Sikh temple gunman was ex-soldier lin...

Sikh temple gunman was ex-soldier linked to racist group

There are 197 comments on the Reuters story from Aug 6, 2012, titled Sikh temple gunman was ex-soldier linked to racist group. In it, Reuters reports that:

The gunman who killed six worshipers at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin was identified as a 40-year-old U.S. Army veteran and authorities said they were investigating possible links to white supremacist groups and his membership in skinhead rock bands.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#198 Aug 14, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really sick you know that? To take every sad sick twisted thing that happens in society and try to make it political points for Obama shows not only a lack of scrupples on your part but some serious desperation on your part for your candidate of choice.
SHould we look at the daily murders in Chicago and make it political? We all know those are not rightwingers killing each other everyday. Who do you suppose they support for president? Wow, Obama should really be ashamed.
found any wmd's? weapons of mass distraction? where's Ron Paul, after I help Prez Barack get re-elected I'm independent-bring our troops home and stop all of our young people from getting slaughtered for the gain of some greedy corporations

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#199 Aug 14, 2012
californio wrote:
Marxist always say they are progressives,
Might point out the Modern European Social safety net was set up by otto Von Bismarck( a monarchist)
And he sold it under the old principal that the Good Noble had an obligation to oversee and take care of his peasants.
and Crapitalism was a horrific market system that tore down a French Monarchy with the beheadings of a entire Royal Family that 'let them (the peasants) eat cake'

I'm a proud neo-marxist..this country has become a corporate oligarchy and you say K.Marx was wrong? when America has had surpluses the politicans (from both partys has bailed out their constituents) and let safety nets not keep up with demand

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#200 Aug 14, 2012
and americans in dixie south (which have 7 of the 10 poorest states) need food stamps and Ryan wants cut farm aid

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#201 Aug 15, 2012
swedenforever wrote:
<quoted text>
and Crapitalism was a horrific market system that tore down a French Monarchy with the beheadings of a entire Royal Family that 'let them (the peasants) eat cake'
I'm a proud neo-marxist..this country has become a corporate oligarchy and you say K.Marx was wrong? when America has had surpluses the politicans (from both partys has bailed out their constituents) and let safety nets not keep up with demand
Before the French Revolution, France had a Feudal, not a Free market Capitalistic system. The government picked winner and loser and granted Monopolies left and right. At the start the merchant Capitalist class fully supported the French Revolution
harvey

Columbus, OH

#202 Aug 15, 2012
xnutmegger wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey clown !
I'm a history buff and have been one since I'm 10 years old.
I have two books for you to read by credible mainstream authors .
I'll give you 2 months to read them and we can then have a credible debate.
* Freedom From Fear by David Kennedy.
* The Forgotten Man by Amity Shales .
I'm currently reading " The President's Club " by Gibbs and Duffy.
Ask permission from your HANDLERS so you can advance your education of historic U.S. politics.
I stand by all the statements you refute.
How is it you read intelligent books and yet know nothing about a subject as important as Marxism?

I stand by my statement. You're ignorant.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#203 Aug 15, 2012
californio wrote:
Marxist always say they are progressives,
Might point out the Modern European Social safety net was set up by otto Von Bismarck( a monarchist)
And he sold it under the old principal that the Good Noble had an obligation to oversee and take care of his peasants.
Bismarck saw the growth of Socialism and realized either he'd have to either borrow some progressive principles, or end up with a Socialist Germany and himself out of power.

Again, Progressives whether 18th century or today are NOT Marxists. What Marxists say is kind of irrelevant.
xnutmegger

Phoenix, AZ

#204 Aug 15, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it you read intelligent books and yet know nothing about a subject as important as Marxism?
I stand by my statement. You're ignorant.
Hey azz"O" , I listed books and you try to blow smoke up peoples arses.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#205 Aug 15, 2012
nutbagger wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey azz"O" , I listed books and you try to blow smoke up peoples arses.
You listed some possibly interesting books which had nothing to do with the question at hand.

My point was that you call people you don't like "Marxists" for no reason. I stand by that claim. You have done nothing at all to disprove it.

So I guess we're at an impasse...:)
harvey

Columbus, OH

#206 Aug 15, 2012
Let's go over it again, Nutbagger, this is what you said:

"You have the Neo-Marxists calling everyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists.
Let's get it straight the biggest difference between Fascists and Marxists is one is nationalistic and the other is globalistic.
Communists are a distinct political party that follows Marxist ideolgy including globalism.
In the U.S. Marxists of which few belong to the Commie party but do call themselves Progessives and tend to vote overwhelmingly Dem."

Now, some of this is true...Fascists DO tend to be nationalists, and Marxists, more globalist in nature. Communists DO tend to form parties based on Marxist ideology...well and good.

Your problems were when you babble about "Neo-Marxists calling anyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists," and when you claimed that "U.S. Marxists...do call themselves Progressives and tend to vote overwhemingly Dem." Your first comment was unintentionally ironic (a guy who calls everyone he dislikes a "Marxist" accusing these "Neo-Marxists" of calling their enemies "Fascists"), and your second, a link between Marxists and Progressives, just plain false. Progressives are pretty much what liberals now call themselves. The vast majority aren't anything like Marxists.

That's what I'm telling you.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#207 Aug 15, 2012
californio wrote:
<quoted text>
Before the French Revolution, France had a Feudal, not a Free market Capitalistic system. The government picked winner and loser and granted Monopolies left and right. At the start the merchant Capitalist class fully supported the French Revolution
"There is no broadly accepted modern definition of feudalism.[3][6"

"renowned economists like Karl Marx, would recognize some correlation in the two constitutions such that in both structures, the power of the dominant class is based on the exploitation of the subordinate class."

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#208 Aug 15, 2012
harvey wrote:
Let's go over it again, Nutbagger, this is what you said:
"You have the Neo-Marxists calling everyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists.
Let's get it straight the biggest difference between Fascists and Marxists is one is nationalistic and the other is globalistic.
Communists are a distinct political party that follows Marxist ideolgy including globalism.
In the U.S. Marxists of which few belong to the Commie party but do call themselves Progessives and tend to vote overwhelmingly Dem."
Now, some of this is true...Fascists DO tend to be nationalists, and Marxists, more globalist in nature. Communists DO tend to form parties based on Marxist ideology...well and good.
Your problems were when you babble about "Neo-Marxists calling anyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists," and when you claimed that "U.S. Marxists...do call themselves Progressives and tend to vote overwhemingly Dem." Your first comment was unintentionally ironic (a guy who calls everyone he dislikes a "Marxist" accusing these "Neo-Marxists" of calling their enemies "Fascists"), and your second, a link between Marxists and Progressives, just plain false. Progressives are pretty much what liberals now call themselves. The vast majority aren't anything like Marxists.
That's what I'm telling you.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#209 Aug 15, 2012
harvey wrote:
Let's go over it again, Nutbagger, this is what you said:
"You have the Neo-Marxists calling everyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists.
Let's get it straight the biggest difference between Fascists and Marxists is one is nationalistic and the other is globalistic.
Communists are a distinct political party that follows Marxist ideolgy including globalism.
In the U.S. Marxists of which few belong to the Commie party but do call themselves Progessives and tend to vote overwhelmingly Dem."
Now, some of this is true...Fascists DO tend to be nationalists, and Marxists, more globalist in nature. Communists DO tend to form parties based on Marxist ideology...well and good.
Your problems were when you babble about "Neo-Marxists calling anyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists," and when you claimed that "U.S. Marxists...do call themselves Progressives and tend to vote overwhemingly Dem." Your first comment was unintentionally ironic (a guy who calls everyone he dislikes a "Marxist" accusing these "Neo-Marxists" of calling their enemies "Fascists"), and your second, a link between Marxists and Progressives, just plain false. Progressives are pretty much what liberals now call themselves. The vast majority aren't anything like Marxists.
That's what I'm telling you.
I concur with this Harvey, I just added some fyi for the teabigot

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#210 Aug 15, 2012
californio wrote:
<quoted text>
Before the French Revolution, France had a Feudal, not a Free market Capitalistic system. The government picked winner and loser and granted Monopolies left and right. At the start the merchant Capitalist class fully supported the French Revolution
the demand for a safety net (i.e. grain,bread) by serfs/peasants in France back then was a means of survival, ignored by Marie Antoinette and her delirious husband-also the aristocratic class were like some of today's greedy politicians-who cares what the lower middle class wants-i.e. health and education-
xnutmegger

Phoenix, AZ

#211 Aug 15, 2012
harvey wrote:
Let's go over it again, Nutbagger, this is what you said:
"You have the Neo-Marxists calling everyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists.
Let's get it straight the biggest difference between Fascists and Marxists is one is nationalistic and the other is globalistic.
Communists are a distinct political party that follows Marxist ideolgy including globalism.
In the U.S. Marxists of which few belong to the Commie party but do call themselves Progessives and tend to vote overwhelmingly Dem."
Now, some of this is true...Fascists DO tend to be nationalists, and Marxists, more globalist in nature. Communists DO tend to form parties based on Marxist ideology...well and good.
Your problems were when you babble about "Neo-Marxists calling anyone who doesn't agree with them Fascists," and when you claimed that "U.S. Marxists...do call themselves Progressives and tend to vote overwhemingly Dem." Your first comment was unintentionally ironic (a guy who calls everyone he dislikes a "Marxist" accusing these "Neo-Marxists" of calling their enemies "Fascists"), and your second, a link between Marxists and Progressives, just plain false. Progressives are pretty much what liberals now call themselves. The vast majority aren't anything like Marxists.
That's what I'm telling you.
The link between Marxists and Neo-Neo Marxists and Progressives is explained in Amity Shlaes Forgotten Man

Read the book as I advised .
Here is recap.

In the mid '20 about 30-40 Elite Egghead Academia toured Russia and some met Stalin.A decade later many were in the FDR bureacracy.

The idea of the individual scarificing for the group good intrigued them.But also concerned them .
* Can the state make you work where they desire..form mandatory communes ?
* Can the state take your proerty and give in to the group ( high taxation)?
Does that just mean your real property or your bank account also ?
* Can the state shut down the churches ?
* Can the state ban the worship of religion ?
* Can the state besides confiscating property also brand you a criminal because you previously owned property ( kulaks ).

Hardly any of them became Communists as that was a mark againist them and meant Moscow/Russia was the boss.

They also started calling themselves Liberals a new definition from the old traditional definition of Liberal . Group rights ( new ) vs. individual rights( traditional).

So they slit into the following.

Communists ...few. Moscow controlled.

Marxists ...few. Didn't concede leadership to Moscow but listened.

Fellow Travelers....Neo- Marxists...many. Liked all but the blood shed some concerns over civil rights.

Those disaffected over civil rights...Liberals. Liked industry , financial and farm control but not keen on total individual sacrifice for the group good as it may cancel civil rights and may be selective bureaucratic revenge ( Chick-Fil-A).

To get rid of the name of " Fellow Travelers " or Neo-Marxists they started calling themselves Progressives by 1934-35.

The CPUSA also liked the name Progressives instead of " Fellow Travelers " and used it frequently to show no obvious connection via name.

Read the book and much of todays LEFTY political rhetoric is right out of the Fellow Travelers and Progessives 1930s politics.
Class-warfare . Siloing of groups to create voting bases by class , occupation , race and cast as underdogs or overseers.
Divide and conquer with selective allies is the game same as Rusia 1917.

Basic 2012 Dem political style.
Nutsmuggler

Thiensville, WI

#212 Aug 16, 2012
xnutmegger wrote:
<quoted text>
The link between Marxists and Neo-Neo Marxists and Progressives is explained in Amity Shlaes Forgotten Man
Read the book as I advised .
Here is recap.
In the mid '20 about 30-40 Elite Egghead Academia toured Russia and some met Stalin.A decade later many were in the FDR bureacracy.
The idea of the individual scarificing for the group good intrigued them.But also concerned them .
* Can the state make you work where they desire..form mandatory communes ?
* Can the state take your proerty and give in to the group ( high taxation)?
Does that just mean your real property or your bank account also ?
* Can the state shut down the churches ?
* Can the state ban the worship of religion ?
* Can the state besides confiscating property also brand you a criminal because you previously owned property ( kulaks ).
Hardly any of them became Communists as that was a mark againist them and meant Moscow/Russia was the boss.
They also started calling themselves Liberals a new definition from the old traditional definition of Liberal . Group rights ( new ) vs. individual rights( traditional).
So they slit into the following.
Communists ...few. Moscow controlled.
Marxists ...few. Didn't concede leadership to Moscow but listened.
Fellow Travelers....Neo- Marxists...many. Liked all but the blood shed some concerns over civil rights.
Those disaffected over civil rights...Liberals. Liked industry , financial and farm control but not keen on total individual sacrifice for the group good as it may cancel civil rights and may be selective bureaucratic revenge ( Chick-Fil-A).
To get rid of the name of " Fellow Travelers " or Neo-Marxists they started calling themselves Progressives by 1934-35.
The CPUSA also liked the name Progressives instead of " Fellow Travelers " and used it frequently to show no obvious connection via name.
Read the book and much of todays LEFTY political rhetoric is right out of the Fellow Travelers and Progessives 1930s politics.
Class-warfare . Siloing of groups to create voting bases by class , occupation , race and cast as underdogs or overseers.
Divide and conquer with selective allies is the game same as Rusia 1917.
Basic 2012 Dem political style.
Seriously guys!Ė Donít you have a life?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#213 Jul 13, 2013
swedenforever wrote:
<quoted text>
"There is no broadly accepted modern definition of feudalism.[3][6"
"renowned economists like Karl Marx, would recognize some correlation in the two constitutions such that in both structures, the power of the dominant class is based on the exploitation of the subordinate class."
this Swedenforever guy is outstanding-Marx would be proud of me!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#214 Aug 27, 2013
This gunman was in a far-right aryan religous supremacy klan like Timothy Mcveigh..they cant stand non-christians, people of color, or mixed blood caucasians..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John Edwards Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Film industry spokeswoman to be Biden's communi... Aug 25 Denny CranesPlace 4
News Film industry spokeswoman to be Biden's communi... Aug 24 Cat74 6
News Sixteen, Pregnant - and a Hit (Feb '08) Aug '15 diana 9
News CBS' Bob Schieffer Retires Sunday As Last Of Th... May '15 Carlos Danger 1
News Rivals rip Clinton's use of planted questions - (Nov '07) May '15 RayOne 120
News Helena's renewal becomes tangible after years o... Mar '15 pouncho 1
News For Hillary Clinton, 2008 provides little help ... (Feb '15) Feb '15 Cat74 8
More from around the web