White Supremacist Murders Ten in Buffalo - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15228235
BlutoSays wrote:No, we have REAL background checks. You don't like it, too bad.

Are you dyslexic? Your typing looks like you're f*d.


No. The US does not have real background checks. AN 18 year old Known to police to have made threats and mental health issues got an automatic rifle. No any reasonable background check would not have given this kid a gun,
#15228238
BlutoSays wrote:we have REAL background checks.

REAL or not, they are not working.

Firearm homicides increased 35 percent in 2020 !!


:lol:
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15228243
For those searching for the actual truth, you do have to wonder if he might have been an extremist Antifa and did this and sacrificed himself in an attempt to make the type of people he didn't like look bad, of course knowing this would be all over the news and used for political purposes.

There was that story about a Leftist news reporter in Portland who shot at a synagogue and set fire to the outside of a mosque while it was full of people so he would later be able to write a story about a horrible racist attack, frustrated that he couldn't find any actual racist attacks to report about. It sounds insane, but a few of them are so frustrated their wishful fantasy doesn't actually conform to reality that it drives them to derangement.

I personally think there may have been some obvious signs that the perpetrator may have actually been on the "anarchist" Left and trying to make it look like he was on the "racist" Right, but the news media ignored all those indicators and is selectively misrepresenting this story, to do exactly what the perpetrator was intending to happen from carrying out these murders.

Why did the shooter's "manifesto" use terminology that sounded like a Left-wing gun control supporter wrote it, in a way that no conservative gun owner would ever write?

Lots of things the media has been claiming about this don't make sense. Why were black people targeted? (It's not like black people are really "replacing" white people any more than they always have. NY state doesn't even have any problem or issue with black people moving there) Why were two of the victims white?

He almost seemed like he wanted to get caught, and left his alleged "reasons" for the authorities to find. The latest news release is that he had even sent his personal "diary" off to a news station so the world could read it. Doesn't that sound like it might be fake to you?

We can also mention that 77% of the people in Buffalo voted for Democrats in the last election. If this murderer was really trying to hand Progressive Democrats a gift by carrying out this "racist attack", do you really think the authorities in Buffalo (certainly not the local politicians and higher-ups) would be anxious to reveal the truth if there were indicators that the attack may likely not have been what it seemed?

The city where this perpetrator comes from is a working class mostly Democrat town, kind of a small town and rural, the type of place with moderate conservatives and old-school "blue dog" Democrats.

Isn't it still too early to tell? Shouldn't we wait for the details to have a chance to fully come out? The public is just not in a position to know for certain what the actual motivations truly were at this point.

Furthermore I bet the perpetrator was on anti-depressants, which have been known to be associated with these type of incidents since they blunt any moral feelings.
The same anti-depressants that are designed to make people feel like nothing is wrong, also can make that person feel like nothing is wrong with their thoughts and impulses. I would be very unsurprised if we later find out this teen adult was on anti-depressants. They blunt any feelings of right and wrong, making the patient feel like anything that happens is okay.
#15228273
Potemkin wrote:All you have to do is look at American history, and all becomes clear: a nation founded on slavery and genocide, built on land stolen from its native inhabitants by immigrants from another continent. The racism is baked in by now.

The violence is baked in, the identity crisis is baked in, but the racism was not. There's been a lot of whining about Jim Crow, but can anyone point to a single polity in 1865 that sustained a universal male suffrage multi-morphological-racial democracy in 1865? Most places couldn't sustain mono racial, mono cultural universal male suffrage in 1865 let alone a multi racial one. Also the idea that Southern Whites should just abandon their privileges in 1865 is simply demented. Try telling Queen Victoria or the British aristocracy that they should share a meal table with lumpen proletariat and see how far you get. No social group in 1865 just abandoned their privileges, short of it being pulled from their cold bare hands.

The Yankees were total hypocrites, there's no way they would have accepted such huge percentages of Black African voters in their own states. No by the time Lincoln came to the throne (sorry I mean Presidency) it was too late.



However Jim Crow and the system of terror that maintained it are gone. This is not a terrorist act. This will not stop Black African Americans going to university, using a lunch counter, voting or taking up positions of power, prestige and status within American society. To put it into Marxist language the Bourgeoisie has successfully completed its revolutionary democratic tasks. What can not be fixed is the highly visible cultural legacy and the American national identity crisis.
#15228996
Beren wrote:How many?

I'm just curious as to whether he was politically correct or racially balanced enough.


I didn't keep count, but the very first person he murdered was a white woman.
#15230490
Rich wrote:The violence is baked in, the identity crisis is baked in, but the racism was not. There's been a lot of whining about Jim Crow, but can anyone point to a single polity in 1865 that sustained a universal male suffrage multi-morphological-racial democracy in 1865? Most places couldn't sustain mono racial, mono cultural universal male suffrage in 1865 let alone a multi racial one. Also the idea that Southern Whites should just abandon their privileges in 1865 is simply demented. Try telling Queen Victoria or the British aristocracy that they should share a meal table with lumpen proletariat and see how far you get. No social group in 1865 just abandoned their privileges, short of it being pulled from their cold bare hands.

The Yankees were total hypocrites, there's no way they would have accepted such huge percentages of Black African voters in their own states. No by the time Lincoln came to the throne (sorry I mean Presidency) it was too late.




Why didn't the Confederacy just give up on a Billion dollar enterprise that was legal and supported by the US Supreme Court and an act of Congress?
And you are right, the Yankees were hypocrites for sure. It was OK for Union States to keep slavery as long as they did not secede from the Union and they remained loyal to the tyrant Lincoln.
Some northern states, as soon as they freed their slaves, passed anti-black immigration laws to keep blacks out of their states.
They saw it coming.
So did Lincoln. And he made some crazy talk about Blacks not being able to live with whites.
Was Lincoln right?
#15231439
Rich wrote:The violence is baked in, the identity crisis is baked in, but the racism was not. There's been a lot of whining about Jim Crow, but can anyone point to a single polity in 1865 that sustained a universal male suffrage multi-morphological-racial democracy in 1865? Most places couldn't sustain mono racial, mono cultural universal male suffrage in 1865 let alone a multi racial one. Also the idea that Southern Whites should just abandon their privileges in 1865 is simply demented. Try telling Queen Victoria or the British aristocracy that they should share a meal table with lumpen proletariat and see how far you get. No social group in 1865 just abandoned their privileges, short of it being pulled from their cold bare hands.

The Yankees were total hypocrites, there's no way they would have accepted such huge percentages of Black African voters in their own states. No by the time Lincoln came to the throne (sorry I mean Presidency) it was too late.

However Jim Crow and the system of terror that maintained it are gone. This is not a terrorist act. This will not stop Black African Americans going to university, using a lunch counter, voting or taking up positions of power, prestige and status within American society. To put it into Marxist language the Bourgeoisie has successfully completed its revolutionary democratic tasks. What can not be fixed is the highly visible cultural legacy and the American national identity crisis.


This post is what happens when you're trying really hard to sound very smart, but your overall point is trivial and retarded.

Who says you don't have ownership of your own bod[…]

workers paradise Also, why the slight at ant[…]

To quote a true visionary: The Universe is a very[…]

When you're a permanent "good guy," eth[…]