying to force Fox in to the list of causes here, because it allows the REAL culprits to avoid attention, AND it gives Fox an easy strawman for them to use to defnedn themselves, so that they don't even have to touch things like Tiller where they ARE responsible.

    I never said anything about Von Brunn.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    back in 81 he tried to rob a bank.

    do you not understand what the Fed is?

    we wasn't trying to "rob a bank" he was using a fake bomb in order to attempt to kidnap members of the FEDERAL RESERVE.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    I never said anything about Von Brunn.

    Then you're in the wrong thread

    georgersig.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    What hypocrisy?

    Henroid stated that my interpretation of his viewpoint regarding the media's "moral culpability" was invalid, immediately after he stated that the potential improper interpretation of the media's message made them morally culpable.

    If that's not hypocrisy, then the word needs a new definition.

    You did interpret what I said wrong. What I'm saying is that people who have public spotlight are listened to - whackos included. Those same whackos will feel they have some sort of public support and take action.

    Public figures have a moral responsibility to choose their words more carefully. You made a sarcastic remark about arresting those public figures in response to me, when I never so much as implied they should be arrested.

    Edit - And sorry for dragging this up so many pages but I'm not going to let someone skew my viewpoints to their bullshit.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    This is worth reading as well.
    The storm I've been warning about is coming faster now. To get a sense of just how fast, let's take stock of what's been happening on the right wing since President Obama's inauguration:

    Wednesday, January 21 -- the day after the inauguration -- 22-year-old Keith Luke goes on a rape and killing spree in his Boston neighborhood. He rapes and kills one woman, and kills the sister who tries to help her. He then goes out onto the street and shoots a passing homeless man. Police intercept him on his way to a local synagogue, where he tells them he intended to "kill as many Jews as possible during bingo night." He also tells investigators that he was fighting the extinction of the white race, and had stockpiled 200 round of ammunition to that end.

    Tuesday, February 10 -- In Belfast, Maine, radioactive "dirty bomb" materials are found in home of James Cummings, who had been killed by his wife after years of domestic violence. Cummings was an admirer of Adolf Hitler; a large collection of Nazi memorabilia and a filled-out application for the National Socialist Movement were found on the scene.

    Thursday, February 26 -- In Miramar Beach, FL, 60-year-old Dannie Baker walks into a neighboring townhouse where 14 Chilean students -- all in the US legally -- are gathered. He fires, killing two and wounding five. Those who know Baker describe him as a mentally ill man obsessed with the fear that immigrants are taking over the country.

    Sunday, April 5 -- Budding white supremacist and recently discharged veteran Richard Popalowski shoots and kills three police officers following a standoff in Pittsburgh. They were responding to a domestic disturbance call. He believed they had been sent by the Obama Adminstration to take away his guns.

    Tuesday, April 28 -- US Army Reservist Joshua Cartwright shoots and kills two sheriff's deputies in Fort Walton Beach, FL. His wife called police from the emergency room after he beat her. In the incident report, his wife reported that her husband believed the U.S. Government was conspiring against him, and was severely disturbed that Barack Obama had been elected President.

    Wednesday, May 6 -- Stephen P. Morgan of Middletown, CT kills former NYU classmate Johanna Justin-Jinich, whom he had been harassing since at least 2007. A diary found in his belongings included an entry: "I think it's ok to kill Jews and go on a killing spree" and "Kill Johanna. She must Die." Justin-Jinich was Jewish, and the granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor.

    Sunday, May 31 -- Dr. George Tiller is shot to death while ushering at his Lutheran church in Wichita, KS. His killer, Scott Roeder, is captured by police within hours. Roeder is found to have ties to several violent right-wing groups, including the Montana Freemen and the Sovereign Citizen movement. He had also been committing acts of vandalism against abortion clinics for years, most recently just days before the assassination.

    Wednesday, June 10 -- Well-known anti-Semitic blogger James Wenneker von Brunn walks into the national Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC and opens fire, killing a security guard. Von Brunn had been prominent in Holocaust denier circles for several decades, and considered Holocaust museums to be a crime against white history.


    Eight episodes of right-wing extremist violence in four and a half months. We haven't gone four weeks since February without some poor guy -- always with a long history of mental illness, usually with a record of military service and/or domestic violence, and invariably jacked up on a toxic cocktail of white male privilege; us-versus-them enemy seeking; fury at women, blacks and/or Jews; and a belief that the world as he knew it was ending unless he took up arms -- taking out his gun and offing innocent Americans in a suicidal bid for glory.

    For the record: This is not business as usual. True: there have always been occasional events, usually dismissed by the corporate media as "isolated incidents," the work of "lone wolf shooters" acting for reasons all their own. But you have to go back a long, long way in American history before you come to a place where you find incidents like this happening an average of once every two weeks. And the chattering classes are finally beginning to realize what those of us who've been faithfully watching the right wing for years were telling them a year ago: there's nothing isolated about any of this.

    This is how terrorism begins.

    The thing that worries me most about this rash of shootings isn't just the threat to public safety posed by domestic terrorism -- which is becoming a more serious consideration on the American home front with every passing week -- but where this kind of thing historically leads. Regular readers know I'm always looking for the patterns. This escalating level of violence is adding data points to a potentially emergent pattern that we need to be looking at, and preparing for. So far, there are at least five things I'm particularly concerned about.

    1. More and Faster. First, there's just the bald statistical rate of increase in frequency. Between January and April, we were seeing shootings on an average of once every 27 days. In May, the last three episodes came at an average interval of once every 15 days -- a 40% drop. This is hardly a comforting trend, and it points to the likelihood of a long, hot summer.

    2. Lone Wolves Join Packs. One of the things that's striking about the last two shooters is that they're not lone wolves. Scott Roeder was packed into the same extensive network of anti-abortion sympathizers that successfully hid Eric Rudolph for over five years (and may have been counting on them to hide him, too). James von Brunn was at the core of the anti-Semitic movement in America. Their actions don't just speak for themselves; they're supported by a larger community of people who might not have pulled the trigger themselves, but supported them wholeheartedly and consider them heroes. This is new. And it should worry us.

    As I've noted before, groups heading toward major acts of violence always inch up to it by degrees. As shootings become a more common -- and by some twisted reckoning, more acceptable -- form of political protest, the psychopaths are joined in arms by more rational people who feel that they don't have any other options left. (We saw some of this on the left during the 1960s, as the more psychopathic members of activist groups goaded, indoctrinated, or simply led others into committing acts of domestic terrorism that they probably would never have considered on their own.) As things accelerate, acts by lone wolf actors give way to coordinated actions pulled off by small teams. Later on, these small groups work in concert with each other to commit bigger acts. And as successes build, before long you've got Al Qaeda. Or the IRA. Or any of a dozen other terrorist organizations that started out this exact same way.

    3. An Intention to Expand Operations. Plans are already afoot to expand into just this kind of group action. Back in February, the right wing went squealing nuts over this report (http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-) by the state of Missouri, warning law enforcement statewide of the threat right wing extremist violence posed to cops in particular. It's a useful read on where the militia movements are right now; but the most interesting part is the section titled "Training," which outlines specifically what militia groups are doing now to hone their individual and group fighting skills for domestic terrorism attacks.

    And the resurgent militia movement isn't the only group making these kinds of plans. On the Dominionist fringe, Joel's Army is sending its sons to Iraq to give them the skills they'll need for a Christian takeover of the nation. Eric Rudolph was supported by the anti-abortion tactical Army of God. There are plenty of groups out there, all arming and training up for their own reasons.

    4. Making Common Cause. Another thing that's alarming those of us who watch the right wing is that the historical silos that divided the various right-wing extremist movements are morphing and crumbling. As the Missouri memo notes, the major strains in the past have included the Neo-Nazis; Christian Identity, the religious arm of white nationalism; the Sovereign Citizen movement; the militant anti-abortionists, the tax resistors, and the anti-immigration movement. There's always been some cross-pollination between them, but the Web has made it possible for a broader fusing of all these ideologies into a common culture. Increasingly, an adherent of one is very likely to also adopt many of the rest as well.

    5. The Tim McVeigh Finishing School. Dave Neiwert coined this phrase for the Iraq War, based on the fact that the most effective domestic terrorists (including McVeigh and Rudolph) have always been those with extensive combat training and experience. The right wing raised holy hell in early April when the Department of Homeland Security released its infamous report pointing out that right-wing extremist groups were aggressively recruiting veterans; but there's no need for Janet Napolitano to apologize. The facts are squarely with the DHS on this score.

    As noted above, many of the right-wing groups saw the war from the very first as an opportunity to gain valuable combat skills that could be applied to domestic terrorism at home. In modern times, the military has been very aggressive about identifying and ejecting these kinds of extremists, since their religious and racist excesses tended to devastate unit cohesion -- and the last thing we need is well-armed nutcases running around our home towns with combat skills.

    But this war was different. In part because of a growing Evangelical takeover of the officer corps and in part because recruiters were desperate for warm bodies, the military has been looking the other way and letting these recruits stay in almost from the start of the war. The upshot is swastikas on the walls in Baghdad -- and a new corps of well-trained, committed militia members who are also in prime position to seek out new recruits among the young kids who are far from home and overwhelmed.

    Those seasoned veterans are coming home now. As with every war, most of them will successfully rejoin civilian life and become some of our most productive citizens. But, as with every war, there will be a handful who come home, struggle for a while, and then start applying everything we've taught them to the home front. That's what's got DHS worried. And today, even FOX News' Shepherd Smith admitted that DHS's concern might not have been wrongly placed after all:



    Where does this end? There are a couple of ways this pattern plays out. The most likely one is that the extremist commandos go a bridge too far -- they're successful on a scale that scares the rational rebels into putting down their guns and bombs, leaving the really crazy actors back at the level of lone wolves. Oklahoma City was absolutely that event for the 1990s' militia incarnation. There's also a possibility that 9/11 may have been that event for Al Qaeda, but it's still too early to tell.

    The other (far less likely, but far worse case) scenario is that the entire country is persuaded to take leave of its senses and take sides, launching a civil war. Given the number of Americans, both left and right, who are thoroughly disgusted with the corporatocracy and increasingly convinced that Congress is too corrupt to deliver even the basics to anyone who's not rich enough to write their problem on the back of a check, it's not a far stretch to imagine a right-wing populist movement that sucks large chunks of the working and middle classes into a full-scale revolution. If the conservative movement does not take a stand against these extremists, they may find that their silence will give permission to actions that are far worse.

    Either way, the storm is upon us now. And it probably will be for at least another couple of years. The best thing progressives can do right now is stay in close touch with our base, do whatever we can to restore average Americans' faith in their government. In this incendiary environment, we can't afford to let them lose faith.

    Cross posted from ourfuture.org and updated with corrections.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    On that, it should also be noted that a lot of historians of Europe-Middle East relations that the Muslim world often seems to run a little bit ahead of the west, socially. That's a bad indicator considering the middle east now and current trends in the west (many other countries are having skinhead problems due to anti-immigrant fervor being generalized to include anybody not white or Christian enough).

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    200 rounds of ammunition is not a stockpile. It's a short day at the range.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • DrakeDrake Blow it all up ForeverRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Organichu wrote: »
    200 rounds of ammunition is not a stockpile. It's a short day at the range.

    Yeah. Four boxes of ammo most likely.

    That was some pretty good fear mongering, though.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Drake wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    200 rounds of ammunition is not a stockpile. It's a short day at the range.

    Yeah. Four boxes of ammo most likely.

    That was some pretty good fear mongering, though.
    It's roughly the size of a crowd a at a popular bingo parlor, though, which was exactly what he was claiming (or someone was claiming) the stockpile was for.
    he tells them he intended to "kill as many Jews as possible during bingo night."

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Ah, Bill O'Reilly, hypocrisy personified:

    "I am so tired of zealots, primarily on the left, putting their insane personal agendas above the safety of fellow Americans."

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    On that, it should also be noted that a lot of historians of Europe-Middle East relations that the Muslim world often seems to run a little bit ahead of the west, socially. That's a bad indicator considering the middle east now and current trends in the west (many other countries are having skinhead problems due to anti-immigrant fervor being generalized to include anybody not white or Christian enough).

    And many other historians believe that the muslim culture is running BEHIND the west, and that right now the rise in violent muslim extremists is akin to the christian crusades, or the Judaic conquest of the middle east (three thousand hears ago, or so)



    there's far from any consensus on this sort of stuff

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Ah, Bill O'Reilly, hypocrisy personified:

    "I am so tired of zealots, primarily on the left, putting their insane personal agendas above the safety of fellow Americans."

    Except that this actually does kind of apply here.

    Too many people want to talk about Fox news in reaction to Von Brunn, when it's pretty clear that he WASN'T a fan.

    What we have, with Von Brunn, is a threat coming from a different direction. Yes, he is right-wing, but he is NOT the rightwing mainstream. He hates christians and neo-cons, so he clearly isn't just one of Fox's sheep.

    That is NOT to say that Fox isn't ALSO a threat, but we shouldn't ignore NEW threats, and instead only focus on old ones.




    We should be staring at Fox in light of Tiller, but in light of Von Brunn, we should be placing a close eye on those fringes that go well beyond Fox, because even if Fox likes to pretend that they encompass all of the right, they don't, and there are certain crazies who need to be dealt with who would not be stopped even if Fox suddenly endorsed Obama.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Drake wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    200 rounds of ammunition is not a stockpile. It's a short day at the range.

    Yeah. Four boxes of ammo most likely.

    That was some pretty good fear mongering, though.
    It's roughly the size of a crowd a at a popular bingo parlor, though, which was exactly what he was claiming (or someone was claiming) the stockpile was for.
    he tells them he intended to "kill as many Jews as possible during bingo night."

    because he is such a dead-shot that every single bullet will hit it's mark?



    the word stockpiling is an exaggeration. The thing was written with an agenda to try to tie all of these instances together as though they are all being perpetrated by some cohesive group, when the truth is that what we have is a GENERAL threat from right-wing extremists right now. There's no specific "Rush-Qaeda" group that is orchestrating all of these attacks.

    georgersig.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.