Absolutely. And if you ever decide to actually learn something about these issues, at least to the point of getting past what Rush Limbaugh has fed you, let me know. It might make for an interesting discussion.
I think you have describe the way most of us now deal with society - at least the politics of it all. And this is a shame. I have any number of friends who are conservatives (old school style) and we disagree on many things but allow that we all are trying to build the best country we can. Sadly, that's not the way most approach the situation. We believe that our philosophy is the only correct one and the other side has nothing to offer. And as this continues, the country gets farther down the hole.
I don't know if they intend to decimate the education system or not. I know the Democrats have all but destroyed it nationally in the last few decades and I don't see the Republicans improving it but I fail to see how they'll make it much worse.
The Democrats have all but destroyed the educational system? Really? You blame the Democrats for any number of contributing factors, including societal issues to name but one.
I guess we really have nothing to talk about, do we?
The mayor and 3 council members are Democrats, the final council member is unaffiliated.
Woodlawn is 65% registered Democrats. The state does have a single House member who is a Dem and one GOP senator and one Dem senator and a GOP governor.
So this is a Dem town, like other longtime Dem towns like Detroit, Baltimore and D.C.
Is it that your argument is that Slashdot expects the Democrats to always be the smart ones or that we think all Republicans are stupid? Because, from where I sit, that's pretty ignorant. What we do know is that these people are poor and poorly educated. And to make matters worse, the state is now run by Republicans hellbent on decimating the education system there and they have been quite successful in doing so.
So, if this Woodlawn story has you wondering how bad things are currently, how about if we predict how North Carolina looks in another 20 years? I would also ask everyone to consider the real cost for us to carry these people once the crisis fully matures. How do we as a country handle the long term damage caused by this short term thinking and are we going to accept that we will have to pay for this stupidity the Republicans caused during their tenure?
Or, we could have just gotten false information from people supposedly in the know.
Which would ignore that entire department setup by Donald Rumsfeld known as the Office of Special Plans which according to The Guardian, "operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney."
The Guardian further adds, "Mr Tenet has officially taken responsibility for the president's unsubstantiated claim in January that Saddam Hussein's regime had been trying to buy uranium in Africa, but he also said his agency was under pressure to justify a war that the administration had already decided on."
Nope. If you are only looking at half the facts, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. But I never made any claim to the validity of the prewar intelligence, just that Bush never made the claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that two thirds of the American public misunderstood the President, Vice President, as well as Condoleezza Rice? Seriously?
So I don't really know why you are bringing it up. It doesn't refute my claim which you seemed to sidestep quite nicely.
Can you explain why during testimony in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the estates of 9/11 victims, George Eric Smith, a senior business analyst for Sun Gard Asset Management, and Timothy Soulas, a senior managing director and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, why former CIA Director, R James Woolsey, at that time a member of the administration's Defense Policy Board, Colin Powell and George Tenet all swore under oath that a "conclusive link" between Saddam and 9/11 existed? It seems strange that these members of the Bush Administration would swear under oath that they believed such a thing if they never thought it was true.
I mean your position is only valid if you ignore quite a lot of reality which makes it not real at all. We had faulty intelligence reports, over stated reliability of these reports, and outright lies by captured Al Qaeda personnel.
So, we're going to go with the Bush Administration was inept as a defense? I can agree that looking back in hindsight that is likely to be the case. But then we have that nagging issue of all the times multiple members of the Bush Administration mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence.
To say misinformed statements (which is what it really boils down to) is a lie while ignoring the lies that caused the misinformation itself is a lot dishonest to say the least. It is as if you have a narrative and damn anything getting in it's way. You are what you are claiming Bush and Co to be.
Bullshit.
What I keep hearing out of you is that somehow, as if by magic, the overwhelming majority of the American public just woke up one morning and decided that Saddam was involved in 9/11 but that all the times the Bush Administration mentioned this had nothing at all to do with that.
You apparently are here to tell all of these Americans that they are idiots and nothing the Bush Administration did in any way was responsible for this error. Sure, let's go with that.
First, I never said we didn't get things wrong...
Indeed.
I said that Bush's position was never that Iraq was connected to 9/11, his position was that we couldn't operate as usual after 9/11 because of the magnitude of it.
Their argument was never that Iraq was behind 9/11, it was always that the devastation of 9/11 proves we cannot wait until after an attack and treat it like a law enforcement measure because the risk to innocent human life was now too large.
"In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11."
"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago."
"Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime."
If we are to accept your reasoning, then we have to admit that the Bush Administration was inept, at the very least. But, in reality, it wasn't the president alone who made these repeated references, it was the entire administration. Then we have that ugly Powell appearance with the vial full of white powder not to mention that wonderful "artist's rendition" of the terrorist headquarters known as Tora Bora - which never existed.
When taken as a whole, we find that no other answer can be arrived at other than this was a deliberate, false dialog meant to confuse the American people and did so successfully.
The problem is what we are seeing is a need to create a false narrative which proves those who originally created these lies know that they have been pegged as liars. Does it bother you that you are one of those people spreading a false narrative designed to cover the deceit which caused tens of thousands of Iraqis to be killed with a likely hundred thousand or so maimed? Can't you understand that it was those actions which you are trying to hide that led to us having to deal with ISIS?
Either way, what you need to know is that you are the problem, not part of the solution.
It's pretty evident that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about nor what point I have tried to convey to you - none.
What I did was to attempt to explain why the question you asked was subjective and you interpreted that to mean that I stated that America is worse than cannibals. Without doubt, you may be the single most imbecilic moron I have ever run across, on the Internet or in real life.
But you keep right on showing the world just how educated you are because without people like you to point and laugh at, this world would be a far less humorous place.
After Snowden sold the US out, it was quietly reported about a large number of people on the US payroll in other countries (and their families) disappearing quietly, and permanently.
It was quietly reported by the very same people who have evidence that 9/11 was in inside job, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe a better quality source of information would be the best way forward, don't you think?
No, I am pointing out the hilarity of him making his signature some sort of credibility badge. Most of us don't feel the need to tell people who we are, instead we allow the readership to judge us by what we write.
Yes, that's what happens every single time, unlike how we routinely see tactically trained individuals whipping out their concealed carry and taking out the terrorist before anyone else is hurt.
Most of us enjoy living in the real world. We know the difference between TV and here. Come visit us, you might find that you like it.
The only question still standing is for you to answer the following one which I noticed you somehow couldn't find an answer to.
"If we shock and awe 30,000 people based on bad information, are we better than a society which kills a few hundred people to eat?"
Well, jackass, the only person who can't seem to respond when asked is you. Either answer the question or take you moving the goalposts argument somewhere that people will take you seriously.
Well, are you going to answer the question, punk? Or are you going to hide behind another pile of insults and misdirection?
That would be true if these people could have found jobs but at the same time they were dumped on the job market, the defense industry was contracting. Instead, what we saw were hundreds of thousands of people added to the welfare ranks and a downward spiraling economy which was the stagnation part of the stagflation. Why we saw inflation at that time is likely attributable to inept handling of the economy by the Fed.
No, you asked about whether our culture was superior to one which embraces cannibalism. I am reasonably sure that anyone with the brains even complete jackass would have understood what I meant when I said, "If we shock and awe 30,000 people based on bad information, are we better than a society which kills a few hundred people to eat?" Apparently not only do you not understand, well, pretty much everything but even the word fail seems to escape your ability to comprehend.
Is a culture that can convince its people to drop untold tonnage of high explosives on a civilian population your idea of civil? If we shock and awe 30,000 people based on bad information, are we better than a society which kills a few hundred people to eat? And if we torture people, including raping a child in front of their mother to get information we suspect she might have, are you suggesting that we are better than another society which commits actions which sicken you when the actions I mentioned prior to this don't?
So, why don't you crawl down off that high horse and think about just how fucking reprehensible the actions of the society you'd like to think is so far superior to others actually is when we take everything into account.
And while you're at it, why don't you tell me why "UNESCO nor any other prominent organization has yet organized" a bomb the shit out of innocent civilians week so that assholes can pretend to hold the higher ground, morally speaking.
Because some cultures really are better — and worse — than others.
Today's vocabulary word is subjective. That's subjective. It means: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision or particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
What's funny about your little diatribe is that it exposes you to exactly what we call projection - and that's today's bonus vocabulary word.
Fair question, exactly what did we gain when we let your family settle here? Are there any family members you are related to who didn't turn out to be pope? No? No shit, every family has one eventually.
What do we get when we allow a million Muslims to come here to live? About the same thing we would get when we allow any other million people to come here.
One more thing, if your best and only argument is that you're not a bigot because you only are prejudicial against religions, then you're really no better than the average garden variety bigot, are you?
I live right on the buckle of the Bible Belt, having moved here a decade ago from the Great White North.;-) My neighbors (most of them, anyway) are very giving people. They work incredibly hard to do whatever they can to help our less fortunate neighbors and work tirelessly to volunteer whenever they can. They don't preach and have accepted us (a family of practicing atheists) into the community openly. Yes, I know there are the lunatics amongst us, they are everywhere but thankfully they seem to be in the minority.
To be fair, let's leave out politicians who are pandering to their base - on all sides of the issue. I suspect that neither of us have any respect for these people, nor do they really represent us in this day and age.
Moving down the list, yes, there are people who believe that no one should be allowed to own firearms and given the crap they are being fed by the media, I can almost understand that - almost. The reality is, the message has become so distorted that no one really knows what to believe any further. I live in an area where guns are looked at like a shovel, a tool one needs to own to deal with problems like black bears and other not so friendly animals. Most of my neighbors hunt and eat what they shoot. In Vermont, a fair number of families either shot a deer or had little to no meat for the winter - which I can understand might be difficult for a resident of New York City to comprehend.
Back to your main point - how the FBI defines mass shootings.
My definition does not include number of deaths - because we are not talking about mass murder, we are talking about how many people were shot. If three people are shot (or even two) that is a multiple shooting. What differentiates this in my mind is that when a premeditated murder happens there is usually only one victim, even though we both know more than one person is killed on occasion. But, what we are talking about here is when some asshole (or assholes) begin shooting people, it really doesn't enter into the equation if they can hit a victim with a clean kill shot. If there are multiple people shot but not killed, it is a multiple shooting incident. Now, based on that criteria, how many mass shootings have there been in 2015? Well, I think it is safe to say, more than 21 but even 21 is too damn many.
Ask him about the plane that crashed into the pentagon on 9/11 and you'll get some insight. Apparently we need all those guns to stop the government faking plane crashes and murdering hundreds to cover it up.
Wow! You mean that wasn't real?
I'm sure some guy on SlashDot told me it was. You can believe some guy on SlashDot, right? I mean, look how many intelligent posts that guy named Anonymous Coward has posted! He has to be an authority on everything.
Yes, actually, I still want to do that. I know better than to believe that Sharia Law is being instituted here, or that because a million Muslims came to this country across five years that it would change anything.
What I do understand is the language common to every bigot who ever walked the face of the earth. Yes, they are always shocked when they are called that because it's tough to see yourself as others do but the terms you use are exactly like the prejudiced assholes of the past said about black integration. It's identical to what was thrown around when we created our immigration laws to keep the Chinese out (once they had finished building our railroads, of course). And it's almost quoted verbatim what the assholes used to fight against interracial marriage and somewhat ironically the same slurs people still use when we talk about gay rights. That last instance is especially wry, don't you think with you using that as an example to defend your particularly brand or prejudice?
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. And if you ever decide to actually learn something about these issues, at least to the point of getting past what Rush Limbaugh has fed you, let me know. It might make for an interesting discussion.
I think you have describe the way most of us now deal with society - at least the politics of it all. And this is a shame. I have any number of friends who are conservatives (old school style) and we disagree on many things but allow that we all are trying to build the best country we can. Sadly, that's not the way most approach the situation. We believe that our philosophy is the only correct one and the other side has nothing to offer. And as this continues, the country gets farther down the hole.
I don't know if they intend to decimate the education system or not. I know the Democrats have all but destroyed it nationally in the last few decades and I don't see the Republicans improving it but I fail to see how they'll make it much worse.
The Democrats have all but destroyed the educational system? Really? You blame the Democrats for any number of contributing factors, including societal issues to name but one.
I guess we really have nothing to talk about, do we?
The mayor and 3 council members are Democrats, the final council member is unaffiliated.
Woodlawn is 65% registered Democrats. The state does have a single House member who is a Dem and one GOP senator and one Dem senator and a GOP governor.
So this is a Dem town, like other longtime Dem towns like Detroit, Baltimore and D.C.
Is it that your argument is that Slashdot expects the Democrats to always be the smart ones or that we think all Republicans are stupid? Because, from where I sit, that's pretty ignorant. What we do know is that these people are poor and poorly educated. And to make matters worse, the state is now run by Republicans hellbent on decimating the education system there and they have been quite successful in doing so.
So, if this Woodlawn story has you wondering how bad things are currently, how about if we predict how North Carolina looks in another 20 years? I would also ask everyone to consider the real cost for us to carry these people once the crisis fully matures. How do we as a country handle the long term damage caused by this short term thinking and are we going to accept that we will have to pay for this stupidity the Republicans caused during their tenure?
Or, we could have just gotten false information from people supposedly in the know.
Which would ignore that entire department setup by Donald Rumsfeld known as the Office of Special Plans which according to The Guardian, "operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney."
The Guardian further adds, "Mr Tenet has officially taken responsibility for the president's unsubstantiated claim in January that Saddam Hussein's regime had been trying to buy uranium in Africa, but he also said his agency was under pressure to justify a war that the administration had already decided on."
Nope. If you are only looking at half the facts, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. But I never made any claim to the validity of the prewar intelligence, just that Bush never made the claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that two thirds of the American public misunderstood the President, Vice President, as well as Condoleezza Rice? Seriously?
So I don't really know why you are bringing it up. It doesn't refute my claim which you seemed to sidestep quite nicely.
Can you explain why during testimony in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the estates of 9/11 victims, George Eric Smith, a senior business analyst for Sun Gard Asset Management, and Timothy Soulas, a senior managing director and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, why former CIA Director, R James Woolsey, at that time a member of the administration's Defense Policy Board, Colin Powell and George Tenet all swore under oath that a "conclusive link" between Saddam and 9/11 existed? It seems strange that these members of the Bush Administration would swear under oath that they believed such a thing if they never thought it was true.
I mean your position is only valid if you ignore quite a lot of reality which makes it not real at all. We had faulty intelligence reports, over stated reliability of these reports, and outright lies by captured Al Qaeda personnel.
So, we're going to go with the Bush Administration was inept as a defense? I can agree that looking back in hindsight that is likely to be the case. But then we have that nagging issue of all the times multiple members of the Bush Administration mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence.
To say misinformed statements (which is what it really boils down to) is a lie while ignoring the lies that caused the misinformation itself is a lot dishonest to say the least. It is as if you have a narrative and damn anything getting in it's way. You are what you are claiming Bush and Co to be.
Bullshit.
What I keep hearing out of you is that somehow, as if by magic, the overwhelming majority of the American public just woke up one morning and decided that Saddam was involved in 9/11 but that all the times the Bush Administration mentioned this had nothing at all to do with that.
You apparently are here to tell all of these Americans that they are idiots and nothing the Bush Administration did in any way was responsible for this error. Sure, let's go with that.
First, I never said we didn't get things wrong...
Indeed.
I said that Bush's position was never that Iraq was connected to 9/11, his position was that we couldn't operate as usual after 9/11 because of the magnitude of it.
So, when "President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier thi
Their argument was never that Iraq was behind 9/11, it was always that the devastation of 9/11 proves we cannot wait until after an attack and treat it like a law enforcement measure because the risk to innocent human life was now too large.
As quoted from here:
"In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11."
"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago."
"Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime."
If we are to accept your reasoning, then we have to admit that the Bush Administration was inept, at the very least. But, in reality, it wasn't the president alone who made these repeated references, it was the entire administration. Then we have that ugly Powell appearance with the vial full of white powder not to mention that wonderful "artist's rendition" of the terrorist headquarters known as Tora Bora - which never existed.
When taken as a whole, we find that no other answer can be arrived at other than this was a deliberate, false dialog meant to confuse the American people and did so successfully.
The problem is what we are seeing is a need to create a false narrative which proves those who originally created these lies know that they have been pegged as liars. Does it bother you that you are one of those people spreading a false narrative designed to cover the deceit which caused tens of thousands of Iraqis to be killed with a likely hundred thousand or so maimed? Can't you understand that it was those actions which you are trying to hide that led to us having to deal with ISIS?
Either way, what you need to know is that you are the problem, not part of the solution.
The Bush Administration never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. That's a false narrative that was pushed by anti-war activists back in 2002.
You mean to tell me that more than two out of three Americans who believed that Saddam was behind 9/11 did so because anti-war activists back in 2002. pushed that line? That lie was still poisoning the discourse of one out of three American voters in 2007. Apparently, the drive by, liberal, mass media was involved on pushing this lie too. This lie was foisted upon the world by the Bush Administration. What bothers me most is that you (or the people who told you the lie you're repeating) know that this was not only a despicable lie but one that they felt needed to be countered or the lie you are regurgitating never would have seen the light of day.
It's pretty evident that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about nor what point I have tried to convey to you - none.
What I did was to attempt to explain why the question you asked was subjective and you interpreted that to mean that I stated that America is worse than cannibals. Without doubt, you may be the single most imbecilic moron I have ever run across, on the Internet or in real life.
But you keep right on showing the world just how educated you are because without people like you to point and laugh at, this world would be a far less humorous place.
Yes, a citation would be nice.
After Snowden sold the US out, it was quietly reported about a large number of people on the US payroll in other countries (and their families) disappearing quietly, and permanently.
It was quietly reported by the very same people who have evidence that 9/11 was in inside job, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe a better quality source of information would be the best way forward, don't you think?
No, I am pointing out the hilarity of him making his signature some sort of credibility badge. Most of us don't feel the need to tell people who we are, instead we allow the readership to judge us by what we write.
Yes, that's what happens every single time, unlike how we routinely see tactically trained individuals whipping out their concealed carry and taking out the terrorist before anyone else is hurt.
Most of us enjoy living in the real world. We know the difference between TV and here. Come visit us, you might find that you like it.
The only question still standing is for you to answer the following one which I noticed you somehow couldn't find an answer to.
"If we shock and awe 30,000 people based on bad information, are we better than a society which kills a few hundred people to eat?"
Well, jackass, the only person who can't seem to respond when asked is you. Either answer the question or take you moving the goalposts argument somewhere that people will take you seriously.
Well, are you going to answer the question, punk? Or are you going to hide behind another pile of insults and misdirection?
I understand.
Bertrand Russell said it best when he said, “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.”
That would be true if these people could have found jobs but at the same time they were dumped on the job market, the defense industry was contracting. Instead, what we saw were hundreds of thousands of people added to the welfare ranks and a downward spiraling economy which was the stagnation part of the stagflation. Why we saw inflation at that time is likely attributable to inept handling of the economy by the Fed.
No, you asked about whether our culture was superior to one which embraces cannibalism. I am reasonably sure that anyone with the brains even complete jackass would have understood what I meant when I said, "If we shock and awe 30,000 people based on bad information, are we better than a society which kills a few hundred people to eat?" Apparently not only do you not understand, well, pretty much everything but even the word fail seems to escape your ability to comprehend.
Okay, let's talk subjective.
Is a culture that can convince its people to drop untold tonnage of high explosives on a civilian population your idea of civil? If we shock and awe 30,000 people based on bad information, are we better than a society which kills a few hundred people to eat? And if we torture people, including raping a child in front of their mother to get information we suspect she might have, are you suggesting that we are better than another society which commits actions which sicken you when the actions I mentioned prior to this don't?
So, why don't you crawl down off that high horse and think about just how fucking reprehensible the actions of the society you'd like to think is so far superior to others actually is when we take everything into account.
And while you're at it, why don't you tell me why "UNESCO nor any other prominent organization has yet organized" a bomb the shit out of innocent civilians week so that assholes can pretend to hold the higher ground, morally speaking.
Is that clear enough for you?
Because some cultures really are better — and worse — than others.
Today's vocabulary word is subjective. That's subjective. It means: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision or particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
What's funny about your little diatribe is that it exposes you to exactly what we call projection - and that's today's bonus vocabulary word.
Fair question, exactly what did we gain when we let your family settle here? Are there any family members you are related to who didn't turn out to be pope? No? No shit, every family has one eventually.
What do we get when we allow a million Muslims to come here to live? About the same thing we would get when we allow any other million people to come here.
One more thing, if your best and only argument is that you're not a bigot because you only are prejudicial against religions, then you're really no better than the average garden variety bigot, are you?
Oh, I didn't realize I was talking to a Senior System Engineer/Architect. My mistake.
And as an educated intellectual, I'm sure you will appreciate me directing you to the ad verecundiam logical fallacy article available at
I do this to help keep you from making a jackass out of yourself in the future.
You're welcome.
I live right on the buckle of the Bible Belt, having moved here a decade ago from the Great White North. ;-) My neighbors (most of them, anyway) are very giving people. They work incredibly hard to do whatever they can to help our less fortunate neighbors and work tirelessly to volunteer whenever they can. They don't preach and have accepted us (a family of practicing atheists) into the community openly. Yes, I know there are the lunatics amongst us, they are everywhere but thankfully they seem to be in the minority.
To be fair, let's leave out politicians who are pandering to their base - on all sides of the issue. I suspect that neither of us have any respect for these people, nor do they really represent us in this day and age.
Moving down the list, yes, there are people who believe that no one should be allowed to own firearms and given the crap they are being fed by the media, I can almost understand that - almost. The reality is, the message has become so distorted that no one really knows what to believe any further. I live in an area where guns are looked at like a shovel, a tool one needs to own to deal with problems like black bears and other not so friendly animals. Most of my neighbors hunt and eat what they shoot. In Vermont, a fair number of families either shot a deer or had little to no meat for the winter - which I can understand might be difficult for a resident of New York City to comprehend.
Back to your main point - how the FBI defines mass shootings.
My definition does not include number of deaths - because we are not talking about mass murder, we are talking about how many people were shot. If three people are shot (or even two) that is a multiple shooting. What differentiates this in my mind is that when a premeditated murder happens there is usually only one victim, even though we both know more than one person is killed on occasion. But, what we are talking about here is when some asshole (or assholes) begin shooting people, it really doesn't enter into the equation if they can hit a victim with a clean kill shot. If there are multiple people shot but not killed, it is a multiple shooting incident. Now, based on that criteria, how many mass shootings have there been in 2015? Well, I think it is safe to say, more than 21 but even 21 is too damn many.
Ask him about the plane that crashed into the pentagon on 9/11 and you'll get some insight. Apparently we need all those guns to stop the government faking plane crashes and murdering hundreds to cover it up.
Wow! You mean that wasn't real?
I'm sure some guy on SlashDot told me it was. You can believe some guy on SlashDot, right? I mean, look how many intelligent posts that guy named Anonymous Coward has posted! He has to be an authority on everything.
Hey, did you know that gullible isn't included in the dictionary? No, seriously, did you know that? Don't bother checking, I already did that for you.
Oh, if you get the chance, please pass this information on to everyone you know. They will surely appreciate it.
Yes, actually, I still want to do that. I know better than to believe that Sharia Law is being instituted here, or that because a million Muslims came to this country across five years that it would change anything.
What I do understand is the language common to every bigot who ever walked the face of the earth. Yes, they are always shocked when they are called that because it's tough to see yourself as others do but the terms you use are exactly like the prejudiced assholes of the past said about black integration. It's identical to what was thrown around when we created our immigration laws to keep the Chinese out (once they had finished building our railroads, of course). And it's almost quoted verbatim what the assholes used to fight against interracial marriage and somewhat ironically the same slurs people still use when we talk about gay rights. That last instance is especially wry, don't you think with you using that as an example to defend your particularly brand or prejudice?