Shooting at the Holocaust Museum (Now with Global Warming)

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Which wouldn't be s'bad if once again we weren't seeing this message where I guess terrorism is I guess kind of okay if you're an angry right-wing white dude whereas this guy does basically the same thing and gets charged for fifteen terrorisms.

This is seriously looking a little bit like back in the day when the FBI used to go "Oh what's that a Klan killing? Durper durr we don't know nuffin bout dat" *puts hand in pants* *jerks dick*

If the circumstances were slightly different I would be inclined to agree with you. Let me pause for a brief moment to mention that I'm speaking based on how I think this would go down in a Canadian court, but I'll take a leap of faith and say that's not drastically different from an American court.

Anyway, he's 88 years old. And he's charged with murder. He's got neo-Nazi connections for most of his life. There's no point wasting tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars charging him with 15 counts of anything, one charge of murder and that's it, he's in jail for the rest of his life.

The dude in the article you linked is 23 years old. And I only read that one article but, based on the details given in it, I won't lose any sleep if he's in jail for the rest of his life.

This doesn't excuse the stereotype corporate white guy doing cocaine and smashing head-on into a black family's mini-van, killing them all and paralyzing the youngest one for life, while he gets away with whiplash and 2 years in prison. Meanwhile black kid has half a joint on him and gets 20 years. Yeah that's retarded. But this case? A non-issue.

What really gets me about this shooting is, according to the few articles I wrote, the security guard that died was holding the damn door open for von Brunn. Like, fuck.

[Fifthfiend]

None of the three recent white right-wing dudes who committed politically motivated attacks meant to inflict terror were charged with terrorism, while the one black muslim guy who did so was.

I'm sure in all of these cases you could do any amount of stretching to excuse why the individual facts of this particular case just don't really merit charges of terrorism. Yet somehow those excuses get hauled out exclusively in the service of white, christian, far-right domestic terrorists, while being nowhere to be found in the case of black muslim domestic terrorists.

[Nique]

I'd say something, but I need to lie down and stop my pounding headache from reading those twits.

Both transscripts are super hypocritical like to this ultra-meta degree. Liberal people spewing vaugely worded cliches about not listening to hate mongers is somehow personally insulting to Rush Limbaugh and is actually in itself a form of hate mongering becasue it targets right wing extremeists?

But then directly implicating the President in anti-semtic activity and very personal accusations about specific liberal people isn't hate mongering, we're to assume I guess?

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

None of the three recent white right-wing dudes who committed politically motivated attacks meant to inflict terror were charged with terrorism, while the one black muslim guy who did so was.

I'm sure in all of these cases you could do any amount of stretching to excuse why the individual facts of this particular case just don't really merit charges of terrorism. Yet somehow those excuses get hauled out exclusively in the service of white, christian, far-right domestic terrorists, while being nowhere to be found in the case of black muslim domestic terrorists.

Ah well, I guess it's just racism.

[Nique]

Sorry to ask this, but are Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as really horrible as the interwebs say about them, the most I hear about them is from Jon Stewart and thats just clips and what not

It's slightly off topic, but these items illustrate a valid point which is that Rush Limbaugh is a tremendous toolbox.

Woefully misinformed & not just a little bigoted;;

-"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
-(On Global Warming) ""...is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition. You can't have consensus in science ... they think consensus is the way to sell it because, 'Oh, but all these wonderful people agree.'"

Oh and he also encouraged people to rig the election. So to answer your question, 'yes'.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Just heard that the Holocaust museum shooter wanted to dissolve Israel, wanted to bomb the Weekly Standard, thinks Bush was behind 9/11, and he hates Fox News.

For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.

James von Brunn’s advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7...ns-Bush-McCain

This guy wasn't a right-wing nut. He was a nut. Period.

[Edit] And he hates Christianity.

[Edit] And here's the full text from the Rush quote about global warming that Nique posted, just for reference.

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Just heard that the Holocaust museum shooter wanted to dissolve Israel, wanted to bomb the Weekly Standard, thinks Bush was behind 9/11, and he hates Fox News.



http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7...ns-Bush-McCain

This guy wasn't a right-wing nut. He was a nut. Period.

[Edit] And he hates Christianity.

[Edit] And here's the full text from the Rush quote about global warming that Nique posted, just for reference.

A nut who was also a Nazi. That's literally about as far right as you can get without exploding in hate.

[Kurosen]

This guy wasn't a right-wing nut. He was a nut. Period.

That is some very wishful thinking. His problems with Bush and Limbaugh is that they were not right-wing enough.

And here's the full text from the Rush quote about global warming that Nique posted, just for reference.

Quick derail to dismantle anti-global warming thought.

It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. Ultimately, there are two Worst Case Scenarios.

1. global warming is true and we do nothing and civilization ends.

2. global warming is not true and we waste a lot of time and energy to invent all kinds of technology and industries that aren't needed to save our lives, but have plenty of uses anyway.

Which do you want to be? The generation that's remembered forever as the folks who made some trivial sacrifices just in case it would save civilization, or the generation that isn't remembered because humanity went extinct while we had petty arguments about just how fast the sky was falling?

The only reason there's a debate at all is that the solutions for global warming are financially inconvenient to people with a great deal of money and influence. It is morally repugnant to argue that global warming is a hoax or just wrong because the stakes are so high -- it represents the end of all human life forever.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

[Edit] And here's the full text from the Rush quote about global warming that Nique posted, just for reference.

I'm just going to have to hop on the offtopic bandwagon and point out how

As I adeptly and accurately pointed out on this program, that's typical of the left and the global warming movement. If you don't agree with them, you don't count and you have to shut up.

is just so god damned funny when you think about real right-wingers like Rush and how they believe

If you don't agree with them, you don't count and you have to shut up

and "You can't have consensus in science" is about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard anyone say about anything.

[Archbio]

And he hates Christianity.

That's pretty emblematic with the problem with your demonstration that the guy isn't a right-wing nut, Bob. It's just soaked in the suggestion of sweeping, absolute claims. "Right-wingers" are Christians, "left-wingers" are not. Someone who hates Christianity has "something in common with individuals in the far left", therefore, he's not on the far right.

It is morally repugnant to argue that global warming is a hoax or just wrong because the stakes are so high -- it represents the end of all human life forever.

Wouldn't it be more likely that it represents the end of our civilization forever?

That's just a quibble, though, it doesn't really alter the main point: still pretty high stakes!