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. (cont.)
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"Tennessee church shooter angry at "liberals"\""){kind=small}
Keep moving, nothing to see here. It's not like it was some liberal shooting up a Baptist church. Now that would be news...
2 innocent people dead, no big deal. They werent liberals, so their deaths dont matter...
from the posted article---
The church outside Knoxville, Tennessee, where some 200 people were watching a children's play at the time, had been in the news recently for its "liberal stance," Owen said.
Not that it matters, but the people killed likely were in fact liberal in thinking, given the kind of church they belonged to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
You are aware that not just conservatives attend church, aren't you, Billy, LOL?
You are aware that not just conservatives attend church, aren't you, Billy
is that first hand info?
that when you typed this:
2 innocent people dead, no big deal. They werent liberals, so their deaths dont matter...
it was a knee-jerk snide reaction to Sensor, without reading the whole article, to two people killed at a church service and that those people would of course not be liberals, since liberals aren't likely to attend church services. When in fact they likely were liberals.
Perhaps I was mistaken. Was I?
The shooter Jim D. Adkisson supposedly hated liberals, right? But one of the things he was most mad about the prospect of having his food stamps being cut off. Now, I don't want to get into liberal-conservative stereotypes here, but if ever there was an issue I think most conservatives would be willing to support, it is a cessation or reduction is welfare programs, especially given the long history of abuses in the federal food stamp program.
Yes, Adkisson might have been cheesed off about the liberal bogeymen he believed were the sources of his problems, but the bottom line is that he was just another whack-job who chose to take his anger out on innocent people. I think the political angle is just where this crazy idiot happened to focus his paranoid, delerious mind.
I also disagree with people on sites like Daily KOS who chalk this up to Adkisson listening to too much Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. He could just as easily have pulled a Ted Kaczynski and gone far left in his insane desire to blame other people for the demons in his head.
http://historymike.blogspot.com/
Conservatives have lower IQs, are less educated, have more teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of wedlock, more divorces, make less money and therefore contribute less as a whole, but blame everyone other than themselves for the "perceived" corruption of family and career issues.
and we eat babies and the prisons are 99% conservative. the gang signs we all flash are AMSLANG for R R, ie Ronald Reagan!
care to site your figures?
"Fifteen of the top 19 states for people over 25 with a bachelor's went for Kerry (exceptions were Colorado, Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska) 27 of the btootm 31 were for Bush(exceptions were the swing states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maine, and Michigan) "
&
"Bush won 13 of the 14 biggest welfare states (exception was Hawaii, which was not solid Kerry) Kerry won 12 of the most screwed states (exceptions were swing states of Colorado and Nevada)"
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Blue_States_Red_States
"If blue states care less about moral values, why are divorce rates so low in the bluest of the blue states? It's a question that intrigues conservatives, as much as it emboldens liberals."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html
"The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10...
"When Red States get their social problems under control, and things such as teen pregnancy down to nationwide lows, then they can try and foist their solutions on the rest of the country. But as things currently stand, on this issue (as well as others like divorce), the Red States have no ground to stand on. Those crazy New Englad liberals are running circles around them in this tangible measure of their residents' "values".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/6/145758/107
"If the blue states are sinkholes of moral decay, as right-wing pundits insist, how come red states lead the nation in violent crime, divorce, illegitimacy, and incarceration, among other evils? To a bus-riding innocent on Manhattan's stroller-filled Upper West Side, it looks like a case of hypocrisy meets stupidity."
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/11/wolcott200611?curren...
"Red states have a divorce rate 27% higher than blue states."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2005/01/exhibit.html
Interesting links.
So Billy, was I wrong or what? Didn't you assume the people killed during a Sunday church service were not liberals?
Labeling people and clumping them into groups of people like they are breeds of dogs is about as intelligent as racism. What you all are doing is Political Profiling. Hasn't there been enough of that for the past several years? The shooter was deranged, insane, psychotic....whatever...end of story. Can we please stop making this a political issue now? Liberals...Conservatives....We're all the same race - human.
And please..... citing quotations from biased sources as if they are verifiable facts, such as those editorials provided above? Tsk tsk.
I read a few of those editorials. My impression was that they were extremely critical, condescending, arrogant and downright snarky throughout against conservatives. (Not exactly making a case for liberalism there). But that's ok. That's what you may be used to reading, so it probably has desensitized you a bit. To me, it was downright nasty. I'm sure you can now provide some very nasty anti-liberal editorials and quotes and websites, etc. I know they are out there. That's the point. We all both need to stop somewhere, sometime and respect each other.
(soapbox now available for use) ;-)
to the basics of your post 1derfullymade.
The jump-to-conclusions nature of a post or two on this thread has been revealing and your final sentence struck the right chord among the liberals reading it, I'm sure. Sounds like the wrap-up to a speech at a Democratic convention, LOL.
Well said, wonder.
/
it would be great if people ended the whole "liberals" vs. "conservatives" package. "booo hooo liberals this" and "boo hooo conservatives that"!
sorry if the stories i posted skewed one way or the other... but fact is the stats/numbers all come from (and are documented/sourced) legitimate agencies like the CDC, etc. So yes, they may have been "condesending" or "arrogant" but forgive me for stating the facts. they are what they are.