UHC Assassination/Murder

[Carborendum]

In many ways this can be considered "just another statistic" in a slew of murders throughout a lawless state.

But the guy in the cube next to me just told me that it was not a murder.  It was a fully lawful and warranted execution.  "He was responsible for the deaths of thousands."  This because he supposedly had a personal hand in denying coverage for people who "desperately needed immediate healthcare."

No evidence.  No knowledge of the inner workings of the business.  No specific examples to examine.  Nothing.

He's the head of an insurance company.  So, it's justifiable to murder him in broad daylight.

[LDSGator]

Ironically, the people taking glee in his death are the first ones to pat themselves on the back about how compassionate they are.  

[NeuroTypical]

Dude is a high-achieving affluent Ivy Leaguer with anticapitalist leanings.   In January he gave the unabomber's manifesto 4 stars.

“Had the balls to recognize that peaceful protest has gotten us absolutely nowhere and at the end of the day, he’s probably right…. When all other forms of communication fail, violence is necessary to survive. You may not like his methods, but to see things from his perspective, it’s not terrorism, it’s war and revolution.”

Honest question for @Phoenix_person: What percentage of your activist leftist organizing people that you work with, would you say would agree more than disagree?

(The laugh-emoji phenomenon has me a bit spooked, so I'm looking for data in various places, hopefully to calm my nerves a bit.)

Edited December 10, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

I had honestly felt that all the extremist (violent) antics were simply the fringe element of the Democratic Party.  We all have them.  Republicans also have volent fringe elements.  I thought they were only a small percentage of the whole.  The everyday people who have families, hold jobs, have a future don't actually participate in that activity.  They're not going to think this is in any way justifiable.

My cube-neighbor and this Ivy League kid just disabused me of that notion.  My neighbor is an engineer like me.  He is quite a bit older than I am.  He is very level minded most of the time.  And he is soft spoken.  He seems perfectly harmless.  He's even helped me with a few difficult problems over the past year.  He doesn't seem hot-headed in any way.  He's just an average Joe.  He isn't an activist.  He's never been to a political rally in his life.  He's a family man.

But he has completely filled his head with all the Democrat rhetoric that has piled up for the past 30 years.  He flat out told me that if he met the UHC CEO, he might have done the deed, himself.  And no jury would convict him of anything.

Once someone buys into the idea that "rich = corrupt" they will inevitably support the ideas that my cube neighbor and Mangione subscribe to.  And once they believe that murder is justifiable, they will be ok with murdering someone for themselves.

I used to think otherwise.  I used to think that people had to be in dire straits and unusual circumstances to be so brainwashed.  I thought they were just the fringe elements.  But I just don't see enough people from the left decrying this cold-blooded murder for what it is.  A few have admitted it was a crime ... "but..."

No.  No "but".  These things were not just "online rhetoric".  These things were in real life in casual conversation.  He made these statements of justification as if they were already agreed upon facts.

It was a cold-blooded murder.  And the fact that the left is (quietly) cheering this behavior disgusts me.

Edited December 10, 2024 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

This guy is going to find out very quickly that he‘s not so tough at Rikers Island. They love pampered rich kids from wealthy suburbs who went to Ivy League schools in prison.  

[zil2]

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Ironically, the people taking glee in his death are the first ones to pat themselves on the back about how compassionate they are.  

Their compassion is only for the people they deem worthy.  In other words, they don't believe in the virtue of compassion, they believe in supporting those who share their values.  And from my limited observations, they believe that anyone who opposes their values deserves brutal, violent destruction - sure not all of them are willing to be the one doing the destroying, but they wholeheartedly support someone doing it.  I find it both disturbing and disappointing that they really don't see the hypocrisy of their attitudes.  It does not bode well for the future, as such things usually spread and destroy before they collapse.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Their compassion is only for the people they deem worthy.  In other words, they don't believe in the virtue of compassion, they believe in supporting those who share their values.  And from my limited observations, they believe that anyone who opposes their values deserves brutal, violent destruction - sure not all of them are willing to be the one doing the destroying, but they wholeheartedly support someone doing it.  I find it both disturbing and disappointing that they really don't see the hypocrisy of their attitudes.  It does not bode well for the future, as such things usually spread and destroy before they collapse.

No argument there, but we all do that I guess.  I find it hard to believe that many of us would weep if a prominent LDS critic got into a car crash or something. It’s easy to say we would, but I highly doubt it. Humans are human. 

[Carborendum]

Well, I just got done reading an article from The New Yorker.

It started out decrying the violence 

Quote

What on earth, some people must be asking, is happening to our country? Are we really so divided, so used to dehumanizing one another, that people are out here openly celebrating the cold-blooded murder of a hardworking family man?

  - Jia Tolentino, The New Yorker

Then she proceeds to go through a 2141 word article explaining why it was, I dunno... justified?  Understandable?  Reasonable?  She never says.  

It wasn't enough to say, "This was the motive."  She had to couch it in such a way as to make it all sympathetic.  2102 freaking words to garner sympathy for the shooter and even empathy for his motives.

The only word of sympathy for the victim was in the quote above.  39 words for the man who left a wife and two children behind.

I don't know the man.  He could have just been a decent businessman who was doing his best to run the business and still offer the services needed.  He may have been a Machiavellian villain who was doing everything he could to deny coverage so he could improve his bottom line.  I don't know.

But what I do know is that by the values that I've come to accept as a law-abiding citizen in the US, his death was cold-blooded murder.

CNN gave a very forensic report of the killer's background.  Not a word of sympathy for Thompson.  Just a "hey, let's get to know the guy with the gun.  He's from a rich family (hinting, hoping that he's a closet Republican).

If it had been a schizophrenic homeless man just coming out of the subway, they would have been calling out racism.  Oh, wait...

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I had honestly felt that all the extremist (violent) antics were simply the fringe element of the Democratic Party.

Yeah, the US left has always been more supportive of violence to further their political goals.  it's been brewing for quite some time amongst folks like your cube neighbor.

Any guesses at what the last 4 years have done to these numbers?  I doubt the conservatives and moderates have budged much.

 

 

 

[Vort]

The good news is that the liberals (or at least the very significant minority of truly evil scumbags) are being exposed for what they really are: Terrorists waiting for a good time to strike and impose their will on everyone else. And if you think this is mere hyperbole, consider the media coverage of the cold-blooded murder of this man. You don't have to admire the victim or like what he has done to recognize a capital crime, to know that Luigi Mangione (assuming he is guilty, which seems to be certain) should be sent to the chair.

In any and every case, the leftists who approve of this murder have exposed themselves for the liars they are, just as all of those—every one—who celebrated the attempts on Trump's life and bemoaned the failure of the efforts. They should never, in this life, be allowed to forget it. Their feet should be held to the fire every time they open their stinking maws to express an opinion, from today until the day they mercifully leave this mortal realm.

[Carborendum]

The Guardian (the who?) disagrees.  Their sources say the numbers who justify violence are larger and they are on the other foot.  There's no honest debate anymore.  No one can be trusted for truth anymore.  It's all ideological, not fact based.  We only trust our own facts.

We're now where we cannot trust each other anymore.  We believe the other side to be evil and inhuman.  Even the large majority who are still sane, they will easily be caught up in mob-mentality that pushes people to do great evils that they would never do on their own.

It's happening.  I'm glad I live where I do with a large ammo supply.

Edited December 10, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

I don't know if I can even consider the "justice system" in New York a bona-fide government operation.

They are only charging Mangione with 2nd Degree murder.

The guy had a false ID to check into a nearby hotel.  He paid with cash.  Then he went home after the murder.

That wasn't premeditated?

[zil2]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

No argument there, but we all do that I guess.

No, not all.  Obviously, I cannot begin to know the hearts of other Latter-day Saints, let alone other Christians, but I believe that those who are active, believing Christians - those who actually study what the Lord taught - are, as I am, striving to have compassion for all - to love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them which despitefully use us, and persecute us.  Our success rates may vary, but I choose to believe that many Christians are trying.  And I believe it because there is nothing unique in the universe, so if I'm trying, so is someone else - and there are people better at it than I am, and worse at it than I am.  It's the way of things.

Some of us really do believe in the virtue of compassion, not the superficial imitation of "allegiance with the like-minded".

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

 I find it hard to believe that many of us would weep if a prominent LDS critic got into a car crash or something. It’s easy to say we would, but I highly doubt it. Humans are human. 

Speak for yourself.  As above, I cannot be the only person who feels sorrow when even my "enemies" suffer.  In part because, guess what - when they suffer, my Savior suffers.

Edited December 10, 2024 by zil2

[LDSGator]

28 minutes ago, zil2 said:

No, not all.  Obviously, I cannot begin to know the hearts of other Latter-day Saints, let alone other Christians, but I believe that those who are active, believing Christians - those who actually study what the Lord taught - are, as I am, striving to have compassion for all - to love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them which despitefully use us, and persecute us.  Our success rates may vary, but I choose to believe that many Christians are trying.  And I believe it because there is nothing unique in the universe, so if I'm trying, so is someone else - and there are people better at it than I am, and worse at it than I am.  It's the way of things.

Some of us really do believe in the virtue of compassion, not the superficial imitation of "allegiance with the like-minded".

Speak for yourself.  As above, I cannot be the only person who feels sorrow when even my "enemies" suffer.  In part because, guess what - when they suffer, my Savior suffers.

Okay. 
 

It’s not what I’ve seen, that’s for sure. I think I was exactly right. 

People talk about loving their enemy, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, pray for those who persecute you, but I’ve never see it in action. Just words. 

Edited December 10, 2024 by LDSGator

[zil2]

26 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Okay. I don’t agree at all based on what I’ve seen or experienced. 

It's unfortunate that you have never experienced anyone (yourself included?) who showed compassion even for those who were their "enemies".  (I keep putting "enemies" in quotes because some of us don't have daily interactions with people we would call enemies - people who aren't friends, people who dislike us, perhaps, but not really enemies.  If we have those, they tend to be people far away, who don't know us personally - like terrorists or President Biden...)

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, zil2 said:

yourself included

Oh of course, I obviously include myself. it’s the human condition, and last time I checked, my transformation to Kryptonian is still in process. 😜 

[NeuroTypical]

28 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

People talk about loving their enemy, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, pray for those who persecute you, but I’ve never see it in action.

I've managed it a few times.  In the '90's, I fought to learn how to forgive and love someone.  I had to figure out how to do it while at the same time taking action that resulted in their excommunication and a 5 year prison sentence for their crimes.  Dude hurt people close to me, in ways that land you in prison for 5-life.  I honestly, without exaggeration or embellishment, figured out how to love him.  It involved more than a little praying.  Initially for the ability to love him, later specifically for him. 

It was sort of a 'climb mount everest' moment for me.  Pretty easy to love all the other humans after that.  No matter how they howl for my blood or the downfall of my nation or whatever.  It's a thing that gets easier with practice. 

If you want another example of it being done, read what the Amish did to their serial killer: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2007/05/the-healing-power-of-forgiveness?lang=eng#p9

 

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've managed it a few times.  In the '90's, I fought to learn how to forgive and love someone.  I had to figure out how to do it while at the same time taking action that resulted in their excommunication and a 5 year prison sentence for their crimes.  Dude hurt people close to me, in ways that land you in prison for 5-life.  I honestly, without exaggeration or embellishment, figured out how to love him.  It involved more than a little praying.  Initially for the ability to love him, later specifically for him. 

It was sort of a 'climb mount everest' moment for me.  Pretty easy to love all the other humans after that.  No matter how they howl for my blood or the downfall of my nation or whatever.  It's a thing that gets easier with practice. 

If you want another example of it being done, read what the Amish did to their serial killer: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2007/05/the-healing-power-of-forgiveness?lang=eng#p9

 

Check your FB inbox. 

Everyone- @NeuroTypical said I could post it here.  

Edited December 10, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

That’s very sweet @NeuroTypical, and I’m proud of you, but I still think I was exactly right.
 

Take the CES letter. Can you tell me with a straight face that if Jeremy Runnells got into a car crash, members wouldn’t be-I don’t want to say happy, but not upset either.  Same with Sandra Tanner. I’ve heard members say absolutely vile things about those people.  
 

In fact, I’ve heard people here say vile things about those who disagree with them here! It does not take much of a jump to see that turning the other cheek is…like I said…just words, much less loving the enemy. 
 

Let me be clear-for the second time, I include myself. I’m just as guilty, 100%. So no, I do not hold myself up as more virtuous. 

Edited December 10, 2024 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've managed it a few times.  In the '90's, I fought to learn how to forgive and love someone.  I had to figure out how to do it while at the same time taking action that resulted in their excommunication and a 5 year prison sentence for their crimes.  Dude hurt people close to me, in ways that land you in prison for 5-life.  I honestly, without exaggeration or embellishment, figured out how to love him.  It involved more than a little praying.  Initially for the ability to love him, later specifically for him. 

It was sort of a 'climb mount everest' moment for me.  Pretty easy to love all the other humans after that.  No matter how they howl for my blood or the downfall of my nation or whatever.  It's a thing that gets easier with practice. 

If you want another example of it being done, read what the Amish did to their serial killer: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2007/05/the-healing-power-of-forgiveness?lang=eng#p9

 

 

I have used your brick throwing analogy a few times.

[Phoenix_person]

17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Dude is a high-achieving affluent Ivy Leaguer with anticapitalist leanings.   In January he gave the unabomber's manifesto 4 stars.

“Had the balls to recognize that peaceful protest has gotten us absolutely nowhere and at the end of the day, he’s probably right…. When all other forms of communication fail, violence is necessary to survive. You may not like his methods, but to see things from his perspective, it’s not terrorism, it’s war and revolution.”

Honest question for @Phoenix_person: What percentage of your activist leftist organizing people that you work with, would you say would agree more than disagree?

(The laugh-emoji phenomenon has me a bit spooked, so I'm looking for data in various places, hopefully to calm my nerves a bit.)

The people I organize with are primarily Christian senior citizens. They're certainly not the type to take glee in something like this, but they're not exactly lighting candles for the dead CEO either. That's basically my take as well. I can't in any way condone what happened, but I recognize that people like him are responsible for a tremendous amount of the suffering associated with navigating the American healthcare system. Killing him won't fix that. 

Last year, one of the things I was organizing around was the establishment of a public option in MNcare. We have two state senators who represent our city. My state senator is a DFLer and career nurse. The other senator is a Republican school teacher and to her credit, one of the more level-headed Republican electeds I've encountered. We've even worked with her on a couple of education bills in the past. The first time I spoke with her about healthcare was following the local GOP's post-session open house after last year's historic legislative session. I spoke with her a bit about health insurance afterward. I pointed out, correctly, that the DFL had concrete plans to address rising health care costs by expanding MNcare and working to create a public option. I'm sure she already knew this, just as I'm sure she already knew that the local DFL's post-session open house had literally 10x the number of attendees as hers (about a dozen people in the audience, including me). Her answer was respectful, but not particularly thoughtful, and boiled down to the belief that private companies are better at administering health insurance than the government, her main argument being that government = bad (okay, Senator). She had revealed during the open house that she was about to undergo open heart surgery, and about 6 months later I found myself in her office, this time advocating for funding to research and develop geothermal energy infrastructure (which we ended up having quite a bit of bipartisan support for). I asked how her surgery went and got a whole rant about the insurance aspect of it. We weren't there to talk about healthcare specifically, but she suggested that she might be open to revisiting some reform proposals. I'm pretty sure she was just saying that to be polite, but her frustration certainly seemed genuine. It's just one of several examples I've seen over the years of conservatives defending our for-profit insurance industry until they're the ones getting shafted by it. And you'd think a heart procedure wouldn't be that messy from an insurance standpoint. Seems kind of important.

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I had honestly felt that all the extremist (violent) antics were simply the fringe element of the Democratic Party.  We all have them.  Republicans also have volent fringe elements.  I thought they were only a small percentage of the whole.  The everyday people who have families, hold jobs, have a future don't actually participate in that activity.  They're not going to think this is in any way justifiable.

My cube-neighbor and this Ivy League kid just disabused me of that notion.  My neighbor is an engineer like me.  He is quite a bit older than I am.  He is very level minded most of the time.  And he is soft spoken.  He seems perfectly harmless.  He's even helped me with a few difficult problems over the past year.  He doesn't seem hot-headed in any way.  He's just an average Joe.  He isn't an activist.  He's never been to a political rally in his life.  He's a family man.

But he has completely filled his head with all the Democrat rhetoric that has piled up for the past 30 years.  He flat out told me that if he met the UHC CEO, he might have done the deed, himself.  And no jury would convict him of anything.

Once someone buys into the idea that "rich = corrupt" they will inevitably support the ideas that my cube neighbor and Mangione subscribe to.  And once they believe that murder is justifiable, they will be ok with murdering someone for themselves.

I used to think otherwise.  I used to think that people had to be in dire straits and unusual circumstances to be so brainwashed.  I thought they were just the fringe elements.  But I just don't see enough people from the left decrying this cold-blooded murder for what it is.  A few have admitted it was a crime ... "but..."

No.  No "but".  These things were not just "online rhetoric".  These things were in real life in casual conversation.  He made these statements of justification as if they were already agreed upon facts.

It was a cold-blooded murder.  And the fact that the left is (quietly) cheering this behavior disgusts me.

Brother, it ain't just the left. Conservatives certainly seem more conflicted about it, but I've seen a lot of "good riddance" sentiments expressed from the right as well. Maybe not going so far as to condone or celebrate, but the lack of distress over this guy's death is far from partisan. A lot of people, and not just left-leaning ones, view this guy like Martin Shkreli but with slightly more moral fiber. Remember the bipartisan celebration when that dude went to prison? Our health care system screws people over regardless of their political affiliation, so it's not surprising that -murder discourse aside- we're finding some solidarity on your side for making some changes to our health care system.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Brother, it ain't just the left. Conservatives certainly seem more conflicted about it, but I've seen a lot of "good riddance" sentiments expressed from the right as well. Maybe not going so far as to condone or celebrate, but the lack of distress over this guy's death is far from partisan. 

Let me start by saying: I'm not challenging you.  I'm asking you.  I want to believe that the nation is not that far gone.  I want to believe it is just the fringe elements.  But I'm just not seeing it.

My neighbor IS condoning it.  If he were younger, he WOULD be celebrating it.  He thinks it is a good thing.  And he supports the kid in his actions.

I have noticed a LOT of conservative news outlets that write stories like that New Yorker article.  Yet they ALWAYS emphasize that violence has no place in our political sphere.  They say it multiple times -- condemning the violence.  Yes, they go into motive and the facts of the case.  But they don't show any sympathy to someone who committed the crime.

Yet, here we are.  I've shown what The New Yorker & CNN wrote.

Tell you what.  I really want to be on your side with this statement.  Show me two things: (Again,  I'm not challenging you.  I'm asking you.)

1. A mainstream conservative news outlet that has rejoiced in the murder of a liberal figure in the past 8 years.
2. A mainstream liberal news outlet that has written an article like this that was NOT sympathetic to the murderer of a conservative figure and condemned violence in our political sphere -- in the past 8 years. 

• Not a politician making a public statement and then forgets about it the next day. 
• Not a single statement (which is not in any way reflected in the rest of the article) like the New Yorker that then changes the tone completely for the remainder of the article.  I'm interested in a lengthy news article that decries the violence in overall tone of the whole article.

I'm very pleased to hear that Taylor Lorenz was deplatformed from Vox, NYT, and WaPo for laughing and cheering when she heard the news.  I applaud those outlets for this move.  I'm hoping that they satisfy the qualifications that I listed above.  But they're behind a paywall.  And I'm not subscribing to those.

Here's an article condemning conservatives for believing that the left is cheering this on.  Then it goes into why the wealthy are oppressing the working class.  IOW advancing the rhetoric that motivated the murder in the first place.

Here's a non-mainstream article giving the requisite condemnation of violence, but then makes the entire article about how the murder was not about political rhetoric, but that Healthcare is broken.  IOW advancing the rhetoric that motivated the murder in the first place.

It is one thing to say that a criminal had motive to be displeased.  It is another to be completely sympathetic to their cause.  And it is still another to shout violent rhetoric because of their cause.

Multiple AP articles covered this.  And it was very forensic.  It never brought up politics.  "Just the facts of the case."  I can appreciate this.  But I'd like to see one mainstream liberal article discussing the violent rhetoric that motivated this. 

Multiple articles from the three big networks blaming Sarah Palin for causing the Gabby Gifford's shooting by putting a bullseye on a map.

Still, we have free speech.  And as long as it doesn't cross the line of "aiding and abetting" it is still legal (as it should be).  But my neighbor is not just talking about the concepts and issues involved.  He flat out said that he'd be completely willing to do the deed himself if he had the opportunity.

How does that get into the mind of an everyday person who has a lot to lose?

I'll end it with this:

Quote

He’s the a**hole that’s going to die in prison.  Congratulations if you want to celebrate that. A sewer is going to sewer. That’s what social media is about. And I don’t know why the media wants to turn that into a story, just with these trolls saying these kinds of things anonymously like that. I don’t know why that’s news. Remember, he has two children that are going to grow up without their father… It’s vile. And if you’ve gunned someone down that you don’t happen to agree with their views or the business that they’re in, hey, you know, I’m next, they’re next, he’s next, she’s next.

 -- John Fetterman

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Tell you what.  I really want to be on your side with this statement.  Show me two things: (Again,  I'm not challenging you.  I'm asking you.)

1. A mainstream conservative news outlet that has rejoiced in the murder of a liberal figure in the past 8 years.
2. A mainstream liberal news outlet that has written an article like this that was NOT sympathetic to the murderer of a conservative figure and condemned violence in our political sphere -- in the past 8 years. 

• Not a politician making a public statement and then forgets about it the next day. 
• Not a single statement (which is not in any way reflected in the rest of the article) like the New Yorker that then changes the tone completely for the remainder of the article.  I'm interested in a lengthy news article that decries the violence in overall tone of the whole article.

I'm very pleased to hear that Taylor Lorenz was deplatformed from Vox, NYT, and WaPo for laughing and cheering when she heard the news.  I applaud those outlets for this move.  I'm hoping that they satisfy the qualifications that I listed above.  But they're behind a paywall.  And I'm not subscribing to those.

Challenge accepted, because while I'm not as distraut as you are over this, the rise of political violence lately is certainly something to be gravely concerned about and it's important to both acknowledge the causes of it AND recognize that it's inherently evil regardless of victim, perpetrator, or reason. 

FWIW, I don't subscribe to any paywalled outlets either, with the lone exception of my local paper. I'll do my best though.

As a start, while it's not murder, I haven't forgotten the outward glee many conservatives showed (and I'm not accusing anyone here, to be clear) at the attack, some might say attempted murder, of Paul Pelosi. Politico did a good article (with receipts) outlining the responses and jokes from various conservative figures following an attack that they half-heartedly condemned and from which Mr Pelosi is still recovering.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/31/conservatives-disinformation-paul-pelosi-assault-00064208

Conservative TV pundits and politicians spent months spinning conspiracy theories around what happened.

 https://www.foxnews.com/video/6316941382112

Interestingly enough, there WAS eventually video released of the attack, which promtly silenced the conspiracy theories for good. I couldn't find any news articles to that effect from a quick search, fwiw. As much as I despise Fox News because of some of their on-air "talent", their web articles are usually very balanced.

Edited December 11, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Phoenix_person]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html?smid=url-share

This one doesn't appear to be behind a paywall. You said 8 years, and the shooting of Steve Scalise at a Congressional baseball game fits that criteria. I saw one article from NPR that talked a bit about possible motive (spoiler alert, it was healthcare) while taking a condemning overall tone. The article was more about political violence in abstract than thecshoiting itself. NPR published multiple articles focused solely on the shooting, all of which had sympathetic tones of condemnation.

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/15/532944338/before-and-after-shooting-congress-faces-violent-threats

[Carborendum]

You reminded us of the Paul Pelosi scrape from a liberal news source.

To give you the conservative veiwpoint on the Pelosi thing:

Most conservatives were not "making light" of the event.  We were simply confused by the coverage of the event.  No one was telling us what the heck happened.  Everything we heard raised more questions as bits and pieces came out.  Whatever errors there were was because it was all confusing.

• We were told that the police were called.  Who called them?  How did they know what was going on inside the house?  It couldn't have been a neighbor since it was it so quiet that when the police arrived, they didn't notice anything amiss as they approached the door.
• We were told that the door was "opened".  Not "open," but "Opened."  By whom?  Was it left open and the report just used the wrong word?  Who opened it?  Was it the police?  Or was it Paul (that was the seemingly immediate understanding). 
• Then if he had the ability to open the door, how did he get into a grapple with a hatchet or whatever the tool was just seconds later?  They had just heard the police announcing themselves.  Yet, in that time, Paul was able to leave the intruder, open the door, then get back to the intruder?  That was what we were hearing from official police reports.  And conservative pundits were saying "that doesn't make any sense." 

We got a lot of the details wrong because none of it made any sense.  We decried that it didn't make any sense.  And the liberal media decided that we were spreading misinformation for complaining that these bits and pieces weren't making any sense.

I'm still not clear on what the motives were.  This guy was clearly fringe whack-job regardless.  And the idea that the US political climate is somehow responsible for a "Canadian far-right conspiracy theorist" (which is almost a contradiction in terms) is not compelling.

I asked for:

Quote

1. A mainstream conservative news outlet that has rejoiced in the murder of a liberal figure in the past 8 years.
2. A mainstream liberal news outlet that has written an article like this that was NOT sympathetic to the murderer of a conservative figure and condemned violence in our political sphere -- in the past 8 years. 

Your examples:

28 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html?smid=url-share

No paywall. It's an ad-wall.  I'll need to change my settings for that when I get home.

28 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/15/532944338/before-and-after-shooting-congress-faces-violent-threats

The tone is condemning. But no actual statements to that effect.  The report was forensic.  Again, I appreciate forensic.  But that's not what I asked for.

Edited December 11, 2024 by Carborendum