Jump to content
Paulding.com

Mass shooting at church in Texas today.


Recommended Posts

More coming out. Looks like the shooter had a long history of mental illness, even dating back to middle school. He was court marshaled in the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child.

Instead of gun control, we should be looking at why a man with this type of history was not under psychiatric care; not to mention legally allowed to buy a gun.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/06/texas-church-shooting-who-is-gunman-devin-patrick-kelley.html
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The only thing that stops a criminal with a gun, is someone else who also has a gun. In this case, an armed, private citizen gave chase to the criminal and now there's no need to spend taxpayer money

That mentally deranged man would buy a gun, whether or not he could do it legally. How can anyone not understand, a psycho will get a gun and use it, no matter what the laws are. Law abiding, sane

A local citizen grabbed his rifle and engaged the shooter effectively ending the rampage. It has been reported that the shooter was dishonorably discharged and court-martialed. If true, it was alr

Posted Images

If you think the liberal conversation is about a little gun control think again. An armed society is a polite society. We need more good guys with guns. Have you noticed that most of these attacks happen in gun free zones?

 

Then that should make us the politest society on the planet.

 

 

And that would make you an idiot.

 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

More coming out. Looks like the shooter had a long history of mental illness, even dating back to middle school. He was court marshaled in the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child.

Instead of gun control, we should be looking at why a man with this type of history was not under psychiatric care; not to mention legally allowed to buy a gun.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/06/texas-church-shooting-who-is-gunman-devin-patrick-kelley.html

He did have a history of mental illness. He was dishonorably discharged. But people that are mentally ill don’t think that they are. You can’t force anyone into an institution now unless they commit murder and plead insanity. Thankfully he’s dead and there won’t be the expense of taking care of a psychopath, which can’t be cured.

 

I keep hearing he shouldn’t have passed a background check. Was one done? I don’t know.

 

We could start by shutting down gun shows. Why a gun show when you can go to a gun store? I can go today and buy a gun but don’t I have a waiting period and don’t I have to pass a back ground check?

 

It’s a start.

 

I don’t have any answers. I exercise my 2nd amendment right and I don’t want it taken away. I’ve had guns all of my life and thank God I’ve never had to use one to protect myself. But I want in case I need it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Then that should make us the politest society on the planet.

 

 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

 

We have been until recently. What do you think changed? I can think of a couple of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More coming out. Looks like the shooter had a long history of mental illness, even dating back to middle school. He was court marshaled in the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child.

 

Instead of gun control, we should be looking at why a man with this type of history was not under psychiatric care; not to mention legally allowed to buy a gun.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/06/texas-church-shooting-who-is-gunman-devin-patrick-kelley.html

 

 

First, if you think that mental health care is wide spread even for those in need of it in states that did not expand Obamacare, you're fooling yourself. Mental health benefits as a part of our health care has been a highly restricted and exempted benefit traditionally - I don't recall any of my health plans prior to the coverage mandates of Obama care that included them except the BCBS coverage I had in DC as a young senate staffer.

 

 

 

Let's start by taking away matches, knives, drivers's licenses and guns from all the Democrats. 8)

 

Neanderthals like this guy are not at all likely to be Democrats for starters. Second, matches, knives and drivers licenses are rarely responsible for as many murders as occurred in Texas and would, only in a few instances of war time atrocities, have such casualties been wrought in churches.

 

Thirdly, and this fact came out after Las Vegas, did you know that three percent of the gun owners have not just a gun; but own roughly 150+ million guns and are sitting on arsenals that would suggest they are preparing for either a zombie apocalypse or civil war? If it is the latter, is that not bordering on treason?

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First, if you think that mental health care is wide spread even for those in need of it in states that did not expand Obamacare, you're fooling yourself. Mental health benefits as a part of our health care has been a highly restricted and exempted benefit traditionally - I don't recall any of my health plans prior to the coverage mandates of Obama care that included them except the BCBS coverage I had in DC as a young senate staffer.

 

 

 

Neanderthals like this guy are not at all likely to be Democrats for starters. Second, matches, knives and drivers licenses are rarely responsible for as many murders as occurred in Texas and would, only in a few instances of war time atrocities, have such casualties been wrought in churches.

 

Thirdly, and this fact came out after Las Vegas, did you know that three percent of the gun owners have not just a gun; but own roughly 150+ million guns and are sitting on arsenals that would suggest they are preparing for either a zombie apocalypse or civil war? If it is the latter, is that not bordering on treason?

 

pubby

Proof of my earlier statement that partisan politics prevents us from addressing the real issues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that stops a criminal with a gun, is someone else who also has a gun. In this case, an armed, private citizen gave chase to the criminal and now there's no need to spend taxpayer money on a costly trial, lawyers fees, and countless appeals. That's justice, Texas style!

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this article, it looks like somebody dropped the ball, big time.

 

http://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/air-force-failed-to-submit-texas-shooters-criminal-history-11-06-2017-233800169

 

 

I get a distinct feeling that men are protected from getting a criminal record, Jenny! This is still a man's world and brotherly love keeps men from a criminal record because the prosecutors feel empathy for their brothers.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof of my earlier statement that partisan politics prevents us from addressing the real issues.

Tell me how you're going to make mental health care available to the folks knowing that without financial help, they won't even consider accessing services they absolutely need. I mean, we've all heard of 'interventions' ... but if there is no coverage for the person for whom the intervention is staged, few are going to stand call for an intervention if it means they're each spending effectively committing to the $10,000 out of pocket costs a residential treatment center costs.

 

Second, don't say jail is the alternative because that experience is often destructive of the individual needing help. American jails and prisons do not have rehabilitation as a goal; conservatives saw to that with their insistence on prison being understood to be the victims revenge.

 

Finally, the image that flashed through my brain in regard the burning church came from an incident pulled by the British in New York - Long Island I believe - during the revolutionary war when an entire congregation was torched in retaliation for disloyalty to the king.

 

The only reason you choose to say the discussion is divisive partisanship is because you don't know history ... the public health programs proposed Republicans from Dick Nixon through Mitt Romney (as Governor) have all included a mental health benefit available to all ... oh, and Nixon's health care insurance program was more generous than Barack Obama's.

 

Indeed, by stating how it comes across to you as partisan is because you are not willing to compromise and instead refuse to listen, engage or even consider anything other than ' you're on you're own and if you want to blow folks away, we got laws that you'll break and if you die, that is tough on you isn't it.

 

There is plenty to compromise upon but doing nothing is, was and always will be doing nothing... Wait, you are doing something ... you're disrespecting everyone who disagrees with you.

 

pubby

 

PS: Discussion and/or compromise would be whether to fully fund it on a basis of available budget - i.e. throw money at the problem even knowing that only a portion of the need would be filled but you just throw an attack and deny the problem is large enough to warrant you do the first thing.

 

PPS: the logic that proves the notion that we have to wait to talk about gun control measures is that another happens before you've stopped waiting for the first. That lame excuse will no longer work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me how you're going to make mental health care available to the folks knowing that without financial help, they won't even consider accessing services they absolutely need. I mean, we've all heard of 'interventions' ... but if there is no coverage for the person for whom the intervention is staged, few are going to stand call for an intervention if it means they're each spending effectively committing to the $10,000 out of pocket costs a residential treatment center costs.

 

Second, don't say jail is the alternative because that experience is often destructive of the individual needing help. American jails and prisons do not have rehabilitation as a goal; conservatives saw to that with their insistence on prison being understood to be the victims revenge.

 

Finally, the image that flashed through my brain in regard the burning church came from an incident pulled by the British in New York - Long Island I believe - during the revolutionary war when an entire congregation was torched in retaliation for disloyalty to the king.

 

The only reason you choose to say the discussion is divisive partisanship is because you don't know history ... the public health programs proposed Republicans from Dick Nixon through Mitt Romney (as Governor) have all included a mental health benefit available to all ... oh, and Nixon's health care insurance program was more generous than Barack Obama's.

 

Indeed, by stating how it comes across to you as partisan is because you are not willing to compromise and instead refuse to listen, engage or even consider anything other than ' you're on you're own and if you want to blow folks away, we got laws that you'll break and if you die, that is tough on you isn't it.

 

There is plenty to compromise upon but doing nothing is, was and always will be doing nothing... Wait, you are doing something ... you're disrespecting everyone who disagrees with you.

 

pubby

 

PS: Discussion and/or compromise would be whether to fully fund it on a basis of available budget - i.e. throw money at the problem even knowing that only a portion of the need would be filled but you just throw an attack and deny the problem is large enough to warrant you do the first thing.

 

PPS: the logic that proves the notion that we have to wait to talk about gun control measures is that another happens before you've stopped waiting for the first. That lame excuse will no longer work.

I don't know all the answers, pubby. But immediately jumping on gun control and blaming all the world's evils on Republicans like you do isn't going to fix it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Neanderthals like this guy are not at all likely to be Democrats for starters. Second, matches, knives and drivers licenses are rarely responsible for as many murders as occurred in Texas and would, only in a few instances of war time atrocities, have such casualties been wrought in churches.

 

Thirdly, and this fact came out after Las Vegas, did you know that three percent of the gun owners have not just a gun; but own roughly 150+ million guns and are sitting on arsenals that would suggest they are preparing for either a zombie apocalypse or civil war? If it is the latter, is that not bordering on treason?

 

pubby

 

Funny that every major city that is controlled by the Democrats is a hotbed of crime. Only need to point out Chicago, but there are many more.

 

While this particular incident might have been instigated by some family feud, you can bet that Abdul and Omar have been given a new idea.

 

 

Since when is preparing for self-defense a treasonous activity?

 

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got from a gun collector was this : "Have an amount of ammo on hand equal to the number of Muslims in the area. "

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know all the answers, pubby. But immediately jumping on gun control and blaming all the world's evils on Republicans like you do isn't going to fix it.

 

Well then, let's ask the same of Foxmeister, he knows everything. Gun control works in every other industrialized nation. Why it won't work here?

 

Who gets to decide who is mentally-ill and who is a terrorist? The mentally-ill are not going to volunteer themselves.

 

kn3x8.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More coming out. Looks like the shooter had a long history of mental illness, even dating back to middle school. He was court marshaled in the Air Force for assaulting his wife and child.

 

Instead of gun control, we should be looking at why a man with this type of history was not under psychiatric care; not to mention legally allowed to buy a gun.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/06/texas-church-shooting-who-is-gunman-devin-patrick-kelley.html

 

 

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

 

8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A local citizen grabbed his rifle and engaged the shooter effectively ending the rampage.

It has been reported that the shooter was dishonorably discharged and court-martialed. If true, it was already illegal for him to possess firearms. Clearly he had to have mental issues to commit this terrible act.

 

If everyone has a gun, how do we know who the bad guys are? How will law enforcement know who to engage? How do we know when a Good Samaritan doesn't accidentally shoot an innocent person. If a Good Samaritan shoots someone engaging a bad guy, do we charge him with negligence? Can the innocent bystander's family sue the Good Samaritan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The shooter was never adjudicated as mentally ill.

 

The Obama rule was never fully enacted.

 

And your headline is incredibly misleading :

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/03/how-a-never-enforced-rule-being-possibly

 

"This rule that never previously existed will continue to not exist."

 

8)

Edited by mrshoward
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If everyone has a gun, how do we know who the bad guys are? How will law enforcement know who to engage? How do we know when a Good Samaritan doesn't accidentally shoot an innocent person. If a Good Samaritan shoots someone engaging a bad guy, do we charge him with negligence? Can the innocent bystander's family sue the Good Samaritan?

 

First, don't be silly...I don't think anyone has said that everyone should have a gun. Good guys or gals with guns are not guaranteed to be helpful in all situations. However, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are used thousands of times per day to stop criminals in this country.

 

Would you rather this gunman not have been confronted and shot by the private citizen? Would you rather he went back to his SUV to get more ammo and continue killing men, women, and children?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our society is showing signs of illness as a whole. I believe there are people out there that have some of the answers, I think they believe that it is absolutely hopeless to speak out. The mass shootings are simply one of the symptoms of a society that feels it needs to be armed. Drug addiction and abuse, the rate of suicides.

There is another addiction out there that is very well understood, yet never spoken of as a problem.

We crave experiencing a kaleidoscope of emotions on a frequent basis. I often wonder if this is because physically we do less than ever before. There was a time when wiling away a few hours on one's bum a day would mean the difference in surviving. We are not hundreds of years from that.

 

I believe that media allows us to experience more high emotion in one month than humans 75 years ago would in a year.

Every exposure creates an organic change in the brain.

You see that in more primitive cultures that every opportunity is taken to join around a campfire after physically demanding days to survive. We, on the other hand, crawl into our holes and seek make believe interaction. My guess is we feel we are controlling who, how and what controls our emotions and can walk away.

 

Our mental stability is very much tied up in what happens to us beyond our control. The ultimate act of control is over a persons life. A simple or even solitary life provides a stronger illusion of control. Drugs can be a coping mechanism.

 

I think the answer is to start listening to those that understand our brains and behaviors much as we listened to the wise elders around a campfire centuries ago.

 

As a metaphor I offer this, if our brains were boats they wouldn't for many in our society. We are going to have to start looking and learning about our own minds and how they are evolving in this new world.

Why aspects of our social structures make individuals feel totally out of control and how to identify people that are being driven to insane acts before they exercise the ultimate control.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well then, let's ask the same of Foxmeister, he knows everything. Gun control works in every other industrialized nation. Why it won't work here?

 

Who gets to decide who is mentally-ill and who is a terrorist? The mentally-ill are not going to volunteer themselves.

 

kn3x8.jpg

For the same reason gun control does not work in Chicago, DC and other cities that have implemented it - culture.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason gun control does not work in Chicago, DC and other cities that have implemented it - culture.

Or lack thereof.

 

The left will be silent about the AF's negligence in reporting Kelley's dishonorable discharge to the ATF's database, because all that happened on Obama's "command".

Edited by Glassdogs
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or lack thereof.

Culture is a social behavior found in human societies to include the work place. In this case of gun violence in American cities where there are strict gun control laws i.e. Chicago, you can say it's the culture of those communities where the shootings take place. Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country with 593 so far this year (source). 3,200 people have been shot so far this year in Chicago. Chicago has the most strictest gun control laws in the country.

 

Georgia grants concealed carry permits to law abiding citizens and it's gun control laws are not anywhere near as restrictive as they are in Chicago. So far this year, 94 murders have been committed in Atlanta. Law abiding citizens in Atlanta can own a gun and be granted a concealed carry permit. According to liberals, gun control and more stringent background checks would significantly reduce murders committed by guns in the country. Chicago proves that theory to be wrong.

 

It's not gun control that prevents shootings and murders - it's the culture in the communities where these types of crime are high. Most gangs have no regard for the lives of those outside their gang. Apparently it's nothing for them to shoot others. We have seen in news reports where a new gang banger was arrested for shooting someone because that was part of his initiation. Again, this is a culture problem.

 

My point is, Chicago proves laws do not prevent murders.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Culture is a social behavior found in human societies to include the work place. In this case of gun violence in American cities where there are strict gun control laws i.e. Chicago, you can say it's the culture of those communities where the shootings take place. Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country with 593 so far this year (source). 3,200 people have been shot so far this year in Chicago. Chicago has the most strictest gun control laws in the country.

 

Georgia grants concealed carry permits to law abiding citizens and it's gun control laws are not anywhere near as restrictive as they are in Chicago. So far this year, 94 murders have been committed in Atlanta. Law abiding citizens in Atlanta can own a gun and be granted a concealed carry permit. According to liberals, gun control and more stringent background checks would significantly reduce murders committed by guns in the country. Chicago proves that theory to be wrong.

 

It's not gun control that prevents shootings and murders - it's the culture in the communities where these types of crime are high. Most gangs have no regard for the lives of those outside their gang. Apparently it's nothing for them to shoot others. We have seen in news reports where a new gang banger was arrested for shooting someone because that was part of his initiation. Again, this is a culture problem.

 

My point is, Chicago proves laws do not prevent murders.

I would opine that one of the best steps we could take to reduce violent crime is to begin to phase out Welfare. As I have mentioned before; it would initially require considerable investment and would potentially take decades to move the Welfare culture back to self-sufficiency.

 

Ironically...it's the left screaming most about violence and racial inequity, yet it's their programs that have probably contributed most to these things over the last 5 decades or so.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Funny that every major city that is controlled by the Democrats is a hotbed of crime. Only need to point out Chicago, but there are many more.

 

While this particular incident might have been instigated by some family feud, you can bet that Abdul and Omar have been given a new idea.

 

 

Since when is preparing for self-defense a treasonous activity?

 

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got from a gun collector was this : "Have an amount of ammo on hand equal to the number of Muslims in the area. "

 

Chicago proves nothing. No one is saying guns should be confiscated. The idea of guns everywhere is a sick fantansy of immature minds wanting to live life in the wild west of their adolescent television-watching youth. They can't make their Matt Dillon or Rambo self-image real enough unless they got iron on their bodies. The top gun owners have not one gun or even fifteen guns; some have thousands stored in caves waiting for the opportunity to become war lords with other war lords. Their fantasy is being Nagen.

 

 

Culture is a social behavior found in human societies to include the work place. In this case of gun violence in American cities where there are strict gun control laws i.e. Chicago, you can say it's the culture of those communities where the shootings take place. Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country with 593 so far this year (source). 3,200 people have been shot so far this year in Chicago. Chicago has the most strictest gun control laws in the country.

 

Georgia grants concealed carry permits to law abiding citizens and it's gun control laws are not anywhere near as restrictive as they are in Chicago. So far this year, 94 murders have been committed in Atlanta. Law abiding citizens in Atlanta can own a gun and be granted a concealed carry permit. According to liberals, gun control and more stringent background checks would significantly reduce murders committed by guns in the country. Chicago proves that theory to be wrong.

 

It's not gun control that prevents shootings and murders - it's the culture in the communities where these types of crime are high. Most gangs have no regard for the lives of those outside their gang. Apparently it's nothing for them to shoot others. We have seen in news reports where a new gang banger was arrested for shooting someone because that was part of his initiation. Again, this is a culture problem.

 

My point is, Chicago proves laws do not prevent murders.

 

Yes, it is a culture problem and the dreams our culture creates for those who live in fantasy. One might trace the culture of Chicago back to the last time when there gap between rich and poor was its greatest; when the intrinsic value of life of those in poverty was counted in coin and recognize that history of gangs and crime, glorified as it was ... and appropriated by others through time ... makes Chicago a town where cheap pride combined with a valueless life mixed with a gun culture, poor education and dead end life options is a deadly brew.

 

 

I would opine that one of the best steps we could take to reduce violent crime is to begin to phase out Welfare. As I have mentioned before; it would initially require considerable investment and would potentially take decades to move the Welfare culture back to self-sufficiency.

 

Ironically...it's the left screaming most about violence and racial inequity, yet it's their programs that have probably contributed most to these things over the last 5 decades or so.

 

Amazing, when the Italians in NY and Chicago were there without the benefit of welfare they employed a criminal form of capitalism to pull themselves from the gutters but not before they drowned in the blood that ran through those gutters. I don't know if you glorify the criminal gangs of the 1920s-30s - the rise of the mob ... but that was the response; including patronage and 'gifts' from the mobsters in return for favors and loyalty - was the societal adaptation to no welfare.

 

We know that welfare as we know it is not doing any one any good. It is not an ideal program or system but when you compare it to, say the jail system, which costs about $30,000/yr. to house; welfare is a lot cheaper alternative than warehousing people ... and provides those in the welfare system a lot more opportunities for advancement than imprisonment.

 

Indeed, that is where liberals and conservatives differ in their mindset. Conservatives think of welfare as a give away and liberals think of it as a cheaper and better alternative to jail for those struggling in society for without it, the logic is that those who get welfare would have not alternative but to steal and squat to eat and live.

 

So, in our wisdom, we see the welfare system not as this giveaway, but see your proposal to eliminate it as a call to expand the numbers of people locked up in prison. The generally reliable 80-20 rule says that you'd get 8 more people in jail for the two who might, succeed.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing, when the Italians in NY and Chicago were there without the benefit of welfare they employed a criminal form of capitalism to pull themselves from the gutters but not before they drowned in the blood that ran through those gutters. I don't know if you glorify the criminal gangs of the 1920s-30s - the rise of the mob ... but that was the response; including patronage and 'gifts' from the mobsters in return for favors and loyalty - was the societal adaptation to no welfare.

 

We know that welfare as we know it is not doing any one any good. It is not an ideal program or system but when you compare it to, say the jail system, which costs about $30,000/yr. to house; welfare is a lot cheaper alternative than warehousing people ... and provides those in the welfare system a lot more opportunities for advancement than imprisonment.

 

Indeed, that is where liberals and conservatives differ in their mindset. Conservatives think of welfare as a give away and liberals think of it as a cheaper and better alternative to jail for those struggling in society for without it, the logic is that those who get welfare would have not alternative but to steal and squat to eat and live.

 

So, in our wisdom, we see the welfare system not as this giveaway, but see your proposal to eliminate it as a call to expand the numbers of people locked up in prison. The generally reliable 80-20 rule says that you'd get 8 more people in jail for the two who might, succeed.

 

pubby

This has to be the biggest load of irrelevant crap you've posted yet!!

 

The similarities between your and The Postman's posts are so great, I seriously wonder if one of you isn't ghostwriting for the other! Both are usually rambling sentences of utter BS that leaves readers squinting their eyes and wanting the time it took to read your posts back.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to be the biggest load of irrelevant crap you've posted yet!!

 

The similarities between your and The Postman's posts are being so great, I seriously wonder if one of you isn't ghostwriting for the other! Both are usually rambling sentences of utter BS that leaves readers squinting their eyes and wanting the time it took to read your posts back.

 

 

You obviously like rich people, G D! This country was founded on illegal immigration. It just happened that whites had more guns, and were richer is all sorts of goods.

 

It shows that a rich person, and you, are on the same wave link whether you have any money or not. All one has to do is look at vehicle insurance studies to prove my point.

 

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You obviously like rich people, G D! This country was founded on illegal immigration. It just happened that whites had more guns, and were richer is all sorts of goods.

 

It shows that a rich person, and you, are on the same wave link whether you have any money or not. All one has to do is look at vehicle insurance studies to prove my point.

 

Thanks for making my point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously like rich people, G D! This country was founded on illegal immigration. It just happened that whites had more guns, and were richer is all sorts of goods.

 

It shows that a rich person, and you, are on the same wave link whether you have any money or not. All one has to do is look at vehicle insurance studies to prove my point.

 

That was 3 minutes of my life wasted hearing what I call "Somebody Ought To Do SomeThing About SomeThing, I Don't Know What They Need To Do, And I Don't Know How They Need To Do It. But Somebody Ought To Do Something".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That was 3 minutes of my life wasted hearing what I call "Somebody Ought To Do SomeThing About SomeThing, I Don't Know What They Need To Do, And I Don't Know How They Need To Do It. But Somebody Ought To Do Something".

Simply more incessant liberal whining that serves no purpose.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply more incessant liberal whining that serves no purpose.

Here's the thing the left does not want to admit because they are so concerned about remaining politically correct so that they don't "offend" their base; the black impoverished urban communities have been taken over by a culture of violence. When it comes to black lives, they keep their focus on a false narrative that cops are killing blacks simply because they are black. Conservatives keep pointing out that far more black lives are murdered every year by other blacks. Also, more white males are killed by police officers each year than black males are.

 

It's not just the left wants to be politically correct; but it's also to create more division in this country. Now they claim up and down they are not the party of division, but that's BS. The country became further divided during the Obama administration. This is when they started all the crap that black males shot by police officers were shot because they were black, even when the videos and evidence proved the majority were acting violently while armed.

 

GD made a valid point that welfare programs have done more harm in these communities than good. It has not only made people in the impoverished urban areas dependent upon the government, the Democrats have intentionally kept them impoverished. Look at all the major cities in this country. Pretty much all of them are governed by elected members of the Democratic Party, yet they do nothing as far as an economic strategy to bring jobs to those communities. Detroit is an excellent example of how Democrats had taken a once thriving city and turned it into one of the largest ghettos in the country.

 

The Democratic Party is largely responsible for this culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing the left does not want to admit because they are so concerned about remaining politically correct so that they don't "offend" their base; the black impoverished urban communities have been taken over by a culture of violence. When it comes to black lives, they keep their focus on a false narrative that cops are killing blacks simply because they are black. Conservatives keep pointing out that far more black lives are murdered every year by other blacks. Also, more white males are killed by police officers each year than black males are.

 

It's not just the left wants to be politically correct; but it's also to create more division in this country. Now they claim up and down they are not the party of division, but that's BS. The country became further divided during the Obama administration. This is when they started all the crap that black males shot by police officers were shot because they were black, even when the videos and evidence proved the majority were acting violently while armed.

 

GD made a valid point that welfare programs have done more harm in these communities than good. It has not only made people in the impoverished urban areas dependent upon the government, the Democrats have intentionally kept them impoverished. Look at all the major cities in this country. Pretty much all of them are governed by elected members of the Democratic Party, yet they do nothing as far as an economic strategy to bring jobs to those communities. Detroit is an excellent example of how Democrats had taken a once thriving city and turned it into one of the largest ghettos in the country.

 

The Democratic Party is largely responsible for this culture.

 

 

You should add a disclaimer to your posts:

 

***Read at your own risk. Not responsible for any loss of brain cells. Temporary or permanent blindness may result from a loss of grey matter while reading Foxmeister's posts. ***

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You should add a disclaimer to your posts:

 

***Read at your own risk. Not responsible for any loss of brain cells. Temporary or permanent blindness may result from a loss of grey matter while reading Foxmeister's posts. ***

Instead of throwing insults, why don't you present some facts in an attempt to dispute what I said. Tell us why Chicago there are so many blacks killing blacks in Chicago with guns when they have the strictest gun laws in the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You should add a disclaimer to your posts:

 

***Read at your own risk. Not responsible for any loss of brain cells. Temporary or permanent blindness may result from a loss of grey matter while reading Foxmeister's posts. ***

 

 

You are perfectly safe, then. 8)

Instead of throwing insults, why don't you present some facts in an attempt to dispute what I said. Tell us why Chicago there are so many blacks killing blacks in Chicago with guns when they have the strictest gun laws in the country.

 

Pubby did that already...it was Richard Nixon's fault. Or was it Wyatt Earp? Or Rambo?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You should add a disclaimer to your posts:

 

***Read at your own risk. Not responsible for any loss of brain cells. Temporary or permanent blindness may result from a loss of grey matter while reading Foxmeister's posts. ***

 

 

Foxmeister is just a typical conservative (amygdala user), who has a short circuit that keeps thought from reaching the rest of his brain, COWA!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...