Not a single post on Wednesday's tragedy?

[crazed_hoosier2]

What we're seeing here is the worldview of well-to-do conservatives: "We deserve what We have, and They deserve what They don't have." If this strikes you as self-regarded, you would be correct.

Well, I do pretty much believe that -- the law of the harvest, life is what we make of it, etc.

It has nothing at all to do with race, though. These maxims apply to all people just the same. Or they should, anyway. Having institutionalized racial discrimination is an impediment to that ideal. And it's a good ideal.

 

[Rockfish1]

Well, I do pretty much believe that. It has nothing at all to do with race, though.

I wouldn't call you a racist, but I would say that you're deluded by your self-interest in unflattering ways.

 

[Iudanapoint]

What we're seeing here is the worldview of well-to-do conservatives: "We deserve what We have, and They deserve what They don't have." If this strikes you as self-regarded, you would be correct.

What we see from you is the worldview of liberals: "Racial discrimination is wrong unless and until we decide otherwise,at which point we'll practice it however we determine to be proper. Ask no questions as we know best."

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I wouldn't call you a racist, but I would say that you're deluded by your self-interest in unflattering ways.

Well, I'm not a racist. Whether you'd call me one or not is immaterial. I've already told you, there aren't many things I can think of that mean less to me than what you think about me. And that's not saying anything about you, really. It's just that I realize that the only man whose opinion really counts is the guy staring back at me in the mirror.

But I'll make absolutely no apologies to anybody for my affinity to the law of the harvest. We don't have equal outcomes in life because we don't have equal inputs -- and the inputs are, for the most part, up to each of us individually.

I won't stand in anybody's way of they want to be lazy or irresponsible, or if they want to drink to excess, sleep around, gamble, spend unwisely, etc. I do, however, believe that people should lie in the beds they make for themselves...instead of looking to others to shoulder the costs of their patterns of bad decisions and behaviors.

If all you can see from this is my own self-interest, then I might suggest that it's not me who is deluded.

 

[Rockfish1]

What we see from you is the worldview of liberals: "Racial discrimination is wrong unless and until we decide otherwise,at which point we'll practice it however we determine to be proper. Ask no questions as we know best."

The view of this liberal is that racial discrimination is always problematic, but efforts to help people can't logically or morally be equated with efforts to hurt people. I don't understand why this obvious distinction is invisible to you -- except because your narrow self-interest requires it to be so.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

BTW, apropos of absolutely nothing, the Mayor of Charleston (I think he's the longest serving mayor in the nation -- took office in the mid 70s) who's been getting a lot of airtime lately, is the brother of a very good friend of mine.

I've met him before. He seemed like a really good guy. And his sister -- who lived here in Evansville for many years -- is one of the finest people I've ever known.

 

[Iudanapoint]

The view of this liberal is that racial discrimination is always problematic, but efforts to help people can't logically or morally be equated with efforts to hurt people. I don't understand why this obvious distinction is invisible to you -- except because your narrow self-interest requires it to be so.

Short Rockfish: "The end justifies the means, even If I abhor the means. Since I occupy a higher moral ground, only I and other liberals are permitted to employ racial discrimination as a means to ending racial discrimination." That you're unable or unwilling to acknowledge your obvious hypocrisy is what is so stunning.

 

[Rockfish1]

But I'll make absolutely no apologies to anybody for my affinity to the law of the harvest. We don't have equal outcomes in life because we don't have equal inputs -- and the inputs are, for the most part, up to each of us individually.

The "law of the harvest" isn't a law. It's merely a paradigm, and it appeals to you because it favors you. The problem here is that you can't conceive of any other paradigm, even though there are many.

Your imagination is limited by your self-interest. You can see only what favors you, and you can imagine nothing else.

 

[Rockfish1]

Short Rockfish: "The end justifies the means, even If I abhor the means. Since I occupy a higher moral ground, only I and other liberals are permitted to employ racial discrimination as a means to ending racial discrimination." That you're unable or unwilling to acknowledge your obvious hypocrisy is what is so stunning.

I accidentally responded to you, forgetting that you are a troll. But if you're going to attempt the "shorter" thing, it has to be shorter and pithy. You've failed at both of these basic requirements, illustrating why you aren't worthy of response.

My advice: Keep working on your awful posting skills -- this would be a good place for that. Perhaps with lots of effort you could graduate to interactions with human beings.

 

[Iudanapoint]

I accidentally responded to you, forgetting that you are a troll. But if you're going to attempt the "shorter" thing, it has to be shorter and pithy. You've failed at both of these basic requirements, illustrating why you aren't worthy of response.

My advice: Keep working on your awful posting skills -- this would be a good place for that. Perhaps with lots of effort you could graduate to interactions with human beings.

And if you're going to attempt to be taken seriously, you might want to consider a better argument than "my best weapon to combat racial discrimination is to actively practice racial discrimination." I doubt you're uninformed, but you're hypocrisy leads you to a conclusion that makes one question your intelligence. It leaves you with only shorter and pithy, and that's not much.

 

[RerunStubs]

So, in your view, two wrongs actually do make a right?

John Roberts is right. The way to end racial discrimination in this country is to end racial discrimination -- and stop trying to justify certain kinds of it as "corrective", and therefore, necessary and justified.

Either we believe in the 14th amendment or we don't. It's not the kind of thing where we can be selective.

No, in my view, policies that are designed to combat the effects of historical and ongoing systematic oppression of certain minorities are not a "wrong."

 

[zeke4ahs]

Well, I do pretty much believe that -- the law of the harvest, life is what we make of it, etc.

It has nothing at all to do with race, though. These maxims apply to all people just the same. Or they should, anyway. Having institutionalized racial discrimination is an impediment to that ideal. And it's a good ideal.

Do you really, honestly believe that all people start out on this earth on a level playing field?

 

[RerunStubs]

Well, I'm not a racist. Whether you'd call me one or not is immaterial. I've already told you, there aren't many things I can think of that mean less to me than what you think about me. And that's not saying anything about you, really. It's just that I realize that the only man whose opinion really counts is the guy staring back at me in the mirror.

But I'll make absolutely no apologies to anybody for my affinity to the law of the harvest. We don't have equal outcomes in life because we don't have equal inputs -- and the inputs are, for the most part, up to each of us individually.

I won't stand in anybody's way of they want to be lazy or irresponsible, or if they want to drink to excess, sleep around, gamble, spend unwisely, etc. I do, however, believe that people should lie in the beds they make for themselves...instead of looking to others to shoulder the costs of their patterns of bad decisions and behaviors.

If all you can see from this is my own self-interest, then I might suggest that it's not me who is deluded.

As someone who is now firmly ensconced in the top one percent in income, I find your worldview to be absurd. It might be worth constructing a society in which one's material gains and wealth are in direct proportion to one's effort, but the idea that we actually live in that world today is such a wild fantasy that it's no wonder that people who embrace this fantasy are viewed as deriving their ideology from their own self-interest.

You seem to be confusing an aspirational ideal with a description of the world we actually live in. Ironically, this confusion -- which many conservatives seem to share -- results in policy positions that are actually contrary to the ideal. Low taxation on inherited income, opposition to policies that provide access to college education, health insurance, etc, regardless of family wealth, and so on.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Your post posited two explanations for Hasan to have engaged in his mass murder: (1) being crazy, or (2) being a Muslim (note you did not say being an Islamic extremist). That makes no more sense that positing that Roof might have engaged in his mass murder because (1) he was crazy, or (2) he is white -- as opposed to being a racist white supremacist.

This should not be difficult for a person of reasonable intelligence to understand. If you didn't mean to suggest what you did, it's easy enough to say that your wording was imprecise. Instead, you've good grief'd your way through a dozen more posts in which you pretend not to understand -- or perhaps, do not actually understand -- a pretty obvious point.

Okay, I'll avoid "good grief"

But I think your point is, well, pointless.

If I were to inform some one who just awoke from a coma about the Charleston murders, I might very well say "a white kid murdered 9 people at a church in Charleston". I wouldn't say a "deranged white kid who was a racist extremist and on drugs." Maybe a white person would take offense at my lack of specificity--or not. But all who know me wouldn't. Same here. I think goatfish know me. They are just being a-holes. I don't know what you think of me. (BTW thanks for the "like". Hope that like didn't diminish your reputation here). Same for Hassan. His dastardly deeds are obvious, so is his faith. Somebody wrote about captain obvious. Why should I expect people to get upset when something is left unsaid that is an obvious and well known part of the picture anyway?

 

[RerunStubs]

Do you really, honestly believe that all people start out on this earth on a level playing field?

The attitude here seems to be that there are no obstacles that a determined individual can't overcome, so therefore we should not change the law to reduce the obstacles.

Unless, of course, the obstacle is, say, a high marginal income tax rate or an employer's mild preference for a minority candidate, in which case freedom is dead and the law must be changed.

 

[RerunStubs]

Okay, I'll avoid "good grief"

But I think your point is, well, pointless.

If I were to inform some one who just awoke from a coma about the Charleston murders, I might very well say "a white kid murdered 9 people at a church in Charleston". I wouldn't say a "deranged white kid who was a racist extremist and on drugs." Maybe a white person would take offense at my lack of specificity--or not. But all who know me wouldn't. Same here. I think goatfish know me. They are just being a-holes. I don't know what you think of me. (BTW thanks for the "like". Hope that like didn't diminish your reputation here). Same for Hassan. His dastardly deeds are obvious, so is his faith. Somebody wrote about captain obvious. Why should I expect people to get upset when something is left unsaid that is an obvious and well known part of the picture anyway?

We weren't talking about how you describe the murderer to someone. The specific context was identifying the factor that led someone to engage in a murderous act. I would ask you to re-read the posts in question, but I suspect you're just playing dumb at this point.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yes that was the context

You opined that the kid in Charleston was driven by ideology; not that he was crazy.

The post in question was a question about how you could readily exclude ideology in Maj. Hassan's case, but not this one? (I recall you steadfastly clinging to the notion that Hassan was deranged, and not being religious. If I am wrong, apologies.)

I think the two mass murders are remarkably similar. Both shooters spent months and maybe years prior to the shootings immersing themselves more and more in an ideology. Both of them allowed the ideology to consume and radicalize them. Both then used the ideology to justify in their own minds mass murder. Both of the shooters similarly prepared and planned for the attacks. Both of them opened fire in peaceful surroundings where armed attacks were assumed to be out of the question.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes that was the context

You opined that the kid in Charleston was driven by ideology; not that he was crazy.

The post in question was a question about how you could readily exclude ideology in Maj. Hassan's case, but not this one? (I recall you steadfastly clinging to the notion that Hassan was deranged, and not being religious. If I am wrong, apologies.)

I think the two mass murders are remarkably similar. Both shooters spent months and maybe years prior to the shootings immersing themselves more and more in an ideology. Both of them allowed the ideology to consume and radicalize them. Both then used the ideology to justify in their own minds mass murder. Both of the shooters similarly prepared and planned for the attacks. Both of them opened fire in peaceful surroundings where armed attacks were assumed to be out of the question.

The issue is that, when you brought up this apparent hypocrisy on Rerun's part, you did so by highlighting Hassan was a Muslim. You didn't bother to distinguish that he was an extremist. Whatever your reasons for that, they stand in direct contrast to Rerun's own comments which you yourself were using as a comparison in which he did specify that Roof was an extremist.

The problem isn't whether or not one guy is white or the other guy is Muslim. The problem is that you can't even understand this key difference in the way the two of you were characterizing your respective villains.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Quit being stoopid

I understand all of it quite well. You are just being a-holeish. Hassan's conduct speaks for itself. So does Roof's.

I'm done.

 

[Rockfish1]

I suspect you're just playing dumb at this point.

Your charitable suspicion is belied by CO.'s response, as Goat explains.

CO. isn't playing dumb on this. He really is dumb. He's the Dunning-Kruger poster on race, religion, sexual orientation, and anything else that doesn't personally exemplify him. He doesn't just reference himself as his only source, he can't imagine any other source. His is the only experience that he can imagine -- even when other experiences are explained to him. Your suggestion that others experience the world differently merely persuades him that they (like you) know not the doesn't-need-to-be-researched Truth that he Knows.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Okay, I'll avoid "good grief"

But I think your point is, well, pointless.

If I were to inform some one who just awoke from a coma about the Charleston murders, I might very well say "a white kid murdered 9 people at a church in Charleston". I wouldn't say a "deranged white kid who was a racist extremist and on drugs." Maybe a white person would take offense at my lack of specificity--or not. But all who know me wouldn't. Same here. I think goatfish know me. They are just being a-holes. I don't know what you think of me. (BTW thanks for the "like". Hope that like didn't diminish your reputation here). Same for Hassan. His dastardly deeds are obvious, so is his faith. Somebody wrote about captain obvious. Why should I expect people to get upset when something is left unsaid that is an obvious and well known part of the picture anyway?

How about "radicalized Christian"? "Christian extremist"? Can we call him that? Are those terms only for brown/brownish people? How about "terrorist"? I mean, he killed a bunch of Christians in a church. Why is this not being called an attack on Christianity? Is it because we can't invade South Carolina? No one to bomb?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The "law of the harvest" isn't a law. It's merely a paradigm, and it appeals to you because it favors you. The problem here is that you can't conceive of any other paradigm, even though there are many.

Your imagination is limited by your self-interest. You can see only what favors you, and you can imagine nothing else.

The law of the harvest holds true just as metronomically as any other law of the universe. It favors or disfavors nobody. If I, or anybody else, make a pattern of bad decisions, this law that you says "favors" me would show me really quickly how wrong you are.

We -- each and every one of us -- reap what we sow. That's not to say there aren't extenuating circumstances that affect this calculus. Of course there are. But those are, in most cases, not finally determinative.

I realize there are a whole lot of people who blame others for their plights -- which is why they look to others for relief from them. Such people should probably expect to live lives of misery and want.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Do you really, honestly believe that all people start out on this earth on a level playing field?

Nope, not at all.

 

[Rockfish1]

The law of the harvest holds true just as metronomically as any other law of the universe.

Cramped conservatives know only one time signature, and they stolidly tramp through their lives in the only beat that the machine tells them. Having done so, they mulishly insist that the world works only in 4/4 time. No wonder you guys are such shitty composers. It's like you've decided that the best and only ambition of music is a Sousa march.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

A little over a year ago I posted about a book my son was reading on the the Mississippi government's direct involvement in continuing segregation and the White Citizens Councils filled with virulent racists. The files covered in the book had been recently publicized. The state of Mississippi had sought to keep them from public access, but the courts forced open access. The point I was trying to make had to do with Kennedy's attempt to broker a peaceful end to Ole Miss segregation. (Students at Ole Miss hung a noose around the James Meredith's statue last year.) You, admittedly, took my post in another direction. You could not understand why we had to go over those parts of history again

I'm confused on where you stand. Is it only parts of history that should be studied and absorbed? Is the Civil War worth studying but not the egregious behavior of the southern states to (successful) attempts to deny rights to a large portion of its citizens?

The behavior of southern leaders relative to their black citizens over the next century should also preserved and understood. A nation's history should be viewed in its entirety. The rights. The wrongs. It is how a nation deals with adversity that defines its legacy.

We often accuse the South of still fighting the Civil War

Reading some of the posts in this thread about wiping out any sign of the Confederacy, its symbols, its reasons for being, and its monuments to those who served and fought for a cause, looks like many people in the North who post here are STILL fighting the war.

This wasn't the way Grant handled Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House. General Chamberlain ordered his troops to salute the rebels. And most importantly, Abraham Lincoln did not see this as how to bind up the nation's wounds. He made it clear that he was still the president of the people of Richmond when he toured it after it fell to the North.

I don't know if you intended for me to not agree with you or not. I mostly agree with your last paragraph. Last I checked the South is part of the United States. As Obama likes to say, we are all in it together.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The law of the harvest holds true just as metronomically as any other law of the universe. It favors or disfavors nobody. If I, or anybody else, make a pattern of bad decisions, this law that you says "favors" me would show me really quickly how wrong you are.

We -- each and every one of us -- reap what we sow. That's not to say there aren't extenuating circumstances that affect this calculus. Of course there are. But those are, in most cases, not finally determinative.

I realize there are a whole lot of people who blame others for their plights -- which is why they look to others for relief from them. Such people should probably expect to live lives of misery and want.

Would you be in favor of dramatically higher estate taxes in exchange for lower income taxes? So long as wealth moves from one generation to another, I don't think it's possible to take your view seriously. 80% of the people born in the top quintile stay there. 80% of the people born in the bottom quintile stay there. Not numbers you'd expect if circumstance were not a primary - even the primary - force in determining economic success.

 

[Rockfish1]

We often accuse the South of still fighting the Civil War

Reading some of the posts in this thread about wiping out any sign of the Confederacy, its symbols, its reasons for being, and its monuments to those who served and fought for a cause, looks like many people in the North who post here are STILL fighting the war.

This wasn't the way Grant handled Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House. General Chamberlain ordered his troops to salute the rebels. And most importantly, Abraham Lincoln did not see this as how to bind up the nation's wounds. He made it clear that he was still the president of the people of Richmond when he toured it after it fell to the North.

I don't know if you intended for me to not agree with you or not. I mostly agree with your last paragraph. Last I checked the South is part of the United States. As Obama likes to say, we are all in it together.

Shorter CO. Hoosier: "I'm not a bigot even though every single thing I say could have been typed by Archie Bunker."

 

[AEgley]

are the instigators of drive by shootings considered potential mass/serial killers? should they be?.... they are shooting multiple rounds into a building where potentially multiple people are present/residing and could potentially be killed... how many of those occur in the United States every year? Whackadoodles will be whackadoodles from now on until the end of time... regardless of age, gender, race, or religion and regardless of whether their weapon of choice is a hand gun, a shotgun, an assault rifle, a knife, a machette, a Ryder truck filled with ammonium nitrate, a pressure cooker, a car, etc...

this kid was racially motivated and he was a coward by going to a place where he knew, more than likely, no one would shoot back at his cowardly arse... he didn't go into a predominantly black community and call out the local gangs for a good ole fashioned OK Corral re-enactment... he wanted to shoot at fish in a barrel... and now he has forfeit his life... to incarceration and possible execution, which tax payers will be paying for the next 20 years.... unless he gets put in the general population... where he might last about 2 hours... or given long enough sheets to commit suicide...

race was the motivation, but I don't think race has much to do with who becomes the next whackadoodle... people lose control for many reasons... greed, envy, lust, jealousy, hatred, desparation, anger, etc... most of these are learned concepts that fester to the point of insanity... then, horrible things like Charleston, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Boston, 911.... And most of the people who are at that point are beyond anyone's help... Don't be in such a hurry to place blame on inanimate objects.... the problem is when people animate those objects and use them for violence...

The future does not bode well with the advent of drones.... sure... a drone can bring a life jacket to someone caught in a rip current... but it can also bring items that are much less desirable... and without the perpetrator being any where close to that locale... if that doesn't give you some sleepless nights or nightmares, not much will...

Thou shalt not kill.... Some people need a refresher course every once in a while...

 

[RerunStubs]

Yes that was the context

You opined that the kid in Charleston was driven by ideology; not that he was crazy.

The post in question was a question about how you could readily exclude ideology in Maj. Hassan's case, but not this one? (I recall you steadfastly clinging to the notion that Hassan was deranged, and not being religious. If I am wrong, apologies.)

I think the two mass murders are remarkably similar. Both shooters spent months and maybe years prior to the shootings immersing themselves more and more in an ideology. Both of them allowed the ideology to consume and radicalize them. Both then used the ideology to justify in their own minds mass murder. Both of the shooters similarly prepared and planned for the attacks. Both of them opened fire in peaceful surroundings where armed attacks were assumed to be out of the question.

The issue is that the relevant ideological orientation that you identified in Hasan's case was "being a Muslim," not "being an Islamic extremist" or some equivalent. Is the relevant ideological orientation in Roof's case being white"? Of course not, it's "being a white supremacist." That's why one infers from your statement some religious prejudice.

Incidentally, I did not opine that Roof was driven by ideology alone and not by any mental illness. Earlier in this thread, I noted that this either/or proposition is a false dichotomy. What I said is that he clearly was motivated, in part, by a racist ideology. He may well have been driven to act on that in the way he did by some severe chemical imbalance.

Likewise, I don't recall opining that Hasan was driven by mental illness to the exclusion of any ideological influence. More likely, I opined that he was not driven to murder by "being a Muslim." But since you can't seem to tell the difference between "being a Muslim" and "being an Islamic extremist," you probably concluded that I excluded the possibility of any ideological influence.

 

[RerunStubs]

The law of the harvest holds true just as metronomically as any other law of the universe. It favors or disfavors nobody. If I, or anybody else, make a pattern of bad decisions, this law that you says "favors" me would show me really quickly how wrong you are.

We -- each and every one of us -- reap what we sow. That's not to say there aren't extenuating circumstances that affect this calculus. Of course there are. But those are, in most cases, not finally determinative.

I realize there are a whole lot of people who blame others for their plights -- which is why they look to others for relief from them. Such people should probably expect to live lives of misery and want.

Would this apply to people who blame the government and its policies? Asking for a friend.

 

[Iudanapoint]

Shorter CO. Hoosier: "I'm not a bigot even though every single thing I say could have been typed by Archie Bunker."

Shorter Rockfish: "I can't form substantive arguments so I act like a three year old when people have a different opinion than my own."

 

[hoosboot]

Shorter Rockfish: "I can't form substantive arguments so I act like a three year old when people have a different opinion than my own."

It's not my bag, but usually sharper, more insightful, and a touch more irreverent works better when you're trying to do the "Shorter" thing. Maybe sneak in a Tinky-Winky reference somewhere amidst all the anger. Or try some substance. Either would make your posts more interesting to read.

 

[Iudanapoint]

It's not my bag, but usually sharper, more insightful, and a touch more irreverent works better when you're trying to do the "Shorter" thing. Maybe sneak in a Tinky-Winky reference somewhere amidst all the anger. Or try some substance. Either would make your posts more interesting to read.

I've offered substance, but some who post here seem to know nothing beyond immature name calling and baseless accusations. If you're looking to elevate the discussion, perhaps you should turn your attention to them.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I've offered substance, but some who post here seem to know nothing beyond immature name calling and baseless accusations. If you're looking to elevate the discussion, perhaps you should turn your attention to them.

You've offered substance? Want to point to it?

 

[Iudanapoint]

You've offered substance? Want to point to it?

Read back through the thread. It's somewhere around the post where you lied and said I sent you threatening emails. Did I miss where you provided any evidence of them, or were you just making a cowardly accusation that you knew you couldn't back up? When I asked you for them last night, you mysteriously disappeared.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Read back through the thread. It's somewhere around the post where you lied and said I sent you threatening emails. Did I miss where you provided any evidence of them, or were you just making a cowardly accusation that you knew you couldn't back up? When I asked you for them last night, you mysteriously disappeared.

I went to bed.

I also see that you don't know what the definition of "substance" is.

 

[Iudanapoint]

I went to bed.

I also see that you don't know what the definition of "substance" is.

Gee, you posted at 2:00am, well after your post accusing me of sending you threatening emails. Seems you know exactly what lying is. And since you couldn't offer a substantive response, it's clear you're the one who doesn't understand that concept. And now you've deleted your accusatory post. Now that's funny.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Gee, you posted at 2:00am, well after your post accusing me of sending you threatening emails. Seems you know exactly what lying is. And since you couldn't offer a substantive response, it's clear you're the one who doesn't understand that concept.

You're an idiot.

You only entered this thread to troll me. I still have no idea why you have such a big problem with me.

But when you said, "I've offered substance, but some who post here seem to know nothing beyond immature name calling and baseless accusations," I had to laugh out loud, because you've literally not offered any substance at all, and have only offered immature name calling.

I'm done with you, troll.

 

[Iudanapoint]

You're an idiot.

You only entered this thread to troll me. I still have no idea why you have such a big problem with me.

But when you said, "I've offered substance, but some who post here seem to know nothing beyond immature name calling and baseless accusations," I had to laugh out loud, because you've literally not offered any substance at all, and have only offered immature name calling.

I'm done with you, troll.

Don't flatter yourself. I entered the thread because I was interested in the topic, but I posted after watching you dig your way to China after introducing Affirmative Action into the discussion. As you were increasing shut down with reasonable replies, you meandered and attempted to deflect, all without conviction for your original position.

Your reaction was a childish flurry of personal insults, including some unhinged accusation that I didn't like you and that had recently banned me (this never occurred). And rather than tuck your tail between your legs or, God forbid, defend and support your position, you claimed I was a troll who had threatened you via email. I immediately challenged you to produce any such email and offered to go to the administrators of the site, but you suddenly went missing. Tonight, you claimed you went to bed, yet you posted another thread a couple of hours later. And you've now deleted your accusatory post, apparently embarrassed that you can't back up your assertion. Of course, you're too cowardly to admit that and instead accuse me of not offering any substance while providing none of your own.

Sorry, Happy Goat, but the only idiot here is you, and you seem intent on proving it with each post you make.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

are the instigators of drive by shootings considered potential mass/serial killers? should they be?.... they are shooting multiple rounds into a building where potentially multiple people are present/residing and could potentially be killed... how many of those occur in the United States every year? Whackadoodles will be whackadoodles from now on until the end of time... regardless of age, gender, race, or religion and regardless of whether their weapon of choice is a hand gun, a shotgun, an assault rifle, a knife, a machette, a Ryder truck filled with ammonium nitrate, a pressure cooker, a car, etc...

this kid was racially motivated and he was a coward by going to a place where he knew, more than likely, no one would shoot back at his cowardly arse... he didn't go into a predominantly black community and call out the local gangs for a good ole fashioned OK Corral re-enactment... he wanted to shoot at fish in a barrel... and now he has forfeit his life... to incarceration and possible execution, which tax payers will be paying for the next 20 years.... unless he gets put in the general population... where he might last about 2 hours... or given long enough sheets to commit suicide...

race was the motivation, but I don't think race has much to do with who becomes the next whackadoodle... people lose control for many reasons... greed, envy, lust, jealousy, hatred, desparation, anger, etc... most of these are learned concepts that fester to the point of insanity... then, horrible things like Charleston, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Boston, 911.... And most of the people who are at that point are beyond anyone's help... Don't be in such a hurry to place blame on inanimate objects.... the problem is when people animate those objects and use them for violence...

The future does not bode well with the advent of drones.... sure... a drone can bring a life jacket to someone caught in a rip current... but it can also bring items that are much less desirable... and without the perpetrator being any where close to that locale... if that doesn't give you some sleepless nights or nightmares, not much will...

Thou shalt not kill.... Some people need a refresher course every once in a while...

We all know the sekkunt menmunt (second amendment) trumps the sixth commandment. Even though they all claim to be God fearing pro life Christians...they loves them some guns. They loves them some war. They loves them some death penalty as often as possible (thought God said "vengeance is mine"). Anyways, yup, pro life.