California synagogue shooting

Then why not support your assertions with some evidence? You can't do it and posters like yourself just get tiresome.

 

It paints a different picture from the headlines.

You posted this piece on religion of his family because of an earlier claim in the NY Times that he was a recent convert to islam? Why bother? The kid had serious mental health issues.

 

Not all

What is an acceptable number for you?

 

No, I wouldn't. So?

Does that mean that I can't look at such in the privacy of my own home, where the patter of little feet has been unknown for several decades now?

 

You can't put yourself in the shoes of your much younger father counterparts?

 

Yeah, that's what's called 'hyperbole!'

Uh, none! Why do you ask?

 

You mean as in it caused the death of that girl? Oh HOW convenient! Let's just forget about the non-deadly violence of both sides just because the other side's violence didn't lead to a death!

 

Are in dream land? When's the last time you heard about Sunni Muslims or minority Christians being obliterated on CNN? Here's a start: https://africasacountry.com/2019/02/whos-reporting-africa-now

 

So you obviously think that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision, but doesn't your opinion have to be rooted in Constitutional interpretation?

 

There was no claim by NY Times. You and Drluggit made it up in a desperate attempt to blame Islam. You two attempted to propagate the theory that the story died because of your fake claim. You then posted a dishonest cut and paste. The story died because it was reported that he is strict Christian.

 

It sounds like you are defending or excusing the femsle teachers who have sex with their students

 

The constitution means whater 5 unelected demigods say it means

But yes I disrepectfully disagree with their decision

 

But isn't YOUR opinion rooted in Constitutional interpretation?

 

Whst is your point to these questions?

If there is something you want to say just say ot

 

This has nothing to do with the claim of there was violence on both sides, making an beyond obvious hint that the victim of that nazi who got run over is partially to blame for being murdered because she apparently was violent to. And with that train of thought no doubt the Dotard blames the Jews now because they must have been violent as well at some point.

 

I already sourced that the Dotard blamed both sides when a nazi killed a woman, making an obvious hint that the woman is partially to blame for being murdered.

 

Yes... a nazi killed a woman, and you're making it into a "laughing matter".

 

I think there was a massive report about the blasts in Sri Lanka.

You know where a massive difference is in reporting?
When that terrorist attack happened in Paris, the world went marching in the streets. People had their own facebook pictured depicting a French flag in support. That all got reported. When a bomb blasts in Sri Lanka, killing far more people than in Paris, than such a thing is not reported, because there is nothing to report .... because there is no support for Sri Lanka.

 

Simply to see if your opinion is rooted in Constitutional interpretation. Are you unable to say?

 

Sorry, are you saying that the Sri Lanka attacks were well reported or NOT well reported?

 

The support was not reported in the west, because there is none.

 

I ususlly dont respond to foreigners at all on domestic issues which are none of your business

 

It means as a matter of law women were less respected during those times.

 

Yeah, it devalues sexuality, children, family, and life itself because they are all in close orbit. Not that I'm a prude or goody two shoes. But facts are facts, and deserving of respect.

 

I posted a story from the day. After you claimed to see no stories on him for 2 days.
But I see it now must be disheartening to you and some others because he is NOT a Islam convert.