|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Oct 2, 2015 11:02:44 GMT -5
and that's where I'm coming from on this. I absolutely admit I could very well be mistaken, and am willing to change my opinion if proof comes from other sources. but thus far it's all spinning off of one source (that I've seen), who is a very religious man, who claims his Daughter told him this as she was going into surgery. I'm kinda on the same fence on the Hero who was shot 5 (or 7, depending on which story you read) on his Son's Birthday, while trying to block the door. There is no doubt he acted heroically, but thus far, it seems the story is coming only from his Family and what they claim he told them. (the two broken legs do imply he was shot in the legs tho, don't they?). but yeah. .early info often proves to be unreliable. . which is the main reason I'm such a skeptic nowadays at things like this  Skepticism is warranted in early reports on chaotic situations like this. As such, I presented it as "appears that he was targeting Christians" and "according to Yahoo news". I gave no indication of this being unassailable fact or as a cause to be taken up by the religious right. It's entirely possible this may be disproved, though it appears it may be coming from more than one source now. Regardless of whether a certain group was targeted (or which group was targeted) or if it was totally random, the act was despicable and shouldn't be seized on by any group (religious, anti-religious, etc) to further their agenda, excepting as another example as to why access to guns must be controlled so murderous nutjobs (yes, he's a nutjob, anyone who commits mass murder qualifies) can't get them so easily. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2015 11:18:45 GMT -5
and that's where I'm coming from on this. I absolutely admit I could very well be mistaken, and am willing to change my opinion if proof comes from other sources. but thus far it's all spinning off of one source (that I've seen), who is a very religious man, who claims his Daughter told him this as she was going into surgery. I'm kinda on the same fence on the Hero who was shot 5 (or 7, depending on which story you read) on his Son's Birthday, while trying to block the door. There is no doubt he acted heroically, but thus far, it seems the story is coming only from his Family and what they claim he told them. (the two broken legs do imply he was shot in the legs tho, don't they?). but yeah. .early info often proves to be unreliable. . which is the main reason I'm such a skeptic nowadays at things like this As such, I presented it as "appears that he was targeting Christians" and "according to Yahoo news". I gave no indication of this being unassailable fact or as a cause to be taken up by the religious right. It's entirely possible this may be disproved, though it appears it may be coming from more than one source now. Regardless of whether a certain group was targeted (or which group was targeted) or if it was totally random, the act was despicable and shouldn't be seized on by any group (religious, anti-religious, etc) to further their agenda, excepting as another example as to why access to guns must be controlled so murderous nutjobs (yes, he's a nutjob, anyone who commits mass murder qualifies) can't get them so easily. Makes me glad (not for the first time) that my news biz days predate the rise of social media. Just from reading the various links & feeds last night, several hours after the shootings, I gathered that there were 7, 10 or 13 dead & 8 or 20 wounded. I'm not sure what the official count is now -- 13 dead & 10 wounded, maybe? Not that it matters, of course: One is too many. Though it's becoming increasingly evident with every such incident that this is just the cost today of doing business, as it were, in the NRA ... I mean the USA. For weeks now I've been seeing references to how the lack of any sort of action after Sandy Hook proves that the public (& most crucially, of course, the whores in Washington) has pretty much decided that it's fine with the status quo, no matter how many have to die & how young & innocent they might be. I don't see that changing, absent (a) a cessation of the money pipeline from the NRA to legislators (which certainly won't happen) or (b) a mass mental health campaign among the gun cultists (see previous parenthetical clause). Very unfortunate, to say the least. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2015 14:14:27 GMT -5
Ummm ... if you use "ironcross45" as your internet & email handle (assuming, of course, that the linked site's suppostions are accurate), you just may be an incipient mass murderer. Just maybe. Makes me think the skinhead look might not've been just a matter of dealing with early male pattern baldness. |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Oct 3, 2015 16:03:00 GMT -5
nope. . shooting is shooting. .and there isn't any corroboration that where they were shot was tied to an answer. without proof of what was done? The Right doesn't get to claim "targeting Christians" if proven otherwise, I'll change my opinion, but from what evidence I have heard thus far? Nope, EVERYONE was targeted. (this is a Gun Control/Mental Health issue. . not a "targeting a specific group "hate" crime") Yeah, there are a couple problems with the "targeting Christians" story. 1) Veracity is still to be determined. We have a media echo chamber where certain angles on a story that will draw ratings/attention get played up. The notion that he was attacking Christians has been repeated so much, that folks start to think it's been confirmed by multiple sources. But looking at the stories, it seems like the father of one of the wounded victims is the only source. Normally, journalists are skeptical about relying on a single source. Here, you've got one source. It's a hot-button politically. It's hearsay. In other words, its coming from the dad rather than the supposed eye witness herself. And it's a claim that the shooter was killing Christians but wounding the others (from a supposedly Christian survivor). Let that sink in. So I'm skeptical of that. 2) But even if it's true, there's a question of relevance. I hear people putting this into the context of a war on Christianity. But the "war on Christian" as defined by its critics essentially means that a certain sub-group of Christian think that they are oppressed unless they get to impose their religion on other people. We can't deny marriage licenses to legally eligible people on religious grounds. We're oppressed. We can't force kids to participate in prayers led by public school employees at school function. We're oppressed. How does a mass shooting by a sociopath lead to the conclusion that we should embrace theocracy. A certain sub-group of Christian who love the idea of coercing and oppressing people are looking for any excuse to oppress people. Tennessee's Lieutenant Governor just said Christians should arm themselves in response. When I was a Christian as a kid, I never thought people would discriminate against me. But as an atheist, I have a semi-closet existence. I'm cautious about who I tell I'm an atheist. I fear that some people will ignore what they already know about my character in favor of a stereotype. And oftentimes these mentally disturbed shooters don't have coherent worldviews. This person who supposedly targeted Christians, described himself as religious online. He's a mixed race person who supposedly hated black men. He describes himself as conservative and Republican, but posted photos of the IRA (which is more of a left-wing group). |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 3, 2015 17:07:05 GMT -5
nope. . shooting is shooting. .and there isn't any corroboration that where they were shot was tied to an answer. without proof of what was done? The Right doesn't get to claim "targeting Christians" if proven otherwise, I'll change my opinion, but from what evidence I have heard thus far? Nope, EVERYONE was targeted. (this is a Gun Control/Mental Health issue. . not a "targeting a specific group "hate" crime") Yeah, there are a couple problems with the "targeting Christians" story. 1) Veracity is still to be determined. We have a media echo chamber where certain angles on a story that will draw ratings/attention get played up. The notion that he was attacking Christians has been repeated so much, that folks start to think it's been confirmed by multiple sources. But looking at the stories, it seems like the father of one of the wounded victims is the only source. Normally, journalists are skeptical about relying on a single source. Here, you've got one source. It's a hot-button politically. It's hearsay. In other words, its coming from the dad rather than the supposed eye witness herself. And it's a claim that the shooter was killing Christians but wounding the others (from a supposedly Christian survivor). Let that sink in. So I'm skeptical of that. 2) But even if it's true, there's a question of relevance. I hear people putting this into the context of a war on Christianity. But the "war on Christian" as defined by its critics essentially means that a certain sub-group of Christian think that they are oppressed unless they get to impose their religion on other people. We can't deny marriage licenses to legally eligible people on religious grounds. We're oppressed. We can't force kids to participate in prayers led by public school employees at school function. We're oppressed. How does a mass shooting by a sociopath lead to the conclusion that we should embrace theocracy. A certain sub-group of Christian who love the idea of coercing and oppressing people are looking for any excuse to oppress people. Tennessee's Lieutenant Governor just said Christians should arm themselves in response. When I was a Christian as a kid, I never thought people would discriminate against me. But as an atheist, I have a semi-closet existence. I'm cautious about who I tell I'm an atheist. I fear that some people will ignore what they already know about my character in favor of a stereotype. And oftentimes these mentally disturbed shooters don't have coherent worldviews. This person who supposedly targeted Christians, described himself as religious online. He's a mixed race person who supposedly hated black men. He describes himself as conservative and Republican, but posted photos of the IRA (which is more of a left-wing group). Well done, Spoon. You speak for many of us. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2015 19:35:59 GMT -5
Yeah, there are a couple problems with the "targeting Christians" story. 1) Veracity is still to be determined. We have a media echo chamber where certain angles on a story that will draw ratings/attention get played up. The notion that he was attacking Christians has been repeated so much, that folks start to think it's been confirmed by multiple sources. But looking at the stories, it seems like the father of one of the wounded victims is the only source. Normally, journalists are skeptical about relying on a single source. Here, you've got one source. It's a hot-button politically. It's hearsay. In other words, its coming from the dad rather than the supposed eye witness herself. And it's a claim that the shooter was killing Christians but wounding the others (from a supposedly Christian survivor). Let that sink in. So I'm skeptical of that. 2) But even if it's true, there's a question of relevance. I hear people putting this into the context of a war on Christianity. But the "war on Christian" as defined by its critics essentially means that a certain sub-group of Christian think that they are oppressed unless they get to impose their religion on other people. We can't deny marriage licenses to legally eligible people on religious grounds. We're oppressed. We can't force kids to participate in prayers led by public school employees at school function. We're oppressed. How does a mass shooting by a sociopath lead to the conclusion that we should embrace theocracy. A certain sub-group of Christian who love the idea of coercing and oppressing people are looking for any excuse to oppress people. Tennessee's Lieutenant Governor just said Christians should arm themselves in response. When I was a Christian as a kid, I never thought people would discriminate against me. But as an atheist, I have a semi-closet existence. I'm cautious about who I tell I'm an atheist. I fear that some people will ignore what they already know about my character in favor of a stereotype. And oftentimes these mentally disturbed shooters don't have coherent worldviews. This person who supposedly targeted Christians, described himself as religious online. He's a mixed race person who supposedly hated black men. He describes himself as conservative and Republican, but posted photos of the IRA (which is more of a left-wing group). Well done, Spoon. You speak for many of us. Thank you. agreed. . very well put forth. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 18:18:28 GMT -5
From CNN:
Survivor says religion not a factor
Relatives of two wounded victims have said the gunman asked his victims about their religion before he shot them.
One victim, Cheyeanne Fitzgerald, didn't answer and was shot in the back, her mother said. Another victim, Anastasia Boylan, told her father the gunman asked specifically whether they were Christians.
Heu also said the gunman asked about religion. But she said it didn't seem to matter, because he shot some people even before he asked.
"I don't think he was really targeting them," she said. "I honestly don't think he was targeting anybody. He just wanted to do it for fun. 'Cause he still shot every single one that he asked. So I don't think he was actually targeting a specific religion."
Covered in someone else's blood, expecting to die, Heu said she played dead. Her head was on the ground and she tried not to look up so the shooter wouldn't see she was still alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 6, 2015 18:48:54 GMT -5
From CNN:
Survivor says religion not a factor
Relatives of two wounded victims have said the gunman asked his victims about their religion before he shot them.
One victim, Cheyeanne Fitzgerald, didn't answer and was shot in the back, her mother said. Another victim, Anastasia Boylan, told her father the gunman asked specifically whether they were Christians.
Heu also said the gunman asked about religion. But she said it didn't seem to matter, because he shot some people even before he asked.
"I don't think he was really targeting them," she said. "I honestly don't think he was targeting anybody. He just wanted to do it for fun. 'Cause he still shot every single one that he asked. So I don't think he was actually targeting a specific religion."
Covered in someone else's blood, expecting to die, Heu said she played dead. Her head was on the ground and she tried not to look up so the shooter wouldn't see she was still alive.Thanks for posting this, bert. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Oct 13, 2015 22:22:59 GMT -5
Reactions to the first Democratic debate ?
I liked it very much.
Hillary did very well, Bernie did well, Lincoln Chafee was surprisingly good.
Thoughts ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 13, 2015 23:04:32 GMT -5
Reactions to the first Democratic debate ? I liked it very much. Hillary did very well, Bernie did well, Lincoln Chafee was surprisingly good. Thoughts ? Quite a difference from the incoherence of the GOP editions, wasn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Oct 14, 2015 0:03:58 GMT -5
Absolutely
For those people that think there's no difference between both parties, I would simply point them to YouTube to look at the debates.
I'm a lifelong Democrat, however, this e-mail thing is not inconsequential, and unlike previous elections, I'm not voting Democrat as the lesser of two evils.
One way or another, I'm voting Sanders, whether I'm "throwing my vote away" or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Oct 14, 2015 14:59:39 GMT -5
Reactions to the first Democratic debate ? I liked it very much. Hillary did very well, Bernie did well, Lincoln Chafee was surprisingly good. Thoughts ? I was surprised by how well spoken O'Malley is. I wouldn't be surprised if his campaign experiences a surge of attention after the debate |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 16:20:25 GMT -5
Reactions to the first Democratic debate ? I liked it very much. Hillary did very well, Bernie did well, Lincoln Chafee was surprisingly good. Thoughts ? it was nice to hear the adults talk. I thought Chafee embarrassed himself, and he didn't look Presidential at all. Hillary did fantastic, didn't get flustered at all, and had answers. Bernie did good too, but I think that he didn't gain any new voters. As opposed, I think Hillary won back some she was losing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 16:21:37 GMT -5
Absolutely For those people that think there's no difference between both parties, I would simply point them to YouTube to look at the debates. I'm a lifelong Democrat, however, this e-mail thing is not inconsequential, and unlike previous elections, I'm not voting Democrat as the lesser of two evils. One way or another, I'm voting Sanders, whether I'm "throwing my vote away" or not. in the General Election, when the Nominee is Hillary, I hope you will still go out and vote. This Country can NOT afford a Republican President and whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 14, 2015 17:36:31 GMT -5
I thought Hillary looked and sounded like she has at every similar speech and debate she's been in for the last 10 or 12 years. I wasn't particularly impressed, because I feel like I've heard it all before. Sure, she's really good at being a politician. That doesn't make me want to elect her. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Lincoln Chafee was completely embarassing, I'm shocked he hasn't dropped out yet. The section where he was asked about a vote and he said 'Well, I had just got elected and my dad had just died... and the vote was 95-5 or something'... right there he should have just left the stage.
Jim Dodd clearly know he has no chance, and instead recited he resume, probably in the hopes that the winner will appoint him somewhere good.
O'Malley wasn't bad.. but not super impressive either.
I like Bernie Sanders more every time I hear him speak... he's my guy so far.
|
|
