Two right-wing nutjob acts of violence in as many weeks

[Hugabear]

Last week there was a Muslim cab driver stabbed by a right-wing nutjob, and today we see some right-winger taking hostages at Discovery Channel, ranting among other things about "anchor babies".

How much longer can we tolerate the likes of BecKKK spreading his hate?

[dkf]

1. I don't think you can call a radical environmentalist the far right.

[Ian David]

2. Most of The Discovery dude's agenda sounded like extreme-far-left.

Out of the dozens of episodes of right-wing violence in the past couple of years, I'm afraid that this is the only one we might kind of own.

[Posteritatis]

5. "But everyone we dislike has to be conservative!" is a hard meme to fight here. (nt)

[Ian David]

6. I haven't seen it. n/t

[Posteritatis]

7. Try every thread about this guy for starters. (nt)

[liberalmuse]

3. I don't know that this guy was right wing...

as much as he appears to have had severe mental issues. I mean TLC? Really? I do agree with you that Rush and Beck and their ilk certainly aren't helping by making it seem somehow okay to cater to the lowest common denominator of human behavior and 'thinking', if you can call it that. It's people like John Lennon, Ghandi, MLK, JLK, RFK, etc who end up getting taken out, while those who spread hate seem to live very long, prosperous lives. If there is a god, he's a sick fuck.

[gophates]

4. It's because of the hateful environment these schmucks generate

All of their spew pushes everyone's buttons. Geez, Louise, it's like filling a house with gasoline and then complaining when someone lights a match.

[Xenotime]

8. We are not doing enough to stand up to gun fundies.

[spin]

10. And what would you suggest?

And how to you define "gun fundies"?

Remember that not only do a large number of people in our nation own firearms and handle them in a responsible manner, but a good percentage of Democrats also do. Often firearm owners of all political parties have a considerable amount of money invested in their hobby and are willing to show up at the polls and vote against any politician who wants to pass draconian gun control laws or bans. Many good Democrats have lot close elections because of their stance on gun control.

Gun Ownership Higher Among Republicans Than Democrats
Republican gun owners also more likely to hunt

February 16, 2006

A review of Gallup Poll data shows that 4 in 10 Americans report having a gun in their home or on their property, including 30% who say they personally own a gun and 12% who say some other member of their household owns one. Nearly equal majorities of gun owners say they use their gun to protect themselves against crime, for hunting, and for target shooting. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to report owning a gun, and are also more likely to say they use their gun for hunting.

***snip***

Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to report having a gun in their home. A majority of Republicans (55%) say they have a gun in their home, compared with 32% of Democrats.











http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/Gun-Ownership-Higher-Among-Republicans-Than-Democrats.aspx

The fact that gun control is a losing issue is illustrated by this map which shows the history of the right to carry a firearm in public.

[doc03]

9. Seems funny he would be ranting about "Anchor Babies"

The only people I have heard that from is Republicans. Maybe he was just nucking futs period.

[stuntcat]

14. he was against Anyone who made babies.

Can't blame him for that, the rest of this century SUCKING the way it will. I pity the babies but not as much as I do the animals we're wiping out forever :)
But yeah, he was also nuts and needed help! or something.

[boobooday]

11. The discovery channel guy was beyond partisan politics

And way over the line into full bipartisan insanity.

[Xithras]

12. A lot of hardcore environmentalists are also anti-immigration.

The issue actually split the Sierra Club pretty badly during a board election a few years ago.

More people means more urban sprawl, more agricultural land conversions, more waste, and more pollution. A fairly large segment of the environmental activist movement (who are, themselves, the militant wing of environmentalism), wants to limit the American population in order to protect the remaining environment. This means limits on births, blocks on immigration, etc.

Back in the early 90's, when I was still protesting and chaining myself across roadways to save redwoods, I used to talk to a LOT of these people. I'm certainly still a "trees before people" environmentalist, but I've never agreed with that particular position...mostly because I take a more global view on environmentalism than many do. Restricting immigration would certainly help to protect the American environment, but that excess population would simply end up elsewhere, degrading that environment instead. The real enemy is global population growth. People do damage wherever they're born. Restricting immigration, however, is the moral equivalent of saying "Our forests are more important than your forests." I could never buy into that line of thinking.

[DainBramaged]

13. BUT BUT we should serve them tea, play chess, try to win them over to OUR side

we're way way above that kind of behavior, we're pure......


:patriot: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: