Those Terrorists in Nevada

[Underseer]

Would he still shoot Native Americans if they rode across his BLM property?

That's different. They're not white and probably not even Republican.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is anyone shocked that Cliven Bundy had this to say:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/u...ming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

I did have to laugh, though, at one of the photos in the article in light of Bundy's statement:

View attachment 158

So, he's a thief, a liar and a racist.

I believe we have our new frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

If we find that he's got a few mistresses or illiegitimate black children, I think this guy's a shoe-in for President.

 

[ZiprHead]

So, he's a thief, a liar and a racist.

I believe we have our new frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

If we find that he's got a few mistresses or illiegitimate black children, I think this guy's a shoe-in for President.

You forgot rich. He has to be rich too for Republican support.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, he's a thief, a liar and a racist.

I believe we have our new frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

If we find that he's got a few mistresses or illiegitimate black children, I think this guy's a shoe-in for President.

You forgot rich. He has to be rich too for Republican support.

Well, he's $1.2 million richer than he should be. I think that's enough just right there. Assuming that he actually made money through something other than tax fraud, he's easily within the 1%.

 

[RavenSky]

Cliven Bundy - a U.S.Atheist
~~ Jon Stewart

Yes, I snickered

Militiamen literally rallied by the side of the 67-year-old rancher as armed federal rangers tried to force him off his land.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/politics/cliven-bundy-interview/

This is what really pisses me off... No one tried to force Cliven Bundy off "his" land. BLM was rounding up COWS off PUBLIC land. This is CNN, not Faux News, spreading this type of sloppy misinformation.

 

[RavenSky]

So... anyone still objecting to calling this jackass and his "army" domestic terrorists?

 

[The Paul]

So... anyone still objecting to calling this jackass and his "army" domestic terrorists?

I think "traitors" "rebels" or "mafia" are probably more accurate labels.

Unless someone can confirm they were actually involved in blowing somebody up.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Maybe not individually, but a lot of them support the guy who did this:

 

[The Paul]

Maybe not individually, but a lot of them support the guy who did this:
View attachment 169

Yeah, they're pretty willing to threaten force against the federal government whenever it doesn't just hand them shit, and they're a bunch of terrorist fanboys. Together, those imply to me that a handful of them probably are terrorists are terrorists-to-be. But we don't know it for sure.

Right now we only know they're a less sensational brand of criminal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So... anyone still objecting to calling this jackass and his "army" domestic terrorists?

I think "traitors" "rebels" or "mafia" are probably more accurate labels.

Unless someone can confirm they were actually involved in blowing somebody up.

They have been deterring the government through the threat of force for quite some time now.

That's the hallmark of terrorists--innocents die if they don't get their way.

 

[RavenSky]

So... anyone still objecting to calling this jackass and his "army" domestic terrorists?

I think "traitors" "rebels" or "mafia" are probably more accurate labels.

Unless someone can confirm they were actually involved in blowing somebody up.

So "terrorists" is only for people who succeed in blowing other people up? It's not "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

 

[The Paul]

So... anyone still objecting to calling this jackass and his "army" domestic terrorists?

I think "traitors" "rebels" or "mafia" are probably more accurate labels.

Unless someone can confirm they were actually involved in blowing somebody up.

So "terrorists" is only for people who succeed in blowing other people up? It's not "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"

Well, all they've done so far, that we know about, is use intimidation. And I think it might be giving Bundy too much credit to think of his aims as political. The politics seem like an after the fact rationalization for using intimidation and the treat of force to take things he doesn't own.

But even if he is honest in the political crap he's spouting he's not really engaging in terrorism (so far) so much as he's declaring war on the United States. That's stupid and probably leads to terrorism, but I don't think it should be considered terrorism in and of itself.

 

[doubtingt]

But even if he is honest in the political crap he's spouting he's not really engaging in terrorism (so far) so much as he's declaring war on the United States. That's stupid and probably leads to terrorism, but I don't think it should be considered terrorism in and of itself.

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the bigger lesson is that "terrorism" and other acts of threatened aggression can be equally immoral and can warrant the same response. But would you then say that McVeigh was a terrorist or did he commit an "act of war" against the government? He blew up a government building, Bundy has threatened to kill government workers (lets not pretend his threat was anything less than that just because he used language he could later pretend was not a threat of violence). In both cases they were not military personnel. I don't really care whether McVeigh is labeled a terrorist, but I am wonder what definition makes him one and wouldn't make Bundy someone at least threatening terrorism.

 

[RavenSky]

But even if he is honest in the political crap he's spouting he's not really engaging in terrorism (so far) so much as he's declaring war on the United States. That's stupid and probably leads to terrorism, but I don't think it should be considered terrorism in and of itself.

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the bigger lesson is that "terrorism" and other acts of threatened aggression can be equally immoral and can warrant the same response. But would you then say that McVeigh was a terrorist or did he commit an "act of war" against the government? He blew up a government building, Bundy has threatened to kill government workers (lets not pretend his threat was anything less than that just because he used language he could later pretend was not a threat of violence). In both cases they were not military personnel. I don't really care whether McVeigh is labeled a terrorist, but I am wonder what definition makes him one and wouldn't make Bundy someone at least threatening terrorism.

I would also be interested to know if Timothy McVeigh would be considered a domestic terrorist.

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist? Is it because he's an idiotic ignorant old fart who is more likely to cause laughter rather than terror?

 

[Underseer]

But even if he is honest in the political crap he's spouting he's not really engaging in terrorism (so far) so much as he's declaring war on the United States. That's stupid and probably leads to terrorism, but I don't think it should be considered terrorism in and of itself.

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the bigger lesson is that "terrorism" and other acts of threatened aggression can be equally immoral and can warrant the same response. But would you then say that McVeigh was a terrorist or did he commit an "act of war" against the government? He blew up a government building, Bundy has threatened to kill government workers (lets not pretend his threat was anything less than that just because he used language he could later pretend was not a threat of violence). In both cases they were not military personnel. I don't really care whether McVeigh is labeled a terrorist, but I am wonder what definition makes him one and wouldn't make Bundy someone at least threatening terrorism.

I would also be interested to know if Timothy McVeigh would be considered a domestic terrorist.

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist? Is it because he's an idiotic ignorant old fart who is more likely to cause laughter rather than terror?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so Bundy and McVeigh are freedom fighters if you are a conservolibertarian.

 

[doubtingt]

I would also be interested to know if Timothy McVeigh would be considered a domestic terrorist.

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist? Is it because he's an idiotic ignorant old fart who is more likely to cause laughter rather than terror?

Well, one could argue that a "terrorist" is someone that seeks to create a sense of terror in a populace by specifically targeting non-combatant members of that populace. IOW, it refers to a particular method of politically or ideologically motivated violence. Conservative are the ones to blame for watering the term down and making it purely emotional rhetoric rather than factually informative, so its amusing that they object to the terms questionable use in this case (not referring to you, The Paul).

 

[RavenSky]

I would also be interested to know if Timothy McVeigh would be considered a domestic terrorist.

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist? Is it because he's an idiotic ignorant old fart who is more likely to cause laughter rather than terror?

Well, one could argue that a "terrorist" is someone that seeks to create a sense of terror in a populace by specifically targeting non-combatant members of that populace. IOW, it refers to a particular method of politically or ideologically motivated violence. Conservative are the ones to blame for watering the term down and making it purely emotional rhetoric rather than factually informative, so its amusing that they object to the terms questionable use in this case (not referring to you, The Paul).

Or we could use the dictionary definition: "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" in which case I ask again... If Cliven Bundy and his self-proclaimed "army" "declaring war on the United States" is not an example of "domestic terrorism" is it because he has failed to actually accomplish any terror in anyone?

 

[Underseer]

I would also be interested to know if Timothy McVeigh would be considered a domestic terrorist.

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist? Is it because he's an idiotic ignorant old fart who is more likely to cause laughter rather than terror?

Well, one could argue that a "terrorist" is someone that seeks to create a sense of terror in a populace by specifically targeting non-combatant members of that populace. IOW, it refers to a particular method of politically or ideologically motivated violence. Conservative are the ones to blame for watering the term down and making it purely emotional rhetoric rather than factually informative, so its amusing that they object to the terms questionable use in this case (not referring to you, The Paul).

Or we could use the dictionary definition: "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" in which case I ask again... If Cliven Bundy and his self-proclaimed "army" "declaring war on the United States" is not an example of "domestic terrorism" is it because he has failed to actually accomplish any terror in anyone?

Because by definition, all American rightists are patriots who can never be called terrorists. Therefore, Bundy is a "freedom fighter" practically by definition. Your problem is that you are using the wrong definition of terrorism that comes from the dictionary, which as we all know, is written by intellectuals who hate America and hate our freedoms and are therefore wrong about everything.

 

[The Paul]

I also do not understand why a U.S. citizen "declaring war on the United States" is not a domestic terrorist?

Look, it's not very difficult.

In the same sense that a man who threatens to kill his neighbor and is laying plans to kill his neighbor is not technically murderer if he hasn't actually killed his neighbor yet, Cliven Bundy isn't technically a terrorist.

 

[The Paul]

But even if he is honest in the political crap he's spouting he's not really engaging in terrorism (so far) so much as he's declaring war on the United States. That's stupid and probably leads to terrorism, but I don't think it should be considered terrorism in and of itself.

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the bigger lesson is that "terrorism" and other acts of threatened aggression can be equally immoral and can warrant the same response. But would you then say that McVeigh was a terrorist or did he commit an "act of war" against the government? He blew up a government building, Bundy has threatened to kill government workers (lets not pretend his threat was anything less than that just because he used language he could later pretend was not a threat of violence). In both cases they were not military personnel. I don't really care whether McVeigh is labeled a terrorist, but I am wonder what definition makes him one and wouldn't make Bundy someone at least threatening terrorism.

McVeigh thought if he murdered enough civilians, it would start a revolution that would overthrow the government. (and he tried to put his plan into action) I think you'd be hard pressed to find something that matches "terrorism" better.