• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed

madman

madman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
10,557
Reaction score
7,951
Location
So. California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No s***!





LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, conservative white men who support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are worse than international terrorists and need to be monitored by the federal government, Infowars reported Wednesday.
The op-ed, written after the Southern Poverty Law Center demanded the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security "crack down on Americans expressing opposition to an increasingly tyrannical federal government," claims there are "cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government."
"They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal," the Times wrote.
Kurt Nimmo accused the paper of racism for singling out white men as the culprit that needs to be dealt with by the federal government.
"They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists," the Times said.


I like this part from the Times:
They're not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.
Click to expand...
 
madman said:
No s***!





LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, conservative white men who support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are worse than international terrorists and need to be monitored by the federal government, Infowars reported Wednesday.
The op-ed, written after the Southern Poverty Law Center demanded the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security "crack down on Americans expressing opposition to an increasingly tyrannical federal government," claims there are "cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government."
"They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal," the Times wrote.
Kurt Nimmo accused the paper of racism for singling out white men as the culprit that needs to be dealt with by the federal government.
"They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists," the Times said.


I like this part from the Times:
Click to expand...

Nimmo is right,that is racist! The biggest gun problem

is gangbangers in the hood.

Hopefully the SPLC will go away.
 
madman said:
No s***!





LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, conservative white men who support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are worse than international terrorists and need to be monitored by the federal government, Infowars reported Wednesday.
The op-ed, written after the Southern Poverty Law Center demanded the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security "crack down on Americans expressing opposition to an increasingly tyrannical federal government," claims there are "cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government."
"They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal," the Times wrote.
Kurt Nimmo accused the paper of racism for singling out white men as the culprit that needs to be dealt with by the federal government.
"They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists," the Times said.


I like this part from the Times:
Click to expand...

Great reading for Dickie, my parakeet.
 
So... do the LA times have special hiring policy that requires you to be mentally inept in order to work there? I know, I know, it seems unlikely that any newspaper or media would ever alter from the standard requirements needed to be a hired as a mainstream journalist, and that is to be a complete parrot and replicate, without thinking, any bit of stupid information you can get your hand on... but maybe the LA times decided to go further than that. Take it to the next level. Being braindead is apparently, not enough to satisfy the stringent requirements of the LA times. You need to also have the IQ of a dog. A really stupid dog...
 
Do they mean people like Chris Dorner?
 
The greatest danger that group presents is at the ballot box, not our lives.
 
madman said:
No s***!
LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, conservative white men who support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are worse than international terrorists and need to be monitored by the federal government, Infowars reported Wednesday.

"They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal," the Times wrote.
Kurt Nimmo accused the paper of racism for singling out white men as the culprit that needs to be dealt with by the federal government.
"They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists," the Times said.They're not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.
I like this part from the Times:[/QUOTE



"The Wicked Flee When None Pursueth.........."

Proverbs 28.1
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Looks like this OP touched a nerve with the usual suspects of gun culture denizens and conservative flamebots who love to dish it out, but can't take it
 
Regressives being regressives
 
Well statistically speaking you are more likely to be killed by an angry white conservative than a terrorism. Of course you're probably more likely to be killed by a watermelon than a terrorist as well.
 
Wiseone said:
Well statistically speaking you are more likely to be killed by an angry white conservative than a terrorism. Of course you're probably more likely to be killed by a watermelon than a terrorist as well.
Click to expand...
how does that statistic shake out when comparing that white man to say...a black man? Or a Hispanic man? You know... Statistically speaking...
 
madman said:
No s***!





LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, conservative white men who support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are worse than international terrorists and need to be monitored by the federal government, Infowars reported Wednesday.
The op-ed, written after the Southern Poverty Law Center demanded the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security "crack down on Americans expressing opposition to an increasingly tyrannical federal government," claims there are "cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government."
"They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal," the Times wrote.
Kurt Nimmo accused the paper of racism for singling out white men as the culprit that needs to be dealt with by the federal government.
"They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists," the Times said.


I like this part from the Times:
Click to expand...

well, at least you are honest about liking racism.. that's something I guess.
 
For those who want to judge the LA Times with actual context, here's a link to the actual editorial which was in response to the SPLC's* annual report: Extremist 'patriots' imperil the United States - latimes.com

The editorial was about militia groups, not all conservatives with guns.

Note that this part of the LA Times editorial wasn't mentioned in the Examiner piece:

"What can be done to reverse this tide of belligerent ignorance? Not much. The typical patriot acts within his free-speech and 2nd Amendment rights, and in fact most patriot activity consists of venting steam by meeting with like-minded Neanderthals and firing off blog posts threatening civil war. Yet such blather tends to get under the skin of the Timothy McVeighs of the world. These groups should be closely monitored, with resources adequate to the task, even if it means shifting some homeland security money from the hunt for foreign terrorists."

Sounds reasonable to me, and it certainly does not call for a "crackdown."

*described by one regular on this forum as "as bad as the KKK" despite having no murders on their resume. (the KKK has hundreds)
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
how does that statistic shake out when comparing that white man to say...a black man? Or a Hispanic man? You know... Statistically speaking...
Click to expand...

The post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, besides who cares what colors of skin are more statistically likely to murder someone

And here are some statistics, although it doesn't give the likelihood of an individual being killed by a certain person of a certain color.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg=inert-wsj#view=all&kr=B
Also your post was a complete red herring when it came to my post, the statistical likelihood of being killed by a black or Hispanic man has no bearing on the fact likelihood of being killed by a white guy is far greater than being killed by a terrorist.
 
Wiseone said:
The post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, besides who cares what colors of skin are more statistically likely to murder someone

And here are some statistics, although it doesn't give the likelihood of an individual being killed by a certain person of a certain color.
Murder in America - WSJ.com
Also your post was a complete red herring when it came to my post, the statistical likelihood of being killed by a black or Hispanic man has no bearing on the fact likelihood of being killed by a white guy is far greater than being killed by a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Well, when established print media, government agencies and think tanks start thinking, writing and believing that a particular demographic is more dangerous than known terrorists, I'd be on the side of supplying those thinkers with information that shows who is truly more dangerous than known terrorists, i.e. not the demographics they're currently analyzing.
 
Wiseone said:
The post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, besides who cares what colors of skin are more statistically likely to murder someone

And here are some statistics, although it doesn't give the likelihood of an individual being killed by a certain person of a certain color.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg=inert-wsj#view=all&kr=B
Also your post was a complete red herring when it came to my post, the statistical likelihood of being killed by a black or Hispanic man has no bearing on the fact likelihood of being killed by a white guy is far greater than being killed by a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Wonderful. Now...statistically...what is the likelihood of being murdered by a white man as compared to a black or Hispanic man? What do you think the response would have been had the newspaper made sub a comparison?
 
Interesting. I wonder if the founding fathers of the country would currently be considered "extremist patriots", and would have the liberals that we see here calling for government surveillance of them, and arrest/conviction if possible. I suspect so. Funny how the tide gets turned, depending on one's comfort and security.
 
madman said:
No s***!





LA Times says conservative white men worse than terrorists, monitoring needed - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

According to an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, conservative white men who support the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are worse than international terrorists and need to be monitored by the federal government, Infowars reported Wednesday.
The op-ed, written after the Southern Poverty Law Center demanded the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security "crack down on Americans expressing opposition to an increasingly tyrannical federal government," claims there are "cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government."
"They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal," the Times wrote.
Kurt Nimmo accused the paper of racism for singling out white men as the culprit that needs to be dealt with by the federal government.
"They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists," the Times said.


I like this part from the Times:
Click to expand...

That's the general solution for conservative and liberal alike...more government involvement, more government monitoring, less freedom.
 
The gun nuts should have little room to complain about this. How many threats have come from them about watering the tree of liberty, or something much more direct? Then there is their statements that the second amendment deters unjust laws and the removal of freedoms through the overt threat that the people have guns and will shed blood. The whole idea of carrying a weapon is an overt threat. It is supposed to say criminals don't screw with me because i will shoot your ass.

of course, when people bring that up thn comes the bumbling and idiocy as they realize they just made a huge case for them being violent and scary. After that it is either insults, or really bad excuses like they just want a gun to butter their toast and would never shoot someone with it.

this is why no one can get an honest discussion about firearms from the right. i will give you guys the left has it's own problems, but it is like a comedy of errors every time you try to get a guntard into one of these conversations. It normally ends with the guntard making up some insults because they know their own story conflicts itself at almost every turn. It is like the idea of peace through superior firepower. it is a blatant contradiction but they love the concept.

maybe one of the gun people can answer this question. Are you a dangerous threat to the government because you might use your guns to "protect yourself" through deadly force, or are you just a bunch of harmless people who the government should not be concerned about? because if you are the supposed heroes protecting the rights of the free, then you are terrorists using the threat of gun violence to deter and prevent oppressive actions. You also become a threat to the safety of every one around you and deserve to be monitored. If you are not a threat because you would never use your gun for violence, then you don't need much more than a bolt loaded .22 for shooting some cans. make up your minds which story you are going to use, and then stick to it.
 
Ikari said:
That's the general solution for conservative and liberal alike...more government involvement, more government monitoring, less freedom.
Click to expand...

I would love a world full of responsible people who can handle freedom. until you find a cure for idiocy we need government stepping in.
 
lizzie said:
Interesting. I wonder if the founding fathers of the country would currently be considered "extremist patriots", and would have the liberals that we see here calling for government surveillance of them, and arrest/conviction if possible. I suspect so. Funny how the tide gets turned, depending on one's comfort and security.
Click to expand...

Water the tree of liberty is pretty much lets go on a jihad. it is all the same thing when certain people have no clue what liberty actually is.
 
tererun said:
The gun nuts should have little room to complain about this. How many threats have come from them about watering the tree of liberty, or something much more direct? Then there is their statements that the second amendment deters unjust laws and the removal of freedoms through the overt threat that the people have guns and will shed blood. The whole idea of carrying a weapon is an overt threat. It is supposed to say criminals don't screw with me because i will shoot your ass.

of course, when people bring that up thn comes the bumbling and idiocy as they realize they just made a huge case for them being violent and scary. After that it is either insults, or really bad excuses like they just want a gun to butter their toast and would never shoot someone with it.

this is why no one can get an honest discussion about firearms from the right. i will give you guys the left has it's own problems, but it is like a comedy of errors every time you try to get a guntard into one of these conversations. It normally ends with the guntard making up some insults because they know their own story conflicts itself at almost every turn. It is like the idea of peace through superior firepower. it is a blatant contradiction but they love the concept.

maybe one of the gun people can answer this question. Are you a dangerous threat to the government because you might use your guns to "protect yourself" through deadly force, or are you just a bunch of harmless people who the government should not be concerned about? because if you are the supposed heroes protecting the rights of the free, then you are terrorists using the threat of gun violence to deter and prevent oppressive actions. You also become a threat to the safety of every one around you and deserve to be monitored. If you are not a threat because you would never use your gun for violence, then you don't need much more than a bolt loaded .22 for shooting some cans. make up your minds which story you are going to use, and then stick to it.
Click to expand...

Well free ain't ever and never will be safe. The biggest terrorist threat to us all is the government itself.
 
VanceMack said:
Wonderful. Now...statistically...what is the likelihood of being murdered by a white man as compared to a black or Hispanic man? What do you think the response would have been had the newspaper made sub a comparison?
Click to expand...

Why is this relevant? I was trying to make a joke, that being that since terrorists kill so few people that there are lots of things that kill more people than terrorists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom