Breaking: Charleston SC, white male shoots 8 people at Souths oldest black church

[rightwinger]

Where was the greatest mass shooting in history.......



South Korea......unless the mass shooter in Norway beat him...two countries with the worst mass shootings, yes shootings, in history..........Norway and South Korea....

Woo Bum-kon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Horrible....just horrible

How many mass shootings have occurred since then?

 

[2aguy]

Where was the greatest mass shooting in history.......



South Korea......unless the mass shooter in Norway beat him...two countries with the worst mass shootings, yes shootings, in history..........Norway and South Korea....

Woo Bum-kon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Horrible....just horrible

How many mass shootings have occurred since then?

You guys say their gun control laws keep them from happening....even in extreme gun control countries the criminals easily get guns........all through Europe...they get fully automatic rifles and 30 round magazines easily....as reported by European law enforcement and in a particular article Copenhagen authorities......

 

[Hutch Starskey]

1. Most people? so what percentage are on it for not "a short period"?


1b your disagreement with republican economic policy has nothing to do with whether or not reagan was race baiting as you falsely claimed. off topic.

Welfare Statistics Statistic Brain

80% of welfare recipiant are on welfare for 5 years or less. 63% are on for less than 2 years.

The race-baiting image of the "Welfare Queen" is meant to appeal to racist images that have little reflection in reality.

Denial of "Welfare Queens" is delusion of the first order. It's not even a debatable point.

IN FACT: Welfare is a staple of the inner city minorities... to argue otherwise is absolutely absurd. Given the GENERATIONS of Blacks which the left has CRIPPLED through such subsidies... .

Your argument is LUDICROUS... bearing NO kinship with reality.

(Reader, it seems that the Left is now spiraling headlong into irretrievable delusion... every day we now see them denying greater depths of reality... from the pretense of marriage by those who are wholly unsuitable for such, to the demand that we must accept those who 'identify' as that which they are otherwise CLEARLY NOT.

Rest assured that we are witnessing an incredible pall of mass delusion passing over millions of individuals who are truly losing their grip upon any sense of reality.)

It's not so much liberals slipping out of reality as much as your reality is just very small.

 

[Correll]

What part of " they easily get fully automatic rifles, handgrenades, pistols and rocket propelled grenades means they have tough gun control laws....their extreme laws do nothing to keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals...that is the point isn't it...to stop criminals...and they don't.....moron...

They don't easily get them. that's why these incidents are RARE.

Moron...the terrorists in the attack on Charlie Hebdo...in a country with extreme gun control, 3 terrorists, 2 on goverment terrorist watch lists and one a convicted felon crossed into belgium and bought fully automatic rifles, 30 round magazines, hand grenades, pistols and a rocket propelled grenade, crossed back from belgium with all those weapons and conducted the attack....

That same week, in Marseille, gunmen with fully automatic rifles...again.....shot up the Marseille neighbor hood just before the French Prime minsiter went there to give a speech on crime.....

Gun violence and crime is so bad in Marseille that the French want soldier sent in to restore peace and order....

and then you had the attack in France at the Jewish school by another guy with a fully automatic rifle...

and the attacks with fully automatic rifles in Belgium, Sweden and Denmark......

You really are dumb....

I would gladly take France's homicide rate over our own

Your examples of single cases where criminals get guns pales in comparison to the 300 million guns available to criminals in the US

agreed. france's homicide rate is better than ours.

why do you think that is?

 

[Correll]

Lee Atwater Southern Strategy any questions .............

Yeah...never happened asshole........search "The Truth about the Southern Strategy." and your lies will be revealed...this is a new age....in the past you could smear republicans, and your democrat minions in the press would repeat the lie over and over and over again....and no one who knew the truth could be heard....now.....we have the internet with access to the truth....so search "The Truth about the Southern Strategy" and you will find the truth...nixon fought for civil rights and won the new south, the new middle class, young, anti racist southerners...while the democrats kept winning the racist south......they actually have the voting records showing which states were won.....nixon won the new south...the old racist south kept going to the democrats......you know....bill clintons good friend and political mentor j. william fulbright...and actual, real segregationist of the old school of racism...who clinton dedicated a statue to.........

don't forget democrat senator and klan member robert "sheets" byrd...called "sheets" by ted kennedy (remember Mary Jo) because byrd was a klan kleagle...a recruiter for the klan......

If you are going to be assinine enough to proclaim that there never was a Southern State Strategy, then all I can do is to laugh at you a lot. Really.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

it is growing increasingly not credible that you are unaware of the research challenging the southern strategy.

if you are really ignorant, you need to get yourself up to speed, if only to not just clutter up threads with ignorant nonsense.

oh, wait...

Since it was clearly enumerated in Nixon's 1968 and 1972 campaigns, then the only people who would seek to challenge it would be racist revisionists. And they aren't worth spit. They are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers.

Enjoy your racism, little man.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

you claim it was clearly enumerated in nixon's 68 and 72 campaigns, but you do not give any support for that.

saying it over and over again. that is a lib's idea of debating.

oh and the race card, mustn't forget that.

liar.

 

[Correll]

Mitt Romney: take down that confederate flag.

Romney Take down the Confederate flag 2016 GOP field Leave it to South Carolina - Marc Caputo and Ali Breland - POLITICO


"Mitt Romney showed his enduring influence on the Republican presidential field on Saturday when he weighed in on the national debate over the Confederate battle flag, calling bluntly for South Carolina to remove it from the state capitol in the wake of the shootings in Charleston.

“Take down the #ConfederateFlag at the SC Capitol,” the 2012 Republican nominee tweeted. “To many, it is a symbol of racial hatred. Remove it now to honor #Charleston victims.”"


Cue Righties willing to line up and say "Mitt whoooo???" in 5.... 4..... 3..... 2..... 1.....

you cannot appease a lib mob. they will just come back tomorrow and demand another sacrifice.

 

[Correll]

we went off topic to discuss obama's statement.

obama made a comment about mass violence.

it was being discussed as the paraphrase of mass murder.

joe changed to wording to a very different word, shooting instead of murder, in order to make his point.

i was just pointing out that he felt he had to.

and that he tried to slide that little adjustment past us dishonestly.

odd you couldn't grasp that fact.

you being so smart and all.

so, do you have anything to actually say about that?

lol, rhetorical question, i know the answer is no.

guy, nobody does "mass violence" without a gun. You are a complete retard. I know it's a tough week for Southern Retards, as one of your own just got caught doing something really stupid.

sure they do.

fires, cars, hell knives can all be used for mass violence.

it was really stupid of you to not know that.

you called me retarded when you are the one being retarded.

this guy was not one of my own.

it is retarded of you to say that.

retard.

You are retarded. The entire context of the argument was Obama comparing the frequency of mass SHOOTINGS in America compared to other advanced nations. You are off in the weeds with some nonsense about fire and knives. Try tho stay on point.

i am on point. if you want to compare "mass violence" in different nations, you look at mass violence, not just mass violence with guns.

does it matter to those who die by fire or stabbing that they were not killed by a gun?

if obama wanted to play games with the stats to make the us look worse, he should have been more careful in his wording.

 

[Correll]

this thread has wondered all over the place.

no one is defending this guy or his actions.

if you think they are, link to show it.

otherwise, you are the one who is reading in stuff that is not there.

it is part of your closed mind.

these people disagree with you, they must be evul.

WTF is wrong with you?!?! As time goes on your posts become more cryptic and repetetive.
It's all over this and other threads.

simply referring to the high level of black on white crime, relative to white on black crime is not a defense of this guy.

Why is it relevant at all then?

i would have to see the example you are thinking of. probably in response to something some lib said about whites being so violent.

link?

If you can't follow the conversation and context of the thread, you probably shouldn't post as much as you do without reading the thread.

i'm following it fine. you're the one that seems confused about people's meanings.

i'm offering my help to you.

you certainly need it if you think anyone is defending this guy.

link to where someone was defending this guy, or stop saying it and admit that you were just talking smack.

 

[Correll]

this thread has wondered all over the place.

no one is defending this guy or his actions.

if you think they are, link to show it.

otherwise, you are the one who is reading in stuff that is not there.

it is part of your closed mind.

these people disagree with you, they must be evul.

WTF is wrong with you?!?! As time goes on your posts become more cryptic and repetetive.
It's all over this and other threads.

simply referring to the high level of black on white crime, relative to white on black crime is not a defense of this guy.

Why is it relevant at all then?

link me to a post you thought was in defense, and i will read it for you and explain it to you.

Dude, take a break. You just ran in a freakin' circle.
The example was black on white crime. You said it wasn't a defense. I asked why it was relevant. Now you're back to asking what I was referring to.
Context, context, context. Do try and keep up.

what's the problem?

you're claiming that cons are defending this guy, so show me the post where it occurred.

we are at over 180 pages, you want me to guess who you are referring to?

 

[Correll]

1. Most people? so what percentage are on it for not "a short period"?


1b your disagreement with republican economic policy has nothing to do with whether or not reagan was race baiting as you falsely claimed. off topic.

Welfare Statistics Statistic Brain

80% of welfare recipiant are on welfare for 5 years or less. 63% are on for less than 2 years.

The race-baiting image of the "Welfare Queen" is meant to appeal to racist images that have little reflection in reality.

2. what? do you imagine that event organizers do historical background checks with 200 mile radius checks for any negative events that might hurt some pc hacks feelings?

Reagan specifically picked that location because he knew exactly what it meant to the people he was trying to motivate.

3. he vetoed a bill that led to a murderer raping and assaulting people for hours. criticizing that is completely reasonable. that you can defend it does not mean that the criticism was not valid nor that it was racist. that dukakis changed it after people got hurt, does not change his early actions.

He didn't "criticize it'> He distorted the issue by telling outright lies and creating a dishonest image of who "Willie" Horton was. (Hint. He never called himself "Willie".)

1. so 20% are on for longer than 5 years at a time? i admit that i am surprised that it is not larger. is that the number that was true then, or is that now after decades of reform?

and the simple fact that the problem might have been less than thought at the time, does not prove racism, it could simply mean the issue looked worse at the time, relevant to what people raised in the 30s were expecting to see.

you are arguing against the policy that was being advocated. but that does not prove racism, just that those people saw the problem as larger than you think.



1b and you know that because you know the gop is racist. and you know the gop is racist because they have all these policies that are racist. and you know that the policies are racist, and that the stated reasons for the policies are lies, because you know the gop is racist. and then whenever a new issue or policy arises, you listen for the hidden code words, and dog whistle phrases that you know are there. and when you find them, it is further evidence that the gop is racist and their policies are racist. so that when a republican says that he is concerned about welfare, you know that he really means blacks.


a closed circular loop in a closed mind.


2. who told you that? sounds like complete bullshit to me. the gop has been pro-civil rights, (looking at their stated policies and enacted policies since their beginning, not interpreting code words and/or dog whistles,) since their beginning.

3. you seem to be conflating the idea of a possibly unfairly spun attack ad with racism. which is it?

a woman was raped because dukakis vetoed that bill. her husbanded was assaulted and tied up while the woman he loved was repeatedly violated. it went on for hours.

and you are upset that the gop might have used a form of the murder/rapist/thug's name that cast him in a poor light? that they didn't show him the respect of getting his first name right?

that's is what upsets you?

 

[JoeB131]

Denial of "Welfare Queens" is delusion of the first order. It's not even a debatable point.

IN FACT: Welfare is a staple of the inner city minorities... to argue otherwise is absolutely absurd. Given the GENERATIONS of Blacks which the left has CRIPPLED through such subsidies... .

Your argument is LUDICROUS... bearing NO kinship with reality.

Okay, guy, i just posted a thread that shows that the majority of welfare recipiants are transitory. This is also the position of the government.

In fact, from the Wall Street Journal, no less.

Get a Job Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One - Real Time Economics - WSJ

It’s poor-paying jobs, not unemployment, that strains the welfare system.

That’s one key finding from a study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, that showed the majority of households receiving government assistance are headed by a working adult.

The study found that 56% of federal and state dollars spent between 2009 and 2011 on welfare programs — including Medicaid, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit — flowed to working families and individuals with jobs. In some industries, about half the workforce relies on welfare.

This is the WALL STREET JOURNAL.

And it gets better. Most people who are on welfare are on it temporarily.

Most people on welfare use it temporarily

This new data follows participation from 2009 to 2012. And it reveals, across those four years, that the vast majority of people receiving welfare — about 63 percent — participated in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for cumulatively less than 12 months. Less than 10 percent were enrolled in the program for most of that time. Similarly, about a third of people using food stamps and Medicaid were what the Census would consider “short-term program participants.” And the same is true of about a quarter of people getting housing assistance.

At any given month in 2012, just 1 percent of the U.S. population was relying, for example, on welfare, the program that’s drawn particular scrutiny of late.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What part of " they easily get fully automatic rifles, handgrenades, pistols and rocket propelled grenades means they have tough gun control laws....their extreme laws do nothing to keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals...that is the point isn't it...to stop criminals...and they don't.....moron...

They don't easily get them. that's why these incidents are RARE.

Moron...the terrorists in the attack on Charlie Hebdo...in a country with extreme gun control, 3 terrorists, 2 on goverment terrorist watch lists and one a convicted felon crossed into belgium and bought fully automatic rifles, 30 round magazines, hand grenades, pistols and a rocket propelled grenade, crossed back from belgium with all those weapons and conducted the attack....

That same week, in Marseille, gunmen with fully automatic rifles...again.....shot up the Marseille neighbor hood just before the French Prime minsiter went there to give a speech on crime.....

Gun violence and crime is so bad in Marseille that the French want soldier sent in to restore peace and order....

and then you had the attack in France at the Jewish school by another guy with a fully automatic rifle...

and the attacks with fully automatic rifles in Belgium, Sweden and Denmark......

You really are dumb....

I would gladly take France's homicide rate over our own

Your examples of single cases where criminals get guns pales in comparison to the 300 million guns available to criminals in the US

agreed. france's homicide rate is better than ours.

why do you think that is?

I'll bite. BLACKS?

 

[JoeB131]

3. you seem to be conflating the idea of a possibly unfairly spun attack ad with racism. which is it?

No, I'm not conflating it at all. THey happen to be connected. Willie Horton was a big scary black man who as goign to rape your wife if Dukakis got elected. That was the message.

Lots of dumb people fell or it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is also the position of the government.

Oh Golly...

You're prepared to push out Government Sources?

Now, would this be the same government that 'informed' us that a Youtube Video had caused a Protest that got out of hand in Benghazi? Despite that government knowing that no such protest had manifested... and denied selling weapons to Syrian Rebels comprised of Islamic terrorist groups with whom the US is at war?

Would this be the same government that setup a program authorizing sales of high powered firearms to known mass-murdering gangs and conspired with mainstream media resources to use those sales as illicit evidence to frame innocent US Citizens for illegal sales, as a means to gather popular support for laws usurping the US Constitutional protection from such laws?

Is that the same government which illicitly used the police power of the Internal Revenue Service to prevent citizens from peaceably assembling and forming effective political opposition of that government?

Is that the same Government which has intentionally blown up the Welfare rolls adding an additional 43 MILLION welfare recipients, as a means to promote illicit political loyalties?

(Here's a clue: It's the same government, so.. stow that bullshit... it's rejected entirely as a source unworthy of any sense of trust.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Willie Horton was a big scary black man who as goign to rape your wife if Dukakis got elected. That was the message.

The Message was that Willie Horton was a double murder felon, who Dukakis released on a prison Furlough who used his furlough to commit assault, armed robbery AND RAPE. And the message of that was to point out that as the guy who furloughed the rapist, Dukakis was responsible FOR THE RAPE, the assault AND the Armed Robbery... and that sort of judgment is unworthy of any level of trust, let alone the level intrinsic to the office of the President of the United States.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Dylann Roof is a product of the right-wing movement of hate with which Fox News is complicit...

 

[BlueGin]

Liberals have found religion. Who'd a thunk?

 

[sealybobo]

Well, Crime is by its nature, hateful... That's why we call it crime and not "Rufus didn't pay for those shoes'.

It's a crime because Rufus stole property from Mr. Penney, who was selling those shoes to feed his family and the families of those he hired to sell his goods. When one steals the property of others they are disrespecting that persons humanity; he is showing that he has no regard for the rights of Mr.Penney; rights which were a gift to Mr. Penney, from God. Thus Rufus was demonstrating a disrespect for; or an offense against, or a sin against God; OKA: Hate.

So, there's no reason to reframe the issue as "Hateful", when the word Crime already does that.

Now, with that said; and as I pointed out above and as I have pointed out hundreds of times throughout this board, Hate Crimes are SUBJECTIVE... and it is a RARE day when a "Hate" crime is set against a black person for a crime against a white person, or where a Hate-crime is declared where a homosexual person murders a straight person. And where subjectivism enters the law, the law fails to serve justice.

Simple stuff... Law only works where it remains OBJECTIVE.

It is objective. If there is evidence that objectively proves that the crime was motivated by hatred of a particular race, it is a hate crime. For example, a man goes into a bkack church and announces that he going to shoot all the black folks there cause they be raping the white women and, later, when he us arrested, he says he did it to start a race war, that would be be objective proof of a hate crime. Get it?

I asked him why some murderers get the death penalty and some get life. Clearly some murders are worse than others. Why? I suspect the motivation.

If I kill my wife for cheating on me its not the same as Jeffrey Dahmer.

And Jeff didn't even get the death penalty.

This guy deserves the death penalty for multiple homicides. But not a so called "hate crime."

Well at least you understand not all crimes are created equal. When it is determined the crime was the result of " hate bigotry or racism" the punishment will be greater, which is the purpose of hate crime laws.

Maybe hate crime laws will prevent hate crimes.

Here's a problem with hate crimes though. Let's say a black bites off more than they can chew with me and while giving them the beat down I say the N word. That's not a hate crime.

he killed 9 people....how much greater can the punishment be......? You lefties...do you ever really engage your brains....?

well I agree with you so your assumption about my feelings or thoughts are way off base. so you should be worried about how your brain is engaging if that's what you thought I said maybe you're slipping