Summations Only

I could put this on the humor thread but I decided it belongs here just as well. Of course I think it's amusing but even I know that it simply leaves out the right wingers. But I'd like to leave it to the intrepid evc lefties to find out how many there were. Or perhaps it's already been through the evc grinder and I missed it. Anyway, I checked Snopes with a few key words and came up with nothing, left them a note to alert them to check it if they haven't.This is an email I got today:

There are so many things wrong with this I do not know where to start. Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 not 1863. The Democratic Party of that time was not at all similar to now. It was the conservative party of the day. John Wilkes Booth was a pro slavery reactionary not a "liberal". Charles Guiteau was republican supporter of Garfield. He was mentally ill and thought he deserved the consulship in Paris. Surprisingly, he was at one time a preacher. There is very little evidence of Oswald's politics. He did emigrate to the USSR but quickly became disillusioned. His psyche profile shows someone that had a severe issue with authority and wanted to be immortalized by assassinating the President. The easy availability of guns has more to do with that assassination than anyone's politics. Squeaky Fromme or Sarah Jane Moore? I am sure you have no clue since this is just cut and paste crap.
Squeaky made her attempt to bring attention to the plight of the Redwoods. She was not exactly a leftwinger and please provide the evidence for her political affiliation.
Sarah Moore was associated with radical left wing groups. There is one for you. Not sure how you come to conclusions you do. Using that logic all Christians should be considered terrorists. Because there a re a number of US terrorists that are christian. Provide evidence of this. But here is something interesting. His father was President of World Vision United States. World Vision United States is the United States portion of World Vision , founded in the USA in 1950, is an evangelical relief and development organization whose stated goal is "to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God." Another Christian terrorist. His last name was Huberty not Hubert. But why would you know that you ahvent even read this list. He was not a disgruntled Democrat. He was a crazy survivalist with deep mental health issues.

quote:

---

James Oliver Huberty was born in Canton, Ohio on October 11, 1942. When he was three he contracted polio,[9] and even though he made a progressive recovery, the disease caused him to suffer permanent walking difficulties. In the early 1950s, his father bought a farm in the Pennsylvania Amish Country. His mother refused to live in the Amish country, and soon abandoned her family to do sidewalk preaching for a Southern Baptist organization.

​

In 1962, Huberty enrolled at a Jesuit community college and earned a degree in sociology. He would later receive a license for embalming at the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[10] In 1965, he married Etna, a woman he met while attending mortuary school. They had two daughters, Zelia and Cassandra. The Huberty family settled in Massillon, Ohio near Canton, where James worked as an undertaker at the Don Williams Funeral Home. They were forced to relocate to Canton in 1971 after their house in Massillon was set ablaze.

​

Huberty found work as a welder for Union Metal Inc. while living in Canton. He and Etna had a history of domestic violence, with Etna filing a report with the Canton Department of Children and Family Services that her husband had "messed up" her jaw. She would produce tarot cards and pretend to read his future to pacify him and his bouts of violence, thus producing a temporary calming effect.

​

Huberty, a survivalist,[11] saw signs of what he thought was growing trouble in America, and believed that government regulations were the cause of business failures, including his own. He believed that international bankers were purposefully manipulating the Federal Reserve System and bankrupting the nation. Convinced that Soviet aggression was everywhere, he believed that the breakdown of society was near, perhaps through economic collapse or nuclear war. He committed himself to prepare to survive this coming collapse and, while in Canton, provisioned his house with thousands of dollars of non-perishable food and six guns that he intended to use to defend his home during what he believed was the coming chaos. When he moved from Ohio he left the food behind but brought the guns with him.

---

Oh yeah a Christian too.. Damn those violent christians. Evidence of political affiliation please. Disgruntled employee.
This is getting tiring. You can not show political affiliations of any of these people. Until you do this list is meaningless.I will touch on a few more. Not sure how anyone could say he was a registered Democrat. He is crazy.
a) He was Korean national with permanent residency status, not a U.S. citizen.
b) He lived all of his adult life in Virginia, a state which does not record party affiliation in the voter registration process. Registered independent in 2006 and 2008. Why would a left winger shoot Gabby Giffords? He obviously is mentally ill.Just found someone that has done all the research.
The idea that recent mass shooters are mostly registered Democrats is a mythYour sources are lying and you are spreading lies.Just realized you got this from Victoria Jackson. Pitiful.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

I got it from a friend. Don't know who Victoria Jackson is. I Snoped it as I said, with no results. I did not research it beyond that, I don't pass on such emails these days anyway. I posted it here figuring someone would answer it, that turned out to be you, although your tone tells me I should take YOUR remarks with caution.

Of course you didn't. You never do. Then research it your self. LOL. You won't.I didn't release that tone had an effect on facts.

Tone tells one whether or not to suspect some of the "facts" might not be facts.I have NO interest in researching this kind of thing, that's why I posted it here. Thanks for doing as much as you did, I knew there must be some kind of answer to it.P.S. Is it at all possible you could find it within you to adopt just a slightly less hateful abusive attitude? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. Of course not, you just want to post things that agree with your worldview, whether they are true or not. How about acknowledging that your post was misinformed at best, lies at worst.

Go reread my post. I did not present it as something I believed at all.And again, would it be possible for you to find a SLIGHTLY less hateful abusive attitude? I really don't deserve it. By all rights some of the others on your side here should take you down for it.

Okay. Let's do that. Looks like you offered it as something correct but one sided. But it turns out that your list does not contain much one-sided "truth". So where's the humor? A democrat shot someone. Tee-hee...

More basic issues to show the quality of this list.
The Reagan assassination attempt was in 1981 not 1983Loughner shooting was 2011 not 2010.It is Larry Ashbrook, not Asbrook.If someone is going to take the time to post something like this you would think they might want to check dates and spelling.This whole thing just oozes stupidity.

Yes you did. You do realize we can read what you posted don't you. You obviously thought it was a correct listing of left wing shooters.It is nice to see your good Christian values in finding humour in the senseless murder of dozens of people. I find that truly offensive.

Seems to me that you are being criticized for presenting something on a debate forum without doing basic research on it yourself, while being presented with a counterview to that which you posted. That's not hateful, that's loving surely?You are a stupid, pointless waste of space. Everything you say is awful and leads to pain and misery of which you should be ashamed you piece of bigoted crap. I hope you have an 'accident' after finding your family dead in a fire. You are going to be burned forever for loving black people the same as white. You don't deserve the right to vote because you are such a habitual moron and I will fight tooth an nail to disenfranchise you and other right wing christians.That previous paragraph is hateful abuse. Outside of certain context (such as this) it would be unacceptable and if I saw it, would draw criticism from me (or sanction).

quote:

---

There are so many things wrong with this I do not know where to start.

---

Not hateful.

quote:

---

Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 not 1863.

---

Not abusive.

quote:

---

Your sources are lying and you are spreading lies.

---

Neither hateful nor abusive.

quote:

---

Then research it your self. LOL. You won't.

---

Inviting you to research, but predicting you won't. Not hateful. Perhaps a little disdainful, but you basically confirmed his disdain with 'I have NO interest in researching this kind of thing'. Despite the fact that you have spent more energy responding to Theo than it would take to google some of the names on that list and see if they were left wing, liberal or Democrat. Theo even did you the favour of pointing out some of the dubious ones to narrow down your searches.

quote:

---

Of course not, you just want to post things that agree with your worldview, whether they are true or not.

---

Again, this is a standard debate line. To posit that your opponent is not interested in testing the views they share, but only confirming their viewpoint (something you largely admit to, incidentally) is not hateful.Just because somebody disagrees with something you posted, and criticizes you for not bothering to research it - that doesn't make them hateful. Knowing that humans have bias - I tend towards giving my opponent a bit of leaway when I perceive something personal or abusive. I may be succumbing to bias, after all. Maybe you should re-calibrate your abuse detectors?In any event - do you concede that this list might be dubious, now that someone else who has done more research than you has uncovered some problems with it?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No such thing as EVER understanding the position of a creationist on this ugly excuse for a forum.

Absolutely wrong. We do understand the creationist position very well. If we didn't, then how could we see clearly that it's not worth a truckload of fetid dingo kidneys?Now, there was a time when we didn't understand the creationist position, but that is long past. Back in the earliest days of "creation science", when professional creationists, such as ICR's Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish, were criss-crossing the country in the late 1970's with their travelling snake-oil show on the "creation/evolution debate" circuit, their promoters would regularly rope local scientists and educators as the "evolutionist" opponents. Since those "evolutionists" had never encountered "creation science" before, let alone research their claims, they were totally unprepared for what hit them. The creationists built a solid reputation for winning those debates.So those "evolutionist" opponents hit the books and studied up on "creation science", learned and researched the creationist claims and learned exactly what mistakes and misrepresentations the creationists were committing. And they followed the creationist model of communicating with each other, exchanging experiences and ideas, knowledge and research. By the beginning of the 1980's, they were winning the debates and trouncing the creationists. And they were able to oppose creationist laws and local and state efforts to subvert science education. All because they did indeed understand the creationist position, far more fully than the creationists themselves understand it -- those creationists who do finally understand the creationist position most commonly leave creationism and many even start opposing it.So, Faith, yet again you are dead wrong. We understand the creationist position quite well. Do you understand it?

Well, Faith, you are wrong... yet again. There is a difference between not understanding the position, and not agreeing with it. There is a difference between seeing facts, and seeing someone deny the facts.

Not true, Faith. Most of us completely understand that creationist are wrong. If anything, we understand your position better than you do because we can see where the errors are.- Oni