Multiple persons shot at Dallas ICE building 3 dead including shooter

[quintessentone]

In one breath you say the Dallas shooters brother said he was not political and you accepted that as fact.

In the same breath, you say the Mother of the Kirk shooter is not a reliable source.

Your version of "facts" shows your bias.

Their voting records show they were not leftist and their families say otherwise, or they didn't know what was going on. Those are all the facts anybody had. How did you get leftist out of that?

Their families know better than anyone else, so, yes I'll believe them first before I believe a non-transparent government such as yours trying to push an agenda.

I also read different psychologists agreeing that it is most likely nihilist violent extremism or something of that nature, where it is an new epidemic of young white gaming/digital isolated males  in your country that everyone wants to pretend does not exist.

[David64]

Their voting records show they were not leftist and their families say otherwise, 

Their families know better than anyone else, so, yes I'll believe them first before I believe a non-transparent government such as yours trying to push an agenda.

Then, according to your own rules, you should believe the Kirk shooter leaned Left.


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new...s?from=mdr
 

The mother of Charlie Kirk’s killer, Tyler Robinson, opened up about her son’s personal life and revealed that he became more political over the last year or so and had started to lean more to the left. Robinson’s mother told investigators that he had begun dating his roommate, “a biological male who was transitioning genders,” according to court documents filed today, CNN reported.
 

[quintessentone]

Then, according to your own rules, you should believe the Kirk shooter leaned Left.


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new...s?from=mdr
 

See the wording? She believed he turned left, not that she knew he turned left.

So according to my own rules, I follow the facts.

[Chiefsmom]

I addressed every point of yours and all you got is a deflection reply?

I'll call anyone out on their BS and you can do the same to me but don't be surprised if I stand up for my convictions and explain in detail why you got it wrong, like I just did. But this deflection reply of yours says all I need to know about you. See what I mean by seeping with bias? There isn't much more I can do to help you understand if you refuse to understand.

I apologize for not responding right away.  I did not want to call you an outright liar, which I believe, as another poster (the original) has pointed out, you did on my first question.

I truly believe that you post to either:
A) try to get people banned with their response to you.
B) Just want to argue in circles for the fun of it.

Mental illness can be neither left or right.  It is just mental illness.  A person that is mentally ill, can have LEFT or RIGHT beliefs that can cause a reaction that non mentally ill people will not have.  Do you understand that at least?

[IAMTAT]

See the wording? She believed he turned left, not that she knew he turned left.

So according to my own rules, I follow the facts.

Weakest defense since: "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

[David64]

See the wording? She believed he turned left, not that she knew he turned left.

So according to my own rules, I follow the facts.

....and there you go again.

[chr0naut]

Didn't you just call vets serial killers in another thread? 

And when the leaders of these groups are calling for the violence then yes you can blame a group.

I was just trying to show that someone cannot claim the high ground simply because of group affiliation.

Neither can people vilify others because of group they are in.

Only those who actually commit crimes are guilty.

When society begins criminalizing the non criminal on a spurious basis, it is the start of a slippery slope where fact is ignored and replaced by unverified opinion, and it leads, ultimately, to tyranny.

[chr0naut]

I call 'em as I see 'em.

Are you disputing that the shooter was:

1) Radical?
2) deranged?
3) a Leftist?
4) a nutjob?
5) a piece of shit?

Umm. I don't know the full details.

Neither do you.

[chr0naut]

ALSO...according to digital forensics...

He studiously utilized the Leftist-sponsored, CNN-promoted, ICE tracking app...and enjoyed watching the graphic CK bullet impact video...over and over and over again.

As to what type of mental illness he suffered from?

Whatever mental illness it is that makes one decide to go out to kill a bunch of innocent people.
Unless, of course, you believe committing mass murder is NOT a mental illness and totally normal.

So, you have been obsessively researching a mass shooter online. Is he your hero or something?

Clearly you must be a Democrat voter.

(Do you see how that line of 'reasoning' is flawed?)

[BeyondKnowledge]

I was just trying to show that someone cannot claim the high ground simply because of group affiliation.

Neither can people vilify others because of group a group they are in.

Only those who actually commit crimes are guilty.

When society begins criminalizing the non criminal, it is the start of a slippery slope where fact is ignored and replaced by unverified opinion, and it leads, ultimately, to tyranny.

Exactly which side started grouping people into labels? Nazis, deplorables, etc...

They love identity politics for some reason but don't like applied to them.

I see it as certain groups that some problemed individuals tend to join. You can be off all you want until you start destroying property, livelihoods and even people. That is where the line must be drawn.