NationStates

The balkens wrote:

Camicon wrote:Right so, you're an ableist, a racist, and an Islamaphobe.

1st one is debatable.

I agree

Korva wrote:It worked with the Nazis, Imperial Japan, and many more!

Yes it did.

Gauthier wrote:

greed and death wrote:
Worth pointing out that was not in response to the shooting and just the normal Lt. Governor's normal Sunday bible verse post.

Which was why it was taken down. *nod*

Taken down because people pitched a fit, the Lt. Governor also issued an apology along the lines of I am sorry you people think everything is about you.

Maurepas wrote:

greed and death wrote:Worth pointing out that was not in response to the shooting and just the normal Lt. Governor's normal Sunday bible verse post.

I think he probably could've chosen a better one.

As GnD posts go, that one was actually pretty good.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Unified Governments wrote:"We can't bomb ISIS because people might be angry at us"

wew lad

I'm not a fan of giving our enemies propaganda to create a narrative of a clash of civilizations, no. I'm an advocate of intensifying the proxy war and backing up our Middle-Eastern allies.

How about we solve the Saudi problem already? ISIS is nothing compared to so called ally Riyadh. Kill ISIS all you want, but the ideas are bulletproof.

Mega City 5 wrote:

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:It was kind of a duo.

Lots of people who 1. are not crazy, 2. are white and 3. are not Muslims have guns and somehow manage not to commit violent crimes with them.

The problem's not guns. The problem's crazy people, racial minorities and Muslims.

Lots of people who are not crazy are also black, Hispanics, Asians, and others.

Lots of people who are not crazy are also Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Shintos.

This is obviously a hate crime, why else would someone attack a gay club?

Maurepas wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
At least he wasn't disingenuously crying outrage over LGBTs being victimized by Those Ebil Moozlemz, that much I'll give him.

Yeah, that mantle was taken up by, and I must emphasize again, real and actual candidate for President of the United States, Donald Trump:

For a Trump tweet on terrorism?
That's actually not bad.

Patridam wrote:

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:British policies seem sensible to me. Ban the unnecessary ones (like handguns and assault rifles) and regulate the ones that have uses in sport, hunting and farming.

Assault rifles are already banned in the USA.

Handguns are vital for any sort of self defence purposes, and have use in sport and hunting.

Assault rifles aren't banned, just that their manufacture and ownership is heavily restricted.

Handguns are the firearm type most easily justifiable for self-defence (hence why NI is the only part of the UK that still permits handguns and the only part to consider self-defence a valid reason to own), but they're also responsible for 80-90% of gun homicides in the US despite making up like 30-40% of guns. Their existence is... inherently problematic.

One would think a semi-automatic rifle is better for sport and hunting (excepting gun sports necessitating handguns).

Unified Governments wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:This is horrible.

That's all I can say.




Wow. Just wow.

Again, isn't it possible he was referring to the shooter who was killed by police?

It's possible. He could have claimed that was what he meant, and it was simply ill-advised that he chose such a statement given the connotations to the LGBT people who were the victims in this incident.

But the tweet was deleted and they claim they were hacked.

Korva wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:If you're going to leave it as hilariously unqualified as that to try make a snide point, then yes. Thank September 11 for that.

September 11 was of course a famous mass killing made possible by lack of effective gun control.

Like I said, you were the one who left it so laughably unqualified to the point I could say that and still be correct.

You don't defeat hate by spouting hate. You don't blame everyone who claims to be a Muslim for everything the radicals do in the same way Christians refuse to be branded by the Fred Phelps of the world. Reading this thread makes me sad to be part of NS today. Really. People are dead, others are hurt, families are torn apart. That's what we should be focusing on right now. Let the politics and the hate rest for another day.

San Lumen wrote:

Xadufell wrote:
Wow, he said that he appreciated that people saw that he was right on several things, he must be HITLER!!!

With statements like these he just confirms how unfit he is to be President and comments like these will backfire.

Somebody call a Wahmbulance, you don't want Donald Trump to be right, because anyone you dislike on the right is akin to either Hitler or Mussolini. Wah.

Mega City 5 wrote:

Korva wrote:It worked with the Nazis, Imperial Japan, and many more!

Yes it did.

No, it didn't. We're not allies with Germany and Japan because we bombed the fuck out of them and called it a day.

America is claiming itself as a Christian nation. I wonder if this is a cover up and it was really Christian terrorists. It's the perfect cover for the right to push their agenda and demonize Muslims.

Tigeria wrote:This is obviously a hate crime, why else would someone attack a gay club?

It was clearly a hate crime in addition to a act of terror. The shooter had expressed anti gay remarks

Zeinbrad wrote:

Unified Governments wrote:"We can't bomb ISIS because people might be angry at us"

wew lad

He's not talking about that.

He's talking about how the invasion of Iraq, and Afghan, but mostly Iraq, contributed to the rise ISIS and other such groups.

Looking 'tough' doesn't help you when it only makes a problem worse.

We helped create them, yes. And now it's time to obliterate them. Bomb them. Send troops in if necessary. But they can't be allowed to exist.

Tigeria wrote:This is obviously a hate crime, why else would someone attack a gay club?

A muslim committing a hate crime?

IMPOSSIBLE.

Major-Tom wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:Iraq and Afghan War.

When in doubt, use that argument. Yes, I'm advocating a full scale military war against ISIS that will take a decade. We toppled the Hussein government relatively quickly, and while the Iraq war was a mistake, we do have to admit that we could've further stabilized Iraq.

But, nah, just keep yelling "IRAQ!"

I'll wait for you to actually debate instead of trying to look macho.

Camicon wrote:Right so, you're an ableist, a racist, and an Islamaphobe.

And apparently you want to discriminate against gun enthusiasts.

See how two can play that game?

At any rate, instead of name calling, maybe we should just attend to the facts.

Crazy people, minorities and Muslims (not all, of course) use guns to commit violent crimes. That is an indisputable fact.

Thermodolia wrote:

Unified Governments wrote:Those aren't conservatives. Those are extremists.

And if you think they're one in the same then I, as a conservative, will happily tell you you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I would agree with you that they are extremists, except for the fact that it was Rev. Graham's daughter who said that.

Wow...

Ganos Lao wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:I'm not a fan of giving our enemies propaganda to create a narrative of a clash of civilizations, no. I'm an advocate of intensifying the proxy war and backing up our Middle-Eastern allies.

How about we solve the Saudi problem already? ISIS is nothing compared to so called ally Riyadh. Kill ISIS all you want, but the ideas are bulletproof.

Saudis are the real threat. These movements just change name, but the ideas are from Saudis.

Camicon wrote:

Mega City 5 wrote:
Lots of people who 1. are not crazy, 2. are white and 3. are not Muslims have guns and somehow manage not to commit violent crimes with them.

The problem's not guns. The problem's crazy people, racial minorities and Muslims.

Right so, you're an ableist, a racist, and an Islamaphobe.

They also said that Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia should be bombed to the ground, with a combined population of 289 million people.

Mega City 5 wrote:Saudia Arabia?
Pakistan?
Iran?

The US needs to bomb them all into the ground.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Unified Governments wrote:"We can't bomb ISIS because people might be angry at us"

wew lad

I'm not a fan of giving our enemies propaganda to create a narrative of a clash of civilizations, no. I'm an advocate of intensifying the proxy war and backing up our Middle-Eastern allies.

We've been doing that. It hasn't worked.

Major-Tom wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:Iraq and Afghan War.

When in doubt, use that argument. Yes, I'm advocating a full scale military war against ISIS that will take a decade. We toppled the Hussein government relatively quickly, and while the Iraq war was a mistake, we do have to admit that we could've further stabilized Iraq.

But, nah, just keep yelling "IRAQ!"

Would you prefer if I yelled "You guys can't be trusted not to fuck it up again?"

Chrinthanium wrote:You don't defeat hate by spouting hate. You don't blame everyone who claims to be a Muslim for everything the radicals do in the same way Christians refuse to be branded by the Fred Phelps of the world. Reading this thread makes me sad to be part of NS today. Really. People are dead, others are hurt, families are torn apart. That's what we should be focusing on right now. Let the politics and the hate rest for another day.

Oh, it makes you sad to be part of an online community? Pity.

Dude, the only hate is being levied against ISIS and terrorists, I think that's really reasonable. The President of the United States just made this political, this whole attack is going to be politicized, feigning civility for the sake of getting online brownie points will do nothing.

Unified Governments wrote:

Zeinbrad wrote:He's not talking about that.

He's talking about how the invasion of Iraq, and Afghan, but mostly Iraq, contributed to the rise ISIS and other such groups.

Looking 'tough' doesn't help you when it only makes a problem worse.

We helped create them, yes. And now it's time to obliterate them. Bomb them. Send troops in if necessary. But they can't be allowed to exist.

And when another group rises up since we did nothing to fix the problem?

Mega City 5 wrote:

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:It was kind of a duo.

Lots of people who 1. are not crazy, 2. are white and 3. are not Muslims have guns and somehow manage not to commit violent crimes with them.

The problem's not guns. The problem's crazy people, racial minorities and Muslims.

I'm sure it would be very convenient for you if that were the case. Unfortunately, there are many other developed countries who also have people who are mentally ill, non-white and Muslim, and yet they have a tiny fraction of the mass shootings that the United States has. Among developed countries, both the ubiquity of firearms and the high incidence of mass shootings are unique to the United States. There's undoubtedly a correlation there.