• 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’

Buck posted a photo with his sight line and its aimed directly at the LEOs.

67165454d1398552599-reid-calls-bundy-supporters-domestic-terrorists-w-254-298-850-989-dawn-america-armed-militias_021145990077.jpg





But really, if it does go to court....all the prosecutors have to do is go take pictures through that crack in the wall to see his line of sight to prove what he was pointing his gun at.

And, if he's one of those militia people, why would he be pointing a firearm at his ilk?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

I don't think my Photoshop of the same photo would give a different a result than what Bucks photo shows. It looks pretty straightforward, imo. But feel free to post YOUR Photoshop since you went to all the trouble. I'd like to see it.

It's not my job. I'm not the one claiming he is aiming at LE.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Look at that picture again, there's no clip in the rifle.

Maybe he was just posing for a photo shoot for his buddies from the media, but lets be honest, just because he did not have a clip in the gun right there and then on that exact moment when he was being photographed does not mean that he did not have plenty with him. Who would bring a gun with no bullets to what they (and with they I am meaning the supporters of Bundy) viewed as an armed resistance to support one of their brethren?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

How about a sternly worded note?

What, exactly, would have been garnished at the Branch Davidian compound? Pretty much every cent that went into that place was under the table.

The guy would go through town on a regular basis, he could have been grabbed at any point. The g-men WANTED the show of force.

Just like they wanted the same here, except, well, with a group of people, some of them armed, it required that the "armed resistance" shoot first, then it would have been a bloodbath.

The fact is that whatever spring translates to a group wanting to overthrow the government. That my friend is treason.

If we are going to believe the government talking points, I can see how you can draw that conclusion.

This also requires that we pretend that the corruption within government is virtually non-existent...

You are still missing a lot of information about these "spring" uprisings that won't get published in your msnbc/cnn/fox.

This brings us to the billions of bullets purchased by nearly all government bureaucracies, the increasing militarization of police, etc.


Maybe he was just posing for a photo shoot for his buddies from the media, but lets be honest, just because he did not have a clip in the gun right there and then on that exact moment when he was being photographed does not mean that he did not have plenty with him. Who would bring a gun with no bullets to what they (and with they I am meaning the supporters of Bundy) viewed as an armed resistance to support one of their brethren?

Let's forget the fact that the blm was pointing guns at the crowd and telling them that they were authorized to shoot.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

It's not my job. I'm not the one claiming he is aiming at LE.


Then stop telling us about your Photoshop photo if you can't bring yourself to show anyone else.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

It is amazing to see these posters here dreaming of firing missiles at fellow Americans for a perceived threat.

The "liberal" movement has come a looooong way since Kent State.

Pretty interesting watching all the right wing rats jumping the Bundy ship.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

The guy would go through town on a regular basis, he could have been grabbed at any point. The g-men WANTED the show of force.

Just like they wanted the same here, except, well, with a group of people, some of them armed, it required that the "armed resistance" shoot first, then it would have been a bloodbath.
You are jumping to wild conclusions as if you were magical.



If we are going to believe the government talking points, I can see how you can draw that conclusion.

This also requires that we pretend that the corruption within government is virtually non-existent...

You are still missing a lot of information about these "spring" uprisings that won't get published in your msnbc/cnn/fox.

This brings us to the billions of bullets purchased by nearly all government bureaucracies, the increasing militarization of police, etc.

Ah yes keep hammering that you think that I am a mindless sheep that only watches the evening news or whatever the ****.

The amount of corruption that you are implying (not just in this thread, but also in the conspiracy forum) is why no one takes conspiracy theorists seriously, when all you guys can do is is make up stories and spread them with no evidence.

Of course we all know that there is corruption in our government, its what all the political debates are about since the beginning of this country. The only people that are complacent with such corruption are the partisan hacks at least for their parties corruption. But we do have a system of government that keeps corruption to a low enough level to be sustainable as long as the people stay vigilant. But seriously if I had your views I would be mounting a revolution as we speak. And that is why these militias get labeled as domestic terrorists because they have gone down that rabbit hole to a place where they justify violence against the government as the only solution. Perhaps you dont go there but I can produce thousands of pages of militia treasonists that do assert such things. But then you would just claim that they are not real people or that I am a government shrill or some **** like that.



Let's forget the fact that the blm was pointing guns at the crowd and telling them that they were authorized to shoot.
Lets see your evidence of that accusation. Or are you still afraid that I will easily discredit it as bull****?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Pretty interesting watching all the right wing rats jumping the Bundy ship.
Just for the sake of veracity, what "right wing rats" did you see on Bundy's ship? I've seen a lot of people from all over the political playing field, left to right, denounce both Bundy and the BLM's mishandling of this situation. This thread is pretty ample proof of that, so what are you talking about? Can you give some examples?
 
Last edited:
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Just for the sake of veracity, what "rat wing rats" did you see on Bundy's ship? I've seen a lot of people from all over the political playing field, left to right, denounce both Bundy and the BLM's mishandling of this situation. This thread is pretty ample proof of that, so what are you talking about? Can you give some examples?


Fake News comes to mind.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Fake News comes to mind.
You just inadvertently hit the nail on the head, fake news alright. Like all these "right wing rats" you say were on Bundy's ship. This thread details quite something different from your claim, not that you have a clue obviously. These "right wing rats" (and I guess all the other "wing" rats) mostly appear to be in agreement that both Bundy and the BLM are in the wrong. So these "rats" you see are a lot like unicorns and Mr. Ried's domestic terrorist. Fictional creations that ignore reality but pander to low information types.
 
Last edited:
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

I'd say you just inadvertently hit the mail on the head, fake news alright, like all these "right wing rats" you say where on Bundy's ship..

So you are suggesting no one other than the Hannity's of the world were supporting Bundy? And that those folks haven't backed off their glowing love for the guy? Seriously?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

So you are suggesting no one other than the Hannity's of the world were supporting Bundy? And that those folks haven't backed off their glowing love for the guy? Seriously?
I asked you where you saw all these "right wing rats" at and you claimed fake news. I guess that is a juvenile nickname for Fox News? OK, not much in the way of an intelligent answer but if you insist Hannity is the "all" you were speaking about, you are just serving heated rhetoric. Sorta like Hannity does. Pot meet kettle.;)
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Because in America the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

ANd I am just a citizen, I am not a court of law so I am not bound by such things. I think the asshole is guilty and wouldn't trust the psycho near any of my family.

So do you think the guy was there legitimately? WOuld you mind him out in front of your house with his magazine in place in a prone position looking towards your house?

What would your reaction be if you were out there at the other end of his rifle? Would you be worrying about the legality of whether he has ammo chambered?


AT the very least he is not following gun safety regulations right? I mean either way you look at it he was aiming in the direction of living humans. And there was no need for him to do what he did photo op or not. Just him standing around would have sufficed the Bundy's admitted plan to intimidate the BLM.

But what was that guy doing there on the bridge?

A quick look at his facebook page reveals that Eric Parker (the guy that you said had no magazine in place, what no sorry for that mistake?) is a ancient aliens/new world order agenda 21/and about every crazy ass conspiracy nut type of guy. My money is on him having not only a round chambered but that the magazine was full and he probably kept checking if it was full over and over again. ANd he probably had a hard on and fantasized about shooting those evil new world order BLM guys that were in his sights.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Let's forget the fact that the blm was pointing guns at the crowd and telling them that they were authorized to shoot.

Being confronted by an armed gang of domestic terrorists/troublemakers they might have been right when they told them they were authorized to shoot. The BLM was doing something lawful and the protesters were not or were making it impossible to do the work they were legally allowed to do by threat of violence. Since when does a federal agent not have the right to protect him/herself when confronted with violent protesters?
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

I asked you where you saw all these "right wing rats" and you claimed fake news. I guess that is a juvenile nickname for Fox News? OK

Is pompous your shtick really? Funny you knew exactly who I was referring to now isn't it? Fox wasn't only one. There are plenty of other conservative sources of support. National Review, The New American, etc. Lots of conservatives have backed away, and some still support him but have denounced his racism. As so they should.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Is pompous your shtick really? Funny you knew exactly who I was referring to now isn't it? Fox wasn't only one. There are plenty of other conservative sources of support. National Review, The New American, etc. Lots of conservatives have backed away, and some still support him but have denounced his racism. As so they should.
I don't think starting a post with an ad hominem personal attack on me will get you anywhere but reported for it. In fact I'm certain of it. ;)

It is funny to you that I know who Sean Hannity is? OK, hard to imagine anyone in the country with a TV set or radio who does not. Which brings us back full circle to the fact that you can't answer the first question I asked. Where I pointed out the fact that people and pundits from all over the political playing field, left to right, denounce both Bundy and the BLM's mishandling of this situation. This thread is pretty ample proof of that, so what are you talking about again? Can you give some examples? Aside from throwing out juvenile nicknames and Hannity? And since you seem to follow Hannity, has he in fact just blindly supported Bundy and not found him at fault as well? I don't know, you tell me, this was your argument. I don't watch Hannity but based upon your post in this thread I don't get the idea you can be trusted to not indulge in over heated rhetoric and name calling, which does not make for a convincing argument or debate.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

He had his clip in, so in all appearance we would have to assume that there were ammo in it. WHat would you think if he was aiming at you in prone position with a clip in? Would you question if the damn rifle was loaded or make sure you did something about it? Certainly I would hope that you wouldnt just stand there grinning.

That doesnt mean he had a round chambered.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Yup. Liens and/or garnishment, thats how this should be handled, not with SWAT teams and 'militias'.

Next, we'll have The U.S. Forest Service deploying like the 101st Airborne to collect dilinquent camping fees.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

I don't think starting a post with an ad hominem personal attack on me will get you anywhere but reported for it. In fact I'm certain of it. ;)

I attacked your pompous shtick. Big difference. Not a surprise that you can't discern the difference however.

Where I pointed out the fact that people and pundits from all over the political playing field, left to right, denounce both Bundy and the BLM's mishandling of this situation. This thread is pretty ample proof of that, so what are you talking about again? Can you give some examples? Aside from throwing out juvenile nicknames and Hannity?

For starters there's a difference between those here and those in the media and politicians per se. I was referring to politicians and media. Those in the public eye. Alas my reference to Fox etc. I didn't refer to anyone on this thread. That was your doing.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

Next, we'll have The U.S. Forest Service deploying like the 101st Airborne to collect dilinquent camping fees.



:thinking
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

I attacked your pompous shtick. Big difference. Not a surprise that you can't discern the difference however.
So you're just supplying a follow up ad hom?
For starters there's a difference between those here and those in the media and politicians per se. I was referring to politicians and media. Those in the public eye. Alas my reference to Fox etc. I didn't refer to anyone on this thread. That was your doing.
It is like I'm dealing with someone who is either incapable or unwilling to engage honestly. So you don't actually know if your example, Sean Hannity, has also held Bundy accountable or called him out for his role in this situation do you? It would be a lot less work to just admit that, wouldn't it? Because avoiding what I have said and then pretending my asking you questions on a debate board is a pompous shtick looks an awful lot like pompous shtick to me.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

That doesnt mean he had a round chambered.

The weapon had a magazine installed as if it were loaded. Hell if he pointed at you and you shot him you would probably be able to use the defense that you feared for your life even if it wasnt chambered.

Seriously what is your point here? SO I cant prove the existence of a bullet in a chamber its neither relevant or logical to base your entire argument behind if there was ammo loaded.

For the sake of argument lets just assume that the guy had not loaded his weapon. Did you know that it is illegal to aim a unloaded firearm at another human being?

Nevada law is against your argument. ANd indeed the said event was in the great state of Nevada. Or are you now going to argue against state laws?

NRS 202.290  Aiming firearm at human being; discharging weapon where person might be endangered; penalty.  Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person who willfully:
1.  Aims any gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm, whether loaded or not, at or toward any human being; or
2.  Discharges any firearm, air gun or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby, although an injury does not result,
Ê is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1911 C&P § 344; RL § 6609; NCL § 10292]—(NRS A 1989, 820, 1240, 1243) NRS: CHAPTER 202 - CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

The weapon had a magazine installed as if it were loaded. Hell if he pointed at you and you shot him you would probably be able to use the defense that you feared for your life even if it wasnt chambered.

Seriously what is your point here? SO I cant prove the existence of a bullet in a chamber its neither relevant or logical to base your entire argument behind if there was ammo loaded.

For the sake of argument lets just assume that the guy had not loaded his weapon. Did you know that it is illegal to aim a unloaded firearm at another human being?

Nevada law is against your argument. ANd indeed the said event was in the great state of Nevada. Or are you now going to argue against state laws?

NRS 202.290  Aiming firearm at human being; discharging weapon where person might be endangered; penalty.  Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person who willfully:
1.  Aims any gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm, whether loaded or not, at or toward any human being; or
2.  Discharges any firearm, air gun or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby, although an injury does not result,
Ê is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1911 C&P § 344; RL § 6609; NCL § 10292]—(NRS A 1989, 820, 1240, 1243) NRS: CHAPTER 202 - CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

In this scenario, I wouldn't have to worry about it, because had I been in charge, my people wouldn't been there to get a weapon aimed at them and if I was just a grunt, I would have quit that stupidity very early.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

In this scenario, I wouldn't have to worry about it, because had I been in charge, my people wouldn't been there to get a weapon aimed at them and if I was just a grunt, I would have quit that stupidity very early.

I like how you ignored the state law that I gave you that proved you wrong. Come on man, as the Bundy's would say cowboy up.
 
Re: Reid calls Bundy supporters ‘domestic terrorists’

You are jumping to wild conclusions as if you were magical.


Ah yes keep hammering that you think that I am a mindless sheep that only watches the evening news or whatever the ****.

The amount of corruption that you are implying (not just in this thread, but also in the conspiracy forum) is why no one takes conspiracy theorists seriously, when all you guys can do is is make up stories and spread them with no evidence.

Well, you're following all the talking points to the letter, so, what evidence have you given to show otherwise, or that you put any individual analytical thought beyond what you've been told?

It's the mainstream position that is falling apart, but because they sing their song and dance the loudest and in unison, they maintain this illusion, when the reality is that the mainstream media is a dying dinosaur that still acts like it has full control of the narrative.


Of course we all know that there is corruption in our government, its what all the political debates are about since the beginning of this country. The only people that are complacent with such corruption are the partisan hacks at least for their parties corruption. But we do have a system of government that keeps corruption to a low enough level to be sustainable as long as the people stay vigilant. But seriously if I had your views I would be mounting a revolution as we speak. And that is why these militias get labeled as domestic terrorists because they have gone down that rabbit hole to a place where they justify violence against the government as the only solution. Perhaps you dont go there but I can produce thousands of pages of militia treasonists that do assert such things. But then you would just claim that they are not real people or that I am a government shrill or some **** like that.

Here's proof that you have been fed bs, the Leo were sitting in a kill zone making threats, after weeks of beating people up, tasering them, siccing dogs on them, and the blm was aiming guns at a group of unarmed people... If these people were intent on being violent, they would have struck a first blow for sure. (To be killed minutes later by the backup, but still)

Instead they stood up, and said we are getting those cows back and they were not going to leave so they'd have to shoot everyone.




Lets see your evidence of that accusation. Or are you still afraid that I will easily discredit it as bull****?

Again, you said that it could only be a MSM source, well, you didn't SAY that was all you would accept, but by product of elimination that was the only source acceptable... The audio is there, but it won't be from a source you would accept, therefore you won't accept it even if you hear it for yourself... Yet, you are the reasonable one in the discussion. Think about that for a second.
 
Back
Top Bottom