Why are you ready to condemn one idiot for blaming a political affiliation for a massacre.  Yet, you and many libs, have no problem not even mentioning what was done after oklahoma...I don't understand the intellectual undernourishment going on in this world.  I would have NO problem with you posting about how dumb Gingrich was for what he said...if you would beat me to the punch and admit it was dumb back in the day as well...

Happy now?

Let's just say that I will not be making any more efforts to reason with you in the future.  Have fun in far-right-wing la-la land.

Granted that they were not part of the conservative mainstream, but the motivation for the Oklahoma bombing was rooted in radical conservative anti-government ideology. To deny this would be like asking you to not claim that the weathermen were radicals from the left.

What makes VT different is that there was no political ideology behind the killings. Cho was a deeply disturbed man.

Gingrich is shamelessly trying to exploit this tragedy for political gain. It wouldn't take us any effort for us to blame conservatism and their worship of violence as a mean to resolve problems as the "cause" for the shootings, but that is factually wrong, as Gingrich's statement is, and tasteless.

More than anything else, is disrespectful towards the families of those who died to exploit them politically in this manner.

C'mon Hugo, that's a little over the top. 

I don't know if Gingrich is trying to exploit something for political gain or not (Imagine that, a politician trying to exploit something?), but the context of what he was saying is a discussion worth having...albeit at a lower decibel level.

Gingrich didn't say there was political ideology behind the killing.  I think his implication was that a political ideology provided the framework within which it was allowed to happen.  It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with that on the face of it but I certainly think we owe it to 32 families to at least examine it in good faith rather than reject it out right.

Said differently, can we look at the growth of American liberalism and it's focus on personal freedoms, privacy, and rejection of state involvement with personal issues at perhaps being part, not all, of the environment within which this took place?  By isolating the schools from the parents, by law, and tieing the hands of mental health and law enforcement with laws that favor and protect the individual instead of the good of the community, have we, as a society, gone slightly too far?

The reaction to that would be interesting to compare and contrast with the similar principles expounded during the discussions of the Patriot Act and what role the state (government) plays in controlling, monitoring, and constraining our activities for the public welfare.

That's not an indictment, as I see it, but a simple recognition that when you build a box, you also have to accept the consequences for the results therein.  That, to me, is a reasonable discussion worth having.

I am sure you would object if I framed the discussion in the following manner:

Said differently, can we look at the growth of American conservatism and it's focus on personal freedoms, privacy, and rejection of state involvement with personal issues at perhaps being part, not all, of the environment within which this took place?  By isolating the schools from the parents, by law, and tieing the hands of mental health and law enforcement with laws that favor and protect the individual instead of the good of the community, have we, as a society, gone slightly too far?

You see how the discussion suddenly changes? Every problem dealing with alienation suddenly becomes the fault of , and I am about to be sarcastic here, "the evil influence of conservatism with its radical individualism and rejection of any government solution to social problems."

We can discuss alienation under this frame, that is, that conservatism individuality cause this problem, so every problem in society can be blamed on conservative thinking.

Or we can reject these cheap and exploitative propaganda tricks, and discuss in an honest manner.

I will start a diary where we can discuss our alienated society without any political blame. I agree that we should discuss it, but my personal opinion is that it has to do with society in general, not with a specific ideology.

P.S And my example in the previous entry was not serious. It was meant to be ridiculously outraged and flawed. :)

...to a well-researched reflection on how we, as a society, have changed over the years (last forty?) that is without "political blame."  However well-intended though, it's going to be difficult withut examining the laws put into place over that time period and the driving influence behind them.  That influence may not be a specific "ideology" per se but there are principles upon which these laws were based when passed and they, collectivelly, have (as we say in the military) "shaped the battlefield."  The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced it's not one thing or group of things but it's the synergistic effect of multiple societal contructs that have led to the environment we find ourselves. 

you mean the rejection of state interference in private lives is a LIBERAL value?  And all this time I thought it was the keystone of traditional conservative (not it's neocon mutation) philosophy.  At least that's what conservatives have always told me. 

...when we're both right?  I understand the witty little point you were trying to make with "state interference in private lives" but it's actually not that simple.  There's simply a disagreement over the role of the state and the extent to which a state is responsible versus an individual and it seems to vary from one issue to the next.  There's also a disagreement over these roles at different levels between federal and state.