Here's why a static percentage sucks: Let's say it's set at a flat 15% for everybody, which may or may not give the government enough revenue to function. Putting that aside, one would take $15,000 from someone who makes $100,000. Seems pretty fair, right? They still have $85,000 leftover, which is plenty for a single person, or as one of many income streams. But you would take $7,500 from someone who makes $50,000 (about the salary of a high school teacher). That leaves them with $42,500, which is not enough to live off of, even for a single person. Basically, you're taking food out of the mouths of the poor, and putting it into the mouths of the rich.
However, if you taxed the richer person 20%, and the poorer one 5%, you'd still end up with the same amount ($20,000 + $2,500 = $15,000 + $7,500), but the person living off of a mere $50,000 now has an entire $5,000 more to live off of, which could mean food or rent for a year, or whatever. Plus, you can lower the taxes 10% for the lower bracket with a mere 5% increase in the higher bracket. Think about the disparity for larger incomes. A person who makes $10,000,000 a year's tax increase of just 1% can support a 20% decrease in taxes for the person making $50,000, or a 1% decrease for 20 people making $50,000. That 1% is a drop in the bucket for the person making eight figures, but it could mean life or death for the person making five.
Moreover, you contend that the rich have a right to spend their money because they've earned it. What about those who are idly rich? Those born into wealth? Those married into wealth? Did they earn their money? Are they working hard for their money? Do they need that extra $1,000, or do the poor?
In other words, money is worth far more to the poor than the rich.
Ideally, all members of society would shoulder an equal burden. However, in monetary terms the rich will suffer an equal burden from giving a much larger amount. Consequently, the rich should be taxed much more than the poor.
Because it is discriminatory, in a sense. You get a different percentage because you make more money? The idea just seems wrong
Again, you address only the most superficial ideological aspect of the question, ignoring both pragmatism and history. Furthermore, you beg the question.
Perhaps I can't explain it any better than that, and I'm sorry, because it does make my opinion worthless, but that's the best way I can put it.
If you can't defend a position, then you shouldn't put it forth. Moreso, if you can't defend an opinion, why do you have it? If this is a strongly held belief, it frightens me that you'll hold to it with such little rationale.
In other words, money is worth far more to the poor than the rich.
Ideally, all members of society would shoulder an equal burden. However, in monetary terms the rich will suffer an equal burden from giving a much larger amount. Consequently, the rich should be taxed much more than the poor.
This is exactly correct.
What is fair? You are thinking that an equal percentage is fair. But is it really? Even with an equal percentage, rich people still pay more total dollars. So is that fair? Maybe everyone has to pay the exact same number of dollars. Is that fair? No, I guess that's not fair either.
The only fair way to have an income tax is with a regression because it gives equal burden to people. Remember, when you tax a poor person five dollars, you are taking lunch away from them. When you tax a rich person $5, they lose nothing. If you tax a poor person $1000, that might be enough to put them out on the street. Tax a rich person $1000, maybe they lose one pair of designer shoes?
Think of it in those terms instead of in terms of dollars. Is it fair for the poor person to have to give up their house and car for taxes while the rich person only has to pay one pair of shoes in tax. That's not fair now is it?
Axel. You're a punk kid who does not know the ways of the world. Instead of thinking you are so smart and trying to educate others, you should be spending your youth educating yourself instead. Then one day you can end up like me and pwn punk kids in your forums.
In other words, money is worth far more to the poor than the rich.
Ideally, all members of society would shoulder an equal burden. However, in monetary terms the rich will suffer an equal burden from giving a much larger amount. Consequently, the rich should be taxed much more than the poor.
This is exactly correct.
What is fair? You are thinking that an equal percentage is fair. But is it really? Even with an equal percentage, rich people still pay more total dollars. So is that fair? Maybe everyone has to pay the exact same number of dollars. Is that fair? No, I guess that's not fair either.
The only fair way to have an income tax is with a regression because it gives equal burden to people. Remember, when you tax a poor person five dollars, you are taking lunch away from them. When you tax a rich person $5, they lose nothing. If you tax a poor person $1000, that might be enough to put them out on the street. Tax a rich person $1000, maybe they lose one pair of designer shoes?
Think of it in those terms instead of in terms of dollars. Is it fair for the poor person to have to give up their house and car for taxes while the rich person only has to pay one pair of shoes in tax. That's not fair now is it?
Axel. You're a punk kid who does not know the ways of the world. Instead of thinking you are so smart and trying to educate others, you should be spending your youth educating yourself instead. Then one day you can end up like me and pwn punk kids in your forums.
I never said I was trying to educate you, or anyone. I never claimed that I knew more. I am simply responding to gomidog's request to explain myself. I am spending my youth getting educated by taking tons of AP classes. But, in the meantime, I post an opinion, and am asked to defend myself, so I do. Maybe I defend myself poorly. Sorry. But I don't feel that I should be excluded from conversations for being slightly uneducated. Maybe me talking to you is educating me? But maybe it isn't.
Also, I have decided to block Political topics and Flamewar topics, as they're just going to make me hated.
No, you shouldn't do that. Arguing and failing is how you learn. One day you'll have the knowledge you need to hold your own because you learned it from research and and arguing with other people. Disagreement is not hatred. You learn more from the views of others.
Also, I have decided to block Political topics and Flamewar topics, as they're just going to make me hated.
No, you shouldn't do that. Arguing and failing is how you learn. One day you'll have the knowledge you need to hold your own because you learned it from research and and arguing with other people. Disagreement is not hatred. You learn more from the views of others.
Contrary to what you may think based on my previous statements, I don't like arguing. I just get fired up. Plus, when/if I meet Scrym at Otakon, and when/if they ask me who I am on the forums, and I say who I am, I don't want to be remembered as the annoying Christian Conservative.
That's still better than not being remembered at all.
No, not really, actually...I have enough Atheists who get pissed off when I talk about my opinion, and I can only think of 1 who I know in person. He actually is registered on the forums, incidentally. Being remembered negatively is not good. Especially when I become considered a part of the stereotype of Conservative Christians. I don't enjoy being stereotyped.
Contrary to what you may think based on my previous statements, I don't like arguing. I just get fired up. Plus, when/if I meet Scrym at Otakon, and when/if they ask me who I am on the forums, and I say who I am, I don't want to be remembered as the annoying Christian Conservative.
Shit, man, I think you're alright. As long as you're not a complete knob, I don't give a good goddamn what your Religious or Political views are, unless they cause me direct harm.
Contrary to what you may think based on my previous statements, I don't like arguing. I just get fired up. Plus, when/if I meet Scrym at Otakon, and when/if they ask me who I am on the forums, and I say who I am, I don't want to be remembered as the annoying Christian Conservative.
Shit, man, I think you're alright. As long as you're not a complete knob, I don't give a good goddamn what your Religious or Political views are, unless they cause me direct harm.
Knob? Sorry, not familiar with this slang. And thanks, I basically feel the same way. Unless they're the kind of person who tells me, to my face, that I'm wrong. Not that they think I'm wrong, that I can handle. But just telling me I'm wrong.
Contrary to what you may think based on my previous statements, I don't like arguing. I just get fired up. Plus, when/if I meet Scrym at Otakon, and when/if they ask me who I am on the forums, and I say who I am, I don't want to be remembered as the annoying Christian Conservative.
Shit, man, I think you're alright. As long as you're not a complete knob, I don't give a good goddamn what your Religious or Political views are, unless they cause me direct harm.
Knob? Sorry, not familiar with this slang. And thanks, I basically feel the same way. Unless they're the kind of person who tells me, to my face, that I'm wrong. Not that they think I'm wrong, that I can handle. But just telling me I'm wrong.
Its roughly equivalent to "Dickhead" in that context, however, In general, it's just a slang equivalent of Penis - Ie, Dickhead = Knobhead. I'm not surprised you were not familiar, It's more English or Australian slang than American. But no worries, Just saying what I'm thinking.
Contrary to what you may think based on my previous statements, I don't like arguing. I just get fired up. Plus, when/if I meet Scrym at Otakon, and when/if they ask me who I am on the forums, and I say who I am, I don't want to be remembered as the annoying Christian Conservative.
Shit, man, I think you're alright. As long as you're not a complete knob, I don't give a good goddamn what your Religious or Political views are, unless they cause me direct harm.
Knob? Sorry, not familiar with this slang. And thanks, I basically feel the same way. Unless they're the kind of person who tells me, to my face, that I'm wrong. Not that they think I'm wrong, that I can handle. But just telling me I'm wrong.
Its roughly equivalent to "Dickhead" in that context, however, In general, it's just a slang equivalent of Penis - Ie, Dickhead = Knobhead. I'm not surprised you were not familiar, It's more English or Australian slang than American. But no worries, Just saying what I'm thinking.
I'm kinda bothered that it's referred to as Right-Wing Extremism. That just associates it with Conservatives and Republicans. It should be referred to as Reactionary Violence/Terrorism, because that's what those people are. Or hate-group violence. Calling it Right-Wing is insulting to those of us who are Conservative, but consider these acts of violence to be just as terrible as any Liberal thinks they are. Why should abortion doctors get any more protection than the rest of us? You don't see special protection for people in charge of Pro-Life groups, do you? They're humans, we all need equal protection. Maybe if an area comes under attack, then protection should be readily available. But I feel that the efforts would be more focused in rooting out Radical/Reactionary groups who will enact violence than providing protection to whichever political ideology is in control and under criticism at the time.
Green Peace and PETA are violent Left-Wing Extremists, right? So why not call people that have traditionally right-wing points of view and engage in violent acts based on those right-wing points of views as violent Right-Ring Extremists? It isn't saying or implying that all in the right-wing share the same ideas or methods, it is simply calling a spade a spade. As to your point about equal protection - I have never heard of any Anti-Abortionists being assassinated for their positions. Also, some people (like people that teach in juvenile prisons, politicians, people with death threats) receive more police and military protection because they need it to STAY ALIVE. If someone makes a legitimate death threat against you, then the law will provide protections. We do not all need "equal" protections because we do not have "equal" risk in our professions/life circumstances. Are you saying that the Secret Service should not be protecting politicians or that everyone should have their own Secret Service bodyguard?
Also, you have a problem with people telling you that you are wrong? Then I would not suggest talking to Scrym ever. They are some of my closest friends and I couldn't begin to count the number of times we all tell each other that we are wrong. It doesn't make us hate it each other, but that is the nature of Scrym and the FRC.
I'm kinda bothered that it's referred to as Right-Wing Extremism. That just associates it with Conservatives and Republicans. It should be referred to as Reactionary Violence/Terrorism, because that's what those people are. Or hate-group violence. Calling it Right-Wing is insulting to those of us who are Conservative, but consider these acts of violence to be just as terrible as any Liberal thinks they are. Why should abortion doctors get any more protection than the rest of us? You don't see special protection for people in charge of Pro-Life groups, do you? They're humans, we all need equal protection. Maybe if an area comes under attack, then protection should be readily available. But I feel that the efforts would be more focused in rooting out Radical/Reactionary groups who will enact violence than providing protection to whichever political ideology is in control and under criticism at the time.
Green Peace and PETA are violent Left-Wing Extremists, right? So why not call people that have traditionally right-wing points of view and engage in violent acts based on those right-wing points of views as violent Right-Ring Extremists? It isn't saying or implying that all in the right-wing share the same ideas or methods, it is simply calling a spade a spade. As to your point about equal protection - I have never heard of any Anti-Abortionists being assassinated for their positions. Also, some people (like people that teach in juvenile prisons, politicians, people with death threats) receive more police and military protection because they need it to STAY ALIVE. If someone makes a legitimate death threat against you, then the law will provide protections. We do not all need "equal" protections because we do not have "equal" risk in our professions/life circumstances. Are you saying that the Secret Service should not be protecting politicians or that everyone should have their own Secret Service bodyguard?
No, but I'm saying that there shouldn't be a law protecting all Abortion Doctors when some have received death threats. When they get a death threat, they get protection. If they don't have any death threats against them, they shouldn't have any protection. You said something about a law to help protect all of them. Why do they need a special law?
No, but I'm saying that there shouldn't be a law protecting all Abortion Doctors when some have received death threats. When they get a death threat, they get protection. If they don't have any death threats against them, they shouldn't have any protection. You said something about a law to help protect them. Why do they need a special law?
If this is the law, the logical next step would be that extremists stop making death threats and just go straight for the kill.
If this is the law, the logical next step would be that extremists stop making death threats and just go straight for the kill.
So maybe it shouldn't be the law, and then the extremists won't skip the death threats?
There are organizations and groups that make death threats against ALL abortion clinic employees. They have all effectively received death threats.
These organizations should be investigated further then. We don't need a special law to protect Abortion doctors, just send the police after people who make death threats, something I thought we already did.
There are organizations and groups that make death threats against ALL abortion clinic employees. They have all effectively received death threats.
These organizations should be investigated further then. We don't need a special law to protect Abortion doctors, just send the police after people who make death threats, something I thought we already did.
Since these are acts of terrorists and death threats that cross state lines, it is often a federal matter and local police (while involved) are not equipped to handle these threats. Federal agencies that protect these clinics, their employees, Pro-Choice politicians/activists rely on funding and resources provided by legislation. They not only protect individual doctors, but monitor and thwart these organizations in their attempts to attack/bomb/take hostage/kill abortion clinic employees and their patients. They are like other organizations with the FBI and DHS that monitor and thwart other terrorists groups that rely on similar legislation.
I'm not going into the economic section of the thread since it seems a bit off topic.
I'm kinda bothered that it's referred to as Right-Wing Extremism. That just associates it with Conservatives and Republicans. It should be referred to as Reactionary Violence/Terrorism, because that's what those people are. Or hate-group violence. Calling it Right-Wing is insulting to those of us who are Conservative, but consider these acts of violence to be just as terrible as any Liberal thinks they are.
As noted above, it is indeed extreme right wing violence. The ideologies espoused by the shooters at the Holocaust museum, the abortion clinic, and the guy in Philadelphia months ago were all fiercely right wing and conservative. But note the 'extreme' part. They were all extremists as well as conservatives, the terms are not mutually inclusive all the time. It is true as well that most of this violence is reactionary. Conservatives have had major losses in power over the past few years because they have done a good job at royally screwing up just about everything they've been in charge of for the previous 12 years. The extremists see this as a threat to their race, religion, or second amendment rights and feel violent action is the only way to get what they want. The bottom line is that they are extremists, they are right wing, and they are reactionary.
Why should abortion doctors get any more protection than the rest of us? You don't see special protection for people in charge of Pro-Life groups, do you? They're humans, we all need equal protection. Maybe if an area comes under attack, then protection should be readily available. But I feel that the efforts would be more focused in rooting out Radical/Reactionary groups who will enact violence than providing protection to whichever political ideology is in control and under criticism at the time.
The purpose for the protection is not political. It is because the clinics were and are under constant threat from fringe groups that want to threaten and terrorize them, and apparently kill them as well, in order to get what they want. If you were paying any attention to the news over the past few years, you'd notice that the republicans in the house did a very nice job of ignoring repeated pleas for special protections for abortion doctors, and even recently demanded an apology from Nepolitano when she released a report saying we need to be watchful of extremists, particularly those who were members of right wing fringe groups, and even demanded another apology after she gave one. That was two months ago. I imagine the republicans who got all in a righteous rage over the report are feeling more than a little stupid now seeing as this is exactly what the DHS report warned about.
No, not really, actually...I have enough Atheists who get pissed off when I talk about my opinion, and I can only think of 1 who I know in person. He actually is registered on the forums, incidentally. Being remembered negatively is not good. Especially when I become considered a part of the stereotype of Conservative Christians. I don't enjoy being stereotyped.
Look, fella. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they hate you. You know what? We are testing you. If someone can defend their beliefs, then we will respect them for that. All you did was get shaken up. What I was asking you to do was prove that you were not of the stereotype, to prove that you had actively thought about these convictions. Too many people just blindly follow a dogma. If you truly believe what you are saying, you can hold it up against criticism, and stand against the critics. We may not agree with you, but we will talk about it on an equal level.
I can say now, I have heard very few people who are social conservatives who are able to justify their beliefs with something that boils down to anything other other than "sex/gays/powerful women/alternative lifestyles scare me," or just merely "because the bible says so."
Don't be so quick to judge this crazy guy as a right-winger (code for Conservative). All the facts are not known and it looks more like this guy was just plain crazy.
If you look at some of the investigative articles out there you will find that he shares fringe views with the extreme left AND the extreme right. He's a Truther and a Birther!!!
What about the recently converted to Islam guy who shot the soldiers in Arkansas? Is he a right-winger too?
Perhaps the discussion that needs to occur is one of whether or not our traditional left vs. right political scale is even relevant any longer. Where do you put someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Are they on the right or on the left? Are they a moderate? What if they are the reverse and fiscally liberal while socially conservative? Would they be the same thing?
The conservative or reactionary faction of a group.
as an adjective: Strongly favoring retention of the existing order: conservative, orthodox, right, rightist, Tory, traditionalist, traditionalistic.
Conservative: adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
You are right, Steve. This neo-nazi did not favor the "existing order," but I think in many of his social views he was opposed to progressive stances.
I would, however, classify religious fundamentalists as more right wing, and probably include the abortion doctor killer in that category, as well as possibly the muslim at the recruiting station. (I didn't read the article yet, but if he was a fundimentalist, he would be right wing in my book.)
edit: See, this is a tough problem, the separation of political, economic, and social conservatism. I am generally liberal in all fields, but I am far more willing to understand why someone would hold fiscally conservative (cut down on the bureaucracy, curb spending to lower the debt) viewpoints than socially conservative ones (gay is bad! Women and men should not live together before they are married!).
Don't be so quick to judge this crazy guy as a right-winger (code for Conservative). All the facts are not known and it looks more like this guy was just plain crazy. If you look at some of the investigative articles out there you will find that he shares fringe views with the extreme left AND the extreme right. He's a Truther and a Birther!
9/11 "Truthers" have neither exclusively left nor right leaning ideologies. It is a crazy conspiracy theory that includes nut jobs from both extremes. No one is saying that being right-wing automatically makes someone a racist nut job. This guy appears to have been motivated to this act (in his disgusting, ridiculous brain) by a defense of the second amendment and against Obama (a democratic president), Jews (a group commonly associated with liberalism) and Jewish Media (common right-wing term used as a synonym for the "liberal media"). Von Brunn in his own words:
"You want my weapons; this is how you'll get them," von Brunn wrote in a note he had signed, according to the arrest affidavit. "The Holocaust is a lie," the note read. "Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media."
Your article is written by a conservative blogger, not a journalist. Get me some information from a non-biased, professional source (this excludes Fox News by definition) that says this guy was specifically motivated by leftist views, and then you can remove the "right-wing" title.
What about the recently converted to Islam guy who shot the soldiers in Arkansas? Is he a right-winger too?
What about him? Has he been mentioned? Are you just distracting from the point at hand? If you want to discuss him, then make a thread about religious extremist violence.
Perhaps the discussion that needs to occur is one of whether or not our traditional left vs. right political scale is even relevant any longer. Where do you put someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Are they on the right or on the left? Are they a moderate? What if they are the reverse and fiscally liberal while socially conservative? Would they be the same thing?
They are whatever they identify themselves as and associate themselves with. This guy affiliated with wacko-extremist right-wingers. Not all right-wingers (a.k.a. conservatives or republicans) are crazy. In fact, the vast majority of both parties are reasonable people. I don't understand why Fox News and Limbaugh are spinning this so hard in the face of von Brunn's own statements. I fully accept that PETA and Green Peace are liberal organizations that commit terrorists acts. I abhor their methods and some of their principles, but I wouldn't try to label them anything other than what they are: violent liberal extremists.
Comments
However, if you taxed the richer person 20%, and the poorer one 5%, you'd still end up with the same amount ($20,000 + $2,500 = $15,000 + $7,500), but the person living off of a mere $50,000 now has an entire $5,000 more to live off of, which could mean food or rent for a year, or whatever. Plus, you can lower the taxes 10% for the lower bracket with a mere 5% increase in the higher bracket. Think about the disparity for larger incomes. A person who makes $10,000,000 a year's tax increase of just 1% can support a 20% decrease in taxes for the person making $50,000, or a 1% decrease for 20 people making $50,000. That 1% is a drop in the bucket for the person making eight figures, but it could mean life or death for the person making five.
Moreover, you contend that the rich have a right to spend their money because they've earned it. What about those who are idly rich? Those born into wealth? Those married into wealth? Did they earn their money? Are they working hard for their money? Do they need that extra $1,000, or do the poor?
Ideally, all members of society would shoulder an equal burden. However, in monetary terms the rich will suffer an equal burden from giving a much larger amount. Consequently, the rich should be taxed much more than the poor.
Off-topic:The Vanilla code isn't buggy, just dumb.
What is fair? You are thinking that an equal percentage is fair. But is it really? Even with an equal percentage, rich people still pay more total dollars. So is that fair? Maybe everyone has to pay the exact same number of dollars. Is that fair? No, I guess that's not fair either.
The only fair way to have an income tax is with a regression because it gives equal burden to people. Remember, when you tax a poor person five dollars, you are taking lunch away from them. When you tax a rich person $5, they lose nothing. If you tax a poor person $1000, that might be enough to put them out on the street. Tax a rich person $1000, maybe they lose one pair of designer shoes?
Think of it in those terms instead of in terms of dollars. Is it fair for the poor person to have to give up their house and car for taxes while the rich person only has to pay one pair of shoes in tax. That's not fair now is it?
Axel. You're a punk kid who does not know the ways of the world. Instead of thinking you are so smart and trying to educate others, you should be spending your youth educating yourself instead. Then one day you can end up like me and pwn punk kids in your forums.
Also, I have decided to block Political topics and Flamewar topics, as they're just going to make me hated.
Plus, when/if I meet Scrym at Otakon, and when/if they ask me who I am on the forums, and I say who I am, I don't want to be remembered as the annoying Christian Conservative.
Being remembered negatively is not good. Especially when I become considered a part of the stereotype of Conservative Christians. I don't enjoy being stereotyped.
And thanks, I basically feel the same way. Unless they're the kind of person who tells me, to my face, that I'm wrong. Not that they think I'm wrong, that I can handle. But just telling me I'm wrong.
I'm not surprised you were not familiar, It's more English or Australian slang than American.
But no worries, Just saying what I'm thinking.
As to your point about equal protection - I have never heard of any Anti-Abortionists being assassinated for their positions. Also, some people (like people that teach in juvenile prisons, politicians, people with death threats) receive more police and military protection because they need it to STAY ALIVE. If someone makes a legitimate death threat against you, then the law will provide protections. We do not all need "equal" protections because we do not have "equal" risk in our professions/life circumstances. Are you saying that the Secret Service should not be protecting politicians or that everyone should have their own Secret Service bodyguard?
Also, you have a problem with people telling you that you are wrong? Then I would not suggest talking to Scrym ever. They are some of my closest friends and I couldn't begin to count the number of times we all tell each other that we are wrong. It doesn't make us hate it each other, but that is the nature of Scrym and the FRC.
What angers me more about these incidents is the fact that the usual conservative pundits (Hanntiy, Beck, Rush, et al) are either poo-pooing the violence, giving tacit approval by downplaying coverage, or at their despicable worst claiming that the guilty parties are a result of left-wing policies and ideologies.
I can say now, I have heard very few people who are social conservatives who are able to justify their beliefs with something that boils down to anything other other than "sex/gays/powerful women/alternative lifestyles scare me," or just merely "because the bible says so."
Don't be so quick to judge this crazy guy as a right-winger (code for Conservative). All the facts are not known and it looks more like this guy was just plain crazy.
If you look at some of the investigative articles out there you will find that he shares fringe views with the extreme left AND the extreme right. He's a Truther and a Birther!!!
What about the recently converted to Islam guy who shot the soldiers in Arkansas? Is he a right-winger too?
Perhaps the discussion that needs to occur is one of whether or not our traditional left vs. right political scale is even relevant any longer. Where do you put someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal? Are they on the right or on the left? Are they a moderate? What if they are the reverse and fiscally liberal while socially conservative? Would they be the same thing?
The conservative or reactionary faction of a group.
as an adjective:
Strongly favoring retention of the existing order: conservative, orthodox, right, rightist, Tory, traditionalist, traditionalistic.
Conservative:
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
You are right, Steve. This neo-nazi did not favor the "existing order," but I think in many of his social views he was opposed to progressive stances.
I would, however, classify religious fundamentalists as more right wing, and probably include the abortion doctor killer in that category, as well as possibly the muslim at the recruiting station. (I didn't read the article yet, but if he was a fundimentalist, he would be right wing in my book.)
edit: See, this is a tough problem, the separation of political, economic, and social conservatism. I am generally liberal in all fields, but I am far more willing to understand why someone would hold fiscally conservative (cut down on the bureaucracy, curb spending to lower the debt) viewpoints than socially conservative ones (gay is bad! Women and men should not live together before they are married!).
No one is saying that being right-wing automatically makes someone a racist nut job. This guy appears to have been motivated to this act (in his disgusting, ridiculous brain) by a defense of the second amendment and against Obama (a democratic president), Jews (a group commonly associated with liberalism) and Jewish Media (common right-wing term used as a synonym for the "liberal media"). Von Brunn in his own words: Your article is written by a conservative blogger, not a journalist. Get me some information from a non-biased, professional source (this excludes Fox News by definition) that says this guy was specifically motivated by leftist views, and then you can remove the "right-wing" title. What about him? Has he been mentioned? Are you just distracting from the point at hand? If you want to discuss him, then make a thread about religious extremist violence. They are whatever they identify themselves as and associate themselves with. This guy affiliated with wacko-extremist right-wingers. Not all right-wingers (a.k.a. conservatives or republicans) are crazy. In fact, the vast majority of both parties are reasonable people.
I don't understand why Fox News and Limbaugh are spinning this so hard in the face of von Brunn's own statements. I fully accept that PETA and Green Peace are liberal organizations that commit terrorists acts. I abhor their methods and some of their principles, but I wouldn't try to label them anything other than what they are: violent liberal extremists.