Right Wing Terrorism

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I thought these guys were let off the hook due to supposed FBI entrapment? Am I thinking of another case?

Nope. The claim was that they were entrapped by the FBI but that went nowhere.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Nope. The claim was that they were entrapped by the FBI but that went nowhere.

Oh good, I could swear I remember being mad because they got off. Maybe I accidentally read Fox. Very good to hear! Something sane happened.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Oh good, I could swear I remember being mad because they got off. Maybe I accidentally read Fox. Very good to hear! Something sane happened.

I had thought the same thing, and suspect I misheard a motion as a result. Anyway, glad it didn't happen.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Choosing to not believe what is true doesn't make you correct, nor does it absolve you of the consequences of actions you take despite the facts you are aware of.

This is an amusing display of dizzying ignorance. People are mistaken when it comes to particular beliefs, but if they knew they were mistaken, they'd be less likely to believe those things (with the usual caveat that people choose to avoid consuming information that disconfirms their worldview). Also, I'm not suggesting we "absolve" anyone -- I'm not sure how you interpret "blood on their hands." Not correctly, I gather. I'm simply saying that typical people in the NRA do not desire gun homicide, mass shootings, etc. It's possible for someone to be genuinely disgusted by gun violence yet still advocate for policies that promote gun violence. Welcome to human nature.

As I recall, thread participant mgidm86 used to be a proponent of gun rights, but now wishes to ban most firearms. mdgidm: When you advocated for gun ownership was it because you wanted people to die? I mean, I guess it's possible someone convinced him that people dying was actually bad. Or! Here's an alternative hypothesis: He always thought the dying was bad, but came to believe that gun availability was an important part of the problem.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that Boebert has a long history of anti-LGBTQ+ hate (and Muslim hate, and immigrant hate, etc) and violent rhetoric which you wish to ignore because once she realized she looked bad she half-heartedly gave her thoughts and prayers, once.

No, accusing your critics of being partisan as you flail so wildly in your unbelievably ignorant attempts to make Boebert look anti-violence has no bearing on how many languages you push partisan propaganda in.

This is a reasonably good example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. You're attempting to broaden the discussion from its narrow focus: I'm taking issue with the idea she wanted the nightclub shooting to occur, and more shootings of its kind to occur. You're mischaracterizing my views; I've agreed Boebert's a menace. She says all kinds of vile things, yet does not openly advocate nightclub shootings. Some of you want to imagine Boebert's suddenly playing a subtle game of winks because, in fact, she desperately craves mass murder. What's morbidly fascinating about all of this is why you "choose" to wholly believe it.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Tim Pool literally said the shootings will continue until the grooming stops. We know what he means by grooming. You weigh his calling the shooter an ******* as more important to understanding his view of the violence more than his arguments identifying the violence as reasonable because...why? He's one step away from 'great place you've got here, be a shame if it got shot up again'.

Oh, my god. We know that Boebert craves mass shootings because... look at what Tim Pool said on Twitter (and he did not say the shooter was an *******; he was responding to someone who said the shooter was an *******).

Quote:

Your infantilizing removing of agency from these people isn't, in any way, consistent with some deeper understanding of their motives. It's just a handwave. 'Oh she doesn't know she's advocating violence by agreeing that the violence is reasonable and it probably wasn't even her.' Naw, she is still responsible for those agreements. It's her association (I'm focusing on LB but this applies to the other people cited as well). Do you know if she even has someone else managing her twitter? Hypothetical handwaves are the best!

You're desperately mischaracterizing my position, which should have been clear in my initial reply to smartcooky. Reckless driving is still a crime. If someone racing to a Jason Aldean concert ends up killing a family of four, the driver's responsible for their actions, but this is significantly different than learning a person's routine, waiting outside their fitness class, and then running them over in the parking lot. That's not removing moral responsibility, but it is diminishing it; it's the difference between second degree homicide and murder one. Classically, you're burdened with demonstrating that she's part of a conspiracy to promote mass murder. Your "evidence," such as it is, does not come close to establishing what you're trying to prove.

Quote:

This is set seeking. You object to people describing their motives one way, and to support this you move the set to one where the motives don't matter. Trump's motives are not a defense of actions, but likewise the actions don't speak against his motives. The motives don't matter for holding his actions to account, but they definitely do with how to deal with his movement.

Trump's motives do matter. Trump wanted to continue to be president, and led a movement to "Stop the Steal." What is relatively less relevant is whether or not he wanted members of the mob to kill cops and hang Mike Pence. He irresponsibly summoned them and later failed to stop them. Shifting away from well-established facts to more difficult-to-prove motives has been a disaster in dealing with his followers. Cable news debates/****-shows hinged on the times he said "peacefully" in his speech and on Twitter, and Trump was able to rapidly rehabilitate his image.

Quote:

And this is even more ridiculous when one tries to apply this standard broadly and finds that it means that many, even most, people who were murderous can't be described so because their murderous ways were in service to another goal. It would be equally accurate to say that a wife who hired a hitman to kill her husband was not murderous because she would have been happy to get the insurance money another way.

This is a reasonably good example of begging the question. Again, Jocastas all the way down. The whole point is that it's more difficult to establish malice aforethought. If you can do that, fine, but if you can't -- and so far "can't" looms large -- then you're going to have to settle for a lesser charge.

Quote:

If you want to understand why these people act as they do then you have to understand their embrace of violence. That it makes them look horrible is not, in any way, a reason to doubt the truth of it. You're not operating in the realm of reason, pure or even diluted, to triangulate the truth of a statement based at all in 'how it plays'. That's just 'reasonability theater'.

You've closed off being reasonable in order to seem reasonable.

You have to establish this bloodthirsty desire for violence.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

This is irrelevant. She alone is responsible for EVERYTHING posted on her Twitter account, indeed, anything said or written anywhere in her name by her staff.

Again, there's a distinction between responsibility and motives/state of mind/goals. If I fail to secure a firearm, which is then stolen and used to murder scores of people, then I bear some responsibility, but this is not the same as if I had gone out and personally shot up the crowd.

Quote:

If the sort of violence-endorsing, anti-gay, anti trans, anti-Semitic, racist crap she, Taylor-Greene, Madison Cawthorn, et al, spout, had been posted to Social media by a NZ government politician, that politician would have had their resignation demanded by the Prime Minister forthwith, and if they refused to resign, their party leadership would eject them from the party.

Maybe one day the United States will join the civilized world.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by bruto

I don't know about Boebert, but I think your argument gets shaky with regard to other gun nuts, such as MTG, whose advocacy of gun violence (armed insurrectionists, the shooting of those she considers traitors, etc.) is harder to sweep away. Or, for example, Trump, who suggested a "second amendment" solution to justices he doesn't like. You can, of course, play the Becket card and note that he did not say "shoot them" outright, but it's getting a bit worn at the edges.

This was Trump telling a crowd that if Clinton won, she'd appoint Supreme Court justices who would take away their guns. It reminds me of Massie's comment:

Quote:

"I went to Iowa twice and came back with [Ron Paul]. I was with him at every event for the last three days in Iowa," Massie said. "From what I observed, not just in Iowa but also in Kentucky, up close with individuals, was that the people that voted for me in Kentucky, and the people who had voted for [Ron] Paul in Iowa several years before, were now voting for Trump. In fact, the people that voted for Rand in a primary in Kentucky were preferring Trump."

"All this time," Massie explained, "I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron and me in these primaries, they weren't voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class, as we had up until he came along."

I'm inclined to agree with a commenter on the article: I am not sure “crazy” is right denominator, but rather, the candidate that would most likely send the political and pundit classes into fits of pearl clutching.

In terms of policy positions, Trump was in some ways the least conservative candidate (he also had the baggage of being a Democrat, and in the Reform Party), but he knew how to speak people's lizard brains. Greene is one of the people who calls into talk radio and C-Span, but managed to improbably win office in North Florida district.

[bruto]

"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Of course it's a little ambiguous, but this is not about judicial argument. It is about the picking of judges. What power of "second amendment people" is invoked to do something about the selection of judges? If there's ambiguity here, it's mostly about which parties he would prefer to be assassinated.

I think in the context of the quote, you have to be pretty generous to consider Trump's invocation of "second amendment people" not to be a suggestion of violent insurrection, especially given its tone, audience and context, and the fact that it was uttered by a person who has since confirmed his approval of violent insurrection.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Cain

Oh, my god. We know that Boebert craves mass shootings because... look at what Tim Pool said on Twitter (and he did not say the shooter was an *******; he was responding to someone who said the shooter was an *******).

...because they're both leveraging the terrorist violence to attempt to get the social and political changes they want, which aligns with the wishes of those doing the violence. And Pool is more 'understanding' of the violence.

You can try to dance around their actions and statements using alternate framings, but it's not some high-minded reasonableness to do so.

Quote:

You're desperately mischaracterizing my position, which should have been clear in my initial reply to smartcooky. Reckless driving is still a crime. If someone racing to a Jason Aldean concert ends up killing a family of four, the driver's responsible for their actions, but this is significantly different than learning a person's routine, waiting outside their fitness class, and then running them over in the parking lot. That's not removing moral responsibility, but it is diminishing it; it's the difference between second degree homicide and murder one. Classically, you're burdened with demonstrating that she's part of a conspiracy to promote mass murder. Your "evidence," such as it is, does not come close to establishing what you're trying to prove.

You're infantilizing and removing their agency when you claim they aren't responsible for the things they say and write, even if you still acknowledge their agency in other situations. That isn't the difference between murder and homicide charges.

No, the goal is not that she is part of a conspiracy.

Your standard of evidence isn't that of a criminal court, is it? There are reasons that civil courts and criminal courts have different standards of evidence. How do those align with standards for understanding demonstrably violent social/political movements?

Quote:

Trump's motives do matter. Trump wanted to continue to be president, and led a movement to "Stop the Steal." What is relatively less relevant is whether or not he wanted members of the mob to kill cops and hang Mike Pence. He irresponsibly summoned them and later failed to stop them. Shifting away from well-established facts to more difficult-to-prove motives has been a disaster in dealing with his followers. Cable news debates/****-shows hinged on the times he said "peacefully" in his speech and on Twitter, and Trump was able to rapidly rehabilitate his image.



This is a reasonably good example of begging the question. Again, Jocastas all the way down. The whole point is that it's more difficult to establish malice aforethought. If you can do that, fine, but if you can't -- and so far "can't" looms large -- then you're going to have to settle for a lesser charge.

Naw, this is not only deeply silly but it's out of line with the standards you invoke above. Your reasoning would, again, mean that willingness to cause or support violence couldn't be called 'murderous' or similar because it is in service to another goal. Does it need to be said that this isn't how murder charges work? Hiring a hitman to kill one's husband isn't mitigated by having another goal the murder is in service of. That doesn't lead to a lesser charge. Hell, it can be an aggravating factor. Killing just to kill isn't the only source of 'real' murder.

If someone were to say that you have children in your care that you're grooming to sexually abuse, and advance this idea publicly, would you say they're not trying to get you hurt? How far would this go? Would you still say it if, like Trump and the election, you could show they were aware what they were saying was wrong? Would you still say it if they talked about how because the authorities aren't doing enough to save those kids you're grooming, everyone needs to do something about it? If they invoke the 2nd Amendment? If they gathered people they know to be planning violence and having weapons a few blocks from your house? If they said they planned to march to your house personally?

All that, and it wouldn't be wanting you to get hurt or killed, if they said 'peacefully' a few times?

Pull the other one.

Quote:

You have to establish this bloodthirsty desire for violence.

You don't have to be only motivated by bloodlust to be murderous. Being willing to support murder to get something, apart from a very few exceptions like saving your own life, is what does it.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Cain

This is an amusing display of dizzying ignorance. People are mistaken when it comes to particular beliefs, but if they knew they were mistaken, they'd be less likely to believe those things (with the usual caveat that people choose to avoid consuming information that disconfirms their worldview). Also, I'm not suggesting we "absolve" anyone -- I'm not sure how you interpret "blood on their hands." Not correctly, I gather. I'm simply saying that typical people in the NRA do not desire gun homicide, mass shootings, etc. It's possible for someone to be genuinely disgusted by gun violence yet still advocate for policies that promote gun violence. Welcome to human nature.

As I recall, thread participant mgidm86 used to be a proponent of gun rights, but now wishes to ban most firearms. mdgidm: When you advocated for gun ownership was it because you wanted people to die? I mean, I guess it's possible someone convinced him that people dying was actually bad. Or! Here's an alternative hypothesis: He always thought the dying was bad, but came to believe that gun availability was an important part of the problem.



This is a reasonably good example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. You're attempting to broaden the discussion from its narrow focus: I'm taking issue with the idea she wanted the nightclub shooting to occur, and more shootings of its kind to occur. You're mischaracterizing my views; I've agreed Boebert's a menace. She says all kinds of vile things, yet does not openly advocate nightclub shootings. Some of you want to imagine Boebert's suddenly playing a subtle game of winks because, in fact, she desperately craves mass murder. What's morbidly fascinating about all of this is why you "choose" to wholly believe it.

I don't think I was ever much an advocate for gun rights, but I actually can't remember LOL! Not denying it but I've never been a gun person.

I owned a shotgun for the home for a few years and that was it. My old posts here would show my attitude but I really don't recall what it was. Bring em on if you want might be fun.

In any case my attitude has obviously changed haha. I'm not 100% against owning one right now (me, myself) but mainly to protect myself from the idiots who do have them. But...why bother? I mean really.....it's so lame.

No, I didn't want people to die though whatever that means. Not sure what the topic here is right now.

I think the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a travesty, although if adhered to as I believe it was meant to be, it might be fine. Probably not though.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I thought these guys were let off the hook due to supposed FBI entrapment? Am I thinking of another case?

A few guys on the fringes were. It's a reasonable conclusion that this whole thing wouldn't have gotten to where it did but for the FBI pushing it along, but that doesn't make going along with it at all legal or a matter of entrapment.

Nothing all that nefarious or wildly conspiratorial about it. Law enforcement often encourages or pushes illegal activity (setting up a drug buy is a low level example) in order to arrest people in a criminal business (sting operation). Floating the idea of kidnapping the governor to bunch of militia morons is the same sort of thing. We want proactive law enforcement against dangerous people but we don't want them to get people who wouldn't have otherwise committed a crime to commit crime. It can get murky.

[smartcooky]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adam-fo...r-kidnap-plot/


16 years... real consequences

.. and about time too!

[bruto]

They just did another for 19. Getting better.

Another one down.

[Stacyhs]

These convictions along with the J6C convictions may...just may...cut down on some of these far right militia groups. They're finding out their actions have real consequences and they're not in some game.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by bruto

I think in the context of the quote, you have to be pretty generous to consider Trump's invocation of "second amendment people" not to be a suggestion of violent insurrection, especially given its tone, audience and context, and the fact that it was uttered by a person who has since confirmed his approval of violent insurrection.

That's a rather twisted interpretation. The context is that Trump was riffing at a rally. He was thinking out loud and added that comment as an afterthought. He was not suggesting a violent insurrection. It was red meat to the gun lovers who support him. Between defeating Clinton in the election versus losing and then having a violent insurrection, Trump would have strongly preferred the former. If the configuration of the Court changed under Clinton, and they did at some point overturn Heller, it's unlikely Trump would support a violent revolution because of guns. Once again, Trump cares about himself, not gun ideology, or any ideology. After the Parkland massacre, Trump was talking about seizing guns -- until the NRA sat him down and set him straight. He also said that he would have personally entered the school to stop the shooting, probably steering his golf cart through the double-doored entrance. At his core, Trump is a narcissistic, selfish BSer.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

...because they're both leveraging the terrorist violence to attempt to get the social and political changes they want, which aligns with the wishes of those doing the violence. And Pool is more 'understanding' of the violence.

This is something you've repeatedly failed to demonstrate. There's nothing "high-minded" about casting doubt on this alleged plot and there's no dancing. The "evidence" is dog squeeze.

Quote:

Your standard of evidence isn't that of a criminal court, is it? There are reasons that civil courts and criminal courts have different standards of evidence. How do those align with standards for understanding demonstrably violent social/political movements?

OK, so let's say a victim in the Colorado night club shooting decides to sue Boebert. Do you honestly think the Congresswoman can be found liable for damages based on what you've produced here?

The purpose of the crime analogy has always been about establishing different levels of intentionality. Again, smartcooky's trigger post stated that they "KNEW full well..."

Quote:

Naw, this is not only deeply silly but it's out of line with the standards you invoke above. Your reasoning would, again, mean that willingness to cause or support violence couldn't be called 'murderous' or similar because it is in service to another goal. Does it need to be said that this isn't how murder charges work? Hiring a hitman to kill one's husband isn't mitigated by having another goal the murder is in service of. That doesn't lead to a lesser charge. Hell, it can be an aggravating factor. Killing just to kill isn't the only source of 'real' murder.

Oh my goodness. Please think twice -- or just once -- before constructing this type of straw man. Do you really believe that by "standards" I've "invoked above" that killing someone in service of another goal is not first degree homicide? I recall an episode of Monk where a person was murdered because the killer needed the victim's employee-of-the-month parking spot in order to rob a bank (or something -- who cares). Are you suggesting that, on my view, the intended purpose was somehow not to kill? You're trapped in a doom loop of tribal stupidity.

Quote:

If someone were to say that you have children in your care that you're grooming to sexually abuse, and advance this idea publicly, would you say they're not trying to get you hurt? How far would this go? Would you still say it if, like Trump and the election, you could show they were aware what they were saying was wrong? Would you still say it if they talked about how because the authorities aren't doing enough to save those kids you're grooming, everyone needs to do something about it? If they invoke the 2nd Amendment? If they gathered people they know to be planning violence and having weapons a few blocks from your house? If they said they planned to march to your house personally?

This scenario is squishy, verging on incoherence. It mixes in Trump and the election...? I've never been suspected of "grooming," but this person suddenly levels an accusation against me? Let's take a case closer to reality.

If someone were to say that a Supreme Court justice is a rapist, and that his vote in Dobbs almost certainly ensures women will needlessly die, is the accuser trying to "hurt" the Justice? Does it mean the people who say this sort of thing on the intarweb want Kavanaugh assassinated? Fauci and the "administrative state" do not care about public health; they want to seize power and destroy small businesses. They want to kill people with mRNA vaccines.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Cain

That's a rather twisted interpretation. The context is that Trump was riffing at a rally. He was thinking out loud and added that comment as an afterthought. He was not suggesting a violent insurrection. It was red meat to the gun lovers who support him. Between defeating Clinton in the election versus losing and then having a violent insurrection, Trump would have strongly preferred the former. If the configuration of the Court changed under Clinton, and they did at some point overturn Heller, it's unlikely Trump would support a violent revolution because of guns. Once again, Trump cares about himself, not gun ideology, or any ideology. After the Parkland massacre, Trump was talking about seizing guns -- until the NRA sat him down and set him straight. He also said that he would have personally entered the school to stop the shooting, probably steering his golf cart through the double-doored entrance. At his core, Trump is a narcissistic, selfish BSer.

I don't see how it's twisted. Riffing or not, idiotic or not, a thing was said and not unsaid. The issue was appointed judges, and the difficulty of their removal. The snide suggestion was that a cure might be found by "second amendment people." It was not a call for judicial argument. The only thing "second amendment people" can do to remove judges is to shoot them. Sure it was just riffing or thinking out loud, and it resulted in a clear and public pronouncement. You can say Trump was too stupid to understand what he was saying, and that he didn't really mean it, but he said it, and it takes a bit of twisting, I think, to interpret this as anything but a suggestion that the only solution to undesirable judicial appointments would be assassination. Sure, he did not actively call for it to happen, only suggested that the best way to prevent it was to elect him, but it was still suggested as a political option.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Cain

This is something you've repeatedly failed to demonstrate. There's nothing "high-minded" about casting doubt on this alleged plot and there's no dancing. The "evidence" is dog squeeze.

Naw, your denial isn't enough. He goes to great lengths to explain that the killings will continue until he and people like him get their way. More on how you're not following the evidence well below.

Quote:

OK, so let's say a victim in the Colorado night club shooting decides to sue Boebert. Do you honestly think the Congresswoman can be found liable for damages based on what you've produced here?

The purpose of the crime analogy has always been about establishing different levels of intentionality. Again, smartcooky's trigger post stated that they "KNEW full well..."

No, because such a lawsuit would be asking a different question than we are arguing here. Here we are asking mainly if people like her wanted violence (or in my specific case find the violence a more than acceptable cost). Knowing that a position is likely to cause violence is a different question to proving it did cause violence in a specific case. 'Prove which cigarette caused the cancer' is a different question to 'does smoking cause cancer'.

Quote:

Oh my goodness. Please think twice -- or just once -- before constructing this type of straw man. Do you really believe that by "standards" I've "invoked above" that killing someone in service of another goal is not first degree homicide? I recall an episode of Monk where a person was murdered because the killer needed the victim's employee-of-the-month parking spot in order to rob a bank (or something -- who cares). Are you suggesting that, on my view, the intended purpose was somehow not to kill? You're trapped in a doom loop of tribal stupidity.

I'm trapped in actually following your argument well enough to see the problems of it. Here again you move the goalposts. The question wasn't what charges in a court are appropriate for murder, but how those standards translate to calling someone murderous. Here you would have to be arguing that it would be wrong to call someone convicted of first degree homicide 'murderous' because it should be 'first degree homicideous'. Remember that my objection to your point wasn't that people shouldn't be charged if their killing was in service to another goal, but that it would still all be 'murderous' apart from some specific cases.

You've made a piss poor argument and instead of reforming into a stronger one, you've decided that the people observing the things contributing to the shootings are wrong. Why? It makes one 'tribe' look too bad. You'd have to be tribal to think this other tribe is saying and doing what they say and do!

Quote:

This scenario is squishy, verging on incoherence. It mixes in Trump and the election...? I've never been suspected of "grooming," but this person suddenly levels an accusation against me? Let's take a case closer to reality.

You already rejected the reality of Trump's calls to violence and the realities around Jan 6th, so no, let's stick with my perfectly coherent example. Would you say someone doing those things I described which parallel the things Trump actually did were done without intention to cause violence? All it's doing is swapping out some parties and the specific accusation for one of similar ability to cause violence.

Quote:

If someone were to say that a Supreme Court justice is a rapist, and that his vote in Dobbs almost certainly ensures women will needlessly die, is the accuser trying to "hurt" the Justice? Does it mean the people who say this sort of thing on the intarweb want Kavanaugh assassinated? Fauci and the "administrative state" do not care about public health; they want to seize power and destroy small businesses. They want to kill people with mRNA vaccines.

Oh perfect, we've reached the part of the sophistry where good things and bad things, evidenced and not at all supported, are all supposed to be considered the same. Truth is a defense in all these cases. At some point good faith mistakes are also a defense. However, the hypothetical existence of gray areas in other cases is no support for the argument any given case falls in to the gray area. The Argument of the Beard, or the Line Drawing Fallacy, does indeed tend to work on people who operate under tribal black and white beliefs. This is not the case here, no matter how you soothe yourself with assurances that critics of your arguments are doing just that.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Cain

This is an amusing display of dizzying ignorance. People are mistaken when it comes to particular beliefs, but if they knew they were mistaken, they'd be less likely to believe those things (with the usual caveat that people choose to avoid consuming information that disconfirms their worldview).

Ok, this has to be your satire persona turned up to 11, now. As such, it's not worth pointing out any more of your obvious errors in reasoning.

[tyr_13]

So the new GOP House apparently just removed the metal detectors. It turns out it's literally the Hill they want to die on.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

So the new GOP House apparently just removed the metal detectors. It turns out it's literally the Hill they want to die on.

Should we lay bets on when will be the first time someone inside the Capitol gets shot?

Maybe they should just hire the Uvalde police department.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Cain

This is something you've repeatedly failed to demonstrate. There's nothing "high-minded" about casting doubt on this alleged plot and there's no dancing. The "evidence" is dog squeeze.



OK, so let's say a victim in the Colorado night club shooting decides to sue Boebert. Do you honestly think the Congresswoman can be found liable for damages based on what you've produced here?

The purpose of the crime analogy has always been about establishing different levels of intentionality. Again, smartcooky's trigger post stated that they "KNEW full well..."



Oh my goodness. Please think twice -- or just once -- before constructing this type of straw man. Do you really believe that by "standards" I've "invoked above" that killing someone in service of another goal is not first degree homicide? I recall an episode of Monk where a person was murdered because the killer needed the victim's employee-of-the-month parking spot in order to rob a bank (or something -- who cares). Are you suggesting that, on my view, the intended purpose was somehow not to kill? You're trapped in a doom loop of tribal stupidity.



This scenario is squishy, verging on incoherence. It mixes in Trump and the election...? I've never been suspected of "grooming," but this person suddenly levels an accusation against me? Let's take a case closer to reality.

If someone were to say that a Supreme Court justice is a rapist, and that his vote in Dobbs almost certainly ensures women will needlessly die, is the accuser trying to "hurt" the Justice? Does it mean the people who say this sort of thing on the intarweb want Kavanaugh assassinated? Fauci and the "administrative state" do not care about public health; they want to seize power and destroy small businesses. They want to kill people with mRNA vaccines.

The Argument that Trump was not Author of the Insurrection falls apart once you know, that all he had too do to Prevent it, was Issue a Statement that he would not Invoke the Insurrection act on January 6th 2021. That would have stopped the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militias from directly attacking the Capitol on January 6th.

[The_Animus]

Albuquerque police investigating 5 shootings involving elected officials in the past month

All 5 politicians are Democrats. They don't have suspect(s) yet but it seems likely one or more of these will end up being right wing terrorism. I'll have to follow up when more information regarding the culprits becomes known.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Albuquerque police investigating 5 shootings involving elected officials in the past month

All 5 politicians are Democrats. They don't have suspect(s) yet but it seems likely one or more of these will end up being right wing terrorism. I'll have to follow up when more information regarding the culprits becomes known.

They never learn. They knew they shoulda taken that left turn at Abuquerque!

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Albuquerque police investigating 5 shootings involving elected officials in the past month

All 5 politicians are Democrats. They don't have suspect(s) yet but it seems likely one or more of these will end up being right wing terrorism. I'll have to follow up when more information regarding the culprits becomes known.

Seems likely to whom? Fatuous rubes who don't read beyond headlines? Sanctimonious partisan clowns? This is a skeptic's forum. You should be ashamed of yourself.

There's no evidence that two of the five supposed "shootings" even occurred! Most people have no idea what gunshots sound like. Many sounds are easily mistaken for gunshots, even by those who do know how shots sound. Multiple recent analyses show ShotSpotter technology and methodology are subjective, unreliable, and inaccurate. Pseudoscience. AKA woo. Furthermore, to claim those two incidents are "shootings involving elected officials" is utterly absurd, not to mention profoundly dishonest. No "offices of local elected leaders have been targeted by gunfire."

1. 12/4/22 Home of Bernalillo County Commissioner Adriann Barboa

"APD says the first shooting took place in early December at the home of Commissioner Barboa. APD says around 4:41 p.m. on December 4, someone shot eight rounds at the commissioner’s home in southeast Albuquerque."

2. 12/10/22 Former campaign headquarters of AG Raul Torrez

"Police alleged shots were reported near the former campaign office of the newly elected Attorney General Raul Torrez. At the time of the shooting, Torrez’s campaign had moved out of the downtown address."

3. 12/11/22 Home of Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley

"APD says investigators found more than a dozen gunshot impacts at the home of then-Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley in the North Valley. O’Malley says at least ten gunshots struck the adobe wall surrounding her home.

4. 1/3/23 Home of NM state Senator Linda Lopez

"A fourth shooting is said to have occurred on January 3, 2023. At least eight shots were fired at the home of state Senator Linda Lopez in southwest Albuquerque."

5. 1/5/23 Workplace of NM state Senator Moe Maestas

"A fifth shooting is said to have occurred at Senator Moe Maestas’ Albuquerque
office on Thursday morning."

"...police received reports 'of gunshots heard in the area of a downtown law office' where state Sen. Antonio Moe Maestas works. 'Officers did not find any damage to the building.'"

There's no evidence the three officials whose homes have actual bullet holes in them were targeted at all, let alone targeted for their party affiliation or political views.

These are stray bullet strikes, as Commissioner Barboa is well aware, "what I am experiencing, too many of my neighbors experience on a regular basis.” Lots of gang and cartel activity in NM. When you hear hoofbeats in NM, think horses, not giraffes.

[kookbreaker]

"Only 3 of the 5 politician's houses have had bullets hit them!!" is an interesting flex to make.

[sackett]

A prediction: The recent slapstick of the House Speaker selection has already emboldened the violent right, and the seeming victory of the worst Republican elements will continue to excite them. They'll seek greater thrills. They'll attempt more open attacks on their targets. They'll achieve actual atrocities.

They'll also wind up dead (occasionally) or in prison. At what cost in turmoil and grief? I'm not prepared even to guess.

[Stacyhs]

A woman has been arrested for the stabbing of a university student for being Chinese:

Quote:

An 18-year-old Indiana University student was stabbed multiple times in the head while riding a local bus in Bloomington, Ind., this past week.

The suspect told police she stabbed the victim because the victim was "Chinese," adding that it "would be one less person to blow up our country," according to an affidavit shared with NPR.

Indiana University in Bloomington confirmed that the victim was a student enrolled there and said it was an incident of "anti-Asian hate." Police did not provide details about the victim except that she was from Carmel, a city north of Indianapolis.

Quote:

The suspect, Billie R. Davis, 56, has been charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery and battery with a deadly weapon, according to court documents.

Quote:

The unprovoked assault against a person of Asian descent also follows increased reports of hate crimes against Asians in the U.S. beginning in 2020.

But I'm sure we'll be hearing from MAGA crowd that this is unconnected to the anti-Chinese hatred spread by the right-wing due to Covid.

[mgidm86]

I just don't get the anti Asian thing. WTF?

I rent a room right now from a Vietnamese family. They are wonderful, their kids (6 and 8) are well behaved, friendly and intelligent. They watch kids educational shows when not in school and they like me.

Did you know the wheels on the train go round and round? I do! Believe me I know! We all do!

They never yell at the kids or each other. I've never heard foul language, not even late night on their TV. I have a ton of respect for them, I think Dad is from Vietnam. And they respect me too.

Sure this is just an anecdote. I know many Asian people and it makes me sad.

And no, I don't think any races deserve hatred. Maybe the human race but whadyagonnado?

[azazal]

Failed GOP candidate arrested in connection for drive-by shootings at lawmakers' homes


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A failed Republican state legislative candidate who authorities say was angry over losing the election last November and made baseless claims that the election was "rigged" against him was arrested Monday in connection with a series of drive-by shootings targeting the homes of Democratic lawmakers in New Mexico's largest city.

Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina held a news conference Monday evening hours after SWAT officers arrested Solomon Pena at his home.

https://upnorthlive.com/news/nation-...ation-abortion

[johnny karate]

I’ll take Posts That Didn’t Age Well for 200, Alex.

Originally Posted by WWBDD

Seems likely to whom? Fatuous rubes who don't read beyond headlines? Sanctimonious partisan clowns? This is a skeptic's forum. You should be ashamed of yourself.

There's no evidence that two of the five supposed "shootings" even occurred! Most people have no idea what gunshots sound like. Many sounds are easily mistaken for gunshots, even by those who do know how shots sound. Multiple recent analyses show ShotSpotter technology and methodology are subjective, unreliable, and inaccurate. Pseudoscience. AKA woo. Furthermore, to claim those two incidents are "shootings involving elected officials" is utterly absurd, not to mention profoundly dishonest. No "offices of local elected leaders have been targeted by gunfire."

1. 12/4/22 Home of Bernalillo County Commissioner Adriann Barboa

"APD says the first shooting took place in early December at the home of Commissioner Barboa. APD says around 4:41 p.m. on December 4, someone shot eight rounds at the commissioner’s home in southeast Albuquerque."

2. 12/10/22 Former campaign headquarters of AG Raul Torrez

"Police alleged shots were reported near the former campaign office of the newly elected Attorney General Raul Torrez. At the time of the shooting, Torrez’s campaign had moved out of the downtown address."

3. 12/11/22 Home of Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley

"APD says investigators found more than a dozen gunshot impacts at the home of then-Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley in the North Valley. O’Malley says at least ten gunshots struck the adobe wall surrounding her home.

4. 1/3/23 Home of NM state Senator Linda Lopez

"A fourth shooting is said to have occurred on January 3, 2023. At least eight shots were fired at the home of state Senator Linda Lopez in southwest Albuquerque."

5. 1/5/23 Workplace of NM state Senator Moe Maestas

"A fifth shooting is said to have occurred at Senator Moe Maestas’ Albuquerque
office on Thursday morning."

"...police received reports 'of gunshots heard in the area of a downtown law office' where state Sen. Antonio Moe Maestas works. 'Officers did not find any damage to the building.'"

There's no evidence the three officials whose homes have actual bullet holes in them were targeted at all, let alone targeted for their party affiliation or political views.

These are stray bullet strikes, as Commissioner Barboa is well aware, "what I am experiencing, too many of my neighbors experience on a regular basis.” Lots of gang and cartel activity in NM. When you hear hoofbeats in NM, think horses, not giraffes.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’ll take Posts That Didn’t Age Well for 200, Alex.

Triple Jeopardy for the win, JK!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’ll take Posts That Didn’t Age Well for 200, Alex.

Indeed. Posts that attempt to gaslight, and tell outright lies, don't age at all when the facts become apparent!

I predict WWBDD will be a no-show to defend his post.

This is a case of Right Wing terrorism, there can be no argument about this

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Darat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Indeed. Posts that attempt to gaslight, and tell outright lies, don't age at all when the facts become apparent!

I predict WWBDD will be a no-show to defend his post.

This is a case of Right Wing terrorism, there can be no argument about this

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Here goes: Ah but the people he hired to shoot up the homes weren't right wingers, they were gang members so you can't count this as right wing terrorism, it's just terrible gang violence caused by the democrats soft on crime policies!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Darat

Here goes: Ah but the people he hired to shoot up the homes weren't right wingers, they were gang members so you can't count this as right wing terrorism, it's just terrible gang violence caused by the democrats soft on crime policies!

Here goes: Ah but the hirees are irrelevant, the hirer is the key... he was a disgruntled, loser, right-wing politician and election denier who was directly responsible for intimidating and terrorizing his political opponents and their families by spraying gunfire at their homes - in other words, a terrorist... and a right wing one at that.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I just don't get the anti Asian thing. WTF?

I rent a room right now from a Vietnamese family. They are wonderful, their kids (6 and 8) are well behaved, friendly and intelligent. They watch kids educational shows when not in school and they like me.

Did you know the wheels on the train go round and round? I do! Believe me I know! We all do!

They never yell at the kids or each other. I've never heard foul language, not even late night on their TV. I have a ton of respect for them, I think Dad is from Vietnam. And they respect me too.

Sure this is just an anecdote. I know many Asian people and it makes me sad.

And no, I don't think any races deserve hatred. Maybe the human race but whadyagonnado?

In some circles the Vietnam War never really ended. Elements of Boomer love for Trump comes from this direction. A sort of stabbed in the back theory and the dismay with democracy that brings. The first two Rambo movies were a good reflection of this.

Then for that same generation we have the 80s panic over Japanese stealing our auto industry and parents who fought in WWII giving their opinions.

All of this lingers through generations, and the people prone to strong emotional reaction over these things are the least likely to realize that their anger is completely misplaced.

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

In some circles the Vietnam War never really ended. Elements of Boomer love for Trump comes from this direction. A sort of stabbed in the back theory and the dismay with democracy that brings. The first two Rambo movies were a good reflection of this.

Then for that same generation we have the 80s panic over Japanese stealing our auto industry and parents who fought in WWII giving their opinions.

All of this lingers through generations, and the people prone to strong emotional reaction over these things are the least likely to realize that their anger is completely misplaced.

To be fair, the first Rambo movie was about a man traumatized in a war who was mistreated and attacked by American rednecks and fought back. Now Rambo 2, you have a point

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

In some circles the Vietnam War never really ended.

Heck, back when I was in college I took a Japanese history class as an elective. It was History of Japan 1, so it stopped long before the modern day. When I mentioned it to my mother, her reaction was "Why do you want to study them? They attacked us." Not only was this conversation in the 1990s, she wasn't even born until 1944.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

Heck, back when I was in college I took a Japanese history class as an elective. It was History of Japan 1, so it stopped long before the modern day. When I mentioned it to my mother, her reaction was "Why do you want to study them? They attacked us." Not only was this conversation in the 1990s, she wasn't even born until 1944.

reminds me of an old Doug Stanhope bit on nationalism

https://youtu.be/gy19YmQHHJU

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’ll take Posts That Didn’t Age Well for 200, Alex.

All that formatting just to fall flat on one’s face.