Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you mind if I ask if you tend toward liberal or conservative? I'm getting "hints" that much of the hatred is coming from the left,but I could be wrong.

NP. I'm a liberal and totally sympathize with Otto Warmbier. My heart aches for his parents. Thousands of tourists go to North Korea every year and the worst that happens to them is that their camera gets confiscated. He did not deserve to die.

NP here. I'm very ignorant about tourism in N Korea and would never travel there. Didn't realize they had so many tourists. Do you mean families? I would never take that risk.

About 4,000 to 6,000 Western tourists visit North Korea every year. Tourists can only go on organized tours and are not allowed to walk around by themselves. At the end of the visit, you give your camera to an official/soldier and he goes through it deleting any pictures he wants to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, it sounds like "La Sha" was raised in a hate filled home, so I am not at all surprised by her response to this tragedy.

I just don't get the double standard.

On one hand, we have an ex-con with prison time for assault, banishing a stolen gun near a schoolyard, and defying police who ordered him 11 times to drop his gun - and the encounter ends in his swift death. Liberals are bemoaning the fate of the man, whom they refuse to admit had any role in his demise. He was black.

On the other hand, we have a 21-year-old student at UVA, who had completed a semester at the London School of Economics and was studying abroad. He makes a stupid mistake in taking a poster (if he even did), never threatened anyone, never imprisoned for assault. But he is not only killed, he endures a horrific experience and Lord-knows-what before it all ends. Yet, we have people saying he's an idiot who deserved it, and is responsible for his own actions. He was white.

Why all the sympathy and excuses for a violent ex-con and the disgusting lack of compassion for a college kid who never hurt anyone? The difference is black and white. (Double meaning intended.)

White tears

Not true at all. Many people would agree with PP.

I'm the PP (who outlined the difference between the two deaths), and I had to look up the term "white tears." Now that I know its meaning, I would say that the responder who used it proves my point even further. Why is the violent ex-con who has assault on his record a more sympathetic figure than a college kid who never hurt anyone? I feel much worse for this kid and what he went through than I do for the ex-con. The college kid suffered much worse.

Because in liberal PC America it is only acceptable to feel sorry for/sympathize with people who have been oppressed in history including people of color, homosexuals, women, Jews, Muslims, etc. If you are a straight white Christian male, you will never be worthy of sympathy, no matter the situation. You are a representation of the oppressor from years past and you also get to enjoy white privilege which makes you automatically unworthy of sympathy.

Well said.

I believe Otto was Jewish.

Maybe that's why Obama wrote him off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you mind if I ask if you tend toward liberal or conservative? I'm getting "hints" that much of the hatred is coming from the left,but I could be wrong.

NP. I'm a liberal and totally sympathize with Otto Warmbier. My heart aches for his parents. Thousands of tourists go to North Korea every year and the worst that happens to them is that their camera gets confiscated. He did not deserve to die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, it sounds like "La Sha" was raised in a hate filled home, so I am not at all surprised by her response to this tragedy.

I just don't get the double standard.

On one hand, we have an ex-con with prison time for assault, banishing a stolen gun near a schoolyard, and defying police who ordered him 11 times to drop his gun - and the encounter ends in his swift death. Liberals are bemoaning the fate of the man, whom they refuse to admit had any role in his demise. He was black.

On the other hand, we have a 21-year-old student at UVA, who had completed a semester at the London School of Economics and was studying abroad. He makes a stupid mistake in taking a poster (if he even did), never threatened anyone, never imprisoned for assault. But he is not only killed, he endures a horrific experience and Lord-knows-what before it all ends. Yet, we have people saying he's an idiot who deserved it, and is responsible for his own actions. He was white.

Why all the sympathy and excuses for a violent ex-con and the disgusting lack of compassion for a college kid who never hurt anyone? The difference is black and white. (Double meaning intended.)

White tears

Not true at all. Many people would agree with PP.

I'm the PP (who outlined the difference between the two deaths), and I had to look up the term "white tears." Now that I know its meaning, I would say that the responder who used it proves my point even further. Why is the violent ex-con who has assault on his record a more sympathetic figure than a college kid who never hurt anyone? I feel much worse for this kid and what he went through than I do for the ex-con. The college kid suffered much worse.

The college kid suffered much worse at the end of his life; the ex-con likely suffered just as much in the beginning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you mind if I ask if you tend toward liberal or conservative? I'm getting "hints" that much of the hatred is coming from the left,but I could be wrong.

NP. I'm a liberal and totally sympathize with Otto Warmbier. My heart aches for his parents. Thousands of tourists go to North Korea every year and the worst that happens to them is that their camera gets confiscated. He did not deserve to die.

NP here. I'm very ignorant about tourism in N Korea and would never travel there. Didn't realize they had so many tourists. Do you mean families? I would never take that risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you mind if I ask if you tend toward liberal or conservative? I'm getting "hints" that much of the hatred is coming from the left,but I could be wrong.

NP. I'm a liberal and totally sympathize with Otto Warmbier. My heart aches for his parents. Thousands of tourists go to North Korea every year and the worst that happens to them is that their camera gets confiscated. He did not deserve to die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, it sounds like "La Sha" was raised in a hate filled home, so I am not at all surprised by her response to this tragedy.

I just don't get the double standard.

On one hand, we have an ex-con with prison time for assault, banishing a stolen gun near a schoolyard, and defying police who ordered him 11 times to drop his gun - and the encounter ends in his swift death. Liberals are bemoaning the fate of the man, whom they refuse to admit had any role in his demise. He was black.

On the other hand, we have a 21-year-old student at UVA, who had completed a semester at the London School of Economics and was studying abroad. He makes a stupid mistake in taking a poster (if he even did), never threatened anyone, never imprisoned for assault. But he is not only killed, he endures a horrific experience and Lord-knows-what before it all ends. Yet, we have people saying he's an idiot who deserved it, and is responsible for his own actions. He was white.

Why all the sympathy and excuses for a violent ex-con and the disgusting lack of compassion for a college kid who never hurt anyone? The difference is black and white. (Double meaning intended.)

White tears

Not true at all. Many people would agree with PP.

I'm the PP (who outlined the difference between the two deaths), and I had to look up the term "white tears." Now that I know its meaning, I would say that the responder who used it proves my point even further. Why is the violent ex-con who has assault on his record a more sympathetic figure than a college kid who never hurt anyone? I feel much worse for this kid and what he went through than I do for the ex-con. The college kid suffered much worse.

Because in liberal PC America it is only acceptable to feel sorry for/sympathize with people who have been oppressed in history including people of color, homosexuals, women, Jews, Muslims, etc. If you are a straight white Christian male, you will never be worthy of sympathy, no matter the situation. You are a representation of the oppressor from years past and you also get to enjoy white privilege which makes you automatically unworthy of sympathy.

Well said.

I believe Otto was Jewish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, it sounds like "La Sha" was raised in a hate filled home, so I am not at all surprised by her response to this tragedy.

I just don't get the double standard.

On one hand, we have an ex-con with prison time for assault, banishing a stolen gun near a schoolyard, and defying police who ordered him 11 times to drop his gun - and the encounter ends in his swift death. Liberals are bemoaning the fate of the man, whom they refuse to admit had any role in his demise. He was black.

On the other hand, we have a 21-year-old student at UVA, who had completed a semester at the London School of Economics and was studying abroad. He makes a stupid mistake in taking a poster (if he even did), never threatened anyone, never imprisoned for assault. But he is not only killed, he endures a horrific experience and Lord-knows-what before it all ends. Yet, we have people saying he's an idiot who deserved it, and is responsible for his own actions. He was white.

Why all the sympathy and excuses for a violent ex-con and the disgusting lack of compassion for a college kid who never hurt anyone? The difference is black and white. (Double meaning intended.)

White tears

Not true at all. Many people would agree with PP.

I'm the PP (who outlined the difference between the two deaths), and I had to look up the term "white tears." Now that I know its meaning, I would say that the responder who used it proves my point even further. Why is the violent ex-con who has assault on his record a more sympathetic figure than a college kid who never hurt anyone? I feel much worse for this kid and what he went through than I do for the ex-con. The college kid suffered much worse.

Because in liberal PC America it is only acceptable to feel sorry for/sympathize with people who have been oppressed in history including people of color, homosexuals, women, Jews, Muslims, etc. If you are a straight white Christian male, you will never be worthy of sympathy, no matter the situation. You are a representation of the oppressor from years past and you also get to enjoy white privilege which makes you automatically unworthy of sympathy.

Well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Do you mind if I ask if you tend toward liberal or conservative? I'm getting "hints" that much of the hatred is coming from the left,but I could be wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, it sounds like "La Sha" was raised in a hate filled home, so I am not at all surprised by her response to this tragedy.

I just don't get the double standard.

On one hand, we have an ex-con with prison time for assault, banishing a stolen gun near a schoolyard, and defying police who ordered him 11 times to drop his gun - and the encounter ends in his swift death. Liberals are bemoaning the fate of the man, whom they refuse to admit had any role in his demise. He was black.

On the other hand, we have a 21-year-old student at UVA, who had completed a semester at the London School of Economics and was studying abroad. He makes a stupid mistake in taking a poster (if he even did), never threatened anyone, never imprisoned for assault. But he is not only killed, he endures a horrific experience and Lord-knows-what before it all ends. Yet, we have people saying he's an idiot who deserved it, and is responsible for his own actions. He was white.

Why all the sympathy and excuses for a violent ex-con and the disgusting lack of compassion for a college kid who never hurt anyone? The difference is black and white. (Double meaning intended.)

White tears

Not true at all. Many people would agree with PP.

I'm the PP (who outlined the difference between the two deaths), and I had to look up the term "white tears." Now that I know its meaning, I would say that the responder who used it proves my point even further. Why is the violent ex-con who has assault on his record a more sympathetic figure than a college kid who never hurt anyone? I feel much worse for this kid and what he went through than I do for the ex-con. The college kid suffered much worse.

Because in liberal PC America it is only acceptable to feel sorry for/sympathize with people who have been oppressed in history including people of color, homosexuals, women, Jews, Muslims, etc. If you are a straight white Christian male, you will never be worthy of sympathy, no matter the situation. You are a representation of the oppressor from years past and you also get to enjoy white privilege which makes you automatically unworthy of sympathy.

Well said.

More like a crock of shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, it sounds like "La Sha" was raised in a hate filled home, so I am not at all surprised by her response to this tragedy.

I just don't get the double standard.

On one hand, we have an ex-con with prison time for assault, banishing a stolen gun near a schoolyard, and defying police who ordered him 11 times to drop his gun - and the encounter ends in his swift death. Liberals are bemoaning the fate of the man, whom they refuse to admit had any role in his demise. He was black.

On the other hand, we have a 21-year-old student at UVA, who had completed a semester at the London School of Economics and was studying abroad. He makes a stupid mistake in taking a poster (if he even did), never threatened anyone, never imprisoned for assault. But he is not only killed, he endures a horrific experience and Lord-knows-what before it all ends. Yet, we have people saying he's an idiot who deserved it, and is responsible for his own actions. He was white.

Why all the sympathy and excuses for a violent ex-con and the disgusting lack of compassion for a college kid who never hurt anyone? The difference is black and white. (Double meaning intended.)

White tears

Not true at all. Many people would agree with PP.

I'm the PP (who outlined the difference between the two deaths), and I had to look up the term "white tears." Now that I know its meaning, I would say that the responder who used it proves my point even further. Why is the violent ex-con who has assault on his record a more sympathetic figure than a college kid who never hurt anyone? I feel much worse for this kid and what he went through than I do for the ex-con. The college kid suffered much worse.

Because in liberal PC America it is only acceptable to feel sorry for/sympathize with people who have been oppressed in history including people of color, homosexuals, women, Jews, Muslims, etc. If you are a straight white Christian male, you will never be worthy of sympathy, no matter the situation. You are a representation of the oppressor from years past and you also get to enjoy white privilege which makes you automatically unworthy of sympathy.

Well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, it sounds like "La Sha" was raised in a hate filled home, so I am not at all surprised by her response to this tragedy.

I just don't get the double standard.

On one hand, we have an ex-con with prison time for assault, banishing a stolen gun near a schoolyard, and defying police who ordered him 11 times to drop his gun - and the encounter ends in his swift death. Liberals are bemoaning the fate of the man, whom they refuse to admit had any role in his demise. He was black.

On the other hand, we have a 21-year-old student at UVA, who had completed a semester at the London School of Economics and was studying abroad. He makes a stupid mistake in taking a poster (if he even did), never threatened anyone, never imprisoned for assault. But he is not only killed, he endures a horrific experience and Lord-knows-what before it all ends. Yet, we have people saying he's an idiot who deserved it, and is responsible for his own actions. He was white.

Why all the sympathy and excuses for a violent ex-con and the disgusting lack of compassion for a college kid who never hurt anyone? The difference is black and white. (Double meaning intended.)

White tears

Not true at all. Many people would agree with PP.

I'm the PP (who outlined the difference between the two deaths), and I had to look up the term "white tears." Now that I know its meaning, I would say that the responder who used it proves my point even further. Why is the violent ex-con who has assault on his record a more sympathetic figure than a college kid who never hurt anyone? I feel much worse for this kid and what he went through than I do for the ex-con. The college kid suffered much worse.

Because in liberal PC America it is only acceptable to feel sorry for/sympathize with people who have been oppressed in history including people of color, homosexuals, women, Jews, Muslims, etc. If you are a straight white Christian male, you will never be worthy of sympathy, no matter the situation. You are a representation of the oppressor from years past and you also get to enjoy white privilege which makes you automatically unworthy of sympathy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, it sounds like "La Sha" was raised in a hate filled home, so I am not at all surprised by her response to this tragedy.

I just don't get the double standard.

On one hand, we have an ex-con with prison time for assault, banishing a stolen gun near a schoolyard, and defying police who ordered him 11 times to drop his gun - and the encounter ends in his swift death. Liberals are bemoaning the fate of the man, whom they refuse to admit had any role in his demise. He was black.

On the other hand, we have a 21-year-old student at UVA, who had completed a semester at the London School of Economics and was studying abroad. He makes a stupid mistake in taking a poster (if he even did), never threatened anyone, never imprisoned for assault. But he is not only killed, he endures a horrific experience and Lord-knows-what before it all ends. Yet, we have people saying he's an idiot who deserved it, and is responsible for his own actions. He was white.

Why all the sympathy and excuses for a violent ex-con and the disgusting lack of compassion for a college kid who never hurt anyone? The difference is black and white. (Double meaning intended.)

White tears

Not true at all. Many people would agree with PP.

I'm the PP (who outlined the difference between the two deaths), and I had to look up the term "white tears." Now that I know its meaning, I would say that the responder who used it proves my point even further. Why is the violent ex-con who has assault on his record a more sympathetic figure than a college kid who never hurt anyone? I feel much worse for this kid and what he went through than I do for the ex-con. The college kid suffered much worse.