School shooting Florida

[MikeG]

Because people keep asking the same question over and over.

Thanks for admitting that you are defending a mass murder. That will help inform people's responses to you.

Now, how about answering the second part of the question. Why are you siding with the scum who murdered 17 schoolkids, and attacking his victims? What is your motivation?

Personally I can't imagine any circumstances in which any sane person could defend a mass murderer and attack his victims.

 

[Amazer]

What other characteristics, besides being "Nazi," would a person possibly have that would make him or her acceptable to be ostracized?

Thanks for admitting that you are defending a mass murder. That will help inform people's responses to you.

Now, how about answering the second part of the question. Why are you siding with the scum who murdered 17 schoolkids, and attacking his victims? What is your motivation?

Personally I can't imagine any circumstances in which any sane person could defend a mass murderer and attack his victims.

I could certainly get behind the decision to ostracize people that display the 'defend the mass shooter and attack the vicitims' characteristic.

 

[Parsman]

You know what would work great for that? A machete.

Or a knife. You could kill 17 deer or bears very quickly with a big knife! Apparently.

 

[Nessie]

Cruz couldn't drive, maybe even incapable of it. He had to take a taxi to the attack.

.....

Has there been anything from the taxi driver in the news?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

All this talk about poor Cruz being bullied by his high school colleagues seems not to be taking into account the abundant evidence (which some here have pointed to) that he had already engaged in behavior that many people would consider intolerably violent and nasty in middle school, and the decision of his high school peers to keep their distance was done, not as some spontaneous expression of dislike, but as a reaction to a history of bad behavior.

Who said anything about "poor Cruz"? I'm looking at this logically, like a skeptic would. It's obvious the guy's personality is guaranteed to make him unpopular, probably downright scary to some people. Being bullied for a reason doesn't mean he wasn't bullied. I'm not defending him. I'm saying he was bullied.

At what point does a student have your permission to tell a person who has expressed hatred of them and all they value, and threatened to kill them, "go away" without being considered a big bad bully?

"big bad bully" There's that emotional thinking again. A student doesn't need my permission to act any certain way towards anybody. That's a decision for the student to make.

CullenNZ, I realize you are arguing somewhat differently, but I think you should back up a bit and realize that whatever you think you're arguing here, you've hitched your wagon to the ugly and mendacious attempts of the far right to discredit the demonstrators not only by belittling their opinion and making it out to be radically unamerican and constitutionally ignorant, but by insinuating that the massacre is their fault.

Ad hominem attacks reveal the desperation to which you have sunk. Acknowledging that Nikolas Cruz was bullied because multiple people who knew him said he was bullied is reasonable. I didn't say that being bullied excuses his behavior. I didn't say or even insinuate that being bullied means that the massacre was the students fault. Those ideas are in your head.

And seeing this as part of a far right conspiracy to discredit the demonstrators, "belittle their opinion", make them out to be "radically unamerican" and "constitutionally ignorant" is kind of conspiratorial, don't you think?

The fact that Emma Gonzalez and other students at the school bullied a kid who is likely to be bullied doesn't discredit her. The fact that up until Feb 13, she never thought about gun control and now she fancies herself an expert discredits her. The fact that she blames the NRA for something that law enforcement and social services did discredits her. The fact that she doesn't have any realistic gun control idea discredits her. The fact that David Hogg opposes clear backpacks because they would violate the first amendment discredits him. These demonstrators don't have any credibility to lose.

Are there other facts that you advise others to disregard because you think that acknowledging them will mean a Nazi takeover of the world?

 

[jimbob]

You are doing it again.

Cruz espoused Nazi views and people avoided him. That is not bullying.

He also had an Instagram account proclaiming MAGA.

 

[smartcooky]

Anyway, back on topic...

Be careful you pro-gun journalists who choose to mock the survivors of the Parklands shooting, you might get more than you bargained for.....

http://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/wat...w-after-taunts-to-parkland-teen-1198067267911

Since that video aired (and even since Fox News' Laura Ingraham apologised for her remarks) more advertisers (a total of eight) have pulled out of her show

Johnson & Johnson
Trip Advisor
Wayfair
Nestle
Expedia
StitchFix
Hulu
Nutrish

There are a couple of heavy hitters in that list.

I think these circumstances are going to lead to a few Politicians and Journalists feeling the impact of the power of Social Media.... and people like David Hogg and Emma Gonzales have that power at their fingertips.

Update:

The hits just keep coming.

Another five advertisers have pulled their adverts from Laura Ingraham's show on Fox News, making a total of 13 major sponsors pulling the plug. The latest five are;

Atlantis
Liberty Mutual
Ruby Tuesday
Jenny Craig
Office Depot

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Update:

The hits just keep coming.

Another five advertisers have pulled their adverts from Laura Ingraham's show on Fox News, making a total of 13 major sponsors pulling the plug. The latest five are;

Atlantis
Liberty Mutual
Ruby Tuesday
Jenny Craig
Office Depot

Clearly these advertisers are bullies!

 

[smartcooky]

Clearly these advertisers are bullies!

 

[Craig4]

Update:

The hits just keep coming.

Another five advertisers have pulled their adverts from Laura Ingraham's show on Fox News, making a total of 13 major sponsors pulling the plug. The latest five are;

Atlantis
Liberty Mutual
Ruby Tuesday
Jenny Craig
Office Depot

I do hope the lad found time to use his new celebrity to get laid.

 

[pgwenthold]

Update:

The hits just keep coming.

Another five advertisers have pulled their adverts from Laura Ingraham's show on Fox News, making a total of 13 major sponsors pulling the plug. The latest five are;

Atlantis
Liberty Mutual
Ruby Tuesday
Jenny Craig
Office Depot

And now the right wingers are threatening a boycott of the advertisers that pull out.

Just to make sure we are clear:

They are going to boycott companies who have quit advertising for a talk show host who attacked a survivor of a school shooting.

They think the advertisers pulled out because of the threat of the boycott. No, they didn't. They did it because what she did was wrong. Ingrahm is a vile person, and they won't support that.

 

[tyr_13]

Has there been anything from the taxi driver in the news?

Yeah.

 

[Aridas]

And now the right wingers are threatening a boycott of the advertisers that pull out.

Just to make sure we are clear:

They are going to boycott companies who have quit advertising for a talk show host who attacked a survivor of a school shooting.

They think the advertisers pulled out because of the threat of the boycott. No, they didn't. They did it because what she did was wrong. Ingrahm is a vile person, and they won't support that.

Blind group loyalty and a thoroughly contrived wannabe martyr complex, at best. This would be on the same line as suddenly going after Delta because Delta decided to no longer give special treatment to the NRA after the spotlight rested on the NRA's bad behavior for a while. After all, not giving the NRA special treatment because of their bad behavior is apparently an attack on conservative values. There are a few potential options to explain how that works, all of which point to seriously problematic issues with those who decided to do it or with what those "conservative values" actually are.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

As noted earlier, I would ban all weapons that are capable of firing lots of bullets very fast, and I will leave it to legislative staffs to define those terms. Does that mean every semi-automatic rifle? Could be. I'm ok with that. I just don't want to get into a technical discussion about the exact characteristics that make a gun ban-worthy.

Fair enough. I don't want to get technical either. But I see a gun that requires the shooter to do something before firing another bullet--like a pump action or bolt action--as distinct from a gun where pulling the trigger is all you need to do. And they should be considered distinct when we talk about gun control.

Primarily, the Heller decision. The Supreme Court has ruled that the ban on all handguns rendered the 2nd amendment meaningless. I agree with the reasoning expressed in that opinion. I won't quote from it, because it has been a long time since I read it, but when I read it, it made sense to me.

I'll look that up later. I think the 2nd amendment was rendered impotent when it included the part about the "well regulated militia" At the time we didn't have a standing army. Today we do. So what does "well regulated militia" mean today? If we still have a need for a "well regulated militia" then the right to "bear arms" (if interpreted by a 2nd amendment) means not just guns but cannon, grenades, nuclear weapons. So, yeah, the 2nd amendment has already been watered down

 

[smartcooky]

And now the right wingers are threatening a boycott of the advertisers that pull out.

Just to make sure we are clear:

They are going to boycott companies who have quit advertising for a talk show host who attacked a survivor of a school shooting.

They think the advertisers pulled out because of the threat of the boycott. No, they didn't. They did it because what she did was wrong. Ingrahm is a vile person, and they won't support that.

I'm sure that the loss of custom from The Right will be more than made up from additional custom from The Rest.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Thanks for admitting that you are defending a mass murder. That will help inform people's responses to you.

Now, how about answering the second part of the question. Why are you siding with the scum who murdered 17 schoolkids, and attacking his victims? What is your motivation?

Personally I can't imagine any circumstances in which any sane person could defend a mass murderer and attack his victims.

Let's see if I can misunderstand and twist my words as badly as you misunderstand and twist mine: Thank you for admitting that you enjoy torturing babies and small animals and that you think that known psychpaths should be given assault rifles and driven to a school that is 25% African American so he can go N-word hunting.

Your racism and sheer hated for humanity will help inform other peoples responses to you.

Now for the second part, why do you take the side of white kids who single out a minority student and subject him to being tortured until he hangs himself? I can't imagine the mindset of somebody who admits that the vision of a teenager hanging from a noose arouses him.

Nope. I tried but I just can't misinterpret you as badly as you misinterpret me. Although I understand your need to do so. Inventing a ridiculous strawman that can easily be defeated is easier than actually engaging with an argument.

 

[jimbob]

Let's see if I can misunderstand and twist my words as badly as you misunderstand and twist mine: Thank you for admitting that you enjoy torturing babies and small animals and that you think that known psychpaths should be given assault rifles and driven to a school that is 25% African American so he can go N-word hunting.

Your racism and sheer hated for humanity will help inform other peoples responses to you.

Now for the second part, why do you take the side of white kids who single out a minority student and subject him to being tortured until he hangs himself? I can't imagine the mindset of somebody who admits that the vision of a teenager hanging from a noose arouses him.

Nope. I tried but I just can't misinterpret you as badly as you misinterpret me. Although I understand your need to do so. Inventing a ridiculous strawman that can easily be defeated is easier than actually engaging with an argument.

The thing is that we can see what posters have said before.

in this thread you have insinuateed that the survivors are "crisis actors"

MikeG has it right.

 

[smartcooky]

The thing is that we can see what posters have said before.

in this thread you have insinuated that the survivors are "crisis actors"

...and the upshot of that insinuation is that Captain Howdy is also insinuating that Emma and David were not really survivors of the Parkland shooting... they're "actors", and therefore, the only logical conclusion to draw is that he also believes the Parkland shooting was a hoax.

 

[MikeG]

Let's see if I can misunderstand and twist my words as badly as you misunderstand and twist mine.......blah, blah......

Here are your words again:

.........Why are you trying to excuse a mass murderer?

Because people keep asking the same question over and over.

That looks like an admission to me. Are you trying to pretend you didn't say this?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

You are doing it again.

Cruz espoused Nazi views and people avoided him. That is not bullying.

He also had an Instagram account proclaiming MAGA.

You're doing it again.

Saying Cruz was a Nazi without any evidence.

And You're doing it again as well. Saying that it's not bullying when there's a reason for a person to be bullied.

But this is a new one. Saying every student who supports Trump deserves to be bullied?!?!?