2016 Election
Quote: RonCLiberals always say people who don't want the same things as they do "don't care about ________"...most of the time, it is a lie to make themselves feel good. Caring about something does not mean agreement with every idea put forth by the other side of the political aisle--it means wanting to do something about the issue.
Gun control has not worked very well in Chicago. You can make a statement that it "may" have saved one person or more, you are asking the other side to prove it didn't save "someone." That, of course, is impossible. The truth is there is gun control in Chicago and it has a high gun violence rate. Maryland has tough gun control laws, yet Baltimore is setting high numbers for murders.
A solution that considers our rights under the Constitution AND helps slow/stop gun violence may be to enhance sentencing for gun crimes. Long terms for use of a gun in the commission of a crime and even longer ones if the gun is discharged.
Just taking something away from law-abiding citizens is not the way to fix criminals.
I look at Japan and the UK
They don't have the murder rates we have
It works
Quote: RonC
Remember, of course, that these ARE NOT citizens or residents of the United States and they are not subject to our Constitution--that is, they can be considered as suspect until proven not to be...and should be.
I was reading one day and I came upon this...
Quote: Some Important Men
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Is this a Truth, or is it just a truth?
I view such things as Truth. I know it's just my opinion, but a lot of the things in the screeds of our history are things I find to be independent of said screeds. If you and I hop into a DeLorean and set our sights on 965 AD, I will find the above True despite there having been no man yet who had spoke the words. Said screeds are important, certainly, but I feel the ideas within transcend documentation.
Does a person not have the right to a fair trial, not have the right to gather in peace, not have the right to worship the diety(ies) of their choice, simply based on whether they reside in a land with a certain document? I don't believe that. If you're telling me legal fact based on my previous post, I thank you for the knowledge. But if that's opinion, I disagree.
That doesn't mean I'm above questioning. Hell, I'm American by birth and by blood, protected by Truths and truths alike, but I still get stopped by NYSP / RCMP / border patrol / Coast Guard to be vetted. I don't find that an assault on my rights. Question away. Question me, question them. Vet and verify, whatever you have to do. But something about "Not American = not eligible to Rights" seems to me a creation of an underclass that I wouldn't be so quick to accept.
Quote: terapinedI look at Japan and the UK
They don't have the murder rates we have
It works
Why use examples with so many variables? Wouldn't it be nice to have an example with controls? You know, same culture, same customs, same way of life, to get an honest and accurate read?
Oh yeah, RonC did that.
Quote: FaceI was reading one day and I came upon this...
Is this a Truth, or is it just a truth?
I view such things as Truth. I know it's just my opinion, but a lot of the things in the screeds of our history are things I find to be independent of said screeds. If you and I hop into a DeLorean and set our sights on 965 AD, I will find the above True despite there having been no man yet who had spoke the words. Said screeds are important, certainly, but I feel the ideas within transcend documentation.
Does a person not have the right to a fair trial, not have the right to gather in peace, not have the right to worship the diety(ies) of their choice, simply based on whether they reside in a land with a certain document? I don't believe that. If you're telling me legal fact based on my previous post, I thank you for the knowledge. But if that's opinion, I disagree.
That doesn't mean I'm above questioning. Hell, I'm American by birth and by blood, protected by Truths and truths alike, but I still get stopped by NYSP / RCMP / border patrol / Coast Guard to be vetted. I don't find that an assault on my rights. Question away. Question me, question them. Vet and verify, whatever you have to do. But something about "Not American = not eligible to Rights" seems to me a creation of an underclass that I wouldn't be so quick to accept.
The laws of our country dictate who can enter our country. Once they are in, they should have the full protection of the Constitution as it relates to their status as residents (or whatever their legal status is).
On your larger point, which is beyond the laws of this country, perhaps they do have those 'rights"...but they need to fight to make sure their government understands that they have them just as the people who founded our country did. The freedoms we have aren't free at all...
I would say give them guns, turn them back into Syria, and let them fight for freedom if they desire that. Help them where they are if that is what they desire. if they want to come here, then follow the process...and the process should protect you and I (not the government, the people).
From a philosophical standpoint, perhaps everyone should be allowed to go everywhere...
Quote: FaceI was reading one day and I came upon this...
Is this a Truth, or is it just a truth?
I view such things as Truth. I know it's just my opinion, but a lot of the things in the screeds of our history are things I find to be independent of said screeds. If you and I hop into a DeLorean and set our sights on 965 AD, I will find the above True despite there having been no man yet who had spoke the words. Said screeds are important, certainly, but I feel the ideas within transcend documentation.
Does a person not have the right to a fair trial, not have the right to gather in peace, not have the right to worship the diety(ies) of their choice, simply based on whether they reside in a land with a certain document? I don't believe that. If you're telling me legal fact based on my previous post, I thank you for the knowledge. But if that's opinion, I disagree.
That doesn't mean I'm above questioning. Hell, I'm American by birth and by blood, protected by Truths and truths alike, but I still get stopped by NYSP / RCMP / border patrol / Coast Guard to be vetted. I don't find that an assault on my rights. Question away. Question me, question them. Vet and verify, whatever you have to do. But something about "Not American = not eligible to Rights" seems to me a creation of an underclass that I wouldn't be so quick to accept.
Thank you. +100. These are ideals are exactly what made this nation great. We loose these and we are no longer the nation we espouse ourselves to be. What Mr. Trump has stated recently regarding the registration of people who are citizens of this country is abhorrent. History has shown us where this path leads and it is not a road that should be traveled.
Quote: RonC
On your larger point, which is beyond the laws of this country, perhaps they do have those 'rights"...but they need to fight to make sure their government understands that they have them just as the people who founded our country did. The freedoms we have aren't free at all...
I would say give them guns, turn them back into Syria, and let them fight for freedom if they desire that. Help them where they are if that is what they desire. if they want to come here, then follow the process...and the process should protect you and I (not the government, the people).
And into the rabbit hole we go...
This fits the beliefs I hold to myself. It's a lot like the welfare argument. I'm all for "help", but damn you if you think I'm just gonna give you stuff. I'll teach you to roof, to weld, to cook, to clean, to serve, to observe, or whatever skill that will set you on your way so YOU can do. But I'm not going to do myself just so you can take. So yes, I'm not going to come over or send my friends and family over to die in your stead, just so you can get the same thing that we already paid for. I'm not down with that. But if you just need "help", a foundation, to get started, sure.
But then again... aren't a lot of our friends and family over somewhere hot and dry, having pot shots being taken at them using weapons and training we supplied to those taking the shots?
Hell, man, I just don't know. But at the risk of breaking a lot of brains as they find the right wing gun nut is really an oozing bleeding heart, I find less mental anguish at the thought of one slipping through and hitting us here than I do us refusing and increasing the numbers in a slaughter. There's just something about it. Maybe it's the finality of it all. If I let them in and it goes wrong, there's still stuff to do. I am a man, I am strong, I am intelligent, I have guns. My feeding hand has been bit before, and I got over it. It made me a better person because of it. But if I just say no, then that's that. There is no coming back from that.
Maybe it's foolish and I am destined to become a perpetual victim, but I don't think my spirit can afford to give up on people. My grasp on righteousness is too tenuous as it is.
Quote: kewlj....
So if we need to have a registry to attempt to keep track of people to be as sure as we can that the bad guys aren't infiltrating the good Muslims, that's a sacrifice of privacy that has to be accepted. We are at war and sacrifices have to be made, even at the expense of some personal freedoms that this country is based on.
No. Just no. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I'm with Ben on this.
Quote: beachbumbabsNo. Just no. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I'm with Ben on this.
I hear ya Babs. I really do. But, the show I watched the other night on PBS where a reporter was allowed into an extremist terrorist camp for a couple days is still fresh in my mind. It showed boys as young as 4 years old going about their daily training to be suicide bombers. The reporter spoke with other boys a bit older, 14 or 15 who, spoke of impatiently waiting for the day when they are called to kill as many non-believers as they can. They spoke of this like an American 14 year old would speak of impatiently waiting for Christmas.
It would be bad enough if these young boys were preparing for battle on the battlefield. But they are not. This isn't a traditional war. They are preparing to murder as many US civilians as they can in places like New York City, Austin, Texas, even my Las Vegas, as well as smaller cities and towns across the US.
Our forefathers provided a blueprint based on their vision at the time. But they could have no idea of what we are now facing. As I said earlier, this enemy isn't playing by the rules. The gloves are off. We have to defend ourselves and win this thing at all costs and if we have to temporarily sacrifice some freedoms to do so, then so be it. Just like the airport procedures after 911. Things change. Inconveniences in the name of safety. Our brave servicemen and women are willing to risk their lives defending this country. Surely the rest of us can temporarily make some small sacrifices.
Quote: kewljBut, the show I watched the other night on PBS where a reporter was allowed into an extremist terrorist camp for a couple days is still fresh in my mind.
Saw the same show
Quote:Our forefathers provided a blueprint based on their vision at the time. But they could have no idea of what we are now facing.
Unlikely, unless they never had a history lesson. Using of children and barbarism would be no new concept to the educated among them.
Correct. But the barbarism was restricted, thanks to the lack of technology, to areas like the North African coast or Asia Minor. And not around the globe and into our own cities and backyards.Quote: rxwineUsing of children and barbarism would be no new concept to the educated among them.
Quote: kewljOur forefathers provided a blueprint based on their vision at the time. But they could have no idea of what we are now facing. As I said earlier, this enemy isn't playing by the rules. The gloves are off. We have to defend ourselves and win this thing at all costs and if we have to temporarily sacrifice some freedoms to do so, then so be it. Just like the airport procedures after 911. Things change. Inconveniences in the name of safety. Our brave servicemen and women are willing to risk their lives defending this country. Surely the rest of us can temporarily make some small sacrifices.
The issues I have with giving up pieces of our rights under the Constitution are two-fold--
--The Government, once it takes a power, will not cede it back should the situation change or the threat diminish. More likely, they will tend to take more if they can get it. We have a Government dominated by Politicians, which is not what the forefathers wanted; they wanted one populated with citizens who went back home after some time in office. Put a "D" or an "R" in front of them, very few that we elect want anything less than more power. They've made seniority important to "what our district gets". so we are afraid to vote our guy or gal out. Power has migrated to Washington, DC in ways that were not intended.
--The TSA screening system, for example, allows us to be searched when there is no cause for search. We are treated as a suspect. You may say "well you don't have to get searched if you don't fly"...but how far do you want to extend that out? Trips to McDonald's? The grocery store? Why would you search people hours before they actually board the plane instead of immediately before boarding? Why are the agents not trained as Israel trains theirs--to ask questions and observe reactions? How many holes are there in the system that allow access to aircraft without searches, etc? All of the same things could be done less intrusively with bomb-sniffing dogs, a couple of screening questions by agents as we wait to check-in, etc.
We have the capability to gather intelligence in a myriad of ways but we let people decimate our "human intelligence" capabilities. That is where the focus should be--deploying assets to infiltrate everywhere and check everything WITHOUT trampling on our rights.
Think of a right that is important to YOU...then think of what the government could do to it. Heck, they've already perverted "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom from Religion"--it was meant to stop a state sponsored religion, not to stop public prayers and every instance of religion. Now a coach can't hold a voluntary prayer with his team after a game. Ridiculous. How much more power do you want to give the government?
Jindal is gone; how soon will more leave the Republican race for the nomination?
"No one else in the GOP field even gets more than 5%- Jeb Bush reaches that mark followed by Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee at 4%, Chris Christie and John Kasich at 3%, Rand Paul at 2%, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki at 1%, and Jim Gilmore, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum all at less than 1%."
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/11/gop-has-clear-top-4-clinton-dominant-for-dems-general-election-tight.html
I don't see a candidate with <1% surviving much longer. I think Gilmore and Santorum will be incredibly lucky to even make to the caucuses in Iowa. Of the two, Santorum may be the better bet to survive since he did win the event last time around. I also can't see Paul, Graham, or Kasich surviving much longer than that. Above that, I think everyone stays in a little bit longer hoping to pick up lost support from the inexperienced candidates at the top or the ex-candidates at the bottom.
In 2012, Santorum rented a house in Iowa and spent nearly all his time there. He went door to door and diner to diner and met these folks and that is why he had a strong showing despite not registering all that much in the polls prior to the caucuses. He is looking for that same lightning in a bottle again, so I doubt he will go anywhere until after Iowa.
One thing that really surprises me, is I hear repub operatives saying it will come down to Rubio and Cruz. They say Trump and Carson will fade and Cruz will pick up their support (I think they under-estimate Trump's staying power yet again). And with the three 'establishment' candidates, Bush, Christie and Kasich having been rejected, that the establishment will now rally around Rubio. I don't get how Rubio is now an establishment candidate? He was a tea-party guy who ran AGAINST the establishment candidate in the Florida senate race and won. He won his Senate seat based on the strength of the Tea-party sweep in 2010. Now all of the sudden he is establishment? I don't get that.
Fox News: Republican nomination. Trump 28, Carson 18, Rubio 14, Cruz 15
ABC/Wash Post: Repub nomination. Trump 32, Carson 22, Rubio 11, Cruz 8
The first 3 individual states even more stunning.
CBS News: Iowa caucus. Trump 30, Cruz 21, Carson 19, Rubio 11
CBS News: New Hampshire. Trump 32, Rubio 13, Cruz 10, Carson 10
CSB News: South Carolina. Trump 35, Carson 19, Rubio16, Cruz 13
As I have mentioned before, I don't like to put too much weight in any single or even a couple polls. I like to use the Real Clear Politics Average, which is an average of a number recent polls.
Real Clear Averages. Nationally: Trump 27.5, Carson 19.8, Rubio 12.5, Cruz 11.3
Real Clear Averages. Iowa: Trump 25.7, Carson 21, Cruz 15.3, Rubio 13.3
Real Clear Averages. New Hamp. Trump 26.6, Rubio 12, Cruz 10, Carson 9.8
Perhaps the most stunning thing of all....Jeb Bush failed to reach double digits in ANY poll conducted, down about 4-5% in every single case.
Trump entered the race in July. They said he would be gone by labor day. Then they said, when the debates started and people got serious, he would fade. Later, I heard the republican establishment say, Trump would crash and burn by Thanksgiving. Folks we are 2 months from the voting starting. Can the republican establishment stop Trump?
It just shows how disconnected both the GOP establishment and many media members are from the pulse of many in the general public.
Quote: kewljCan the republican establishment stop Trump?
They're trying to figure out if they can live with him.
Frankly, anyone who said they knew Trump was going to win the nomination would be basing their bet on instinct. Because what other track record is there to use?
Which is fine. It's sometimes works for the long shot horses too.
Quote:Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump would not rule out making a run for president as an independent despite signing a pledge over the summer saying he would support the eventual GOP nominee instead of running a third-party bid.
“I’m going to have to see what happens. I will see what happens. I have to be treated fairly,” Trump said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” when asked about a new guerrilla effort by operatives within the Republican Party to derail Trump’s candidacy. “When I did this, I said I have to be treated fairly. If I’m treated fairly, I’m fine. All I want to do is [have] a level playing field."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-isnt-ruling-independent-run/story?id=35335721
Quote: Dicenor33Mama Mia, Hillary wil be the next president. Micky Mouse candidates from the GOP, majority of the country are poor, they'll never vote republican. if republicans don't reinvent themselves this party is finished, nobody wants to vote for them.
Mickey Mouse would beat Hillary.
I'm not supporting Trump, and Hillary may well win...but she is far from a great candidate. Too many people don't like her.
Every news outlet in the country is reporting this as wrong
Some are going as far as to report it as an outright lie
For a while there, Carson supported Trump regarding this but smartly walked back the comment
Trump, well Trump is Trump
He has doubled and tripled down on this lie.
Amazing
Bill O took him down criticizing his tweets regarding statics regarding Black on white crime
Trump fires back, if he see's statistics that support his positions, he will retweet regardless if the statistics are a lie
He said its not his responsibility to check if any of his retweets are factually correct
Wow, how not Presidential.
I am just totally blown away by this guy
And he is still leading the Republicans.
Amazing, a true Teflon candidate.
I see a fractured convention that he may eventually dominate.
Quote: terapinedTrump said he saw thousands Muslims across the river in NJ celebrating 9/11 on 9/11
Every news outlet in the country is reporting this as wrong
Some are going as far as to report it as an outright lie
For a while there, Carson supported Trump regarding this but smartly walked back the comment
Trump, well Trump is Trump
He has doubled and tripled down on this lie.
Amazing
Bill O took him down criticizing his tweets regarding statics regarding Black on white crime
Trump fires back, if he see's statistics that support his positions, he will retweet regardless if the statistics are a lie
He said its not his responsibility to check if any of his retweets are factually correct
Wow, how not Presidential.
I am just totally blown away by this guy
And he is still leading the Republicans.
Amazing, a true Teflon candidate.
I see a fractured convention that he may eventually dominate.
Yeah, it's like he's our version of Putin. The truth is what he wants it to be, because if he says it enough times it must be so. Funny how he's always saying he's such an honest guy, saying the stuff nobody else will say about all the other politicians, and then he just goes out there and tells inflammatory lies. Kind of like he's trolling the entire process for sport, along with the American people who want to believe him.
Government Instilling Confidence
"We have no credible terrorist threats."
What they really mean:
"We have no detected terrorist threats."
The terrorist threats are real, it is our ability to detect that is variable.
Put these in the context of "contained" and the comfort of the French before the attack.
How are we doing?
Quote: StealthSomewhat related thoughts.
Government Instilling Confidence
"We have no credible terrorist threats."
What they really mean:
"We have no detected terrorist threats."
The terrorist threats are real, it is our ability to detect that is variable.
Put these in the context of "contained" and the comfort of the French before the attack.
How are we doing?
You're not wrong. We don't have ISIS infiltrated to any useful degree, and nothing beats humint. The encryption problem has made things much worse, with the icing on that cake that people thought gov't had the key (via Patriot Act and just, well, because the NSA could), until this latest gen technology came along. I guess it was out there for those paying attention, but that was a big admission for the gov't to make last week to the general public, that they can't intercept and decrypt comms any more.
I think this gov't is taking a spanking for a problem they mostly didn't create and can't currently solve. They've been trying to get Assad out of office while not going to war (which is what generated ISIS in the first place; Assad killing tens of thousands of his own people and us not interfering in civil wars), trying to extract us from Iraq when there's a power vacuum being filled by worse people than we should not have been there taking out in the first place, trying to get people infiltrated into an ethnic and religious tested group where we don't fit in, being rebuked by tech companies who put out unbreakable encryption without backdoors or keys, and now the panic and hyperbole of the media wanting to know what the hell we're going to do about it, even if it gives battle plans to the enemy. With what, I'd like to know; more unpaid-for warfare?
I don't see how anything proposed by anybody makes it better, and a lot of the ideas make it worse. Nobody has a plan, especially now that Russia is defending the Assad regime. Easily WWIII basis, and a lose/lose at best.
-Trump said more crazy stuff. Mocked a disabled reporter. Pretends he doesn't know disabled reporter he mocked.
Nothin surprising there.
-Terrorist attack at a Colorado Planned Parenthood perpetrated by a white man (NOT a refugee). Silence from the Republican candidates who helped incite said terrorist attack.
Nothin surprising there.
Quote: mcallister3200Well they're not going to call him a terrorist because he's not Muslim. Just an isolated crazy white guy where someone should have seen the warning signs. Move along, nothing to see here...
"Mentally ill" is the term they love to rely on in these situations.
Quote: mcallister3200Well they're not going to call him a terrorist because he's not Muslim. Just an isolated crazy white guy where someone should have seen the warning signs. Move along, nothing to see here...
Christian Terrorist.
The Republican Presidential candidates should be speaking up and against this kind of violence
They are all silent
Afraid to speak up for fear of offending their base
A police office was killed
Still silence
Really sad.
Quote: IbeatyouracesNobody wonders why these Muslim terrorists never attacks their true enemy....Israel.
Are you serious?
2015 alone 74 attacks, 49 killed 171 injured in Israel
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html
Quote: ams288-Terrorist attack at a Colorado Planned Parenthood perpetrated by a white man (NOT a refugee). Silence from the Republican candidates who helped incite said terrorist attack.
Global Warming made him do it.
Aren't you listening to your dem leaders?
Quote: HowManyGlobal Warming made him do it.
Aren't you listening to your dem leaders?
I don't listen to any leaders
Just call em like I see em
I call this latest incident in the news against Planned Parenthood Christian Terrorism.
Quote: HowManyGlobal Warming made him do it.
Aren't you listening to your dem leaders?
The shooter said "no more baby parts" after surrendering.
Where are the responses Republicans who perpetrated that lie? Only silence.
They've got blood on their hands.
It's bad enough people killing each other for money and land, like they usually do without the world full of people fighting for the wishes of invisible leaders.
Quote: ams288I'm back from vacation. What did I miss?
-Trump said more crazy stuff. Mocked a disabled reporter. Pretends he doesn't know disabled reporter he mocked.
Nothin surprising there.
-Terrorist attack at a Colorado Planned Parenthood perpetrated by a white man (NOT a refugee). Silence from the Republican candidates who helped incite said terrorist attack.
Nothin surprising there.
The disabled reporter wrote a line in an article right after 911 that verified some of Trumps claims about the Muslims in northern NJ celebrating, but then refused to cooperate with Trump to backup Trumls statements about Muslims...
And, even planned parenthood said they don't know the motivation. The police reports say the shooting started at the bank and the shooter "ducked" into the PP building. But in any case the shorter has Avery colorful record of strange behavior, so most likely just a nutbag..... But a failed bank robbery is another possibility.... I doubt any Republicans helped incite an attack....
Quote: GandlerThe disabled reporter wrote a line in an article right after 911 that verified some of Trumps claims about the Muslims in northern NJ celebrating, but then refused to cooperate with Trump to backup Trumls statements about Muslims...
Lets see the article
This is the Internet.
If its archived, great, lets see it.
Anything meaningful is archived.
To complain that a reporter is not cooperating. boo hoo.
This guy is the only source of evidence for Trump? LOL
Quote: Gandler
And, even planned parenthood said they don't know the motivation. The police reports say the shooting started at the bank and the shooter "ducked" into the PP building. But in any case the shorter has Avery colorful record of strange behavior, so most likely just a nutbag..... But a failed bank robbery is another possibility.... I doubt any Republicans helped incite an attack....
It was politically motivated. "No more baby parts"
He didn't know anybody there. He targeted an organization.
He's a terrorist.
All terrorist are nutbags
The ones in Paris, got to be batshit crazy to strap a bomb to your chest.
Quote: rxwineI'd just as soon all the news leave out the religions, and just say, "terrorists for imaginary beings".
It's bad enough people killing each other for money and land, like they usually do without the world full of people fighting for the wishes of invisible leaders.
That would, in most cases, mask the source of the instigation. These people, Muslim or Christian, think they are doing God's Work. They don't come up with this stuff on their own. Either told directly to act, or by drawing a "logical" conclusion when their priests stop one step short (for deniability, not because they don't agree), they take things into their own hands because they are manipulated or driven there.
Quote: beachbumbabsThat would, in most cases, mask the source of the instigation. These people, Muslim or Christian, think they are doing God's Work. They don't come up with this stuff on their own. Either told directly to act, or by drawing a "logical" conclusion when their priests stop one step short (for deniability, not because they don't agree), they take things into their own hands because they are manipulated or driven there.
Oh, I know. I'm trying to play up the absurdity of some of the terrorism.
People deciding they have the authority to start offing other people on several lines of text a thousand years or more old is the definition of insanity. Or should be!
Quote: terapinedLets see the article
This is the Internet.
If its archived, great, lets see it.
Anything meaningful is archived.
To complain that a reporter is not cooperating. boo hoo.
This guy is the only source of evidence for Trump? LOL
It's easy to find online, I'm on my phone at work right now otherwise I would find it for you. I'll look later tonight.
I am no Trump fan, in fact I hate him both politcally and locally (live in AC area), but on this issue I agree with him. And, the reporter should have made a statement that his article supported the claims. Instead he said (paraphrasing) "well I can't be certain of it was thousands of Muslims, just some groups of Muslims here and there". Basically he tried to underlay his article for the sake of politcal correctness.
Quote: terapinedIt was politically motivated. "No more baby parts"
He didn't know anybody there. He targeted an organization.
He's a terrorist.
All terrorist are nutbags
The ones in Paris, got to be batshit crazy to strap a bomb to your chest.
Not necessarily, some reports state that the shooting strated at the bank. The official report is that the motive is currently unknown, what is known is that the guy is socially weird, and has a history of mental instability and is a drifter....
We don't even know if he is a Christian, he does not have a membership with any church or organization, as far as we know he is just a lone nutbag. Almost every Islamic terror attack is sponsored by a large well funded global organization, there is no Christian equivalent....
Terrorist are people who are political activist using violence or threats to accomplish their agenda. There is a reason weirdo nutbags who shoot up schools are not labbelled terrorists, they are just loons who lost it, who got hold of a gun.
Quote: Dalex64No suggestions for a christian registry yet?
No, because, he was not a known Christian, he did not even have a church affiliation or politcal affiliation .... that is a total false equivalently....
The fact that his act of violence CAUSED terror doesn't make him what we call a "Terrorist"--he was not part of some vast (or even small) group dedicated to creating terror in the name of religion (assumed by many to be Christian, yet not confirmed in any way) as the Muslim terrorists want to do. There is a lot of "terror" out there--shootings, robberies, etc.--but those people are not generally labelled as "terrorists"...well, unless it fits some weird liberal agenda. They are just called criminals, gang members, nut cases, etc.
The sad part of this that liberals around here want to make some kind of odd false equivalence between a lone wolf nut case and Islamic terror groups. It isn't that we don't want to rid the world of BOTH, it is that drawing an equivalence that doesn't exist shows a certain sympathetic view towards those who want to kill all of us--liberals, conservatives, "R", "D", "I", gay, straight, black, white, etc.--and impose their chosen way of life on us.
Nice try.
Quote: RonCThe guy who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic is obviously a dirt bag nut case of the highest order. He mistreated animals (not convicted, but I'm doubting someone just made that up), let his dogs run lose AFTER being told not to, lived in decrepit cabin in the woods, moved to Colorado, and registered to vote as a woman.
The fact that his act of violence CAUSED terror doesn't make him what we call a "Terrorist"--he was not part of some vast (or even small) group dedicated to creating terror in the name of religion (assumed by many to be Christian, yet not confirmed in any way) as the Muslim terrorists want to do. There is a lot of "terror" out there--shootings, robberies, etc.--but those people are not generally labelled as "terrorists"...well, unless it fits some weird liberal agenda. They are just called criminals, gang members, nut cases, etc.
The sad part of this that liberals around here want to make some kind of odd false equivalence between a lone wolf nut case and Islamic terror groups. It isn't that we don't want to rid the world of BOTH, it is that drawing an equivalence that doesn't exist shows a certain sympathetic view towards those who want to kill all of us--liberals, conservatives, "R", "D", "I", gay, straight, black, white, etc.--and impose their chosen way of life on us.
Nice try.
Many terrorists are lone wolfs. Isis encourages this
All terrorists are nut jobs
You have to be totally insane to strap a bomb to your chest
A terrorist at the Paris stadium simply killed himself with a bomb, he was still labeled a terrorist just killing himself and nobody else.
Mike Huckabee agrees with me. The guy that shot up PP is a terrorist
"What he did is domestic terrorism, and what he did is absolutely abominable, especially to us in the pro-life movement, because there's nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way on something like this," Mike Huckabee
We have to stop being politically correct. If somebody on the right commits a terrorist act, that person should be labled a terrorist
The guy that shot up PP is an anti-abortion terrorist.
Quote: terapinedMany terrorists are lone wolfs. Isis encourages this
All terrorists are nut jobs
You have to totally insane to strap a bomb to your chest
A terrorist at the Paris stadium simply killed himself with a bomb, he was still labeled a terrorist just killing himself and nobody else.
Mike Huckabee agrees with me. The guy that shot up PP is a terrorist
"What he did is domestic terrorism, and what he did is absolutely abominable, especially to us in the pro-life movement, because there's nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way on something like this," Mike Huckabee
So there you have it...Huckabee, and other Republican candidates did, in fact, comment on and condemn this incident in a timely manner (just as O'Malley did--not as quickly as Hillary and Bernie, but in the same time as Republicans did).
I disagree with calling him a "terrorist" or calling it "Christian Terrorism"...he is a lone wolf nut job. The guy in Paris took part with a group organized to create terror and he only blew himself up because he failed to get in position to blow others up with him.
ALL murders should create terror--they do to me--but they are not "terrorism", in my opinion. Labeling everything that lessens the needed emphasis on taking out those from outside our country (sometimes joined by members recruited here) who seek to destroy our way of life. The coordination, and much of the execution of that job, is the responsibility of the Federal government. State governments need to take care of their own trash like this crackpot.
Quote: IbeatyouracesMike Huckabee is a terrorist himself tying to instill fear into us with God totalling messages.
If that is what you really believe, I find that to be a vicious statement. You may not agree with Huckabee--I do not in every instance agree with him--but he is in no way a "terrorist"....
Quote: RonCIf that is what you really believe, I find that to be a vicious statement. You may not agree with Huckabee--I do not in every instance agree with him--but he is in no way a "terrorist"....
Pat Robertson and his 700C Club are no different. These people do nothing but try to instill fear into people's minds and then want you to send them money on top of it. You don't have to actually kill people to terrorize them. Just scare them.
Quote: IbeatyouracesPat Robertson and his 700C Club are no different. These people do nothing but try to instill fear into people's minds and then want you to send them money on top of it. You don't have to actually kill people to terrorize them. Just scare them.
So does that same standard apply to the supporters of gay marriage who have done their best to destroy people who don't support their position but also don't hate them?
Quote: RonCSo does that same standard apply to the supporters of gay marriage who have done their best to destroy people who don't support their position but also don't hate them?
Nobody on the Left labels anti-gay people as killers or muderers
But on the right, they use that vile tactic for abortion providors which heats the rhetoric and therefore shootings occur because these nuts take the right wing anti-abortion propaganda literally.
Quote: RonCThe fact that his act of violence CAUSED terror doesn't make him what we call a "Terrorist"--he was not part of some vast (or even small) group dedicated to creating terror in the name of religion (assumed by many to be Christian, yet not confirmed in any way) as the Muslim terrorists want to do. There is a lot of "terror" out there--shootings, robberies, etc.--but those people are not generally labelled as "terrorists"...well, unless it fits some weird liberal agenda. They are just called criminals, gang members, nut cases, etc.
A well-written, but unfortunately, pure nonsense paragraph.
You can attempt to define terrorist however you want. But it doesn't make it the correct definition...
I'd recommend googling "terrorism definition" and then you'll see EXACTLY why Mr. "no more baby parts" is a terrorist.
