There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

Right, because it's improper to surmise a terror link when a car rams into 11 people in a country that has had a rash of vehicular attacks of a particular variety in the last 6 months.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

That doesn't excuse it. You were equally presumptuous during the Charlottesville incident too. It was a rush to judgment then as it is now. Own it and keep it moving. Continuing to argue the point just demonstrates bias and makes you look even more foolish.

What the hell are you talking about? My only "presumption" was that the facts as we knew them didn't constitute a hate crime, which was actually just a reaction to someone else presuming it was a hate crime.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeing the early reports and presuming terrorism. To pretend that isn't the current state of affairs in that part of the world is just willful ignorance, and its dangerous and it will get more people killed.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Nope. Presuming that each of these incidents is an act of Islamic terrorism is even more dangerous and it only serves to feed the appetite of right wing nut jobs that get hard ons when such attacks occurs.

There is no upside in presuming that this was an act of terrorism. You're promoting an agenda as opposed to allowing the facts to play out.

You did the same thing with the Charlottesville car incident and you wound up looking equally foolish. You were quick to try and defend the actions of a Nazi extremist and that is dangerous also.

You repeatedly slant events so that they coincide with your own worldview.

Actively wishing away facts of the current climate of terrorist attacks in Europe, particularly with regards to London, puts people in danger. The objective reality is that the last, what, 3 out of 4 times since March the early-morning facts were "multiple people injured/killed by car running into them" the "facts played out" into a terrorist attack committed by a particular kind of terrorist. And the last 4 acts ALL were attacks of hate and terror.



Yeah....that's not what I did. If you could stop saying it, dingus, that'd be great.



The First Amendment is about religious tolerance.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Actively wishing away facts of the current climate of terrorist attacks in Europe, particularly with regards to London, puts people in danger. The objective reality is that the last, what, 3 out of 4 times since March the early-morning facts were "multiple people injured/killed by car running into them" the "facts played out" into a terrorist attack committed by a particular kind of terrorist. And the last 4 acts ALL were attacks of hate and terror.



Yeah....that's not what I did. If you could stop saying it, dingus, that'd be great.



The First Amendment is about religious tolerance.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Charlottesville attack Page 6 for those scoring at home. None are. Here comes the classic pivot to provide justification for the Car attack. I'm sure you were simply providing a "different perspective" however.

http://www.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopi ... hilit=Nazi

...relating tweets from a reporter actively reporting on the incident is "defend[ing] the actions of a Nazi extremist"? You're insane.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Nope dog ain't hunting. It was another one of your "I ain't saying I'm just saying" tactics.

Interesting that I was not the only person to pick up on it. There were at least 3 people I believe who picked up on it too.

Mine was more directed at the author of the tweets.

The second you entered the mix the pivot occurred. You instantly attempted to make the Nazi jerk the victim and you found that one article which supported your right wing garbage.

Taylor Lorenz does social media work for The Hill. Which way does that outlet lean, politically, and would they be OK with an employee on the scene reporting perhaps exculpatory/mitigating facts to something that so perfectly demonizes the Alt Right?

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Nope dog ain't hunting. It was another one of your "I ain't saying I'm just saying" tactics. Interesting that I was not the only person to pick up on it. There were at least 3 people I believe who picked up on it too. The second you entered the mix the pivot occurred. You instantly attempted to make the Nazi jerk the victim and you found that one article which supported your right wing garbage.

As far as the tolerance/freedom garbage goes you and others are wrong on that too. You are basically stating that it is ok to be intolerant of someone based upon their religion and that is patently false. First Amendment protects against that.

The leaders of this country have professed tolerance for centuries here and now because right wingers have a hard on for Muslims it's sudden ok to be intolerant. Yeah right. It wasn't explicitly stated but it has been inferred and implied throughout this country's history fool.

It's why many an immigrant and refugee has sought refuge in this country.

Your history was wrong about this just like it was wrong about secession. I provided at least 4 declarations which pertained to expansion all were ignored as you latched onto to some stupid theory regarding sources.

You have to get away from your Hackery at some point Lecture Note.

The Hill is firmly centrist, I believe. Very inside-the-Beltway, pretty close to NPR, in my opinion.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Let us know how tolerant you are when the old ladies from the Kingdom Hall or those dorks on the bikes with the white shirts and backpacks show up at your doorstep.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

The political leanings of the writers are immaterial. I'm aware of the Hill. My point is that he cherry picked one of the few articles which appeared to absolve the Nazi fanatical jerk. That wasn't an accident in my opinion either. It doesn't make him a Nazi but it does question his ability to be objective. He is decidedly partisan and presupposing that he will be anything but makes little sense.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

I don't think JLN is a Nazi but he does seem to be somewhere in the neoreactionary constellation. But there definitely are too many Nazis among us these days (if not on this particular board, in life at large).

The neoreactionary movement (a.k.a. neoreaction, NRx, the Dark Enlightenment) is a loosely-defined cluster of Internet-based political thinkers who wish to return society to forms of government older than liberal democracy. They generally present their views as a revival of the traditions of Western civilization, or a return to a natural order of things.

Many of the current wave of neoreactionaries were former libertarians who had concluded that freedom and the free market were fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy. Mencius Moldbug, generally considered the founder of the current movement, describes his own journey as "from Mises to Carlyle" via Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an anarcho-capitalist who pushed feudalism as his desired end state.[1]

Hostility to modernity and democracy is the main point of agreement among neoreactionaries. Moldbug writes that "a reactionary is a believer in order, stability, and security. All of which he treats as synonyms ... Thus, the order that the rational reactionary seeks to preserve and/or restore is arbitrary. Perhaps it can be justified on some moral basis. But probably not. It is good simply because it is order, and the alternative to order is violence at worst and politics at best. If the Bourbons do not rule France, someone will – Robespierre, or Napoleon, or Corner Man."[35]

Echoing traditional libertarian concerns, they assert that democracies are necessarily less financially stable than autocracies in general, and monarchies in particular: that a king will be "fiscally responsible" because the king has a property interest in the kingdom.

The political leanings of the writers are immaterial. I'm aware of the Hill. My point is that he cherry picked one of the few articles which appeared to absolve the Nazi fanatical jerk. That wasn't an accident in my opinion either. It doesn't make him a Nazi but it does question his ability to be objective. He is decidedly partisan and presupposing that he will be anything but makes little sense.

I've had to be extremely tolerant of bullshit in my life. That wouldn't be much different.

Right, because it's improper to surmise a terror link when a car rams into 11 people in a country that has had a rash of vehicular attacks of a particular variety in the last 6 months.

Right and when you posted this it had been over an hour since even Channel 7 had sent out the push notification that it wasn't a terror attack, and they are usually 3 days behind.

I checked CNN and BBC, both still had the "open mind" remarks as the latest on motivation.

Let me ask just for the record. Are you functionally retarded?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-41538762

Right. See thanks for posting the NOT TERROR RELATED headline. Just step back and admit you are wrong.

So are you saying that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons trying to proselytize because their God commands them to is bullshit?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

My post at 11:30 AM was made after checking CNN and BBC's reporting on the matter. At the time (again, 11:30AM, some 6 hours ago), the motive was not yet determined, and the quote used by both outlets referenced an "open mind". Time, as it does, passed, and 1 hour ago (meaning 5 hours had come and gone since my post at 11:30 am) the BBC updated the article you linked. What this means is, that at the time I posted, both CNN and BBC had not reported on the official stance of London police regarding motive, and the facts reported had all the earmarks of the recent spate of vehicular attacks that have occurred specifically in that city.