Friday, June 19, 2015

Ignoring the Likely Realities...

Rational Nation USA Purveyor of Truth

A psychopathic 21 year old white male guns down 9 people in a historic black church in Charleston South Carolina, a crime most likely motivated by racism and hatred for African Americans and the right wing, in this particular incident Rick Perry, tries to frame the issue as one of drug use.

Instead of talking about guns, Perry said, we should be talking about prescription drugs: “Also, I think there is a real issue to be talked about. It seems to me, again without having all the details about this, that these individuals have been medicated and there may be a real issue in this country from the standpoint of these drugs and how they’re used.”

He said that such drugs are responsible for high suicide and joblessness rates, adding that “there are a lot of issues underlying this that I think we as a country need to have a conversion about...
- Right Wing Watch

Rather than recognizing the possibility and likelihood this was a racially motivated crime (Root didn't hit a large predominately white church) the right simply ignores or else outright denies the possibility.

As for whether stricter and more uniform gun laws would prevent this type of crime or not; it is true that criminals will always find ways to do their dastardly deeds. But that should not prevent the USA from having a rational grown up discussion on how we might improve the effectiveness of firearm legislation. When it comes to firearm related deaths this should be part of the discussion. It is possible to protect the right to own firearms and at the same time reduce firearm deaths in our nation.

One thing is for certain, the beast WILL at some point raise it's violent and ugly head again. Perhaps someday the nation will be mature enough to have that rational discussion.

More reading here and here.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. So Perry admits he does not have all the details, yet doesn't mention the details that he does have... a confession and a stated desire to "start a civil war."

    The guy attacks a black church, calls them rapists, ala The Donald, and says they are taking over the country.

    Sounds pretty much like a racist leaning white guy. Seriously, some are claiming religious persecution because this happened in a church.

    Sorry Rick, this might be your Oops moment of this campaign, at least as it relates to expanding the GOP base for your potential run...

  2. Why is a Confederate flag still flying high over the South Chinalina capital? Why have the guardians of the Confederacy refused to take it down, or fly the flag at half-mast, in respect for, in deference to the mourning families of Charleston? Why is this symbol of slavery, segregation, hatred, persecution, and oppression still flying? Why THIS flag on THIS day?

    White Southerners wield the Confederate flag as a symbol of DEFIANCE – denying or defying history. They make no apologies for slavery; feel no shame over segregation; offer no regrets for a legacy of exploitation and persecution; show no remorse for the lynching and murder of innocent people; offer no admissions of guilt; admit to no moral lessons learned. Unlike the post WWII experience in Germany, Southern states escaped the definitive rebuke of history.

    In contrast, we see no images of citizens filing past corpses or newsreels of concentration camp atrocities; hear no admissions of collective guilt or shame; and speak no words of condemnation. The war ended 150 years ago. The lived experiences of a people are long gone – their voices lost in time.

    I woke up this morning angry as hell. Angry at the NRA for blaming victims as the cause of their own deaths … for failing to carry guns in their own self-defense. Angry at our presidential candidates for hijacking the moment with false narratives, misattributions, and self-serving sound bites to advance their own agendas:

    Rick Perry: “It was an accident.”

    Santorum: “It was assault on religious liberty

    Jeb Bush: “Maybe it was drugs, but the motive remains unclear.”

    Lindsay Graham: “[The Confederate flag] is who we are.”

    The moment does not belong to the NRA or clueless and tone-deaf politicians. The moment belongs to the latest victims of a dastardly crime and their grieving families. The murders were no accident. Religious persecution was not the motive; drugs were not the cause; nor the addled brain of a depraved madman. Mass murder should never serve as advertisement for the NRA nor serve as a platform for sleazy politicians. The circus of depraved indifference appalls me.

    Indeed, the Confederate flag is exactly who we are … a nation of bigots, racists, murderers, renegades and sham snake oil salesmen.

    1. (O)ct: That flag is America's own home-grown swastika.

    2. Agreed ... my point exactly ... and I will offer this observation in the next revision of the above.

    3. What do you mean, (O)ct. A revision? Where will you offer this?

      I'd like to see more about the idea that the Confederate flag is a symbol of the worst of America, rather than some benign symbol of Southern accents as harmless as fried food and not being able to pronounce diphthongs.

  3. Well, it's comforting to know that only one party is politicizing this (tongue, cheek, planted, firmly).

    1. One party, and most of the other, stand terrified of the NRA: It is as simple as that. If we think it is just fine that a nutcase can be armed by his mother and mow down first graders,
      another can shoot a congresswoman in the face and this johnny reb wannabee execute
      a prayer group, small wonder that our 'exeptionalism' exasperates the rest of the civilized

    2. Will, by nature, this was gonna be political. Sadly, everything we do these days is being measured in political strokes.

      The larger question is why some refuse to acknowledge the treason for this tragedy. In looking everywhere else so as not to make it about race, folks look myopic...

    3. I saw what I think is an intriguing typo in your comment, Dave. If it is one. Perhaps it should remain.

    4. An obvious typo dmarks.

      Although if the word for was replaced with the word of I think I understand your closing sentence.

    5. Hillary blamed Trump and that bozo state rep in South Carolina blamed Fox News. I'm surprised nobody's blamed global warming yet.

    6. And, yes, in a country of over 300,000,000 people we still have some racists. No argument on that.......And I'm still not sure what law could have prevented this. I mean, he was already breaking one law 'cause he was on probation and shouldn't have had a weapon.

    7. Dave... I think we know why some refuse to acknowledge this crime really was racially motivated or accept racism remains an ugly part of our society.

    8. Sadly guys, it was a typo...

      Les, I think we do, but it would be nice to hear a conservative leaders acknowledge it. Yesterday i was talking with a buy who is pretty conservative and he was asking why his leaders, those running for president, were saying this was religious, political, an accident, literally anything other than religious?

      It's a fair question. Now, if folks want to reserve judgement until all the facts are in, I'm good with that... as long as when libs desire the same when the suspect is someone of color, or not Christian, they are consistent and advocate for the same.

      This is part and parcel why the GOP struggles with minority voters.

      A white guy glorifies the Confederate Flag, leaves a long manifesto about hating blacks and Jews and all the problems they've brought to the civilized white European society. Then he enters a church and kills nine black people who had just prayed with him.

      And we plenty of folks talking about waiting for the facts to come in and how this person was mentally ill, it was an accident, etc.

      Switch the narrative around and we hear words like thug, terrorist, etc.

      Why is that? Is it any wonder minorities are a little suspicious of the GOP?

      At least Mitt Romney is starting to get it, albeit, a little late.

    9. The GOP had done a great job of boxing itself in on all sides. Unfortunate really because there are some with good conservative ideas that sren't heard as a result.

      Perhaps for many facing truth is too painful so they create their own reality and it becomes their truth.

  4. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, there were 320,082 episodes of black on white violence in America in 2010 but only 62,593 episodes of white on black violence. This is a 5:1 ratio and when you factor in the population differential you end up with the fact that a black person is 25 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around. I mean, I know that this probably a revelation to those of you (and I'm not naming names like Elia Kazan) who strictly get your news from the Huffington Post, MSNBC, liberal talk-radio, Media Matters, etc. but if you really and truly want to get to the heart of racial violence in the U.S. you have to go to the aggregates and not give so much credence to these highly publicized and inflammatory episodes. -

  5. True to a point, Will. Those who charge into a conversation saying "This is what I read on Media Matters" look every bit as foolish as those who say "I heard Rush say...". But they don't realize it.

  6. For many you can't be conservative enough and for some you can't be liberal enough. Depending on which of these groups such individuals fit into determines where they get their "news".

    People mostly look for "news" and commentary that supports their already held views. Paradigms and boxes are hard to escape from and most folks like their comfort zone anyway.

    It's indeed troubling when beliefs and paradigms lead to racially motivated crime. Roof's own website confirms his gunning down of those folks in Charleston was racially motivated. Yet there will be those who will continue to deny it.

    1. Very true, RN. That's pretty much why I am more likely to watch MSNBC Nooz than Fox Nooz. It's a little more outside my comfort zone.

  7. Both are MORE snooze than NEWS in my view.

    PBS an Al Jazeera are more likely to give real news than either MSNBC or FOX.

  8. True on the two Nooz channels. I don't know much about Al J. When I do seek out "headline news" consumption, I go to BBC Radio, followed by NPR.

  9. Hmm, kinda have strayed away from post subject matter.

    1. there have been worse more pointless tangents by far.

      besides, I think this one has run out

    2. Might be worth another post, sometime. Al Jezeerra, the two so similar "nooz" channels, and more.

  10. MSNBC = none of the letters stand for "news". Anyway, didn't some defender of Fox say using "Nooz" is childish? Also, I don't understand why the "Blacks are criminals" argument was injected into this discussion. Was it an attempt to say that racism is justified? Also heard the "criminals don't follow laws so why pass laws" nonsense argument that is frequently made by those on the gun nut Right when they argue that, yes, gun violence is much less in other countries, but we can't emulate other's success here. Because the 2nd amendment, despite contains the phrase "well regulated", also contains the phrase "shall not be infringed"... Which cancels out "well regulated" apparently. Anyway, according to what I've heard, it's our country's gun fetish that makes us great.

  11. So, you are acknowledging that MSNBC is in fact a biased left leaning media outlet with little "news" and much left boilerplate?

    Nooz is an immature expression and is a construct to denigrate networks whose programming and views differ with one's own.

    We must maintain the right to bear arms; to use in hunting, sporting, defense of home and family if neccessary, and because our constitution permits it. Don't like it... pass an amendment negating the 2'nd. Having said that, we do need uniform national regulations that focus on registration of firearms, firearm safety training, establishing a minimum age for firearm use, effective background checks and waiting periods (cooling off period), and quick trials and sentencing of criminals who use firearms for violent acts.

    It's our country's rights protected in secular law that makes us who we are. Whether it is great or not is subject to individual opinion. I'm thinking you don't believe America is or ever has been great.

    Oh, BTW, irrelevant comments intended to sude track discussion by grinding okd bones don't get published Dervish.

  12. "...grinding old bones..."

    Which in my view is trying to drag everything through comments into some sort of deep long term personal grudge. It almost always involves treating the comments of a blogger one is obsessed with as being a lot more important than those of powerful political movers and shakers. It usually involves rehashing years-old arguments into a new conversation at the drop of a hat. But it is not limited to that, as it might involve attempts to re-start recent conversations here ... usually of a personal, obsessive, and insulting nature.... here that were either banned or went entirely unread on other blogs due to their offensive nature.

    That's what "grinding old bones" means to me.

    I know full well that this comment might be off topic, and an old bone itself to this blog administrator. And as such, it probably won't get posted. However, I won't consider the administrator's refusal to post it as a personal affront or challenge, nor will I go create a separate blog in which to vent my grievances against an imaginary version of the blog administrator. It just doesn't matter.

  13. When you talk about “grinding old bones,” I assume the term is synonymous “grinding an ax.” Yes, as human beings age, bones turn old and brittle with time, but grinding an ax is ageless. I refer to the following:

    Will-the-Shill: “According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, there were 320,082 episodes of black on white violence in America in 2010 but only 62,593 episodes of white on black violence. This is a 5:1 ratio and when you factor in the population differential you end up with the fact that a black person is 25 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around …

    What is the relevance of this comment when the subject of this post is the church massacre in Charleston? Is this an off-topic comment or a false equivalence? We are not discussing crime committed by INNER CITY THUGS. We are talking about the murder of nine people – a PASTOR and LIBRARIAN and TEACHER among the victims, all solid citizens of Charleston and the best of the best; not thugs nor gang members nor druggies. Frankly, Will-the-Shill dishonors the dead. This post is not about him or his agenda.

    It’s kind of garbage Will-the-Shill brings to every discussion thread dealing with race. Always the same boilerplate and, yes, I’ve seen it here time and time again. Will talks about “revelation” as if we are nothing less than a na├»ve saps, and Will always has a monopoly on answers. What a pompous ass!

    Ironically, Will’s comment does go the “heart of racial violence in the U.S.” but not in the way he expected. You see, it’s called racial profiling and gratuitous stereotyping. A PASTOR is not a street thug; a LIBRARIAN is not a gang member; a TEACHER is not druggie. But Will-the-Shill wants us to think he can connect the dots. The only connection here that applies is RACIAL PROFILING … painting one with the brush of another!

    It explains why successful African-Americans driving fancy cars are often stopped and frisked. It explains why my Swash Zone colleague … a well-educated and highly trained lawyer who works for the North Carolina legislature (who also happens to be African-American) … is often accused of shoplifting whenever she goes to Bloomingdales. It explains why young people, hearing about this crap, are angry and resentful and mouth off to police … sometimes getting beaten or killed.

    Yup, RACIAL PROFILING is the same as RACISM, and Will-the-Shill has demonstrated both in this comment thread.

  14. I categorically reject the term "old bones". I've never brought up "old bones" and I never will. I only bring up past comments that relate to the discussion at hand where appropriate.

    MSNBC does commentary (yes, with a left-leaning perspective) on the news. But like I said, "news" is not in the name of their network. They do not misrepresent themselves like Fox.

    1. See that you don't in the future if you want comments published. And another thing, beating an issue to death is frowned on as well Dervish.

  15. Google msnbc. The first word of their own Web site summary, after "msnbc", is "news". News is first and moremost what they claim to do. They misrepresent themselves no more or no less than fellow "noozers" at Fox. If we go off topic, at least we should say something true, and at least check the actual organization we are defending.
    Back on topic. Spot on, Oct, about Will's stats and racial profiling issue. This has nothing at all to do with this shooting. Bringing it up, in fact, might look to a casual observer like a sort of justification for the incident.

    1. MSNBC "was derived from the most common abbreviations for Microsoft and the National Broadcasting Company" (source). None of the letters stand for news. And I did Google MSNBC. What I found is that they provide "news coverage and political opinion". News: not in their name. Opinion: clearly stated. Whereas, if you Google "Fox" what comes up as the first result is "Fox News".

      In regards to this rule about going off topic dmarks just made up... he should take his own advice.

      Also, I made the exact same points as Octopus, yet while leaving out the accusations of "racial profiling and gratuitous stereotyping" or name calling (Will-the-Shill). I only asked why he brought it up. Yet no admonitions for Octopus or "old bones" accusations. dmarks even says Octo is "spot on". Ain't that odd.

    2. Apparently YOU Dervish either missed my comment below or chose to ignore it. No matter as I decided to give you the last off topic word, just to be fair you see.


    3. dmarks: “Bringing it up, in fact, might look to a casual observer like a sort of justification for the incident.

      A good point: In fact, this article, The long, racist history which explains Dylann Roof, details historical antecedents of racism starting immediately after the Civil War, as examples:

      Black Codes
      In most states, black people could not own guns, had to sign year-long work contracts, and could be arrested on charges of “vagrancy,” fined, and then bound to anyone who paid their fine. Nowhere could a black person testify in court against a white person, which meant that no black southerner could claim the protection of the law against theft, rape, or murder.

      [Note: Black Codes preceded Jim Crow laws.]

      Before the 1868 elections, members of the Ku Klux Klan murdered at least a thousand African Americans and their white allies. Things were particularly bad in South Carolina, where Klan members killed African American clergyman and state legislator B. F. Randolph at a train depot in broad daylight.

      [Note: A man of extraordinary accomplishments, Benjamin Franklin Randolph was an educator, an army chaplain, Methodist minister, newspaper editor, politician, and state senator in the early part of the Reconstruction Era. In many respects, Randolph was the archetype for Clementa C. Pinckney, who was murdered last week.]

      It was imperative to purge black voters from the system, they insisted, for black Americans only wanted social welfare legislation that would enable them to live without working. Those programs would bleed tax dollars from hardworking white men. Black voters were thus “corrupting” the American government and destroying America itself.

      [How often have we heard this political dog whistle? It started in the 1880s.]

      While men gained political favor by promising their votes, women had no votes to trade for a job. So when black men became, for example, school principals, they could force innocent white girls to have sex with them in exchange for jobs as teachers. This social construction of a political fear very quickly turned to the idea that black political power meant widespread rape.

      When Roof said: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country,” he was echoing both a fear and a crazed solution that grew out of the Civil War.

  16. The issue, and subject of this post is the massacre of 9 black individuals in a house of worship in Charleston, South a racist white man of 21. Given his website and his rambling manifesto there can be no doubt in any sane and rational thinking person but what this was a racially motivated crime committed by a racist.

    Watching some right wing politicians and reading rightwing blogs has convinced that as far as the nation may have come we still have a goddamn long way to go. Only by confronting the unpleasant truth that racism does still exist and then having an honest national discussion about race will this nation overcome the ugliness that plagues it with respect to race relations.

    Comments such as ones addressed by (O)CT(O)PUS in this comment thread do nothing to move the needed discussion forward and in fact works against improving dialogue on the issue.

    On a final and closing note; the thread remains open and comments on the subject matter are welcome. But, further off topic comments will not be posted.

  17. "Only by confronting the unpleasant truth that racism"

    Something we are unable to do because anything said by a conservative is labeled racism. If you don't like the current administrations policy or consider him unqualified for the job, you are a racist. Problem is most felt the same way about Jimmy Carter and I don't think that was racist.
    There are loons in all parties and in every part of our society and unfortunately they get the press. Until we can have an open debate about race, racism will continue to fester.

    1. No skudrunner that is boilerplate bullshit through and through. I, like many fiscal conservatives, do not agree with President Obama's fiscal and economic policies. In fact it is not a secret to most that I have been critical of his fiscal and economic policy and have had many discussions with liberal and progressive individual as well as commenting on their blogs. Not once, I REPEAT, not once have I ever been called a racist for doing so.

      Whether or not Obama is qualified or not is a matter of opinion for many. Initially I felt he was grossly unqualified due to lack of experience. I no longer do. He was every bit as qualified as GWB, another president with less than a stellar fiscal and economic record of performance. Yet when this is mentioned and backed up by FACTS people on conservative blogs deny the truth and often call those pointing it out un-American, a socialist or communist.

      Look in your own back yard when it comes to racists and racism and pay attention to who who the hooded ones are. Start with The Smut Hut, aka The Stench Trench and proceed from there.

      There are many good non racist conservatives, fine respectful people. But until YOU, PERSONALLY challenge the ass-wipe racist that cavort on the racist weblogs all your words here amount to bullsh*t in my opinion. Come back when you have the balls to man up.

    2. I you believe I have been a bit harsh, well, it is what it is. I have very tittle tolerance for racsm or those wh tolerate it while feigning indignation skudrunner.

    3. Speaking of the Stench Trench, it don't think it is off topic to say that the mentality of "Radical Redneck" doesn't seem too different from that church shooter.

      He stinks. I would hope him and his ideas get banished to the outer darkness. That's just my view.

    4. RN,

      You are caught up in this boiler plate nonsense A liberal is not going to call another liberal a racist so of course you have never been called one.
      BTW, you confirmed that we cannot discuss race.

    5. Sorry skudrunner, it is you that hasn't the capacity to face the truth, not I.
      It is you that is caught up in the boilerplate BS of the right. You are unable to even acknowledge openly and with honesty the truth that lies beneath incidents like Charleston, South Carolina.

      The only difference between you and the most outspoken racists at the stench trench is you are more "polite", like the southern gentleman you no doubt believe yourself to be.

      Your game is to deflect away from any serious discussion of the subject matter at hand by
      injecting irrelevant noise and then whining about how someone else confirmed you cannot have a discussion. I'll say this skudrunner, you are consistent that's for certain.

      Shaw, who has more patience than I with noise from you explained it about as well as it could be explained. And, you skudrunner STILL won't get it. Not because you're dumb, but because you don't want to even consider what is being said.

      Have a good evening.

  18. Have you seen the new stories about the kid and the CCC? This is a legacy of what "conservatism" is really all about.


    1. It's a legacy of what a certain branch if conservatism is all about, Jersey. The neo-confederate type, generally. But it is false to say that all conservative is all about this. I can easily go find this one branch of conservatism you (rightly) deride by going to the Stench Trench and the forums at National Review. But this is not my conservatism. Not Les's conservative. Not the conservatism of any of the conservatives I know in the real world, off the blogs.

      Conservatives who hate the Confederate flag also.

  19. "Something we are unable to do because anything said by a conservative is labeled racism."
    That is nonsense. What is labeled "racism" is the sort of rot one finds at the Stench Trench, where Mr. Obama is referred to as Obongo, and where Radical Redneck relentlessly refers to the FLOTUS as an ape walking on hind legs and picking fleas out of her tail. That's racism -- not criticism of Obama's policies. That you don't know the difference says a lot about your self-awareness.

    "If you don't like the current administrations policy or consider him unqualified for the job, you are a racist."

    Again, no. Demonizing everyone in a cultural group because of the bad apples is wrong. But go back to that shameful blog and read the comments whenever a confrontation between racial groups occurs, and the regular nitwits are quick to characterize everyone in the a particular group as being thugs and moochers. This is what simple-minded racists do.

    After witnessing the outpouring of good will and support from the good people of Charleston, black and white, I was encouraged.

    I don't think too many southern whites thought too deeply about what the C,onfederate flag represented to African-Americans, and now that they've heard people's objections to what that flag represents, a long, overdue change is coming.

    The designer of the flag himself said it was representative of white supremacy. The KKK proudly displayed it in their midnight rides and cross-burnings. There's no question anymore about what the meaning behind that flag is. It is part of a shameful past, and rightly should be put in a museum, not flying high on government property as a daily reminder to those who suffered unimaginably since its creation.

  20. In a moment of idle curiosity, I visited a certain blog this morning and found this comment:

    Will “the shrill shill” Hart: “being that a black person is many multiples [sic] more likely per capita to kill a white person than vice versa I'm note entirely certain that it's a one way thing.

    It took my breath away and left me speechless. In essence, what he is saying: The Charleston church massacre was not a hate crime but a revenge crime and therefore “explainable” – even implying “justifiable” -- within the context of crime statistics. A bogus theory at best, an immoral one at worst.

    How does one “explain” or rationalize the loss of NINE INNOCENT LIVES! No, I am not putting words in his mouth! This is the subtext of a post that was further embellished in his comment.

    Nine innocent lives, all decent and honest citizens who committed NO CRIME: A pastor, a librarian, a teacher, a speech therapist, and other citizens of faith who lost their lives that day. Not gang members, not street thugs, nor drug abusers, nor petty thieves – this is the very essence of RACIAL PROFILING and RACISM callously tucked inside the depraved indifference of statistics.

    A more thoughtful and ethical person might consider the adverse impact of historical and systemic racism against an entire population – centuries of slavery, Klan terrorism, lynching, murder, Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, inequality and injustice. An honest person might consider how persecution and privation leads to despair, how despair leads to desperation, and how desperation leads to crime. But Will Hart with no heart and no soul is not an honest person or an ethical one. To be blunt, I will call him what he really is: A RACIST.

    1. Will, on my invite, penned posts here for a brief period. My desire was to add an author with a moderate small L libertarian viewpoint. I believed Will personified that description at the time. Of late he has drifted into more hard core fringe views. Unfortunate as it may be it is what it is.

      I have often wondered if his more strident statements lately are his way of pushing back on what he and I viewed as a too strident progressive movement. I shall let Will speak for himself if he wishes or decides it neccessary.

      I question your thoghts that Will is a racist. Having corresponded with him I never got the impression that he was. He certainly is not RR or Rusty ChuckleNutz and the many like them. Therefore I prefer to give Will the benefit of the doubt at this point (O)CT(O)PUS. I hope he will respond to this exchange in a positive way leaving any cutting remarks
      at the doorstep.

    2. Rarely will I level a charge like this, and I certainly prefer not to. What prompted me this time: This is not the first time he injected crime statistics into a discussion on race. And yes, beyond any reasonable doubt, the out-of-context abuse of statistics rises to the level of racial profiling. Guilt by association, guilt by innuendo … dishonest to the core!

      Oftentimes, the non sequitur does not even fit the crime or the discussion. Oftentimes, he assails readers of this forum with sarcasm and inferences of "ignorant" and statements of "stupid" or outright accusations of “close mindedness” without even waiting for comments or feedback. His conduct is arrogant and offensive beyond patience or tolerance.

      Redneck and Chucklenutz have made parodies of themselves; there is nothing amusing or funny in this kind of pushback. This is the kind of crap that sent burning flesh up chimneys and left bodies hanging from Magnolia trees. It is bigotry, pure and simple!

    3. (O) CT... No individual ever deserves to be tried and convicted by the broad and sloppy generalization of statistics. Let alone by such statistics concerning crime.

    4. I think the issue is how statistics are interpreted and then used in support of an invalid argument that rubs many the wrong way. It certainly is not a crime as evidenced by the degree to which it occurs and no action is taken, but, it is viewed by many as offensive in the least and as having the potential {as history has recorded} for much worse.

  21. Legs,

    That is not what Will said. He stated a fact and you turned it into a racist statement.
    Those who feel this was not a hate crime are devoid of reality. Even the shooter said it was a hate crime and it should be identified as such.
    Was Fort Hood not a hate crime or a terrorist act or do we still hold it was workplace violence.

    1. There ya go again skudrunner. Fort Hood is NOT germane to this post. I let it stand so as to once again allow others to see your deflection and how you use it. BTW, not that I need state it but, Fort Hood was an act of terror perpetuated by a Islamic extremist.

  22. There is no way scud-the-crud can get away with mischaracterizing the Civil War as a patriotic act, romanticizing a war that killed 600,000 people and persecuted millions, calling the Confederate flag a heritage symbol, describing the swastika as a rose bush, revising history into some self-masturbatory fantasy, changing the English language, or misrepresenting my words.

    Governor Nikki Haley, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Tim Scott … all of South Carolina … say: “Take it down.” On behalf of the millions who have suffered under the Confederate banner, here is my reply to scud-the-crud for his rude taunts and provocations: IN YOUR FACE!

  23. Legs,

    Your attacks are totally misguided and unfounded. Where did I say anything about the civil war being a patriotic act and calling the confederate flag a heritage symbol.
    Les, you are correct Ft Hood is not germane to this discussion. You are wrong that it was classified as terror. The administration classified it as workplace violence.

    1. You are wrong that it was classified as terror. The administration classified it as workplace violence.

      No skudrunner I am NOT wrong. I sad it was an act of terror, not that the administration said it was an act of terror. I was, and am, fully aware of the administration's determination it was an act of "workplace violence". The administration was WRONG, not me.

      Now, this is the END of this topics of discussion on this thread.


RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, NO JUDGEMENT of others. We reserve the right to delete any such posts immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic (off topic will be deleted) and respectful of others.