Liberal terrorist pleads guilty
by Greg Krehbiel on 7 February 2013
Have you heard about this story?
Family Research Council shooter pleads guilty. This was an anti-anti-gay hate crime, apparently.
I mention it only because you often get the sense from liberals that they believe it’s only conservative nuts who go on killing rampages.
-- 2013-02-07 » Greg Krehbiel
8 February 2013 @ 9:18 am
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340145/blame-righty-mob-falls-silent-michelle-malkin
The thick plottens. Oh, I know, some folks won’t like the Malkin/NR source, but please read the content.
8 February 2013 @ 9:24 am
It is, quite frankly, painful to watch when liberals pretend there is no bias. It’s like listening to the abused wife making excuses for no-good husband. You wonder what it takes to get a person to that point.
The bias is so incredibly obvious …. How is it even possible to pretend not to see it?
8 February 2013 @ 4:35 pm
funny, i think there is a bias … but that it tends to be at least somewhat, well founded.
the malkin commentary … i’ve read the manifesto (in its entirety, i believe), and it didn’t seem to reference any of the hollywood or news entity personalities she references. where did she get that?
[i'm not following this story very carefully, or any other news story right now for that matter]
8 February 2013 @ 9:24 pm
Maybe what you read wasn’t the complete manifesto and maybe that was Michelle Malkin’s point? I don’t know. At any rate, I wish she had linked to what she was talking about, but I found it with Google:
http://laist.com/2013/02/07/christopher_dorners_manifesto_in_fu.php
I skimmed it and what she refers to it is in there, about a third of the way down (judging by my scroll bar.) No way am I reading that whole rambling rant, no matter who it’s about or who wrote it.
8 February 2013 @ 11:05 pm
OMG … thanks pentamom for the post. yeah, i’m not reading all of that either, but confirmed the aspects before referenced by malkin. at least i can now take refuge in the commonly sought ‘insanity’ turf the right flees to when in this position, right?
8 February 2013 @ 11:12 pm
I also believe that the guy who shot Giffords was a lefty as well, but of course it didn’t get much air play. The media wanted you to believe he was a right winger.
9 February 2013 @ 10:49 am
I suspect that most of the nuts who go on rampages are not, at least primarily, motivated by politics at all. Their fears and insecurities and paranoia re fed with the BS they see on the news, but they are unstable in the first place.
Kind of like blaming rock music for suicide, for instance. (especially songs like Ozzy’s Suicide Solution, which are actually anti-suicide)
As to bias, why is it that the only news on the economy is the conservative point of view? A statement that begins “everyone agrees” can be expected, 100% of the time, to be completed with a conservative talking point.
9 February 2013 @ 11:45 am
John — I agree with you. Even the most blatant case of apparent “political assassination” (Gabby Giffords) seems actually to have had very little to do with politics (as opposed to a public figure as such), and the victims cut across party lines. But the double standard seems to be that if the indications are that he has conservative associations or a liberal/Democratic target, they become immediately relevant in the media (and are frequently suggested to be causal) but if his political associations are liberal, it is somehow not journalistically important, at least not in early reporting.
So the early, and usually lasting, impression that gets created in the public mind is “conservative nut” vs. “nonspecific nut.”
9 February 2013 @ 11:49 am
John: if you consistently find that 100% of the things that the media, which is far to the left of the American public, accepts as common wisdom about the economy are “conservative talking points”, you might want to consider the idea that it’s your scale which is out of balance.
9 February 2013 @ 2:25 pm
DSM — I agree with your assessment, but there is at least the possibility that while the media as a whole is to the left, there might be some areas of coverage where they are not.
9 February 2013 @ 2:41 pm
Sure, such a thing is possible. The reverse happens in the case of the WSJ on immigration, for example: thought the WSJ is “on the right”, broadly speaking, it takes a lot of flack for its amnesty-sympathetic positions.
But that possibility simply isn’t realized in the world I’m familiar with.