Angry Over Unemployment: Shooting up a 'Liberal' Church as a Response

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Church shooting suspect angry over job search, police say

* Story Highlights
* Suspect's letter says he couldn't find job, hated liberals, police say
* Second person dies after shooting at Unitarian church in Knoxville
* Man, 58, arrested and charged after 2 killed, seven others injured
* Police: Shooting happened during children's play; people overpowered suspect

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- The suspect in a fatal shooting at a Knoxville church Sunday was motivated by frustration over being unable to obtain a job and hatred for the liberal movement, police said Monday.

Authorities found a four-page letter in which the suspect, Jim Adkisson, described his feelings and motives, police said.

Adkisson, 58, of Powell, Tennessee, has so far been charged with one count of first-degree murder in the shootings during a children's play at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church.

Adkisson killed two adults and wounded seven others before being overpowered by congregants, authorities said.

"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 for the liberal movement," Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV told reporters Monday. VideoWatch police chief describe latest findings »

Authorities also discovered a letter from the state government telling Adkisson he was having his food stamps reduced or eliminated, police said.

"He did express that frustration, that the liberal movement was getting more jobs," Owen said. "And he felt like he was being kept out of the loop because of his age."

Adkisson has resided in the Knoxville area for three or four years, and his last known employment was in 2006, Owen said. He added that Adkisson has an associate's degree in mechanical engineering.

Owen said Adkisson apparently acted alone and chose the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because of recent publicity about activities there that Adkisson considered liberal. See map »

Owen said police found Adkisson's letter in his vehicle, and that Adkisson signed it but did not address it to anyone. The letter specifically expressed hatred for gay people, Owen said.

The case is being investigated as a hate crime, police said.

Rick Lambert, the FBI agent in charge of the bureau's Knoxville office, said authorities will consider whether to bring federal charges. "Any time someone uses force to obstruct another person in the free exercise of their religious beliefs, that is a violation of federal civil rights statutes," he said.

The church, on its Web site, describes itself as a community that has worked for social change -- including desegregation, women's rights and gay rights -- since the 1950s.

"[Adkisson] indicated also in that letter that he expected to be there shooting people until the police arrived and he fully expected to be killed by the responding police," Owen said.

Investigators found 76 shotgun shells in the church, Owen said. The gunman had shot three rounds from a 12-gauge shotgun that was brought into the church hidden in a guitar case.

One of the victims, Linda Kraeger, 61, died at a hospital several hours after the shooting, Knoxville municipal spokesman Randall Kenner said.

Also killed was Greg McKendry, a 60-year-old usher and board member at the church, police said earlier in the day. VideoWatch scene at church after shooting »

Five others were hospitalized in either critical or serious condition, police said.

Officials at the University of Tennessee Medical Center said three patients are in critical condition and one is stable. The hospital would not release information about the fifth person.

Two other people hurt in the attack were treated and released, Owen said.

No children were among the casualties, authorities said.

There is "an indication he was not targeting the children," but that has not been conclusively determined, Owen said.iReport.com: Are you there? Share photos, video, accounts

Authorities have been told that Adkisson was once in the military, a member of the 101st Airborne Division, Owen said.

Lt. Col. Anne Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman, said there is a record of a Jim David Adkisson who served beginning in 1974. He was released from active duty in 1977 and discharged in 1980. He was a helicopter repairman with the 163d Aviation Co. at Fort Campbell, Kentucky -- part of the 101st Airborne Division.

The only criminal record authorities have found of Adkisson shows two instances of driving under the influence -- one in California "a number of years ago" and one "more recently" in Tennessee, Owen said.

Neighbors said Adkisson was quiet and kept to himself.

"He never went anywhere. He never had anybody over. Just, it was really quiet. He rode a motorcycle and you know he would go out on the weekends on his motorcycle, but other than that, you never heard from him," Melissa Coker told WVLT-TV.

Coker told The Associated Press that Adkisson had been a truck driver, but she didn't think he'd been working steadily in the past six months.

"He's just a really, really nice guy," Coker told the AP.

Adkisson's landlord said she did not know him well enough to make any comments on his character but said he was a good tenant who paid his bills, according to CNN affiliate WBIR-TV.

Bail was set at $1 million late Sunday.

Police said people were recording videos of the children's performance when the shooting happened, and investigators were reviewing the videos. Information on what, if anything, the videos show of the shooting wasn't immediately available.

The church's minister, Chris Buice, said he was on vacation when the shooting happened but rushed back when he heard what occurred. Sunday afternoon, after McKendry's death but before Kraeger's, he spoke briefly to reporters.

"Please pray for this congregation, because we are grieving the loss of a wonderful man," Buice said as he choked back tears.

CNN's Aaron Cooper, Carol Cratty and Rusty Dornin contributed to this report

Copyright 2008 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.
Click to expand...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Your thoughts?
 
It's still a church no matter how liberal, in the south, during a childrens play. This guys getting served extra crispy. Even though it's a pretty open and shut case, i'm sure it'll still be DECADES before he's fried. Since he's suicidal they should just let him do it.
 
Going by the quotes the article has of his reasoning for his actions, I'd say he's pretty insane. His logic with who he points fingers at and why just don't add up.

It sounds like he was frustrated so he targeted a group he already disliked, but they weren't really related to his frustration in reality.
 
chris_rock.jpg


What ever happened to crazy?
 
I hear that. When I was unemployed for the longest time I started to feel a bit crazy.

Of course, I suppressed my insanity with laying down and binge eating then crying about it then dieting for the following 2 weeks...then back to the eating again :rofl:

But that's just me.

 
I heard that at least a part of it was because it was a gay friendly church, supposedly he was yelling "hateful things" while firing.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I am waiting for conservatives to stand up and Denounce this madman.[/QUOTE]

I am waiting for liberals to stand up and Denounce this madman.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']I am waiting for liberals to stand up and Denounce this madman.[/QUOTE]

liberalhuntingpermitna9.jpg


The above is a typical example of the modern conservative zeitgesit.

It is not really meant to be funny, and it is more than fair to say well gee perhaps all the hatemongering led to this terrible incident.

P.s. They found well thumbed works of Hannity and Savage (the same book you approvingly mentioned once) in this guys house.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']
liberalhuntingpermitna9.jpg


The above is a typical example of the modern conservative zeitgesit.

It is not really meant to be funny, and it is more than fair to say well gee perhaps all the hatemongering led to this terrible incident.

P.s. They found well thumbed works of Hannity and Savage (the same book you approvingly mentioned once) in this guys house.[/QUOTE]

You are a piece of work.
 
Oh, c'mon now - the natural response to something like this should be a willfully obtuse reaction like "why do they hate us????" coupled with the equally obtuse answer "because they hate our freedom!"

...and then finally, in response, we go an invade Canada for the conservatives being harbored there.

Really, unsickenme's implicit point (and you're a grown-up, so let's not act like you overlooked it) was quite a good one. One you'd be better served simply not responding to instead of mocking and, as a result, drawing attention to the fact that you're avoiding the issue.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Really, unsickenme's implicit point (and you're a grown-up, so let's not act like you overlooked it) was quite a good one. One you'd be better served simply not responding to instead of mocking and, as a result, drawing attention to the fact that you're avoiding the issue.[/QUOTE]

It's not a valid point and it deserves mocking. Why should anyone expect conservatives to denounce this tragedy simply because some wacko killed shot people in a church that he thought was too "liberal". As if somehow by not denouncing it publicly is somehow implicates that they aren't moved by the deaths of these people, or even worse that the shooting was somehow justified. I also gave that cynical remark because in every story I've read regarding the shooting I haven't read any liberals stand up and denounce the shooting (though that may have changed from when I first read the story, as it may have with a conservative), but the point remains the same. It's an absurd expectation to think that a politician should have to publicly condemn every murder and atrocity that involves a liberal church, or a gay man's murder, or when a mother drowns her children, or any hate crime in general. Of course these actions are atrocious, do we really need a politician, conservative, liberal or moderate, to stand up and tell say that? I think if this is something you expect then prepare to be disappointed. Quite frankly, I could care less if a public servant doesn't denounce these killings, I'd much rather have people working in state senates and the US Congress work on real issues rather than wait for them to make a statement about heinous act committed in the country.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']You are a piece of work.[/QUOTE]

Most of your posts read like the ramblings of a semi literate eleven year old Rush Limbaugh fan.

Are you even going try to deny that the example I posted is not a common theme among cons or among books that you trot out every so often when you think you are making a point?

No didnt think so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Most of your posts read like the ramblings of a semi literate eleven year old Rush Limbaugh fan.

Are you even going try to deny that the example I posted is not a common theme among cons?

No didnt think so.[/QUOTE]


I didn't bother responding to your idiotic image because thats exactly what it is, idiotic. Along with your other misconstrued comment (about Savage).
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']I didn't bother responding to your idiotic image because thats exactly what it is, idiotic. Along with your other misconstrued comment (about Savage).[/QUOTE]

It is idiotic, there is very little that cons believe that is not idiotic.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']It's not a valid point and it deserves mocking. Why should anyone expect conservatives to denounce this tragedy simply because some wacko killed shot people in a church that he thought was too "liberal". As if somehow by not denouncing it publicly is somehow implicates that they aren't moved by the deaths of these people, or even worse that the shooting was somehow justified. I also gave that cynical remark because in every story I've read regarding the shooting I haven't read any liberals stand up and denounce the shooting (though that may have changed from when I first read the story, as it may have with a conservative), but the point remains the same. It's an absurd expectation to think that a politician should have to publicly condemn every murder and atrocity that involves a liberal church, or a gay man's murder, or when a mother drowns her children, or any hate crime in general. Of course these actions are atrocious, do we really need a politician, conservative, liberal or moderate, to stand up and tell say that? I think if this is something you expect then prepare to be disappointed. Quite frankly, I could care less if a public servant doesn't denounce these killings, I'd much rather have people working in state senates and the US Congress work on real issues rather than wait for them to make a statement about heinous act committed in the country.[/QUOTE]

Of course.

I did not read his point as literally insisting on that.

I read it as a satire on the sort of blathering "ALL MUSLIMS MUST DENOUNCE THIS ______ ACTION!!!!!" whenever something happens, irrespective of its impact. The very kinds of conservatives this shooter listens to and agrees with - insisting that every that they construe as "islamo-fascism" must be addressed, immediately, by holy people in positions of power.

The same sorts of guys who call out civil rights leaders for the same reasons - that they must be publicly accountable for actions which are questionably related to issues of civil rights.

Now that it's a white man doing the shooting, when someone says "conservatives need to stand up and denounce this attack," you stand up and say "no they shouldn't; that's absurd."

And you're right. It's totally absurd.

It's a shame that it took a white male conservative to kill some people for you to grasp that much.
 
You know, it is a bit more significant then I first thought. By not denouncing this guy but denouncing and making a media circus out of the crazy reasoning of others, mainstream society is buying into the mythology that crazies generally gravitate towards 'fringe' or outsider behaviors/interests.

After all, if the guy had been a fan of FPS, had recently bought the Quran off of Amazon, smoked alot of weed, or really, really liked the Matrix then we'd never hear the end of it from politicians.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Of course.

I did not read his point as literally insisting on that.

I read it as a satire on the sort of blathering "ALL MUSLIMS MUST DENOUNCE THIS ______ ACTION!!!!!" whenever something happens, irrespective of its impact. The very kinds of conservatives this shooter listens to and agrees with - insisting that every that they construe as "islamo-fascism" must be addressed, immediately, by holy people in positions of power.

The same sorts of guys who call out civil rights leaders for the same reasons - that they must be publicly accountable for actions which are questionably related to issues of civil rights.

Now that it's a white man doing the shooting, when someone says "conservatives need to stand up and denounce this attack," you stand up and say "no they shouldn't; that's absurd."

And you're right. It's totally absurd.

It's a shame that it took a white male conservative to kill some people for you to grasp that much.[/QUOTE]

I guess we just both looked at it a little different, literal as opposed to satirical, but yes, I agree.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
P.s. They found well thumbed works of Hannity and Savage (the same book you approvingly mentioned once) in this guys house.[/quote]

When will J.D. Salinger denounce the assassination of John Lennon?

Adkisson was a nutbar. He thought liberals were keeping him down instead of his own incompetence.

Maybe the investigation will reveal more and help find a way to prevent this from happening again.
 
I hate the way American has become today, no one's accountable for their own f-ing actions anymore, it's always the fault of the group they're affiliated with.

Video Gamers are training to kill cops.
Republicans are destroying the country.
Democrats are ruining America's values.
Dey tuk our jobs!

Seriously, it's like everyone's playing a big, nation-wide game of cooties, and everyone's desperate to claim "no take backs" to assure the public that they aren't associated with the infected. The saddest part is that politically, failure to partake in the game almost guarantees the destruction of your career.

For fuck's sake, stop acting like children and learn to man up for your own actions, and that the action's of others DO NOT represent the motives of others.

~HotShotX
 
well stated Myke. and Yes it was satirical.

(although Ram's literal reading and response brought a chuckle to my morning)
 
[quote name='usickenme']well stated Myke. and Yes it was satirical.

(although Ram's literal reading and response brought a chuckle to my morning)[/QUOTE]

Hey, it's hard to detect sarcasm on the internet!
 
Just a crazy. Though fairly ironic that he'd shoot up liberals when part of what he was pissed off about was getting his food stamps taken away.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just a crazy. Though fairly ironic that he'd shoot up liberals when part of what he was pissed off about was getting his food stamps taken away.[/quote]
Conservatives don't mind reaping any benefits of liberalism, they just don't like the "ikky" parts like abortions or the theory of evolution.

Most social welfare is considered liberal, but i'd like to see a conservative refuse help when it's needed.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Conservatives don't mind reaping any benefits of liberalism, they just don't like the "ikky" parts like abortions or the theory of evolution.

Most social welfare is considered liberal, but i'd like to see a conservative refuse help when it's needed.[/quote]

I think the conservatives who are really out of it are the ones who believe they are harming poverty-striken people by giving them food-stamps or basic medical care instead of letting them fend for themselves. To me that's just illogical.

However I don't know that conservatives are exactly reaping the benefits of liberalism. Instead I think they're reaping the benefits of coporation-controlled congress and a myopic Evangelical voting bloc.
 
this guy is a real D-bag.

I was out of work for 6 months and even playing games was getting to me. But i didn't go and do no BS like he did. Sure the gov't is Fkd up but why take it out on people who are having just as much trouble as you?

Being unemployed and trying to find a job is harder than you think.
 
Originally Posted by Msut77
P.s. They found well thumbed works of Hannity and Savage (the same book you approvingly mentioned once) in this guys house.
Click to expand...
So? That point is about as legitimate as getting all worked up when associates of William Ayres run for president.

Want to play the guilty by association card then your goonna have to learn how black your kettle is.

[quote name='dmaul1114']True. Conservatives just rail against social welfare when they are well off and don't need it themselves.[/QUOTE]

That's a very crude back-of-the-party pamphlet overstatement.

Here, I'll break it down for you to be a little more accurate:

Almost everyone loves to get stuff for free. Who doesn't?

Nearly everyone doesn't mind helping people out when they see someone in need and have a direct hand in the oversight of such help.

Many people, mostly conservatives, just hate the idea of being forced to donate large sums of every penny they make to some giant coffer that we "hope" gets put to good use by historically proven corrupt oversight.

The difference between you and conservatives on this issue really is just that as long as some small fraction of the money taken from you gets put to some "good" use, you don't mind how much they take. Conservatives mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']So? That point is about as legitimate as getting all worked up when associates of William Ayres run for president.

Want to play the guilty by association card then your goonna have to learn how black your kettle is.[/quote]

You're going to equate that loose-logic Sean Hannity connection b/w Obama and Ayers (which, for the record, if you're going to do, edit your post to reflect a webpage that works harder to establish, and not expose the weakness of, that relationship and one that doesn't expose how hard FOX and Hannity have lied and exaggerated to make it seem as if Obama and Ayers are BFF, rather than two people whose paths have crossed sporadically enough to make some connections to sate the minds of the easily duped) with a person who reads Hannity and Savage (the first being a liar and a blowhard, but the second repeatedly advocates violence and death against those he considers enemies) and someone who ACTUALLY KILLED PEOPLE BASED ON THOSE VERY CLASSIFICATIONS?

I expect better of you; this isn't even passing work. Might as well not have even turned it in.

That's a very crude back-of-the-party pamphlet overstatement.

Here, I'll break it down for you to be a little more accurate:

Almost everyone loves to get stuff for free. Who doesn't?

Nearly everyone doesn't mind helping people out when they see someone in need and have a direct hand in the oversight of such help.

Many people, mostly conservatives, just hate the idea of being forced to donate large sums of every penny they make to some giant coffer that we "hope" gets put to good use by historically proven corrupt oversight.

The difference between you and conservatives on this issue really is just that as long as some small fraction of the money taken from you gets put to some "good" use, you don't mind how much they take. Conservatives mind.
Click to expand...

Or, rather, conservatives don't mind when taxes go sky high (or, rather, infinitely deep given the debt we've built under Bush) to fund a trillion-dollar war, but are so focused on being livid about the tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny things the government funds (like AFDC and the NEA) that they come off like fools, counting every penny they believe is missing while the military is taking fives and tens out of their back pocket. Not to mention, of course, a philosophy built on the idea of legacy welfare and the Reagan-esque "welfare queen," who is a mythological creature along the lines of the banshee or the wendigo. But it's convenient to use to lambast those on welfare, even if it flies in the face of the facts (that few people remain on welfare for two years, let alone pass it on down the line).

It's not a concept of "good" use or "bad" use - it's the false dichotomy of "deserving" and "undeserving" that seems to want to be forced into policy making decisions.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're going to equate that loose-logic Sean Hannity connection b/w Obama and Ayers (which, for the record, if you're going to do, edit your post to reflect a webpage that works harder to establish, and not expose the weakness of, that relationship and one that doesn't expose how hard FOX and Hannity have lied and exaggerated to make it seem as if Obama and Ayers are BFF, rather than two people whose paths have crossed sporadically enough to make some connections to sate the minds of the easily duped) with a person who reads Hannity and Savage (the first being a liar and a blowhard, but the second repeatedly advocates violence and death against those he considers enemies) and someone who ACTUALLY KILLED PEOPLE BASED ON THOSE VERY CLASSIFICATIONS?

I expect better of you; this isn't even passing work. Might as well not have even turned it in.[/quote]

Ah I knew the mention of Ayres would pull you out of the woodwork. The funny part is, I agree it's inconsequential, but your a hypocrite if you think these books being in this guys house isn't as well.

You can think what you want.
It's debatable just how much Obama has been connected with Ayres, a violent revolutionary. And it's even more debatable if or how much Obama likes him or is influenced by his ilk. If Obama said he was friends with Ayres, who to this day is not sorry for murdering police and planning to blow up an Army base and also clearly "advocates violence and death against those he considers enemies" and says he should have done more, should it matter? I would say no. And that's the point. It doesn't matter.

If you want to let the fact that books by authors you predictably despise (and clearly overestimate) are found in a murderers house, to somehow further legitimize the "dangers" of said authors, puts you on the same level as those that run around screaming about Ayres and Obama in my book.

The mere fact that someone has Mein Kompf in their house doesn't make them a Nazi sympathizer, even if they did shoot someone some day in cold blood. It's a silly partisan media game your playing if you try to link all this stuff when something bad happens. If he had a Koran in his back pocket, it wouldn't mean he was a jihadist either.

Yes, I do equate them equally inconsequential. Agree to disagree, I guess.


Or, rather, conservatives don't mind when taxes go sky high (or, rather, infinitely deep given the debt we've built under Bush) to fund a trillion-dollar war, but are so focused on being livid about the tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny things the government funds (like AFDC and the NEA) that they come off like fools, counting every penny they believe is missing while the military is taking fives and tens out of their back pocket. Not to mention, of course, a philosophy built on the idea of legacy welfare and the Reagan-esque "welfare queen," who is a mythological creature along the lines of the banshee or the wendigo. But it's convenient to use to lambast those on welfare, even if it flies in the face of the facts (that few people remain on welfare for two years, let alone pass it on down the line).

It's not a concept of "good" use or "bad" use - it's the false dichotomy of "deserving" and "undeserving" that seems to want to be forced into policy making decisions.
Click to expand...

Come on myke, pull your head out of the dusty 25 year old Democratic party playbook and look around you. You clearly don't personally know any, or very many, modern conservatives with that description. (which would explain a lot, come to think about it)

The old "Conservatives love war and hate helping people" rhetoric is so tired and old, and totally juvenile that it's laughable when someone as educated as you still tries to employ it. It's far more complicated than that, and you know it. That's no different than the conservatives that try to say that ultimately Liberals just want Communism.

It SHOULD be clear to you by now that many conservatives today are not happy with the money being spent in the war any more than they are with endlessly bloating social programs. Stop with the oversimplifying already.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']When will J.D. Salinger denounce the assassination of John Lennon?

Adkisson was a nutbar. He thought liberals were keeping him down instead of his own incompetence.[/QUOTE]

You just described every O'Reilly and Hannity fan.

I honestly wish I was just being a dick or exaggerating.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The article does not say what you want it to say, perhaps you could explain what you think it meant?[/quote]

Back when the Unabomber was first caught, it was cool in conservative circles to link Teddy's murderous inclinations to Gore's environmentalism.

It was just as much bullshit then as linking this nutbar to Hannity now.
 
[quote name='camoor']After all, if the guy had been a fan of FPS, had recently bought the Quran off of Amazon, smoked alot of weed, or really, really liked the Matrix then we'd never hear the end of it from politicians.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely right, and that's a *huge* point, really. People think in narratives, and that this is being chalked up to the ol' "nutjob effect" -- without any evidence of actual mental illness at present, mind you -- says *volumes* about how people excuse and identify who's a "good guy," who's a "bad guy," and why they do the things they do.

[quote name='thrustbucket']The mere fact that someone has Mein Kompf in their house doesn't make them a Nazi sympathizer, even if they did shoot someone some day in cold blood. It's a silly partisan media game your playing if you try to link all this stuff when something bad happens. If he had a Koran in his back pocket, it wouldn't mean he was a jihadist either.[/QUOTE]

I commend you for that, but the *vast* majority of people want easy digestible answers: ie, DOOM, Islam, "teh gheys," etc. So that raises you above this particular fracas, but you've got to admit: by the standards of many of the people who are most likely to settle for that level of answer -- simplistic "They hate us for our freedoms" soundbites -- this guy should be taken at face value. I'm all for the complicated answer (ask Camoor. ;) ), but the advocates of the simple answer should be consistent enough to accept the simple answer here, too -- he was an enraged conservative who wanted to lash out at liberals.

Also, while we're on the subject of labels and categories, let me just point out: "The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2419.htm
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Back when the Unabomber was first caught, it was cool in conservative circles to link Teddy's murderous inclinations to Gore's environmentalism.

It was just as much bullshit then as linking this nutbar to Hannity now.[/QUOTE]

Not at all.

You are comparing books like Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth to books that link Liberalism to Terrorism and books that explicitly call for a war against Liberals because they are traitors or ruining America or whatever the fuck the idiots in question think .

There is certainly BS being shoveled here but it is terribly faulty equivocation.
 
As usual, trq, well stated.

He might label himself as Conservative. And he might blame the "evil Liberals" for his problems. And some are taking the fact that he had a Hannity and Savage book in his house as some type of further proof of whatever about Hannity and Savage, and that's dangerous. That's the type of bullshit that leads to fascistic policy like the fairness doctrine.

If this guy was a victim of ANYTHING external, above all else it was the divisive bullshit coming from every political and media source more than ever. It's the goal of every media and political outlet now to convince people if they think one thing, they belong on this side, and must hate the other.

But that's still not an excuse for emotional instability leading to violence or even for partisan finger pointing.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
The difference between you and conservatives on this issue really is just that as long as some small fraction of the money taken from you gets put to some "good" use, you don't mind how much they take. Conservatives mind.[/QUOTE]

Oh I mind. I lean a bit to the right on fiscal issues and social welfare.

I was too blunt in my statement, I know not all conservatives are 100% opposed to social welfare, but many are. Many conservative acquaintances of mind are always ranting about how their should be no food stamps, welfare etc. and how people should support themselves or starve. But of course that's not the total party line, as most support funds for children, etc. I just thought it ironic that he'd be upset about food stamps as someone willing to going on an anti-liberal shooting rampage would strike me as more likely to have an extreme anti-welfare stance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top