FBI: No evidence the Orlando killer was gay or used gay apps

[Cephus]

no actually the facts(and motivations) are clear and simply understood. But when the liberals and their media friend get done chopping, slicing and pureeing "the truth" it resembles jail-served oatmeal: almost unrecognizable. fun world we live in.

That's exactly what I was going to say. There's no question what happened. The shooter was very clear why he did it. ISIS even came out and told other potential suicide shooters not to go after non-white, non-straight targets because they know that the idiot liberals are going to try to turn it into a hate crime and not give them their due. Everyone knows what happened except the idiot liberals who are desperate never to ever, ever, ever blame Islam for anything, ever.

This video pretty much explains it.

 

[Thoreau72]

no actually the facts(and motivations) are clear and simply understood. But when the liberals and their media friend get done chopping, slicing and pureeing "the truth" it resembles jail-served oatmeal: almost unrecognizable. fun world we live in.

I'm glad everything is clear in your mind. Seems all the talking heads are not quite so clear-minded as yourself. I'm still wondering why the feds picked it up instead of the state, and I'm still having trouble believing that one untrained dude could be so efficient on kill ratio per round fired, all while yapping away on the cellphone. Quite a guy, he was.

 

[roguenuke]

His wife drove him to the gay club.

The man was not hiding anything or he was not gay.

Or he was bisexual. Or his wife knew that he was gay and married to her only because of his personal internal conflicts and/or beliefs about how he should live his life. There are many possibilities here.

 

[roguenuke]

no actually the facts(and motivations) are clear and simply understood. But when the liberals and their media friend get done chopping, slicing and pureeing "the truth" it resembles jail-served oatmeal: almost unrecognizable. fun world we live in.

Except the motivations are not really that simple in all likelihood. We don't really know why he did what he did, even with his professing his loyalties. There is contradictions in a lot of the information we have. People are trying to sort out those contradictions. It doesn't make anyone less dead or injured, but it could help to see the many sources of such hatreds and convictions, where they come from and how strong such things are in order to correctly identify them early on.

 

[chromium]

That's exactly what I was going to say. There's no question what happened. The shooter was very clear why he did it. ISIS even came out and told other potential suicide shooters not to go after non-white, non-straight targets because they know that the idiot liberals are going to try to turn it into a hate crime and not give them their due. Everyone knows what happened except the idiot liberals who are desperate never to ever, ever, ever blame Islam for anything, ever.

This video pretty much explains it.

well then if in the future none go after gay latino victims, i guess we call it a success huh

 

[Cephus]

well then if in the future none go after gay latino victims, i guess we call it a success huh

And who cares if white people die, right? :roll:

 

[chromium]

And who cares if white people die, right? :roll:

well it's what you accuse liberals of, so may as well act the part, even if not true

 

[Henrin]

That's exactly what I was going to say. There's no question what happened. The shooter was very clear why he did it. ISIS even came out and told other potential suicide shooters not to go after non-white, non-straight targets because they know that the idiot liberals are going to try to turn it into a hate crime and not give them their due. Everyone knows what happened except the idiot liberals who are desperate never to ever, ever, ever blame Islam for anything, ever.

Seriously what in the **** is it about liberals wanting to claim the western world is the problem here? If groups like ISIS didn't follow the most retarded book in human existence(yes I'm calling it more retarded than the bible) word for word we wouldn't even be dealing with this ****, but no, they have to believe in ****ing nonsense and liberals have to try to redirect blame on everyone else. ****ing hell. It's this kind of **** that makes me hate the world.

 

[fmw]

"No evidence the Orlando killer was gay or used gay apps"

Oh. That's a relief. Isn't it?

 

[SailaWay]

LYNCH should be in JAIL for changing the transcript of the killer so that no one can LEARN... she has to go to JAIL.. that is a big time criminal act by the higher ups stopping learning stops a nation in its tracks

 

[matchlight]

which makes no difference to this 'leftist'

homophobia is to blame either way

Homophobia?" Doesn't look to me like he had any fear of any of the homosexuals he was shooting.

 

[roguenuke]

Homophobia?" Doesn't look to me like he had any fear of any of the homosexuals he was shooting.

So then this is let's pretend that the word homophobia doesn't mean what it has been known to mean since almost the time it came into use.

 

[matchlight]

So then this is let's pretend that the word homophobia doesn't mean what it has been known to mean since almost the time it came into use.

It has never come into use with me, and as far as I'm concerned it is a neologism that means nothing more than what the person tossing it around wants it to mean. Like "xenophobia" and "Islamophobia," it is a term pseudo-liberals have found useful for making shortcut arguments by innuendo. It saves the thinking and argumentation they would need to show why someone who peeves them is irrationally biased against homosexuals, or aliens, or Muslims, all of whom are members of their pet grievance groups. Instead, just mouth the magic term--"Homophobe!" "Xenophobe!" "Islamophobe!" and do it often enough--and after a while, presto!--everyone knows just what that term "has been known to mean almost since the time it came into use."

 

[roguenuke]

It has never come into use with me, and as far as I'm concerned it is a neologism that means nothing more than what the person tossing it around wants it to mean. Like "xenophobia" and "Islamophobia," it is a term pseudo-liberals have found useful for making shortcut arguments by innuendo. It saves the thinking and argumentation they would need to show why someone who peeves them is irrationally biased against homosexuals, or aliens, or Muslims, all of whom are members of their pet grievance groups. Instead, just mouth the magic term--"Homophobe!" "Xenophobe!" "Islamophobe!" and do it often enough--and after a while, presto!--everyone knows just what that term "has been known to mean almost since the time it came into use."

Just because you don't like the meaning of a word or how people use a word, doesn't mean that the word doesn't have that meaning. It is simply stubbornness on your part that is the issue.

And yes using a term often enough in a certain way is exactly how a meaning for a word develops. That's an accepted part of language.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[matchlight]

Just because you don't like the meaning of a word or how people use a word, doesn't mean that the word doesn't have that meaning. It is simply stubbornness on your part that is the issue.

And yes using a term often enough in a certain way is exactly how a meaning for a word develops. That's an accepted part of language.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know leftist propaganda techniques, in all their dishonesty, when I see them. The nonsensical term you dote on is just another facet of political correctness, a doctrine originally cooked up by European communists to distort the truth and discredit any opinions that diverged from the party line. Repeating a lie often enough, if it goes unchallenged, is likely to cause many gullible people to accept it as true--I believe Goebbels discussed the usefulness of doing that. That is why I refuse to accept or use your favored term, and why I point out the devious purpose that is often behind its use.

This son of a whore did not murder those homosexuals because he was afraid of anything about them, but because he hated their guts. Shari'ah calls for people who engage in sodomy to be killed, and he was responding to that call like a dutiful Muslim jihadist. What a dilemma for pseudo-liberals, when their pet grievance groups come into conflict with each other! Easy enough for them to stick up for Islamists overseas, ignoring or making excuses for their Nazi-like barbarism toward women, Christians, Jews, and homosexuals. Not so easy to make excuses for Islamist cowards, when they strike so close to home.

 

[roguenuke]

I know leftist propaganda techniques, in all their dishonesty, when I see them. The nonsensical term you dote on is just another facet of political correctness, a doctrine originally cooked up by European communists to distort the truth and discredit any opinions that diverged from the party line. Repeating a lie often enough, if it goes unchallenged, is likely to cause many gullible people to accept it as true--I believe Goebbels discussed the usefulness of doing that. That is why I refuse to accept or use your favored term, and why I point out the devious purpose that is often behind its use.

This son of a whore did not murder those homosexuals because he was afraid of anything about them, but because he hated their guts. Shari'ah calls for people who engage in sodomy to be killed, and he was responding to that call like a dutiful Muslim jihadist. What a dilemma for pseudo-liberals, when their pet grievance groups come into conflict with each other! Easy enough for them to stick up for Islamists overseas, ignoring or making excuses for their Nazi-like barbarism toward women, Christians, Jews, and homosexuals. Not so easy to make excuses for Islamist cowards, when they strike so close to home.

I very rarely use any of those terms towards others. I simply recognize that they do have meanings that you are claiming false ignorance to simply because you disapprove of those meanings. You are trying to argue some dishonest semantics argument.

And it shows how partisan a person I'd who would claim or even suggest that most liberals support terrorism. Most Muslims are not involved not do they support terrorism just as most Christians are not involved in nor do they support hate speech such as that professed by the WBC or KKK or other southern white power associations who profess their religion tells them white people are superior.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SheWolf]

The left was hoping he was gay so they could use it as a motive for what....advancing their "gay on gay crime" agenda that we've heard so much about?

A leftist conspiracy is unlikely. They source of these rumors were patrons at The Pulse, and not elite left wingers. All of the confusion needs to be sorted away in a proper fashion before we start jumping to political conspiracy theories.

 

[SheWolf]

The article's title is actually, "No Evidence Orlando Gunman was Gay" .... :lol: ... How does the federal government go about collecting evidence as proof you're gay or not? Did they discover he had a bad fashion sense, hated theater, didn't own a pair of skinny jeans, and was not a fan of Lady Gaga or Cher?

 

[Thoreau72]

It has never come into use with me, and as far as I'm concerned it is a neologism that means nothing more than what the person tossing it around wants it to mean. Like "xenophobia" and "Islamophobia," it is a term pseudo-liberals have found useful for making shortcut arguments by innuendo. It saves the thinking and argumentation they would need to show why someone who peeves them is irrationally biased against homosexuals, or aliens, or Muslims, all of whom are members of their pet grievance groups. Instead, just mouth the magic term--"Homophobe!" "Xenophobe!" "Islamophobe!" and do it often enough--and after a while, presto!--everyone knows just what that term "has been known to mean almost since the time it came into use."

Good point! The word "liberal" is used in a very similar way. Or "entitlement". Or "conservative". Labels are sometime helpful, but many times misleading.

 

[Cephus]

Good point! The word "liberal" is used in a very similar way. Or "entitlement". Or "conservative". Labels are sometime helpful, but many times misleading.

Labels are only useful when everyone uses them consistently. When they don't, then labels are worse than useless, they actively impede rational conversation.