Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shooting in Texas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Like with most liberals, you missed the point by a mile. In this case, it had more to do with pharmaceuticals masking a crazy person that should have been placed in a mental institution.

    Originally posted by armor11 View Post
    In NY City, maybe.

    These kinds of guns are easy to get and you don't need to go to Mexico to get them.


    Didn't say you couldn't. I merely said:

    1) You can also get them in the U.S.
    2) You don't really need them to create mass carnage.


    If you want to take about the dangers of NAMBLA, I suggest you start another thread.

    This thread is about the mass shootings in Texas. But perhaps reducing the culture of violence in general will have the effect you desire on NAMBLA.


    Feel free to take that comment, fold it five ways and stick it where the sun don't shine...er, "pal."
    My worst jump story:
    My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
    As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
    No lie.

    ~
    "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
    -2 Commando Jumpmaster

    Comment


    • Someone needs to be held responsible for that oversight.

      Originally posted by pamak View Post
      updates

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/u...T.nav=top-news




      I wonder if this is going to open the can of worms considering the issue of PTSD and how it is related to aggression and domestic violence...
      My worst jump story:
      My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
      As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
      No lie.

      ~
      "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
      -2 Commando Jumpmaster

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
        Someone needs to be held responsible for that oversight.
        How?

        Are you going to argue that PTSD patients who have been convicted for domestic violence should be in the national database and prohibited from buying guns?

        And are you going to include EVERY case of domestic violence conviction? I assume that domestic violence convictions can include anything from pushing your partner to punching him or her...

        It is not that easy to address this issue without affecting the cnstitutional rights of many people...
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by American87 View Post
          Actually the number of legal immigrants in the US is at its highest number ever, 37,000,000. It's just the terrorists, criminals, and dirty illegals we want to keep out.
          I'm glad you guys make that defense & made the clarification, makes me feel better.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pamak View Post
            Neither report sounds fake. Incidentally did you read your links before posting? They both say pretty much the same thing: the shooter was anti social, anti religion, and mentally unstable.

            From your CNN link:

            Kelley, who had a record of violence, was consumed by a dispute with his mother-in-law and spent time posting anti-God and pro-gun statements on Facebook in the months before the shooting, according to officials, as well as acquaintances and former classmates.

            He sent threatening text messages to his mother-in-law and texted her as recently as Sunday morning -- not long before he sprayed bullets at the people in the church with an assault rifle, authorities said. He may have thought she was at church on Sunday, according to Tackitt.
            Sounds exactly like the Breitbart summation.

            And seeing that both Breitbart and CNN are quoting actual people and not "anonymous sources" I'd say they're both delivering legit news in this case.

            So neither is the fake news.
            Last edited by Pirateship1982; 07 Nov 17, 15:52.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
              Neither report sounds fake. Incidentally did you read your links before posting? They both say pretty much the same thing: the shooter was anti social, anti religion, and mentally unstable.
              No they do not. They both have the same pieces of information , but one decides to make a headline out of a particular piece of information despite the fact that there are other pieces of information which contradict the title that he was an atheist.

              Notice that CNN did not create a headline that he was a christian, which it could easily do if it wanted to pander the atheist crowd!

              Breitbart Headline

              Report: Texas Church Shooter Was Atheist, Thought Christians ‘Stupid’
              The certainty of the claim is "FAKE NEWS"

              Meanwhile, CNN headline

              After Texas church shooting, 'most of our church family is gone
              Last edited by pamak; 07 Nov 17, 15:58.
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                No they do not. They both have the same pieces of information, but one decides to make a headline out of a particular piece of information despite the fact that there are other pieces of information which contradict the title.
                Notice that CNN did not create a headline that he was a christian..
                The shooter wasn't a Christian.

                Going to church doesn't make you Christian anymore than going to an Indian food restaurant makes you Tamil.

                Sources say he was making anti god remarks on Facebook in the months prior to the shooting. I don't know if he was raised Christian and lapsed or was always atheist, but he was clearly anti Christian during this time period.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                  Actually, I disagree. I have not seen in the mainstream leftist media the level of denial I see in the right wing media. It was not that whenever there were bad news for Hillary, there were always dismissed as fake news. Often, even the liberal media acknowledged the validity of the bad (for Hillary) news. Sure, they did not highlight these stories too much, but also they did not try to dismiss every negative piece of news against her as being "fake news". So, I will not accept the game of equivalency to argue that "everybody is the same." No! There IS a difference between NYT, and CNN coverage and between Breitbart's coverage. I do not buy the narrative of trolls who want to equate everybody else to themselves...
                  No, no, no. The Times and CNN are worse, far worse, than Breitbart. Breibart is a glorified supermarket tabloid: we all know that going in, and if one doesn't, one is a moron, with no one to blame but oneself. The Times and CNN, on the other hand, are "the paper of record," "the old gray lady," etc. Both institutions carry an imprimatur of authority. Both institutions have abused that imprimatur of authority plenty: from Duranty's reporting from Moscow to Old Lady Sulzberger using her paper to back Robert Moses' slum clearances to their shoddy reporting about a lack of KGB records exonerating the Rosenberg's to The Times' trading of political endorsements for eminent domain condemnations to that nerve gas to kill deserters in Vietnam story, both institutions have clearly abused their imprimatur of authority. Neither outfit can be fairly viewed as unbiased reporters of fact. When it comes down to brass tacks, the only real difference between an outfit like The Times and Breitbart is one of subtlety: The Times is subtle about how they go about publishing their biases, Breibart is not. At the end of the day it's a distinction without a difference.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                    No, no, no. The Times and CNN are worse, far worse, than Breitbart. Breibart is a glorified supermarket tabloid: we all know that going in, and if one doesn't, one is a moron, with no one to blame but oneself. The Times and CNN, on the other hand, are "the paper of record," "the old gray lady," etc. Both institutions carry an imprimatur of authority. Both institutions have abused that imprimatur of authority plenty: from Duranty's reporting from Moscow to Old Lady Sulzberger using her paper to back Robert Moses' slum clearances to their shoddy reporting about a lack of KGB records exonerating the Rosenberg's to The Times' trading of political endorsements for eminent domain condemnations to that nerve gas to kill deserters in Vietnam story, both institutions have clearly abused their imprimatur of authority. Neither outfit can be fairly viewed as unbiased reporters of fact. When it comes down to brass tacks, the only real difference between an outfit like The Times and Breitbart is one of subtlety: The Times is subtle about how they go about publishing their biases, Breibart is not. At the end of the day it's a distinction without a difference.
                    well said and spot on.
                    I just can't rep you again yet.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                      The shooter wasn't a Christian.

                      Going to church doesn't make you Christian anymore than going to an Indian food restaurant makes you Tamil.

                      Sources say he was making anti god remarks on Facebook in the months prior to the shooting. I don't know if he was raised Christian and lapsed or was always atheist, but he was clearly anti Christian during this time period.
                      Sorry, sources say that he was telling that christians were stupid, which certainly does not show that he was an atheist, unless you see the actual context of the speech. If he had been rejected by the pastor and the congregation, then calling them "stupid" does not mean that he was an atheist! So, providing as "facts" claims that he was an atheist without having the actual posts and in the presence of conflicting information is "fake news" , and an attempt to pander conservative Christians. Notice by the way that the same link which Breitbart uses to claim that he was an atheist, also mentions that his LinkedIn account revealed that Kelley was an Air Force veteran and ex-Bible studies teacher. And your argument that going to church is the same as going to an Indian food restaurant does not make sense either. Restaurants are full of atheists who go there expecting service for their pleasure. Atheists have no reason to attend churches...
                      Last edited by pamak; 07 Nov 17, 16:55.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • Looks like Kelley was a serious, dangerous loon and the USAF knew it.

                        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/break...cid=spartandhp

                        Devin Kelley was sent to the Peak Behavioral Health Services Center in Santa Teresa, New Mexico after beating his wife and stepson, who suffered a fractured skull, while Kelley was stationed at Holloman Air Force Base. But on June 13, 2012, Kelley escaped from the center, fleeing to El Paso, Texas, acording to the report.
                        Police warned that Kelley "was a danger to himself and others as he had already been caught sneaking firearms" onto the base, where he "was attempting to carry out death threats that (he) had made on his military chain of command."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                          No, no, no. The Times and CNN are worse, far worse, than Breitbart. Breibart is a glorified supermarket tabloid: we all know that going in, and if one doesn't, one is a moron, with no one to blame but oneself. The Times and CNN, on the other hand, are "the paper of record," "the old gray lady," etc. Both institutions carry an imprimatur of authority. Both institutions have abused that imprimatur of authority plenty: from Duranty's reporting from Moscow to Old Lady Sulzberger using her paper to back Robert Moses' slum clearances to their shoddy reporting about a lack of KGB records exonerating the Rosenberg's to The Times' trading of political endorsements for eminent domain condemnations to that nerve gas to kill deserters in Vietnam story, both institutions have clearly abused their imprimatur of authority. Neither outfit can be fairly viewed as unbiased reporters of fact. When it comes down to brass tacks, the only real difference between an outfit like The Times and Breitbart is one of subtlety: The Times is subtle about how they go about publishing their biases, Breibart is not. At the end of the day it's a distinction without a difference.
                          So, your argument is that there IS a difference between NYT or CNN and Breitbart which is exactly my point..
                          And no, it is not just a matter of subtletly, although subtlety matters too because it is the difference between telling an outrageous lie or just lie by spinning. But the difference goes farther beyond subtlety. It is also a matter of HOW MUCH bias they show, and this can be easily measured by indicators such as the amount of willingness they show to criticize their favorite candidate or to publish negative news about him (measured in number of articles with dissenting opinions).

                          Look for example what happened today... One of the posters here started a thread after reading a WAPO article which mentioned that TRump coud still win the 2018 elections...

                          http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=180065

                          And notice that this is an analysis which WaPo could easily avoid publishing it. It is not like it had to report a fact and it had no option other than publishing it...
                          Last edited by pamak; 07 Nov 17, 16:48.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                            No, no, no. The Times and CNN are worse, far worse, than Breitbart. Breibart is a glorified supermarket tabloid: we all know that going in, and if one doesn't, one is a moron, with no one to blame but oneself. The Times and CNN, on the other hand, are "the paper of record," "the old gray lady," etc. Both institutions carry an imprimatur of authority. Both institutions have abused that imprimatur of authority plenty: from Duranty's reporting from Moscow to Old Lady Sulzberger using her paper to back Robert Moses' slum clearances to their shoddy reporting about a lack of KGB records exonerating the Rosenberg's to The Times' trading of political endorsements for eminent domain condemnations to that nerve gas to kill deserters in Vietnam story, both institutions have clearly abused their imprimatur of authority. Neither outfit can be fairly viewed as unbiased reporters of fact. When it comes down to brass tacks, the only real difference between an outfit like The Times and Breitbart is one of subtlety: The Times is subtle about how they go about publishing their biases, Breibart is not. At the end of the day it's a distinction without a difference.
                            You're not far off, but I think the issue there is that when one equivocates between them, not only does one then give that tabloid a greater sense of authority, one also has to ignore the scale and scope of their "greatest hits", so to speak.

                            That the old edifices of American journalism are hardly pristine marble pillars within the community is fairly obvious. They're more like grimey, rusted pillars beneath an old rail bridge that is still carrying the same load day after day. But their mistakes and biases doesn't then lower them all down to the same level as, you say, a "glorified supermarket tabloid". Because when it comes down to it, gun to your head, which paper at the checkout are you going to bet is more accurate - a copy of the Times or a copy of the National Enquirer?

                            Groups like CNN are like the guy at your party with lots of stories and quite the track record, but he just loves slip in a whopper now and again to try and make himself look even better (and he'll totally claim it was his idea to hold the party when you're not looking, too).

                            Breitbart is like the guy at your party shouting at a poodle for trying to steal his kidneys.

                            Last edited by Daemon of Decay; 07 Nov 17, 16:35.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
                              Like with most liberals, you missed the point by a mile. In this case, it had more to do with pharmaceuticals masking a crazy person that should have been placed in a mental institution.
                              1) Please explain how a "crazy person that should have been placed in a mental institution" found it easy to get access to a weapon capable of killing 27 people and wounding 20 others in about 30 seconds.

                              2) Roughly 2000 people murder other people with guns every year. Are they all crazy?

                              3) Please define crazy.
                              "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
                              -The President of the United States of America.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                Looks like Kelley was a serious, dangerous loon and the USAF knew it.

                                https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/break...cid=spartandhp
                                The military isn't set up to deal with these sort of cases. They have a transient population, and their law enforcement body turns over in two or three years through transfers and ETS.
                                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X