I don't need any government to tell me if I have their permission to defend myself. If I feel threatened, I am going to carry, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Especially when I worked in homecare and went into some shady neighborhoods. I am 6' 4", 240 lb guy with a great deal of Native AmerIcan blood, myancestry tagged me around 75%. I am told I look mean and people are initially intimidated by me, but I think that is because I can see through them and frankly hate most people. When 3 crackheads tried to jump me in Detroit, I will just say I kicked the tar out of them and still have a knife that they pulled on me (along with scars on my knuckles from knocking their teeth out). They messed with the wrong guy when they messed with a trained fighter. If they had a gun, I would have been a victim. My ancestors were victims, but I refuse to be one. Having a locked and loaded 44 under my pillow and a 357 within reach helps me sleep better at night. It levels the playing field. My idea of an endangered species is anyone who comes through my door without my permission. You wanna see your god, try me. I will give you an instant, one way ticket to the resurrection should you enter my abode without my permission and intending me harm. . I don't need any government permission to defend myself. The government has this proven, uncanny ability to destroy everything it gets its hands on, especially healthcare. Minimal or better yet, no government is the best choice, they are about as significant to me as that speck of dog poop that I flung onto my neighbor's yard this evening. I hate them as well, but they don't mess with me. In fact, they seem afraid of me, which is fine. I like it that way. They had Biden signs on their lawns in the last, stolen election so from that day forward I knew they were both ignorant and stupid as well. Having and carrying a nice, warm gun gives me peace of mind. You whiny, liberal wimps can bellyache all you want, but after you allow yourselves to become victims, know you had a chance not to have put yourself in that predicament.
I think that discussion is not likely to be productive. I'm old enough to remember the Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Front and the Watts riots. I suspect it'll get bogged down in false equivalences and the "both sides" dodge.
Now, if you want to talk about disparities in enforcement against such violence ...
How is condemning political violence of any political group "both sides dodging"? Unless you will accept/condone political violence depending on your own beliefs.
I don't know why you would care, but you make it a point to comment on my contempt for Trump with regularity, as if it triggers you in some way. 《shrugs》
This is an odd thread to pursue a discussion about that link. I didn't think you would try to high jack this thread but might take your talk about left wing extremists to the general thread.
Repost there and we can talk about that very focused protest and violence that is likely going to be charged as domestic terrorism. You can make the case that the violence is representative of a larger liberal strategy for change.
And we can talk about history because you are new and need to review that shooting because you don't know that member's here discussed it in depth at the time. So go to that appropriate thread and tell us what you think about that history.
I don't even know what to say about you, the member who started an entire thread about media bias, thought that The Epoch Times was a good resource. Maybe we need to spend some more time in that thread talking about how to evaluate the credibility, accuracy and bias of media outlets...
I don't know why you would care, but you make it a point to comment on my contempt for Trump with regularity, as if it triggers you in some way. 《shrugs》
This is an odd thread to pursue a discussion about that link. I didn't think you would try to high jack this thread but might take your talk about left wing extremists to the general thread.
Repost there and we can talk about that very focused protest and violence that is likely going to be charged as domestic terrorism. You can make the case that the violence is representative of a larger liberal strategy for change.
And we can talk about history because you are new and need to review that shooting because you don't know that member's here discussed it in depth at the time. So go to that appropriate thread and tell us what you think about that history.
I don't even know what to say about you, the member who started an entire thread about media bias, thought that The Epoch Times was a good resource. Maybe we need to spend some more time in that thread talking about how to evaluate the credibility accuracy of bias of media outlets...
Coming from the member who thought CNN was a good resource. I cited that source to balance the bias. 2 were center, one was right.
Media can be bias but still factual. You know that. LOL
Your fixation on Trump is noteworthy. Seems to dominate almost everything you post regardless of the topic.
Nah. Why don't you tell me if the congressional baseball shooting was political or not? Or better yet, why don't you condem it?
Will you condemn all political violence? Or is some okay?
The police are meant to serve and protect everyone. If they only represent one political party, then that smacks of fascism.
There you go again, getting bent out of shape about CNN. Aren't you tired of flogging that dead horse?
In the case of the domestic terrorist attack on the police facility in Georgia, a political group, with a political motive attacked it. The political affiliation of the police or the lack of is irrelevant. And technically the pregnancy centre isn't politically affiliated either. Making your point even more moot.
Are you supportive of this violence? Or would you rather dance arround semantics instead of calling out political violence in which you agree with?
I'm not bent out 9f shape abput CNN. I find it a joke though. Wouldn't want to cite it and be taken seriously. Especially if I flapp off about other news media all the time.
In the case of the domestic terrorist attack on the police facility in Georgia, a political group, with a political motive attacked it.
Are you supportive of this violence? Or would you rather dance arround semantics instead of calling out political violence in which you agree with?
I am not seeing in any news account that a single political group is behind the attack(s) in Atlanta. Just because a Republican governor is speaking out about it, doesn't make it political.
Of course, I am not supportive of violence. I a not sure what I posted that indicates I am.
I am not seeing in any news account that a single political group is behind the attack(s) in Atlanta. Just because a Republican governor is speaking out about it, doesn't make it political.
Of course, I am not supportive of violence. I a not sure what I posted that indicates I am.
Did you really want to discuss incel bro?
Well. Lets think this through. They are being charged with domestic terrorism. So the people charged are part of a group of peaceful protesters that were protesting a police facility, claiming it will add to the "militarization" of police. And the forest destruction to build it. Also their comrade who was shot by police because he shot at them. While protesting the something. That was living in a declared autonomous zone.
Now if you have to take a guess, what political affiliation do you suppose they are affiliated with?
Although true, no definite political affiliation has been reported, yet. Would you think it's reasonable to at least guess they were not "right wing"?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
Well. Lets think this through. They are being charged with domestic terrorism. So the people charged are part of a group of peaceful protesters that were protesting a police facility, claiming it will add to the "militarization" of police. And the forest destruction to build it. Also their comrade who was shot by police because he shot at them. While protesting the something. That was living in a declared autonomous zone.
Now if you have to take a guess, what political affiliation do you suppose they are affiliated with?
Although true, no definite political affiliation has been reported, yet. Would you think it's reasonable to at least guess they were not "right wing"?
So now you are advocating that people make assumptions or jump to conclusions? Who guessed about the political affiliation?
So now you are advocating that people make assumptions or jump to conclusions? Who guessed about the political affiliation?
A criminal case is different than a first amendment case. False equivalency. Not to mention this group makes it very clear what their ideology is. Pretty sure you wouldn't find MAGA camping in trees protesting a police facility and forest destruction. LOL
However under your standards, you have already dubed Fox's alleged defamation as the " greatest media scandal in modern history". Because of personal text messages. I could, considering the video evidence that we have seen, these people are, the most "violent political terrorist attack since Jan.6." But I won't because that's ridiculous.
However it is true. These people charged with domestic terrorism for attacking a police facility have not been found guilty in a court of law.
And Fox had not been deemed liable for defamation. Eventhough neither are comparable to eachother.
So sure. I am making an assumption of their political affliation. Do you think they are right wing terrorist?
Roitrn
618 Posts
How is condemning political violence of any political group "both sides dodging"? Unless you will accept/condone political violence depending on your own beliefs.