You know what I find interesting? No where in the story, or the interview, or the link to the story on another site does the assaulter say he is an Obama supporter or a democrat. This seems to be an assumption made by the victim and the blogger. To my knowledge there is not a space on any arresting documents or court papers that ask for political affiliation. So this seems to be an assumption. Quite possibly it was just a deranged person, could have been an independent, a libertarian, or a greenie for all we know.
"Some people are losing control, and it’s not the people on the right. Never have I seen that behavior with any of the people on my side of the fence. … It’s just not our way. Look at us, most of us have never been protesters. … Do I feel that the left is aggressive and potentially violent? Yes, because we’ve all seen it. I certainly have … firsthand!"
First he says "some people" are losing control and then he says that "the left" is agressive ? Do you agree with his painting of a broad brush like this.
What about his assertion that it' "not the people on the right". Hasn't he read about the gunman who went into a Unitarian Universalist church in Tennesse last July, and shot at the congregation (Killing two, and wounding others)???? The gunman's STATED REASON for doing this was due to his hatred of the liberal movement and his belief that ALL liberals should be killed.
There are loonies on BOTH sides, but that does not mean that ALL people on one side or the other are loonies.
What do you think is EVERYONE on the left an agressive threat ?
Is NO ONE on the right capable of violence ?
What do you think of a gunman, going into a UU church during a children's program, and shooting to kill, because of his stated belief that all liberals deserved to be killed ?
As for the lunatic that shot up the church, we don't know what he is about. You have no way of knowing if he is a republican or a democrat.
Not true. We know for certain that he was not a Democrat:
During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets.
Unless, of course, you're going to argue that just because he shot up a church which he specifically targeted because Democrats were ruining the country and harming the war on terror, he MIGHT still have BEEN a Democrat. Because, absent that notion, it's pretty difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that Adkisson wasn't a Democrat. That pretty much leaves Republican, fringe-party or NO party/apolitical as the choices left available to us of what Adkisson's political affiliations could have been. I think we can discard no party/apolitical, since apolitical people don't typically follow politics obsessively enough to shoot up churches full of one particular political persuasion. Also, although it's theoretically possible he could have been a "Natural Law" guy (like Joe the Plumber, LOL), or a Libertarian, or an "American Independent Party" guy, the largest group by far still outstanding as a possibility for Mr. Adkisson's political affiliation is exactly the one you think it is: Republican. Particularly when you consider that he had copies of O'Reilly, Savage and Hannity books in his car and house. Sounds pretty much like he's a straight-up GoOPer wingnut to me.
Edited 10/19/2008 4:33 pm ET by trouble_in_sarahdice
It seems that alot of people want to dismiss this mans definite hatred for liberals as the motivating factor. He wrote a FOUR PAGE diatribe and left it in the car for pity's sake. And yet some people claim that he was REALLY motivated that his long ago ex-wife who USED to attend that congregation is why he shot the church. Because they hold the belief that violence NEVER comes from their side of the fence.
Pages
Well, that's bad and the person we're assuming is a democrat should be prosecuted, fined and sent to jail if applicable.
Now, even though this is just some blog, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and believe them.
Maybe you do, but I don't buy into blogger court documents.
Do you agree with this last paragraph
"Some people are losing control, and it’s not the people on the right. Never have I seen that behavior with any of the people on my side of the fence. … It’s just not our way. Look at us, most of us have never been protesters. … Do I feel that the left is aggressive and potentially violent? Yes, because we’ve all seen it. I certainly have … firsthand!"
First he says "some people" are losing control and then he says that "the left" is agressive ? Do you agree with his painting of a broad brush like this.
What about his assertion that it' "not the people on the right". Hasn't he read about the gunman who went into a Unitarian Universalist church in Tennesse last July, and shot at the congregation (Killing two, and wounding others)???? The gunman's STATED REASON for doing this was due to his hatred of the liberal movement and his belief that ALL liberals should be killed.
There are loonies on BOTH sides, but that does not mean that ALL people on one side or the other are loonies.
What do you think is EVERYONE on the left an agressive threat ?
Is NO ONE on the right capable of violence ?
What do you think of a gunman, going into a UU church during a children's program, and shooting to kill, because of his stated belief that all liberals deserved to be killed ?
I don't think that is a broad brush.
Not true. We know for certain that he was not a Democrat:
Unless, of course, you're going to argue that just because he shot up a church which he specifically targeted because Democrats were ruining the country and harming the war on terror, he MIGHT still have BEEN a Democrat. Because, absent that notion, it's pretty difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that Adkisson wasn't a Democrat. That pretty much leaves Republican, fringe-party or NO party/apolitical as the choices left available to us of what Adkisson's political affiliations could have been. I think we can discard no party/apolitical, since apolitical people don't typically follow politics obsessively enough to shoot up churches full of one particular political persuasion. Also, although it's theoretically possible he could have been a "Natural Law" guy (like Joe the Plumber, LOL), or a Libertarian, or an "American Independent Party" guy, the largest group by far still outstanding as a possibility for Mr. Adkisson's political affiliation is exactly the one you think it is: Republican. Particularly when you consider that he had copies of O'Reilly, Savage and Hannity books in his car and house. Sounds pretty much like he's a straight-up GoOPer wingnut to me.
Edited 10/19/2008 4:33 pm ET by trouble_in_sarahdice
Yes, I do think it was a broad brush. He said the attacks always come from the left and never from the right.
I NEVER said the shooter was a republican, so I don't know why you said that.
I used the words "left" and "right". Do you think this guy was a "lefty" that hated blacks, gays, and liberals and wanted them all dead ?
Thanks for posting all of that.
It seems that alot of people want to dismiss this mans definite hatred for liberals as the motivating factor. He wrote a FOUR PAGE diatribe and left it in the car for pity's sake. And yet some people claim that he was REALLY motivated that his long ago ex-wife who USED to attend that congregation is why he shot the church. Because they hold the belief that violence NEVER comes from their side of the fence.
Pages