You’re just trying to wiggle out of your mistake or out of getting called on your inaccurate view. Own up to it and let it go. Here’s what you wrote in #15:
> “This is actually a mis-characterization of the tweet. It was apparently ***sarcasm***”:
You sided with what a woman with zero credibility is reported to have written in the link you provided:
“However, a woman has tweeted that the voting comment was a ***sarcastic response***.”
“She claims he was actually a conservative ...”
It is clear the woman has no credibility because of the following:
“Asked whether she actually knew Cetin, though, she responded “not at all.” “
Evidently, she’s a Hllary supporter because she called the shooter a conservative, she said he was a member of a rifle club and in the ROTC. All of those labels when spoken negatively are Hillary code. Yet she doesn’t know the shooter at all.
Later in the link you provided the report finds the shooter had this to say under a picture he posted on a Tumblr page of the leader of ISIS:
“My main dude, Abu bakr al big daddy. #al qaeda.”
Yet the woman you’ve sided with is insinuating he’s a right-wing conservative.
Look, I gave you the link to the entire posting with all of the rest of the information.
If you can't read beyond one comment that I made and see the story behind it, then you're just another Social Justice Warrior Snowflake wailing about being offended.
(I just finished Kurt Schlicter's book, "People's Republic". I thought some of the people in his book were a caricature, but then I met you. Kurt has you nailed, perfectly).
Goodbye, and have a sh**ty day, courtesy of me.