Your continued responses are showing me it’s clearly unimportant to you. lol.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Your continued responses are showing me it’s clearly unimportant to you. lol.
Someone had to do it before losers like you allowed our country to well, lose.
looks like @gunslingerdick isn't the only one getting under strummer's skin.
Our country? That's another figment of your imagination.
I dunno how many "likes" I get... I just know how many comments I have "quoted" to me. If I'm getting that much attention, that's a win, I guess.
Pointing out their behavior is under my skin? Is this like that misdirected shit you call "TDS?"
People can’t look away from a train wreck. It’s human nature.
Last edited:
Wait…so our country, the United States of America is just a figment of my imagination? See, this is the train wreck thing I was talking about.
Loser.
Clever way of deflecting after having your ass handed to you over the past 2 pages of this thread.
Now, every "poast" is you declaring yourself a winner of something. My work is done.
I don't need to declare it. I think it's pretty clear that I'm the winner. Anyone following along can tell you that. Plus, you show us every day here how the term "loser" is just a better fit for you. But if this is your way of exiting the ass kicking I've handed out to you, I can respect that.
When you don't need to do it... you don't do it. You, on the other hand, always need to do it.
I’m just stating the obvious. We could take a poll on the board if you really needed to hear it from other poasters. But you don’t want that.
Loser.
Thank you, Dr. Sigmund Fraud, but I believe philosophers and physicians through the ages, not to mention most of the general public, would simply laugh at your trite explanation of existential reality, furthermore distancing you from all sensibility and truth.
It must be lonely in your bizarro world.
Let me get this straight. You read her article and your take away is a defense of the NYT by claiming there are too many mass shootings for their resources to be able to cover them?? Talk about your aim missing the target.
Her point is that the NYT elects to cover the shootings that involve white mass shooters, particularly when the victims are blacks. And, if they do cover any given shooting, they are almost certainly sure to point out when the shooter is white and ignore the issue of race if the shooter is black. She provides several examples.
Thus, the question becomes does the NYT actually care about mass shootings or do they just care about creating a false narrative that mass shootings only involve white men as the shooters? She then gets into some discussion of numbers amongst races and the impact of BLM. However, the takeaway is clear, the NYT could care less about actual mass shootings unless they involve pushing the image of the nutty white guy shooting up everyone.
He’s mad as a hornet today. Usually he takes his losses a bit better. But if you go back through our correspondence, you’ll see him evading and deflecting. And of course he used his usual tactic of poasting irrelevant comments. Not a banner day for him.
you're still showing your limitations. There is one reality. Reality is not open to interpretation, dimwitted or otherwise. What you are referring to is the endless quest to make sense of it, to find meaning in it, even just to actually see as much of it as can be seen. Which is never going to be a complete picture for us.
If someone says they have interpreted reality, they only acknowledge (knowingly or unknowingly) that have failed to see reality in total.
you really think I need to go back to see his evasions and deflections? C'mon man, it's strummer...and I've been going back and forth with him here as well. What you can always count on with the strummer is that at some point he'll throw in the towel and slide bizarrely away into the rabbit hole, where his nonsense must seem logical.
But if you're lucky, before that happens you can catch him contradicting himself in a major way. That happened in this little go-round.
Show me the random/hate oriented shooting not involving a white person that nyt DIDN'T cover, then i'd accept her point. It doesn't exist though. The Venezuelan migrant teen shooting at times square tourists and cops, they covered it. The Asian dudes shooting up migrant farms and churches in LA, they covered it. On and on.
She's nit-picking the lack of one shooting/article (no homicides, not random/hate) and associating that with race when there is no real correlation behind her premise.
Last edited:
this may be picking nits, but I think it's more accurate and to the point to say that the NYT wants to downplay or not even acknowledge black culpabilities, if that can be avoided. And it can be avoided by not reporting it. And it can be downplayed by focusing on incidents involving whites.
You just contradicted yourself. Trying to make sense of reality and the resulting outcome of that effort is in itself an interpretation. Hence, yours are dimwitted.
He's just trying to be relevant. It's probably tough being an aging, poor bachelor with zero hope of any female companionship. And don't forget he's a white guy as well, so he's carrying around all that guilt.
there might or might not be correlation behind her premise as it pertains to specific incidents mentioned, but that doesn't mean that her premise isn't valid. Most of us with open eyes know that it is, and that she was providing a mere example.
I'm sorry if I missed it, but is the premise only applicable if an incident is random and/or hate-oriented?
11 ways Biden and his handlers are hell-bent on destroying America
If an enemy wanted to destroy America, could he or she do anything much more catastrophic than what is already currently happening in our country?
Victor David Hanson is right on point with this opinion piece.
Her premise is that NYT doesn't report on mass shootings which don't involve white people. And her basis is the LACK of a report of a mass shooting which didn't involve white people. But the types of shootings NYT typically reports on are the natty headlines, big events - like randos and hate, like my examples of the half moon bay shooting, the venezualan kid, etc.
@pooponduke @bluetoe here ya go. Mass shooter, black, where there are random or non-domestic targets:
Wait. So your definition of "mass" shootings is now that they only include shootings that look into the mind of the shooter to determine that they either have hate or they are utterly random without any basis? I thought it was only defined by the number of people shot and/or killed????
Goalposts moved. Excellent job.
I mean, otherwise you have to include all those fights between a couple of criminals and the gang related shootings, etc. Oh, now I understand why you'd want to not talk about them - you know, the actual vast majority of shootings and murders.
Which gets back to the idea of the NYT and their habit of only reporting about a mass shooting or only reporting in a story about the shooters race when he's white. Go back and actually read the article this time.
Actually, I think this is Coulter's point. The best part is this quote: "What is the point of this deception? To allow clueless Times' readers to keep telling themselves that most mass shooters are white men?"
I only know one poster here that regularly links and claims the bastion of truth being the NYT, lol. I think she just described him.
Thanks for that, I guess. But it's behind their paywall so I only get to see a tiny amount. I'll have to take your word for what it allegedly says, or more importantly doesn't say.
And that ISN'T her premise. It's that the NYT is sure to report on any mass shooting where the shooter is a white male and that when they do so, they will specifically point out that the shooter was a white male. Further, while they may sometimes report on other mass shootings involving those of other races, when the shooter isn't a white male, the aspect of race is highly likely to be left out of the article.
Because the NYT and other MSM are deciding what is “natty headlines, big events”. How does that escape you?
I said there ELEVEN mass shootings. Where am I changing the definition?
Don't be drama queen. If i'm close to defining anything it is for something that might be reported by NYT versus larger outlets like CNN & Fox.
"Of the 25 mass shooters, 17 were black, five were white (one nonbinary and one in a dress), one was Asian and one was Hispanic. The Times gave the race of only two of the perpetrators."
So in three of the articles they failed to mention the fact that the perp was WHITE. She minimizes her (and your) stoopid point right there.
Here's Fox' article, no mention of race - https://www.foxnews.com/us/seven-juveniles-wounded-downtown-indianapolis-shooting-police-say
Funny thing, she mentions Jacksonville, Fl - that was an incredibly racist act. And here is Foxnews listing the shooter as.... WHITE!
Who was the ‘racially motivated’ Dollar General shooter who killed 3 Black Americans?
Authorities identified Ryan Christopher Palmeter as the man who opened fire in a Jacksonville, Florida, Dollar General that left three Black Americans dead.
Florida sheriff identifies victims of Dollar General store shooting, releases 'sickening' surveillance clips
Jacksonville, Florida Sheriff T.K. Waters identified the three victims in Saturday's shooting at a Dollar General, while also releasing short clips of moments before the shooting.
They said venezualn in the the venezualan teen shooting... even the word "immigrant"!
They said Asian in the other two shootings. You are reaching.
Again. There were 11 that weekend. Did NYT talk about any of the others?
Similar threads
