yeah, I think it does. if you're in a position to go out and murder random people, it could be anything or nothing that sets you off. this is similar to "did video games make him kill people?

The thing is we're not talking about random people here.

And yeah the comparison with video games or violent movies isn't really correct because there's a difference between an entirely fictional narrative and one that includes real persons and real political issues. If some crazy person decided to go on a GTA style joyride you would be right but that's not the case here.

This is a person who probably heard hours upon hours of highly well-conducted scare stories about how the left is "looting your pockets and giving it to immigrants", passing healthcare reform to kill the elderly, taking away guns to take over the country and instigate communism, killing babies, trying to abolish Christianity, are in league with "the Muslims", et cetera ad infinitum. And the more you find out about how these people lie, by omission or otherwise, the more obvious it becomes that this is all fully intentional.

I'm not saying this is always the case or that it can ever be proven that this guy was influenced by any of that (we honestly know very little about him at this point), but it's nothing short of obvious that it's the direct intention to get people scared, riled up and loaded. That's dangerous and irresponsible and might very well have directly contributed to this and other incidents. (The murder of George Tiller in particular comes to mind when you consider the language used by anti-abortion groups.)

it's moot I think, especially since he also had books like mein kampf and the communist manifesto in his favorites

Yeah, but it's more telling that he has a long history of preaching all kinds of libertarian ideas to people anyway.

(last I heard btw he opened fire on bystanders after shooting giffords, so I would call that random/aimless).

Still not just any random killing. He specifically sought out this congresswoman.

and I don't think you can make a valid case against any political group based upon the actions of one nut, simply because their scare tactics appealed to his mental instability and paranoia (or whatever the case was).

I agree! For the record I'm not trying to pin this on any specific group. It's more about specific language, but even then I know this isn't something we can ever be sure about.

scare tactics are meant to get you vote for or against certain policies or politicians, not to go out and kill them and anyone who happens to be standing nearby. or are you saying that it was the right-wingers' intention to appeal to mentally unstable people, so that they'd go out and shoot their enemies for them? or that they're equally as paranoid and  they fully intend to organize a militia to go out and assassinate government officials? because those are both pretty huge statements

No I think it's mostly how you describe it. Scare tactics are used to garner votes. (There are some individuals, though, who I think probably do want people to get hurt, like when Rush Limbaugh told his listeners he wanted them to go riot at the DNC and set cars on fire.)

It's kind of hard for me to type this out because I haven't really finished thinking about and processing this in my head. But basically the problem is that it has become the standard for some people to conflate "the other side" with "the enemy". It's gotten to the point where speeches by so-called mainstream politicians are impossible to tell apart from the ramblings of crazy people. And factually inaccurate to the point where I for one no longer believe that any of it is being said in good faith. With the political history of the US being as bloody as it is, they are accepting the possibility that there may be consequences all too easily, and I do think that's quite objectionable.