Liberal gun violence. Rising?

[_Bret Ripley]

John Wilkes Booth springs to mind for a 'conservative assassin". The rest had some mental problems. Even after all these years the jury is still not in of Oswald.

Oswald was unstable, but he definitely considered himself a Marxist. His attempt on the life of General Walker in April 1963 was also politically motivated: Walker's was well-known for his anti-Communist speeches, and in late 1962 the "Worker" (a Communist Party newspaper Oswald subscribed to) called for action against Walker and his allies.

[_Quasimodo]

Oswald was unstable, but he definitely considered himself a Marxist. His attempt on the life of General Walker in April 1963 was also politically motivated: Walker's was well-known for his anti-Communist speeches, and in late 1962 the "Worker" (a Communist Party newspaper Oswald subscribed to) called for action against Walker and his allies.

The key statement in your post is that Oswald was unstable. He started out as a true blue marine. Later, God knows why, he left the US for Russia. Then, he abandoned Russia and brought his Russian wife with him to the US. Maybe a little schizophrenia?

We may never know, but it's clear that he had some problems. There are very many conspiracy theories floating around, but whatever happened, it's obvious that he just wasn't thinking too clearly.

I think it's very possible that he acted alone. I also think that there may be something to his connections with organized crime. The mafia had a grudge against John Kennedy and truly hated Bobby. Carlos Marcello was smart enough to find a wacko shooter to do the job.

[_Bret Ripley]

The key statement in your post is that Oswald was unstable. He started out as a true blue marine. Later, God knows why, he left the US for Russia. Then, he abandoned Russia and brought his Russian wife with him to the US. Maybe a little schizophrenia?

We may never know, but it's clear that he had some problems. There are very many conspiracy theories floating around, but whatever happened, it's obvious that he just wasn't thinking too clearly.

I think it's very possible that he acted alone.

I used to be a conspiracy theorist, but am now quite convinced that he acted alone.

I also think that there may be something to his connections with organized crime. The mafia had a grudge against John Kennedy and truly hated Bobby. Carlos Marcello was smart enough to find a wacko shooter to do the job.

I hear what you're saying (and there were other groups/individuals with similar motivation to the Mob), but like other conspiracy theories it has it's serious problems. For example, Oswald learned about the job opening at the Book Depository from his wife's friend Ruth Paine, who had been told about the opening from her son who worked there. Were Ruth and her son Mafia stooges? Oswald got the job several weeks before the President's route was determined by the Secret Service and local police. Were the Secret Service agents and local police officers who decided on the route Mafia pawns as well?

Now, the Mafia could have scrambled to find a likely shooter in the few days after the route was published, I suppose, but the Walker episode demonstrated that Oswald did not require outside influence to shoot at public figures he viewed as enemies of communism (especially Cuban communism). I think the addition of the Mafia element (as tenuous as the alleged connections are) makes for a less elegant and unnecessarily convoluted explanation.

Of course ... maybe that's precisely what they want me to believe.

[_ldsfaqs]

More proof that liberals are the killers and slime of the earth, even though conservatives are the "gun nuts".

Basically every Presidential assassin has been a liberal. Nearly every political related violent act with guns or otherwise (vandalism, assaults, etc.) has been committed by liberals.

John Wilkes Booth springs to mind for a 'conservative assassin". The rest had some mental problems. Even after all these years the jury is still not in of Oswald.

Maybe crazy, maybe a Mafia dupe. I worry about you, ldsfaqs.

You know, you people fascinate me how you translate your "beliefs" into reality and fact.
All you have to do is read the history and fact on every Presidential assassin and every single one of them where liberals. A couple were crazy, one of them possibly being slightly on the Republican side through birth. But other than him who did it to impress an actress, not for political reasons, he's the only one that can be called on the conservative side in any way or shape.

Fact is, yes I know there are sometimes crazy people on the conservative side. But, there are MUCH MUCH more on the Liberal side, especially ones that aren't necessarily clinically crazy.

Just compare liberal rally's, where there is regular violence, vandalism, rape, garbage, etc. including Occupy Wall street. Then compare the Tea Party, never any violence, clean, organized, no vandalism, garbage, etc.

And John Wilkes Booth was a Liberal, most "basic" reasons is because he was a Confederate sympathizer AND more importantly he killed a Conservative Republican President. In fact, one of our best President's on our side. Ya, that makes a LOT of sense Quasimodo.... A conservative killing a conservative.

Do you even use your brain???

by the way, in case you people haven't learned the concept yet. Someone like Booth believing in a "couple" of Conservative/Republican ideals, no more makes him/them Republican/Conservative than Obama is a Republican/Conservative simply because HE does or believes in a couple of similar values.

You people think like children, don't study the history, and then you judge me and others like me falsely. For example, every time I've made this claim, I go back and review the majority of the assassins of history, and again review their history, to make sure I'm being absolutely accurate. Have you people even done it ONCE before you judged? Nope....

[_EAllusion]

Llincoln was a liberal Republican. I know the temptation is to hear the world Republican and think conservative, but these categories don't map neatly onto old ideological splits. Look up the term "Bourbon Democrat" from the Gilded age. Think of it this way: Both progressives and modern Republicans evolved out of the party Lincoln was in the defacto head of at the time. Something tells me you view the word "progressive" very negatively. Was Bob LaFollete a conservative? He was Republican.

[Guest]

worst incident of leftwing violence in the US in decades (1 wounded, no fatalities), and it doesn't even come close to the worst incident of rightwing violence from just the past month.

here's a catalog of the dozens of rightwing domestic terror attacks or attempts since the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building in 1995.

left or right, all such attacks are morally repugnant. but in recent history they nearly always come from the right.

Problem with your "list" is that nearly ALL of the incidents are from "Neo-Nazi's" and White Supremacists. Even more, "socialists"..... National Socialists. Socialism in ANY form is not a Conservative ideology.
These people are NOT on the "right"......!!! If anything they are in the very middle not on either side.
Ever heard of DAVID DUKE.....? He's a big lefty. While he's now Republican, having switched party's a few years back, he's not Republican or Conservative at all, and that's despite is white supremacy views, I'm speaking of many of his other views.

These people are a perversion, and not in any way on the "right".... They are both right and left in beliefs. Even more, these peoples beliefs and actions are so far from the "right", they simply cannot be said to be "representative" of the right. Their beliefs don't match the beliefs of those on the right at all. But those on the left, their beliefs most certainly match those on the left. While the violent act itself may not match most liberals, the rest of their views most certainly do.

Take your latest guy here.... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0816/ ... ile.-video

Further, many of your other "reports" in that list don't even indicate any evidence of what their "beliefs" and ideology's are. They simply listed something that "seemed" like it might have been someone on the right doing it, and assume.

Take this one.... classic

Oct. 28, 2009
Luqman Ameen Abdullah, identified by authorities as a member of a black Muslim group hoping to create an Islamic state within U.S. borders, is shot dead at a warehouse in Dearborn, Mich., after he fires at FBI agents trying to arrest him on conspiracy and weapons charges. The FBI says Abdulla encouraged violence against the United States, adding that 10 other group members are being sought.

Ya.... Tell me again that's a "conservative/republican"....???

Another thing.... Surprised they didn't put the "Giffords" shooting in the list. After all, all the liberals were crying that it was a conservative that did it. Turns out the guy was a flaming leftist., conspiracy nut, drug addict and atheist hater of religion (hey, much like you guys), even though you all swore up and down it just HAD to be a "right" killer.

ahhh..... Leftist propaganda at it's best.

[_ldsfaqs]

Llincoln was a liberal Republican. I know the temptation is to hear the world Republican and think conservative, but these categories don't map neatly onto old ideological splits. Look up the term "Bourbon Democrat" from the Gilded age. Think of it this way: Both progressives and modern Republicans evolved out of the party Lincoln was in the defacto head of at the time. Something tells me view the word "progressive" very negatively. Was Bob LaFollete a conservative? He was Republican.

Lincoln was NOT a "Liberal" Republican..... If you actually knew your history, you would know that he was a "Classical" Liberal. Meaning, the root word of Liberal is "Liber", i.e. meaning Freedom, i.e. Libertarian, Liberty, etc. In other words, Lincoln was a Conservative, because Classical Liberalism is and was always Conservatism.

Liberals around the 1900's discovered that "Progressive" had became a bad word, so they adopted the term Liberal to try and pretend they were something they weren't, like they still do today. Ironically also now going back, trying to call themselves Progressives, since Liberal is now a bad word.

Thus, you're doing as all anti-mormons and liberals do, that is cherry picking facts of history without understanding their context and then making false judgments. Lincoln wasn't a liberal in almost any way shape or form. Lincoln and Reagan are the two great icons of Republican values and views. Neither were perfect 100%, but they were close, thus the greatest of any of our leaders. We don't believe that because they were "Republicans", we believe that because their ideology's and actions for the most part were/are our beliefs and actions.

If Lincoln was a Liberal in any way or shape, he wouldn't be one of our most loved icons.

Liberals trying to claim Lincoln as their own, is nothing but propaganda to deceive the liberal masses, the many of the Democrat party that aren't actually fully liberal yet, but still a great deal conservative.

JFK today would be considered a Bush Right Wing Conservative/Republican (minus his womanizing). That's how far left the Democrats have gone.

Anyway, do you now understand the difference between "Classical Liberalism" and what Liberalism is today?
If you don't, study it..... I also highly recommend the book "Liberal Fascism". It's an excellent summary and detailed analysis of this and several other issues that the Left falsely represent.

[_EAllusion]

Lincoln was NOT a "Liberal" Republican..... If you actually knew your history, you would know that he was a "Classical" Liberal. Meaning, the root word of Liberal is "Liber", i.e. meaning Freedom, i.e. Libertarian, Liberty, etc. In other words, Lincoln was a Conservative, because Classical Liberalism is and was always Conservatism.

The term conservatism is a specific reaction to classic liberalism. They're meant to be opposing ends on a spectrum. But because of how ideologies shift and terminology expands and contracts, we now think of modern classic liberals as a type of libertarianish conservative. That's because the term "conservatism" in the Burkean sense is related to the desire to preserve traditional social institutions. You know, like slavery. Since America has a long history of classic liberal institutions, the desire to conserve them got wrapped up in conservatism as a label.

The term "progressive" developed in the late 1800's. Out of largely Republican politics no less. What really happened with the term liberal is that classic liberals had an ideological split between those who retained belief in a relatively lassize faire economy and those more influenced by emerging socialist thought. Both remained liberal towards cultural issues of the day. Both ended up still calling themselves liberals. But, overtime, the term "liberal" became associated more with the latter group than the former group because of relative size, limelight, and the nature of opposition. Eventually, liberal became a term simply for the latter group in modern usage.

[_ldsfaqs]

Boy, that is certainly not correct.....

Pay attention to all the points in this statement. It's all the fundamentals of Conservatism.
Note also how they delineate modern liberalism (social liberalism) etc. Note also that Milton Friedman was a powerful Conservative thinker in our modern day.

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism, and progress.

There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Some call the modern development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism," which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.

Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase "neo-classical liberalism", leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[11] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.

[_beastie]

bcspace,

Somewhere in the recesses of your mind, I hope you have enough sanity left to recognize that when ldsfaq is firmly on your side, something is wrong....very wrong....