What could Buchanan possibly be talking about? Is Buchanan saying that Cho’s highschool classmates should have been more intolerant of Cho being a weirdo? Should they have picked on Cho even more than they did? After all, even dumbasses can mock an Oriental kid with signs of autism spectrum disorder trying to speak good ol’ American.
Or, when Cho’s parents tried to get him help in a church youth group, should the rich kids have been even more intolerant and bullied Cho even more?
Intolerance and bullying do go hand-in-hand as well as being a bullying victim goes with 71% of school shooters. Cho "would almost be a poster child for the pattern that we saw," said Marisa Randazzo, a psychologist who helped write a 2002 federal study on characteristics of school shooters.
Surely Buchanan is saying that parents should be investigated by Social Services for medical neglect if they don’t let a shrink see the kid if school officials think there is a problem. And God knows we can’t tolerate any teachers who don’t immediately refer for psychological evaluation any child who shows possible warning signs.
Remove the kid from the home if the parents don’t comply. Ignore any arguments that they have about God-given rights to raise their kids as they see fit without government interference. Those are old conservative arguments that Buchanan apparently now believes must not be tolerated. Does this mean that Pat now agrees that psychologists should be teaching nonviolent conflict resolution and other secular humanist values in public schools? Go, Pat.
Perhaps Buchanan is upset about how tolerant gun laws are that allow a young madman to legally buy a pistol off the internet and have it delivered to a nearby pawnshop. Maybe Cho got a student discount.
But to tell you the truth, I’m not sure what Buchanan means. For example, he writes the problem is too much intolerance but then says the violence at Virginia Tech could have been quickly stopped if there had been a lot more guns on campus. In other words, Buchanan basically accuses Virginia Tech of being intolerant of guns and needing to become more tolerant. See, if all the students had been armed, anyone could have shot down Cho. They could have shown their intolerance for someone killing by killing him. Makes perfect conservative sense to me. About as much sense as Newt Gingrich blaming the shooting on liberalism and Rush Limbaugh claiming it was able to happen because everybody was distracted by the great hoax of global warming.
Fortunately, while the likes of Buchanan, Gingrich and Limbaugh were all venting, at least some Americans showed some sense of shame and responsibility. At a gathering in Washington organized by Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, leaders expressed regret that the church has not done more to reach out to the desperate in our society. Mercy, Pat, it sounds like the preachers might be starting to preach mercy, tolerance and understanding.
Listen to just how radical these evangelicals got, Pat. Barrett Duke, the vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said
“We have not done what we need to do to make sure that that answer is everywhere at all times … so that those suffering the kind of pains and the mental anguish that this young man was experiencing could know that there was someone he could talk to who could point him to God and help him before he would engage in such a horrific act.”
Duke also said that the church had to change and quit its old ways of relating and start communicating in today’s terms or else young people will abandon the church. Did you hear that, Pat? Even the Baptists are saying we need to get more tolerant.
Richard Cizik said "I would like to say that there is a future, there is a hope and they are also loved just as the victims and their families are loved." My God, Pat, Cizik was expressing tolerance for Cho’s family and not condemnation! What the hell is the country coming when a preacher won’t even cast a stone.
Listen to what else the bleeding-heart Cizik said:"Our hearts go out to them and we will be praying for them and want to help them in any way we can to get through this. I’m sure that they feel great grief – it must be very hard. Yet they must know that we harbor no ill will on our part nor do I believe the American public.”
Pat, this helping others and doing unto the least of them, isn’t it just revolting? But choke on this piece of multi-cultural political correctness, coming straight out of a preacher’s mouth: “We welcome families such as theirs, which has sought so hard to make a good life here in America and educate their children.”
Duke added that “we need to be careful before we lay blame on anyone else including his parents and they need time to think about this and they need time to sort through themselves." Are you listening, Pat assumptions, Newtered morals and Rush to judgment?