When have I claimed I a self proclaimed intellectual or genius? I am not either. But just for context, there was a WSJ article about this potentially being a transgender shooter and a lot of MAGA were foaming at the mouth for that narrative. This person in question just looks.. like not what I expected in that regard.

Democrats have a sense of shame and will crucify their own ; thats why they are getting fired left and right for celebrating someone getting assassinated?
Thats why when the house asked for a moment of silence they started pissing and moaning like babies right.
Your so delusional, I have actually no idea where the fuck you came from or what experiences you have but your beyond retarded.

interesting projection.


the WSJ talks about the bullet casing having trans propaganda written on it.


did you read the article? oh right, you dont click a WSJ link in a false attempt to not support.


LOL!

This post was edited by FoolsChance on Sep 11 2025 11:02pm

I didn't read the article, no. I just read people's response and narrative surrounding it. I do not read WSJ articles. They are satanists.

Yeah, it is actually. Cry about it even more.

look in the mirror bruh, you be practicing some stuff lol

All I have to say to this is, opinions held "near universal in 1945" is a bit of a reach. Especially when you consider in most western civilizations at that time people were not being stoned to death. Was America the lesser of the two evils when it came to WW2 and Germany? Absolutely. Should we hold our moral standards to that of those before us? I feel like morality and political philosophy should be forever evolving, especially to adapt to socioeconomic or technological changes of that era.

I find the idea of stoning anyone to death absolutely unacceptable and barbaric. I know it is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. But when Jesus came to the defense of the adulterous woman he said “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” It makes it quite clear this is a practice we should never preach.

He said that the word empathy was essentially a fake term used by politicians and he didnt like it, he perferred sympathy. (your source) but said "its a dicussion for another time"

That opinion made him reprehensible?


or was it other things he said? Maybe doing the same thing we just did with the "empathy" example on his other views could be beneficial. You might find that what he actually said does not match what you heard he said, according to your sources. (ie: fake news, friends, lunatics, 5 second clips etc)

Perhaps taking this as a lesson, will shape your views and how you gather info in the future. Perhaps take your fake news in very, very moderate doses with a grain of salt.


Because you posted this quote like he didnt believe in or have any "Empathy". But taking 2 minutes to find out what was actually said, one would think this person just has a simple opinion. it doesnt make them "REPREHENSIBLE"... Maybe his other opinions are just his views, maybe you have some common ground. maybe not so much.

But reprehensible? This digestion of fake news and spread of it, is a huge problem in this country. Try to understand that.



AND TO BE CLEAR. IF someone actually says something but it is taken out of context (empathy example). It is STILL FAKE NEWS. Understand this.


You are not doing ANY lifting, you are doing the minimal amount of "lifting" by just pushing fake news.

Well yeah, his entire life was a monument to that fact.