I love when progressives get mixed messages

[X Factor]

It always seems like in the early stages of these tragedies there are a lot of Democrats crossing their fingers hoping the shooter is a Christian, conservative Republican so that they can place the blame on Christians, Conservatives and Republicans. I remember when the Gabby Gifford shooting was all Sarah Palin's fault.

When it turns out to be a Muslim it's "how dare you place the blame on Muslims!"

It is, of course, fine to blame gun owners though.

 

[jmotivator]

It is, of course, fine to blame gun owners though.

Of course. And the Crusades.

 

[roughdraft274]

He's talking about the political implications.

He's gleeful about the supposed political implications.

I've never said you can't discuss the implications. But to express excitement over it and how much fun he is having over it is just sickening to a moral human being.

 

[roughdraft274]

As if on cue, last night we get ...
Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s first tweet Sunday morning was a fairly measured comment about the deadly mass shooting in an Orlando gay nightclub. “Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded.”

His second tweet, an hour and a half later, was a return to campaign trail politics — an attempt to falsely recast a verbal attack he made against a disabled journalist.

Then came another, more sympathetic tweet about the Orlando tragedy, followed by one in which he took credit for “being right on radical Islamic terrorism.” And then Trump went fully on the attack, saying, “Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!”

Trump’s approach to the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history posed a sharp contrast to the conventional one of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. She first tweeted a note of concern for the victims; hours later, she issued a statement that sought to address the main issues that the tragedy touched on — terrorism, gay rights and gun control.

The disparity between the two encapsulates the choice facing voters this fall: Do they see Trump’s bombast as the solution to a dangerous world, or do they find comfort in Clinton’s more familiar manner?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a0_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics-draw6&wpmm=1

Yessiree, the Left is nothing if not predictable.

This has nothing to do with anything I posted.

The only thing is that he could have added a #6 where the Left tries to deflect criticism by suggesting injecting politics is just so wrong.
Maybe he figured someone would do that for him ... and you did.

Please show where I said that you can't inject politics.

You can't show that because I never did. I'm suggesting that he at least act like a human with morals and sympathy while discussing those implications. Not that they can't be discussed.

 

[roughdraft274]

They KNOW what I'm talking

Yes, and that's whats so disgusting.


After a mass shooting I have no problem talking politics. I am not offended by a thread suggesting that the left's politics have been shown to be wrong due to this just like I'm not offended by someone suggesting gun control after a mass shooting. What I would find wrong is if someone gleefully high-fives after a mass shooting and says "damn, this is great, we can use this to get gun control! " That I would find disgusting.

I'm amazed that the conservatives on the board can't seem to agree here when I've heard from them nonstop "Wow, the left can't is bringing up politics before the bodies are even cold! How disgraceful!" But I guess it's only offensive when it isn't their politics.

Absolutely disgusting and vile. And every single one of them would be agreeing with me if a liberal had created a thread like this for another topic.

 

[X Factor]

Yes, and that's whats so disgusting.

Absolutely disgusting and vile. And every single one of them would be agreeing with me if a liberal had created a thread like this for another topic.

When liberals do it, do you express similar disgust? That's the thing about claims of hypocrisy, there's plenty to go around.

 

[roughdraft274]

When liberals do it, do you express similar disgust? That's the thing about claims of hypocrisy, there's plenty to go around.

Doesn't matter and has nothing to do with what I said. As long as I wasn't arguing with someone who was in there pointing out the problems, then there's nothing hypocritical about it. But regardless, If I saw it, I'd point it out.

It's amazing that someone was able to make this thread and instead of that person getting **** for it, the real concern is if the person pointing out the problems is at all times consistent in his condemnation. :roll:

 

[Zyphlin]

Seeing it develop in real-time is just too much fun to resist.

1. Gays being hated - Check
2. Arsenal of weapons - Check
3. Muslin shooter - Crap.
4. Obama's watch wants to let in even more of the savages - Oh double crap
5. Hillary's comments to the same - Man, not good, Trump gunna Trump all week on this, University what?

All would have fleshed out perfectly if only the shooter were Christian.


Tim-

Well, it's wonderful a situation that results in so many dead bodies can get you so excited and overjoyed that you just must profess your "Love" of the results of such situations and how much "fun" the fallout is.

 

[X Factor]

Doesn't matter and has nothing to do with what I said. As long as I wasn't arguing with someone who was in there pointing out the problems, then there's nothing hypocritical about it. But regardless, If I saw it, I'd point it out.

It's amazing that someone was able to make this thread and instead of that person getting **** for it, the real concern is if the person pointing out the problems is at all times consistent in his condemnation. :roll:

You were the one who brought up consistency, though and how all the righties are not behaving consistently. Is it only objectionable when it comes from the right? If you're going to gripe about it you probably should be consistent yourself, don't you think? Otherwise, what cred do you expect to have when accusing others of hypocrisy?

 

[Brother AJ]

The left is absolutely right that this shouldn't be an excuse to start bashing and fearing Muslims. Who ****ing cares if the shooter was a Muslim? You all think this reflects upon Muslims as a whole? Because that's complete fallacious bull****.

 

[roughdraft274]

You were the one who brought up consistency, though and how all the righties are not behaving consistently. Is it only objectionable when it comes from the right? If you're going to gripe about it you probably should be consistent yourself, don't you think?

I said they'd agree with me if this thread were started under reversed circumstances. If you have anything to suggest I'm wrong, present it. If you have anything to suggest that I'd act differently, then present that. Otherwise you're trailing further and further from the actual thread.

Otherwise, what cred do you expect to have when accusing others of hypocrisy?

I don't give a flying **** about "cred". Something is either wrong or it's right. If the dumbest, most biased, intellectually dishonest, borderline retarded person on this thread said that 2+2 equals 4, then they are correct regardless of their "cred".

I find it offensive how this thread was started. I have seen numerous threads that were started after mass murders like this where the original poster was not taking joy in the ensuing politics, but rather just discussing the politics of it, and they get rampaged for being so heartless. Yet here is a prime example of someone downright taking glee in the discussions, yet here we are, debating whether I have the "cred" to call him out for it, and for calling out the people that are insensitive enough to defend him.

 

[X Factor]

The left is absolutely right that this shouldn't be an excuse to start bashing and fearing Muslims. Who ****ing cares if the shooter was a Muslim? You all think this reflects upon Muslims as a whole? Because that's complete fallacious bull****.

But it does, of course, reflect on gun rights supporters. :lol:

 

[roughdraft274]

Well, it's wonderful a situation that results in so many dead bodies can get you so excited and overjoyed that you just must profess your "Love" of the results of such situations and how much "fun" the fallout is.

Exactly.

There's no problem if someone wants to discuss the fallout of a tragedy, or the political implications of a tragedy, but when done like it has been done in this thread, it's disgusting.

 

[Casca XV]

The left is absolutely right that this shouldn't be an excuse to start bashing and fearing Muslims. Who ****ing cares if the shooter was a Muslim? You all think this reflects upon Muslims as a whole? Because that's complete fallacious bull****.

Muslim is why he did it, try to keep up. Read the Koran you will see the so called nice Muslims are actually the non-practicing Muslims.

 

[Casca XV]

Progressive Liberals sympathize with Muslims because it is the only group who hates traditional America more than they do.

They deserve each other.

If Muslims ever obtain total power Progressive Liberals will be the first with their heads chopped off.

If Progressive Liberals ever obtain total power Muslims will be the first in concentration camps.

 

[X Factor]

I said they'd agree with me if this thread were started under reversed circumstances. If you have anything to suggest I'm wrong, present it. If you have anything to suggest that I'd act differently, then present that. Otherwise you're trailing further and further from the actual thread.

I don't give a flying **** about "cred". Something is either wrong or it's right. If the dumbest, most biased, intellectually dishonest, borderline retarded person on this thread said that 2+2 equals 4, then they are correct regardless of their "cred".

I find it offensive how this thread was started. I have seen numerous threads that were started after mass murders like this where the original poster was not taking joy in the ensuing politics, but rather just discussing the politics of it, and they get rampaged for being so heartless. Yet here is a prime example of someone downright taking glee in the discussions, yet here we are, debating whether I have the "cred" to call him out for it, and for calling out the people that are insensitive enough to defend him.

So you want to complain about the inconsistency you perceive on the right without being similarly challenged. Ok.

 

[roughdraft274]

So you want to complain about the inconsistency you perceive on the right without being similarly challenged. Ok.

That's not what was said at all X. In any way. I said I don't care about cred. I didn't say that no one can challenge my consistency. And if someone does show where I've been inconsistent, or suggest that I wouldn't take the same position if the roles were reversed, then they are welcome to do so. You're whiny complaint is that you don't think I'm vocal enough or question whether I'd be vocal if the roles were reversed. And I'm saying I don't care about that. I'm arguing what is actually being said. So your moving the goal posts down to the other side of town, and then acting indignant when you are told I don't give a **** about your fake goal posts. And then you are still trying to conflate them with the originals.

So to put it simply for you, since you are having a hard time. I'm not arguing about how someone isn't being vocal enough. I'm arguing what is being said. If you want to call me out for not being vocal enough on something else, then fine, make a thread and call me out. But either way, save yourself some time and quit making **** up.

And if your next response makes **** up about what I've said or wanted, then I'm just hitting block and ignoring you.

 

[X Factor]

That's not what was said at all X. In any way. I said I don't care about cred. I didn't say that no one can challenge my consistency. And if someone does show where I've been inconsistent, or suggest that I wouldn't take the same position if the roles were reversed, then they are welcome to do so. You're whiny complaint is that you don't think I'm vocal enough or question whether I'd be vocal if the roles were reversed. And I'm saying I don't care about that. I'm arguing what is actually being said. So your moving the goal posts down to the other side of town, and then acting indignant when you are told I don't give a **** about your fake goal posts. And then you are still trying to conflate them with the originals.

So to put it simply for you, since you are having a hard time. I'm not arguing about how someone isn't being vocal enough. I'm arguing what is being said. If you want to call me out for not being vocal enough on something else, then fine, make a thread and call me out. But either way, save yourself some time and quit making **** up.

But if you're "vocal" in one situation but silent in another just because the situation is reversed, I guess I don't see much reason to care about how upset and indignant you are since it would seem to be entirely situational and not based on anything objective.

 

[roughdraft274]

But if you're vocal" in one situation but silent in another just because the situation is reversed, I guess I don't see much reason to care about how upset and indignant you are.

Very good. Very good job. No twisting of words, no bull****. I'm so happy to be discussing reality with you once again X.

I don't want you to care if I'm upset. I don't need your shoulder to cry on. The thing that should offend you is the original post in this very thread. And it should offend you regardless of who pointed it out.

Lets give an example. Would it make sense for me to go "how am I supposed to care about a woman being raped if feminist groups are only express outrage when females are raped but not when men are?"

Well, you aren't supposed to care because I said so. You are supposed to care because what was done or said is actually offensive.

So it's either offensive or it's not. Are you offended by it, or do you find no problem in the original post?

 

[Brother AJ]

Muslim is why he did it, try to keep up. Read the Koran you will see the so called nice Muslims are actually the non-practicing Muslims.

Please demonstrate how it was *because* he was Muslim that he committed this horrible act. Do you have any data or evidence that indicates that Muslims are more likely to be violent? Anything that shows that all practicing Muslims are not "nice" and are more likely to do these sorts of things?

Do you seriously not ****ing understand that you're talking about a religion comprised of 1.6 billion people? All of these people tend to be more dangerous?! You can't successfully paint all of them with such a ****ing broad brush. The Bible promotes plenty of dispicable acts and plenty of Christians are violent, yet we're able to recognize that there isn't something inherently about being Christian that makes you choose to behave violently. What matters is the CULTURE that a person was raised in.

It's nice to be able to spew rhetoric without actually thinking about what you're saying though isn't it?

 

[EvaPeron]

And I "love" to see yet another right winger ignoring that he was born in New York and was a natural born citizen... just like Trump.

Also I "love" to see right wingers ignore the fact that there has been more mass shootings in the US this year than there have been days in the year...

Right wingers are in total denial and trying everything to deflect away from the truth..

I'm not sure if the truth you speak of is regarding gun control, but there is only one thing that France and the US have in common with regards to recent mass shootings - that is Radical Islamist Terrorists. Gun Control in France is very tight and that did nothing to prevent this from happening there anymore than it would have prevented this from happening here.

The tragedy is that our President and left leadership is deflecting for their own cause and not for the betterment of our people. Look at the facts before you decide - but if it wasn't a gun it would be a bomb or a knife. "Evil flourishes when good people do nothing" Not "evil flourishes when good people have guns."

Sorry - that's the hard truth that is being deflected from.

 

[X Factor]

Very good. Very good job. No twisting of words, no bull****. I'm so happy to be discussing reality with you once again X.

I don't want you to care if I'm upset. I don't need your shoulder to cry on. The thing that should offend you is the original post in this very thread. And it should offend you regardless of who pointed it out.

Lets give an example. Would it make sense for me to go "how am I supposed to care about a woman being raped if feminist groups are only express outrage when females are raped but not when men are?"

Well, you aren't supposed to care because I said so. You are supposed to care because what was done or said is actually offensive.

So it's either offensive or it's not. Are you offended by it, or do you find no problem in the original post?

To be honest, no I was not offended by the OP. I get much more offended when Islamic violence is excused and justified and told how the victims are the ones to blame.

 

[roughdraft274]

To be honest, no I was not offended by the OP.

Good for you. We should all be so lucky as to have a faulty hit-or-miss moral compass.

 

[Casca XV]

Please demonstrate how it was *because* he was Muslim that he committed this horrible act. Do you have any data or evidence that indicates that Muslims are more likely to be violent? Anything that shows that all practicing Muslims are not "nice" and are more likely to do these sorts of things?

Do you seriously not ****ing understand that you're talking about a religion comprised of 1.6 billion people? All of these people tend to be more dangerous?! You can't successfully paint all of them with such a ****ing broad brush. The Bible promotes plenty of dispicable acts and plenty of Christians are violent, yet we're able to recognize that there isn't something inherently about being Christian that makes you choose to behave violently. What matters is the CULTURE that a person was raised in.

It's nice to be able to spew rhetoric without actually thinking about what you're saying though isn't it?

Read the Koran: it's a conquest manual not another type of bible.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It always seems like in the early stages of these tragedies there are a lot of Democrats crossing their fingers hoping the shooter is a Christian, conservative Republican so that they can place the blame on Christians, Conservatives and Republicans. I remember when the Gabby Gifford shooting was all Sarah Palin's fault.

When it turns out to be a Muslim it's "how dare you place the blame on Muslims!"

Seems to me that whenever one of these tragedies happen, right wingers are always crossing their fingers hoping that it's a Muslim, so they can place blame on liberals, Democrats, immigration, and pretty much anything they can conjure up.

When it turns out to not be a Muslim, it's "well, he's probably got ties to Muslim fundamentalists anyway".