• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bowling Green Massacre

Cainkane1 said:
Was it a massacre or a one sided fight? The socialists should have known better than to attack and provoke a group of visibly armed fanatics. They did say "death to the Klan" and that's what got the Klan off the legal hook. That and the fact they had attacked a KKK member.

I hate the KKK but I'm smart enough to know not to attack visibly armed organized redneck gangs.
Click to expand...

That and it isn't like anyone cared about black socialists. They are the kind of the people the klan always had good luck with getting away with killing.
 
MostlyDead said:
The comment I referred to was Spicer's use of Atlanta as opposed to Orlando. I do think he meant Orlando, giving him the benefit of the doubt, but that he doesn't seemed concerned if it was applicable to his justification of the Muslim Ban. I see this as indifference to fact rather than promoting alternative versions.
Click to expand...

The guy was a muslim so of course it was applicable. The problem is that they are arguing that the muslim ban isn't a muslim ban. Their arguments work fine as arguments against all muslims.
 
Meadmaker said:
Sure. Supporters do that. They support. For partisans, nothing you say will persuade them, so in electoral calculations, they're irrelevant. They are a background to be overcome. They aren't going away. Fourty percent or so of the people are going to vote Republican no matter what.

So how to appeal to the rest of them? When it comes to the core idea behind the proposal, which is that the US would be better off if we were very, very, careful about admitting people from Yemen, Syria, et. al, it's a really tough sell that this is a bad idea. Let's see. How is my life better if I have more Yemeni neighbors? Hmmm......I'm drawing a blank here, to be honest. I did have a Syrian coworker who was quite good at her job. That's a plus. And an Iraqi....but he was Chaldean, so Trump would let him in anyway. But, really, trying to say that there is no problem and that we should let them in if they want to come is just a losing argument.
Click to expand...

Exactly if we had let those socialist jew in before WWII how would I be better off with Anne Frank as a neighbor instead of a famous author? Better a dead symbol than a living person, so that in 50 years we can all decry how horribly we treated them and vow falsely never again.
 
ddt said:
It's hard to figure it out when you don't look into it, methinks. :rolleyes:

And yes, KellyAnne Goebbels actually claimed that Obama had instituted a "ban" on immigration, with the obvious implication that it isn't bad at all what the Orange Führer does. For a summing-up of what she actually said and all that's wrong with it, see my post #100.
Click to expand...

Which makes calling the thing a bowling green massacre a very smart lie. It gives the media an obvious lie to focus on instead of the more substantive lie.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Logic won't work, because it isn't about those countries is it about banning muslims, so as long as the attackers are muslims it counts. being radicalized in the US counts for as much in this as thinking that having many mass shootings tied to stormwatch will get it treated as any muslim organization so focused on radicalizing terrorists.
Click to expand...


I think you just proved ... by Trumpean logic, of course ... that American Muslims should be on the banned Muslim list.
 
quadraginta said:
I think you just proved ... by Trumpean logic, of course ... that American Muslims should be on the banned Muslim list.
Click to expand...

That is the goal yes. They just need to get there by stages. While of course not antagonizing his business partners too much.
 
Roughly half of Americans who support President Trump’s controversial travel executive order say that the ban is justified after the nonexistent "Bowling Green Massacre," according to a new poll by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

White House counsellor Kellyanne Conway referred to the massacre, which never happened, during several media appearances, including a segment on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews.” Over the course of the interview, the senior White House aide made several references to a “massacre” in Bowling Green, Ky. as justification for the banning citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from travel to the United States.

Still, of those who support it, 51 percent thought Conway’s remarks about the massacre showed good reason to pursue the Jan. 27 order, which barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the U.S. Only about 23 percent of the ban’s supporters said the ban couldn't use the massacre as justification.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...gration-ban-supporters-say-fake-bowling-green
 
Trebuchet said:
She either believed there was a "massacre" or did not. If the latter, she's simply a liar. If the former, she's really, really stupid. Or at the least, extremely ignorant, like her boss. Please tell me how it's anything else.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. Why not both?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Which makes calling the thing a bowling green massacre a very smart lie. It gives the media an obvious lie to focus on instead of the more substantive lie.
Click to expand...
Yep, she has despite her cock-up managed to do her job which was to scare people into accepting Trump's misinformed view on people traveling to the USA.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't think that's it at all. I think what is to be done is to not get distracted by sideshows of no consequence. The statement was made in defense of Trump's policy. Is the policy good or bad? If people like the policy, all this quibbling about who killed who is just not going to matter.

Attack the policy on its merits, or lack of same.

To put it differently, we know that politicians spin. That's what they do. We know tht they stretch the truth. They exaggerate. They cherry pick facts. They do all these things, sometimes in small ways, sometimes outrageously. When you catch a politician spouting falsehoods as a way to justify policy, what should you do? What I would recommend is to note that they were spinning those lies in order to justify their actions. At that point, ask yourself whether, if people knew the truth, would they support the poltician's policy?

In this particular case, if people knew the truth about "the Bowling Green Massacre", it would probably be a win for Trump. So don't go there. Talk about that little Iranian girl who needed heart surgery. That's a winning issue.
Click to expand...

Okay, I don't know if it has been addressed in the intervening page, but can one object to the word "terrorist" regarding the two men implicated in the Bowling Green arrest? They attacked soldiers in a war; they were soldiers, though not regulars, themselves. What the hell does "terrorist" mean if it includes soldiers in a war attacking enemy soldiers?
 
autumn1971 said:
Okay, I don't know if it has been addressed in the intervening page, but can one object to the word "terrorist" regarding the two men implicated in the Bowling Green arrest? They attacked soldiers in a war; they were soldiers, though not regulars, themselves. What the hell does "terrorist" mean if it includes soldiers in a war attacking enemy soldiers?
Click to expand...

Why, brown people, of course.

After all, white people who attack abortion providers are rarely called terrorists. Even though they are civilians attacking civilian targets in order to create terror and advance their ideology. White people who shoot up schools or movie theaters aren't called terrorists by many.

"Terrorist" therefore must refer to some quality not possessed by Anglo Saxtons.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Which makes calling the thing a bowling green massacre a very smart lie. It gives the media an obvious lie to focus on instead of the more substantive lie.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I'm beginning to resent why the media has wasted so much time KellyAnne's QVC plug for the Ivanka product line (giving more and more ad time) all the while we've yet to hear much about entertaining world leaders at Mir-a-Lago paying Trump's business for Trump's official engagements.

I'm guessing the Secret Service pays rent at Trump Towers in NY to house Melania's security team.

Just how many tax dollars has Trump steered his way and why is that not corruption?
 
Yeah, and I'm beginning to resent why the media has wasted so much time KellyAnne's QVC plug for the Ivanka product line (giving more and more ad time) all the while we've yet to hear much about entertaining world leaders at Mir-a-Lago paying Trump's business for Trump's official engagements.
Click to expand...
Ms Conway is akin to a clown crossing a minefield, journalistic gold.
Whereas the actual story, trump, could suffer burn out from even his most ardent detractors if they mercilessly cover every wrongdoing, which they should be.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah, and I'm beginning to resent why the media has wasted so much time KellyAnne's QVC plug for the Ivanka product line (giving more and more ad time) all the while we've yet to hear much about entertaining world leaders at Mir-a-Lago paying Trump's business for Trump's official engagements.

I'm guessing the Secret Service pays rent at Trump Towers in NY to house Melania's security team.

Just how many tax dollars has Trump steered his way and why is that not corruption?
Click to expand...
As well as the SS, the DoD is/was considering renting room at Trump Towers.
 
Conway was clearly out of line, but for Trump it's less clear that he broke a rule - especially if the US taxpayer is paying for Abe's stay at Mar-a-Lago, not the government of Japan.
 
autumn1971 said:
Okay, I don't know if it has been addressed in the intervening page, but can one object to the word "terrorist" regarding the two men implicated in the Bowling Green arrest? They attacked soldiers in a war; they were soldiers, though not regulars, themselves. What the hell does "terrorist" mean if it includes soldiers in a war attacking enemy soldiers?
Click to expand...

Then we long had proud terrorists in washington representing americans. Fund raising for the IRA was never looked at as making one a terrorist themselves after all.

Is Peter King a terrorist? Should he have not been on the house Homeland security committee but instead in prison for his support of the IRA?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom