DescentBB

....we have an act of terrorism on our soil, and one party is full of candidates unwilling to even acknowledge it. Poll numbers, Black Friday shopping?
Seriously? And, we expect these folks in the GOP to recognize real terrorist threats down the road?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

they're being quiet because they're fighting the good fight against abortion. that evil, evil thing that somehow is more important than not telling people what to do with their own bodies.*




*see poe's law.

"no more baby parts"

So can you draw a line from this guy to the edited PP videos? (and everyone who pretends the videos weren't edited)

So now people are dead because someone constructed a lie that got perpetrated by the media about a perfectly legal activity. Does the person who manipulated those videos now get a civil suit brought against them?

I used to live in Colorado Springs. It was a typical conservative military town. Things started going downhill when Focus on the Family moved into town. Then the Chrisitan stampede into town began. Now the north part of town is churchville, some of them more extreme and vocal. The Air Force Academy is a hotbed of Christian Warriordom. The whole climate of the town changed, and not for the better for anyone not rabidly Christian. I moved away, thankfully.

vision wrote:So now people are dead because someone constructed a lie that got perpetrated by the media about a perfectly legal activity. Does the person who manipulated those videos now get a civil suit brought against them?

How does this differ from the Ferguson lie, Black Lives Matter and dead cops?

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote:So now people are dead because someone constructed a lie that got perpetrated by the media about a perfectly legal activity. Does the person who manipulated those videos now get a civil suit brought against them?

How does this differ from the Ferguson lie, Black Lives Matter and dead cops?

because you cannot find a lie or false video for starters. And, as to the comments by another about the local Christian community in Colo. Springs, the shooter came from North Carolina.

and, since you'd like to conflate the two issues, Woody, let's ponder this: a white guy with a clear agenda and likely mental issues shoots up a clinic, holds out for 5 hours, yet is captured alive. A kid in Chicago with a small knife, walking AWAY from police and having harmed no one, is shot 16 times. And you think 'Black Lives Matter' is somehow 'fictional'?

Seems kind of odd to expect someone to react even close to a lone gunman the way they would react to a large well organized and funded group.

and if that lone gunman feels himself PART of a large and well-funded group, where are we then? Because, in both Colorado and in many ISIS-linked attacks, you essentially have the same phenomenon: the leadership gives over the top rhetoric, creates propaganda video, garners a bit of political support even, and encourages lone-wolf types, both explicitly and implicitly. No real difference. So, I guess the takeaway is that the GOP leadership is OK with terrorism, so long as it attacks those they disagree with?Telling, indeed.

That large and well funded group you refer to is advocating the defunding of a government program, a perfectly valid political position.

Yes, I would agree that the tactics used by some to persuade people crosses a line…but…

Comparing them to ISIS is absurd.

terrorism is terrorism, no matter the size of the support network, isn't it?

Your question presupposes the support for terrorism.

I rarely fall for loaded questions.

your naivety astounds me, spidey.

terrorism, as defined, is the will to change things politically through violence. shooting people because you believe in a cause is no different than setting off bombs.

Or cutting off heads...

Someday I’m going to wake up in a world where Ferno actually understands the arguments I’m making.

or, firebombing black churches. I think we understand the different forms terrorism can take. If you're going to give a pass to some but not others, the moral strength of the argument falls apart.

good read:
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/11/donal ... he-leading

Spidey wrote:Or cutting off heads...

Someday I’m going to wake up in a world where Ferno actually understands the arguments I’m making.

someday I'm going to wake up and see you don't pull a double standard and ethical egoism.

callmeslick wrote:and if that lone gunman feels himself PART of a large and well-funded group, where are we then? Because, in both Colorado and in many ISIS-linked attacks, you essentially have the same phenomenon: the leadership gives over the top rhetoric, creates propaganda video, garners a bit of political support even, and encourages lone-wolf types, both explicitly and implicitly. No real difference. So, I guess the takeaway is that the GOP leadership is OK with terrorism, so long as it attacks those they disagree with?Telling, indeed.

I love how you try to equate the GOP with ISIS. Are your Dem emails telling you to do this?

callmeslick wrote:and, since you'd like to conflate the two issues, Woody, let's ponder this: a white guy with a clear agenda and likely mental issues shoots up a clinic, holds out for 5 hours, yet is captured alive. A kid in Chicago with a small knife, walking AWAY from police and having harmed no one, is shot 16 times. And you think 'Black Lives Matter' is somehow 'fictional'?

So on the one hand you try to connect the GOP with ISIS, yet here you fail to link ISIS and the Democratic party. Let me use your own logic. Chicago is a Democratically run city and has been for decades. The police are controlled by Democrat politicians. The black kid was killed by city sponsored thugs much like ISIS uses to control their population. While your GOP example is tenuous at best, here we have clear example of the Dems using terrorism to control a segment of their population.

wow, talk about a stretch. Nice try at deflection, though, woody.

Wood, please tell me you were smirking when you typed that out.

Vander, I find it interesting that you did not ask that question of slick when he equated isis with the gop.

woodchip wrote:I love how you try to equate the GOP with ISIS. Are your Dem emails telling you to do this?

you realize that I told them two years ago to stop sending me emails, and announced WHY on this very forum? Do a search before you ASSume any further nonsense about me. I am not affiliated in any way with the Democratic party, not even registered at the moment with them for the primary.

Even worse, that means you sit around and dig up all of this crap yourself.

woodchip wrote:Vander, I find it interesting that you did not ask that question of slick when he equated isis with the gop.

Sorry, I'm not the media, so I don't have to pretend to give equal weight to an opposing argument just because it's an opposing argument. I think there's a valid point to be made linking rhetoric and consequence. And I think slick's analogy does not strain credulity as yours does. And yes, I think there is a valid analogy to be found somewhere in the rhetoric against law enforcement, just not the one you made.

Perhaps this hits a little too close to you, as you seemed to be championing the "PP harvests baby parts for profit" rhetoric.

I have no real problem with the notion that rhetoric can incite violence, and if that is the case it should be taken up in the law enforcement arena, but once you start accusing people of sponsoring terrorism, you cross a line, and become what you are railing against.

So what happens if someone starts killing people in the Republican party because the rhetoric that they are sponsoring terrorism gets around?

There is a very bad precedent being set here.

Oh, I spotted something interesting today. Guess who published the assertion that the guy was simply mentally ill.

callmeslick wrote:and if that lone gunman feels himself PART of a large and well-funded group, where are we then? Because, in both Colorado and in many ISIS-linked attacks, you essentially have the same phenomenon: the leadership gives over the top rhetoric, creates propaganda video, garners a bit of political support even, and encourages lone-wolf types, both explicitly and implicitly. No real difference. So, I guess the takeaway is that the GOP leadership is OK with terrorism, so long as it attacks those they disagree with?Telling, indeed.

There's a difference between an organization whose creeds encourage terrorism and who also trains people in acts of terrorism and an organization that eschews terrorism. I both cases you can have people committing terrorist acts in the name of the organization... but in one case it's relatively appropriate while in the other it's a misappropriation.

what happens when that organization that eschews violent acts is found out to be directly funding the splinter-group that perpetrated a terrorist act? what then?

Spidey wrote:I have no real problem with the notion that rhetoric can incite violence, and if that is the case it should be taken up in the law enforcement arena, but once you start accusing people of sponsoring terrorism, you cross a line, and become what you are railing against.

"Sponsor" connotes participation or agreement with the act. That goes too far for what I'm suggesting, and I doubt many anti-abortion activists would ever specifically support or incite violent attacks. But if a national politician knowingly champions the misrepresentation of facts on such a volatile issue, I do believe that rises at least to a level of negligence. It's willful creation of greater outrage based on falsehood that I find egregious.

I suppose it all rests on whether the shooter was able to contain his outrage when PP was just murdering babies, but lost it when he thought they were parting them out for profit, too.

Vander, how do you know what made the shooter snap?

Speculation. And the reported "baby parts" comment.

Vander wrote:Speculation. And the reported "baby parts" comment.

which, if pursued over time, ought to lead to consideration of legal action against the folks that made and released that crudely edited set of videos, as well as anyone on the public stage who purported them to IN ANY WAY be truthful in suggesting that PP was 'selling' 'body parts'. I know if my loved one were a victim, I'd be filing suit against quite a few folks REAL soon.

now, I KNOW the source linked is biased, and don't agree with some of the obvious suppositions they are making, but I offer this link to show that, yes, there are some Christian terrorist organizers out there:

http://aattp.org/christian-terrorist-jo ... n-doctors/

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt such legal action would be fruitful, maybe rightly so. There should be a high bar to clear to link responsibility legally. Barring some pretty extraordinary evidence, like the video authors being on record as hoping their work would incite violence, I don't see how you can link it legally. Public opinion, however...

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote:Speculation. And the reported "baby parts" comment.

which, if pursued over time, ought to lead to consideration of legal action against the folks that made and released that crudely edited set of videos, as well as anyone on the public stage who purported them to IN ANY WAY be truthful in suggesting that PP was 'selling' 'body parts'. I know if my loved one were a victim, I'd be filing suit against quite a few folks REAL soon.

So once again you regurgitate the liberal meme that the pp videos were edited even tho I linked the full unedited versions numerous times. Tell a lie enough and the dumb sits will start believing it?
As to suing can the families of the cops killed by people inflamed by the rhetoric of Sharpton and black lives matter crowd...sue them?

woodchip wrote:As to suing can the families of the cops killed by people inflamed by the rhetoric of Sharpton and black lives matter crowd...sue them?

Do you?

*edit

That doesn't make sense. Do you think Sharpton et al should be sued?

woodchip wrote:[So once again you regurgitate the liberal meme that the pp videos were edited even tho I linked the full unedited versions numerous times. Tell a lie enough and the dumb sits will start believing it?

apparently you either believe the latter, or are unaware that the makers of the videos admitted, under oath, that those videos you linked were edited, and never have produced anything close to raw footage.

As to suing can the families of the cops killed by people inflamed by the rhetoric of Sharpton and black lives matter crowd...sue them?

if the rhetoric implored people to kill cops, yes, I'd agree with that completely.

callmeslick wrote:now, I KNOW the source linked is biased, and don't agree with some of the obvious suppositions they are making, but I offer this link to show that, yes, there are some Christian terrorist organizers out there:

http://aattp.org/christian-terrorist-jo ... n-doctors/

his first quote reads like he's a writer for a horror movie franchise.

Oh and does anyone remember when I said 'real and dangerous consequences'?