Republicans jumping into the Paris fray, saying all the wrong things...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right wingers have no shame in exploiting tragedy.

Schadenfreude. They're giddy that they have the opportunity to say "we told you so" even though no one has definitively linked the tragedy to ISIS or Syrian or Iraqi refugees/migrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if the people of Paris had requested a safe space.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff Duncan obviously does not understand that the Paris terrorists are exactly the people that the Syrian refugees were trying to get AWAY from when they left Syria.

How can you be so sure that none of the refugees are actually members of ISIS? You cannot. If it turns out. That even one of the perpetrators came in with refugees, they will all be expelled from every country in Europe.

How do I know you aren't a member of ISIS? I don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wingers have no shame in exploiting tragedy.

Schadenfreude. They're giddy that they have the opportunity to say "we told you so" even though no one has definitively linked the tragedy to ISIS or Syrian or Iraqi refugees/migrants.

How about to Islam? Are you willing to link it to Islam?

Maybe it was the Scots? Israelis? I know - the Irish!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see how the killers entered the country. What exactly has been France's contribution to fighting ISIS or should I say ISIL, can't keep that straight.

Are you saying France should be more or less involved? France is carrying out strikes against Syria and is fighting in Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Let me know when I can judge all Christians by the actions of the Westboro freaks.

[Anonymous]

Troll....

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wingers have no shame in exploiting tragedy.

Schadenfreude. They're giddy that they have the opportunity to say "we told you so" even though no one has definitively linked the tragedy to ISIS or Syrian or Iraqi refugees/migrants.

How about to Islam? Are you willing to link it to Islam?

Maybe it was the Scots? Israelis? I know - the Irish!

You will get one warning. This is it. It may very well have been Muslims who committed this atrocity. But, it was not Islam. If I see one more post from you blaming an entire religion for the acts of a small group, I will begin removing every subsequent post of yours that I can identify. I would not put up with an anti-Semite here. I would not put up with a racist. I will certainly not put up with an Islamophobe. I know it is your tendency to argue. I urge you not to do so this time. I have no patience for it. I suggest that you heed this warning and be very careful what and how you post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben Carson referred to ISIS as an "existential" threat in response to the attacks... Is Ben Carson trapped in a book from Camus or Sartre? That might explain a few things...

I am not a Carson fan. Not remotely. But here, it is you who sounds intellectually challenged. "Existential" and "existentialism" mean two different things.

ex·is·ten·tial
?e?z??sten(t)SH(?)l/
adjective
of or relating to existence.
PHILOSOPHY
concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.
LOGIC
(of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.

Ah yes, I am the one who is so profoundly challenged. Obviously they mean totally DIFFERENT things and have NOTHING to do with each other.

LMAO! Thanks for playing, tho.

Nope still wrong. And still dumb.

Ah, I see. So every dictionary on the planet is wrong, because thou sayeth so. We bow down to you, Great Lord of Language.

Pfffft.

[Anonymous]

Was it crisis intervention counselors dropping to their knees to plead with the beserkers to stop the killing that stopped the killing?

No.

It was various members of French law enforcement and special response units, ARMED WITH FIREARMS, who stopped the beserkers with extreme prejudice.

The individuals most vehemently against firearms tend to live cocooned lives, safe behind men (or women) able and willing to use violence in their behalf.

Mustn't let just plain citizens have the right to defend themselves, while you preach from your safety.

But go ahead and ignore every fact inconvenient to your agenda, as you always do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wingers have no shame in exploiting tragedy.

Schadenfreude. They're giddy that they have the opportunity to say "we told you so" even though no one has definitively linked the tragedy to ISIS or Syrian or Iraqi refugees/migrants.

This is how I feel any time a shooting occurs in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben Carson referred to ISIS as an "existential" threat in response to the attacks... Is Ben Carson trapped in a book from Camus or Sartre? That might explain a few things...

I am not a Carson fan. Not remotely. But here, it is you who sounds intellectually challenged. "Existential" and "existentialism" mean two different things.

ex·is·ten·tial
?e?z??sten(t)SH(?)l/
adjective
of or relating to existence.
PHILOSOPHY
concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.
LOGIC
(of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.

Ah yes, I am the one who is so profoundly challenged. Obviously they mean totally DIFFERENT things and have NOTHING to do with each other.

LMAO! Thanks for playing, tho.

Nope still wrong. And still dumb.

Ah, I see. So every dictionary on the planet is wrong, because thou sayeth so. We bow down to you, Great Lord of Language.

Pfffft.

You have conflated two terms that sound alike but in the context used, are unrelated. Past second grade, such nuances become clear to the better readers in the class.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, what Trump really tweeted about 2 hours after the news broke:

"@realDonaldTrump: My prayers are with the victims and hostages in the horrible Paris attacks. May God be with you all."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff Duncan obviously does not understand that the Paris terrorists are exactly the people that the Syrian refugees were trying to get AWAY from when they left Syria.

That's the new left line. It completely ignores that ISIS stated it planned to pretend to be Syrian refugees....

Since when did we take the words of a few and use it to condemn all? That's crazy talk. Or in other words Republican speak/thought process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben Carson referred to ISIS as an "existential" threat in response to the attacks... Is Ben Carson trapped in a book from Camus or Sartre? That might explain a few things...

I am not a Carson fan. Not remotely. But here, it is you who sounds intellectually challenged. "Existential" and "existentialism" mean two different things.

ex·is·ten·tial
?e?z??sten(t)SH(?)l/
adjective
of or relating to existence.
PHILOSOPHY
concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.
LOGIC
(of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.

Ah yes, I am the one who is so profoundly challenged. Obviously they mean totally DIFFERENT things and have NOTHING to do with each other.

LMAO! Thanks for playing, tho.

Nope still wrong. And still dumb.

Ah, I see. So every dictionary on the planet is wrong, because thou sayeth so. We bow down to you, Great Lord of Language.

Pfffft.

You have conflated two terms that sound alike but in the context used, are unrelated. Past second grade, such nuances become clear to the better readers in the class.

Yep. PP needs to let this drop. He/she is in a hole.