Extreme Rightist Violence Upsurge

[DaShi]

I rest my case.

[Blaupanzer]

Mr Oglethorpe is just trolling. The biggest growth of Government obligations in the last 50 years were brought about by 1)Baby Bush and 2) Reagan. Johnson tried but Nixon disassembled it. So, if Mr Oglethorpe is going to insist that it is the Congress and its actions that count, rather than our intent, then he has made an irrelevent charge against the progressives, as both parties expand the Government in a very out-of-control way.

Nothing inherent in the two sides (which overlap in the two main parties) indicates a genuine hostility to the role of the government. Both parties appear to favor international military aggression, but are not in favor of personal fighting. None of them would appear to agree that "Saturday night's all right for fighting."

As to the wing nuts, the far out types can be dangerous. The right-wing (mostly self-identified) includes a lot of Nazi-admiring, racial purist, anti-semetic, conspiracy theorist types. The left-wing (mostly media identified) includes a lot of Communist-admiring, anti-semetic, contempt for the intelligence of the poor whose welfare they crusade in the name of types. To date, most shooters have been Righties, but bombers go both ways. Both groups hate government in general and the Feds most specifically.

[Ben Kenobi]

1) Peaceful protest is impossible? When did that happen?

I'm trying to pull the original from JFK, he was speaking in reference to the civil rights movement, and his support for Dr. King. He was speaking the truth. If you would arrest and imprison those who are protesting peacefully, you will inevitably bring about violence.

Injustice needs an outlet. Randall Terry is spot on by saying that peaceful, non-violent protests ought not to be inhibited in the United States. They ought not be arrested as they are up here in Canada.

2) Visceral contempt = inevitable violence? Then shouldn't the last couple of years of the Bush administration have been the most violent ever?

No, you've missed the point. Did Bush arrest the non-violent protesters like Ms. Sheehan? No. This is why there was no suppression of the debate wrt to the war.

A false premise, assertions that do not follow each other logically, a broad over-generalization -- I think what we have here is proof that Randall Terry is posting on Poly as Ben Kenobi.

Yeah. Randall Terry is a Canadian et al. He's one of your boys.

[Ben Kenobi]

The biggest growth of Government obligations in the last 50 years were brought about

Actually, Bush increased yearly spending by about 500 billion over the course of 8 years, from 1.7 trillion to 2.2 trillion.

If we take that over the 8 years, he increased spending by about 2 trillion dollars overall.

In contrast, Obama has increased spending by about 1.4 trillion in 4 months.

He'll likely pass Bush's total in 8 years at the end of this fiscal year.

[Arrian]

Are you counting the wars? Or do those not count, because they are "discretionary?"

I won't argue Obama's budget isn't putting us further into the red. It is. The structural problems will have to be addressed (though right now is a particularly bad time to do it), and I doubt the Dems (who have control) will face up to it.

In response to those who wish to pin it all on O:

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=2&hp

I don't really give a **** about assigning blame (I only care when it's clear to me that certain people wish to blame it all on someone else in order to pretend that the solution is [insert ridiculous unserious policy here] - whether it's the R's or D's.).

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Mr Oglethorpe is just trolling. The biggest growth of Government obligations in the last 50 years were brought about by 1)Baby Bush and 2) Reagan. Johnson tried but Nixon disassembled it. So, if Mr Oglethorpe is going to insist that it is the Congress and its actions that count, rather than our intent, then he has made an irrelevent charge against the progressives, as both parties expand the Government in a very out-of-control way.

I haven't argued in favor of one party or the other. I am prerfectly in agreement that Bush Jr. was anything but a fiscal conservative and in order to salvage his reputation so as not to be recall his legacy as Hoover went well beyond the pale. He will not be looked at kindly either in the first few years where he was an entitlement whore to woo the old folks with prescription drug acts nor his TARP BS. As for reagan I understand this arguement but CATO amongst others at least give credit where credit due. Yes the size of government bloated, but chiefly as a response to defense spending which ultimately reaped the End of Cold War defense cuts in the 90's. His domestic discretionary spending was quite modest.

Your point about Congress and Executive is rightly telling though, one which I didn't think I made. It is inevitable that the fiscal policy of the governement is attributed almost solely to the administration while in fact the legislative is as much if not more so repsonsible for the policy. Rarely are both parties in sole control of both branches. 3 times in my life time under Carter, Bush W, and now Obama. In all 3 instances it was a dismal failure as there is no check and the parties decide they need to buy votes and in so doing bloat government at the expense of individuals.

As to the wing nuts, the far out types can be dangerous. The right-wing (mostly self-identified) includes a lot of Nazi-admiring, racial purist, anti-semetic, conspiracy theorist types. The left-wing (mostly media identified) includes a lot of Communist-admiring, anti-semetic, contempt for the intelligence of the poor whose welfare they crusade in the name of types.

To date, most shooters have been Righties, but bombers go both ways. Both groups hate government in general and the Feds most specifically.

I don't know what you are going for here but if the attempt is to lay at the feet that right wingers are more dangerous than lefties I would feel compelled to add to the list the the left wing also includes Union violence, green wackjobs, PETA, UniBomber, etc. which far exceeds any right wing actions.

[Blaupanzer]

The killer admired Hitler and hated all non-whites. He was quite clearly a rightist, and he flipped out.

Apparently most of you don't have much contact with the modern antiwar movement. Many upstanding Christians with a desire to see the Government control people's morals, and a "protect the children" life philosophy, are stalwarts in the anti-war movement. These people are NOT right-wing, but they are rightist.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its always intersting that the one proven means of lessening the effect of recession given time after time proven results of immediately pouring money into the economy is always demonized here and in the NYT's.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts... not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Correction doesn't cost the government anything it's not THEIR MONEY after all its the private citizens not the governements. On the one hand they don't get revenues but they are not spending related (costs) (God forbid they be reduced). It's lazy or perhaps intentional slip of the pens that reframe the points.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000.

Heaven forbid the tax cuts, given they actually allow monies to go into the public sector immediately for stimulative effect.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you counting the wars? Or do those not count, because they are "discretionary?"

I'm counting everything. This is in constant 2000 dollars, so you'd have to adjust upwards for inflation to get 2008 dollars, but really, that won't increase much more then about 10 percent.

So you'd end up with about 2.2 billion total spending for Bush in 2008 dollars, and about 1.4 billion already spent by Obama in 6 months.

I won't argue Obama's budget isn't putting us further into the red. It is. The structural problems will have to be addressed (though right now is a particularly bad time to do it), and I doubt the Dems (who have control) will face up to it.

I just want to be clear that the stat not only ignores FDR, the big O has also passed Reagan in 1 year, what took Reagan 8 years to do.

I don't really give a **** about assigning blame (I only care when it's clear to me that certain people wish to blame it all on someone else in order to pretend that the solution is [insert ridiculous unserious policy here] - whether it's the R's or D's.).

The big O can blame but in the end, if Bush is responsible for everything he had in 2000, then so is the big O.

[Theben]

He is a socialist and an anti capitalist; that qualifies as left wing.

He also said the ONE (the evil socialist ONE) was being controlled by the JOOS. Now why would a raving lefty hate so much on his lord and savior?

FYI, he would also qualify as a right-wing populist, which he most likely was.

[Theben]

... liberals are the most biased, self centered, hypocrites that the world has ever seen.

Oh, goodie, another one.

While I will agree with you on the last 2, that's because independent thought is required for them so it isn't as good for you wingnuts as I suppose you'd like it to be.


The horrible truth is that what's left of the GOP conservatives amounts to 99% of the ingredients needed for a major proto-fascist movement. All that's required now is a charismatic demagog... fortunately there isn't one on the horizon. Maybe Palin could have been, but the last election alerted the majority to her brand of stupid/crazy.

[Elok]

Okay, I read the Washington Post's account. Apparently he drove up to the museum and walked up the stairs holding an ancient (70+yo) .22 rifle at his side. A guard, seeing this old guy tottering up the steps, decided to open the door for him, apparently not seeing the gun. Crazy geezer says "thank you" by shooting the guy in the chest at close range. He's bringing the gun around to fire another shot when the other guards open fire with their Berettas, hitting him in the noggin. He falls backwards to the floor in the doorway, and AFAIK is still in critical condition. Now, what conclusions should we draw?

1. This is one crime that can't really be pinned on "lax gun control." The gun, like its owner, was an antique. He may have had it since WWII or earlier.

2. The man was a leftist. When right-wing loons turn violent, they act in a right-wing fashion: evil, but competent enough. They make long plans, they compose manifestos, they perform reconnaissance, they do what it takes to achieve a body count. WaPo says Van Whatever acted like a typical leftist: he just snapped and did a half-ass job, with results that would have been comical if he hadn't managed to kill one guy with a sucker-punch. A right-winger would have taken a couple of months making explosives, procuring more effective firearms, scoping the place out, gathering a team of like-minded psychos on Stormfront, what-have-you.

[KrazyHorse]

Damn. It was a .22?

That security guard was unlucky then. It's not that easy to kill somebody with a .22 and a single shot. If the bullet doesn't go directly into the brain then it's generally a survivable wound. Not much shock damage from that caliber. If it goes into the brain, though, all bets are off. Apparently .22s have a nasty habit of bouncing around off the skull.

[Elok]

WaPo said it was in the chest, but bear in mind it might have been point-blank.

[KrazyHorse]

You have to be SERIOUSLY unlucky then. He must have hit the heart or the aorta. Anything else should be survivable, assuming competent medical response.