Right-wing terrorism is real

Backlash to a new West Point study on domestic extremism exposes the depths of conservatives' denial

 

Lately all the massive shootings have been done by left wing loons. Go figure

not really

not really

He's still trolling on the "one hour after Newtown" report that the shooter liked the Daily Show on his facebook page.

 

Of course, that was before we learned that the shooter was actually the brother of the person with that facebook page...but that hasn't stopped him from his hilarious trolling about that shooting.

Liberals sure are falling in love with the military apparatus once they came around to the idea that they could use the military to kill anyone who doesn't go along with their plans. You've been seeing a lot of talk about it, especially after Sandy Hook. "You wouldn't stand a chance against drones!", "Your pesky AR-15 stands no chance against our superior firepower"... its pretty disturbing.

cool story, bro

Its true, you guys borderline fantasize about it every time the intent of the 2A is brought up.

nah, I don't really care about your infantile insurrection fantasies one way or the other

cool story, bro

 

Edited January 22, 201313 yr by mr_genius

He's still trolling on the "one hour after Newtown" report that the shooter liked the Daily Show on his facebook page.

 

Of course, that was before we learned that the shooter was actually the brother of the person with that facebook page...but that hasn't stopped him from his hilarious trolling about that shooting.

 

Wrong again Balta.

Liberals sure are falling in love with the military apparatus once they came around to the idea that they could use the military to kill anyone who doesn't go along with their plans. You've been seeing a lot of talk about it, especially after Sandy Hook. "You wouldn't stand a chance against drones!", "Your pesky AR-15 stands no chance against our superior firepower"... its pretty disturbing.

you're pretty disturbing. in a few years you'll grow out of it though, which is encouraging.

So two people were wounded in the shooting. Oh the humanity.

 

edit- one of them had a heart attack. So. Yea. Evil assault clips.

Edited January 22, 201313 yr by DukeNukeEm

So two people were wounded in the shooting. Oh the humanity.

 

edit- one of them had a heart attack. So. Yea. Evil assault clips.

 

lol this is a perfect example of why open carry is a horrible policy. people have an argument and instead of a fist fight it's a shoot out.

lol this is a perfect example of why open carry is a horrible policy. people have an argument and instead of a fist fight it's a shoot out.

lol wut?

 

Try that line in Chicago since you're trying to make your nonsense leap...

lol wut?

 

Try that line in Chicago since you're trying to make your nonsense leap...

??

 

doesn't texas have an open carry policy?

 

you're saying open carry would help in chicago?

 

please be more clear in your posts. I know you're going for this Clint Eastwood thing and that's great baby, i love it, but we also - every now and again - need to actually understand what you're saying.

Liberals sure are falling in love with the military apparatus once they came around to the idea that they could use the military to kill anyone who doesn't go along with their plans. You've been seeing a lot of talk about it, especially after Sandy Hook. "You wouldn't stand a chance against drones!", "Your pesky AR-15 stands no chance against our superior firepower"... its pretty disturbing.

I'm totally cool with gutting the military budget, at least on an abstract level -- they employ so many people right now that it might be unwise for the economy to just lay half of them off.

lol this is a perfect example of why open carry is a horrible policy. people have an argument and instead of a fist fight it's a shoot out.

1. Open carry is stupid and unless you're in the woods or in one of those extremely rare circumstances where you need to advertise having a gun on you it does more harm than good. Maybe you're thinking concealed carry?

 

2. If you're thinking concealed carry I'd like to point you to just a couple quick statistics on how it works out:

 

Texas: 1364 homicides (6.07 per 100,000). 65% committed with a firearm.

Illinois: 776 homicides (6.10 per 100,000). 75% committed with a firearm.

 

So not are you only more likely to get murdered in Illinois, toughest gun laws in the country by the way, you're also more likely to have been murdered by a gun here too. So yea, your gun free utopia actually has more gun violence than your make-believe stereotype of Texas where everyone's just shooting at each other.

Edited January 23, 201313 yr by DukeNukeEm

1. Open carry is stupid and unless you're in the woods or in one of those extremely rare circumstances where you need to advertise having a gun on you it does more harm than good. Maybe you're thinking concealed carry?

 

2. If you're thinking concealed carry I'd like to point you to just a couple quick statistics on how it works out:

 

Texas: 1364 homicides (6.07 per 100,000). 65% committed with a firearm.

Illinois: 776 homicides (6.10 per 100,000). 75% committed with a firearm.

 

So not are you only more likely to get murdered in Illinois, toughest gun laws in the country by the way, you're also more likely to have been murdered by a gun here too. So yea, your gun free utopia actually has more gun violence than your make-believe stereotype of Texas where everyone's just shooting at each other.

 

open carry is a thing. I did not, in fact, mean concealed carry.

The Virginia state legislature is officially moving forward on a plan to split their electoral votes by district.

 

Effectively, in the last election, this would have neutered Virginia as a swing state. The President would have received 4 electoral votes from them, despite winning a majority in the state.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will remove the military's restriction on women serving in front-line combat.

The Virginia state legislature is officially moving forward on a plan to split their electoral votes by district.

 

Effectively, in the last election, this would have neutered Virginia as a swing state. The President would have received 4 electoral votes from them, despite winning a majority in the state.

 

It's part of the GOP's national strategy.

It's part of the GOP's national strategy.

and it's the only smart thing they've done in years

 

unfortunately it's also massively hypocritical since not months ago they were shouting for a national popular vote, and this will all but destroy the popular vote.

 

lolz

and it's the only smart thing they've done in years

 

unfortunately it's also massively hypocritical since not months ago they were shouting for a national popular vote, and this will all but destroy the popular vote.

 

lolz

It's also moronic for the state itself. Swing states have significant leverage over policy proposals when they actually are swing states. Imagine for a moment if Iowa lost its importance...think about how much less ethanol wed produce.

The deeply flawed nature of colorblindness, as a governing principle, is evidenced by the fact that the public consensus supporting mass incarceration is officially colorblind. It purports to see black and brown men not as black and brown, but simply as men - raceless men - who have failed miserably to play by the rules the rest of us follow quite naturally. The fact that so many black and brown men are rounded up for drug crimes that go largely ignored when committed by whites is unseen. Our blindness also prevents us from seeing the racial and structural divisions that persist in society: Ye segregated, unequal schools, the segregated, jobless ghettos, and the segregated public discourse - a public conversation that excludes the current pariah caste. Our commitment to colorblindness extends beyond individuals to institutions and social arrangements. We have become blind, not so much to race, but to the existence of racial caste in America.

— Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow

The Virginia state legislature is officially moving forward on a plan to split their electoral votes by district.

 

Effectively, in the last election, this would have neutered Virginia as a swing state. The President would have received 4 electoral votes from them, despite winning a majority in the state.

 

https://prospect.org/article/virginia-repub...enfranchisement

In addition to disenfranchising voters in dense areas, this would end the principle of "one person, one vote." If Ohio operated under this scheme, for example, Obama would have received just 22 percent of the electoral votes, despite winning 52 percent of the popular vote in the state...

 

It's also worth noting, again, that this constitutes a massive disenfranchisement of African American and other nonwhite voters, who tend to cluster near urban areas. When you couple this with the move on Monday to redraw the state's electoral maps -- eliminating one state senate district and packing black voters into another, diluting their strength -- it's as if Virginia Republicans are responding to Obama's repeat victory in the state by building an electoral facsimile of Jim Crow.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...calhoun/272464/

I'd like to double down on that point. Efforts to disenfranchise black people, have always been most successful when they worked indirectly. After the initial post-war Black Codes were repealed, white supremacists turned to less obvious modes of discrimination -- poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests.

 

These were cloaked under a colorblind argument -- "We don't discriminate against black people, we discriminate against people who can't read the Constitution." By "read the Constitution," they meant "recite the Bill of Rights by heart." And they'd ask you to do this after reducing your school funding to a pittance. I say this to point that this is not a "new" racism. This is how it scheme went before the civil-rights movement, and this is how the scheme works today.

 

To see the only other major political party in the country effectively giving up on convincing voters, and instead embarking on a strategy of disenfranchisement is bad sign for American democracy. There is nothing gleeful in this.