Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Based on what exactly? If the authorities aren't yet clear about his motivations, where have you divined his influences from then? He could have easily been reading the huffpo for much of the last 10 years and decided the feds were getting out of control. I've yet to see the other side claim any responsibility for much of its own vile and negative rhetoric, nevermind what they accuse the tea partiers of doing.
It's a populist movement with populist rhetoric that pulls at peoples emotions, no matter how uncouthly sensationalist it might be. It'd probably be accurate to say that most of its "grassroots" supporters don't really care about the philosophy or ideology behind the movement, but rather, the apparent meaning and charisma associated with it; "Taking the government back," and other messages can be co-opted by anyone for
anything, no matter how disassociated it might be.
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Yes, but the difference is that at this point, we don't have an itemized list of his positions on a great many issues. And as you've pointed out, a stance on a specific thing does not make them Liberal/Conservative. Again, I'm not saying he was either. People who know him better than we do have called him Liberal. He was an anarchist, Critical of religion, Includes in his favorite books "The Communist Manifesto" Now tell me how many people here who include those three fall on the right side of the fence?
You forgot to mention that he admired Mein Kampf
. However, unlike your Guevara-clad liberal narrative, I don't believe that the shooter adheres to any specific political spectrum, but instead might have been motivated by the rhetoric
of the Tea Party movement, without identifying himself with it
. He's simply co-opting the message to his own gains, without aligning himself with the message. So although the core philosophy of the Tea Party is not what is being debated as conducive to violence and radicalization, but rather, its own rhetoric.