2 2
kallend

More mass shootings

Recommended Posts

ryoder

***
So you and your buddy know what news this guy gets I see. A guy who lived alone in a trailer with no power phone or tv and you know the news stories you just lied about drove his behavior



He was picked up after the shooting at PP, muttering about "no more baby parts". And he just made that connection at random? :S

That is just a liberal media lie to make the right look bad. Happens all the time.

Lamestream media and stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok right wing guys. There is a definite straight line from the baby part lies used against PP to the death of that fine police officer. I know the other two won't matter much to you.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

***"Ex-wife says clinic suspect targeted Planned Parenthood":

http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-man-clinic-attack-wants-bar-publicity-000808411.html

She must be part of the liberal conspiracy.:|



Yes absolutely. Media got to her first and told her what to say!

Ya mean the media like Fox News?

The Daily Show had a rather interesting view of it.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prior to the "Dirty Harry" movie series gun violence was never depicted in movies as being empowering or "cool". In fact prior to this, in a cowboy western when the bad guy was shot he gripped his chest, pirouetted, picked a flower, and fell to the ground holding the flower to his chest..... who can say cornball.

The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed but what should be infringed is the depiction of sexy empowering gun violence in popular culture, movies and media.

Since Obama is in bed with Hollywood it would be easy for him to start their, except he works for them, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

The UCMJ.



What section of the UCMJ specifically says you can commit an act of terrorism, and then have it labeled as workplace violence, because it might look bad politically?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay attention.
Crime committed by a service member on a military facility falls under the UCMJ.
There are no charges for terrorism in the UCMJ, hence the murder charges.
:S
You keep wanting to make this emotional and political.
It's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

You keep wanting to make this emotional and political.



but won't someone think of puppies and children, only the one party can fix it - old Yeller had to be shot, poor Timmy, contaminating that fresh water well. It's like having to watch a Robin die on a sidewalk.

vote early, so we can feel better about this and so fairies won't die from not clapping your hands

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Pay attention.
Crime committed by a service member on a military facility falls under the UCMJ.
There are no charges for terrorism in the UCMJ, hence the murder charges.
:S
You keep wanting to make this emotional and political.
It's not.



Calling it workplace violence puts it in the same category of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The reason terrorism isn't in the UCMJ, is that it hasn't happened before. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean we need to dress it up in PC feel better verbiage that is bullshit at the very least, an outright lie in the mean, and a politically motivated fraud at best.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Fine. Ignore the law.

I'm outta wasted breath.



Good thing. We all know that standing up for the right thing takes effort.

Are you outta breath for that too?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one here but you is arguing that fact. You can't seem to understand there are three things going on. The legal charge that the military HAD to use, what it actually was, and how POTUS spun it.

We(and most of America) are all talking about how it was terrorism. He admitted it himself with credible proof.

You are sticking with the arguement it was only workplace violence because that's the only thing to charge him withdue to there being no other charge trying to make yourself right. The media also agreed it was terrorism but understood the charges due to the circumstances.

And the president well we know his reasons for trying to sidestep it.

It was terrorism plain and simple everyone and their mother knows it was charged like it was due to no terrorism charge in the UCMJ. That doesn't change the fact that it is what it was no matter the default charge it falls under.

I'm surprised you can't understand the fact that people still do things that are illegal and do not have a specific law to fall under so it gets amended or interpreted another way and filed under an applicable law. It still doesn't change what it actually was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The reason terrorism isn't in the UCMJ, is that it hasn't happened before. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean we need to dress it up in PC feel better verbiage that is bullshit at the very least, an outright lie in the mean, and a politically motivated fraud at best.


What's wrong with obeying the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cvfd1399

***

Quote

And the president well we know his reasons for trying to sidestep it.



I don't. Why did he try to sidestep it?



To play down the pattern of Islamic terror and not incite panic.

There is no pattern of Islamic terror in the US.

Inciting panic is almost never a good idea.

If that was his reasoning, it would appear to be pretty sound.

Why exactly are you so vehemently opposed to this reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
2 2