Why do some Republicans accuse liberals of being mass murderers?

Question

I urge you to read the entire question before answering, otherwise you will only look like a buffoon.

Roger Hedgecock, conservative commentator and right-wing darling, alleged that all recent mass shootings were perpetrated by liberals. I would like to point out before going on that serial killers have been a longtime stronghold for the Republican Party. Ted Bundy, the Green River Killer, the Gainesville Ripper and BTK were all registered Republicans.

Roger asserts that, although Dylan Klebold was too young to vote and Eric Harris had celebrated his eighteenth birthday only weeks prior to the shooting, the two gunmen responsible for carrying out the murders of twelve classmates and one teacher were staunch liberals. I find this claim highly unlikely. First of all, the community of Columbine, Colorado was very conservative. Secondly, Eric Harris was highly critical of President Bill Clinton in his personal writings. Third, both boys were known to admire Timothy McVeigh, a right-wing extremist. Fourth, Eric's came from an "all-American" family, his mother being a homemaker and his father being a high-ranking member of the Air Force.

Roger also claimed that Adam Lanza was a Democrat, again with no evidence. Only stating that he was a Democrat because of Connecticut's reputation as a solidly Democratic state. Contrary to Roger's statement, Mitt Romney defeated the incumbent Barack Obama in Newtown by a percentage ratio of 51 to 47. Furthermore, Nancy Lanza, Adam's late mother, was a registered Republican.

Finally, Roger said Nidal Hasan and Seung-Hui Cho were registered Democrats. This is false, because neither of the states they resided in, Texas and Virginia, have party registration. More to the point, Cho wasn't even a resident of the United States. Roger Hedgecock fails once again.

It is interesting to note, however, that Christian terrorism has gone on for years. The murder of gays, doctors and the bombings of abortion clinics are tragedies that continue to go on to this day. It's also interesting to note that James Huberty, perpetrator of a shooting at a San Diego McDonald's that left 20+ people dead in the eighties, was a Republican who hated illegal immigrants and targeted them as part of his rampage.

So why, Republicans, do you believe this ages-old myth that liberalism is a sickness of the mind? Especially when the people who propagate it, like Hedgecock, don't even back their arguments up with fact?

Answer 1

That's the way Republicans do things - they have no facts to go on, so they like to do this to cause fear in their sheep.



Oh, and to add one more thing to your statement - Klebold was homeschooled, and Harris was originally from a very Republican town in upstate NY.

Answer 2

I would say it is because the democrats have a philosophy that elevates death, but many republicans have their own version of a philosophy that does the same.

But to expound on just what that means, statist ideologies such as any central-authority promoting ideology such as is the dominant thinking in both parties (but especially and pre-dominantly the Democrat platform talking points) revolves around the premise (whether stated outright or underpinning their ideas) that the state and the welfare of others should supersede the welfare of the individual, regardless of the circumstances of either.

It's nothing new, religions have been preaching this type of idea for many millenia and it's just now (the past century or two) starting to rear it's head in state-oriented philosophy. Whether it be federalist notions of 'duty to country' or social-justice notions of equality of condition, our current political system is mired in unfounded assertions of a duty to something outside your own rational self interest.

Yes, you should consider it an essential action to support a government that is looking out for your rights to pursue that rational self-interest, but beyond that protection of your ability to pursue your own happiness, you have no other obligations to the state just for the sake of it being 'the state'.

While it is perhaps commendable to praise acts of charity (when genuine, effective and well intended), enforcing notions of charity is absurd and immoral. While it is commendable to fight for a just cause, expecting someone to fight for any cause simply because it is a cause sanctioned by the current political powerbase is inane and a reckless abuse of political authority.

The rights of the individual and perserving those rights should be the primary focus of any moral state. If it is deemed necessary to have a military to defend those rights, that military should be made up from voluntary enlistment. If it is found to be necessary to raise funds to help pay for the activity of the state, the obtaining of those funds should either be as a surcharge on state services or through voluntary contribution.

But people won't serve you say? People won't pay? Don't you think -- that if the behavior of such a government is just and it's actions reasonable -- that a populace unwilling to pay for such sound government deserves what it gets?

But there will be free-riders you say! The notion of a free-rider is in itself an absurdity. Without the compulsory government action deemed to benefit the masses, the concept of a free-rider does not exist. If you cannot gain a uniform, majority support for a political idea and then in turn find a way to gain sufficient voluntary funding for it, then by what moral right do you then deem it justified to force those who oppose such an idea to be responsible for enabling it?

The pursuit of one's happiness ultimately results in the accumulation of property, including money. The notions of mandatory taxation means that the state assumes a claim on that property. And if the property itself is a product of your efforts, the utilization of your fleeting time on this earth, the application of your accumulated knowledge and experience and the utilization of your abilities -- all facets of living your life -- then the notion that you 'owe' the state and have a 'duty' to tithe to statist whims is a notion that says nothing less than that the products of your life, and therefore your life itself, is equally subject to the whim of the state.

And if the state lays a claim to your life to dispose of it at their choosing, then is that not a philosophy that revolves around the state disposing of your life or at least part of it? No matter how you add that up, believing that a state has a moral right to dispose of your life as the state sees fit is a philosophy that does not elevate that life, but covets it's disposal. It is simply a philosophy of death.

Answer 3

Should you throw doodoo towards the wall long sufficient it will stick,that's the Dems MO.Recall the DEM LBJ would have now not been capable to cross the civil rights bill with out REPUBS, the Dems left him excessive and dry...I will be able to most effective put it down to lack of expertise.

Answer 4

sources?

because the majority of mass murderers are liberals.

he murderers of Gays and abotion doctors?

When is the last time an abortion clinic was bombed?

about the abortion doctor that murdered a patient in a botched abortion, and murdered 7 "viable" babies?

I believe his on trial, maybe in Florida, or, awaiting sentencing.

The mu-slums are responsible for more murders in this country than the Christians.

Do your research, bleeding heart, Christian hater.

Answer 5

Because I did read the question

but refuse to read the novel posted here

Answer 6

Deaths in third world countries because environmentalists keep their inhabitants without electricity, millions of abortions, etc.

Answer 7

Why do liberals constantly take people no one has ever heard of, like "Roger Hedgecock" and try to make them seem main-stream?

Answer 8

people are dumb they just try to hate the other side by saying the stupidest crap and the saddest thing is they actually get gullible people to believe them

Answer 9

How many were democrats?

Answer 10

It's too late for you. With a question like this you have already proved to be a buffoon.