Just like nobody intentionally shot at Eric Cantors window.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Printable View
Just like nobody intentionally shot at Eric Cantors window.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I wonder if Obama is looking for his Waco?
Even for you, this is unbelievably stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
No, actually there is proof of the threat against Cantor and there's already been an arrest.
But, strangely enough, the thousands of cameras and flip phones on the scene failed to capture the alleged N-word and spitting incident. (because it didn't happen)
Strangely enough, this thread isn't about that at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You're right. The thread is about an extremely small, kooky fringe fanatical religious group that was plotting to kill some people law enforcement. And it was the TOP news story. I wonder why?
Diane Sawyer described them as an anti-government, Christian group. Hmmmm.
Because they were a kooky fringe fanatical religious group that was plotting to kill some people law enforcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Would you describe them as a pro-government, atheist group?Quote:
Diane Sawyer described them as an anti-government, Christian group. Hmmmm.
Yes or no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
This little group was really worthy of the TOP story on ABC news?
I guess there were no runaway Toyota Prius incidents.
The MSM is embarrassing itself.
Darrin's beef is with the placement of the news story in relation to other news stories. Darrin should be a producer, then he can decide what story gets the lead on the nightly news.
Damn...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I keep forgetting to use blue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
Someone decided this should be the TOP story. Do you agree?
he can't dispute the facts of the story, or add anything to the conversation. nope. darrin prefers to play armchair tv producer and let us know how he'd run the nightly news on ABC. "Our lead tonight: this youtube video I found."
You're embarrassing yourself. The Bush administration owned you severely and you want desperately to downplay it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
It was a fairly slow news day from what I saw. Given the violence that has been perpetrated by one person or a few people, it's as good a story as any.
Is there some new birther story they should be following?
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by CumDumpster
What violence?Quote:
Originally Posted by CumDumpster
It's on the front page of foxnews.com.
Top middle column of drudge.
Front page of wsj.com.
They are all owning you.
You can play dumb because you are dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
You can play dumb because you are dumb.Quote:
What violence?
Sure, it is newsworthy when a homegrown terrorist organization gets busted, and I see nothing wrong with making it the lead. ABC could have made it the second or third or last report of the evening for all I care, but they didn't and I'm fine with it. I do find it rather bitchy of you that you are so deeply offended about the order of the reports on ABC news.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Why don't you answer these questions?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I haven't really followed this story, but anyone know if these were actual plans to act on, or just plans in case the government started illegal actions against the populous?
In the military, we make contingency plans for any imaginable scenario. Just saying, is it possible?
sounds like an offensive from what I read, but you know how the gotcha media likes to portray you "conservative/anti-authority" folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Apparently, they were planning to carry it out in April, which is what prompted the arrests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Tell you what, why don't you actually read about them and let us know. Otherwise, you'll be making up excuses for them all week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What 'illegal actions' from the government would justify killing civilians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'd like to hear more about the theory you're advancing here...
They're not military, they're civilians. But you bring a good point, which tangentially touches what I was asking earlier (a question that, not surprisingly, was followed by deafening silence). If these guys didn't really carry out any of those acts, and it turns out that the firearms they possessed are legal, what are they going to be charged with, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm not 100% up to date with the current anti-terror laws, but are we already penalizing thought crimes?
Isn't conspiracy to commit a crime also a crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I think you need at least one overt act in furtherance of the agreement to commit a crime in order to have a case. Although I'm not sure if it's always necessary (IE: If one of the accused cuts a deal and decides to implicate everyone else).Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper