Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No way, not with this car bomb.
A car bomb maybe, but not this one. This one was built by a retard who has seen too many Michael Bay movies.
As a matter of fact, I think it's even money that it wouldn't have harmed anyone. Not trying to downplay it, it's a very serious situation and the reaction by police was entirely justified. But think about it. It's gasoline and propane...
Gas starts burning...people go "oh shit" and get pretty far away....and then the propane goes off...AFTER the people back off. Don't know what powder was in the cylinders that were found, but if it was gunpowder I'm not sure that the blast from that alone would have gotten 10 feet outside the vehicle itself (don't know the size of the cylinders found yet, or if they were actually adequately sealed and capped to facilitate an explosion).
The people who would have been in the most danger would be the good Samaritans who would try to douse the car fire from the gasoline when the propane went off. Or FDNY when they arrived and the same thing happened.
Given the crudeness and stupidity of the device, I'm still going with uneducated McVeigh or Unabomber type (those two had some brains, this person doesn't), or a wacko student.
You've got it backwards RATL.....the device is supposed to detonate the propane FIRST which then explodes the gasoline. I don't think it would have killed 10,000 people like some insinuate but if that device had worked properly it would have definitely killed a significant number of people and rattled the country akin to 9/11.
As a matter of fact, I think it's even money that it wouldn't have harmed anyone. Not trying to downplay it, it's a very serious situation and the reaction by police was entirely justified. But think about it. It's gasoline and propane...
Gas starts burning...people go "oh shit" and get pretty far away....and then the propane goes off...AFTER the people back off. Don't know what powder was in the cylinders that were found, but if it was gunpowder I'm not sure that the blast from that alone would have gotten 10 feet outside the vehicle itself (don't know the size of the cylinders found yet, or if they were actually adequately sealed and capped to facilitate an explosion).
The people who would have been in the most danger would be the good Samaritans who would try to douse the car fire from the gasoline when the propane went off. Or FDNY when they arrived and the same thing happened.
Given the crudeness and stupidity of the device, I'm still going with uneducated McVeigh or Unabomber type (those two had some brains, this person doesn't), or a wacko student.
You've got it backwards RATL.....the device is supposed to detonate the propane FIRST which then explodes the gasoline. I don't think it would have killed 10,000 people like some insinuate but if that device had worked properly it would have definitely killed a significant number of people and rattled the country akin to 9/11.
Yah, we had a nutjob across the street with one tank of oxygen and two tanks of propane and they evacuated 6 city blocks in each direction. They said that they went so far not because it was likely to effect people at that distance but because it was possible.
Propane cylinders are not a joke by any stretch of the cranium mass. Mixed with oxygen and oh fuck!
In my humble opinion, the street vendor (a retired vet from the Viet Nam war, I understand) who first noted the van smoking (maybe he heard the "pop" of the fizzled bombing effort) and the NYC PD mounted unit patrol officer who first responded are deserving of some huge props.
That cop's first reaction apparently was to get the help of other cops to CLEAR THE AREA. Simultaneously, he contacted command and got a bunch of qualified FDNY and bomb squad cops to respond. All in all the NYPD responded in a terrific fashion.
Had the asshole(s) who "wired" that improvised explosive [car-bomb] device been more adept at such things, there is a very real probability that the explosion WOULD have killed lots of people.
Somebody noted earlier that car bombs wouldn't get too much world wide attention if this wasn't New York City, USA. They do tend to be a bit more common in other places, tragically. But, clearly, we are not immune.
As for who was behind this failed effort? Who knows? Perhaps we will find out soon. An Islamo-fascist piece of shit? A militant right-wing goober ala the Oklahoma bombers? Another asshole like the left-wing domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers or one of the Weather Underground scumbags?
There are lots of fanatic murderous scumbags out there and they are not all found on any one side of the political spectrum. The problem is much much bigger than just assigning blame to political adversaries.
All true... except McViegh wasn't Right-wing... He was a Progressive, who felt entitled to be a Ranger, couldn't cut it and decided to impart his hurt feelin's in the gov't who hurt 'em... with no regard for the individuals who had nothing to do with it.
Now if you look around, you'll see that this is the mind set of every progressive... and it's the result of every progressive policy. Culture/Economy killing policy such as Healthscare, Cap and Trade, Minimum Wage, SS, Medicaid/care... etc.
Had McVeigh been a right winger, he'd have effectively dealt with his grievance through a means which recognizes and respects the individual responsibilities inherent in the immutable principles of nature, on which America rests.
McVeigh was a fucking scumbag and to label him a progressive is akin to an attempt to deny that there are also murderous terrorist-inclined human garbage on the right side of the political spectrum. And I flatly disagree with that.
Such mutants could be plotted on a splatter graph ALL over the political spectrum. I offer no "excuses" or "passes" to anybody who engages in that kind of hideously depraved behavior, regardless of political leanings. I don't believe most true conservatives would give any such "passes" out, either.
* * * *
McVeigh was a Progressive... An ideology which justifies mass murder, by the righteousness of their collective ends. And FWIW.... All Progressives are scumbags and this without exception; can't be a progressive and a decent human being. And just because the look like you, live next door to ya, your kids play with their kids... want the best for their kids, pay their bills and keep the grass cut and the trains on time... does not make 'em decent human beings or something remotely distinct from a scumbag.
Such mutants could be plotted on a splatter graph ALL over the political spectrum. I offer no "excuses" or "passes" to anybody who engages in that kind of hideously depraved behavior, regardless of political leanings. I don't believe most true conservatives would give any such "passes" out, either.
McViegh being a progressive doesn't excuse his sorry actions... it merely explains the means by which he came to embrace the invalid reasoning which served as the rationalization for OKC. That species of reasoning is what lead to the invalid, unsustainable policies I noted above.
* * * *
McVeigh was a Progressive... An ideology which justifies mass murder, by the righteousness of their collective ends. And FWIW.... All Progressives are scumbags and this without exception; can't be a progressive and a decent human being. And just because the look like you, live next door to ya, your kids play with their kids... want the best for their kids, pay their bills and keep the grass cut and the trains on time... does not make 'em decent human beings or something remotely distinct from a scumbag.
Such mutants could be plotted on a splatter graph ALL over the political spectrum. I offer no "excuses" or "passes" to anybody who engages in that kind of hideously depraved behavior, regardless of political leanings. I don't believe most true conservatives would give any such "passes" out, either.
McViegh being a progressive doesn't excuse his sorry actions... it merely explains the means by which he came to embrace the invalid reasoning which served as the rationalization for OKC. That species of reasoning is what lead to the invalid, unsustainable policies I noted above.
Repeating your bogus analysis doesn't change any of the TRUE facts.
McVeigh was in NO IMAGINABLE (honest) WAY a "progressive."
McVeigh was indeed a right winger.
A disgruntled right-winger, but a right winger nonetheless.
You are distorting the meaning of terms because you somehow fear being associated with a douche-bag like McVeigh. Right instinct; wrong reaction.
* * * *
McVeigh was a Progressive... An ideology which justifies mass murder, by the righteousness of their collective ends. And FWIW.... All Progressives are scumbags and this without exception; can't be a progressive and a decent human being. And just because the look like you, live next door to ya, your kids play with their kids... want the best for their kids, pay their bills and keep the grass cut and the trains on time... does not make 'em decent human beings or something remotely distinct from a scumbag.
McViegh being a progressive doesn't excuse his sorry actions... it merely explains the means by which he came to embrace the invalid reasoning which served as the rationalization for OKC. That species of reasoning is what lead to the invalid, unsustainable policies I noted above.
Repeating your bogus analysis doesn't change any of the TRUE facts.
McVeigh was in NO IMAGINABLE (honest) WAY a "progressive."
OH! I see... Well that's precious... since you're here to repeat your bogus opinion, absent any discernible analysis...
McVeigh was indeed a right winger.
A disgruntled right-winger, but a right winger nonetheless.
You are distorting the meaning of terms because you somehow fear being associated with a douche-bag like McVeigh. Right instinct; wrong reaction.
No... McVeigh was a Progressive.
Perhaps you should define "Rightwinger" and "Progressive"... Now I've defined both... you seem to want to emphatically disagree, without offering anything which would stand as a basis for that disagreement, beyond your emphatic assertion.
So tell me Liability... what IS a Progressive? And What IS a RightWinger?
Definition of Progressive Politics | eHow.comProgressives' main objective is to change the status quo. If the country is isolationist, they are expansionists; if the country's economy is industrial, they favor a return to agrarianism. They favor small government in a time of big government programs and government intervention in big money-markets. They are not revolutionaries because they believe in American democracy and the responsibility of government to address the needs of its citizens.
right wing - definition of right wing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.right wing - those who support political or social or economic conservatism; those who believe that things are better left unchanged
Political Ideas Of McVeigh Are Subject At Bomb Trial - NYTimes.com* * * *
Among today's witnesses was Michelle Rauch, now a television reporter in Fort Smith, Ark., who met Mr. McVeigh during the Branch Davidian siege in March 1993, and interviewed him for her student newspaper at Southern Methodist University.
She saw him sitting on his car, parked just beyond a checkpoint set up by Federal agents, she told the jury. She stopped to talk with him, she said, and took note of the bumper stickers on his car: ''A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.'' Another said: ''Ban guns. Make the streets safe for a government takeover.''
She said he spoke calmly with her at length about his fears that the United States Government was slowly turning socialist. She remembered that he was articulate and ''well-versed in what his beliefs were.''
Mr. Pate said he had spent years covering what he called the patriot movement, and told the jury that members of the loose-knit movement, who think the Government is out of control, saw themselves ''as not overthrowing the Constitution, but overthrowing those who would overthrow the Constitution.'' He said they did not like being characterized as anti-Government.
Dick Reavis, author of the book ''Ashes of Waco,'' summarized what Mr. McVeigh would have gleaned from other articles and videos critical of the Government's role, including the now-discredited theory promoted in ''Waco: The Big Lie,'' produced by Linda Thompson, a leader of an Indianapolis paramilitary group, that a Government tank started the fatal fire.
* * * *
Another near miss, no thanks to Obama .
This has the handprints of the islamic filth written all over it. I would like to carve my initials into the skull of the **** reporter/cop/mayor or who-the-fuck-ever that said that this was not a terrorist attack.
That kind of garbage angers me more than the attack itself, that we have dogshit in the country contorting themselves every which way not to upset the feelings of the terrorists, their sympathizers, or some other group. There will be a civil war in this country, and my bet is that the following groups will be the first to be liquidated:
1-illegal immigrants and their advocates like la raza
2-public employees and their union leadership
3-the NY Times building and all of its journalists and employees
4-oil company executives
5-nancy pelosi, reid and a few other psychotics like kucinich
If this car bomb had gone off, we could've been looking at a death toll in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. By some miracle of G-d, that bomb did NOT go off. We should all be saying thank you to G-d for this. Who knows what the ramifcations could've been, nationwide and worldwide from this? We are truly blessed.
No way, not with this car bomb.
A car bomb maybe, but not this one. This one was built by a retard who has seen too many Michael Bay movies.
Yeah... the person who built THAT bomb sure was an idiot. I mean they built a bomb that was designed to make a big boom and a spectacular fire ball... with a dubious detenator...
I suppose the thing that bugs me about this, is that whoever built it was smart enough to get to Manhatten and find PREMIUM Street-side parking... but they weren't smart enough to build a bomb.
I mean... the building of a Bomb is vastly less complex than getting to Manhatten and finding PREMIUM STREET SIDE PARKING.
Doesn't really add up...
On the one hand, the available evidence demonstrates that the individual(s) in play, possess more than sufficient cognitive means to effectively negotiate such simple concepts... and on the other, they're incapable of consistently connecting several dots.
It's just wild how we seem to be seeing a spike in DOMESTIC CRISIS... accidents and 'attacks' of dubious origins seem to be coming steady now.
Huh...
Reminds me of a plot line wherein the otherwise impotent antagonist was settign themselves up as the savior... Awfully familiar... yeppers... VERY Familair indeed.
Repeating your bogus analysis doesn't change any of the TRUE facts.
McVeigh was in NO IMAGINABLE (honest) WAY a "progressive."
OH! I see... Well that's precious... since you're here to repeat your bogus opinion, absent any discernible analysis...
No... McVeigh was a Progressive.
Perhaps you should define "Rightwinger" and "Progressive"... Now I've defined both... you seem to want to emphatically disagree, without offering anything which would stand as a basis for that disagreement, beyond your emphatic assertion.
So tell me Liability... what IS a Progressive? And What IS a RightWinger?
You should probably step down off your high horse once in a while. Take a sniff of the roses.
There is no universally accepted definition of progressive or of right-winger.
So try this on for size: Definition of Progressive Politics | eHow.com
right wing - definition of right wing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.right wing - those who support political or social or economic conservatism; those who believe that things are better left unchanged
Almost ALL "definitions" of these things are fluid and subject to accidental or deliberate manipulation. For example, many far left liberals CLAIM, nonetheless, to be "progressives." Why? Because they do not wish to be properly classified as what they are. Even some of them recognize the legitimacy of the stigma associated with "liberal" as that term is used in modern American parlance.
If you truly wish to argue that McVeigh's political instincts and proposals were merely "forward looking," then I reject your manipulation of the meaning of the word "progressive." Indeed, just because some authoritarian far left statist chooses to assume the mantle of "progressive" does NOT mean that the term "progressive" ought to be understood by reference to such ideologues.
McVeigh had very pronounced issues with our "left wing" government. His rambling thoughts are recorded. You can quibble all you wish, but it seems to me that a guy who stands opposed to a left wing government, gets involved with a militia and takes up arms against the people and the left-wing government he opposes on the ground that it is too grasping and controlling is showing his opposition to the politics of the left. He was a right winger. Misguided as all hell, but a right winger nonetheless.
Consider the implication of this excerpt of a trial reporter's article in the Slimes during McVeigh's trial:
Political Ideas Of McVeigh Are Subject At Bomb Trial - NYTimes.com* * * *
Among today's witnesses was Michelle Rauch, now a television reporter in Fort Smith, Ark., who met Mr. McVeigh during the Branch Davidian siege in March 1993, and interviewed him for her student newspaper at Southern Methodist University.
She saw him sitting on his car, parked just beyond a checkpoint set up by Federal agents, she told the jury. She stopped to talk with him, she said, and took note of the bumper stickers on his car: ''A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.'' Another said: ''Ban guns. Make the streets safe for a government takeover.''
She said he spoke calmly with her at length about his fears that the United States Government was slowly turning socialist. She remembered that he was articulate and ''well-versed in what his beliefs were.''
Mr. Pate said he had spent years covering what he called the patriot movement, and told the jury that members of the loose-knit movement, who think the Government is out of control, saw themselves ''as not overthrowing the Constitution, but overthrowing those who would overthrow the Constitution.'' He said they did not like being characterized as anti-Government.
Dick Reavis, author of the book ''Ashes of Waco,'' summarized what Mr. McVeigh would have gleaned from other articles and videos critical of the Government's role, including the now-discredited theory promoted in ''Waco: The Big Lie,'' produced by Linda Thompson, a leader of an Indianapolis paramilitary group, that a Government tank started the fatal fire.
* * * *
No way, not with this car bomb.
A car bomb maybe, but not this one. This one was built by a retard who has seen too many Michael Bay movies.
Yeah... the person who built THAT bomb sure was an idiot. I mean they built a bomb that was designed to make a big boom and a spectacular fire ball... with a dubious detenator...
I suppose the thing that bugs me about this, is that whoever built it was smart enough to get to Manhatten and find PREMIUM Street-side parking... but they weren't smart enough to build a bomb.
I mean... the building of a Bomb is vastly less complex than getting to Manhatten and finding PREMIUM STREET SIDE PARKING.
Doesn't really add up...
On the one hand, the available evidence demonstrates that the individual(s) in play, possess more than sufficient cognitive means to effectively negotiate such simple concepts... and on the other, they're incapable of consistently connecting several dots.
It's just wild how we seem to be seeing a spike in DOMESTIC CRISIS... accidents and 'attacks' of dubious origins seem to be coming steady now.
Huh...
Reminds me of a plot line wherein the otherwise impotent antagonist was settign themselves up as the savior... Awfully familiar... yeppers... VERY Familair indeed.
So you think this attack was all staged by the government and your evidence for this is... that they were able to find parking.
OH! I see... Well that's precious... since you're here to repeat your bogus opinion, absent any discernible analysis...
No... McVeigh was a Progressive.
Perhaps you should define "Rightwinger" and "Progressive"... Now I've defined both... you seem to want to emphatically disagree, without offering anything which would stand as a basis for that disagreement, beyond your emphatic assertion.
So tell me Liability... what IS a Progressive? And What IS a RightWinger?
You should probably step down off your high horse once in a while. Take a sniff of the roses.
Well I appreciate the concern big fella, I really do... But my Horse isn't all that high, it just seems that way at times, when one's own horse doesn't measure up... and I'm afraid that where you're sittin' at the moment.
Well there's no universally accepted definition of a lot of things when one expands the scope of opinion beyond that which matters... In this instance, it's you and I... my definition for both is registered throughout this site and on dozens of others just like across the web.
There's not a ton of debate over the terms, accept where Leftist want to revise the terms they hijack to define themselves so as to produce the illusion that they've something in comon with Americans.
But let's take a look and see what ya decided to go with.
So try this on for size: Definition of Progressive Politics | eHow.com
right wing - definition of right wing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Almost ALL "definitions" of these things are fluid and subject to accidental or deliberate manipulation. For example, many far left liberals CLAIM, nonetheless, to be "progressives." Why? Because they do not wish to be properly classified as what they are. Even some of them recognize the legitimacy of the stigma associated with "liberal" as that term is used in modern American parlance.
If you truly wish to argue that McVeigh's political instincts and proposals were merely "forward looking," then I reject your manipulation of the meaning of the word "progressive." Indeed, just because some authoritarian far left statist chooses to assume the mantle of "progressive" does NOT mean that the term "progressive" ought to be understood by reference to such ideologues.
McVeigh had very pronounced issues with our "left wing" government. His rambling thoughts are recorded. You can quibble all you wish, but it seems to me that a guy who stands opposed to a left wing government, gets involved with a militia and takes up arms against the people and the left-wing government he opposes on the ground that it is too grasping and controlling is showing his opposition to the politics of the left. He was a right winger. Misguided as all hell, but a right winger nonetheless.
Consider the implication of this excerpt of a trial reporter's article in the Slimes during McVeigh's trial:
Political Ideas Of McVeigh Are Subject At Bomb Trial - NYTimes.com* * * *
Among today's witnesses was Michelle Rauch, now a television reporter in Fort Smith, Ark., who met Mr. McVeigh during the Branch Davidian siege in March 1993, and interviewed him for her student newspaper at Southern Methodist University.
She saw him sitting on his car, parked just beyond a checkpoint set up by Federal agents, she told the jury. She stopped to talk with him, she said, and took note of the bumper stickers on his car: ''A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.'' Another said: ''Ban guns. Make the streets safe for a government takeover.''
She said he spoke calmly with her at length about his fears that the United States Government was slowly turning socialist. She remembered that he was articulate and ''well-versed in what his beliefs were.''
Mr. Pate said he had spent years covering what he called the patriot movement, and told the jury that members of the loose-knit movement, who think the Government is out of control, saw themselves ''as not overthrowing the Constitution, but overthrowing those who would overthrow the Constitution.'' He said they did not like being characterized as anti-Government.
Dick Reavis, author of the book ''Ashes of Waco,'' summarized what Mr. McVeigh would have gleaned from other articles and videos critical of the Government's role, including the now-discredited theory promoted in ''Waco: The Big Lie,'' produced by Linda Thompson, a leader of an Indianapolis paramilitary group, that a Government tank started the fatal fire.
* * * *
Yeah... That's what I thought... Your feelings on McVeigh are founded in him being 'to the right' a feminized pacifist... You're working from the erroneous notion that ideology is linear... Left is on one side and they're entitled to their ideas; which are just as viable, just as plausible as their opposition on the other end of the line and to their right... who have other ideas, which are equally viable and plausible; and that the best solutions are those where each side comes together to compromise; taking the best characteristics from each side...
From this ya hear of McVeigh's rants regarding his would-be opposition to: 'the Left', along with his advocacy for gun ownership; which ya feel 'the left' opposses... and this you conclude from that basis, that this provides McVeigh was a "Right Winger".
But here's the problem ya have: being anti-wrong, doesn't make ya right...
Being RIGHT... is not a direction, Liability... it is a status. It's pretty damn hard to be Right when the last thing ya did with the responsibility which you had that sustained your rights to BE FREE... was to murder a couple of hundred innocent people; many of which were children who had never wronged anyone.
There's a HELLUVA LOT MORE TO BEING RIGHT, than oppossing the wrong, OKA: the Left... and any claim that McVeigh ever had to that lofty title, he forfeited the instant that he decided his means, which was mass murder, was justified by the righteousness of his cause, to strike a blow against 'the Left'...
He became THE LEFT... when he began to ACT AS LEFTIST ACT. That he was entitled to take the lives of those innocent people; because HE HAD A BITCH! Because someone had pissed him OFF, HE WAS GOING TO EVEN THE SCORE...
This isn't complicated Liability... It's an age old formula:
"Because 30 Million people do not have Health Insurance, WE'RE GOING TO FUCK UP EVERYONE'S INSURANCE!
Because some people can't afford to buy a house, WE'RE GOING TO CRASH THE ENTIRE MORTGAGE, REAL-ESTATE AND BUILDING INDUSTRIES...
Because this or that person can't maintain their responsibility for themselves with regard to their firearms, WE'RE GOING TO RESTRICT EVERYONE'S MEANS TO OWN AND USE A FIREARM.
To hell with YOU and your Rights... Your Rights are what the Government says they are... what WE say they ARE."
Nothing Right about that...
Don't fall into the trap that these idiots can't be defined... there's nothing to defining them. It's simple, common sense.
Jillian said:mcveigh was one of your loons
