Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pittsburgh Synagogue Anti-Maga Shooting

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pittsburgh Synagogue Anti-Maga Shooting

    At least 11 killed with other injured including police officers. Police arrested Robert Bowers who is anti-trump and believes Trump is a puppet for the Jews. Bowers has a strong anti-jew social media presence.

    https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018...squirrel-hill/

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...urgh-synagogue

  • #2
    Uuugh.
    Kung Wu say: "If Chuck Norris had a coach, his name would be Gregg Marshall."

    Comment


    • #3
      I think you meant Anti-Semitic shooting. But you know everything is about dear old Donnie. Jeez.
      Last edited by ShockCrazy; 2 weeks ago.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post
        I think you meant Anti-Semitic shooting. But you know everything is about dear old Donnie. Jeez.
        There's a conclave of media/hollywood/journalist brass who agree unconditionally with that sentiment. It's reckless and disgusting, to put it kindly. But in the least surprising, really.

        Comment


        • KraRam
          KraRam commented
          Editing a comment
          kind of like Donnie blaming the media for everything.

      • #5
        It is insane to blame Trump for this, but the media and leftists will.

        Comment


        • #6
          Obama's fault.
          Kung Wu say: "If Chuck Norris had a coach, his name would be Gregg Marshall."

          Comment


          • #7
            Sometimes I wonder how we got started on this path that someone in power, a political person, a corporation, a boss, a group (like the police) SOMEBODY MUST be blamed and held accountable for the actions of others. Almost without exception. It's ALWAYS the fault of big brother. Kids fail in class, it's the principals fault or the government. A disgusting, warped individual goes into a school and kills the innocent, it's the NRA's fault or the President's or everyone that says the 2nd amendment is the law. Somebody spills a cup of coffee on their lap while DRIVING and it's the corporation's fault for coffee being too hot. WTH When did this start and why? Am I wrong, is this the way it should be? Should the way things work be that more of our own responsibility be the responsibility of those in power or means? Have we been wrong for 250 years?

            Comment


            • shockfan89_
              shockfan89_ commented
              Editing a comment
              And the media needs to also stop all of those same behaviors. President Trump rarely, if ever attacks people, he is the king of the counter punch.

              The bullies in the MSM are not used to someone fighting back. The real issue is Trump is like the school kid that is finally standing up to the bully and now people are crying and whining that he needs to stop. You are correct, he should stop all of those things, but everyone else also needs to stop. It isn't President Trump's fault celebrities, cable news, and others continue to attack. Sure he is the POTUS and he should be a leader, but that approach stopped working with the media about 10 years ago. You reap what you sow! The liberal media has been sowing seeds of hate and identity politics for decades. It is now being reaped and they want to blame the people they have been attacking. Sorry, but President Trump isn't playing by the same rules as the past. He isn't going to change. Hopefully liberals will re-evaluate their tactics after the mid-terms, but I doubt they will. They didn't learn much from 2016...

            • KraRam
              KraRam commented
              Editing a comment
              So your approach is to fall to the level of your attackers? With the media, quit listening, quit supporting, don't buy, boycott, do what ever you feel is necessary to not listen...the President speaks and commands in a way you can't ignore, why...he is the President. He, as the President, has the responsibility, which few seen to understand, to make sure his words are the right ones. He can affect financial markets, start wars, create international incidents, change elections, offer comfort and empathy when most needed, your talking apples and oranges. Yes the media should be truthful and honest, so if you hold one accountable, how about FOX or many others that spew conspiracy theories with no factual backing. How about holding the Russians accountable?

            • shockfan89_
              shockfan89_ commented
              Editing a comment
              No, my approach is don't attack someone and then demonize them for fighting back.

              The problem is, the media is filling the minds of the low-information voter. The one that reads a false headline or watches a ten second clip and believes it. It happens on both sides, Fox News does it as well. It is just the crazy liberals that actually cried on the air the night of a Presidential election are so much more biased that have created this environment where if someone doesn't think exactly as they do, they must be ridiculed, attacked, accused, boycotted, despised and demonized. How can anyone expect a positive outcome? Factor in a President who isn't going to sit by and listen to the lies, and doesn't play by the rules the media dictates, and you get what we have now, a very toxic environment.

              By the way, what exactly are we holding the Russians accountable for? The same thing we do in other countries' elections? Should we be held accountable?

          • #8
            In the McDonald's case, the woman was hospitalized for more than a week. McDonald's had received hundreds of burn complaints before, and McDonald's had research showing consumers drank the coffee while driving. The award took into consideration any negligence on the part of the plaintiff for driving and drinking coffee at the same time.

            If McDonald's corporate policy were to serve hot coffee by splashing it directly on the faces of the consumers, it would've been far more than a $2m case. People regularly cite to this as a case representative of a declining society. It's silly. McDonald's was serving consumers near-boiling coffee and knew people were being hurt by it. It just so happened that one elderly woman was permanently disfigured before there was a news-worthy story out of it.

            Comment


            • WuDrWu
              WuDrWu commented
              Editing a comment
              People want hot coffee. Almost nobody wants lukewarm coffee. Surprisingly enough, when heat ceases to be applied to something, it tends to cool unless you're serving coffee in an open volcanic spout. If you're driving, and you put the coffee between your legs WHILE YOU ARE DRIVING (yes I know she was a passenger and they stopped but she still made the idiotic decision to put a hot drink between her legs), where is your responsibility?

              They didn't serve an iced latte to the person. I'd say they have some responsibility there. They served a hot coffee, that she asked for, that said caution hot. The fact that hundreds of people had been burned SCREAMS to the stupidity of HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH A HOT FREAKING BEVERAGE.


              But while you did your darnedest to explain the McDonald's lawsuit, thank you very much, you didn't do much to explain why we got there.


              And please don't give me the "McDonald's was serving customers near boiling coffee and knew people were being hurt by it" horseshit.

              They serve a few hundred million cups of coffee every week. Even taking for a fact your claim of a "few hundred" complaints of people being burned, that does not prove they are negligent. It's so stupid it defies logic.

              The fact is lawyers, like yourself, get rich off arguing the insane. Like that. Nobody has a problem with somebody getting sued for damages if they were to throw a cup of hot water in someone's face. How is that the same? At all? It's not.

              How about we cap lawsuits for punitive damages, or charge lawyers who lose frivolous lawsuits, or cap the amount a lawyer can make on a suit at say 10% instead of 30-50%? Or how about people just be more responsible for themselves, a little bit, instead of always looking to blame someone else, with deep pockets, just because you can?

            • jdshock
              jdshock commented
              Editing a comment
              WuDrWu - where is your responsibility? It is in the damage award. That's what I'm saying. It is lower than it might otherwise be specifically because they took into consideration the facts of the case. That's how personal injury cases work. Like I said, if they're splashing it on their customers, it's going to be way more than $2m. The $2m award took these specific facts into consideration.

              As for the complaints... again, it does in fact prove they're negligent. By definition. They were found to be negligent.

              There's a lot wrong with our legal system. This isn't that situation. There are thousands of cases filed every year that are frivolous. They are frequently in the range of $5k to $20k, and companies settle them because it's cheaper than litigating them. It's definitely a problem. Other countries certainly have systems where the prevailing party gets their attorneys' fees paid for. That's nice in some ways, and it causes perverse incentives in others. It's hard to settle a case on the eve of trial when both sides think they'll get an extra $200k for fees. Penalizing frivolous suits seems like a nice idea, but you also don't want to penalize people with real cases, and it's hard to draw bright line distinctions between the two.

              Getting rid of punitive damages is almost certainly not the right way to go about it. Many states don't even let the plaintiff have the punitive damages. Because they are meant to punish a company rather than award a plaintiff, many states take a split of the damages. Punitive damages are an incredibly important tool to penalize the worst actors. If a car company decides to make a car less safe because it will be cheaper to settle wrongful death suits than it will be to pay for the recall of the vehicle, we need to be able to significantly punish that company. Again, by definition. If you get rid of the punitive damages, the company got exactly what they wanted. If you cap punitive damages, it just changes their formula.

              I also don't think capping a lawyer's contingency fee will help. Why does it matter? Many lawyers are getting rich off of 30% contingency fees on hundreds of $20k cases. Some lawyers would still make millions making 10% off a billion dollar class action.

              As always, things tend to be a little less black and white than people like to think. I am just of the opinion that an 80 year old woman who was permanently disfigured by 190 degree coffee twenty years ago probably doesn't need to still be the figurehead for all that is wrong in our society. Feel free to continue the conversation on everything else wrong with society. There's a lot. I don't think she's one.

          • #9
            I apologize for my rant. This isn't the place for it. What happened Saturday is beyond horrific and nobody sane thinks any different. I wish they'd put this evil person in a wood chipper today. I pray for the souls and their families and friends although I doubt it comforts them much.

            Comment


            • #10
              Originally posted by jdshock View Post
              In the McDonald's case, the woman was hospitalized for more than a week. McDonald's had received hundreds of burn complaints before, and McDonald's had research showing consumers drank the coffee while driving. The award took into consideration any negligence on the part of the plaintiff for driving and drinking coffee at the same time.

              If McDonald's corporate policy were to serve hot coffee by splashing it directly on the faces of the consumers, it would've been far more than a $2m case. People regularly cite to this as a case representative of a declining society. It's silly. McDonald's was serving consumers near-boiling coffee and knew people were being hurt by it. It just so happened that one elderly woman was permanently disfigured before there was a news-worthy story out of it.
              It is silly! Customers were requesting that McDonald's serve them near-boiling coffee and the customers knew they would be in a moving vehicle and could be hurt by it.

              stupid.jpg

              Why should McDonald's been responsible for her putting it between her legs, or possibly the driver having to stop quickly, or the driver making a turn as she's drinking, so on and so forth, or her not asking for or having something in the car to safely hold or put the coffee in?

              Comment


              • #11
                I do not believe this attack was an attack on religion. Something like 40% of American Jews doubt that God even exists. This was a cultural hate crime plain and simple. The Jewish culture can appear extremely cliquish and unwelcoming to outsiders in some of the more densely populated Jewish areas of America. You could almost think of it as a form of mild racism in its own right - a Jewish supremacy to the White supremacy. Now you won't hear of Jews going on marches and carrying torches but they make it clear interpersonally the difference between a Jew and a "Gentile". Take a blue collar white guy, working for a "rich Jew", add in a mildly prejudicial encounter and you have a pretty good spark for a conflict. The degree of conflict depends on the degree of dementedness of the offended. Jew "superiority", financial success, and their obsession with Jewish bloodline is partly what set off Hitler IMO.

                Americans have a right to be as arrogant and cliquish as they want. There is no law against it. I'm just saying that this man's contempt was likely born out of pure jealousy and hate of what he perceives to be a "superior race" than it was about anything having to do with Christianity vs. Judaism. He just went to the synagogue because it was a good place to kill a lot of Jews.

                I think it would be in the Jews best interest to drop a lot of the cliques and genealogy B.S. as most care very little about the 12 tribes of Levi beyond a cool placard they can hang on their office wall. Identify as an American only and you will stop being singled out by crazies that use race as a targeting characteristic.


                T


                ...

                Comment


                • C0|dB|00ded
                  C0|dB|00ded commented
                  Editing a comment
                  To me it's all about assimilation or "melting" into the melting pot. If you seek not being singled out, identify as an American first; a Jew, Black, Mexican, 2nd. Of course fresh off the boat immigrants need time if not a few generations to fully join the body, but Jews have been here forever for all practical purposes. Attempting to create your own permanent cultural subset is counter to a collective harmony in the grand scheme of things.

                  And what I've just said has NOTHING to do with religious preferences. Cultural Jews use synagogues like others would use a Rotary or Elk club. It's just for exclusivity purposes. This makes you a target for disgruntled actors who are looking to find blame for their misery. Over the years the "rich Jews" have unfortunately been one of the more popular choices. We don't experience this in the Midwest. You have to go to the east coast to see the reality of the situation.


                  T


                  ...

                • KraRam
                  KraRam commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Man, I am really sorry this is your view point. My prayers are for you as well.

                • C0|dB|00ded
                  C0|dB|00ded commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I don't know if I have an official "viewpoint" per se - these are just observations of a culture that has received harsh treatment the world over. Some of the negative attention might be allayed if they appeared less separatist and elitist within their chosen communities. To be honest, I rarely ever ponder the Jewish "plight"; I'm just making small talk and commenting on the narrative that this is a religious attack. It's likely not.

                  Of course all the negative attention and antisemitism could just be the DEVIL........

                  I am for the U.S. Embassy being moved to Jerusalem.


                  T


                  ...

              • #12
                "Collective Harmony" seems like a slippery slope to "Collective Identity." Your views on this subject are a little spooky. Shall we also break up the Pentecostal affinity groups? LDS? Knights of Columbus? Any organization that rivals the affinity for the State and party?
                Wichita State, home of the All-Americans.

                Comment


                • C0|dB|00ded
                  C0|dB|00ded commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Never mentioned breaking things up; only mentioned that perhaps some of the negative attention (in America) could be based on some of their interaction with society at large. I have nothing against the "Jewish People" of America. I have however seen behavior and practices that could draw attention to those with an axe to grind.

                  Of all the groups you mentioned, the only one even remotely close to American Jewish culture would be LDS and they only resemble the Jews in their separatist behavior. The main thing that bugs the people who are bugged by the Jews is materialism. I don't think the "chosen people" narrative is given much thought. Perhaps some disturbed Christian sits up at night fuming over the rejection of Christ, but the main thing always comes back to money. The prejorative term, "getting jewed" wasn't conceived on a whim.

                  No Jew ever deserves to die for questionable business practices or offensive attitudes. I'm only saying that maybe they could take a little heat off themselves in their respective communities and perhaps prevent another atrocity. Or maybe it was just random. Or maybe there is something else driving this bizarre concept of antisemitism. Maybe it's the DEVIL???

                  Don't flip your tits over my commentary. Just fleshing out some random thoughts with zero filter... like usual.


                  T


                  ...

                • revenge_of_shocka_khan
                  Editing a comment
                  C0|d

                  I think you would twist yourself into a pretzel in support of Trump. I hear he is going to write a book about all the smears that have been directed at him by the press and call it "My Fight".


                  And poor ole' Ceasar Syoc. What a misunderstood soul. I bet the root of his problems was that he ran a firecracker stand when he was a teenager and all those pictures of Trump's enemies with crosshairs superimposed on them happened because he was transferring the crosshairs from the old Sean Connery movies he watched just because he thought they were cool.

                • C0|dB|00ded
                  C0|dB|00ded commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I honestly never thought of Trump once when making these comments. Why on earth would I need to defend him? Do you really think he is somehow responsible for the shooting? Is Bernie responsible for the Republicans getting shot up while playing softball? Nutcases will nutcase.

                  I'm trying to figure out why people go after Jews. I understand black vs. white racism. I understand hate crimes towards gays. But a white guy shooting up a bunch of other white guys because they may or may not have ancestors from Israel seems like a big freaking stretch. I tried to link it to a situation where there's an economic imbalance. In that case it's just a guy wanting to get back at "the man. It has nothing to do with antisemitism.

                  I've gotta believe the only real antisemites are the Neo-Nazis - which of course are just a bunch of wannabes with no real attachment to the sick movement of the past.


                  T


                  ...

              • #13
                I dunno where this is going, but I know that the Amish have a special bond, so do the Knights of Columbus, so do golfers, so do WSU fans

                Comment


                • revenge_of_shocka_khan
                  Editing a comment
                  And so are the Knights of the White Camelia. They have a special bond as well. And probably a lot in common with the two nutjobs who are now sitting on their gonads in jail right now.

                  Since I believe in due process, I will wait until after their conviction, but at that point, I would happily volunteer to throw the switch on Old Sparky and watch the smoke rise from their skin where the contacts burned them after the juice was switched on.

              • #14
                C0|dB|00ded -
                I'm trying to figure out why people go after Jews. I understand black vs. white racism. I understand hate crimes towards gays. But a white guy shooting up a bunch of other white guys because they may or may not have ancestors from Israel seems like a big freaking stretch. I tried to link it to a situation where there's an economic imbalance. In that case it's just a guy wanting to get back at "the man. It has nothing to do with antisemitism.
                I know that calling someone "racist" or "antisemitic" is about the most offensive thing you can do in society today, but the stuff you are saying is both antisemitic and ignorant.

                First of all, the bit I've quoted here, is truly confusing to me. You "understand" racism and homophobia, but you don't understand antisemitism? Please, enlighten me. What is there to "understand" about racism? What is there to understand about hate crimes toward people who are gay? And how is it that they are any different than antisemitism? All of these are just examples of people hating people who are different than they are. This comment somehow both denigrates people who experience prejudice based on race or sexuality (by saying it's understandable or there might be motives that are sympathetic to cause such hatred) while also denigrating Jewish people (by saying it's a "stretch" that a Jewish person could face prejudice for being Jewish).

                But second, the idea that Jewish people are bringing this on themselves by being too "cliquish" and that it would be in the "Jews best interest to drop a lot of the cliques and genealogy B.S...." I'm honestly just so taken aback at reading those things on here. That, in light of what occurred, we would possibly be in a position to say across the board Jewish people should be looking to modify their behavior. That's off the deep end, man. This is not the right time. It's not the right message. And it's not the right response to a tragedy.

                Comment


                • C0|dB|00ded
                  C0|dB|00ded commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Of course I'm ignorant hence my stating that "I'm trying to understand why".

                  There is a pattern of Jewish antagonism all across the globe. While the static felt in the Middle East is easy to understand (the Arabic society wants Israel back), problems in places like America are more difficult.

                  White vs. black or straight vs. gay hate crimes are fairly straightforward. The differences between the two groups are stark. A white guy shooting up a bunch of other white people (who really aren't religious just cliquish) is odd to me. How does he generate the rage inside to kill a "Jew" for the sake of being a Jew other than some traumatic event involving a Jew in his past? He hates Kosher pickles? He got screwed on a ring deal in NYC's diamond district?

                  My comments on Jews modifying their behavior is in response to the fact that there is a pattern of persecution across different countries and across different eras. Maybe there is something on their end that can help alleviate a part of their suffering. An effective remedy for a group receiving a disproportionate share of unwanted attention is to attempt to blend into the larger group. Of course it could all just be... THE DEVIL!!!

                  Terribly sorry to upset your sensibilities. Go to your nearest safe space promptly and wait for the P.C. Police to haul the bad man away.


                  T


                  ...

              • #15
                I guess I need help on how the media is trying to twist this shooting and blame Trump? Trump is the most pro-Jewish President we have had in the past 40 years (probably ever). This shooter despised Trump and hated Trump for advocating so strongly for the Jewish people. Is the media's point that Trump is divisive, and his rhetoric has created more enemies so now the people he supports are targets of crazed lunatics?

                Democrats, the media, and Hollywood types are the most anti-Semitic groups around. Think Al Sharpton and his blatant racist comments about Jewish people and yet he is still supported by CNN, Obama, and Clinton. Shouldn't they get the blame for their rhetoric on this one?
                Last edited by shockfan89_; 1 week ago.

                Comment


                • jdshock
                  jdshock commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Yeah, that other thread convinced me you all probably weren't going to be convinced of anything regarding Charlottesville. Every news report, every post about it prior to the event, all of it was about how it was a white supremacist event. It was not some peaceful operation to protest the statue. It was a collection of racists.

                  But, right, I understand you don't want to believe it. That's why I didn't say Trump supported them. I said Trump has done little to tamp down that rhetoric. Trump didn't pull the trigger here. Trump didn't cause the violence. But anything you perceive as blaming Trump is because it's easy to say "Trump is out here spreading Soros propaganda and he has done nothing to distance himself from white nationalists, the alt-right, etc."

                • shockfan89_
                  shockfan89_ commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Even if you believe it was an event for only white supremacists (which it wasn't, that may have been the group that got the permit, but there were other people there just protesting vandalism and tearing down historic statues), Trump specifically said he was NOT referring to those people (the neo-Nazis and white supremacists). That right there should be enough for any honest person to understand that Trump wasn't referring to neo-Nazis and white supremacists as very fine people.

                  It is just a blatant lie to continue to say that Trump said neo-Nazis and white supremacists are "good people" or "fine people".

                • jdmee
                  jdmee commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Originally posted by Maxine Waters
                  And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.
                  Originally posted by Hillary Clinton
                  You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.
                  Originally posted by Eric Holder
                  During a campaign swing in McDonough, Ga., on Sunday, former attorney general Eric Holder notes former first lady Michelle Obama’s high-minded 2016 slogan, “When they go low, we go high.” Then he makes clear he disagrees.

                  “No, no,” Holder says. “When they go low, we kick 'em. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about."

                  But by God, it is Trump and his "Fine people" quote causing all this.


                  I wonder what would have happened if Trump had the following exchange.


                  After Clinton noted how she adores Booker, Swisher asked the former secretary of state what she thought about this "kick them" remark.

                  "Well, that was Eric Holder," Clinton noted.

                  "Eric Holder, oh, Eric Holder, sorry," Swisher said.

                  "Yeah, I know they all look alike," Clinton quipped to a wave of laughter and applause in the room.
              Working...
              X