DescentBB

A distraction from the fact that 80% of attacks are committed by american citizens

"Mateen did reportedly claim allegiance to ISIS during his attack, but the FBI hasn't found evidence that he received direction from abroad. All evidence available suggests that the shooter acted independently of any specific group."

But he was brown!

vision wrote:But he was brown!

Racist much?

sarcasm eludes you, NS?

Nightshade wrote:

vision wrote:But he was brown!

Racist much?

The irony is palpable.

The real question is, if ISIS was not in existence, would the 80% have carried out any attack.

callmeslick wrote:sarcasm eludes you, NS?

No. It's just interesting that everything from the leftists posting here is something about skin color or race and they automatically attack that 'racist conservative' straw man to make their fallacious points.

But we're post racial, right?

Vander wrote:But we're post racial, right?

Yes...we are now all metro sexuals.

a while ago, I was thinking: "now why would a guy who has no links to terrorism suddenly profess support to ISIS? doesn't make sense."

Seems the investigation is supporting that.

Vander wrote:But we're post racial, right?

Not if "progressives" have their way. "Progressives" believe everything should be based upon skin color and race and want to CONTINUE discrimination.

"Progressives" want to segregate all human beings in this way and therefore keep us all forever apart.

Not everything good is 'progressive.'

Diseases are "progressive" too...and they can be terminal.

..

It's a good thing "progressives" has such a malleable definition, and can be contorted onto whatever mold you wish to cast.

Nightshade wrote:

Vander wrote:But we're post racial, right?

Not if "progressives" have their way. "Progressives" believe everything should be based upon skin color and race and want to CONTINUE discrimination.

here we go, yet again. Someone whose only knowledge about Progressives is to use the word as a perjorative, presuming to tell me or anyone else what Progressives believe. Rich, yet incredibly arrogant and stupid.

"Progressives" want to segregate all human beings in this way and therefore keep us all forever apart.

Not everything good is 'progressive.'

Diseases are "progressive" too...and they can be terminal.

apparently, stupidity can be terminal, as well.

Shall I provide links to how the American Communist Party co-opted the progressive wing of the Dem. party?

callmeslick wrote:here we go, yet again. Someone whose only knowledge about Progressives is to use the word as a perjorative, presuming to tell me or anyone else what Progressives believe. Rich, yet incredibly arrogant and stupid.

If "progressives" believe all human beings are equal in rights and potential, then why do they insist on segregating groups of us by race?

Why do I keep hearing from "progressives" on this BB about "brown people" or the like? Why do they constantly tell us of how race matters...when it shouldn't?

We're all human beings. Are any of us less so because of race or 'class?'

In fact, I see an effort to dehumanize anyone that disagrees with progressives.

Is President Obama a human being? Is Bernie Sanders a human being? Is Hillary?

What about Donald Trump? Ted Cruz? Heck, me? Aren't I a human being as well with all of the rights and respect a human being deserves from others?

Should it matter what my "race" is? I guess in your "progressive" eyes, it does.

I think we should be moving to 100% clean/green/renewable energy. Yet I still turn on my lights powered by natural gas and coal. HYPOCRITE!!!

callmeslick wrote:here we go, yet again. Someone whose only knowledge about Progressives is to use the word as a perjorative, presuming to tell me or anyone else what Progressives believe. Rich, yet incredibly arrogant and stupid.

But yet you attempt to define conservatives and conservatism on an ongoing basis.

And even though I disagree with a lot of your assessments, it never stops you.

I think Shade has a point, the people who constantly bring up race on this board are the progressive/liberal members, although I disagree with using the term as a pejorative, some of the criticisms are valid. (as are many of conservatives as well)

woodchip wrote:Shall I provide links to how the American Communist Party co-opted the progressive wing of the Dem. party?

sure, and having been affiliated with the party, known Communists and other extreme left types and a lot of standard Progressive Dems, I can laugh at your simpleminded links.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:here we go, yet again. Someone whose only knowledge about Progressives is to use the word as a perjorative, presuming to tell me or anyone else what Progressives believe. Rich, yet incredibly arrogant and stupid.

But yet you attempt to define conservatives and conservatism on an ongoing basis.

find me so much as one quote where I stated, "Conservatives think (fill in blank)" One.

Lol….no, you do it in a different way.

Diseases are "progressive" too...and they can be terminal.

well... you're not wrong

Spidey wrote:Lol….no, you do it in a different way.

Moving the goalposts, are we?

And even though I disagree with a lot of your assessments, it never stops you.

Because the only logical conclusion is for him to cease and desist because you disagreed with him. Need a safe space?


So what do you guys figure about the fact that 8 out of every 10 attacks are perpetrated by homegrown citizens?

I figure we should stop growing that kind of citizen immediately!

I second Thorne!!!

Ferno wrote:

Diseases are "progressive" too...and they can be terminal.

well... you're not wrong

Cute. The number of times you've not even been wrong, Fern, are astronomical.

What I stated was what we (in English) call an analogy-

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē

noun

a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Like I said before Thorne -- It's not even wrong.

Because what you see as an analogy is actually not an analogy. It doesn't even classify as an analogy because there is absolutely nothing relating the two in any shape or form. it doesn't even come close to any rightness or wrongness. Even the word progressive is misunderstood and misused in that passage. It's the equivalent of saying the wind is blowing east today because a European won the lottery two weeks ago.

Yet another example of leftists injecting their racism where it has no place:

geezus, do you just sit around watching propaganda video all day? You have a scary amount of traits in common with most lone-wolf terrorist types, when you look in the mirror, huh?

Now slick is a expert on terrorist. Seems you post your fair share of propaganda against conservatives.

woodchip wrote:Now slick is a expert on terrorist. Seems you post your fair share of propaganda against conservatives.

wow, I opine and am an 'expert'? Well, thanks, I guess. I wouldn't sit through videos like NS?TB posts, no matter the point of view therein, let
alone foist them upon others.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Now slick is a expert on terrorist. Seems you post your fair share of propaganda against conservatives.

wow, I opine and am an 'expert'? Well, thanks, I guess. I wouldn't sit through videos like NS?TB posts, no matter the point of view therein, let
alone foist them upon others.

Slick.. don't you recognize a strawman when you see it?

callmeslick wrote: geezus, do you just sit around watching propaganda video all day? You have a scary amount of traits in common with most lone-wolf terrorist types, when you look in the mirror, huh?

I challenge you two watch 10 seconds of that linked video Slick. Can you do that?

ThunderBunny, can you summarize your point in a few sentences? Everyone who watches that video will take away a different perspective.

vision wrote:Everyone who watches that video will take away a different perspective.

That's basically the purpose. I'm not expecting everyone to suddenly respond like lock-step zombies one way or another- but the video does make a point. Whether you think it's a valid point or not is up to you.

Nightshade wrote:...the video does make a point. Whether you think it's a valid point or not is up to you.

So your point is that liberals are racist and this video is some kind of proof?

I considered watching that video. then realized just how stupid that really was.

vision wrote:So your point is that liberals are racist and this video is some kind of proof?

My point is that quite a few are indeed 'progressive' racists- not all of course...but it's interesting how this kind of racism is tolerated when NO form should ever be.

What if someone had said, "I see too many black people here..." "...too many brown..." "...too many asians..." What would you have made of those statements?

Would it be ok if a southern baptist activist preacher had said it? What about a democrat activist? Why is there a difference?

There is no such thing as "reverse racism..." It is simply RACISM.

Nightshade wrote:What if someone had said, "I see too many black people here..." "...too many brown..." "...too many asians..." What would you have made of those statements?

Would it be ok if a southern baptist activist preacher had said it? What about a democrat activist? Why is there a difference?

I understand your point but you are missing something. Yes, all racism is bad. It is especially bad when a majority is racist toward a minority. In fact, it doesn't have to be race, it could be sexual orientation, national heritage, physical disabilities, pretty much anything. As a society we have to be careful to not repeat the mistakes of the past and the majority should work toward raising up disadvantaged persons and minorities, not dehumanizing them.

Yes, racism expressed by minorities is often tolerated — to an extent. The reason why is because it's understood that these expressions of racism are the result of deep frustration (and really, those frustrated feelings are justified even if the expression is not). It's different when a majority is racist toward a minority than the other way around. The reason why should be obvious, but I can explain in depth if you don't know.

Watching that video I was able to understand multiple sides. While I personally think BLM has a leadership problem and it was tacky to co-opt another minority's grieving, the young lady does have a point and I was glad to hear it. Other people in the audience also appreciated it even if those gentlemen did not. And that's Ok. Now it would be nice if BLM could reciprocate and allow gay persons a platform in the African-American community to speak about the mistreatment of LGBT people of color (which is a whole other issue).

Anecdotally, one of my best friends is black and we occasionally have some candid conversations about race. Sometimes he is very angry at white people. And sometimes he's angry at me for being white. But I understand why he feels this way and I tolerate it because he is a good person and he is hurting. Racism hurts and I've seen people treat him like ★■◆● first hand because of his skin color. It's infuriating.

Just like people, racism comes in different shades. Racism by the white majority against blacks has far reaching consequences whereas anti-white sentiments in the black community don't... not to the same extent, not by a longshot. This is not a justification for racism by minorities. This is an explanation why it is tolerated by some parts of a majority. Context is key. The ultimate goal is the rid society of racism. Tolerance and understanding for the vicitms of racism is a step toward that goal.

Here is another perspective.

Another perfect example of what’s wrong with the race dialog in this country. When one group is treated as the perps and others are treated as the victims, it misses the point of how racism is basically a human problem. Yes, it’s quite obvious that the race in power can inflict more damage then a minority…that’s obvious, but you still have to treat all racism the same, and there is just no excuse for tolerating it on any level.

woodchip wrote:The real question is, if ISIS was not in existence, would the 80% have carried out any attack.

If not ISIS, it would be some other group. Humans seem to have a unending capacity and zeal to form hate groups. Even the damn Nazis and the KKK are still around and cooking up hate. By the way, this shooter was NOT an ISIS sympathizer. He was a British anti-immigrant patriot, in other words, a right winger.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201606 ... /160619353