18
   

Minuteman Leader murders 9 year old girl.

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 10:56 pm
@Diest TKO,
Had Bush been assassinated, you would have placed some responsibility on people who attacked him or criticized him with extreme rhetoric, and yet never once to did I see you, in this forum, condemn those spewing hate for Bush and conservatives or warning of the possible consequences of such rhetoric.

Why is that?

You didn't attend any of the Tea Parties, and yet you claim to have a certain understanding of what transpired at all of them. What were the sources of your information?

How were a few fringe cretins able to give the impression that their message was what the Tea Parties were all about? An obliging media that wished to portray the Tea Parties as gatherings of extreme hate mongers focused their coverage on them and a certain percentage of the audience was all too willing to believe it.

You found the use of the name Tea Parties offensive? Give me a break. Attendees at these Tea Parties weren't claiming they didn't have a vote or that the 2008 election was stolen. Once again you are projecting what you want to believe in order to sustain your low opinion of conservatives.

Anarchists regularly take center stage at otherwise peaceful protests conducted at every G-8 summit. Do you believe the organizers of these protests are intentionally giving the anarchists a platform?

Quote:
I don't believe this is true. I think that had President Bush been killed, the nation's liberals would not have cheered. I don't think people are so petty. He's still a person.


Reread what I wrote. I don't believe people who criticized Bush were hoping he would be killed nor would have been pleased if her were. Furthermore, unlike you, I would not have blamed them for causing an assassination.

Quote:
I never called Bush any of those things, however Bush was being compared because of his actions, while Obama is accused because of his name and ethnicity. There is a huge difference.


Why is there a huge difference if the claims that Bush was like Hitler and bloody-handed tyrant are as outrageous as the claims that Obama is a terrorist or an Islamist agent? The nuts who believe the outrageous charges against Obama don't do so simply on the basis of his name and ethnicity. They are able to cite numerous actions that, for them at least, prove the charges.

There is only a huge difference if you think the charges against one are utterly absurd, and those against the other are understandable if not accurate.

Quote:
But maybe the point you're missing is that even if ebrown didn't, those individuals think their violent acts have some sort of advantage.


Obviously the madmen and criminals who actually engage in acts of violence believe they serve a legitimate purpose and provide a political advantage, but they, after all, are madmen and criminals. Ebrown is neither, and yet he believes there is a way to use these incidents to the advantage of the political causes he supports.

There is no point in trying to identify Republican politicians who are "working with" the Democrats. The issue is irrelevant.

1) I'm sure it's about the same number of Democrats who "worked with" Bush and the Republicans
2) It is not the duty of the opposition party to "work with" the party in power
3) The party in power rarely gives the opposition party an actual opportunity to work with them on anything that their majority bloc can push through

And most importantly

4) Not "working with" the party in power isn't even remotely a cause of the violent incidents of which this thread is about.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 11:27 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

So.. I suppose you have broken the law hawkeye. That speeding ticket perhaps?

I think ebrown has it correct. Breaking the law doesn't disqualify someone from being nice nor does it mean you should avoid them at all times.

I couldn't agree more, but it does mean that the person should be held accountable for breaking the law.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 01:10 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

So.. I suppose you have broken the law hawkeye. That speeding ticket perhaps?

I think ebrown has it correct. Breaking the law doesn't disqualify someone from being nice
nor does it mean you should avoid them at all times
.

I couldn't agree more, but it does mean that the person should
be held accountable for breaking the law.

That 's an interesting point.
I saw the biografy of David Berkowitz on the Biography Channel last night.
I remembered that period.
It turns out that one day he stopped his car to help some people
get their car out of a snowdrift, and that night he hunted down
another murder victim. Indeed, it was his practice to drive around
hunting for more victims, with a first aid kit in his back seat.
He used to fantasize about being a hero and rescuing people;
hence, the kit. He woud find a person to rescue, if in need,
or to murder, whichever came first.


I don 't mean to be a snob,
but somehow, I feel like I don 't want help from him.





David
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 03:21 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Had Bush been assassinated, you would have placed some responsibility on people who attacked him or criticized him with extreme rhetoric, and yet never once to did I see you, in this forum, condemn those spewing hate for Bush and conservatives or warning of the possible consequences of such rhetoric.

Why is that?

I'm not sure how to respond here. This is like asking me when did I stop beating my wife.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You didn't attend any of the Tea Parties, and yet you claim to have a certain understanding of what transpired at all of them. What were the sources of your information?

Watched a lot of footage from tea parties. Read lots of organizational material online about them. did my research on who was promoting them and what the message was. Don't imply my understanding was shallow. I did my homework.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

How were a few fringe cretins able to give the impression that their message was what the Tea Parties were all about? An obliging media that wished to portray the Tea Parties as gatherings of extreme hate mongers focused their coverage on them and a certain percentage of the audience was all too willing to believe it.

Sorry Finn, but the fringe found themselves to be pretty comfortable there. Media personalities like Glenn Beck who had large efforts in coordinating these tea parties didn't leave much to the imagination either.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You found the use of the name Tea Parties offensive? Give me a break. Attendees at these Tea Parties weren't claiming they didn't have a vote or that the 2008 election was stolen. Once again you are projecting what you want to believe in order to sustain your low opinion of conservatives.

Yes I found it offensive. I never said anything about the election being stolen, so take your strawman elsewhere. I'm saying that in a country where we have representation as ours to invoke the real struggle of the colonists is absurd.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Anarchists regularly take center stage at otherwise peaceful protests conducted at every G-8 summit. Do you believe the organizers of these protests are intentionally giving the anarchists a platform?

By definition, yes.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
I don't believe this is true. I think that had President Bush been killed, the nation's liberals would not have cheered. I don't think people are so petty. He's still a person.


Reread what I wrote. I don't believe people who criticized Bush were hoping he would be killed nor would have been pleased if her were. Furthermore, unlike you, I would not have blamed them for causing an assassination.

What are you saying here? I really don't understand what you're getting at. If Bush would have been shot who is it that you are saying I would blame? What are you basing this on?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
I never called Bush any of those things, however Bush was being compared because of his actions, while Obama is accused because of his name and ethnicity. There is a huge difference.


Why is there a huge difference if the claims that Bush was like Hitler and bloody-handed tyrant are as outrageous as the claims that Obama is a terrorist or an Islamist agent? The nuts who believe the outrageous charges against Obama don't do so simply on the basis of his name and ethnicity. They are able to cite numerous actions that, for them at least, prove the charges.

There is only a huge difference if you think the charges against one are utterly absurd, and those against the other are understandable if not accurate.

No Finn. This is poor reasoning. Bush being called Hitler (which is a stupid change and a lame appeal to fear/emotion) is based on his decisions as commander and chief. Real decisions. Emphasis on REAL.

The charges on Obama have never been about REAL actions of Obama. They've been about guilt by association, his color, his name.

If you think that these are equally absurd it is a deficit in your critical thinking ability.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
But maybe the point you're missing is that even if ebrown didn't, those individuals think their violent acts have some sort of advantage.


Obviously the madmen and criminals who actually engage in acts of violence believe they serve a legitimate purpose and provide a political advantage, but they, after all, are madmen and criminals. Ebrown is neither, and yet he believes there is a way to use these incidents to the advantage of the political causes he supports.

How about this Finn, there was this report that specifically mentioned this kind of thing was a threat and instead of the GOP taking it seriously, they acted like they were being targeted and demonized. Instead of working to help prevent this kind of thing, they thrust it into a state of controversy. I think that ebrown has a valid point and it's not his agenda alone to prevent extremists from successfully hurting people. I'd hope it was a part of your agenda.

You might just need to eat bitter and acknowledge this as a real threat and potential trend.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There is no point in trying to identify Republican politicians who are "working with" the Democrats. The issue is irrelevant.

1) I'm sure it's about the same number of Democrats who "worked with" Bush and the Republicans
2) It is not the duty of the opposition party to "work with" the party in power
3) The party in power rarely gives the opposition party an actual opportunity to work with them on anything that their majority bloc can push through

And most importantly

4) Not "working with" the party in power isn't even remotely a cause of the violent incidents of which this thread is about.

These are like childlike playground rules. He hit me first. Tattletales. No tag backs.

I so ******* tired of republicans trying to use the criticism that Bush earned as carte blanche to critisize Obama for anything and everything. They aren't the same. They aren't equal. The situations aren't the same. The congress aren't the same. Hell, Bush got lots of Dem support early in his first term and especially after 9/11. His real downfall became his inability to show direction on Afghanistan, his administrations terrible failing on intel for a justification for Iraq, and his incompetency in dealing with Katrina. Bush EARNED his contempt after having lots of Dem support.

Radical right-wing extremism is an issue whether the GOP wants to deal with the embarrassment from the association or not. In fact, not dealing with it makes them seem like they condone it or they are cowards.

T
K
O
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 03:45 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:

Radical right-wing extremism is an issue whether the GOP wants to deal with the embarrassment
from the association or not. In fact, not dealing with it makes them seem like they condone it
or they are cowards.
T
K
O

WHAT radical right-wing extremism ?
ebrown p
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 04:53 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Good point David.

Of course right-wing extremism isn't "radical" when it is the norm.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 05:48 am
@ebrown p,

Thank u.
The whole point between being "right wing" orthodox or conservative
as distinct from being liberal, is whether or not one will DEVIATE from the norm.

Those who deviate are liberal
and those who do not are orthodox or conservative.


Whether that is good or bad depends upon WHAT
is being either conserved or being deviated from.

If the subject matter of the conservation is GOOD,
then deviation from it is bad.

If the subject matter of the conservation is bad,
then deviation from it is good.

For instance, when Hess flew to England without Hitler 's permission,
he was being liberal, deviating from nazism, therefore being good.

When Boris Yeltsin deviated from the communist party,
that was very good to be liberal.

On the other hand, someone here posted that an accountant had embezzled
his father 's money, deviating from sound accounting practices; that was bad.


In common American parlance,
the subject matter of the conservation
by which conservatives and liberals are defined is the US Constitution
and its crippling limitations upon the domestic powers of government,
from which personal freedom derives.

Government jurisdiction and personal freedom are inversely proportional.
Conservatives are unwilling to deviate by increasing the domestic powers
of government over our own population.

Therefore, a lot depends on which norm is being deviated from.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 11:43 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
I'm not sure how to respond here. This is like asking me when did I stop beating my wife.


No it's not.

If you can only answer "Yes" or "No," the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" cannot be answered without implying that you have been beating your wife. However, we are rarely limited to "yes" or "no" as responses, and so if I asked you the question in this forum you could easily offer any number of answers that made it clear you have never beaten your wife or that you have never been married.

If you find that any answer you can come up with to my question in this thread somehow implicates you, then you are implicated.

I appreciate your honesty though. You could have easily answered:

"You have presupposed something which is not true. You must have missed the occasions I condemned hate speech directed at Bush and conservatives, but they were numerous."

More likely, the answer is that you are not concerned with the safety of Bush and conservatives. This doesn't mean that you wouldn't intercede to prevent their being harmed if you had the chance, or condemn anyone who harmed them (In fact, you have indicated that you would condemn the people spewing hate for resulting in the violent actions of others), but it could mean that while you can readily respond to perceived danger to people with whom you sympathize, you're, at least, indifferent to the same danger presented to those with whom you do not sympathize or for whom you have antipathy.

It could also mean that you assume that others will address the danger to Bush and conservatives, and that since you have antipathy for them, it needn't fall on your shoulders.

Obviously these are just possible reasons. The actual reason is something you might want to think on rather than simply dismissing the question as loaded.


Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 01:50 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Watched a lot of footage from tea parties. Read lots of organizational material online about them. did my research on who was promoting them and what the message was. Don't imply my understanding was shallow. I did my homework.


I don't really expect you to be able to identify the sources of your information, and to insist on it is unfair. It would be helpful though if you could.

Whether due to a political or sensationalistic bias, many media highlighted the exception. In some cases, as with CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen, the political bias was clearly displayed through interviews with attendees that can only be described as belligerent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/24/susan-roesgen-video-cnn-r_n_190635.html

It was great that someone's camera was rolling after Roesgen ended her report so that we could see the confrontation that ensued between a woman in the crowd and the CNN correspondent. This woman was far more representative of Tea Party attendees than those who expressed themselves in loutish ways.

The following video is far more representative of the sentiments and intent of the organizers of Tea Parties that the fringe exceptions you and Keith Olbermann have focused on.

http://stubbornfacts1776.com/?p=1189

As for the applicability of the Tea Party name, here is how one attendee explained it, and you'll note that it doesn't involve romanticized notions of revolution.

Quote:
“The English imposed a tea tax that the colonists didn’t vote for... We didn’t vote for a bank bailout or the Stimulus Package and we don’t want to pay for the taxes or inflation that’s going to pay for them. The people here don’t feel like the government is listening to them.”


Your notion that the Tea Parties provided a platform for "hate speech," is only accurate in the sense that any large and informal gathering of people provides a platform for people who want to make their beliefs known by carrying signs. It is only the responsibility of the organizers (and this applies to demonstrations on the right or left) if they are encouraged to attend, through publicizing the event or through the selection of featured speakers.

From the same blog as the above quote:

Quote:
Shouting “No Human is Illegal” about fifty youths carrying pro immigrant signs marched around the Park to the stage where the crowd began shouting “USA, USA, USA” at them. A dozen police in riot gear quickly lined up either protecting them or separating them from the tea partiers. These members of Students for Justice at SJSU and DeAnza College, the San Jose Peace Center, and San Jose CopWatch said they came because they heard the Minute Men were there.

Adrian Ramirez, a Mexican immigrant and graphic designer, said, “I came to protest the Minute Men who are hiding behind a tax protest. Them being here makes this anti-immigrant, so we’re protesting that, which we have a right to do.”


As it turned out, none of the featured speakers were members of the Minutemen Defense Corps or any other organization with "Minutemen" in its name, but even if they were, it would not have demonstrated that the event was "anti-immigrant." This is a term that is deliberately and unfairly being used to describe people who are concerned with illegal immigration. You do not find Minutemen at the local offices of the US Immigration Services, protesting the allowance of legal immigration.

In any case, Ramirez and his colleagues were allowed to stage their own protest activity and so, by your definition, the organizers of the Tea Party provided them with a platform as well.

http://www.sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/tea_party_draws_red_baiters/

The following site contains several video clips of interviews with Tea Party attendees. The reporter while not openly antagonistic to the attendees, is clearly not biased in favor of the event.

The comments made by some of these people are factually inaccurate, and one or two seem angry (not unexpected at a political protest), but a reasonable person would be very hard pressed to describe any of their comments as "hate speech." (Unless you want to count the smart-aleck young teen who mugs for the camera and interrupts his mother; calling out "I hate liberals")

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/2009/06/post-27.html

If you want to hear "hate speech" watch the following clip.

http://ridgeliner7.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/garofalo-tea-party-goers-are-racists-who-hate-black-president/

If anything demonstrated the political bias of reporters covering these events it was the blatant use of the sexual reference "tea bagging."

Out of curiosity, what did you think of Anderson Cooper and other reporters and commentators making lewd jokes around the term?


Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 11:27 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
In simple, You are right, I object to the premise. I had nor have any wish that President Bush (or anyone else) be harmed.

I'm an advocate for peaceful and responsible action through the means given to us by our constitution. I make no fuss about condemning the notion of violence.

I saw a lot of hateful speech towards Bush here, but honestly I can't think of users here that suggested he should die or be harmed. I might have those users on ignore or I might not be posting in those threads.

Related to this topic and perhaps most directly to the point is that I do feel a sense of obligation to condemn PROACTIVELY notions of violence as a means of coercion. That is definition terrorism, and it is something that the left must take on too. In the case of left wing extremists, the medium for terrorism is (as the same DHS report cites) cyber attacks not violence. fortunately, we already have things in place to enforce laws on this and investigate cyber attacks when they do happen. The left doesn't get indignant at the idea that left wing extremists exist, they accept and don't make themselves an obstacle.

It just feels like these incidents have made the GOP too defensive. It feels like they value their reputation more than acknowledging this kind of thing as a real threat.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 11:33 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I went to mostly pro-tea party sites for research. I think off the top of my head tea-party.org (try it without the dash if that's wrong). they called themselves the base for most of the organization. from there you can start tracing backwards who runs the site and who it's sponsors were.

I didn't watch much mainstream coverage of the tea parties. I did see lots of attendee footage from tea parties that was uploaded to places like youtube.

As for the "tea-bagging" comments on the news. I am familiar, but it didn't originate with left leaning media, it was from an editorial (from Fox I believe) when the reporter said it repeatedly seemingly unknowing its double meaning.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 09:32 pm
@Diest TKO,
I don't know that conservatives are denying that right wing extremism exists, and much as
1) Protesting the fact that the DHS seems to casting a very wide net with their definition of right wing extremism
2) Rejecting the idea that the expression of their opinions on subjects like abortion and illegal immigration is responsible for the acts of violence addressed in this thread.

I appreciate your attempt to categorize "left-wing terrorism" in benign terms, but you should read up on the eco-terrorist groups. While they have not killed anyone yet, they have caused hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage through arson.

There is a reason there are greater punishments for armed robbery even if no one is hurt. Commit enough acts of arson and sooner or later someone will get killed.

And if non-violent crime pales in comparison to violence, why are so many delighted with Bernie Madoff's 150 year sentence and hoping he will rot in prison?

In any case, this shouldn't be a contest of whose extremists are the most dangerous. They are all criminals and their criminal actions should be condemned by all.

If the GOP seems defensive it is because they believe the connection between conservative positions and rhetoric and the violence of madmen and criminals is unfair.

I don't know any member of the GOP or any responsible conservative who has not and does not condemn acts of political violence and mayhem. They are just not prepared to accept that by promoting their positions they are causing them and that they should, as a result, get on board with the positions of the Democrats and liberals.



Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 11:59 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't know that conservatives are denying that right wing extremism exists, and much as
1) Protesting the fact that the DHS seems to casting a very wide net with their definition of right wing extremism
2) Rejecting the idea that the expression of their opinions on subjects like abortion and illegal immigration is responsible for the acts of violence addressed in this thread.

The "net" wasn't a shot in the dark, and given the recent trend, it was pretty accurate. The lesson here to learn is not that these right-wing extremists are a good example of conservatives, but that they do exist, and it is a problem to be dealt with. The GOP's pride is not something sacred to be protected. Their egos don't need to be coddled.

The problem is not conservative's support for their ideas on things like abortion/immigration. I never said as much. For that matter, I haven't said most of the things you're asking me to defend. The threat here is that these extremists are slipping through the cracks. And why? Many have criminal records. Instead of crying foul about the DHS report, the GOP needs to come into the fold about addressing this problem.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I appreciate your attempt to categorize "left-wing terrorism" in benign terms, but you should read up on the eco-terrorist groups. While they have not killed anyone yet, they have caused hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage through arson.

There is a reason there are greater punishments for armed robbery even if no one is hurt. Commit enough acts of arson and sooner or later someone will get killed.

And if non-violent crime pales in comparison to violence, why are so many delighted with Bernie Madoff's 150 year sentence and hoping he will rot in prison?

Who said benign? Not me. Put fewer words in my mouth and more marbles in yours. Cyber terrorism is anything but benign. I just said that we already have means to investigate and funding (although cyber security is something I think still needs more attention in the USA).

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In any case, this shouldn't be a contest of whose extremists are the most dangerous. They are all criminals and their criminal actions should be condemned by all.

It's not a contest Finn, but why pretend that the two are behaving in the same or equal ways?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If the GOP seems defensive it is because they believe the connection between conservative positions and rhetoric and the violence of madmen and criminals is unfair.

Me doth think you protest too much.

I'm hardly sympathetic here Finn. The GOP would do more for their dignity by working with rather than fighting against the idea of right-wing extremism. The message I'm getting is that "These people are madmen, but not from right wing!"
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't know any member of the GOP or any responsible conservative who has not and does not condemn acts of political violence and mayhem. They are just not prepared to accept that by promoting their positions they are causing them and that they should, as a result, get on board with the positions of the Democrats and liberals.

They don't have to get on board with the democrats and liberals on their policies, but I expect them to come into the fold on fixing the problem. Crybabying about the DHS report only stalls us. The fact is that these people are committing these acts of violence based on their right-wing views. These people are using violence as a means of coercion.

Think of the opposite. Does the GOP have no obligation here?
K
O
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 12:30 am

Is the term "right wing extremism" an oxymoron ?

Can u be TOO unwilling to deviate from what is accurate ??

In other words, can u be too unwilling to twist
a contract into meaning something different than its original intendment
if one of the parties demands that u take a soft-hearted approach
for his benefit ?

If u accuse a man of being a "right wing extremist"
is that like complaining that a surgeon 's hands r too clean on-the-job
or
complaining that an accountant is too accurate in his calculations ?





David
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 05:05 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Is the term "right wing extremism" an oxymoron ?

No.
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Can u be TOO unwilling to deviate from what is accurate ??

Yes.
OmSigDAVID wrote:

In other words, can u be too unwilling to twist
a contract into meaning something different than its original intendment
if one of the parties demands that u take a soft-hearted approach
for his benefit ?

This murderer (or any other) isn't defending the constitution by any rational justification. To pretend this act is in anyway some noble defense of our constitution is absurd.
OmSigDAVID wrote:

If u accuse a man of being a "right wing extremist"
is that like complaining that a surgeon 's hands r too clean on-the-job
or
complaining that an accountant is too accurate in his calculations ?

No, it's not like either of those.

T
K
O
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 12:38 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:

This murderer (or any other) isn't defending the constitution by any rational justification.
To pretend this act is in anyway some noble defense of our constitution is absurd.

I did not do that; if u think I did, that is an illusion.

My remarks were directed at the nature of conservatism,
or orthodox non-deviance.
sliepnir2006
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 07:54 am
@genoves,
I think you have in the eyes of the world just been proven a bigger idiot that the other person here, can you not post a sensible post or must you continue to spam the thread with rubbish, as for the Minutemen, nothing more a group of hoodlum racist thugs, pretty little else to be said really.
0 Replies
 
Advocate54
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 03:12 pm
@High Seas,
This is perhaps the stupidest response to this thread I've seen yet!

She is a "Minuteman Leader, executive director of Minutemen American Defense with close ties to Chris Simcox MCDC and Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project, the latter who continued to support her, even after the murders.

These three morons were arrested for two counts of murder and other multiple felonies and subsequently indicted. There is no doubt of their guilt nor of their involvement. Forde made it quite clear what she intended to do, with her family and with other Minutemen groups, including one in Colorado where she tried to recruit members to help her.

And what in the hell is this about "because her parents took her there"? These assklowns staged a home invasion at 0100 in the morning, pretending to be law enforcement officers, woke the family up and when questioned about why there was tape on one of the guns, killed the father and pumped 3 .45 caliber slugs into the face of an innocent 9 year old child, who just happened to be in her own house! How do the parents have a responsibility?

This site is doing a credible job of following this insane act of violence and will continue to do so, through the trial, and with luck, the execution

http://immigrationclearinghouse.org
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 06:14 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:

This murderer (or any other) isn't defending the constitution by any rational justification.
To pretend this act is in anyway some noble defense of our constitution is absurd.

I did not do that; if u think I did, that is an illusion.

My remarks were directed at the nature of conservatism,
or orthodox non-deviance.

The point reamins: Right-wing extremism exists, and while you may believe that non-deviance makes a person not extreme, you'd be wrong in many cases.

T
K
O
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 06:42 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:

This murderer (or any other) isn't defending the constitution by any rational justification.
To pretend this act is in anyway some noble defense of our constitution is absurd.

I did not do that; if u think I did, that is an illusion.

My remarks were directed at the nature of conservatism,
or orthodox non-deviance.

The point reamins: Right-wing extremism exists, and while you may believe that non-deviance
makes a person not extreme, you'd be wrong in many cases.

T
K
O



I have 2 points in response to u:

1. The Constitution does not call upon the citizens to do what happened in this case.
(I understand that private drug related disputes were involved.)
Therefore, whatever happened was not relevant to the presence or absence of deviation therefrom.


2. The argument that u adduce of "right wing extremism"
is like complaining that an accountant is always too accurate,
and that his failure to deviate into error has operated to your detriment,
when u need his help to distort his accounts.

The argument that u adduce of "right wing extremism"
is like complaining that a surgeon 's hands are too clean ` on-the-job.



Refusing to deviate from the terms of a contract
(i.e., being conservative or being orthodox) is right wing,
whereas liberal deviation is left wing.

Refusing to deviate from what a man is supposed to do
shoud not be considered "extreme" unless u mean extremely right and correct.





David
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/07/2020 at 08:21:16