Another nutjob.

[beg your pardon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting



"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that and his stated hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said at a news conference.

[JD3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting



"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that and his stated hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said at a news conference.

Very sad, but not really a problem limited to the right. Too often disturbed people blame others for their problems. If political leaning has any role at all, it's just in who they choose to shoot and not whether they will shoot someone.

Sad.

[Anna]

Very sad, but not really a problem limited to the right. Too often disturbed people blame others for their problems. If political leaning has any role at all, it's just in who they choose to shoot and not whether they will shoot someone.

Sad.


IMPO, this is the kind of person who can be greatly influenced by the ranting of RW talk show hosts who blame every ill in the world on the "evil Liberals" to the point of acting on it. It's just strange that if he hated Liberals he would have chosen to shoot up a church since the prevailing mantra is that Liberals are trying to "get rid of God" and you'd think he wouldn't have expected to find any Liberals there. :confused:

[JD3]

IMPO, this is the kind of person who can be greatly influenced by the ranting of RW talk show hosts who blame every ill in the world on the "evil Liberals" to the point of acting on it. It's just strange that if he hated Liberals he would have chosen to shoot up a church since the prevailing mantra is that Liberals are trying to "get rid of God" and you'd think he wouldn't have expected to find any Liberals there. :confused:

Sadly there's enough hate to go around, and any hate filled talking head probably contributes to it. Still, this is the price of freedom and free will. We have to choose to act on such vomit. Sadly, some choose to.

[dittohead not!]

IMPO, this is the kind of person who can be greatly influenced by the ranting of RW talk show hosts who blame every ill in the world on the "evil Liberals" to the point of acting on it. It's just strange that if he hated Liberals he would have chosen to shoot up a church since the prevailing mantra is that Liberals are trying to "get rid of God" and you'd think he wouldn't have expected to find any Liberals there. :confused:

This was a Unitarian church, not a "Bible is literal, and Satan is going to get you if you believe in evolution" kind of church.

The Unitarian-Universalist church promotes progressive social work, including advocacy of women and gay rights. The Knoxville congregation also has provided sanctuary for political refugees, fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to its Web site.

How un Christian can you get, feeding the homeless and promoting tolerance for people who happen to have been born gay or even female! It has to have been very liberal.

Obviously, this was an unhinged individual with multiple personal problems who saw a need to target someone else for those problems. How sad.

[WingsOfDesire]

Mental health seems to be a reoccurring problem associated with shootings such as this. The same thing can happen with any side or degree of the political spectrum, but I would hardly try and pin this on a particular side.

If you want a glimpse of true murder by politics, read up on Russian history.

[serenity]

A disturbed individual. His politics scarcely matter, because the "evils" of liberalism didn't drive him to murder...even if he thinks they played a part.

His rage and despair must be overwhelming.

[JD3]

A disturbed individual. His politics scarcely matter, because the "evils" of liberalism didn't drive him to murder...even if he thinks they played a part.

His rage and despair must be overwhelming.

Agreed. I remember reading Feast of Snakes by Harry Crews. He spoke about how we never consider how long people resisted the urge to kill. After reading that book, my thought was what took the main character so long to shoot everyone. :(

[beg your pardon]

Id like to point out that I do agree that his politics had probably nothing to do with this, the guy had serious issues that went way beyond his political beliefs. I just posted the topic title as such to be sort of a jerk. Hell, it's Monday and my first day of my two week "staycation". Im living it up!!!!

[JD3]

Id like to point out that I do agree that his politics had probably nothing to do with this, the guy had serious issues that went way beyond his political beliefs. I just posted the topic title as such to be sort of a jerk. Hell, it's Monday and my first day of my two week "staycation". Im living it up!!!!

Fair enough. :D

[cpwill]

Very sad, but not really a problem limited to the right. Too often disturbed people blame others for their problems.

amen (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002091.html), sir, indeed (http://pufone.org/blog/bill-cosbys-rant/).

[SpringRain]

Mental health seems to be a reoccurring problem associated with shootings such as this. The same thing can happen with any side or degree of the political spectrum, but I would hardly try and pin this on a particular side.

If you want a glimpse of true murder by politics, read up on Russian history.

I just wonder if anyone has actually run the stats on the past 20 years of mass shootings; schools, churches, courts/civil bldgs, families. I know it is PC to say it could happen equally to either side; but I wonder if that actually would pan out. My observation is that the right-wingers seem to be a group of people who seem to have a more natural tendency to be filled with long-term rage, hold grudges, over-simplify, over-react, more vengeful, desire more intense punishments for others. . . all things that lead me to believe that the stats would not turn out to support the PC concept you present.

[lord tammerlain]

I just wonder if anyone has actually run the stats on the past 20 years of mass shootings; schools, churches, courts/civil bldgs, families. I know it is PC to say it could happen equally to either side; but I wonder if that actually would pan out. My observation is that the right-wingers seem to be a group of people who seem to have a more natural tendency to be filled with long-term rage, hold grudges, over-simplify, over-react, more vengeful, desire more intense punishments for others. . . all things that lead me to believe that the stats would not turn out to support the PC concept you present.

What is also more likely is that right wingers are more likely to be heavily armed in comparision to left wingers.

As such when becoming mental, the right wingers have the gun to go and kill people. While leftists sit around and stew

[WingsOfDesire]

I just wonder if anyone has actually run the stats on the past 20 years of mass shootings; schools, churches, courts/civil bldgs, families. I know it is PC to say it could happen equally to either side; but I wonder if that actually would pan out. My observation is that the right-wingers seem to be a group of people who seem to have a more natural tendency to be filled with long-term rage, hold grudges, over-simplify, over-react, more vengeful, desire more intense punishments for others. . . all things that lead me to believe that the stats would not turn out to support the PC concept you present.

Seeing as how the political perception of left and right routinely shifts around rather than set in stone, I would imagine it would be hypothetical at best. But if you ever see a study like that come out, then maybe we can change our opinions to a little more than that.

[FilmFestGuy]

What is also more likely is that right wingers are more likely to be heavily armed in comparision to left wingers.

As such when becoming mental, the right wingers have the gun to go and kill people. While leftists sit around and stew

This I would venture would be the only possible finding. We know that mental illness has nothing to do - generally speaking - with race, class, ethnic background (although all of these things can play a factor), or political identity.

But when you consider that those who are on the right are more likely to be armed, there would be a concern that availability of weapon could lead to a more violent snap than someone who doesn't have such weapons around.

Again, I think it has no direct relationship with political identity, though.

[cpwill]

What is also more likely is that right wingers are more likely to be heavily armed in comparision to left wingers.

As such when becoming mental, the right wingers have the gun to go and kill people. While leftists sit around and stew

:lol: alright. shall we compare the number of rightist and leftist terrorist groups? or the amount of political violence done by leftist states (communism, fascism) as opposed to conservative (limited balanced government) ones?

[SpringRain]

What is also more likely is that right wingers are more likely to be heavily armed in comparision to left wingers.

As such when becoming mental, the right wingers have the gun to go and kill people. While leftists sit around and stew

You've definitely got a point about gun ownership; but I think that the reason they own guns and choose to be so adamant about regulation-less gun rights is a reflection of my comments above; a related symptom not a cause.

[JD3]

:lol: alright. shall we compare the number of rightist and leftist terrorist groups? or the amount of political violence done by leftist states (communism, fascism) as opposed to conservative (limited balanced government) ones?

Then we would have to agree on the definitions of those nation states and whether what one calls leftist and what another calls leftist. We've been down that road haven't we?

:(

[Alvin T. Grey]

:lol: alright. shall we compare the number of rightist and leftist terrorist groups? or the amount of political violence done by leftist states (communism, fascism) as opposed to conservative (limited balanced government) ones?
Left/Right from which point of view?

[Atticus]

I just wonder if anyone has actually run the stats on the past 20 years of mass shootings; schools, churches, courts/civil bldgs, families. I know it is PC to say it could happen equally to either side; but I wonder if that actually would pan out. My observation is that the right-wingers seem to be a group of people who seem to have a more natural tendency to be filled with long-term rage, hold grudges, over-simplify, over-react, more vengeful, desire more intense punishments for others. . . all things that lead me to believe that the stats would not turn out to support the PC concept you present.If you take the longer view (say the last 100 years) you might find things even out. Let's not forget left-wing folks like the Weathermen or other Sixties groups, and there were problems before this that were at least blamed on anarchists and left-side anti-establishment types going back as early as the turn of the 20th century.

[JD3]

If you take the longer view (say the last 100 years) you might find things even out. Let's not forget left-wing folks like the Weathermen or other Sixties groups, and there were problems before this that were at least blamed on anarchists and left-side anti-establishment types going back as early as the turn of the 20th century.

Sounds right to me. However, if we were looking at the individual explosion, would gun availability make a difference (which I think was the original argument)?

[lord tammerlain]

:lol: alright. shall we compare the number of rightist and leftist terrorist groups? or the amount of political violence done by leftist states (communism, fascism) as opposed to conservative (limited balanced government) ones?
As I understand things this was generally about mentally unbalanced individuals going on a murder spree, not international politics.

Specifically those in the US

[SpringRain]

:lol: alright. shall we compare the number of rightist and leftist terrorist groups? or the amount of political violence done by leftist states (communism, fascism) as opposed to conservative (limited balanced government) ones? I am discussing the USA here, and personal actions. The brandings used for groups in the rest of the world are often so contradictory and propagandized. So let me rephrase so a clear stat could be determined if one chose to investigate.

I wonder how many of the past 20 years of shootings (as qualified in previous post) were perpetrated by republicans vs. democrats. That way the difinition of right and left are not involved (too subjective); but instead would focus on the individuals' perception of themselves that can be verified by voting records, relatives, friends, and such. Truth be told some of the Dems positions (though still opposite of the Reps) are more "right" in my mind than the position of the Reps; and visa versa.

[lord tammerlain]

If you take the longer view (say the last 100 years) you might find things even out. Let's not forget left-wing folks like the Weathermen or other Sixties groups, and there were problems before this that were at least blamed on anarchists and left-side anti-establishment types going back as early as the turn of the 20th century.

Were the weathermen mentally unbalanced?

[cpwill]

hmmm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202012.html)

A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals -- in all income groups. While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves "very happy," only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.

Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole.

People in the Sun Belt -- almost entirely red states -- have sunnier dispositions than Northerners, which could have as much to do with sunshine as with conservatism. Unless sunshine makes people happy, which makes them conservative.

......Begin with a paradox: Conservatives are happier than liberals because they are more pessimistic. Conservatives think the Book of Job got it right ("Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward"), as did Adam Smith ("There is a great deal of ruin in a nation"). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile -- touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver.

...conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism, which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is -- was -- all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them the better.) And automobiles discourage the egalitarian enjoyment of mass transit. And automobiles, by facilitating suburban sprawl, deny sprawl's victims -- that word must make an appearance in liberal laments; and lament is what liberals do -- the uplifting communitarian experience of high-density living. And automobiles . . .

You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.

[beg your pardon]

Life is grim.

[cpwill]

I am discussing the USA here, and personal actions. The brandings used for groups in the rest of the world are often so contradictory and propagandized. So let me rephrase so a clear stat could be determined if one chose to investigate.

I wonder how many of the past 20 years of shootings (as qualified in previous post) were perpetrated by republicans vs. democrats.

what you mean the famous ones that occur in places like columbine or the semi daily ones that occur in typically demographically black inner city solid-blue-democrat-voting school systems?

[SpringRain]

If you take the longer view (say the last 100 years) you might find things even out. Let's not forget left-wing folks like the Weathermen or other Sixties groups, and there were problems before this that were at least blamed on anarchists and left-side anti-establishment types going back as early as the turn of the 20th century.

On this you are probably correct, that's why I limited to the time frame that I did. I'm not concerned with investigating the fundamental changes within the concepts of "Reps" and "Dems" throughout history, which would have to be undertaken to investigate centuries. If the sides had remained consistent over the centuries, I would be happy to go there with you, but they haven't so the stats regarding centuries would then have to be adjusted to determine which party most reflected the current parties' platforms and ideals.

[SpringRain]

what you mean the famous ones that occur in places like columbine or the semi daily ones that occur in typically demographically black inner city solid-blue-democrat-voting school systems? I'm discussing mass shootings/bombings/burnings by individuals in the USA. I think that's pretty specific and I think we would hear about them all. I am also not discussing organized terrorism; those involving more than two-three independently related individuals. However you may have a point, unfortunately we will never know because those people who do the shooting in the inner city probably never voted or even registered to vote, so we don't know if they would be repubs or dems. Perhaps we would find that to be the case with topic at hand as well. Certainly any analysis would need to include the option of being a non-voter.

[Atticus]

On this you are probably correct, that's why I limited to the time frame that I did. I'm not concerned with investigating the fundamental changes within the concepts of "Reps" and "Dems" throughout history, which would have to be undertaken to investigate centuries. If the sides had remained consistent over the centuries, I would be happy to go there with you, but they haven't so the stats regarding centuries would then have to be adjusted to determine which party most reflected the current parties' platforms and ideals.Once you start adding parties into this, I find the whole thing a lot harder to swallow. I don't think either party is interested in achieving anything through domestic violence--I even think the connection between parties and the kinds of EXTREME views that bring people to violence is out of bounds, frankly. The early 20th century people I'm talking about targeted banks and Wall Street. I think that probably qualifies as "left wing."

Even the Luddites (north of England, c. 1812), whose violence targeted machines that put people out of work, were characterized some kind of crazy by authorities.

Does the crazy kid who fired into a prayer group at his school in Paducah, KY, in 1997 (story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_High_School_shooting)) qualify as a "left wing nut" because his target was a bunch of conservative Christians? Or do we not worry about his politics and just call him crazy?

[serenity]

Yes, it's this shooter's letter that has sparked this (in my view, beside-the-point) part of the discussion.

So to address a couple of the points:

This man's politics are, in my view, completely irrelevant. I really believe this.

As for the "left wing" versus "right wing" violence perpetrated by anti-establishment groups--that, too, has nothing to do with some inherent leftist capacity for violence that rightists don't have; it has to do with which side is "establishment" and which isn't. (It's not a perfectly simple matter, but we can see a rough direction.)

As for the Weather underground--they were criminally negilgent, not first-degree murderous. They never once targeted a human life (or not that I heard of); it's the obvious fact that they could have killed someone that is the most serious charge to hold against them. But in my view, there is a moral difference in intent, between them and, say, the right wing death squads in L. America, or of FARC and their clones. Those ARE murderers, by intent and definition.

[cpwill]

why individuals? doesn't it make sense that if there is a significantly large number of individuals bent on a cause and willing to utilize violence that you will see organizations, whereas if within a movement only one or two here and there are willing to do so you will see individuals? doesn't then the emergence of individuals as opposed to groups demonstrate that the overal philosophy is less likely to produce such people?

[SpringRain]

Once you start adding parties into this, I find the whole thing a lot harder to swallow. I don't think either party is interested in achieving anything through domestic violence--I even think the connection between parties and the kinds of EXTREME views that bring people to violence is out of bounds, frankly. The early 20th century people I'm talking about targeted banks and Wall Street. I think that probably qualifies as "left wing."

Even the Luddites (north of England, c. 1812), whose violence targeted machines that put people out of work, were characterized some kind of crazy by authorities.

Does the crazy kid who fired into a prayer group at his school in Paducah, KY, in 1997 (story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_High_School_shooting)) qualify as a "left wing nut" because his target was a bunch of conservative Christians? Or do we not worry about his politics and just call him crazy?

To your first paragraph, I didn't even come close to suggesting that a party or its affiliates promoted domestic violence. What I said was certain parties seem to attract certain personality types.

To your last paragraph: who they shoot wouldn't be the issue. I am discussing a tendency to resolve frustrations with excessive violence being potentially related to a current political party; not that the actions themselves are based on any party platform or ideal. I'm looking at the tendency to solve personal problems with violence, not trying to solve politics with violence. Which is why your first paragraph is so off base to what is being discussed.

[cpwill]

and once again, as far as groups (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354424,00.html) are concerned....

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found.

Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."

To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance.

In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.

If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted both a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.

"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer...

[rjamortega]

IMPO, this is the kind of person who can be greatly influenced by the ranting of RW talk show hosts who blame every ill in the world on the "evil Liberals" to the point of acting on it. It's just strange that if he hated Liberals he would have chosen to shoot up a church since the prevailing mantra is that Liberals are trying to "get rid of God" and you'd think he wouldn't have expected to find any Liberals there. :confused:

Never forget the Unibomber, Ted Kaczynski. As Joe makes plain, sick people only need an excuse. ANY excuse.

[Atticus]

To your first paragraph, I didn't even come close to suggesting that a party or its affiliates promoted domestic violence. What I said was certain parties seem to attract certain personality types.Sorry, but I still think this is offensive. And entirely arbitrary--is there anything even close to evidence about the political registration patterns of psycho gunmen? Was the DC-area sniper a Republican or a Democrat? Does anyone know or even care?

To your last paragraph: who they shoot wouldn't be the issue. I am discussing a tendency to resolve frustrations with excessive violence being potentially related to a current political party; not that the actions themselves are based on any party platform or ideal. I'm looking at the tendency to solve personal problems with violence, not trying to solve politics with violence. Which is why your first paragraph is so off base to what is being discussed.But I'm taking exception to your premise. The only reason anyone would even attempt to make this connection, it seems to me, is some hope of discrediting a political party. It smacks of associating Republicans with fascists or Democrats with Communists.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Yep. The guy was a whackjob. The fact that he chose to target 'Liberals' rather than <fill-in-the-blank> dosn't detract from the fact that he was a total whacko.
Limbaugh, Weiner et al. are blamable for many things, but this isn't one of them.
Holy CRAP! I just defended Rush!

I need a shower.

[SpringRain]

Sorry, but I still think this is offensive. And entirely arbitrary--is there anything even close to evidence about the political registration patterns of psycho gunmen? Was the DC-area sniper a Republican or a Democrat? Does anyone know or even care?

But I'm taking exception to your premise. The only reason anyone would even attempt to make this connection, it seems to me, is some hope of discrediting a political party. It smacks of associating Republicans with fascists or Democrats with Communists.

Please note that I find it to be an interesting analysis to be done; my experience tells me that it is a likely connection, and I understand that the stats are not available to determine either way. Discredit a party? I don't see how it would do that. The fact that most shooters are men (in the cases being discussed) does not discredit men everywhere. :lol:

[prst31]

This I would venture would be the only possible finding. We know that mental illness has nothing to do - generally speaking - with race, class, ethnic background (although all of these things can play a factor), or political identity.

But when you consider that those who are on the right are more likely to be armed, there would be a concern that availability of weapon could lead to a more violent snap than someone who doesn't have such weapons around.

Again, I think it has no direct relationship with political identity, though.Yeah I've heard of these guys. Crips (http://www.streetgangs.com/crips/) for McCain. Not to be confused with Sur13 (http://www.insideprison.com/prison_gang_profile_SUR_13.asp) for McCain.

[dittohead not!]

Yep. The guy was a whackjob. The fact that he chose to target 'Liberals' rather than <fill-in-the-blank> dosn't detract from the fact that he was a total whacko.
Limbaugh, Weiner et al. are blamable for many things, but this isn't one of them.
Holy CRAP! I just defended Rush!

I need a shower.

Yes, but did you defend him from being responsible because he is "right wing", or because he is another whackjob?

[prst31]

Please note that I find it to be an interesting analysis to be done; my experience tells me that it is a likely connection, and I understand that the stats are not available to determine either way. Discredit a party? I don't see how it would do that. The fact that most shooters are men (in the cases being discussed) does not discredit men everywhere. :lol:Watching Michael Moore films?

There's no data because it's holds no water.

[serenity]

why individuals? doesn't it make sense that if there is a significantly large number of individuals bent on a cause and willing to utilize violence that you will see organizations, whereas if within a movement only one or two here and there are willing to do so you will see individuals? doesn't then the emergence of individuals as opposed to groups demonstrate that the overal philosophy is less likely to produce such people?

No...first of all, there is no "overall [left wing] philosophy", a fact which has detractors (among leftists and not-leftists both) as well as supporters.

It has to do with organized groups banding together and feeling that violence is a necessary recourse. The little anti-government political violence that occurred under the Soviet tyranny tended more towards the right. That's quite logical, and predictable, whatever one considers about revolutionary (or anti-revolutionary) violence.

The terrorism enacted against Cubans, a large proportion of it related both directly and indirectly to Miami, has been almost exclusively right wing. Again--no surprise.

And it has nothing whatever to do with some bad tendencies that conservatives are more likely to hold.

Hell, the most famous and contentious of sub-national violent organized criminals right NOW are hardcore conservatives: Islamists.

[dittohead not!]

Hell, the most famous and contentious of sub-national violent organized criminals right NOW are hardcore conservatives: Islamists.

Yes, the ultimatte conservative movement. Does that make the ones who are fighting them liberals?

[overmedicated]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting



"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that and his stated hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said at a news conference.

Very sad, these are the type of people who give the right a bad name, a long with all of the pawns like Hannity, Limbaugh and Levin.

[SpringRain]

Watching Michael Moore films?

There's no data because it's holds no water.

Nope I've never watched a MM film.

We have no idea whether it holds water till after an analysis is done. To think otherwise by either of us is foolishness.

[serenity]

Very sad, these are the type of people who give the right a bad name, a long with all of the pawns like Hannity, Limbaugh and Levin.


I think any damnfool malcontented lefty like myself should be able to summon the minimal imagination to understand that this has nothing ultimately to do with conservatives, at all.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Yes, but did you defend him from being responsible because he is "right wing", or because he is another whackjob?

I was raised never to mock the afflicted.;)

[Crosscheck]

Nashville, Tennessee: A man who opened fire inside a church, killing two people with a shotgun hidden in a guitar case, was frustrated at being unable to find a job and blamed liberals and gays, police said on Monday.

"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred of the liberal movement," Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen told reporters of Sunday's incident at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church.

Suspect Jim Adkisson, 58, who was being held on $1 million (500,000 pounds) bond, had previously worked as a mechanical engineer in several states. He described his violent plans in a four-page letter found at his home, which also explained that his age and "liberals and gays" taking jobs had worked against him.



http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/07/28/america/OUKWD-UK-TENNESSEE-SHOOTING.php

[Strucky]

IMPO, this is the kind of person who can be greatly influenced by the ranting of RW talk show hosts who blame every ill in the world on the "evil Liberals" to the point of acting on it. It's just strange that if he hated Liberals he would have chosen to shoot up a church since the prevailing mantra is that Liberals are trying to "get rid of God" and you'd think he wouldn't have expected to find any Liberals there. :confused:

Have you ever listened to the rants on Air(head) America and the constant blame they throw on Conservatives?

[booboohead]

Adkisson was a loner who hates "blacks, gays and anyone different from him," longtime acquaintance Carol Smallwood of Alice, Texas, told the Knoxville News Sentinel.

I guess one less vote for McCain.

[Atticus]

I guess one less vote for McCain.He probably won't be convicted before the election, so he can still vote. ;)

[Strucky]

I guess one less vote for McCain.

Are you saying everyone who votes for McCain is Racist?

[Atticus]

Are you saying everyone who votes for McCain is Racist?I think he's saying that all racists will vote for McCain.

[booboohead]

I think he's saying that all racists will vote for McCain.Racists, homophobes, people who want to blow up abortion clinics, yes... they will be voting for McCain.

[Strucky]

I think he's saying that all racists will vote for McCain.

I guess a black man who hates whites is not considered a racist then.

[Strucky]

Racists, homophobes, people who want to blow up abortion clinics, yes... they will be voting for McCain.

I work with many Black men that are racist and homophobic...And yes about half of them are voting Obama.

[Atticus]

Racists, homophobes, people who want to blow up abortion clinics, yes... they will be voting for McCain.OR they'll "throw their vote away" because they think McCain is too damned liberal.

[Daewoo]

I have not seen any posts from Missouri Mule lately. Mule...you still with us?

[Aero]

Racists, homophobes, people who want to blow up abortion clinics, yes... they will be voting for McCain.

So that must mean all of the environmental terrorists who blow stuff up and the racist black panther wacko's will be voting for Obama then. :rolleyes:

[Atticus]

The last few posts move into that difficult territory very close to where we'd rather our members not go. Please let's stick to discussions of issues rather than personalities or generalizations.

[Crosscheck]

The shooter was not disturbed.

He was just another simpleton swept up by the Right Wing Rambo chest thumping talk by the likes of Limbaugh and Savage. The same mentality of running to Iraq to fight Saudi terrorists.

Walking into a church to take shots at children on stage shows you the size of the rasinets these punks have. The only real man was the one church member who stood up and took the shot in his chest to protect the children. Of course the man who died giving his life was a bleeding heart liberal. He stood up without any weapons and took it like a man that this guy could only dream of ever being.

The only justice is the hope this guy goes to general population and learns to like tossed salad. Am quite familiar with prison life and this guy is going to pray for dissociation.

[Strucky]

The last few posts move into that difficult territory very close to where we'd rather our members not go. Please let's stick to discussions of issues rather than personalities or generalizations.

I agree,I only posted what I did because I'm sick of Liberals assuming only a white conservative can be racist and homophobic.

[Atticus]

Looks like we can't discuss this without making offensive generalizations, so we're going to close the thread.