Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I went back and looked ,and this was my post about that article. I said there was an amount of stupid in that article....nothing in what I said there about religion.
You, old dog, mentioned the headline. I didn't write that, take it up with Huffington. Christ.

Ha ha ha, oh, please stop!

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7616378.html

please consider the amount of stupid in the comments above when you enter the voting booth.

Originally Posted by OldDog

You mean the comments posted by the readers at the bottom, right? Because the comments of "These Republicans" nowhere deny racism's role as the headline implies. They do express a desire for the process to work and call roof evil, twisted and depraved.

As opposed to the President's rush to judgement with regard to gun laws.

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, i'm talking about the politicians who tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims.

Originally Posted by OldDog

Interesting. And the one who said that it had nothing to do with race was...?

Originally Posted by Danzig

And then you changed the subject.
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57039
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Danzig

i will try to do better in future of limiting my comments only to linked articles in a particular post...i'll keep in mind that having a broader conversation is too difficult without posting links to support every sentence i write.

So, a lot of people, asked in the dawn of the immediate aftermath of a horrific event, of which they did not know all the facts, speculated that a shooting at a church might have something to do with religion. Later, when it was reported with reliable sources that the shooter's motivation was to shoot blacks, everyone knew what sort of evil had reared its head. But of course you would have immediately known because of your sage, prescient nature, and of course with a lot of help from the media who never hesitate to jump to conclusions, which this time happened to be correct.

I'm not here to dissect your every phrase, but when you say something and then deny having said it, do you really think no one will notice? It's not like you're the President.

Originally Posted by Danzig

if you ever actually want to discuss the actual topic, old dog, you just let me know.

This is rich.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Ha ha ha, oh, please stop!











And then you changed the subject.
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57039
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, a lot of people, asked in the dawn of the immediate aftermath of a horrific event, of which they did not know all the facts, speculated that a shooting at a church might have something to do with religion. Later, when it was reported with reliable sources that the shooter's motivation was to shoot blacks, everyone knew what sort of evil had reared its head. But of course you would have immediately known because of your sage, prescient nature, and of course with a lot of help from the media who never hesitate to jump to conclusions, which this time happened to be correct.

I'm not here to dissect your every phrase, but when you say something and then deny having said it, do you really think no one will notice? It's not like you're the President.



This is rich.

everyone knew other than haley when she first spoke, when the subject was broached to them, that the shooter had said what he said.
you'll note that the article says about haley, something along the lines of she 'can be forgiven because it was so soon after'.

that's why it was notable, their comments-because everyone already knew what he'd said.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, a lot of people, asked in the dawn of the immediate aftermath of a horrific event, of which they did not know all the facts, speculated that a shooting at a church might have something to do with religion. Later, when it was reported with reliable sources that the shooter's motivation was to shoot blacks, everyone knew what sort of evil had reared its head. But of course you would have immediately known because of your sage, prescient nature, and of course with a lot of help from the media who never hesitate to jump to conclusions, which this time happened to be correct.

I would actually assume Danzig was drawing on the long history of American whites attacking black churches via shootings, arson, and vandalism as a means of terrorizing and subjugating African Americans, as opposed to the very sparse history of Americans shooting Christians in church, or vandalizing Christian churches or torching them due to issues with the Christian religion. This has nothing to do with her being prescient, and everything to do with her having a solid knowledge of American history.

[Danzig]

and now there have been several arsons in the last few days of black churches in tennesse and north carolina, and a fire at a church in south carolina is being investigated.

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/29/418490...outhern-states

[Danzig]

another fire, at an SC church that suffered a previous arson by members of the kkk.
it's under investigation, they aren't sure yet what caused it.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/emergency...arolina-church

[OldDog]

bsnbc selectively quotes the Post & Courier -- color me shocked.

http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...PC16/150709967

"Why isn't this the lead story?"

Just a guess, but perhaps because it wasn't arson?

These network participants are either willingly duplicitous race baiters pandering to morons, or morons themselves.