Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Why isn't Sharron Angle in jail? [DOMESTIC TERRORISM]

24567

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Freedom of speech is a matter of voicing your opinion without being punished for it, because speaking against your leaders long ago was a big no-no.

    Freedom of speech doesn't protect me from walking into a bank and demanding that they hand over a bunch of money in a sack. It doesn't protect me from threatening to kill someone for looking at my daughter. And it certainly doesn't protect me from threatening to use my 2nd amendment rights if I don't get what I want from the government. The above applies to everyone.

    I absolutely guarantee the courts would not agree. Because your 2nd amendment rights, literally, means you get to own a gun.

    What she meant is obvious, and abhorrent, but you can make the case if you're a half decent lawyer (and she'd get the GOP's best).

    As in, "What I meant is we're going to OWN guns, not use them on anyone!"

    That would be pretty slimy. I hope she dies in a fire.

    See, now if she were to die in an arson attack, you're fucked.

    The other thing about these kinds of rules is that they only really apply retroactively unless you're exceptionally blatant about it.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    See, now if she were to die in an arson attack, you're fucked.

    I meant her soul dying in the fires of hell. Or are you saying I can't have my religious beliefs, eb?

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    See, now if she were to die in an arson attack, you're fucked.

    I meant her soul dying in the fires of hell. Or are you saying I can't have my religious beliefs, eb?

    Well played. But that's a harder case to make unless there's a good lawyer in your family.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Phant wrote: »
    I do have to say that it is depressing that the absolute, complete bullshit level that politics have come to in this country where you have a candidate suggesting armed revolution might be needed WHILE SHE IS RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE. Seriously, usually people have the self consciousness to not do that. Even corrupt, nasty fuckers who run for office in completely broken elections in messed up countries who are planning a coup don't do this. The cognitive dissonance here is goddamn astounding.

    Every time I make it a point to say that our current level of politics is vitriolic and poisonous, someone makes the note that it's pretty much always been this way. I guess we're just old enough to see it now.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Phant wrote: »
    I do have to say that it is depressing that the absolute, complete bullshit level that politics have come to in this country where you have a candidate suggesting armed revolution might be needed WHILE SHE IS RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE. Seriously, usually people have the self consciousness to not do that. Even corrupt, nasty fuckers who run for office in completely broken elections in messed up countries who are planning a coup don't do this. The cognitive dissonance here is goddamn astounding.

    Every time I make it a point to say that our current level of politics is vitriolic and poisonous, someone makes the note that it's pretty much always been this way. I guess we're just old enough to see it now.

    Indeed it has.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI&feature=player_embedded

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • PhantPhant Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Phant wrote: »
    I do have to say that it is depressing that the absolute, complete bullshit level that politics have come to in this country where you have a candidate suggesting armed revolution might be needed WHILE SHE IS RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE. Seriously, usually people have the self consciousness to not do that. Even corrupt, nasty fuckers who run for office in completely broken elections in messed up countries who are planning a coup don't do this. The cognitive dissonance here is goddamn astounding.

    Every time I make it a point to say that our current level of politics is vitriolic and poisonous, someone makes the note that it's pretty much always been this way. I guess we're just old enough to see it now.

    I'm not talking about the vitriolic aspect of it so much as the fact that reasonable people will generally recognize that if you are capable of running for elected office in elections that are free and fair violent revolution is not a moral option because you are getting your say. Effectively what we have here is someone saying 'if I don't get elected that is a wrong so dire that violent revolution may be required to address it", and the fact that this is apparently just dandy is so incredibly fucked up it makes my head hurt to contemplate it.

    steam_sig.png
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Phant wrote: »
    I do have to say that it is depressing that the absolute, complete bullshit level that politics have come to in this country where you have a candidate suggesting armed revolution might be needed WHILE SHE IS RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE. Seriously, usually people have the self consciousness to not do that. Even corrupt, nasty fuckers who run for office in completely broken elections in messed up countries who are planning a coup don't do this. The cognitive dissonance here is goddamn astounding.

    Every time I make it a point to say that our current level of politics is vitriolic and poisonous, someone makes the note that it's pretty much always been this way. I guess we're just old enough to see it now.

    Dirty, poisonous politics in the USA are as old as the White House.

    But I'd like to see some examples from a major candidate saying that if we don't get elected, we can kill the fucker.

    Spoiler:
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I find the term "Domestic Terrorism" both amusing and offensive. Our major political parties love to convince us that if we do not vote for them, and instead let the other guy get elected the seas will boil, the sky will turn to ash, and a thousand years of darkness will descend upon the earth.

    While violent revolution may at some point become a necessity in this country, I hardly think some crazy whackjob from Nevada will be the spark that causes it..... wait I am from Nevada. OK let me rephrase I hardly think some crazy whackjob running for public office on a platform of hypocrisy, anger, and ignorance will be the start of it. The fact that she is doing as well as she is vs Reid just shows how pissed people are at the democratic party.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Lord PalingtonLord Palington Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Why might violent revolution at some point become a necessity? I'm just curious if you had a specific scenario in mind or if you're just leaving the possibility open.

    sandman-sig.jpg
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Irony is a person yelling, "Damn these vitriolic, divisive, whackjobs to a slow roast in HELL!!!!" and considering themselves to be a sensible, moderate exemplar of willingness to cooperate with those of different viewpoints.

    Per the original topic, I have read over the newspaper articles discussing Sharon Angle and "Second Amendment" solutions. Ms. Angle states that:

    1. Many people consider the Second Amendment to be the founders' reminder that armed revolution is an acceptible response to tyranny.

    2. Some people consider the current direction of the government to be tyrannical.

    3. The fears of some of these people will be assuaged by Republican victories in the upcoming election, coupled with Republican promises to reduce the power of the government.

    All of these statements are true, and I vehemently oppose the crucifixion of those who tell the truth. At no point does Ms. Angle say, "If I lose, kill Harry Reid," so there is no criminal matter here.

    It is possible for someone to find it inappropriate, even offensive, for Sharon Angle to essentially affirm her philosophical allegiance to people currently pondering armed rebellion (confirming it, at least, in the sense of governmental policy, if not in how one achieves said policies). You may not consider the current situation to be worthy of armed rebellion or, if you are of a revolutionairy mindset yourself, you may wish for a revolution instigated (and presumably won) by people of a radically different philosophy than Ms. Angle's.

    Someone so radically opposed to your philosophies that you consider them insane generally views you to be equally insane. The onus, then, is upon you to produce an objective truth that supports your position and negates theirs. If no objective reality can be agreed upon, go your separate ways, or kill each other.

  • PhantPhant Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Your missing the context here though Art. Any reasonable, non-hardcore-pacifist will generally admit that history shows us that really any nation can end up at a point where revolution might be the lesser of evils. But that is not really what we are talking about here, we are talking about a person currently running for elected office going on about it at political rallies. Historically, this is a unpleasant connotation.

    Context is everything here. I am not some hippy-dippy gun hating kumbaya singer, I believe in the peoples right to bear arms. I cannot, however, ignore the fact that currently we have people stumping for office whose speech bears a very uncomfortable resemblance to the political climate in early 20th century Japan.

    steam_sig.png
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited October 2010
    I would suggest that I am HIGHLY aware of context here. As I stated, there are people who feel that the time for armed revolt is coming upon us, and some of those people would be assuaged by a Republican victory in the upcoming elections.

    At worst, you can say that Angle is tasteless for suggesting that her election could prevent an outbreak of violence, but she is not advocating that violence in anything she has said. You can also accuse her of sympathizing with these potential revolutionaries to the extent that she agrees on the source of their frustration. But, until she explicitly endorses the methodology of revolt, she is not a criminal.

    Just for philosophical exercise, assume for a moment that she is right, and her election would halt some people who would otherwise start shooting people. Is it a more moral decision to say, "Well, some political concessions to pacify these individuals might be a good idea," or to say, "Screw her and these malcontents supporting her. We'll kill them when they start acting up and they'll SLOW ROAST IN HELL!!!"?

    It's a subjective thing. I can see the appeal of both sides.

    Kudos for being the first person I've seen to compare the Tea Partiers to Fascist Japan. The Nazi comparisons were getting tiresome. It raises another question, though. If the current batch of Republicans are actually worthy of comparison to the worst villains throughout history, then isn't it reasonable to assume that their followers will resort to violence and terrorism if they lose the election?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Japan wasn't fascist. It was an imperial military dictatorship.

    And they're getting there, though I'd go with more... the Democratic Party in the South, circa 1900.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Japan wasn't fascist. It was an imperial military dictatorship.

    And they're getting there, though I'd go with more... the Democratic Party in the South, circa 1900.

    I apologize if my term for late Imperial Japan was incorrect. The fascist label tends to get thrown on any government that is totalitarian and nationalist, in contrast to the Soviet style internationalist totalitarianism.

    I would say that, if a (presumably derogatory) comparison must be made, then the Tea Party would resemble the Southern Democrats. Both groups were boosters for anti-regulation and states rights ideologies.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Also, you know, the whole race thing.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited October 2010
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

  • PhantPhant Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Japan wasn't fascist. It was an imperial military dictatorship.

    And they're getting there, though I'd go with more... the Democratic Party in the South, circa 1900.

    I apologize if my term for late Imperial Japan was incorrect. The fascist label tends to get thrown on any government that is totalitarian and nationalist, in contrast to the Soviet style internationalist totalitarianism.

    I would say that, if a (presumably derogatory) comparison must be made, then the Tea Party would resemble the Southern Democrats. Both groups were boosters for anti-regulation and states rights ideologies.

    I might point out that I never compared an entire movement to Imperial Japan, just rhetoric used by a single senatorial candidate.

    steam_sig.png
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited October 2010
    I might point out that I never compared an entire movement to Imperial Japan, just rhetoric used by a single senatorial candidate.

    You said that we have "people" running for congress that sound like Imperial Japan. I assumed this to be a suggestion of a trend or tendency of a particular ideology. I did not mean to misconstrue your point.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    I'm just curious why these people weren't interested in taking back their country from Clinton

    Their taxes were far higher, Medicare and Social Security payouts were much lower back then too

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    I'm just curious why these people weren't interested in taking back their country from Clinton

    Their taxes were far higher, Medicare and Social Security payouts were much lower back then too

    Um, they were.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Honestly, the reason we don't worry about domestic terror from people like Angle is because we've decided that it's just posturing. Which is kind of even worse. The fact that they're "us" and not a foreign looking group of people makes it easier to also say "yeah but like, Bill won't do anything. I mean really, he just likes getting mad."

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    I'm just curious why these people weren't interested in taking back their country from Clinton

    Their taxes were far higher, Medicare and Social Security payouts were much lower back then too

    Um, they were.

    I don't recall the tea party or 100k+ marches on washington

    I recall a few nutjobs, but they were openly condemned by the Republican party

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    I'm just curious why these people weren't interested in taking back their country from Clinton

    Their taxes were far higher, Medicare and Social Security payouts were much lower back then too

    Um, they were.

    I don't recall the tea party or 100k+ marches on washington

    I recall a few nutjobs, but they were openly condemned by the Republican party

    The party that impeached the President?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    I'm just curious why these people weren't interested in taking back their country from Clinton

    Their taxes were far higher, Medicare and Social Security payouts were much lower back then too

    Um, they were.

    Rush Limbaugh used to number the days of the Clinton administration, calling it "The Siege".

    Conservatives never stopped being dumb, nor did they recently invent stupidity.

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Aaron Hernandez shot me through the heartRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    I'd have to say I disagree with this.

    While it's not the primary motivator for the majority, after seeing enough "Bring Back White America" signs I have to say that to dismiss it as a factor is irresponsible, about as equal as saying 99% of these people are furious over having a black president.

    Spoiler:
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    Propaganda in what sense? As in accusations of racism are propaganda to turn the public against the poor downtrodden teabaggers or that it's just propaganda used by the teabaggers but only as a political tool?

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    [QUOTE=jungleroomx;17122208THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?[/QUOTE] Looking at what Angle actually said, I don't see how her statements could be interpreted as a violation of any law.
    Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...

    Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

    Angle: Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

    Maybe her comments were not as well thought out as they should be, but she's not threatening anyone.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Right she just hopes people will elect Harry Reid out of office so they don't have to use a remedy that involves the second amendment.

    PSN: allenquid
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Yeah, that is a definite threat I would say. It just is a threat from a person/people we decided "don't really mean it", as a whole.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Right she just hopes people will elect Harry Reid out of office so they don't have to use a remedy that involves the second amendment.
    The OP asked:
    THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
    Maybe these comments are douchey, but they're not domestic terrorism by any objective or legal standard.

    I think people worried about Tea Party brownshirts trying to violently overthrow the government are just a a bunch of nervous Nellies with no knowledge of history. We have very little history of political violence in this country, and this election cycle is no different.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    I'd have to say I disagree with this.

    While it's not the primary motivator for the majority, after seeing enough "Bring Back White America" signs I have to say that to dismiss it as a factor is irresponsible, about as equal as saying 99% of these people are furious over having a black president.

    Saying that some racists have come to Tea Parties is not the same as granting racism a measurable role in the motivation of Tea Parties. Racist nutbags go to Tea Parties for several reasons:

    1. They are open to the public.

    2. TV cameras are there, and reporters will specifically look for the crazies because that's worth more ratings than talking to a smiling grandma.

    3. The media has told all the racist nutbags that the Tea Partiers are their "fellow travellers."

    Does the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam mean that pro-Obama support is driven heavily by anti-white racism and virulent anti-semitism?

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    Propaganda in what sense? As in accusations of racism are propaganda to turn the public against the poor downtrodden teabaggers or that it's just propaganda used by the teabaggers but only as a political tool?

    If you were willing to have an open mind about the Tea Parties, you wouldn't be calling them teabaggers. Happy trolling.

  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    Propaganda in what sense? As in accusations of racism are propaganda to turn the public against the poor downtrodden teabaggers or that it's just propaganda used by the teabaggers but only as a political tool?

    If you were willing to have an open mind about the Tea Parties, you wouldn't be calling them teabaggers. Happy trolling.

    Don't they call themselves teabaggers?

  • templewulftemplewulf Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    Propaganda in what sense? As in accusations of racism are propaganda to turn the public against the poor downtrodden teabaggers or that it's just propaganda used by the teabaggers but only as a political tool?

    If you were willing to have an open mind about the Tea Parties, you wouldn't be calling them teabaggers. Happy trolling.

    Except that they referred to themselves by that name. In fact, there were urgent newsletters to several organizes to stop using the phrase once they found out why everyone was snickering at them. It's pejorative, sure, but I'd say it's more satire than trolling.

    Friend me: Twitter | Google+
    Invite me: XBox Live | PS3 | Steam
    Link to me: Number Sorter | Achievement Generator
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Right she just hopes people will elect Harry Reid out of office so they don't have to use a remedy that involves the second amendment.
    The OP asked:
    THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
    Maybe these comments are douchey, but they're not domestic terrorism by any objective or legal standard.

    I think people worried about Tea Party brownshirts trying to violently overthrow the government are just a a bunch of nervous Nellies with no knowledge of history. We have very little history of political violence in this country, and this election cycle is no different.

    Eh most of us are more dismayed at the continued use of pathetic scare tactics and that they actually work on so many people.

  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Right she just hopes people will elect Harry Reid out of office so they don't have to use a remedy that involves the second amendment.
    The OP asked:
    THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
    Maybe these comments are douchey, but they're not domestic terrorism by any objective or legal standard.

    I think people worried about Tea Party brownshirts trying to violently overthrow the government are just a a bunch of nervous Nellies with no knowledge of history. We have very little history of political violence in this country, and this election cycle is no different.

    Eh most of us are more dismayed at the continued use of pathetic scare tactics and that they actually work on so many people.

    DEATH PANELS TO EUTHANIZE GRANDMA! MANDATORY ABORTIONS!! FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • ShinyRedKnightShinyRedKnight Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!

    Hmm, did the tea party happen to play Deus Ex by any chance?

    Because if that's what they're basing their info on, they are truly monsters.

    Deus Ex is a game meant to be used for good, not for evil.D:

    steam_sig.png
    PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    I know enough of the Tea Partiers to know that the race angle is just propoganda.

    Propaganda in what sense? As in accusations of racism are propaganda to turn the public against the poor downtrodden teabaggers or that it's just propaganda used by the teabaggers but only as a political tool?

    If you were willing to have an open mind about the Tea Parties, you wouldn't be calling them teabaggers. Happy trolling.

    Don't they call themselves teabaggers?

    They were the first ones to call themselves that at events and on Fox. Then Obama called them that and they decided they just now figured out what it meant and didn't like it. Hannity went from calling them tea baggers to bitching about Obama calling them tea baggers in the space of like 4 days.

    sig.jpg
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Right she just hopes people will elect Harry Reid out of office so they don't have to use a remedy that involves the second amendment.
    The OP asked:
    THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
    Maybe these comments are douchey, but they're not domestic terrorism by any objective or legal standard.

    I think people worried about Tea Party brownshirts trying to violently overthrow the government are just a a bunch of nervous Nellies with no knowledge of history. We have very little history of political violence in this country, and this election cycle is no different.

    So people getting curb stomped was common in previous elections?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    [QUOTE=jungleroomx;17122208THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
    Looking at what Angle actually said, I don't see how her statements could be interpreted as a violation of any law.
    Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...

    Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

    Angle: Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

    Maybe her comments were not as well thought out as they should be, but she's not threatening anyone.[/QUOTE]

    This reminds me of the movie stereotype of a mobster telling a shop owner, "Nice store... it would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.