• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

When CongressCritters Attack!

Brainster said:
"Open season"?

Oh, the irony!
Click to expand...


It is partly because of creeps like Angle that we have a pool of domestic terrorists recruiting new members at a record clip. She needs to be put down in one way or another if she is serious about this.

She has no right, even by Supreme Court precedent, to suggest murdering Reid. She has no business being involved in government in any way.
 
Rogue1stclass said:
You have just openly stated your intention to commit premeditated murder on a public forum.

Nice.
Click to expand...

You obviously have no concept of what the law says.

You are not entitled to call for the killing of your opponent should you lose an election. His winning would mean that the people realized that idiot girl Angle is a bad American.

I am a soldier, even if I no longer have to meet formations, and am obliged to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

The private militias and those who would try to turn them against elected officials are domestic enemies, and are to be put down by any means neccessary.

When the militias rise, it is my obligation to fight them. End of story.
 
GeeMack said:
You keep saying that, but you keep writing more anyway. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Because people who know nothing about the threat that the militias represent keep piping up to say that they and nutbars like Angle are not a threat to civilization.
 
leftysergeant said:
You obviously have no concept of what the law says.
Click to expand...

I have over a hundred hours of classes on the civilian use of force under my belt, and briefly considered applying for the license to teach them. This is what I did, professionally, for years.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the use of force is an excuse to kill people you don't like.

I think it's pretty clear who doesn't understand the law.

You are not entitled to call for the killing of your opponent should you lose an election. His winning would mean that the people realized that idiot girl Angle is a bad American.
Click to expand...

This is true, but it is also a matter for law enforcement and the voters to decide.

I am a soldier, even if I no longer have to meet formations, and am obliged to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Click to expand...

Are you currently serving in the armed forces in an active capacity? If not, then you are a civilian, and the rules apply to you. If you are, then you subject to the orders of your superiors and the rules of engagement.

You can't just go off on your own and attempt to put down what you see as sedition. This is still a nation of laws, and trying that kind of crap will put you on the wrong side of them.

The private militias and those who would try to turn them against elected officials are domestic enemies, and are to be put down by any means neccessary.
Click to expand...

So, your answer is to raise your own militia and go after them, without regard to law or the rights they are still subject to under their state and Federal governments? Do you understand how this is a Bad Idea?

When the militias rise, it is my obligation to fight them. End of story.
Click to expand...

First of all, no, that obligation belongs, as I've said before, to law enforcement.

Second, how do you think that's gonna work, exactly?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Unless the voices in his head have access to a cessna and a molotov cocktail, he's going to see about as much "action" as the high school AV club.
Click to expand...

If the nightmare scenario that bat-crap-crazy Angle is pushing comes to pass, I would probably not get recalled to duty, but would be obligated to go hunting for dirtbags like the Oath Keepers and any idiot calling himself The Washington State Militia, or whatever BS name they take, killing as many of them, as possible, maybe distributing ammo and weapons tro more physically fit neighbors who feel the need to kill militia.

These idiots running around the woods calling themsel;ves militia aren't, really. They are, at best, useful idiots to the white nationalists.
 
Lefty,
The link you posted yesterday about the Breitbart connection didn't work for me. Could you post a corrected link, or a different link to a similar story?
 
Lefty,

Just out of curiosity, would you feel equally obligated by duty to fight off a violent progressive/liberal militia, had it occurred during the Bush era?

edit: not that it's actually occurring now..
 
leftysergeant said:
If the nightmare scenario that bat-crap-crazy Angle is pushing comes to pass, I would probably not get recalled to duty, but would be obligated to go hunting for dirtbags like the Oath Keepers and any idiot calling himself The Washington State Militia, or whatever BS name they take, killing as many of them, as possible, maybe distributing ammo and weapons tro more physically fit neighbors who feel the need to kill militia.

These idiots running around the woods calling themsel;ves militia aren't, really. They are, at best, useful idiots to the white nationalists.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you hear on the news tomorrow that a group calling itself The Nevada Militia has kidnapped and murdered Harry Reid. So your response is to go and randomly start killing people.

What's gonna be your plan for dealing with the white supremists in prison, where you will spending the rest of your life?
 
Meadmaker said:
Lefty,
The link you posted yesterday about the Breitbart connection didn't work for me. Could you post a corrected link, or a different link to a similar story?
Click to expand...


I believe the story lefty was trying to link to (back in post # 85) is "Etheridge apologizes for on-camera confrontation". (Somehow "abclocal" in the link got shortened to simply "abc", causing the problem.)

It's a 6 minute local news segment, showing the confrontation between Etheridge and the two "students". I haven't watched it all, but from the text accompanying it I don't think there's any smoking gun in the segment connecting the "students" to Breitbart.

Here's some of the text accompanying the video. I've bolded parts which relate to the question whether this was part of a planned harassment effort connected to Breitbart:

WDTV said:
North Carolina Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-Lillington) apologized repeatedly Monday after a conservative blogger posted video on YouTube showing him in a confrontation with men carrying cameras on a Washington D.C. street.

The story by Breitbart.com contributor Mike Flynn says the men were students. In the video, they ask the congressman if he supports the Obama agenda...

In the edited video, the photographer's faces are blurred and their identities aren't given. They never identify themselves to the congressman other than to say they're students working on a project...

Asked if there was any creative editing in the video or if there was any material not seen, Etheridge refused to address the subject, saying he only wanted to apologize and wasn't interested in making excuses...
He also said he would apologize personally to the photographers in the video, but he still didn't know who they were.

But fellow Democrat Brad Miller (D-Raleigh) told ABC 11 that the man in the video with the blurred face was not an innocent college student.

"It's absolutely a partisan effort. The kid who had the camera was part of a whole group," he said. "It was obviously a contrived effort to irritate members and try to get them to show some annoyance."

Miller said the group was jeering Democrats, hazing them as they walked into a hotel.

"The same student tried to talk to me or tried to do the same thing," he offered.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how much weight to give to Miller's statement. Miller says that this was a contrived effort designed to harass and irritate people such as Etheridge, and it may well have been -- but I'd need to hear more specific details from Miller, explaining exactly what it was he saw or experienced these folks doing, before accepting as valid his conclusion that this was a contrived effort. What is this "same thing" that was done to him, for example?

I think, if I read lefty's post correctly, that a key reason he posted the link (and what he is referring to in the video) is the extreme close-up of Etheridge's face which appears in the video just as Etheridge begins getting angry -- implying that the "students" may not have simply been walking politely alongside Etheridge but may have stuck the camera right in his face. I don't know enough about camera work to know if that's so. It would be useful in understanding the incident if Etheridge were to explain what exactly it was that got him so riled, but that doesn't sound like anything he'll be talking about soon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom