I give zero hoots about conforming. It’s the logical fallacies. They insult me, and I believe also, the community. They are turds in the punchbowl. I won’t take it personally, if you would please stop taking it quite so personally when you get a ribbing, that’d be great too.
Would you prefer we were verbally ‘unarmed’? Or do you have tools to use when words, and then guilt, fail to convince?
Well, because the threat of terrorism has been used as a mechanism to push many pieces of legislation that are frankly unconscionable. So lets stop arming people with more distorted rhetoric that will only make us all worse off.
They are trespassing, violent thugs. Let’s treat them like trespassing violent thugs.
I get that, but…
If I kill you for your sneakers, is that better than if I kill you because you’re an atheist? Either way it’s intentional.
And what if I accidentally get your blood on those sneakers, God forbid?
In the first instance, do you want my sneakers for your cow? and are you trying to scare the boots off of other people, for your other cows? Will they object to leather sneakers like typical herd animals?
Are you familiar with the term ‘enabling’? ONLY the very best intentioned people do it. .
IT IS NOT THEIR LINE OF FIRE. IT IS A FIRE TOWER, and it is NOT THEIRS.
So you believe I’m enabling terrorists to create more acts of terror by seeing these people as criminals who still need to be brought in and tried for their crimes? I don’t think I am.
I don’t mind getting verbally ribbed. It’s really something I expect. Especially when my position puts me in the minority with the rest of the group.
I would like to point out that I started my post that you replied to with
“This is how I interpreted your post…”
I did this to specifically let my following statement be critiqued, so that I can better understand the point/meaning of the post I was commenting on; while offering my critique to that comment if I had interpreted it correctly.
Don’t worry, I don’t take it personally that your feathers should get so ruffled about a critique you favor getting critiqued.
Unless your caps lock key is stuck, it looks like we’re done here. If you have any zingers, please make them entertaining. GIFs always welcome. Thank you and good night.
[quote=“MrV, post:147, topic:71649, full:true”]
So you believe I’m enabling terrorists [/quote]
yes
to…
No. See that’s where you start putting words in my mouth and then saying i feel my feathrs are ruffled.
so, you informing me of my opinion and telling me how I feel about it is NOT you taking anything personally?
Good Night.
I predict the future.
I PREDICT THE FUTURE.
I was asking a question. I read what you wrote, I recognize that I may not interpret what you wrote with the intentions you were wanting to convey, so I asked a question to see if I understood how you thought I was enabling terrorists by not jumping on the labeling bandwagon the mob of people decided should be used in this event.
So if I did not interpret the correct meaning of “Enabling” that you were wishing to convey, please take a moment to help me understand your point better.
I want your sneakers so that the miners can get back to mining and the loggers can get back to logging.
Charges can’t come fast enough and hard enough for the Bundy family.
Dad stole over a million dollars from the federal government. Threatened law enforcement with deadly weapons.
Son invaded federal property. Threatened law enforcement with deadly weapons. Assaulted a police dog.
The evidence is public, press charges!
Looks like things are going about as well as expected if this article is accurate.
Defeated by the Enemy Within: Oregon Militia Descends into Fist Fights and Paranoid Chaos
Edit: It has been [0] days since schadenfreude.
So a bunch of people who mistake being given 93% discounts on cattle grazing for oppression aren’t ready to face actual hardship?
I wanted to oppose calling them terrorists, as they completely fail to inspire terror, nor does terror really seem to be part of their MO. And yet, terrorism only requires the threat of force to influence government policy. So far as I can tell, this means that if a mafioso shakes down a restaurant, it’s just a shakedown, but if you try to do the same thing to a government, it qualifies as terrorism. Which seems weird, but so far as I can tell that’s the correct set of words & definitions
