wrote Illinois University rampage killer, a social work major who also listed “peace” and “political violence” among his interests.
(Note that word “feel.”)
Ah yes, “social justice”: the forced application of unworkable solutions to imaginary problems.
So: answer as if you had to bet your life on it — did this guy vote Democrat or Republican?
Unpack to your hearts’ content in the comments.
“Carry on telling each other how tough you are…”
A big thank you to Lavrenty, ringo and the rest. Seriously, would this be nearly as much fun without them? Who could do without their hysterical, melodramatic preaching? I shall carry on enjoying myself…
The two social workers that live in our town and work in the big city are the angryiest bitches I have ever come across, everything is somebodys fault but theirs, they even take their insipid lefty road show to the stages of our little local concerts singing homeless people laments and angry activist save the planet crap to the families at christmas concerts. Hey Johny ringo you can kiss one of my bulls testicles if you don’t like the truth, maybe some testoserone might run off on you and make a man of you.
“Yes, because clearly, he was afraid of dying. He was so afraid of getting shot to death that he shot himself to death.”
Kevin,
if he had simply wanted to commit “suicide by cop” he could have driven someplace where police were nearby and start busting caps.
He drove over 100 miles to a rural community and a university where he knew resistance would probably not be forthcoming.
This is all laughably abstract to me.
Like many, I can still remember the first time I had to crawl through a live-fire infiltration range in the low-crawl position, navigating barbed wire, ditches, and other obstacles, while tracer bullets zipped over my head.
This was the first time, so there were people out there crying and frozen in position. I made it through OK, but I was hugging the ground like she was the most beautiful actress in the world.
When the real guns come out and are aimed at you, and perhaps even a round or two goes over your head, your initial plans are over.
Sometimes in boxing they say that everybody has a plan until they get hit.
It’s all simple: he comes through the door and there are guys who are going to blow him away, and that is possibly all it’s going to take to realize the difference between an abstract scenario and really a dangerous, threatening contingent before him.
If he is not deterred, then he gets blown away.
Either way a lot of people are safe who otherwise would have fallen to this maniac.
Dante and Jimbo, I think you really miss the point on this one. Any time some psycho goes on a rampage like this one, the leftist minds out there like to point out the psycho’s political leanings if the psycho happens to have been right leaning. If the psycho happens to be left leaning, as in this case, they won’t mention it.
Never happen Bartinsky. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
However you can make a hawk out of a Lefty. There’s no hawk so fierce as a liberal who’s been mugged. Maybe if Johnny hangs around Jane/Finch for a while singing Kumbaya…
Leberia:You are right it’s mental illness not political or religious bent, but isn’t it odd though how often the loonies are of a certain religion or often have strong leftist political beliefs.
You heard about the shooter in West Virginia on some campus law school?
Probably not: Other (ARMED) students (faculty?) had him in their sights within seconds and subdued and sat upon shortly afterwards. Eventually the cops showed up and took over.
I can’t recall what his animus was, off hand.
How about that church where some raving anti-christian showed up and potted a couple of people in the parking lot and then made a move into the church. Pity for him the lady usher was armed, and gave him no time to shoot anybody in the church.
I could go on and on. I’ll spare you.
Yes, guns are dangerous, there are occasional tragic accidents. But it works both ways, and there are lot more calm honest folk around willing to carry, than loonies and criminals out to commit mayhem.
It’s kind of like tyranies – some how (just by coincidence) it’s always the leftist ones that are multi-mega-murderers, and the rightist Pinochet’s of this world ( though nasty pieces of work) only manage the occasional massacre. Nevermind mind that when they finally go, or are booted out, how it’s one side that leaves the economy in a shambles – or not – , while the other leaves scorched earth.
Pick your poison.
Kathy, The guy went on a rampage because he was severely mentally ill, not because he may or may not have been a liberal. Why did you post this?
ummm…. because liberalism is a mental disorder?
“…the fact is that most of you people would piss your pants if a shooter came after you.”
Look, in the real world it’s not a matter of whether you piss your pants or not. You’ve still got to blow away the bad guy.
When you shoot him, your object is not specifically to kill him, though of course this is a possibility.
Your object is to stop him.
When we come under the pressure of such circumstances, the central nervous system automatically puts us in a fight-or-flight mode.
Naturally, when something like this happens you’re either going to freeze, run, or fight back.
Among the first-responder contingent among military and police, the response of the nervous system is changed to one of fight.
Back when I was teaching boxing, my favorite students were intellectuals who had never responded aggressively in their lives.
I always enjoyed watching them discover the possibilites and potential in dealing with confrontation without shrinking from it.
If the only thing that you can see in yourself is the inability to confront violence aggressively, then you’re going to have trouble realizing that there are those who have come sufficiently to grips with their own nature and own central nervous system to respond aggressively if it’s necessary.
It’s not necessarily a matter of courage. Maybe someone would piss their pants. But if they got the job done, and the bad guy was taken out of the game, it’s a good day.
I was thinking: now that universities have become the mass-murder site of choice by madmen, maybe universities need a “designated gun bearer” and “contingent designated gun bearer” in every class. He/She would be stringently vetted of course, and perhaps paid some kind of stipend to help with books and stuff.
Greg said: ‘if he had simply wanted to commit “suicide by cop”‘
I’m not following you. Who said that was his intention?
Also, I’m curious how you determined that he chose a rural university because he knew there would be no guns. Why not a day care center? Aren’t there usually more guns in rural areas?
But, I’m just messing with you a bit. I understand your point. If there had been people in the audience who had guns in their belts they might have had fewer casualties — notwithstanding your observation that when the bullets fly most people can’t find their crotch let alone their pistol. It’s a harm reduction thing right? It’s meant to minimize the casualties when this kind of attack happens. Better to have the general population packing so that if some crazy person starts shooting fewer people will get killed? The fewer innocent people killed the better, right?
So, since this guy doesn’t seem to have a criminal background, I’m just wondering how many innocent people would have died if the most lethal weapon he could find was a kitchen knife. That’s how the other part of the argument goes isn’t it: guns don’t kill people, people kill people right? Except guns are a lot more effective.
Now, I’m no stranger to handguns. Neither are my daughters. In fact one of them shoots at least as well as I can. But the notion that we’d all be safer if we carried them around with us seems badly flawed. I can’t imagine a less safe place than a campus fraternity full of armed, drunk teenagers.
They could have used this 80 year old protecting them, I bet this madman would have only got off a shot or to and this 80 year old would have put him down.
from Hot Air
Second Amendment feelgood story of the day
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/15/video-second-amendment-feelgood-story-of-the-day/
Kevin, do you feel endangered at the range? I mean, everybody’s got a gun! I can’t imagine a less safe place than a gun range, all those…guns!
“I’m just wondering how many innocent people would have died if the most lethal weapon he could find was a kitchen knife.” Maybe only one or two, Kevin. Smaller ones.
Would that be ok?
Just one problem, there is no possible way you can arrange to vanish all the guns in North America. If nothing else, people will make them in the garage. You can do that, y’know. Bridgeport mill, maybe a lathe, a bit of welding and you’ve got a nice Sten gun. Or hey, roll a cop! Presto, nice new gun. For more on this phenomenon, see Britain.
Lets live in the real world, shall we? In the real world, when the law stops banning people from carrying in self defense the crime rate goes -down-. Mass shootings only happen when nobody can shoot back. For more on this phenomenon see Israel. Even drunk loser teenagers carry heat in Israel, Kevin. They carry heavy, too.
“Social Justice”: the forced application of unworkable solutions to imaginary problems.
Not necessarily in this order:
1.Global Warming
2.Ozone Depletion
3.DDT
4.Multi-Culturalism
5.Human Rights Commissions
6.United Nations
7.Gun Control
8.Open Border Immigration
9.Anti-Smoking Legislation
10.Government Imposed Health Care
can anyone think of a few more?
The lefties here seem to consistently overlook a major problem in their response to these sorts of incidents; when something like this DOES happen (and they WILL happen, regardless of what laws are passed), you have to call someone WITH A GUN to try to protect you, and hope that this person (WITH A GUN) gets there in time to actually help you. Remember, when seconds count, the police are usually no more than 5 or 10 minutes away.
Phantom-
Do you drink at the range? Are you 19? If you do, then let me know which range it is and I’ll choose another.
“Maybe only one or two, Kevin. Smaller ones.”
Good. We agree on at least two thing: (1) the more effective the weapon used the higher the casualties and (2) if this fellow had not had access to effective weapons there would have been fewer casualties. This is the ideal case for the argument that access to effective weapons makes it safer and we agree that it doesn’t.
Now it seems reasonable that we can generalize this to other cases like accidents — which, along with stupidity are the primary causes of gun related deaths . So it would seem that the lower the availability of guns the lower the death rate.
So, if fewer dead people is a good thing then it seems to follow that fewer available guns is a good thing.
It is indeed impossible to get rid of all guns. Fortunately you don’t have to get rid of them *all* to reduce the death rate.
Mass shootings happen all over North America and all over the planet. They happen in Canada where you can’t shoot back and they happen in States where you can. It seems that they happen more frequently in jurisdictions where guns are more available.
Also, it seems counter intuitive that a person determined to kill themselves after killing others would be deterred by the possibility of being killed.
I thought us lefties were all gay sissy boys who hated guns and violence and aggression.
But, now, according to the renowned geniuses at SDA, we’re gun-toting maniacs who ache to shoot up all those lefty college campuses.
Should be a useful skillset for us liberal fascists – especially once our Islamofascist overlords arrive.
The problem with “gun-free zones” is that they are not gun-free.
As soon as the bad guy walks in with a piece it’s no longer a gun-free zone.
Inasmuch as it is impossible to create a gun-free zone (well, without martial law, and extremely stringent conditions), the question becomes who will be armed when the bad guy crosses the threshold? Who will stop him?
I think there are a lot of good answers to this question that do not involve everyone in the university being defenseless.
Incidentally, about that live-fire infiltraton range I mentioned earlier, I was 17 at the time, and it occurs to me that a lot of those guys in Afghanistan have yet to see their 20th birthday.
The bodies aren’t even cold yet and 5 Feet of Fugly’s making their deaths into political fodder.
Ghoul.
Kevin:
Who in hell, assuming they are rational persons, would EVER drink alcohol at a range, or anywhere else when they are handling firearms? No-one that I know. Perhaps you move in different circles than I do. And what range would ever tolerate such behaviour?
And do you really feel more safe now that a bunch of ranchers, farmers, duck hunters and deer hunters have been forced to register their long guns?
What a pointless, useless, and regrettably outrageously expensive exercise…
He might ve voted Democratic, and Tim McVeigh might have voted Republican.
Whats the point of the question anyhow? Nutcases abound in both parties.
In 2005 there were 789 unintentional firearm deaths in the US.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html
How many mass shootings were there? Certainly not 789. The odds of getting shot and killed accidentally are greater than dying from a mass shooting in a school or elsewhere.
It stands to reason that if everyone was armed, the number of unintentional firearm deaths would go up. But keep dreaming that packin’ heat will make you safer.
Sure Kevin it would seem that way but it isn’t. The experience in Britain indicates that removing guns from public access does not reduce the number of shootings. It -increases- them. Israel’s example indicates the reverse is also true.
I suggest you go read the classics by John Lott, Gary Kleck, Dr. Mauser and etc. before reciting the anti-gun boiler plate.
You should also be aware that the media does not report cases where would-be shooters are stopped by armed citizens. There’s a whole big passle of people out there devoted to keeping this scam alive.
As to this particular shooter, he planned it.
“The gunman who fatally shot five students before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University lecture hall likely planned his murder spree at least a week in advance, investigators said today.”
abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4293081&page=1
I commend to your attention the paper “Multiple Victim Shootings” by John Lott, abstract at
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929
Its the only trustworthy statistical analysis on the subject available of which I am aware. His conclusions will surprise you I’m sure.
iberia:
In 2006 there were 43,443 motor vehicle deaths in the US. Pretty much all, of which, were “unintentional”.
And your point is….what exactly?
Bruce
thanx, I was going to sound the fool out
statistics without context is a fool’s game
and lberia is a fool of the first kind
The guy went on a rampage because he was severely mentally ill…
There is no evidence of that. “Severely mentally ill” means psychotic, there is no evidence of that. The “severely mentally ill” aren’t as organized nor do they have a successful college history. In fact on most of these creeps aren’t identified with a major mental illness that has psychosis as a feature.
I thought us lefties were all gay sissy boys who hated guns and violence and aggression.
“Sissy boys”, you got that part right including the disproportinately dysfunctional violence part. History isn’t very kind to “sissy” boys…..wikipedia Stalin and Hitler’s mommy problems – add any of the usual violent anti-social suspects like Charles Manson to Jeffrey Dalmer and so many of the sissified little guy’s with a rage problem. Men with wholesome role models aren’t the typical prison inmate.
kevin
restrict guns, and those who kill other and then commit suicide will find other means, and bombs can kill a lot more effectively
you can make a couple dozen different bombs just out of house hold and industrial products
I won’t even mention fertilizer
People were murdered. It is not a tragedy, it’s a CRIME. That the criminal in question self-executed (thus saving millions in court costs) is a side issue-as is his ‘insanity’ or imbalance of personality.
a CRIME was committed, the perpetrator is dead.
Now, here’s something to consider: Same generation as the rash of school-shooters in the ’80s, on “Medication” (if the reports be true) for personality dysfunctions-similar to the school-shooters in the ’90s, a “Soft”/Non-sciences major with extremist polticical/social views.
He targeted a university he was familiar with, but did not attend, where the students, faculty, and security were unarmed. (Similar in some ways to the university shootings earlier this decade).
He chose the most powerful weapons he had available-but you know what? it doesn’t matter if he used guns, or made a bomb (and it’s rather easy to make bombs, even with the restrictions on fertilizers, you don’t need better than a high-school grasp of chemistry and common cooking implements).
There’s no change in the law, or new law, or restriction or lifting of restrictions that will stop a man who is intent on killing people, then dying himself. If laws worked, the Army wouldn’t be still in Baghdad trying to stabilize the situation there, Washington D.C. (outside of tourist areas) would be a safe and pleasant place to live, etc. etc.
It doesn’t matter that the shooter is crazy, it only matters that he chose to commit murder in a place he KNEW no one could stop him.
Hmmm… so taking berry-boy’s “logic” further, if we had more people with guns, we’d have more leftist retards accidentally shooting themselves. Somehow, I fail to see a downside
And yeah socialism=mental illness, therefore socialist=mentally ill
Keep on talking, lefties.. my contempt for your particularly idiotic sub-species just keeps growing. Right now, you’re neck and neck with my yorkies in terms of perceived intelligence.
Kathy Shaidle’s post, and the subsequent comments by the SDA brigade, has armed me (yuk yuk) with sufficient evidence to pose the following question:
“Were people always this dumb, or did the internet open up a cosmic portal to stupid?”
Discuss.
I think your existence is proof of that, Johnny….
Nice try nonetheless.
JohnnyRingo stated:
“Were people always this dumb, or did the internet open up a cosmic portal to stupid?”
Well JR, in your case, I suppose the correct answer would be “YES”.
Although, having managed a couple of degrees, I don’t consider myself “stupid”. But given that I was in the “business” degree mode, according to university rules, I had to take a number of liberal arts courses in order to complete my degrees.
So in THOSE courses, rather than communicating rational thoughts and opinions, I was forced to parrot back the inane opinions and positions of the profs in what we termed “bird courses”…to do otherwise would have meant a bad grade.
So…not being stupid…I acquiesed.
That’s life. And….that means, JohnnyRingo…you’re STILL stupid…
Bruce, GYM and caveman:
Proof that the movie “Idiocracy” was much more than just satire.
Liberia
Your stupidty and ignorance is beyond the pale when you use statiscally tiny numbers to prove the “significance” or “dangerous” nature of firearms.
Like Bruce who used auto accidents to point out the irrelevance.
There are other more drastic examples:
Where is the concern there are almost 600,000 people in the US killed a year from:
Adverse Drug Reactions 106,000
medical errorS 98,000
Bedsores 115,000
Infection 88,000
Malnutrition 108,800
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136
Surgery-Related 32,000
Like just about every other issue the Left focuses on from AGW to gun control. It is the ignorant left that distracts people from real issues in demented effort to prove superiority.
Excuse me, there are people here advocating arming all people because of the “statistically tiny numbers” of deaths cause by deranged gunman. This despite the fact that the number of people killed accidentally by firearms is far greater than that of those killed by deranged gunmen.
The stupidity of the right is infinite.
Kevin, if “It is indeed impossible to get rid of all guns”, can you please show us even a SINGLE example of this happening, anywhere in the world? I’ve handled firearms that were made entirely IN PRISON, out of nothing more complicated than a pop can, match heads, AA batteries, and steel wool, and they were every bit as deadly as any factory-produced firearm ever made. Any one who walks into a hardware store with $10 in their pocket has access to everything they need to make a perfectly functional firearm, unless you plan on prohibiting indoor plumbing. On a national scale, the closest thing to your mythical “gun-free” country would have to be Jamaica, where the private ownership of firearms has been prohibited for over 30 years; Jamaica consistently ranks as one of the most violent countries in the WORLD, with a per-capita murder rate more than 20 times that of the United States. Now, if they can’t enforce a ban on a relatively tiny ISLAND, can you please explain how you would go about enforcing said ban on an entire CONTINENT?
Bruce-
Exactly my point. A range is safe because people are not young and drunk. A college fraternity would be remarkably unsafe — as you seem to agree.
Greg in Dallas-
Yes, you can never make them gun free zones. There is always a risk and we’ve seen two tragic examples recently. The question I was addressing was whether having students carrying loaded pistols around with them to class would make the environment safer or less safe. I think less safe but I agree completely that there must be good answers somewhere in between. I wish more people spent more time talking about those ones.
( also, I appreciate the civil tone )
SDC-
I’m not sure but I think you misread my comment. Do you want me to give you an example of a place in the world where it was not possible to get rid of all the guns? Um, everywhere
Phantom-
So, your contention is that universities would be safe overall if everyone was armed?
The point is, the supply of firearms necessary to allow these sorts of things to happen is ALWAYS going to be more than enough, no matter what the laws say. In that case, do we A) treat everyone like they are probable mass murderers, and pass restrictive laws that remove those peoples’ only effective means of self-defence; or do we B) acknowledge that the only person or people who can reasonably protect the victim(s) of a crime is/are those victims, and allow them to protect themselves if they wish to do so? Those studies in the US that look at this issue show that people who have CCW permits are SAFER and MORE RESPONSIBLE with their firearms than the POLICE are, and are less likely to shoot someone by accident than the police are. If “more guns equals more murders”, why don’t we see that actually happening in those US states that issue CCW permits? If “more guns equals more murders”, I would have expected to see the US murder rate skyrocket over the last few years, as 12 more states have passed CCW laws, the federal “ugly gun ban” was allowed to sunset, and 70 million more firearms were sold into the civilian market. In fact, since 1993 (when the LIEberals passed Canada’s universal registration law), the US murder rate has dropped by more than 40%, while Canada’s has gone down by less than 7% (and the US didn’t need to piss $2 billion dollars down the toilet to get that drop).
Shooting people in a rage besides the narcissism involved is a pretty primative coping skill.
I’ve heard it said that many of these cases are just dramatic suicides. If you’re unbalanced and want to take the easy way out, why off yerself quietly when you can do it with a bang (so to speak) and flip an ultimate, unanswerable middle finger to the rest of the sane world?
It’s a disturbing trend if this is true.
lberia: the fact is that most of you people would piss your pants if a shooter came after you.
You know, you are probably right about that. I think I would piss my pants. This is not something I am proud of. What do you think you would do? Do you also think you would piss your pants? I suspect you would.
So, what happens now? I am leaning towards becoming familiar with firearms and self-defence so I won’t piss my pants should this happen. What are you going to do?
“Yes, because clearly, he was afraid of dying. He was so afraid of getting shot to death that he shot himself to death.”
Obviously he planned to die and was not afraid of it. In this I agree with Bill Maher – this takes a lot of resolve and is not an act of cowardice.
But think of this. He knew that when he showed up in that location and started shooting, the story would be all about him. He never got enough attention and maybe this would provide it.
So he strides out onto the lecture stage and pulls out his shotgun, and points it at the audience. Many see it and start dropping to the floor.
A student in the third row, with a concealed carry permit, kneels on the floor and pulls out his pistol. He steadies it on the seats in front of him and aims carefully for the centre of mass. In a second the shooter staggers back drops his weapon and collapses to the floor, gushing his lifeblood.
Now the media hero is the guy who killed the crazy asshole. The crazy asshole may think that this likelihood is not worth dying for. We’ll never know.
Kevin,
I respect your appreciation for my civil tone.
However, in all candor I must admit that a civil tone is easy for me.
Unlike my Canadian brothers and sisters, my gun rights are secure. The right to own firearms is constitutionally protected. Not protected by In regulation or statute, but an endowment and enfranchisement as part of my inherent rights as a citizen of America.
In fact it is the Second Amendment simply because our founding fathers understood that without its establishment all other rights to follow would be insecure.
My Canadian brothers and sisters have no such protection. My rights are reinforced by the National Rifle Association which is a powerful, grassroots political organization dedicated to the preservation of our firearm rights. The NRA is a powerful lobby and voice for freedom in the United States, and I am proud to say that I am a card-carrying member.
Even in the event of a liberal presidency, I am confident that my firearm rights will remain preserved. We have a lot of influence with Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle. Down here running against guns is a losing issue.
Additionally, I have noticed that when Canadians begin to post about this subject, very quickly the argument enters the abstract realm and consideration of the social consequences of firearms relative to society.
Down here gun ownership is regarded as a personal right. Although states and municipalities think about this and form their own laws relative to it, no one has ever successfully been able to categorize gun ownership as the province of society.
Even famous liberal barristers have been afraid to tackle this issue because the constitution so clearly distinguishes gun ownership as a personal right and not within the province of society to make determinations about.
So for us gun ownership is about what I do if suddenly there is the tinkle of broken glass while I am in mid-sentence typing this. There would be no time for police to arrive, even if there were time to call them. But since I have a number of firearms within easy reach, and since my wife is a better shot than I am, we have every possibility of defending ourselves successfully and living to tell the tale.
I think that it is a scandal that my Canadian brothers and sisters have been deprived of this most essential human need. And the elimination of sportsmen taking to the field for the comradeship, edification, and good eating that comes from hunting is tyrannical.
Well, Kathy, at the risk of launching something ad hominem, your context for the post is just so dumb. Note the word “feel”. Come on. For God’s sake. That’s all you got? And you figure the kid voted Democrat? Man, Kathy, I know you have not got a day job, but when you get one, don’t give it up just yet…
I consider myself very rightwing, yet, I find this post to be in incredibly bad taste. The killers political bent has nothing to do with his mental illness nor with his cowardly deed. It could just as easily have been a die-hard Iraq War-cheering Bush supporting sicko who did this.
Gun control, and security issues are a different thing … let’s not get those mixed up with mental illness. What would this post be, if the shooter had had an MBA and had expressed his capitalist “feelings.” We’d be reading the same kind of crap, but in reverse, on some lefty blog.
“lberia: the fact is that most of you people would piss your pants if a shooter came after you.”
Fact is Iberia, I was in the RCMP for nearly 30 years. But I acknowledge that I had a more than an “active” career than most members.
But, during my time in service, I was shot at 5 or 6 times…on two occasions, I actually heard the bullet pass by my head (Until that happened, I used to scoff at those who claimed they heard the bullets coming towards them).
Point being: some of us…not all..have “been there, done that”.
Oh….and by the way….I didn’t piss my pants any any such occasion….although on a couple of occasions, I probably should have…
Greg in Dallas:
I have to say that I have not heard a US position posited in a more factual, personal and responsible manner than what you expressed. Thank you for that.
As a responsible Canadian hand-gun owner, I share your sentiments. Living in the Vancouver area, with the highest rates of violent and property crime in North America, I am less than impressed when I am told by our police, who are so over-burdened by calls, that the best they can do is a response rate to “urgent” calls is 13 minutes.
Spare me the rhetoric…I’ll take care of it myself…thank you….
Apologies for the double-posting…gotta be the server….
Mao ,Stalin,Pol Pot and others killed millions for the cause of ‘Social Justice”, Castro locks people up in the name of Social Justice, and Hugo is on the way there.
These type of stories always generate great comments. Well, up to a point that is…
“Mass shootings only happen when nobody can shoot back. For more on this phenomenon see Israel. Even drunk loser teenagers carry heat in Israel, Kevin. They carry heavy, too. – Phantom”
Air Canada
Monday February 18, 2008
Flight: AC084 Direct One-way
Departs: Toronto 5:25PM Feb 18
Arrive: Tel Aviv 11:15AM +1 day
First Class Fare: $1800.00
Eligible for Executive Class upgrade.
Enjoy!
“How the bloody hell someone can twist this tragedy into an indictment on the left is beyond me”
Thankfully, the left aren’t spinning the tragedy for politcal aims.
However, FWIW, I think it’s rather in bad taste to score political points on the backs of such a terrible event when the victims are not yet buried. This applies to those on both the left and the right. Somebody posted in a long-forgotten SDA thread (I paraphrase) “When you view every event through a political lens, you take away the humanity from people”.
Too true.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
Serial killer Ted Bundy not only voted Republican, he worked for them.
According to Wikipedia:
“After his discovery, Bundy became a more focused and dominant person. In 1968, he managed the Seattle office of Nelson Rockefeller’s Presidential campaign and attended the 1968 Republican convention in Miami as a Rockefeller supporter. […]
“Soon afterward, he again went to work for the state Republican Party, which included a close relationship with Gov. Daniel J. Evans. During the campaign, Bundy followed Evans’ Democratic opponent around the state, tape recording his speeches and reporting back to Evans personally. A minor scandal later followed when the Democrats found out about Bundy, who had been posing as a college student.”
As Kathy might suggest, unpack to your hearts’ content.