• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’[W:254:298:850,989]

Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

AJiveMan said:
Most federal law enforcement agents I've ever had contact with are armed, especially serving papers, warrants, or confiscating property. The FBI probably forewarned the BLM of possible interference from armed militias. You know, the be prepared thing.









What the hell are you talking about now?
Click to expand...

And you don't think that is NOT a form of coercion? You feel safer with the revised patriot act version of terrorism definition?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

TheNextEra said:
So you think it sets a good precedence that as long as a group is heavily armed, they should get away with what ever they want to and the feds should just back down. THAT'S the precedence YOU want to set by having the feds back down.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it's a little interesting that people would show up armed ready to take on the government? People don't usually do that when the government is in the right.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

I think "domestic terrorist," is a bit strong. Throwing the terrorist word around diminishes it's true meaning. But I suppose it's just a matter of perspective.

This person, who wrote this story linked below in that liberal rag called The Salon, just says the rancher is a communist or, at best, a socialist. The militia people are just disgruntled and disfranchised folks looking for a fight. I am hearing two versions of the story. Not sure which is accurate. But, even if the freeloading rancher turns out to be a bad reason for these militia people to get up in arms about, make no mistake. They WILL find a reason to get violent sooner than later. America has gone away from their ideology and they are plenty pissed off about it. It's just a matter of time before they will become, in fact, violent enemies of the state.

The latest right-wing media poster-victim, Cliven Bundy, is just the latest in a long line of desert dwellers who thinks he or she should not have to follow the law and has a god-given right to unlimited use of public resources, in this case, rangeland. I know the mentality well, because I grew up in rural Nevada and clung desperately to such beliefs until only a few years ago.

Bundy has not paid grazing fees in close to 20 years, while the federal government has, with painful, stupid moves, tried to somehow deal with him. Bundy also faced restrictions because he continued to graze cattle on a slice of public land reserved for the endangered desert tortoise. He was invited to talk to Sean Hannity (of course) about the “standoff.”

“We want freedom,” Bundy said. I don’t know what freedom Bundy’s talking about. He does not own the land nor does he even pay the modest fees required to use it. Thousands of ranchers across the West pay fees for their businesses, but Bundy thinks he should get to use public resources to make a personal profit. Cliven Bundy, far from being a patriot, is also clearly a straight-up communist. <snip>

Fox News’ demented poster boy: Why angry rancher Cliven Bundy is no patriot - Salon.com
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

ChezC3 said:
OK, got me, I misspoke, though Obama did have to sign the extension to that act, but I'll concede the point none the less. I wasn't spinning, I was thinking of something else.

michellemalkin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf

that and various other politically motivated attacks against the opposition..

I'm allowed to be wrong once, right?...:shrug:

As we return though, I don't see anything in the FBI definition which could be applied to this case, unless of course you go into that whole loosely interpreted charade this Admin likes to do so frequently...
Click to expand...

I happen to know that violence against BLM & Forest Service workers has show a recent uptick in statistics over the past few years, and some forest service offices have had bombs go off inside of them, one bomb was planted under a forest service worker's vehicle.

So yes, I would believe the FBI would be warning (involved) the BLM and Forest Service about potential threats from militia groups.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

PirateMk1 said:
And you don't think that is NOT a form of coercion? You feel safer with the revised patriot act version of terrorism definition?
Click to expand...

Stupid question.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Has anybody stopped to think about why the BLM even has snipers?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

beefheart said:
No, you are just using hyperbole. MLK didn't spend 20 years evading payment while continuing to steal.

Nice attempt at a personal attack by adding "people" to the post.
Click to expand...

Martin Lurther King did, however, violate existing laws.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Cryptic said:
Yeah, but this deadbeat is a right wing dead beat. Had he been an Occupier....
Click to expand...

....he'd be hailed as a hero by some on the left and being attacked by those on the right wing.

Yes, the sad thing is both sides can by hypocrites on this. Harry Reid is a prime example given his comments regarding the legality of it.

I'm a conservative showse suggested in numerous threads that Bundy is in the wrong here. That doesn't mean Reid's blatant hypocrisy and selective care about the law is correct, or that the response by the government to Bundy's wrongful actions is correct either.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

ChezC3 said:
Reid calls Bundy supporters

This, a sitting Senator calls the American people exercising their right to protest.

He's really a filthy piece of crap...
Click to expand...

Reid is right. These are a bunch of right wing militia guys willing to shoot federal officials enforcing the law of the land. Sounds like terrorism to me. And as such, these terrorists should be dealt with the same way we deal with terrorists in Afghanistan and western Pakistan.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Wiggen said:
Reid is right. These are a bunch of right wing militia guys willing to shoot federal officials enforcing the law of the land. Sounds like terrorism to me. And as such, these terrorists should be dealt with the same way we deal with terrorists in Afghanistan and western Pakistan.
Click to expand...

So wait, you're advocating for treating domestic terrorists as an enemy combatant, and thus not subject to constitutional protections such as a right to a fair trial or innocent until proven guilty?

So....we can drone strike members of ALF for example?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Speaking of those that are trying to cast "hypocrisy" charges as a singular side only....

Does no one see the irony of using the updated Patriot Act definitions of domestic terrorist after nearly a decade of outwage and attacks against the Patriot Act by those on the left? The "broad" definition of terrorism being one such common complaint from various legal groups.

This little incident is bringing forth hypocrisy on all sides, and from multiple people...not the least of which being Harry Reid.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

apdst said:
Martin Lurther King did, however, violate existing laws.
Click to expand...

Ahh, another post attacking MLK from our 'black' poster. I don't remember MLK and his followers packing automatic weapons and threatening to kill law enforcement officials. Although God knows he had far better reasons to do so than the Bundy loons.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

mac said:
Has anybody stopped to think about why the BLM even has snipers?
Click to expand...

So they can deal with assholes like these people? Just a suggestion.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

AJiveMan said:
All these conservatives backing a deadbeat moocher. And I'd thought conservatives hated deadbeats and moochers.

I wonder how many subsidies Bundy received from the government he hates so much.
Click to expand...

All these Libbos supporting government use of force to get its way. Im not a damn bit surprised.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Wiggen said:
Ahh, another post attacking MLK from our 'black' poster. I don't remember MLK and his followers packing automatic weapons and threatening to kill law enforcement officials. Although God knows he had far better reasons to do so than the Bundy loons.
Click to expand...

They did however break all sorts of laws, like for example, trespassing on private property. Today those actions are seen as good and noble too.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Wiggen said:
So they can deal with assholes like these people? Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...

Perfect answer! Thank you!
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

You're welcome.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

AJiveMan said:
Actually nope. Domestic terrorism was redefined after the 9/11 attacks, via the patriot act. Nice try at spinning though.
Click to expand...

Well ... since your link says there are 3 components required for domestic terrorism, it's up to you to give examples of all 3 in the Bundy case ... remember ... it has to be all 3 and the entirety of each one.

Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
◾Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
◾Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
◾Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Click to expand...


Go for it.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Wiggen said:
Reid is right. These are a bunch of right wing militia guys willing to shoot federal officials enforcing the law of the land. Sounds like terrorism to me. And as such, these terrorists should be dealt with the same way we deal with terrorists in Afghanistan and western Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Should we drop drones on them?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

tres borrachos said:
Should we drop drones on them?
Click to expand...

You don't drop the drones themselves on people, but instead drop bombs from the drones.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Henrin said:
You don't drop the drones themselves on people, but instead drop bombs from the drones.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I meant. Got a little ahead of myself.;) The poster's post kind of threw me off in its shock factor.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

PirateMk1 said:
People in this country don't normally get pissed off enough to show up hundreds of miles from their home armed to the teeth ready to get themselves killed. You think those people were under ANY illusions about the end result of that standoff turning into a shootout? I don't think they were. It tells me how pissed they were. So as far as precedence yes its a good thing. It puts the wolves in government on notice that the sheep dogs are still numerous and still have teeth and are willing to use them. If they don't want to get bit they need to back off. So yes I am fine with the precedence.
Click to expand...

Ok so if pissed off people get together, they should be able to do whatever they want to according to you. Law means nothing to you as law as you agree with the lawbreakers.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Sean.McDonnell said:
they had guns no? For some reason I don't remember MLK, Gandhi, or Occupy using weapons to intimidate officials
Click to expand...

But he would have been armed if he could have, MLK, Mr. Non-Violence, applied for a concealed weapon permit. If he had a pocket pistol in his jacket during his protests, would that have constituted "armed resistance?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom