more totalitarian bullshit from the supreme court

[sangha]

Sorry Maggie a little kooky =/= terrorists

Maggie never said "a little kooky = terrorists"

If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say

Why don't you get over your little infatuation with me and go play in traffic. I obviously never said that Maggie say anything of the sort. Anyone who can read understands that I was disagreeing that they are terrorists, not putting words in Maggie's mouth.

Maggie, Sangha is a perfect example of why I don't appear to be as unbiased as I was when I first got here. he's a fucking melon headed example of the many morons from the left who post here, many more than are from the right....

I see. So you disagreed with Maggie so you refuted something she didn't say

 

[ConHog]

Maggie never said "a little kooky = terrorists"

If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say

Why don't you get over your little infatuation with me and go play in traffic. I obviously never said that Maggie say anything of the sort. Anyone who can read understands that I was disagreeing that they are terrorists, not putting words in Maggie's mouth.

Maggie, Sangha is a perfect example of why I don't appear to be as unbiased as I was when I first got here. he's a fucking melon headed example of the many morons from the left who post here, many more than are from the right....

I see. So you disagreed with Maggie so you refuted something she didn't say

Well, yet another thread dooshed up by the child Sangha. Imagine that.

yall enjoy.

 

[Nonelitist]

I kinda agree with the liberals on this board.

In fact, I think Obama should run on the premise that is should be ok for Americans to fund terrorist organizations in 2012.

 

[MaggieMae]

Guess you didn't read my post. Reagan didn't step on his dick like Obama. The Contras were not a designated Terror organization by the state department.

And you've been corrected. Selling arms to Iran was illegal. Selling arms COVERTLY to Iran was corrupt.

Stop, stop.....you're being too predictable!!!

I told you that you wouldn't understand it and you're not in a position to "correct" jack shit.

You're in exactly the same position as you were an hour ago and so am I.

It's not only sad but terribly inaccurate to believe that the Iran-Contra covert deal was acceptable and therefore legal. There IS no other way to argue it.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't know if what you claim is true or not, but I'm happy a pig in shit about it.

That was genius policy. Genius. It was only the stupid Dems that stopped the policy and thereby caused all the havoc we are now experiencing in the region. If they had stayed the fuck out of it, Iran and Iraq would have bled themselves white and had no ability to start trouble for anyone else.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to agree or even understand it. Just go on hoping Reagan and Ollie go to jail. (and, gnashing your teeth because they didn't)

So it's okay when a Republican president thinks he's above the law. Thanks for the confirmation.

Just a bunch of simpleton Dems playing politics with the country's foreign policy. Back in the day we used to all be on the same side when it came to whether we wanted America to win. In the 1980's Dems made clear that it was no-longer the case. They decided that tripping up a popular Republican president was far more important.

What Iran-Contra really was is a treasonous act by Congressional Democrats. Giving aid and comfort to America's enemies for political gain. Shameful.

But, keep deluding yourself....please.

Omg, you really don't know anything about it, do you. Try something real simple, like Wikipedia, then maybe click on some of their sources to educate yourself. Please. Congress had no knowledge of that deal. None whatsoever.

 

[ConHog]

So it's okay when a Republican president thinks he's above the law. Thanks for the confirmation.

Just a bunch of simpleton Dems playing politics with the country's foreign policy. Back in the day we used to all be on the same side when it came to whether we wanted America to win. In the 1980's Dems made clear that it was no-longer the case. They decided that tripping up a popular Republican president was far more important.

What Iran-Contra really was is a treasonous act by Congressional Democrats. Giving aid and comfort to America's enemies for political gain. Shameful.

But, keep deluding yourself....please.

Omg, you really don't know anything about it, do you. Try something real simple, like Wikipedia, then maybe click on some of their sources to educate yourself. Please. Congress had no knowledge of that deal. None whatsoever.

Not to defend the Iran/Contra affair, because that was just an illegal deal all the way around. BUT Congress doesn't and shouldn't know about a lot of things that our intelligence services to.

 

[MaggieMae]

You're a fucking idiot.

Oath Keepers Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

Sorry Maggie a little kooky =/= terrorists

Hey, you were the one who posted the law. How do these clauses of Title 18 et seq. NOT apply to an organization like Oath Keepers who encourage its members to take up arms against the U.S. military if they (the Oathers) believe there is a violation of their (the Oathers) ten rules? No, the group may not be at the dangerously hysterical stage yet, but they are nonetheless promoting subversive activities against the government.

As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion;

 

[MaggieMae]

You're a fucking idiot.

Oath Keepers Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

So a group who pledges to support and defend the Constitution is somehow a militant group forming to overthrow the government? If the government is a tyrannical one then we should all support overthrowing it. But as it stands the Oathkeepers simply pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Why is that not a good thing?

Read their pledges.

 

[ConHog]

Oath Keepers Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

Sorry Maggie a little kooky =/= terrorists

Hey, you were the one who posted the law. How do these clauses of Title 18 et seq. NOT apply to an organization like Oath Keepers who encourage its members to take up arms against the U.S. military if they (the Oathers) believe there is a violation of their (the Oathers) ten rules? No, the group may not be at the dangerously hysterical stage yet, but they are nonetheless promoting subversive activities against the government.

As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion;

Because they are protected by free speech. Same way that fool out in Los Angelas can be calling for La Raza to revolt. It's free speech, at least up to a point. Do you consider that UCLA professor to be a terrorist Maggie, because I certainly don't.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just a bunch of simpleton Dems playing politics with the country's foreign policy. Back in the day we used to all be on the same side when it came to whether we wanted America to win. In the 1980's Dems made clear that it was no-longer the case. They decided that tripping up a popular Republican president was far more important.

What Iran-Contra really was is a treasonous act by Congressional Democrats. Giving aid and comfort to America's enemies for political gain. Shameful.

But, keep deluding yourself....please.

Omg, you really don't know anything about it, do you. Try something real simple, like Wikipedia, then maybe click on some of their sources to educate yourself. Please. Congress had no knowledge of that deal. None whatsoever.

Not to defend the Iran/Contra affair, because that was just an illegal deal all the way around. BUT Congress doesn't and shouldn't know about a lot of things that our intelligence services to.

Not all of Congress, no. But there are still the so-called "Gang of 8," who are the top 4 Republicans and top 4 Democrats comprising the Senate Intelligence Committee who ARE apprised of everything (or are supposed to be).

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Oath Keepers Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

So a group who pledges to support and defend the Constitution is somehow a militant group forming to overthrow the government? If the government is a tyrannical one then we should all support overthrowing it. But as it stands the Oathkeepers simply pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Why is that not a good thing?

Read their pledges.

I did. did you? If so, then please point out the part where they want to overthrow the government.

 

[ConHog]

Omg, you really don't know anything about it, do you. Try something real simple, like Wikipedia, then maybe click on some of their sources to educate yourself. Please. Congress had no knowledge of that deal. None whatsoever.

Not to defend the Iran/Contra affair, because that was just an illegal deal all the way around. BUT Congress doesn't and shouldn't know about a lot of things that our intelligence services to.

Not all of Congress, no. But there are still the so-called "Gang of 8," who are the top 4 Republicans and top 4 Democrats comprising the Senate Intelligence Committee who ARE apprised of everything (or are supposed to be).

Are you naive enough to believe those 8 even want to know everything, let alone actually DO know everything that our government does to protect us?

Not to mention just the practicality of the matter, sometimes things just happen in the real word and t here isn't time to inform anyone of anything

 

[MaggieMae]

Sorry Maggie a little kooky =/= terrorists

Hey, you were the one who posted the law. How do these clauses of Title 18 et seq. NOT apply to an organization like Oath Keepers who encourage its members to take up arms against the U.S. military if they (the Oathers) believe there is a violation of their (the Oathers) ten rules? No, the group may not be at the dangerously hysterical stage yet, but they are nonetheless promoting subversive activities against the government.

As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion;

Because they are protected by free speech. Same way that fool out in Los Angelas can be calling for La Raza to revolt. It's free speech, at least up to a point. Do you consider that UCLA professor to be a terrorist Maggie, because I certainly don't.

They're protected by the First Amendment until the first shot is fired. What's troubling is there's an undercurrent of attitude bubbling to the surface which is eager for civil war. All it's going to take is one or two yahoos who decide they are abiding by their new group's
philosophical expression of patriotism, and start shooting.

 

[ConHog]

Hey, you were the one who posted the law. How do these clauses of Title 18 et seq. NOT apply to an organization like Oath Keepers who encourage its members to take up arms against the U.S. military if they (the Oathers) believe there is a violation of their (the Oathers) ten rules? No, the group may not be at the dangerously hysterical stage yet, but they are nonetheless promoting subversive activities against the government.

As used in this chapter -
(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -

(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion;

Because they are protected by free speech. Same way that fool out in Los Angelas can be calling for La Raza to revolt. It's free speech, at least up to a point. Do you consider that UCLA professor to be a terrorist Maggie, because I certainly don't.

They're protected by the First Amendment until the first shot is fired. What's troubling is there's an undercurrent of attitude bubbling to the surface which is eager for civil war. All it's going to take is one or two yahoos who decide they are abiding by their new group's
philosophical expression of patriotism, and start shooting.

Which means they are NOT terrorists, even though you claimed they were.

IF one of the loons go beyond speech and do something which has the actual potential to harm someone, I will agree that they are criminals maybe even terrorists depending on what they do, until then..............

 

[MaggieMae]

Sorry Maggie a little kooky =/= terrorists

Maggie never said "a little kooky = terrorists"

If you didn't make stuff up, you'd have nothing to say

Why don't you get over your little infatuation with me and go play in traffic. I obviously never said that Maggie say anything of the sort. Anyone who can read understands that I was disagreeing that they are terrorists, not putting words in Maggie's mouth.

Maggie, Sangha is a perfect example of why I don't appear to be as unbiased as I was when I first got here. he's a fucking melon headed example of the many morons from the left who post here, many more than are from the right....

And I'd argue there are just as many melon heads from the right. You two are more at odds with each other and will never agree. There are a few like that where I'm concerned, too. Generally, I take it only so far, then just move on.

In case you haven't noticed, my biggest objection to certain people here is when they start bitching in generalities, ideologies, principles and then close by calling Obama (or another poster) every name in the book. I like to debate specifics on specific issues. Big Fitz's post (I think somewhere in this thread) is a perfect example (where my only comment was "such drivel"). He took four or five paragraphs blathering on and on and on about how utterly awful "liberals" are, like we haven't heard it all before and worse, that any of us would be the least bit swayed by that type of diatribe. It's boring. Apply the generalities to something specific, and it becomes less boring.

 

[MaggieMae]

So a group who pledges to support and defend the Constitution is somehow a militant group forming to overthrow the government? If the government is a tyrannical one then we should all support overthrowing it. But as it stands the Oathkeepers simply pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Why is that not a good thing?

Read their pledges.

I did. did you? If so, then please point out the part where they want to overthrow the government.

Of course they don't say that. In fact, the group goes to great lengths to say what the are NOT. But my question is why do they think their "extra protection" is necessary? What are they expecting? Seems to me they're already planning for martial law (why?), or total gun control (not on the table so far, and not even in campaign promises), so what do they think they know that the rest of the country doesn't? Why are they already preparing for an insurrection? Against what internal enemy that would remove all their constitutional rights? Who is spreading that kind of irrational fear, and why?

 

[ConHog]

Read their pledges.

I did. did you? If so, then please point out the part where they want to overthrow the government.

Of course they don't say that. In fact, the group goes to great lengths to say what the are NOT. But my question is why do they think their "extra protection" is necessary? What are they expecting? Seems to me they're already planning for martial law (why?), or total gun control (not on the table so far, and not even in campaign promises), so what do they think they know that the rest of the country doesn't? Why are they already preparing for an insurrection? Against what internal enemy that would remove all their constitutional rights? Who is spreading that kind of irrational fear, and why?

I agree with you, they are paranoid. That makes them loons, not terrorists.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Read their pledges.

I did. did you? If so, then please point out the part where they want to overthrow the government.

Of course they don't say that. In fact, the group goes to great lengths to say what the are NOT. But my question is why do they think their "extra protection" is necessary? What are they expecting? Seems to me they're already planning for martial law (why?), or total gun control (not on the table so far, and not even in campaign promises), so what do they think they know that the rest of the country doesn't? Why are they already preparing for an insurrection? Against what internal enemy that would remove all their constitutional rights? Who is spreading that kind of irrational fear, and why?

I have no idea what they think, but I do know what they say and what their pledge is and for you to imply that they seek to overthrow the government is flat out dishonest.

Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Some of the things these guys are pledging to guard against has in fact happened before. So it's wrong to be prepared for worst case scenarios?

 

[MaggieMae]

Not to defend the Iran/Contra affair, because that was just an illegal deal all the way around. BUT Congress doesn't and shouldn't know about a lot of things that our intelligence services to.

Not all of Congress, no. But there are still the so-called "Gang of 8," who are the top 4 Republicans and top 4 Democrats comprising the Senate Intelligence Committee who ARE apprised of everything (or are supposed to be).

Are you naive enough to believe those 8 even want to know everything, let alone actually DO know everything that our government does to protect us?

Not to mention just the practicality of the matter, sometimes things just happen in the real word and t here isn't time to inform anyone of anything

How do I know what they get to see and what they don't? That's why their inside information is kept secret from the rest of congress. I do know, though, that the Gang of 8 got to read the entire National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq WMD, which was not provided to Congress. Congress was provided only the 10-page "white paper" giving the synopsis. There were many, many questions about the more lengthy NIE, as Senator Bob Graham ultimately testified. The Gang of 8 also saw the entire photograph album of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse by US soldiers before they decided to allow the rest of Congress to also view them. The Gang of 8 heard the briefings on torture and were outraged that the videos had been "destroyed." None of what they are privy to comes out in real time, of course.

As for Iran-Contra, I don't know if even they were advised of that deal. It was the contrivance of Oliver North hidden from any national security personnel, and was only revealed in some Iranian newspaper, as I recall, which set an investigation in motion.

After the failure of our defenses on 9/11, the entire composition of the intelligence community was reviewed and because of the independence of the myriad of intelligence "offices" within other agencies, all of them were brought together under one roof. Ostensibly, that did away with the uber covert CIA activities of rogue agents acting alone who, using Iran-Contra as my example, conspired with Ollie North.

 

[MaggieMae]

I did. did you? If so, then please point out the part where they want to overthrow the government.

Of course they don't say that. In fact, the group goes to great lengths to say what the are NOT. But my question is why do they think their "extra protection" is necessary? What are they expecting? Seems to me they're already planning for martial law (why?), or total gun control (not on the table so far, and not even in campaign promises), so what do they think they know that the rest of the country doesn't? Why are they already preparing for an insurrection? Against what internal enemy that would remove all their constitutional rights? Who is spreading that kind of irrational fear, and why?

I agree with you, they are paranoid. That makes them loons, not terrorists.

Don't go making much of this, but bin Laden's plan started out as a small, defensive one too, simply proclaiming that he wanted all foreign troops (especially Americans) out of his country (then Saudi Arabia). Then he got caught up in hero worship and the rest is history.