Armed Domestic Terrorists Have Taken Over a Federal Building

[silverscreenselect]

I know how'd I'd feel today. I might join them. I don't think it close.

You'd probably be cheering that decision because when it comes to national security, you just can't be too sure, especially when the people you're locking up are of a different race or religion.

[Vandal]

Trending on Twitter: #VanillaISIS

[BackInTex]

I know how'd I'd feel today. I might join them. I don't think it close.

You'd probably be cheering that decision because when it comes to national security, you just can't be too sure, especially when the people you're locking up are of a different race or religion.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You would do nothing. I know that for sure. Me however, I'm not the white KKK boogeyman you wish I was. You don't own a tenth of the moral high ground here. You would sit back and go "That's terrible, just terrible what they are doing there. Just terrible for those people." Then look for some good deals on their real estate.

[a1mamacat]

Geez. Wackos who really think this incident is even remotely comparable to real acts of terrorism that injure and kill innocent people, or wackos who really believe we need to all be armed just in case overthrowing the fucking government sounds like a good idea. Damn, I just don't know who to side with in this thread.....

lb13

join me on the sidelines chanting.."venomous snakes, not poisonous" I'll even share my popcorn. How communistic of me LOL

[BackInTex]

Geez. Wackos who really think this incident is even remotely comparable to real acts of terrorism that injure and kill innocent people, or wackos who really believe we need to all be armed just in case overthrowing the fucking government sounds like a good idea. Damn, I just don't know who to side with in this thread.....

lb13

join me on the sidelines chanting.."venomous snakes, not poisonous" I'll even share my popcorn. How communistic of me LOL

That's socialistic.

[littlebeast13]

Geez. Wackos who really think this incident is even remotely comparable to real acts of terrorism that injure and kill innocent people, or wackos who really believe we need to all be armed just in case overthrowing the fucking government sounds like a good idea. Damn, I just don't know who to side with in this thread.....

lb13

join me on the sidelines chanting.."venomous snakes, not poisonous" I'll even share my popcorn. How communistic of me LOL

Whatever happened to "Less Filling!" "Tastes Great!" ?

(munches on Marxist popcorn)

lb13

[Bob Juch]

But preserving the ability to implement armed resistance to government authority (which is unquestionably going on here) is precisely the rationale advanced by some (such as flock, and I think you at times) in support of "gun rights." I think this example of such armed resistance illustrates exactly what rights we're trying to preserve, and I hope gives pause to some opponents of regulation. And the price we're paying for such ready availability of firearms is awfully steep.

I'll ask again -- did these idiots acquire their weapons legally? --Bob

This type of resistance is precisely what the 2nd amendment is for, IMO. Should such a cause arise that a larger portion of the populace supports it, it is imperative that such resistance be feasible.

As long as there is little real support, there is little real danger. If there is great support, then perhaps it is a righteous resistance.

But the ability to execute such a resistance is needed to keep the government in check.

Why do you call them idiots? Because they don't buy into your idea that the government is always good and should provide for all? Because if they are called 'idiots' by enough people the real idiots will think of them as idiots?

I don't think they are idiots. I do think they are fighting the battle the wrong way for a cause that does not yet (and I mean yet) justify such armed resistance.

I'm sure they purchased their guns legally. And aside from their current actions, probably would be able to continue to purchase them legally.

[BackInTex]

Not quoting BJ's post to save space, but...

No doubt, BJ. I would not be surprised.

Half of Ferguson is let to burn down while everyone watches and says "let them express their anger", but here, some white rednecks stage a peaceful and harmless (yet armed) sit-in, and the press panics.

[silverscreenselect]

Me however, I'm not the white KKK boogeyman you wish I was.

No, they're honest about their prejudice. You just invent a whole lot of justifications for yours, some of which you may even have talked yourself into believing.



Of course, there was no suggestion of rounding up German-Americans and the Germans actually landed a submarine full of saboteurs during the war.

I can just picture BiT drawing down on Milton Eisenhower.

[Estonut]

Here's what a British site has to say:

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/a ... W1b0NMi0sg

The best part of that article is this response:

The hypocrisy is staggering here. I am gobsmacked by this bs! Where was the outrage during the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore in the media? During the OWS demonstrations? There was plenty of actual violence and intimidation in these settings. These ranchers have been fighting peacefully with the government for years about this. When 60 Minutes did an expose on this years ago everyone was outraged. Now they are terrorists? Are white conservatives now the ONLY group of protesters in the United States who are counted by the media as terrorists? So, I guess it was okay for the federal government to kill David Koresh's followers - all of them - at Wako? How about the students at Kent State? How DARE the media compare these protesters, who have NOT committed any violence, with jihadists who are blowing up civilians somewhere in the world on a daily basis. Disgusting. Give me a BREAK!

[BackInTex]

Of course, there was no suggestion of rounding up German-Americans and the Germans actually landed a submarine full of saboteurs during the war.

You're comparing a failed attempt at sabotage to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

That is a rhetorical question of astonishment. Of course you are.

[silverscreenselect]

Of course, there was no suggestion of rounding up German-Americans and the Germans actually landed a submarine full of saboteurs during the war.

You're comparing a failed attempt at sabotage to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

That is a rhetorical question of astonishment. Of course you are.

Pearl Harbor was an attack by a sizable naval and air force. The German planned attack was exactly the type of sabotage that authorities were afraid that Japanese-Americans on the United States mainland might attempt. If you listen to Eisenhower, that's what he was talking about "some" of the Japanese that wound up in the internment camps might be planning. Why them and not the Germans? Of course, their race had nothing to do with that decision.

[flockofseagulls104]

Me however, I'm not the white KKK boogeyman you wish I was.

No, they're honest about their prejudice. You just invent a whole lot of justifications for yours, some of which you may even have talked yourself into believing.



Of course, there was no suggestion of rounding up German-Americans and the Germans actually landed a submarine full of saboteurs during the war.

I can just picture BiT drawing down on Milton Eisenhower.

You really tick me off sometimes, SSS. This post is a prime example. Before you go pointing fingers of racism at others, you need to look at and acknowledge your own bigotry. And judging from what you post here, you are as much of a bigot as someone who goes around using ethnic slurs in their everyday language. And you are just as offensive.

[Bob78164]

Me however, I'm not the white KKK boogeyman you wish I was.

No, they're honest about their prejudice. You just invent a whole lot of justifications for yours, some of which you may even have talked yourself into believing.



Of course, there was no suggestion of rounding up German-Americans and the Germans actually landed a submarine full of saboteurs during the war.

I can just picture BiT drawing down on Milton Eisenhower.

You really tick me off sometimes, SSS. This post is a prime example. Before you go pointing fingers of racism at others, you need to look at and acknowledge your own bigotry. And judging from what you post here, you are as much of a bigot as someone who goes around using ethnic slurs in their everyday language. And you are just as offensive.

How do you feel about Trump's proposal to ban all non-citizen adherents of Islam from entering the country? Has BiT expressed a view on that proposal? --Bob

[SportsFan68]

Feeling threatened and being threatened are two different things. SSS feels threatened by the fact that anyone has a gun, though he has only been threatened once (that he's talked about).

I don't speak for SSS but will disagree with this. He talks about it all the time, most recently on New Year's Eve when he talked about firearms going off in the neighborhood. I agree with SSS that anytime stray shots are fired, there's a threat of injury or death.

But those randomly firing the shots are not threatening you. Their actions are a threat to you just like a drunk driver is a threat. Are you prepared to call drunk drivers terrorists?

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Since people are pulling out dictionary definitions, "someone or something that could cause trouble, harm, etc., the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen." I think random shots qualify. I agree completely with your statement, "Their actions are a threat to you just like a drunk driver is a threat." Except, drunk drivers are a much greater threat around here. If I recall correctly, one person has been killed by a random shot in my lifetime, where I can think of years in which a dozen people were killed by drunk drivers

I am not prepared to call drunk drivers terrorists, nor did I say anything like that. I said that "anytime stray shots are fired, there's a threat of injury or death," and now I'm adding, "Anytime there's a drunk driver on the road, there's a threat of injury or death."

[flockofseagulls104]

How do you feel about Trump's proposal to ban all non-citizen adherents of Islam from entering the country? Has BiT expressed a view on that proposal? --Bob

The only thing I like about Trump is his refusal to be politically correct. As for your question, I don't FEEL anything about it. I THINK that even though he has said he would only do that "until our country's representatives can figure out what [the hell]is going on", it is a bad idea overall.

Trump could be what we warned democrats that support Obama's trashing the Constitution about. A right wing zealot who can now use the precedents established by Obama to do things left wingers don't like. I believe he has no more idea of the limits of presidential power and the role of the Executive than Obama does. The only time I would vote for Trump is if he wins the nomination (which I hope doesn't happen) and is running against either the corrupt Clinton machine or socialist lunatic Sanders. I might actually vote for O'Malley over Trump, but that is because I know next to nothing about him. But that won't happen.

[BackInTex]

I am not prepared to call drunk drivers terrorists, nor did I say anything like that. I said that "anytime stray shots are fired, there's a threat of injury or death," and now I'm adding, "Anytime there's a drunk driver on the road, there's a threat of injury or death."

I agree with you 100%. I was only trying to address the label of 'terrorist' being applied to the occupiers.

We have at least 1 DUI death here in Harris County a week, it seems.

[President Chump]

How do you feel about Trump's proposal to ban all non-citizen adherents of Islam from entering the country? Has BiT expressed a view on that proposal? --Bob

The only thing I like about Trump is his refusal to be politically correct. As for your question, I don't FEEL anything about it. I THINK that even though he has said he would only do that "until our country's representatives can figure out what [the hell]is going on", it is a bad idea overall.

Trump could be what we warned democrats that support Obama's trashing the Constitution about. A right wing zealot who can now use the precedents established by Obama to do things left wingers don't like. I believe he has no more idea of the limits of presidential power and the role of the Executive than Obama does. The only time I would vote for Trump is if he wins the nomination (which I hope doesn't happen) and is running against either the corrupt Clinton machine or socialist lunatic Sanders. I might actually vote for O'Malley over Trump, but that is because I know next to nothing about him. But that won't happen.

I'm not sweating your vote, Flock. If Washington goes red, I'll get my lovely locks buzzed off!

[Bob Juch]

Earlier this morning, Bundy Wingnuts were unexpectedly joined by even nuttier group of wingnuts called the Pacific Patriot Network. The Pacific Patriot Wingnuts made the Bundy Wingnuts nervous because they were carrying assault rifles and dressed in cammo (rather than western attire) and so the Bundy Wingnuts asked the Pacitic Patriot Wingnuts to go home saying they weren't wanted or needed. At last report, Ammon Bundy was seen yelling "get off my lawn" and the Pacific Patriot Wingnuts were slowly backing down and leaving the compound.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... m-shooting

An FBI agent has been indicted on accusations that he lied about firing at an Arizona rancher in 2016 when officers arrested leaders of an armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in rural Oregon.