UPDATE: Angry Right-Winger Who Shot at Cops Admits He Wanted A Revolution

[Zebo]

Nope, not all of them.

You haven't proven he was going on a killing spree to kill liberals because he was watching TV, and hated liberals, not by a long shot. And yes, sometimes I do take all my guns, depends on where I am going shooting, and if I was going out to the middle of nowhere to shoot, I might just take an incendiary device if I had one. On the note of incendiary device, what incendiary device did he have?

Maybe the fact that he was an out of work ex-con that couldn't get a job is the reason he snapped, and it didn't have anything what so ever to do with his politics, but nooooo, you couldn't run with that could you? It just doesn't have that same partisan hack flavor.

Thats what I think. Well plus being a loon.

When people have nothing left to lose, and they've lost everything, they lose it.

 

[Nemesis 1]

This song goes out to this bad boys mama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0LTRPMpOVM&feature=related

 

[Greenman]

There we have it, piss off a conservative and he'll go postal. Could the lesson be any more clear?

 

[Craig234]

But isn't that what you leftists preach? No personal responsibility - the gov't will take care of you...

No, that's what you ignorant right-wing liars say in your straw man myth about the left you have no clue about.

Anyway, sucks that a cop got shot. Guy goes to work and has to deal with a nut who's last straw broke.

The right-wing media formula is pretty much 'content to make old white guys angry constantly'. It gets ratings, but has some side effects we're only starting to see.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, that's what you ignorant right-wing liars say in your straw man myth about the left you have no clue about.

Really? Where does the left promote self responsibility? Or self reliance? The endless stream of entitlement programs?

The right-wing media formula is pretty much 'content to make old white guys angry constantly'. It gets ratings, but has some side effects we're only starting to see.

Yea, because the left has been so civil throughout history.

 

[hal2kilo]

Probably pissed off about all those death taxes somebody like him has to pay.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Really? Where does the left promote self responsibility? Or self reliance? The endless stream of entitlement programs?



Yea, because the left has been so civil throughout history.

Many on the left only became proud of America in the past 2 years.

 

[Nemesis 1]

There we have it, piss off a conservative and he'll go postal. Could the lesson be any more clear?

Sure the lesson could be more clear . Have a listen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOI5H0n28qY&feature=related

 

[PrinceofWands]

What I don't understand about these folks (this is like the guy who flew the plane into the building a while back), is why they go take out their frustrations on peon's of the System?

Don't go shoot a cop, or a peon IRS worker....go to the big shots who are the ones making the calls and pop a cap in their @ss, at least your anger will be directed at a more appropriate person.

Sheesh....

Chuck

Completely agree. It's the difference between revolution and terrorism. When politicians and corporate heads are terrified of the public, they'll start moderating their actions a bit better.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Left right whatever it's the economy that turns already marginal people to extremism/crime etc. 100% of our focus should be there. Problem with this country is we hate our citizens.

No we don't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Mrez7ahZA&feature=related

 

[Mike Gayner]

LOLAmerica, you guys just love taking extreme fringe cases and characterising a whole position by it.

 

[ericlp]

As usual... The religious right going at it again. Put down the bible and for god sakes put down the fire arm! Sheesh...

 

[Nebor]

Why go after the cops, who by and large are conservatives who are also unhappy about the direction our country is going? Even if not, they're little more than foot soldiers. Targetting high level politicians, political activists and bureaucrats would be far more effective. Or George Soros, someone kill him.

 

[Craig234]

Really? Where does the left promote self responsibility? Or self reliance?

At 234 Elm Street, Philadelphia, PA. What kind of question is that? Where does the right promote self responsibility? The left is the party who supports it in their policies.

Let's say right up from that the right has no concept of 'society'. So if 'society' decides free public education (stop chomping at the bit to say "it's not free, it's paid for by taxes!!!droool111!!", the left knows it's paid for by taxes it chooses as a majority to pay, and uses the word cost to mean there is no direct bill for the child to the parents), the right can only say "that's theft highway robbery Stalin Hitler Muslim to take my money at gunpoint and pay for liberal ideology schools".

They have no idea of 'society', and so they react to it very oddly, even if the program is *good for people*, *good for the economy*, *improves efficiency*, whatever.

If it doesn't come out of their simple model - the parent who wanted to educate the kid pays to do so fully, the one who wants the kid working 16 hour shift in the factory because the family needs that income not to starve because the right-wingers have gained power, well that's ok too - then it's dictatorship Stalin Mao.

Back to self reliance. Under *the left*, including every left-wing President, including Bernie Sanders the Democratic Socialist, including any popular US left-wing policy commentator today, including left-wing European nations, and so on, the people have self-reliance to get ahead in society - to move beyond basic the basic sustinence of a safety net that's a small cost to society, to get a nicer house, more cars, a seafront vacation home, mistresses, whatever, needs 'self-reliance'.

The dirty little secret of you on the right is that you use the phrase 'self-reliance' to HIDE the lack of opportunity your policies create. As you empower the most powerful to abuse others, the problems for the many that creates you say 'well, the problem is the many.' The banana republic is a great extreme for the result of your policies. When the *lucky* workers, the ones who make enough to eat 5 tortillas a day, complain about how a few rich families own 99% of the land, most of it unused and not letting the poor farm it, your answer is 'eat 3 tortillas instead and save the cost of 2 tortillas, and you can become a rich tycoon too'. An extreme example, but one that's right on target to the flaws in your ideology, exposing its lies clearly.

(And in the real world, the people who could not eat did form resistance movement wanting things like unions for workers to reduce these inequities, the response being from the powerful that they were 'communists' who deserved to be killed, as they often had government death squads kill all they could find of the resistance, with torture, and kill people who promoted labor rights, kill left-wing professors, kill any leaders who tried to organize protests, killed even church figures if the church supported the workers, and killed and tortured many more to maintain the fear to keep control to keep exploiting people, all the while the US backing them, supplying the advisors, training including torture, weapons, and much more as long as the country provided US companies 'welfare' treatment.)

But that's another point - 'corporate welfare' doesn't exist for the right-wing ideology, not really. Oh, sure, some will sort of whine about it - but from the powerless fringe, while supporting the very groups who have and will continue to support it. 'Welfare' only exists for the mother who has kids to feed and can't afford to - welfare that has a great track record of preventing human tragedy and providing all kinds of benefits to the economy you don't have a clue about.

When United Fruit Company had the US military working for it when needed - it'd pay big bribes to governments, and could usually determine who won the elections in countries who would serve them, and paid death squads to kill the people who had the crazy idea their country should not be under the boot of the US company, but dozens of times it could need the actual US military to invade to 'fight communism' and protect its interests - that wasn't 'corporate welfare', it was simply the proper reward for a big company.

You on your side *prevent* opportunity for others. Oh, it's unwitting, most of you are too much idiots to have any idea that's what your dogma causes - but you do it.

A country like the one that had '14 families' (others might be '400 families) who own almost everything are the result of your policies - and they do not have 'opportunity'. You pick food and shut up or you are starving or shot. The old Roman empire didn't have 'opportunity' for most - it reportedly needed 10,000 new slaves a year to maintain its needs, thousands dying every year from the work they had to do not to be killed.

That's the norm you support - a lack of opportunity.

The progressive policies, the policies of the left in the US - not the policies of a Stalin, that were authoritarian policies having a lot more in common with you, except whether you called the powerful 'government' or 'the rich' - are the ones that led our society out of the robber baron days of terrible poverty for most and a lack of economic opportunity for most (there was a little).

Indeed, if you look at a lot of the early 'robber barons', you see there were many who rose from little to get it - the 'American Dream' - and to an extent, the left support that.

They were from a limited group - most lacked opportunity - and you found that many of them crashed and burned. They'd take big chances, and a few worked, many crashed, 'well that's capitalism, no problem'. Except where the right and left divert is just after that - when the new robber barons decided they didn't like this 'many crash' part so much, and since they had the new wealth, they had the new power, and a good use for that was to try to get rid of the 'many crash' part - at the public's expense.

More of that 'corporate welfare' you are clueless about.

Take a look at the history of the government giving away massive amounts of land to the railroad builders. It was just a coincidence, of course, that these newly made powerful economic figures who could buy the government, were given these massive grants that enriched them at the public's expense. Why, it was all in the name of the 'public good', since the public would benefit from these railroads. No such thing as corporate welfare.

But what the right-wing government and the railroad tycoons agreed on, was the workers who built the railroads should not receive protections from being exploited labor.

No, that was the *progressive*, the left, point of view.

Oh, I know, if the railroad workers just hit the nails hard, and saved their pennies and didn't eat, they could be the tycoon - it was their own fault they were exploited.

No, the left actually SUPPORTS opportunity far more than the right, and has a clue about the idea of society helping create that opportunity. The right doesn't.

It's either the robber baron using power to be an oligarch, or it's blaming the poor masses.

The middle class grew in size and wealth under the most progressive policies - a fact you can't begin to explain except with pathetic bad logic, if you are not uninformed of it.

It's clear to a rational person, but not to you idiotlogues (ya, I like the word).

The endless stream of entitlement programs?

Again, this goes back to your cluelessness about 'society'. Roads are an 'entitlement program'. They also help society far more than they cost. Police are an 'entitlement program'. They help society more than they cost. Libraries, public education, a currency, the FBI, public record storage, and thousands of other serves are 'entitlement programs' society has that provide more benefit than cost.

You children on the right think one dollar in taxes, for this 'society' benefit you are not understanding, is the return of Stalin oppressing you.

You would create a desert and call it utopia. The starving people are to blame.

You don't have a clue about society's issues and what's needed for there not to be massive suffering - turns out, a modest investment in safety net programs.

Oh, that's right, Stalin.

That's why societies that have adopted your views have no poor, because your policies work so well. Oh, wait, no society has adopted your absurd policies, and the ones that are closest, are chaotic miserable messes. Oh, many societies have adopted the core elements of your policies - unlimited power for the powerful - they're called dictatorships, oligarchies.

Yea, because the left has been so civil throughout history.

What are you on about now? The left has been far more 'civil' - it's the side that has been for democracy, real democracy where the people can prevent some economic tyranny. They have been more 'civil' than the criminals at the top who have attempted to inflict misery on the masses for their own benefit, the users of repression, and in many countries, secret police, torture, political prison and assassination, terrorism of the public to maintain their power.

You want to say you can argue the problem with the left is it isn't as civil as the right, by spouting only the anecdotal excesses of its protestors? What a pathetic bit of nonsense.

The right is oligarchy - whether or not the supporter realizes it or not. Of course they have a whole ideology to pull in suckers to support them, by doing things like demonizing the 'other side' to get support, making you more concerned about the trivial cost humane programs and the people who need them, while not addressing the thousand times larger problems the right causes the masses. The left supports more balance than that oligarchy, in an unequal, but not extremely unequal, society with good productivity - and safety net.

 

[Craig234]

Completely agree. It's the difference between revolution and terrorism. When politicians and corporate heads are terrified of the public, they'll start moderating their actions a bit better.

Revolution:

1. Terrorism you agree with
2. Terrorism that wins

When politicians and corporate heads are terrified of the public, they don't moderate their actions, they increase repression, unless you win a civil war you can't win.

 

[Craig234]

Why go after the cops, who by and large are conservatives who are also unhappy about the direction our country is going? Even if not, they're little more than foot soldiers. Targetting high level politicians, political activists and bureaucrats would be far more effective. Or George Soros, someone kill him.

The compressed idiocy in your post is pretty irresistible. How many things did you get wrong?

The big one, of course, is your cluelessness abut the proper targets for the rage, who are the right, not George Soros who is a humanitarian helping the US public (at times).

But let's see, there's 'why go after the cops' - because they're there, and that's a common outlet for the joe six pack who you have created so much rage in to feed your right-wing media machine with its propagandistic demonization of the people who actually support the public doing better against the ultra rich who want to exploit.

You say they're 'by and large conservative' - pretty clueless, especially when you note we're talking about *Oakland*, who has a hell of a lot of police 'on the left'.

Of course, one of your errors is you think that's a reason to shoot them, you are only mystified when you wrongly assume they're 'conservative'.

But he didn't shoot them, as much as you would support him, because they're liberals.

Your little 'government oppression' schtick while you advocate 'oligarchy repression' tends to make people who fall for it pretty anti-authority whether Obama or the police officer.

Oakland police don't like some ways the country is going - they just laid off 80 officers, out of the fallout to the cities of the policies of Republicans - from Prop 13 gutting city incomes and letting the Republican minority block any taxes to pay for the police - to the national Republicans (and some corporate Democrats) who let the rich screw the country with the financial crisis, creating and popping the housing bubble, that has further gutted their budget. The police don't like YOUR side.

You advocate assassination of the same people who are fixing the problems your side created. Too despicable to do more than say how patently immoral and idiotic you are.

The fact they're 'little more than foot soldiers'? If they WERE 'foot soldiers' for an oppressive wrong government, they would be 'appropriate targets' under your assumption of 'government tyranny'. Should we not have killed the foot soldiers under Hitler, and only targetted Hitler? It's true, many 'average people' on both sides were killed in that terrible war, but the fact is, the average people under carrying Hitler, pointing guns at other people to further his power, were hurting people and targets.

In dictatorships the police - who are usually serving the dictator against the people - are typically 'legitimate targets', to undermine the authority and power of the state, at least, if not to actively oppose the police who are 'going too far' with the kidnappings and torture and other activities against the 'revolutionaries'. The fact they're 'foot soldiers' does not make them not 'legimate targets' in a 'revolution'. Were the British redcoat 'foot soldiers' off-limits in the revolutionary war, and only the British nobility and parliament targets?

Of course, that has little to do with this situation, where this guy, possibly misguided by the right-wing enragement propaganda you support, lashed out against who he could.

 

[Acanthus]

Crazy people are crazy, this one had nothing to do with politics.

 

[Nebor]

Craig's wall of text assures me that in the event of a revolution, large scale civil war, or civil unrest, the liberals of this country will be totally lost (and mostly unarmed.)

 

[Craig234]

Craig's wall of text assures me that in the event of a revolution, large scale civil war, or civil unrest, the liberals of this country will be totally lost (and mostly unarmed.)

And in the case of peace, you will be an armed, lost, menace to society rationalizing all the violence you cause while spouting about 'the civil war'.

 

[xj0hnx]

mindless wall of text

I know that every failed liberal social experiment is such a monumental failure, a breeding ground for debauchery, and violence that you have to cling wholeheartedly to any instance when someone on the "right" loses it, but really Craig, can't you do in a less wordy manner?

 

[MrEgo]

This thread was very predictable. There are lefties taking their shots at the "crazy right-winger" and the righties are saying it's a non-story as far as politics are concerned.

Had this been a crazy liberal, you can bet your ass the tables would have turned.

 

[umbrella39]

Did We The People finally snap?

 

[Nebor]

And in the case of peace, you will be an armed, lost, menace to society rationalizing all the violence you cause while spouting about 'the civil war'.

Fortunately there will never be peace, and we'll always have societies other than our own to menace.

-From Afghanistan with love

 

[Moonbeam]

This thread was very predictable. There are lefties taking their shots at the "crazy right-winger" and the righties are saying it's a non-story as far as politics are concerned.

Had this been a crazy liberal, you can bet your ass the tables would have turned.

If the tables haven't been turned yet it's only because Moonbeam hasn't posted.

Moonbeam says that for every lunatic on the right who goes nuts and kills people there is a lunatic on the left to match him and that, my dear friends, I can confidently announce is the end of the story, unless, of course, you want to know why, which, of course, you do not, on either side.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fortunately there will never be peace, and we'll always have societies other than our own to menace.

-From Afghanistan with love

No peace for you because the conflict is within yourself and you don't want to know it. Plenty of peace, however, for the Buddha and anyone like him.