“The only way to change it would be to kill the problem out. I know it’s bad to say but without killing them out there’s no way to fix it.”
I’m not reading all that… I stopped when you attempted to claim the left always try to be a victim.
Dont waste my time with obvious ■■■■■■■■■
1 Like
You’re in a vast minority. Politics is a team sport and voters tend to overlook or give their party of choice a pass over voting otherwise. You must know this.
1 Like
So, this occurs to me.
Where in there does he advocate that people do rise up and kill them out? The mayor makes an observation that, if those who would in earlier times be regarded as sexual deviants keep on pushing the legislative envelope on social mores, there will be no end to the civic decline until something kills them out so that they are no longer pushing.
There is no call to violence against gays and transvestites in that statement, is there?
And it’s hard to see that the observation is at all false, considering the record so far of sexual outliers moving the legislative goalposts.
The mayor’s sentiment sounds awfully familiar with a story Ken Klippenstein broke…
“Why are we just apprehending them and not lining them up and shooting them?” Brant alleged Gonzalez asked about a group that had been detained. “We have to go back to Hitler days and put them all in a gas chamber.”
The mayor is really just part of the American Taliban…if they had their way gays would be killed off, women would be baby factories and segregation would be back legally.
I was just quoting him. Not at all false? Killing who would accomplish what exactly?
Did you not read my post? Your question’s answer was in there.
I did. The mayor thinks that killing homosexuals, “transvestites,” and socialists (or minorities in general given his facebook comment) would “kill the problem out.” It seemed like you agreed with that and I just wanted to give you a chance to clarify.
Which you did.
Real class act there
The stories from the border are a nightmare. Dead kids, nooses in cells, Nazi sympathizers, and on and on it goes.
I was going to raise my hand as to having done so but then I went back and reread the thread and noticed I never outright condemned his behavior, just took to task the people defending it.
1 Like
That’s at least something. I sincerely commend you for that
When you say “the only solution is to kill all LGTBQs”, it is an objectively bad thing to say.
You talk about the libs being all about “victimization” while at the same time trying to make the mayor who said this thing the victim of this tale.
If you can’t see how ridiculous that is…there is no helping you.
1 Like
Dems hate problem solvers.
1 Like
LOL. Where did I say that. Victim-merchants posting in this thread are confusing making an observation with incitement. There are islands which have been nesting sites for birds for centuries before rats and mice escaped from visiting ships onto them. The birds never had to deal with predators. Albatrosses brooding on eggs will not leave their position on the nest, and are attacked at night by mice and rats that climb on their back and eat their way into the live bird until it dies. One could make the rational observation that the only solution to the problem is to kill them off. That’s just making an observation. That doesn’t mean I am calling for them to be killed off, nor that I am volunteering to kill them off.
Someone who thinks mice and rats are equal to humans and birds may be offended by that observation. Does their offendedness mean I am not entitled to even make the observation? Now, they may be killed off by eventually eating all the birds and each other so that the albatrosses can again safely use the island for nesting. Or they may be killed off by some disease or some bird-friendly predator of rodents, or human conservationists. But until they are killed off, it seems like the problem will remain.
When you have to write 10,000 words to avoid condemning an objectively bad statement…something no one here but you had a problem doing, btw…you are either trolling all of us or deep deep DEEP in rationalization mode.
That is all.
1 Like
Why does one need to condemn an objectively bad statement that the author in making it called it “bad”? And why should we all condemn the person making an observation that they admitted was unsavoury, even to them.
I’ll tell you why. Because he’s not a Leftist and is in a position of power that leftists want to have for themselves. So, as a way of vacating the seat and making it available to a Leftist, it is strategically advantageous to use the observation to demonise the encumbent.
If he was a Democrat saying the same thing in relation to Trump’s agenda and those helping to advance that, the quote would not have been found or noticed by the left, but ignored or buried or justified, because then it would have been said with good progressive intentions in mind. Look at how the left responded to the shooting of the Republican reps baseball team.
OK, I’ll bite. Show me quotes from people on this forum that justified the shooting of the Republican representatives baseball time.
Responses from the left to the shooting of Republican baseballers -
Liberal Nate Bayna stated, “Guess they should’ve been golfing with Trump or working on a bill to get guns away from the crazed.”
Another liberal said, “Thomas Hess It’s awful but one of first thoughts was that I hope this shooter isn’t a person of color or a non-Christian. Just another white Christian terrorist. They’re not as bad.”
“Well, well what have we here? The gun loving, gun pushing republicans got a taste of their own medicine? Let’s see what the NRA has to say,” liberal Ian Barnett said.
If the shooting incident wasn’t bad enough, another liberal stated that it was too bad that it wasn’t President Trump who was shot.
How the Democrat-supporting hierarchy of the FBI responded -
