Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Police are hunting for the scumbag who did it. Right now the dominant notion is that this was a hatecrime as it was a historic black church.

Terrible. Really terrible.

There's even more evidence it was a hate crime as he "allowed" one of the women to live and told her to tell people what happened.

"this story does not support my narrow world view narrative, so i'll ignore it." -every kmc racist, probably

****ing sick deranged racist crazy person

It seems like there are more school shootings in the U.S.A. than the rest of the world combined.

Edit - On second thought, I'm getting too old for this kind of humor. It doesn't feel very funny anymore. Deleted. If anyone wants to know what I posted, I'll send you a PM of my poor-taste jokes.

Lot of colored people are mad, on social media they want only white people should lose their gun rights only. lol, when blacks are only 13% of the population and cause most of the crimes.

RsTykXcyLXQ

Originally posted by vansonbee
RsTykXcyLXQ

Well-put. Glad he concluded in the direction he did.

i bet the killer was actually programmed by the liberals in order to push their anti-gun agenda.

wow circlejerks are awesome. we can literally make anything true by believing it together.

Originally posted by vansonbee
Lot of colored people are mad, on social media they want only white people should lose their gun rights only. lol, when blacks are only 13% of the population and cause most of the crimes.

I just wish you'd lose your right to communicate with us.

Originally posted by Mindset
I just wish you'd lose your right to communicate with us.




I know right.

The gun laws should be changed for everyone in this country. The Second amendment should be abolished, because it is an outdated bill that was passed in a time that Law Enforcement was far inferior to what it is today. The way that it stands, any crazy person can get their hands on a weapon, and run through the streets killing anyone at random. England, Canada, and other countries don't have the problems with gun violence that the US does. This is something that Americans should realize, but probably won't.

Well he has been caught. He is supposed to be in his 20's but the kid looks like he is 14 to me.

EDIT: Also wait tell me that is a joke about the people who want gun control specifically just for whites?

Originally posted by Surtur
Also wait tell me that is a joke about the people who want gun control specifically just for whites?
Calm down, It was a tweet and not a committee report.

I'm a bit stunned reading some of the comments on that youtube video. "These statistics are racist" was one actual comment made. How can a stat be racist?

are you asking us to translate batshit?

Yes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - On second thought, I'm getting too old for this kind of humor. It doesn't feel very funny anymore. Deleted. If anyone wants to know what I posted, I'll send you a PM of my poor-taste jokes.

Aye go on then. I like a sick joke

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm a bit stunned reading some of the comments on that youtube video. "These statistics are racist" was one actual comment made. How can a stat be racist?


Statistics can be compiled from flawed data, or be compiled asking biased questions, as such they do have the potential to be racist.

still the statistics themselves are just statistics.

but yeah, 'figures don't lie, but liars figure', as the saying goes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Statistics can be compiled from flawed data, or be compiled asking biased questions, as such they do have the potential to be racist.

Yeah, but a guy quite literally says "these might be accurate, but are racist". In that context it is impossible for an accurate statistic to be racist. Though I probably should of mentioned the entire comment.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but a guy quite literally says "these might be accurate, but are racist". In that context it is impossible for an accurate statistic to be racist. Though I probably should of mentioned the entire comment.

Even accurate statistics may not relate to the truth of a situation and can be biased.

Originally posted by Stoic
I know right. I don't give a rat ass about Mindset Troll comments, but it also coming from you?
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm a bit stunned reading some of the comments on that youtube video. "These statistics are racist" was one actual comment made. How can a stat be racist? Rather go with some numbers, then nothing at all.

Originally posted by vansonbee
I don't give a rat ass about Mindset Troll comments, but it also coming from you?
I speak for all of kmc on this matter.

Anyway, gun laws need to be improved, but I'm not sure how.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even accurate statistics may not relate to the truth of a situation and can be biased.
Yes, and you're free to analyze the statistics and its sources and criticize it accordingly. But to simply call it racist does not discredit it.

The suspect has been caught in N. Carolina 250 miles away from incident. One of his relatives identified him to police:


http://www.aol.com/article/2015/06/18/suspect-identified-in-fatal-charleston-church-shooting/21197913/


"This story does not support my narrow world view narrative that all whites are evil racist bastards who always look out for other whites only and would never do right thing and turn them in to authorities if they murdered a black person, so I'll ignore it."- Every true racist poster on kmc, probably.


No, taking away our guns is not the answer. Anybody who knows their history would realize that would not end well. I've posted several links in the past that showed what has happened frequently throughout history to citizens of countries who had their guns taken away. Also, anyone who thinks the criminals would turn in their guns just like law-abiding citizens would needs a reality check. If the church would've had better security or at least a guard with a gun then it could've been prevented.


Judging by the comments below the article I posted in the link I'm glad to see that most Americans aren't so blind as most of people on this board who are claiming our guns should be banned.

Did you even read your article? He was caught at a traffic stop.

Originally posted by Robtard
Did you even read your article?

Do you even pee when you poop, bro?

Originally posted by Astner
Yes, and you're free to analyze the statistics and its sources and criticize it accordingly. But to simply call it racist does not discredit it.

Just as stating they are not racist or biased does not make it though. Really the burden of proof would be on the one asserting that the statistics they use show what they claim they show though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just as stating they are not racist or biased does not make it though. Really the burden of proof would be on the one asserting that the statistics they use show what they claim they show though.
No one is going to assert that their statistics are valid unless their validity is questioned. Moreover, that is not the case in this situation. In this situation the statistics are dismissed by the assertion that the statistics are invalid, and so the burden of proof is on the one claiming that the statistics are invalid.

I am white, and I know for a fact that the 99% of white people is a racist, bloodlusted monster. Case closed.

Originally posted by Astner
No one is going to assert that their statistics are valid unless their validity is questioned. Moreover, that is not the case in this situation. In this situation the statistics are dismissed by the assertion that the statistics are invalid, and so the burden of proof is on the one claiming that the statistics are invalid.

That would implicitly state that all statistics asserted are valid until questioned. Obviously ludicrous.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even accurate statistics may not relate to the truth of a situation and can be biased.


Yes especially if the research done to create those statistics were incomplete for whichever reason. People often see, hear, and believe whatever is shoveled down their throats without bothering to take the time to critically read and analyze the source from which the nourishment comes from. In other words if shit tastes, and smells good, why not eat it. I mean how bad could it be? There are literally people that thrive on creating a mistrust between people of different ethnic backgrounds. Hate mongering is often escalated by people too dumb to realize that they are being played by idiots.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That would implicitly state that all statistics asserted are valid until questioned.
No it doesn't. You don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works.

If you argue that the statistics are valid, the burden of proof is on you.

If you argue that the statistics are invalid, the burden of proof is still on you.

Now, you are free to ask the one providing the statistics to elaborate on their validity. But if you're going to take a side and argue, you better have evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I am white, and I know for a fact that the 99% of white people is a racist, bloodlusted monster. Case closed.







Assuming I believed your claim that you're in fact white, you know at least 99% of ALL white people, huh? Yeah...right.

Originally posted by Astner
No it doesn't. You don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works.

If you argue that the statistics are valid, the burden of proof is on you.

If you argue that the statistics are invalid, the burden of proof is still on you.


however the person who presents the statistic is obligated to provide a source.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the person who presents the statistic is obligated to provide a source, not the person who questions it.
What does that have to do with what I said?

Originally posted by Astner
No it doesn't. You don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works.

If you argue that the statistics are valid, the burden of proof is on you.

If you argue that the statistics are invalid, the burden of proof is still on you.

Now, you are free to ask the one providing the statistics to elaborate on their validity. But if you're going to take a side and argue, you better have evidence to back it up.

I agree with this post, your initial statement just put some undue burden on the one claiming the statistics are not valid, over the one claiming they are. In this case one person used statistics to make a claim, and a commentary on it said "I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist", the commentator would have to prove they are racist perhaps, but implicitly in the assertion is the questioning of the initial claim.

your wording could suggest that someone can just drop a statistic without a source and same rules apply, not that i believe it was deliberate. its important to state because 85% of statistics quoted on social media have no citation attached.

Originally posted by vansonbee
I don't give a rat ass about Mindset Troll comments, but it also coming from you?

Sorry. I just get a little upset. People have to always question the source of information that they read, or even see. A lot of the stuff that we come across actually happen to be set ups. Look at how America is built. Would so much crime exist if people weren't so impoverished? And take it from there. How was this country built? Do a project on it. When you're done, ask yourself if minorities have decent school systems? Ask yourself if ghettos have community centers that actively help the people that live in them get past the things that upper and middle class townships and societies do? Ask yourself why minorities are often paid 25% less for doing the same job? Ask yourself why American's need to carry guns, when other countries do fine without them? Ask yourself why segregation is so prominent in this country as opposed to many others? Many statistics are built on lies or half truths. Real talk.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In this case one person used statistics to make a claim, and a commentary on it said "I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist", the commentator would have to prove they are racist perhaps, but implicitly in the assertion is the questioning of the initial claim.
"I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist," is an assertion; and so the burden of proof lies on commentator.

The uploader did not claim that the statistics were valid. He simply used them. And unless he begins to argue that the statistics are valid, then he won't have to deal with burden of proof.

Originally posted by Stoic
Ask yourself why American's need to carry guns, when other countries do fine without them? Do Americans actually need to carry guns though?

For example, is there a statistic that shows more gun-carrying Americans saving themselves from an assault or death Vs them carrying a gun and it being the cause of an injury or death that wouldn't have happened if they weren't too cowardly to leave the house unarmed?

Originally posted by Astner
unless he begins to argue that the statistics are valid, then he won't have to deal with burden of proof.

lol, keep trollin

Originally posted by Astner
"I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist," is an assertion; and so the burden of proof lies on commentator.

The uploader did not claim that the statistics were valid. He simply used them. And unless he begins to argue that the statistics are valid, then he won't have to deal with burden of proof.

Not sure if incompetent or trolling...

nah. you're sure.

Yeah, I just like the meme.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
lol, keep trollin Originally posted by Bardock42
Not sure if incompetent or trolling...
I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not that's how contemporary rhetoric works.

Originally posted by Astner
"I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist," is an assertion; and so the burden of proof lies on commentator.

The uploader did not claim that the statistics were valid. He simply used them. And unless he begins to argue that the statistics are valid, then he won't have to deal with burden of proof. He is implicitly asserting that his argument is valid, so he is asserting that the statistics are also valid, since that is the backbone of his argument.

He'd have to prove the validity of the statistics, but not prove that they aren't racist.

Astner apparently doesn't even Science anymore.

Originally posted by Mindset
He is implicitly asserting that his argument is valid, so he is asserting that the statistics are also valid, since that is the backbone of his argument.

He'd have to prove the validity of the statistics, but not prove that they aren't racist.
No. When he is questioned about the statistics, in which case he'd likely defend their validity because it's essential to his argument; that is when he's faced with the burden of proof. But not before that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do Americans actually need to carry guns though?

For example, is there a statistic that shows more gun-carrying Americans saving themselves from an assault or death Vs them carrying a gun and it being the cause of an injury or death that wouldn't have happened if they weren't too cowardly to leave the house unarmed?

Listen, I lived in Canada for the majority of my life, and I will tell you, American's don't need guns. The second amendment should be abolished, because it in fact gives people the ability to murder others. Think about just how many unstable people are in the world. Should they be able to easily get their hands on a weapon?

It's difficult for someone that has not seen any different to actually see how bad guns in society are, but that simply means that they have yet to come out of the forest, and look at it from a distance.

Originally posted by Mindset
He is implicitly asserting that his argument is valid, so he is asserting that the statistics are also valid, since that is the backbone of his argument.

He'd have to prove the validity of the statistics, but not prove that they aren't racist.

Surely proving they are valid would include proof they are not racist.

well it would seem i was incorrect. it was incompitence, not trolling.

Originally posted by Stoic
Listen, I lived in Canada for the majority of my life, and I will tell you, American's don't need guns. The second amendment should be abolished, because it in fact gives people the ability to murder others. Think about just how many unstable people are in the world. Should they be able to easily get their hands on a weapon?

It's difficult for someone that has not seen any different to actually see how bad guns in society are, but that simply means that they have yet to come out of the forest, and look at it from a distance.

It's interesting how people who've spent upwards a decade on forum dedicated to debates aren't familiar with contemporary rethoric.

Of course, these are the same people who will reply names of logical fallacies to posts that didn't commit said fallacies.

Originally posted by Astner
It's interesting how people who've spent upwards a decade on forum dedicated to debates aren't familiar with contemporary rethoric.

Of course, these are the same people who will reply names of logical fallacies to posts that didn't commit said fallacies.

rhetoric

Originally posted by Bardock42
rhetoric
I know.
Originally posted by Astner
rhetoric

You're welcome, no problem.

Originally posted by Astner
No. When he is questioned about the statistics, in which case he'd likely defend their validity because it's essential to his argument; that is when he's faced with the burden of proof. But not before that. The quote you posted questions the validity of the evidence on two different points.

The first part puts the onus on the original poster, and the second on the commentor. The statistics could be completely false with no actual substance AND racist (whatever that would mean), or they could be substantiated by recorded information AND racist; also, it could be considered not racist at all. So the original poster would need to show why they are believable or valid, but would not need to answer whether it is racist or not.

Originally posted by Mindset
The first part puts the onus on the original poster, and the second on the commentor. The statistics could be completely false with no actual substance
And that is why it should be questioned, especially if it doesn't seem valid.

But unless it is questioned and the uploader chooses to defend the validity of the statistics, the burden of proof won't rest on him.

The burden of proof always rest on the one making the assertion. And so it's first when the uploader starts to argue that the statistics are valid that he's faced with the burden of proof.

Originally posted by Astner

But unless it is questioned and the uploader chooses to defend the validity of the statistics, the burden of proof won't rest on him.


wrong. the burden of proof is on the person who presents a statistic to cite it. you fail. get out.

Originally posted by Astner
And that is why it should be questioned, especially if it doesn't seem valid.

But unless it is questioned and the uploader chooses to defend the validity of the statistics, the burden of proof won't rest on him.

The burden of proof always rest on the one making the assertion. And so it's first when the uploader starts to argue that the statistics are valid that he's faced with the burden of proof. It was questioned when the guy said, "I don't believe these statistics...".

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
wrong. the burden of proof is on the person who presents a statistic to cite it. you fail. get out.
You don't seem to understand what the burden of proof is.

Yes, you should provide source references to fortify your position when using evidence, but that has nothing to do with the burden of proof.

The burden of proof simply denotes one's obligation to defend one's assertions.

Originally posted by Mindset
It was questioned when the guy said, "I don't believe these statistics...".
Well, did the uploader decide to defend the validity of his data?

If yes: then the burden of proof rests on the uploader.

If no: then the burden of proof doesn't rest on the uploader.

However, just because the burden of proof doesn't rest on the uploader doesn't mean that he's in a better position.

Originally posted by KingD19
There's even more evidence it was a hate crime as he "allowed" one of the women to live and told her to tell people what happened.

No proof that makes this a hate crime or racial killing any more saying this was religious killings of people gathering in church for solace and prayer.

The guy was a mentally ill deranged maniac. He thinks he from South Africa. Clearly delusional.

Even if that's true, not sure that somehow makes it not a hate crime.

It could have been a hate religious killing. Or better yet, domestic terrorism.

Also, I love how Obama bring up gun control and the liberals are screaming "How on earth did he get a gun!!" when he stole the gun from his father.

As bash said, this is probably a false flag attack.

Couldn't it be all three?

Haven't heard that yet, but if true, it seems his father's lack of gun control allowed him to arm himself. So those liberals would have point.

Do you really think that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It could have been a hate religious killing. Or better yet, domestic terrorism.

Also, I love how Obama bring up gun control and the liberals are screaming "How on earth did he get a gun!!" when he stole the gun from his father.

As bash said, this is probably a false flag attack. I thought he got the gun as a gift?

oh dear lol

Hahaha

Originally posted by Robtard
Couldn't it be all three?

Haven't heard that yet, but if true, it seems his father's lack of gun control allowed him to arm himself. So those liberals would have point.

Do you really think that?

It could be.

They really would not have a leg to stand on with gun control, how do you control a thief?

The kid was a maniac. If the guy had killed a bunch of white people, its going to be labeled a massacre just the same. The fact that its color add's gas to the issues.

I find it funny that these keep happening in quicker numbers in session then ever before in Obama's last terms.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was actually a CIA operative.

Could Obama be anymore transparent?

Originally posted by Mindset
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was actually a CIA operative.

Could Obama be anymore transparent?

Very good point

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It could be.

They really would not have a leg to stand on with gun control.

The kid was a maniac. If the guy had killed a bunch of white people, its going to be labeled a massacre just the same. The fact that its color add's gas to the issues.

I find it funny that these keep happening in quicker numbers in session then ever before in Obama's last terms.

Actually, some whacko easily getting his hands on a gun and then murdering people is the "leg" the pro 'better gun control/laws' advocates stand on.

If it was white people it wouldn't change the gun control issue.

Not sure where you're going with this, are you blaming Obama?

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, some whacko easily getting his hands on a gun and then murdering people is the "leg" better gun control/laws stands on.

If it was white people it wouldn't change the gun control issue.

Not sure we're you're going with this, are you blaming Obama?

He immediately went political with it, before some families even been notified there loved ones passed away.

Poor form.

Originally posted by Robtard

Not sure we're you're going with this

that's a whole new level of typo

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He immediately went political with it, before some families even been notified there loved ones passed away.

Poor form. He basically took a gun and massacred their feelings.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He immediately went political with it, before some families even been notified there loved ones passed away.

Poor form.

Is this a fact that can be verified?

But I'd assume it's because mass murders like this keep happening and they possibly wouldn't if America had better gun control laws as being Obama's reason to speak up.

Originally posted by Mindset
He basically took a gun and massacred their feelings.

Originally posted by Robtard
Is this a fact that can be verified?

But I'd assume it's because mass murders like this keep happening and they possibly wouldn't if America had better gun control laws as being Obama's reason to speak up.

Yes, watch his address to the nation. He went straight to talking about politics and gun control.

Originally posted by Mindset
I thought he got the gun as a gift?

He received the gun as a gift for his 21st birthday. Since he did not purchase the gun, he did not have to be screened. That is a tremendous gun control loophole right there.

Seems to be many gun control loopholes/failures. It's pathetic.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He immediately went political with it, before some families even been notified there loved ones passed away.

Poor form.

What's wrong with you?

He was directly addressing the causes of the incident. He is saying absolutely true about it- we could do things to prevent incidents like this. And his 'political' points were entirely on that point.

Complete transcript

He speaks of togetherness and our power to act.


You're getting annoyed at him for saying that?

You have poor form here, not him. You're using this to try and take a shot against Obama? Really, really?

Your tendency to kneejerk-attack him on everything is sad. And kinda fitting to be brought up here- Obama can outperform his white predecessor on economics, foreign policy, and other issues, but for some reason, possible tied to his skin-color, and by 'possibly' I mean 'look at birthers and put the white back in the whitehouse slogans, it's definite', there's a large number of people who hold a definite double-standard on him. Getting on his case for saying we have the power to do something about gun-violence. Shame on you.



It's almost as if there's been someone driving racial rhetoric. Which there has been, from before Obama took office. It's not so much funny, as it's happening for obvious reasons.


A lot of this stuff, the incidents that inspired 'black lives matters' and such, actually has happened for a long time- this very church was burned down before. Massacres of this level are uncommon, but the big thing recently is people are finally stepped up and giving the disproportionate media response national attention. The double-standard to reactions on violence against blacks is finally getting attention.


Ever notice how white shooters get labeled 'maniacs' and 'troubled loners' that nothing can be done about, while if a black person does it it gets attributed to being 'another black thug' or gansta or yadda yadda? There's been no reports of any history of mental illness or such, and *most* mass shootings and similar by white people do not have a history of mental illness. He's not a maniac who was going to go off no matter what, he was a white supremicist, who bought into rhetoric that encourages people to be violent, and the racists in this country do get catered to or ignored way too often.

There's very much a double standard of reporting, where white shooters are written off as exceptions, no-reason-to-look-into-things, and that's a problem.

He's not a maniac. He was a racist who employed violence to massacre people in support of white supremicist ideology.



Originally posted by Robtard
Is this a fact that can be verified?

But I'd assume it's because mass murders like this keep happening and they possibly wouldn't if America had better gun control laws as being Obama's reason to speak up.

The Onion really hits this one well:
"No Way to Prevent This" says only nation where this regularly happens

Originally posted by Q99
What's wrong with you?

He was directly addressing the causes of the incident. He is saying absolutely true about it- we could do things to prevent incidents like this. And his 'political' points were entirely on that point.

Complete transcript

He speaks of togetherness and our power to act.


You're getting annoyed at him for saying that?

You have poor form here, not him. You're using this to try and take a shot against Obama? Really, really?

Your tendency to kneejerk-attack him on everything is sad. And kinda fitting to be brought up here- Obama can outperform his white predecessor on economics, foreign policy, and other issues, but for some reason, possible tied to his skin-color, and by 'possibly' I mean 'look at birthers and put the white back in the whitehouse slogans, it's definite', there's a large number of people who hold a definite double-standard on him. Getting on his case for saying we have the power to do something about gun-violence. Shame on you.



It's almost as if there's been someone driving racial rhetoric. Which there has been, from before Obama took office. It's not so much funny, as it's happening for obvious reasons.


A lot of this stuff, the incidents that inspired 'black lives matters' and such, actually has happened for a long time- this very church was burned down before. Massacres of this level are uncommon, but the big thing recently is people are finally stepped up and giving the disproportionate media response national attention. The double-standard to reactions on violence against blacks is finally getting attention.


Ever notice how white shooters get labeled 'maniacs' and 'troubled loners' that nothing can be done about, while if a black person does it it gets attributed to being 'another black thug' or gansta or yadda yadda? There's been no reports of any history of mental illness or such, and *most* mass shootings and similar by white people do not have a history of mental illness. He's not a maniac who was going to go off no matter what, he was a white supremicist, who bought into rhetoric that encourages people to be violent, and the racists in this country do get catered to or ignored way too often.

There's very much a double standard of reporting, where white shooters are written off as exceptions, no-reason-to-look-into-things, and that's a problem.

He's not a maniac. He was a racist who employed violence to massacre people in support of white supremicist ideology.





The Onion really hits this one well:
"No Way to Prevent This" says only nation where this regularly happens

This post is made of so much win.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It could have been a hate religious killing. Or better yet, domestic terrorism.

It is domestic terrorism. Against black people, by a white supremicist. What else would you call racially motivated massacre?

That's not an alternative to it being racially motivated, because it certainly is racially motivated. In the killer's own words. And people who knew him said for some time he'd been increasingly racist, and talked about doing something. An attack is not something you can just put your own motives on to to fit your personal narrative, we know what happened.





There's zero evidence of it being a false flag attack other than you want it to.


Your ability to immediately leaping to believe any way to write off this incident as a result of something that could be tied to what it most visibly is, solely because you'd rather blame someone you already don't like with no evidence, is disturbing.


What is with your willingness to swallow any conspiracy theory that comes your way?

Your confirmation bias is absurd, and exactly why attacks like this happen- you are literally giving the actual causes a complete pass in favor of blaming people that had nothing to do with it, and just like every other time you leap to such a conspiracy theory, the lack of evidence doesn't seem to phase you.


Just because you don't like someone doesn't make it ok to make up crap about them- nor does it excuse making up crap to defend a shooting.


You're literally being delusional in a way that defends the cause of someone who shot and killed nine people. Think about that for awhile.


Bashar was being sarcastic when he said false-flag attack. As his first post in the thread was:

"this story does not support my narrow world view narrative, so i'll ignore it." -every kmc racist, probably


He called it, and he's right. That's you, dead on.

Your stupid, I never condoned the attack. I was merely playing along with bash's false accusations from the beginning.

Its actually you who is on the attack against me for nothing.

Trust me, you and me..we won't be talking again either.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your stupid, I never condoned the attack. I was merely playing along with bash's false accusations from the beginning.

Its actually you who is on the attack against me for nothing.

Trust me, you and me..we won't be talking again either.


And then this guy PM's me that he's ignoring me, thus not really getting the purpose of the 'ignoring' thing.


I really do not think he gets what 'sarcasm' is, or 'playing along'. He buys into the most ridiculous stuff all the time (remember when he thought the US had used nukes in Yemen? That was great), and then he said straight-faced with no sign of a joke that he agrees with Bashar's comment.

I think he's just mad that he got caught out on agreeing with Bashar's sarcasm. Another poster predicted what he'd say and Bashar Teg was certainly dead. on. ^^

Yea yea, keep ranting.

Since I can't edit my post or respond go anything you say from the ignore function.

You are really ignorant and very retarded if you think I was agreeing with his baiting sacasm earlier. Since Bash and I never agree on anything you think I couldn't see through his usual BS. On top of that his original post about ignoring the thread, hahaha. He was begging for attention so I gave him some. In the process I picked up a drama queen from the liberal party cheerleading.

Anyways have a good time posting whatever nonsense you want. You been anal wrecked and have massive butthurt

He *really* doesn't get ignore, does he?


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

You are really ignorant and very retarded if you think I was agreeing with his baiting sacasm earlier. Since Bash and I never agree on anything you think I couldn't see through his usual BS. On top of that his original post about ignoring the thread, hahaha. He was begging for attention so I gave him some. In the process I picked up a drama queen from the liberal party cheerleading.


The 'oh, I *meant* to say something dumb' approach is rarely a good defense I find.

And it neatly doesn't explain his other comments, like trying to deflect the cause of the attack as something other than racism, exactly the type of thing he normally does.


Honestly I hope that at some point he grows up- the 'gullibly believing anything bad about people he doesn't like' thing is funny at first, but it's no way to live. Buying into conspiracy theories left and right, about this and other subjects, is either going to leave him isolated or in with a pretty bad crowd.

Fine I take you off ignore to embarrass you more. Which conspiracy did I buy into here, queen? Why are you talking in third person and too yourself "his, he." I don't think anyone was talking to you. You seem really worked up, is there anything I can do to sooth your butt pain?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Fine I take you off ignore to embarrass you more. Which conspiracy did I buy into here, queen? Why are you talking in third person and too yourself "his, he." I don't think anyone was talking to you. You seem really worked up, is there anything I can do to sooth your butt pain?

The third person's because I'm describing you to others there what was wrong with your arguments. I was on ignore, remember?


Anyway, you not only said you bought in to the false-flag thing, with no wink or sign there's joke.


And you kept arguing that it wasn't a hate crime even though the guy himself said it was, and there's this gem:
"The guy was a mentally ill deranged maniac. He thinks he from South Africa. Clearly delusional."

Another made-up one, when then's no reports of that, just him wearing a flag that a lot of supremicists wears.


If these are meant to be jokes, you're utterly failing to convey it, because you keep in arguing in support of them and you've believed way more out-there things. Actual jokes need to, y'know, not sound like things you say all the time, how else is anyone supposed to know?





(P.S. the 'butt pain' thing seems to be projecting your own - you're the one annoyed enough to first ignore me then take me off ignore. )

Wow Q99 did you just show up to forum? I dont mean to take you back to school or anything.

Originally posted by Q99

Anyway, you not only said you bought in to the false-flag thing, with no wink or sign there's joke.


Wow, lets rewind. Where was bash's joke tags??? I mean I would never accuse you of being bias or a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i bet the killer was actually programmed by the liberals in order to push their anti-gun agenda.

wow circlejerks are awesome. we can literally make anything true by believing it together. <-Clearly this was a serious post. Yet he didn't put joke tags. Didn't see you calling him out. Caught you red handed. Now stfu

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

As bash said, this is probably a false flag attack.

Originally posted by Q99
The third person's because I'm describing you to others there what was wrong with your arguments. I was on ignore, remember?


Anyway, you not only said you bought in to the false-flag thing, with no wink or sign there's joke.


And you kept arguing that it wasn't a hate crime even though the guy himself said it was, and there's this gem:
"The guy was a mentally ill deranged maniac. He thinks he from South Africa. Clearly delusional."

Another made-up one, when then's no reports of that, just him wearing a flag that a lot of supremicists wears.




Now let me school you some more..

He was wearing flags.

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/06/18/everything-known-about-charleston-church-shooting-suspect-dylann-roof/jcr:content/body/inlineimage.img.800.jpg/1434640924184.cached.jpg



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/18/everything-known-about-charleston-church-shooting-suspect-dylann-roof.html

And it's "supremicists" not "supremacists"

Consider yourself schooled.

Look at this kid, he's like a one-man army.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Look at this kid, he's like a one-man army.

Yes these two look related..

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JTvkaI-Nqxw/maxresdefault.jpg

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The guy was a mentally ill deranged maniac.

What would be the other option?

I love to focus in this kind of blanket statements mmm

Racism will always exist, terrorism will always exist, guns will always exist, mentally ill people and maniacs will always exist. Sadly they are get mixed together in this form and this is the result. They are widely different topics each with there own issues.

I mean look at this forum, no one can agree on anything and this is all fake.

People expect people in the real world to just get along?

You can't quell thousands of years of violence and hate bred into the human race by taking away guns.

You can't stop people from hating one another. That's the way it is. That's the way it will always be. I'm still shocked people haven't woken up to this, and they still get all worked up over it. The old OMG THATS RACIST, line is like old already. People kill other people, blacks kill blacks, whites kill whites. In any murder there is a hate crime. It's not just in murders involving different skin color.

If people truly wanted to move past race. Quit bringing it up all the time and using it to seperate us from one another.

If a white man kills a black man, it's murder. Just the same if a black man kills a black man, or a black man kills a white man. Both killers hated the other person for one reason or another.

This constant complaining about racism isn't the problem. It's the human condition of hate. Fix that, you fix everything.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Racism will always exist, terrorism will always exist, guns will always exist, mentally ill people and maniacs will always exist. Sadly they are get mixed together in this form and this is the result. They are widely different topics each with there own issues.

Violence will probably always exist, but it's entirely possible for guns to disappear from America via restriction/scarcity of resources/obsoleteness

Might take a thousand years, but a gun is hardly a concept intrinsic to human nature, unlike fear or brain injuries or whatever.

I can see where you're coming from, personally I'm not very attached to laws invoking race as they seem intentionally made to apease a certain part of the population and to be done for good consciousness's sake.

That said, if you kill your wife's lover because you hate him you are potentially less dangerous to the population than if you killed your neighbor because he was white. Still, you commited one single crime each time.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Very good point
LOL what?

with great sarcasm comes great responsibility. i've learned my lesson.

Q99 at utopian ideology that she can someone willfully purge the human race of hate.

Keep trying.

As to the rest of your rant, worthless rhetoric.

Keep buying whatever the media says though Q99. Makes you smart. And keep drinking that water.

Originally posted by Q99

I really do not think he gets what 'sarcasm' is, or 'playing along'. He buys into the most ridiculous stuff all the time (remember when he thought the US had used nukes in Yemen? That was great), and then he said straight-faced with no sign of a joke that he agrees with Bashar's comment.



Still waiting on proof I said "the US nuked Yemen."

Also still waiting on proof what bash said was any less of a joke then what I said.

Keep using him as your crutch for your whole argument, its quiet entertaining.

I know there will be another unending long winded post explaining what you mean, or was trying to say or convey though, face it, you were wrong. Nuff said.

Originally posted by Bentley
I can see where you're coming from, personally I'm not very attached to laws invoking race as they seem intentionally made to apease a certain part of the population and to be done for good consciousness's sake.

That said, if you kill your wife's lover because you hate him you are potentially less dangerous to the population than if you killed your neighbor because he was white. Still, you commited one single crime each time.

I don't think race based crimes have any more or less meaning then any other ones. If a person kills over race, or a person kills over any number of the other reasons people kill each other, to me its the same.

Murder is murder, One cause of it or another, does not diminish or heighten the other.

All murder is hate induced crime. Attaching skin color to it drives people into segregation. Which is what I thought we were all trying to come away from.

It does not in any way drive people into segregation. It instead highlights and targets the attitudes that result from segregation, as can be seen from this guy's views.

It's a worthy thing to target specifically via the legal process. Their general adoption in western society has been a major social advance.

This guys one radical view points does not generalize everyone else into his thinking

It does because CNN is already hinting at "some say there will be a racial war in the country."

People are more segregated now then ever before and it will only get worse.

If you think there do not exist significant groups of people who target others with violence simply because of what they are, you are deluding yourself.

That is what hate crime legislation is designed to target, highlight and oppose. Of course it's rarely massacres like this one, but this being an extreme hate crime doesn't mean we can say hate crimes don't exist because massacres like this are rare.

I never said there wasn't. Clearly his shirt he was wearing was supporting that type of behavior.

I said his thinking does not "genealize everyone." Meaning this is not how a majority of Americans think.

And that's fine, and I am sure people understand that, but as long as hate crimes remain an issue for society, they are a concept worth focussing on, especially when you see such an extreme version like this.

This kid didn't seem to be apart of any bigger organization and or rift group. He was some wanna be South African dead ideology on a mission to kill because of skin color. The worst thing that can happen now is the media start dropping the words "coming race war in Ameria" which is what they are doing. Stirring the pot.

It's not about specific organisations (most of them went out the window long ago- no-one is denying that things are not as bad as they were)- it's about prevalent cultures in groups. There's still a strong racist culture around in many communities that hate crime laws can help stamp out.

I don't see how, the KKK still is alive and well. Ideology is one thing, but a lone wolf believing in that is entirely different. You can't stamp out that ideology any more you can ISIS's and Muslim extremists ideology. It's something that will never go away.

The KKK exists but doesn't really do anything any more- aside from anyhting else, organisations like that committing crimes just make too easy a target for the authorities these days. The crimes don;t come from overt organisations, or even organisations at all. They come as a result of a maladjusted cultural mindset that some groups of people perpetuate.

Considering the KKK used to freely beat black people or hang them from trees without fear of legal punishment and now they don't, it seems anti-racism has had some positive effects.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The KKK exists but doesn't really do anything any more- aside from anyhting else, organisations like that committing crimes just make too easy a target for the authorities these days. The crimes don;t come from overt organisations, or even organisations at all. They come as a result of a maladjusted cultural mindset that some groups of people perpetuate.

That's what Im saying they exist and you can't stop their ideology, and though they don't act on it directly others, like this kid are influenced by this type of thinking.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering the KKK used to freely beat black people or hang them from trees without fear of legal punishment and now they don't, it seems anti-racism has had some positive effects.

The physical effects yes, but discrimination is largely a mental state.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That's what Im saying they exist and you can't stop their ideology, and though they don't act on it directly others, like this kid are influenced by this type of thinking.

Ah, well, then we disagree over whether the ideology can be stopped. I think it can.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The physical effects yes, but discrimination is largely a mental state.

That can also be stopped or ideally changed in people's minds. Sure, you're not going to change everyone's mind, but change enough and it tends to slowly pass down from generation to generation.

Compare the open and prevalent racism of say the 50-60's to now. People's whose great-grandfathers marched against integration, openly accept people of different colors/races etc. now.

Ush, I really don't believe in happy ending in the real world. As things are going, things are only getting worse, here and the Middle East due to ideology. If you think it can be stopped and have an idea on how, I'm all ears to listen.

Rob, sure things are different with that. However something's are much worse. Murder rates are through the roof.

Adam, I'm not part of the republican agenda so your rant is pointless as it is mealiness to me. I'm so beyond Republicans vs Democrates, maybe it's time you should be as well. A house divided will fall.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

Adam, I'm not part of the republican agenda so your rant is pointless as it is mealiness to me. I'm so beyond Republicans vs Democrates, maybe it's time you should be as well. A house divided will fall.


Not to jump on your shit, but you're very quick to point out when the Left/Liberals/Obama supposedly does some political scummy move, but when it's pointed out that it's actually the Right, you couldn't care less and dismiss it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Adam, I'm not part of the republican agenda so your rant is pointless as it is mealiness to me. I'm so beyond Republicans vs Democrates, maybe it's time you should be as well. A house divided will fall.

If you do not have a conservative agenda, and your issue is the politicization of this tragedy, then where are your condemnations of Rudy Giuliani, Steve Doocy, Rick Santorum, and Sen. Lindsey Graham? Why is your outrage completely selective and limited to the Democratic President?

Who are those people to me? Has beens fallen from grace? I didn't know what they said because I don't watch or pay attention to them.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Fine I take you off ignore to embarrass you more. Which conspiracy did I buy into here, queen? Why are you talking in third person and too yourself "his, he." I don't think anyone was talking to you. You seem really worked up, is there anything I can do to sooth your butt pain?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not to jump on your shit, but you're very quick to point out when the Left/Liberals/Obama supposedly does some political scummy move, but when it's pointed out that it's actually the Right, you couldn't care less and dismiss it.

So you think they are defending the murdered by not ruling out all possibilities of racially motivated murder? I mean, was all the facts out right away why he did what he did to everyone and was everyone supposed to think the same way. Maybe they were trying to move past race. But I don't like any of those people, and they are not the president and they have zero chance in doing anything towards fixing the problem. I didn't bother to read all this links because I'm not going to get into a democrat vs republican debate. I already have told you and everyone else on the forum I will be voting for Martin O'Malley if he gets the ticket. Trying to use me as you "Forum Republican" here, wont work. Just because I am not a radical liberal demo does not dictate my vote.

Sorry.

Law enforcement, and military personal are the puppets for the Government. The Government are puppets for the CEOs, weapon, ammo manufacturers etc... This stuff is to fuel wars, and to make the rich, richer, and the civilians suffer big time. Was this guy sick? I don't know, where's the proof? Besides the big media outlets, cops and anyone high up telling us, because I don't trust most of them.

I have cops in the family, some are good, and some are bad. I also have family members that work in the Government, high end city level. I see and hear dirty stories. Imo, this case is another dirty story or false flag.

Originally posted by The Nuul
false flag.

are you 'just joking' as well?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you think they are defending the murdered by not ruling out all possibilities of racially motivated murder? I mean, was all the facts out right away why he did what he did to everyone and was everyone supposed to think the same way. Maybe they were trying to move past race. But I don't like any of those people, and they are not the president and they have zero chance in doing anything towards fixing the problem. I didn't bother to read all this links because I'm not going to get into a democrat vs republican debate. I already have told you and everyone else on the forum I will be voting for Martin O'Malley if he gets the ticket. Trying to use me as you "Forum Republican" here, wont work. Just because I am not a radical liberal demo does not dictate my vote.

Sorry.

Some of them, especially Rick Santorum, it's fairly obvious that he used this tragedy to push his own "America is Anti-Christian" agenda.

Personally I think Lindsey "Gram" is a idiot.

And I am pretty sure Santorum left his job to go have sex with a columbian mistress.

Anyone that actually things it's a "false flag", who exactly are we being lead to believe was carrying out this massacre? Because from the majority of news stories, it's the actions of a single mentally unstable racist.

Unless my understanding of "false flag operation" is wrong and it isn't one entity doing some action and making it appear it's the actions of another entity.

It all stims from this Rob, thats were this concept came from, and that why people believe it still exists.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=operations%20northwoods

It was probably a sex doll powered by two rc cars (one for movement, one to pull the trigger) driven by black men to try and control white people's ability to have guns so the black men could overrun the country.

Hahahaha

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It all stims from this Rob, thats were this concept came from, and that why people believe it still exists.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=operations%20northwoods

As noted, I understand what a false flag operation is.

I am asking who/what are we falsely being lead to believe is at fault here?

Originally posted by Robtard
As noted, I understand what a false flag operation is.

I am asking who/what are we falsely being lead to believe is at fault here?

It's all about power and control, the rich and powerful people, the 1%ers that over Governments bend over to, and we must obey the cops, military, and Governments. Religion has a part in this as well, there are power and control in Religion.

I think the media needs to be mindful to the fact this guy apparently wants fame/notoriety. Remember, he let one person live just so they could report back. He purposely left a witness alive JUST so they could tell people it was him. This guy wants the attention.

Then they do things like fly him back to his home state in a private jet or something. Is this how they normally transfer prisoners? Private planes?

Originally posted by Astner
It's interesting how people who've spent upwards a decade on forum dedicated to debates aren't familiar with contemporary rethoric.

Of course, these are the same people who will reply names of logical fallacies to posts that didn't commit said fallacies.




That's been the bane of message boards for ages.

Originally posted by dadudemon



That's been the bane of message boards for ages. Prove it.

#gottem

He apparently "considered backing out" because people were nice to him.

Anyone know if they have the death penalty where he is from?

South Carolina governor calls for death penalty of suspect. Not gun control:



http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/nikki-haley-south-carolina-church-shootings/2015/06/19/id/651311/?ns_mail_uid=94127627&ns_mail_job=1625111_06192015&s=altdkt_nbr=zthmkhfx


Again, trying to take our guns away will make things infinitely worse. As she said in article, security will be beefed up at churches. That's the proper thing to do. Not resort to more gun control.

IOW: "If everyone in that church was armed, this wouldn't have happened"

If everyone in that church were already dead, there wouldn't have been any murders.

Ban life.