Don't hire a person who believes modern victimhood statuses of blacks, women and the LGBT.
Flanagan, 41, worked as a reporter at WDBJ for less than a year before
he was fired in 2013 for disruptive behavior, the station manager Marks
said.
Bryce Williams, real name Vester Flanagan, posted his own video of the shooting on social media, which disappeared in minutes.
Marks called Flanagan "an unhappy man" who "quickly gathered a reputation of someone who was difficult to work with."
When Flanagan was fired, he had to be escorted out of the building by
police, Marks said. Shortly after that, Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint
against the station.
In tweets days before the shooting, Flanagan posted pictures of himself
as a child, teenager and former TV anchor. He also alluded to a
modeling career and being raised as a Jehovah’s Witness.
. . . .
You want a race war (expletive)? BRING IT ON THEN YOU WHITE...(expletive)!!!" the fax says.
Meanwhile, he praises Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho, calling him
"my boy" and crediting Cho for killing "NEARLY double the amount" of
people as Columbine High School shooters Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.
William also writes that he was often attacked for being a gay, black
man, and says Jehovah spoke to him and told him to do the shooting.
Given what was said in the article, I don't think Jehovah spoke to him and issued him permission to kill people.
Before anything else is assumed, I can only go off what was said and reported in various articles. Williams seemed to have an inferior complex and his poor work relations with colleagues were due to this inferiority complex. His is issue with the two slain reporters had to with race: it is said that Alison Parker, the broadcaster, said something which he took offense to in the past and he and the cameraman, Adamn Ward, did not get along on an assignment.
He complained about the South Carolina shooting writing a 23 page rant, his supposed victimhood of bullying of his sexuality and his skin color. The first understandable, but he wanted an actually race war. The second and third is just par for the course when it comes to modernism and wanting to feel society is against you.
What Williams did was of person with mental issues. Him liking the dick and thinking white men hate him just added to his mental rocking.
I can see SJWs and the media pointing out the fact that he was able to purchase a gun in forms of further gun control momentum and will probably jump on the "God told me so" card to put religion in a darker skeptical light, as well as the "equality" card for LGBT.
If South Carolina shooter, Dylan Rood, never held up the Confederate flag the momentum of abolishing it in public spaces would be mostly dormant. This zeitgeist of removal sounds mightily familiar of those who want to remove God from dollar bills and The Pledge of Allegiance.
Of course, the irony in this analogy is upfront - God being more respected, if not revered, in the interior of the States than the coasts. One can say that the Confederate states were rebelling against the Northern states drive to control economic revenues in the South. One can say that the belief in God and the following of traditional mores is the rebellion against secularism and modernism. One can say that both, that God and the Confederate flag, are misunderstood. One can also say that many will use the Confederate flag and God to justify horrid acts against certain groups. When this happens this does not mean that the item or "being" is innately corrupted - it just means that their use is being applied wrongly.
As a Yankee, or Northerner, I do not fly the Confederate flag nor have I had any feelings of animosity towards it. After the news that Wal-mart, Amazon and ebay taking the flag off their shelves as an act of non-race hating; it was simply an agency undoubtedly filled with reactionary thought. Corporations pander towards society's supposed aggrieved groups (LGBT, women, black & illegal aliens). I feel, in this case, that they are practitioners of the pathetic mindset of "nihilistic 'equality.'"
I will admit, the Confederate flag is an aesthetically pleasing flag. I may actually fly it one day.
One thing I have not heard much about, when it comes to reasons for abortions - besides the rape, dangerous child birth and incest situations - is aborting a baby when physical abnormalities, genetic disorders (down syndrome), or - one day, non-straightness, can be detected. Physical abnormalities and genetic disorders, at least in the cast of down syndrome, can be detected months before the final four weeks. If a non-straight gene is found, and there are some studies that show non-straights have some sort of larger gland in their brain - once that becomes definitive 'proof', it would be perfectly fine - without much controversy - to abort a baby who isn't straight.
Now the defense for aborting a baby with physical abnormalities or genetic disorders is that the compassion is directed towards not wanting that human to live a life of mocking and hardship. Well, despite the current social shift towards same-sex "marriage" and the acceptance of non-straights when they "come out" to their parents, there still seems to be an insecurity of non-straights that isn't really found in straights. There is still is a stigma - innate really - when it comes to non-straights and them walking hand in hand with their partner in public.
I'll paint this scenario. Let's say I have a child, and that there is medical technology and knowledge of science has expanded that onr can detect a child's sexuality early within its development. If abortion is legal, where morality has absolutely no place in it, just a women's choice to choose either to abort or to have the baby, then the mother has every right to abort the child if it's not straight - if she so chooses to for whatever reason. If I embrace "choice" and body sovereignty to its logical conclusion, and with advancement of technology growing every year, with science expanding its knowledge on the human mind and body, then there will come a point where "surprises" are only surprises because of not using medical technology and current science to know almost everything about ones baby before it's birth.
So, LGBT people: You're fair game, if there is no law that protects you in this case, to abort if there ever comes a time where medical technology & discovery ever advances to a Gattaca like plain.
After all, if ever a law to protect babies who are shown to have same-sex attraction comes into existence, then it proves that, indeed, the LGBT, is a protected class due to their sexuality - a sexuality, if they aren't bisexual, produces nothing and their relationships give nothing of substance back to society.
I wasn't really disappointed in any of the candidates since I watched without much expectations. I wasn't too impressed with Governor Walker - he's probably the most vanilla of all the candidates that were shown tonight, but he is my personal favorite. He didn't say anything bad, but it wasn't "Yea! Totally! Woohoo!"
Mike Huckabee's response to female entrance to combat units and LGBT making waves in the military was magical. I thought he was sharp on what he said: The military's job is to kill and break stuff. It is not a social experiment for "equality" and "diversity"; to make it an experiment is to weaken the military overall and to make America vulnerable. This "social experiment" angers me. He also made some "R" rated comments on welfare. Most of his responses, that I remember, have impressed me.
"Lindsey" Ryan, a supposed military vet of 15 years, and a transgender (man to woman in this case) has some opposing worlds to say to Huckabee:
This is eerily the same tactic, if not appeal to emotions - "I've raised X number of kids with my partner," "my relationships/'marriage' is not a problem with my family/friends," - that the LGBT "community" use when countering those who oppose same-sex adoption and "marriage." This time it's how one transgender's fellow soldiers are okay with him being open about his state. I do not doubt that military personnel are fine with open LGBT servicemen; I also do not doubt that anything is actually better.
Jeb Bush's thoughts on immigration were great as well - to eliminate sanctuary cities and to make illegal aliens pay a fine and to make them enter the legal process towards legal citizenship not named Amnesty. His co-pilot on illegal immigration was Donald Trump. Of course. He basically said "to build a wall" alongside the Mexico border where there's a "big beautiful door" for those who want to enter legally. I agree. If the LGBT have their "gay pride" parade the illegal aliens have their "immigration reform" marches. It's fucking pathetic. And I bet many many Americans with Mexican blood and illegals are absolutely mad over how the candidates see illegal immigration. You know what? Their anger is misguided. They should be thankful that such people care about this country AND about healthy, legal immigration that makes America great.
Ben Carson was charming but he's in over his head; he didn't do bad, but he has nothing to offer when it comes to the presidency. I wouldn't oppose his recommendation as Surgeon General. He did say something brilliant: Do not broadcast your plays during war time. He also called out on how secular progressives relies on the sleeping people of America to vote for them. Leftists relies on the uninformed and the naive to say "Yes we can!"
Ted Cruz. I have to say he, besides, Rubio, is a gifted public speaker, but his pauses to hint for applause can be irritating. He, like Obama, is Ivy League educated through and through (if we don't count Occidental). I do sense of a bit arrogant, like Obama, but he's a different type of intelligence. Obama is clever and insidious; Cruz is sharp and direct.
Trump is Trump. He's a charismatic businessman. He did say some good words on why Obamacare sucks.
John Kasich did well. He's a patriot with common sense. I wasn't too hot on his response with same-sex "marriage" - he pulled the "went to a gay 'marriage' a few weeks ago and I think we need to love everyone. That's what Jesus said." Though he gives good talk about the economy, saying that a good economy is the solution to everything (I don't know about that), he's unaware of how important of the 'other' economy: The economy of marriage and family. He accepts that same-sex "marriage" is law of the land, still believes in traditional marriage yet he thinks it's best for America to just let the issue go die out, to let if fly into the sunset. The "non-bigots" have won this - it's end game according to him. Then again he is Anglican so I suppose I can forgive him.
I have mix feelings on how Rand Paul's performance. He picked fights with Trump and Christie - that's not smart when you need public favor to advance.
A few conservative/libertarian online news sites have said that there are three serious candidates (Walker, Cruz, Fiorina). Back then I would agree, but now I think that three have expanded to at least five: Walker, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee, Rubio and Kasich, just from this top half.
The questions asked by the moderators, Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, were, for the most part, alright. The best question was how the current set of candidates dealt with the common "small government" claim while, whenever GOP wins the POTUS, expands government. This is a crucial question because it forces them to actually follow the claim with hopes to 'evolve' their stance to do such a thing.
I did not see the bottom GOP half with Carly Fiorina, which I hope to catch before the end of the week on re-run. Word has it she was the outright winner of her group. This is good news. The real question is if this debate has made the American people take serious interest in her, serious enough to move her up in the poll standings and to earn her a spot on the top half. It'll be interesting; I don't think she'll get over the hump of her non-name brand, but if she does then America is paying attention. America helped Obama's brand grow - from a little known Senator with barely three years of Congress experience to the fast track towards the White House, and they can do the same thing with Fiorina. But unlike Obama, who, after I do some serious thought, was groomed and pushed towards the White House by the established DNC, Fiorina would earn that GOP nomination in a less contrived way.
The social progressive zeitgeist has successfully implemented itself as present and future norm. Same-sex "marriage" is supported by more than 60% of the American population. Why? Because Americans are lazy thinkers and idiots when it comes to the institution of marriage. Abortion is on-demand even though there are small spurts of resistance to end late-term abortions. I thought the Planned Parenthood fiasco would be more of a hot button but it's not - the media has done a good job and the American people are too indifferent about it, even if they are aware of the videos. But they can show anger when black people die and strongly favor same-sex "marriage." What I'm trying to say is this: The American people have changed for the worse, but maybe they can surprise me.
Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Julian Castro: Stanford (B.A.), Harvard (J.D.)
Secretary of Transportation - Anthony Foxx: Davidson (B.A.), NYU (J.D.)
Secretary of Energy - Ernest Moriz: Boston College (B.S.), Stanford (PhD)
Secretary of Education - Arne Duncan: Harvard (B.A.)
Secretary of Veteran of Affairs - Robert McDonald: West Point (B.S.), Utah (J.D.)
Secretary of Homeland Security - Jeh Johnson: Morehouse (B.A.), Columbia (J.D.)
That's ten (10) out of 16 positions that currently have at least one Ivy degree. The last non-Ivy League president of was Ronald Reagan who graduated from Eureka College (B.A.). As respectable as Eureka is, it's not Stanford. What's even more strange is that six positions are the only ones that don't have a person holding J.D. acting as head. Why are there so many juris doctors, whose resumes barely even make them qualified for such positions, managing these departments? Want to be in the Cabinet? Get a law degree. Want a political career? Get a law degree.
Let's tally.
Harvard - seven (7)
Yale - two (2)
Brown - one (1)
Columbia - one (1)
Non-Ivy Elites: Stanford - three (3); Georgetown - one (1)
You also have two Rhodes Scholars in Carter and Burwell.
No, that type of crime, but when blacks react to fellow blacks who don't buy into every racial accusation made towards the right.
Poster "Synthea Hairston" on Ron Christie denying any racial slurs made towards Congressional Black Caucus members from The Tea Party as they walked down the The Capitol steps -
This was front page news - the very first headline - in the Chicago Tribune, today.
As my mother and I briefly discussed immigrants (we were targeting illegal aliens that were Mexicans) and the States efforts to accommodate them, we concluded that the government - out of all that we are knowledgeable of - go into great lengths to make the so-called marginalized of society (not drug users, not prostitutes, not the disabled or mentally ill) feel "welcomed" and "wanted" further helping their path to become spoiled, indignant children.
Transgender city employees and their dependents will soon get
$100,000 in costs tied to their gender reassignment surgeries covered by
taxpayer-subsidized city health insurance, under a groundbreaking
mayoral order disclosed Wednesday.
After the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex
marriage legal across the nation, one of five openly gay aldermen urged
Chicago to turn its attention to the rights of transgender people and
consider requiring “gender-neutral” washrooms in public places.
Emanuel didn’t go quite that far Wednesday. But he did take a giant step to recognize the rights of transgender Chicagoans.
While the mayor spent the day in Washington, D.C., his office put out
a news release announcing that the city was poised to lift the
“exclusion of gender reassignment services” from city health care
benefits.
That means “male-to-female or female-to-male” surgeries tied to the
painstaking process of changing gender would become “standard” for city
employees and their dependents covered by taxpayer-subsidized city
health care plans.
City Hall said it is “in the process of finalizing specific criteria”
that must be met to receive coverage for the multiple procedures tied
to changing sex and which specific procedures would be covered.
But a $100,000 “lifetime cap” on gender reassignment procedures is
planned for each employee to avoid saddling the cash-strapped city with
expenses it can’t handle.
No matter what the new benefit ends up costing the city, it’ll be a
drop in the bucket of the Chicago’s skyrocketing tab for health care.
Emanuel’s 2015 budget pegged those annual costs at $470 million.
Dr. Loren Schechter is a plastic surgeon who has been performing gender confirmation surgeries for more than 15 years.
Schechter said the $100,000 cap should cover most of the basic
procedures tied to male-to-female surgeries, including breast
augmentation, creation of a vagina and procedures related to what he
called “facial feminization.”
But Schechter said the $100,000 cap would likely not be enough to
cover lifetime hormone therapy, nor would it cover female-to-male
conversions.
“Making a penis and testicles is much more complex and expensive.
It’s often performed in several stages. The cost is probably at least
$15,000 just for the implants. That’s minus the professional fees and
hospitalization costs. There’s also the female-to-male mastectomy —
removal of breasts,” he said.
“I don’t’ believe $100,000 is enough. I guess you can say it’s better
than nothing. It certainly defrays a portion of cost. But I’m not aware
of insurance companies that put limits” on these procedures.
The mayoral order is expected to be approved by the Benefits Committee on Tuesday and take effect on October 1.
It will be implemented first and unilaterally for non-union city
employees while the city continues “working with labor partners” to do
the same for the unionized workforce.
“Chicago is known for being a city that is welcoming to all and
inclusive of every resident, and this new policy is in line with our
efforts to support the rights and well-being of transgender
individuals,” Emanuel was quoted as saying in the news release.
“With this change, Chicago will ensure that transgender city employees are able to receive the medical care that they need.”
Emanuel said he decided to push for the groundbreaking changes after
the ACLU raised a red flag about the city’s decision to deny health
insurance coverage to a transgender city employee. The city employee at
the center of the controversy does not want to be identified or
interviewed, the ACLU said.
“We commend the City of Chicago for recognizing that no one should be
denied insurance coverage because of who they are,” John Knight, LGBT
& HIV Project Director for the ACLU of Illinois was quoted as saying
in the news release.
“More and more cities, states, private employers and the federal
government have gotten rid of these outdated policy exclusions that make
no sense, from either a medical or an economic standpoint. It’s
wonderful news that Chicago employees will now have access to the gender
affirming care they need.”
The mayor’s office billed the change as paving the way for Chicago to
become the nation’s largest city to cover sex change surgery. San
Francisco, Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia already provide the
benefit.
In the private sector, Aon, Exelon, United Airlines, Hyatt Hotels,
Groupon and AbbVie are among the Chicago companies that also provide
such coverage.
Last year, an appeals board at the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services ruled that Medicare may no longer exclude
gender-reassignment surgery from coverage.
Emanuel has been a champion of gay rights and a darling of the gay
community as an aide to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and as a
member of Congress and as mayor.
As Obama’s chief of staff, he lobbied the president to issue an
executive order protecting hospital visitation rights for same-sex
couples.
The spotlight has shined even more brightly on issues surrounding
transgender Americans after a television interview with and subsequent
appearances by former Olympic decathlon champion Caitlyn Jenner.
Fuck you, Bruce Jenner. Second, fuck all the LGBT "rights" activists. Third, all of this is in the name of "equality, inclusiveness" and "pursuit of happiness." Oh, and fuck Justice Anthony Kennedy for his fortune cookie legalism.
I hope there was a cub lion born somewhere around the world to take the place of Cecil the lion.
And Jimmy Kimmel getting emotional over this? Are you kidding me? Yes, it sucks the Mr. Alpha Awesome Male Lion was killed as he was an actual protected lion on a conservation. There is one less Alpha Awesome Male Lion walking the earth while the world shows their Gamma muscles in people like Kimmel.
This is the same crap like saving the whales, as if what's popular on social media and if celebrities are outraged over it the it must be important, that their moral compass - finely tune as it is - is showing the world how "human" (not like evil Dentist Palmer) humans can be.
Here are two examples. The first is on granting illegal aliens citizenship.
It's clear that many true conservatives do not support Amnesty. What does the left do to implant the "Isn't-ironic-that-your-god-Reagan-thought-differently"? Note what Reagan said in support of the Immigration Reform and Control of 1986. Fair enough. But so what. I suppose in the right's stubborn, bigoted and antiquated world view, according to the left, that those who do not support Amnesty should seriously re-think their position because their beloved Reagan had opposite feelings.
Yea, no. Reagan had his thoughts and reasons and those who do not support Amnesty have their thoughts and reasons. The non-supporters of Amnesty did not make up their stance out of a vacuum whose foundation, as the left truly believes in, is based on the lack of compassion and not respecting the dignity of the illegal alien to become a "first class citizen" (it's the same fat that underlies the social justice warrior's heart as they feverishly supported same-sex "marriage")
The second is on gun control, most particularly the ban on so-called assault weapons. Enter Pierce Morgan interviewing Ben Shapiro.
Transcript (10:12 mark) :
"Why did Ronald Reagan want these assault weapons removed?
"You know, I don't why Ronald Reagan wanted these assault weapons -- "
"You like Reagan, right?
"I like Reagan in many ways. He's not a god. I don't agree with him on everything."
"Do you agree -- "
"He also believed in the progressive tax rate. I don't believe in that."
"Did you agree with him about assault weapons?"
"Um, if, um, I believe what you're saying, sure. I don't believe ... I don't agree -- "
"Did you know his position on assault weapons were?
"I don't know what his position on assault weapons was. Why don't you tell me."
"Well let me read the letter in full. This is a letter he penned alongside President Ford and Carter in 1994 to Congress ... (reads letters - Morgan puts emphasis on "statistics prove" and the appeal of "we urge you") ... That was Ronald Reagan."
"Okay. So? I mean I can disagree with Ronald Reagan."
"You keep framing it as a left-right debate. I'm putting it to you that one of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me."
"So?"
"So it's not left or right is it?"
- Morgan says stuff about how the NRA through the years have framed it as a left vs right, the left attacking the Constitution; tells Shapiro that he arrogantly comes in and brandishes "his little book" (holds up pocket size version of Constitution); Shapiro takes offense on how Morgan calls the Constitution "little book" and reminds him that it's the Constitution, Morgan says he knows what's in the Constitution and states he's been debating this subject for many years -
Is it a debate between left vs right? Yes and no. Yes because those who tend to support the ban are on the left and those who don't support the band are on the right. The right always appeals to the 2nd Amendment being violated while the left appeals to inaccurate, skewed statistics (science and facts are on our side card) and the dead bodies of those killed by gun violence (emotional appeal). No because I'm not sure how clearer it can be stated that gun ownership, assault or not, is an actual right of the US citizen for defense (you need to be aware of US history starting from its colonization). There is no appeal to the 14th amendment as a back up.
Let me be honest: Those who do support the ban on assault guns usually come from it out of fear. The don't like how guns look (they aren't 'cute' and 'beautiful' like two people of the same-sex kissing, holding hands and both wearing wedding gowns or tuxes). They don't like the sound a gun makes. They attribute the guns with the military and the left tends to see the military as hired murderers by the rich, white 1%, sent out to invade and kill innocent civilians for oil. This is how the left usually views guns, the military and war. This is their worldview. This is not anywhere near inaccurate or exaggerated.
Note that Pierce's attempt to refute the left vs right narrative; that it is, instead preferred, a "those-who-are-civilized-not-Neanderthals" narrative. The left's tactic to remove left vs right is the same thing to cast doubt on right vs wrong, no such thing as a country's border, no such thing as a baby in resemblance of a fetus, that the connection between marriage (between two people of the opposite-sex) and child should be regulated to antiquity standing - that the child has the right to choose its own parents, preferably non-biological (in great favor same-sex guardians), as it always should've been according to one California law professor.
Also keep in mind that what Pierce did is the same tactic the same-sex "marriage" supporters did to those who oppose same-sex "marriage." Replace Reagan with "your non-straight friends/family member/police officer/teacher." Replace "little book" with the Bible. The "I read your book" is the same thing atheists and social progressives say when dismissing any social conservative stance.
It's the same play in the same playbook just with a different issue.
Christians who badger (insists on why, after generous explanations with charitableness, homosexuality is a state of disorder and to engage is to do wrong; says the Church is wrong even after many have given wisdom when compared to supporters for change) why the Catholic Church does not allow same-sex "marriage" on CAF have turned out to be two of the following (with overlap possible).
(1) Socially liberal
(2) Have same-sex attraction
"catholic1seeks," as one can see from his profile message board, started off reasonable and now has turned into a "the-Church-is-wrong" type. His rise of butt-hurt for the Catholic teaching that engaging in same-sex acts is sodomy is wrong can be explained by him being a homosexual.
To not judge a book by its cover (though to judge) I wasn't too much surprised given his avatar of himself. It was, um, rather "gay." I'm not sure how to explain it but my "gaydar" beeped.
Then there's the Lutheran "Thorolfr."
I thought this poster was just expressing his disagreement due to different beliefs between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran church, but as it turns out he's a homosexual as well.
There are few socially liberal Catholics on CAF - and not really surprisingly they work in fields like (school) psychology - and the atheists/agnostics/humanists on the forum also have strongly batted for same-sex "marriage" and have used the "the Catholic Church is in the minority on this issue, so please stop your ruckus and say you're wrong" card.
There are posters like "Darryl Revok" who just say stuff that has such poor awareness that it should be posted under "Stufff atheists/agnostics/humanists/"Physicalism"ists/liberal-Christians say."
Because communism was totally awesome. I hear China is getting a huge amounts of people wanting to migrate there for a new life and to raise their kids under the amazing communistic system that China holds.
