Jump to content

SC nightclub shooting !


77

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bobcat1 said:

I see what you're saying, but no one died in this instance.

Exactly why you didn't hear much about it...the shooter was stopped by a conceal carry holder that didn't wind up killing everyone in sight.

Also, looks like the bad guy should not have even been able to have a gun, if that's the case, more gun control laws wouldn't help.

As 77 stated, none of this fits the left's/media's agenda, in fact, it hurts it, so it becomes a non-story.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a national news story. Even if it was noteworthy (which it isn't).....

1. No one died.

2. A good guy shot and stopped the bad guy.

3. There is no political agenda.

 

NOW with that in mind....  If someone ever says Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown, we should all be saying, "who are they?". Those should never have been national news stories either. For any explanation, see #3 above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, tvc184 said:

It isn't a national news story. Even if it was noteworthy (which it isn't).....

1. No one died.

2. A good guy shot and stopped the bad guy.

3. There is no political agenda.

 

NOW with that in mind....  If someone ever says Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown, we should all be saying, "who are they?". Those should never have been national news stories either. For any explanation, see #3 above. 

An unarmed teenager being murdered is a national news story. These days McDonalds coming out with a new burger is national news

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

An unarmed teenager being murdered is a national news story. These days McDonalds coming out with a new burger is national news

It is a national story only because it fit an agenda. The unarmed teenager attacked a man, slammed his head in the ground and was killed in self defense.  That is not national news and if it was then we need a self-defense news channel to cover all such local incidents. 

Just like the Michael Brown self defense case, the local DA did an investigation and found no evidence to prove a criminal offense.  In Florida they have a law that allows a prosecutor to coming in and indict without a grand jury. The probable cause affidavit in that case was laughable.  Then with all the evidence they could muster, they could not find a guilty verdict from a jury, which one of the jurors publicly stated, wanted to convict but could find no evidence to support it. 

 In Missouri the US Justice Department came in and spent who knows how many thousands or possibly millions of dollars to try to indict a local officer but they were stuck with the fact that they had to go to a grand jury (unlike FL) and again, could find no evidence to even indict, much less convict. 

Oh wait, the DA in both cases had it correct before a local issue became a national incident to try and push that agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...