Kentucky shooter said to be white

[Anonymous]

I agree with most everything Jeff writes (ok, I don’t visit the political forum here) and am 100% certain he can write what he wants. But no adult should be using “butt hurt.” Ever. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

If you're as sad/mad/fired up about this as I am about this, think about joining: https://momsdemandaction.org/ Let's do more than 'thoughts and prayers'. Our kids deserve it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the poster had written “shooter is Muslim” without a link, would it have been deleted?

The butt hurt among you folks is amazing. The fact that two kids are dead and the only issue that matters to you is the race of the shooter is truly sad.

I wouldn’t have thought it was necessary to explain all of this, but I will. When the OP of this thread posted her request for a link, she replied to the wrong message. She didn’t reply to the post saying that the shooter was white. Instead, she replied to a response to that post saying that only thoughts and prayers would be necessary in that case (ironically, or maybe predictably, exactly what Trump tweeted yesterday). So, the OP of this thread was literally asking for a link showing that only thoughts and prayers would be necessary. That didn’t make much sense. Subsequently, the OP of this thread posted a second message saying, “still no link showing that the shooter is white”. Given that no request for such a link had technically been made, that post also didn’t make much sense. So, I removed both of them. By the time I got around to doing this, it was pretty clear the shooter was white in any case.

As posters in that thread predicted, we have already moved on from those killings with nothing more than thoughts and prayers. We willingly sacrifice our children in exchange for unfettered access to guns. We don’t even bother to discuss our acceptance of this. But, because one white person’s feelings were ruffled along the way, this discussion continues. It is a perverse reality in which we live.

In other words, you did say it and are now twisting in the wind to explain the hypocrisy. Soapbox is a nice touch.

[Anonymous]

DUH... usually a white dude

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the poster had written “shooter is Muslim” without a link, would it have been deleted?

The butt hurt among you folks is amazing. The fact that two kids are dead and the only issue that matters to you is the race of the shooter is truly sad.

I wouldn’t have thought it was necessary to explain all of this, but I will. When the OP of this thread posted her request for a link, she replied to the wrong message. She didn’t reply to the post saying that the shooter was white. Instead, she replied to a response to that post saying that only thoughts and prayers would be necessary in that case (ironically, or maybe predictably, exactly what Trump tweeted yesterday). So, the OP of this thread was literally asking for a link showing that only thoughts and prayers would be necessary. That didn’t make much sense. Subsequently, the OP of this thread posted a second message saying, “still no link showing that the shooter is white”. Given that no request for such a link had technically been made, that post also didn’t make much sense. So, I removed both of them. By the time I got around to doing this, it was pretty clear the shooter was white in any case.

As posters in that thread predicted, we have already moved on from those killings with nothing more than thoughts and prayers. We willingly sacrifice our children in exchange for unfettered access to guns. We don’t even bother to discuss our acceptance of this. But, because one white person’s feelings were ruffled along the way, this discussion continues. It is a perverse reality in which we live.

In other words, you did say it and are now twisting in the wind to explain the hypocrisy. Soapbox is a nice touch.

What did I say?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t you just write this statement in another thread, Jeff?

“We have a very clearly documented policy that requires discussion along with a link.”

This thread is about a link along with discussion. You are getting things backwards.

'

I think that PP has it correct and you are doing your typical spin.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t you just write this statement in another thread, Jeff?

“We have a very clearly documented policy that requires discussion along with a link.”

This thread is about a link along with discussion. You are getting things backwards.

'

I think that PP has it correct and you are doing your typical spin.

I love that you think that you understand what I write better than I do. But, let’s test your abilities. The quote of me is from a thread that I closed because it was a link only. We require that links be accompanied by discussion. With that in mind, given your apparent belief that the quote is relevant to your post, to which link-only post were you referring?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
As posters in that thread predicted, we have already moved on from those killings with nothing more than thoughts and prayers. We willingly sacrifice our children in exchange for unfettered access to guns. We don’t even bother to discuss our acceptance of this. But, because one white person’s feelings were ruffled along the way, this discussion continues. It is a perverse reality in which we live.

Truth!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t you just write this statement in another thread, Jeff?

“We have a very clearly documented policy that requires discussion along with a link.”

This thread is about a link along with discussion. You are getting things backwards.

'

I think that PP has it correct and you are doing your typical spin.

I love that you think that you understand what I write better than I do. But, let’s test your abilities. The quote of me is from a thread that I closed because it was a link only. We require that links be accompanied by discussion. With that in mind, given your apparent belief that the quote is relevant to your post, to which link-only post were you referring?

Doesn’t matter. You also deleted posts on Farrakhan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t you just write this statement in another thread, Jeff?

“We have a very clearly documented policy that requires discussion along with a link.”

This thread is about a link along with discussion. You are getting things backwards.

'

I think that PP has it correct and you are doing your typical spin.

I love that you think that you understand what I write better than I do. But, let’s test your abilities. The quote of me is from a thread that I closed because it was a link only. We require that links be accompanied by discussion. With that in mind, given your apparent belief that the quote is relevant to your post, to which link-only post were you referring?

Doesn’t matter. You also deleted posts on Farrakhan

Were they posts on what a raging anti-Semite he is and Obama's standing next to him? Jeff will excuse that, but I wouldn't be caught dead in the same building with that sorry excuse for a human being. But then again, I wouldn't sit in a church with a pastor who says GD America.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t you just write this statement in another thread, Jeff?

“We have a very clearly documented policy that requires discussion along with a link.”

This thread is about a link along with discussion. You are getting things backwards.

'

I think that PP has it correct and you are doing your typical spin.

I love that you think that you understand what I write better than I do. But, let’s test your abilities. The quote of me is from a thread that I closed because it was a link only. We require that links be accompanied by discussion. With that in mind, given your apparent belief that the quote is relevant to your post, to which link-only post were you referring?

Doesn’t matter. You also deleted posts on Farrakhan

Were they posts on what a raging anti-Semite he is and Obama's standing next to him? Jeff will excuse that, but I wouldn't be caught dead in the same building with that sorry excuse for a human being. But then again, I wouldn't sit in a church with a pastor who says GD America.

Don’t the two of you have something better to do? Your obsession with me is unhealthy.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t you just write this statement in another thread, Jeff?

“We have a very clearly documented policy that requires discussion along with a link.”

This thread is about a link along with discussion. You are getting things backwards.

'

I think that PP has it correct and you are doing your typical spin.

I love that you think that you understand what I write better than I do. But, let’s test your abilities. The quote of me is from a thread that I closed because it was a link only. We require that links be accompanied by discussion. With that in mind, given your apparent belief that the quote is relevant to your post, to which link-only post were you referring?

Doesn’t matter. You also deleted posts on Farrakhan

Were they posts on what a raging anti-Semite he is and Obama's standing next to him? Jeff will excuse that, but I wouldn't be caught dead in the same building with that sorry excuse for a human being. But then again, I wouldn't sit in a church with a pastor who says GD America.

Don’t the two of you have something better to do? Your obsession with me is unhealthy.

So you're OK not only with Obama smiling for a photo OP with the #1 anti-Semite in the country, but the biased journalist hiding it? Can you imagine if there was a photo of Trump standing next to the Grand Wizard of the KKK? And that a reporter hid it so as not to hurt his election odds?

I notice you didn't say it was awful, just hit back with a personal insult. It's bad enough when the other liberals on this forum do that, but when it's the moderator, well.....

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t you just write this statement in another thread, Jeff?

“We have a very clearly documented policy that requires discussion along with a link.”

This thread is about a link along with discussion. You are getting things backwards.

'

I think that PP has it correct and you are doing your typical spin.

I love that you think that you understand what I write better than I do. But, let’s test your abilities. The quote of me is from a thread that I closed because it was a link only. We require that links be accompanied by discussion. With that in mind, given your apparent belief that the quote is relevant to your post, to which link-only post were you referring?

Doesn’t matter. You also deleted posts on Farrakhan

Were they posts on what a raging anti-Semite he is and Obama's standing next to him? Jeff will excuse that, but I wouldn't be caught dead in the same building with that sorry excuse for a human being. But then again, I wouldn't sit in a church with a pastor who says GD America.

Don’t the two of you have something better to do? Your obsession with me is unhealthy.

So you're OK not only with Obama smiling for a photo OP with the #1 anti-Semite in the country, but the biased journalist hiding it? Can you imagine if there was a photo of Trump standing next to the Grand Wizard of the KKK? And that a reporter hid it so as not to hurt his election odds?

I notice you didn't say it was awful, just hit back with a personal insult. It's bad enough when the other liberals on this forum do that, but when it's the moderator, well.....

Trump says Nazis are very fine people and you fully support him. So don’t lecture me about anti-Semitism.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t you just write this statement in another thread, Jeff?

“We have a very clearly documented policy that requires discussion along with a link.”

This thread is about a link along with discussion. You are getting things backwards.

'

I think that PP has it correct and you are doing your typical spin.

I love that you think that you understand what I write better than I do. But, let’s test your abilities. The quote of me is from a thread that I closed because it was a link only. We require that links be accompanied by discussion. With that in mind, given your apparent belief that the quote is relevant to your post, to which link-only post were you referring?

Doesn’t matter. You also deleted posts on Farrakhan

Were they posts on what a raging anti-Semite he is and Obama's standing next to him? Jeff will excuse that, but I wouldn't be caught dead in the same building with that sorry excuse for a human being. But then again, I wouldn't sit in a church with a pastor who says GD America.

Don’t the two of you have something better to do? Your obsession with me is unhealthy.

So you're OK not only with Obama smiling for a photo OP with the #1 anti-Semite in the country, but the biased journalist hiding it? Can you imagine if there was a photo of Trump standing next to the Grand Wizard of the KKK? And that a reporter hid it so as not to hurt his election odds?

I notice you didn't say it was awful, just hit back with a personal insult. It's bad enough when the other liberals on this forum do that, but when it's the moderator, well.....

Trump says Nazis are very fine people and you fully support him. So don’t lecture me about anti-Semitism.

He never said Nazis are very fine people. That's yet another perversion of the truth that liberals are prone to. He was talking about people who didn't want historical statues taken down.

So....you still cannot say Farrakhan is a horrible human being and anyone who associates with him is horrible as well? Can you admit that?

[Anonymous]

^^^ also! how do you know I "fully support" Trump? There are aspects I do not support. But overall, I do prefer his policies to the liberal ones.