or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by BR

Again, with the potential of this being Islamic terror, I am concerned for the safety of Muslims in this country.  I only hoped the bomber were homegrown, right-wing, and white because it would be highly unlikely that white people would be targeted in the streets or gunned down in their churches as reprisals for Boston's bombing.   Sikh Temple.  Enough said.
White people weren't racially profiled after that dumbfuck, unable to distinguish different non-white cultures, killed several folks in that Sikh temple.  There would be less collateral damage against the race of the bombers if those bombers were right-wing white loons.  Remember, it's generally not the liberals that go out and seek vengeance against random brown people.  Liberals and ethnic minorities in this country would be much safer if the bombers were right-wing...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/west-point-report-americas-violent-far-right/61181/   I'm sure you'll find fault with the West Point study showing the sharp spike in right-wing terror, too.  
Right wing extremist groups have absolutely proliferated during the Obama administration.   http://www.splcenter.org/home/splc-report-antigovernment-patriot-movement-continues-explosive-growth-poses-rising-threat-of-v#.UXC-t7Wsh8E   http://www.splcenter.org/home/2013/spring/the-year-in-hate-and-extremism#.UXC_GLWsh8E        
Sure, it's possible to have white left wing terrorists.  The odds are just very much stacked against it.
Ron Paul is a creationist. Ergo, wacko in a particular way. That's just one example. There are many others. The key, though, is that it's not just that Ron Paul has a difference in opinion, or even that it is a stark difference. It's that he's absolutely, utterly WRONG in the face of MOUNTAINS of evidence. That's what makes creationists wackos.
 And your thoughts on this are?
There exists consensus. Just stop already. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Republicans still haven't learned.  Shocking.  It is ludicrous to claim that 47% pay no income taxes and thus have "no skin in the game" without recognizing the payroll taxes that are paid and the fact that the 47% number includes children, the elderly, the disabled, and the ultrapoor.  Of course, the logical conclusions to the "no skin in the game" comment is to raise taxes on the poor or disenfranchise their votes.  Gee, those are the two things that Republicans have...
New Posts  All Forums: