Thirteen Militiamen Nabbed In Michigan Kidnap Plot Against Gov. Whitmer

Revelation · Sat Oct 10, 2020 4:07 pm

N583JB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Right, and the Crusaders specifically cited Jesus Christ as their motivation for killing Muslims.

Note the direction of those relationships: Jesus never said anything about killing others.

But BLM has directly been responsible for a lot of the anti-cop rhetoric that has been prevalent in this country over the last decade. If you keep telling people that "cops are evil, all cops are bad, etc etc etc" then you shouldn't be surprised when some of those people act violently. That goes for any extremist group.

This is such poor logic.

It equates to saying we should not point out problem X because some people will hear of problem X and try to address it by killing those who symbolize problem X.

I think pretty much everyone agrees murder is both illegal and ethically wrong, I don't see why we can't move forward on that basis.

It also suggests Jesus should not have preached because the resulting movement springing from his Disciples generations later would use violence to try to address their perceived problems.

This kind of poor logic is what arises from making false equivalences.

And here we are yet again not talking about the 13 people arrested by the FBI and facing charges, because of such distractions.

N583JB · Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:31 pm

Revelation wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Right, and the Crusaders specifically cited Jesus Christ as their motivation for killing Muslims.

Note the direction of those relationships: Jesus never said anything about killing others.

But BLM has directly been responsible for a lot of the anti-cop rhetoric that has been prevalent in this country over the last decade. If you keep telling people that "cops are evil, all cops are bad, etc etc etc" then you shouldn't be surprised when some of those people act violently. That goes for any extremist group.

This is such poor logic.

It equates to saying we should not point out problem X because some people will hear of problem X and try to address it by killing those who symbolize problem X.

I think pretty much everyone agrees murder is both illegal and ethically wrong, I don't see why we can't move forward on that basis.

It also suggests Jesus should not have preached because the resulting movement springing from his Disciples generations later would use violence to try to address their perceived problems.

This kind of poor logic is what arises from making false equivalences.

And here we are yet again not talking about the 13 people arrested by the FBI and facing charges, because of such distractions.

There is a difference between "pointing out problem X" and making up fake stories to try and get people to believe that problem X is more prevalent than it really is. If you are responsible for pushing out lies in order to make one group hate another group, you should bear responsibility when people are injured or killed because of those lies.

Not many people here are talking about the 13 people arrested by the FBI because we all seem to be in agreement that those people are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such. When everyone agrees on something the discussion seems to be shorter as there is nothing really to go back and forth about.

seb146 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:46 pm

N583JB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
N583JB wrote:

But BLM has directly been responsible for a lot of the anti-cop rhetoric that has been prevalent in this country over the last decade. If you keep telling people that "cops are evil, all cops are bad, etc etc etc" then you shouldn't be surprised when some of those people act violently. That goes for any extremist group.

This is such poor logic.

It equates to saying we should not point out problem X because some people will hear of problem X and try to address it by killing those who symbolize problem X.

I think pretty much everyone agrees murder is both illegal and ethically wrong, I don't see why we can't move forward on that basis.

It also suggests Jesus should not have preached because the resulting movement springing from his Disciples generations later would use violence to try to address their perceived problems.

This kind of poor logic is what arises from making false equivalences.

And here we are yet again not talking about the 13 people arrested by the FBI and facing charges, because of such distractions.

There is a difference between "pointing out problem X" and making up fake stories to try and get people to believe that problem X is more prevalent than it really is. If you are responsible for pushing out lies in order to make one group hate another group, you should bear responsibility when people are injured or killed because of those lies.

Not many people here are talking about the 13 people arrested by the FBI because we all seem to be in agreement that those people are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such. When everyone agrees on something the discussion seems to be shorter as there is nothing really to go back and forth about.

It has been pointed out over and over again with links to reputable sources that minorities are treated much, much worse by police than Whites. People talk about that and want change. Nothing at all wrong with that. Which is the basis for Black Lives Matter.

Back on topic: there has been a thunderous and deafening silence from the MAGA leader and many top Republicans. I think that speaks volumes about the Republican party. Just because "I support MAGA but I do not support domestic terrorists" is said by a few people on this board almost means nothing.

Compare that to Democratic leaders as well as those on this board who condemn shooting cops. But, somehow Democrats are worse.......

Revelation · Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:48 pm

N583JB wrote:
There is a difference between "pointing out problem X" and making up fake stories to try and get people to believe that problem X is more prevalent than it really is. If you are responsible for pushing out lies in order to make one group hate another group, you should bear responsibility when people are injured or killed because of those lies.

Sounds like you need to find or start a BLM thread to discuss your theories rather than stating them as fact then using that to preempt the discussion of this topic.

Revelation · Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:58 pm

Sounds like we can discuss cop killers and stay on topic at the same time:

Andrew Birge, the U.S. attorney in western Michigan, called the men “violent extremists.” They discussed detonating explosive devices — including under a highway bridge — to divert police from the area near Whitmer’s vacation home and Fox bought a Taser for use in the kidnapping, Birge said.

The seven men charged in state court are accused of identifying the homes of law enforcement officers and making violent threats “intended to instigate a civil war,” Attorney General Dana Nessel said.

Blue Lives Matter, no?

Ref: https://apnews.com/article/michigan-che ... d3593425ff

tommy1808 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:04 pm

Revelation wrote:
It also suggests Jesus should not have preached because the resulting movement springing from his Disciples generations later would use violence to try to address their perceived problems.
.

I am not sure his special case, all knowing god and such, wouldn't apply he wanted all the violence in his name since he must have known.

Best regards
Thomas

Revelation · Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:18 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It also suggests Jesus should not have preached because the resulting movement springing from his Disciples generations later would use violence to try to address their perceived problems.

I am not sure his special case, all knowing god and such, wouldn't apply he wanted all the violence in his name since he must have known.

It was just an example of one logical fallacy, now you find a second.

Talking about ideas that deserve their own threads, lol!

Any one want to discuss 13 domestic terrorists who wanted to blow up bridges to thwart police and identified the homes of law enforcement officers as a part of their plot?

N583JB · Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It also suggests Jesus should not have preached because the resulting movement springing from his Disciples generations later would use violence to try to address their perceived problems.

I am not sure his special case, all knowing god and such, wouldn't apply he wanted all the violence in his name since he must have known.

It was just an example of one logical fallacy, now you find a second.

Talking about ideas that deserve their own threads, lol!

Any one want to discuss 13 domestic terrorists who wanted to blow up bridges to thwart police and identified the homes of law enforcement officers as a part of their plot?

We've pretty much already discussed it and are all in agreement about it. There's nothing really left to discuss. No one here is defending those folks.

tommy1808 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It also suggests Jesus should not have preached because the resulting movement springing from his Disciples generations later would use violence to try to address their perceived problems.

I am not sure his special case, all knowing god and such, wouldn't apply he wanted all the violence in his name since he must have known.

It was just an example of one logical fallacy, now you find a second.

Talking about ideas that deserve their own threads, lol!

Any one want to discuss 13 domestic terrorists who wanted to blow up bridges to thwart police and identified the homes of law enforcement officers as a part of their plot?

I saw quite a few "good men sometimes have to do evil things" Postings on Facebook just recently, i would expect those terrorists had some ideas among those lines.

Any Chance they could find enough Black cops to blow up?

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:26 pm

N583JB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
I am not sure his special case, all knowing god and such, wouldn't apply he wanted all the violence in his name since he must have known.

It was just an example of one logical fallacy, now you find a second.

Talking about ideas that deserve their own threads, lol!

Any one want to discuss 13 domestic terrorists who wanted to blow up bridges to thwart police and identified the homes of law enforcement officers as a part of their plot?

We've pretty much already discussed it and are all in agreement about it. There's nothing really left to discuss. No one here is defending those folks.

Well, each and every Muslim reading your post must be thinking "not defending them is not enough, anything but constant denouncing means you support them". They heard that for 20 years after all.

Best regards
Thomas

N583JB · Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:28 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It was just an example of one logical fallacy, now you find a second.

Talking about ideas that deserve their own threads, lol!

Any one want to discuss 13 domestic terrorists who wanted to blow up bridges to thwart police and identified the homes of law enforcement officers as a part of their plot?

We've pretty much already discussed it and are all in agreement about it. There's nothing really left to discuss. No one here is defending those folks.

Well, each and every Muslim reading your post must be thinking "not defending them is not enough, anything but constant denouncing means you support them". They heard that for 20 years after all.

Best regards
Thomas

Perhaps. I can only speak for myself.

tommy1808 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:34 pm

N583JB wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
N583JB wrote:

We've pretty much already discussed it and are all in agreement about it. There's nothing really left to discuss. No one here is defending those folks.

Well, each and every Muslim reading your post must be thinking "not defending them is not enough, anything but constant denouncing means you support them". They heard that for 20 years after all.

Best regards
Thomas

Perhaps. I can only speak for myself.

That is no denouncing them in unequivocal terms.

Best regards
Thomas

ltbewr · Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:49 pm

One serious disappointment is that AG Barr has been silent about the Federal arrests of these Terorrists. If it was 'Antifa' or Muslims instead, he would be hog the attention and make a huge deal of it. With these arrests, crickets.
The more involved in a terrorism plot, the more chances for leaks, informants, police infiltration, web or other records. What I do fear is a small cell or a 'lone wolf' inspired by extremists attacking or assassinating a high level government official, like with the OKC bombing.

N583JB · Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:56 pm

ltbewr wrote:
One serious disappointment is that AG Barr has been silent about the Federal arrests of these Terorrists. If it was 'Antifa' or Muslims instead, he would be hog the attention and make a huge deal of it. With these arrests, crickets.
The more involved in a terrorism plot, the more chances for leaks, informants, police infiltration, web or other records. What I do fear is a small cell or a 'lone wolf' inspired by extremists attacking or assassinating a high level government official, like with the OKC bombing.

I fear that risk will increase if Trump loses next month. Actually, I think we stand a decent risk of violence and unrest no matter who wins. Not widespread violence, but isolated acts. I hope I am wrong.

Kent350787 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:05 pm

Is it possible to change the thread title to read "terrorists" rather than "militiamen". Or is the title correctly following US racial profiling of fundamenatist activity?

Jetty · Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:11 am

stl07 wrote:
Also, what the hell is this obsession of starting a civil war? If you don't like D governers, then move to a state with an R governer. Simple

And if you want to live in a quasi-theocracy, we even have that as an option in the American Samoa and northern Marina islands, where abortion is illegal and society is closed on Sundays

Had nothing to do with R or D, these were anarchists who don’t like any government (and didn’t like Trump either as some itt seem to assume).

bgm · Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:28 am

Jetty wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Also, what the hell is this obsession of starting a civil war? If you don't like D governers, then move to a state with an R governer. Simple

And if you want to live in a quasi-theocracy, we even have that as an option in the American Samoa and northern Marina islands, where abortion is illegal and society is closed on Sundays

Had nothing to do with R or D, these were anarchists who don’t like any government (and didn’t like Trump either as some itt seem to assume).

Sure, keep telling yourself that...

stl07 · Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:54 am

Jetty wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Also, what the hell is this obsession of starting a civil war? If you don't like D governers, then move to a state with an R governer. Simple

And if you want to live in a quasi-theocracy, we even have that as an option in the American Samoa and northern Marina islands, where abortion is illegal and society is closed on Sundays

Had nothing to do with R or D, these were anarchists who don’t like any government (and didn’t like Trump either as some itt seem to assume).

Not even the hate groups agree with that lol, keep telling yourself that

Jetty · Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:51 am

bgm wrote:
Jetty wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Also, what the hell is this obsession of starting a civil war? If you don't like D governers, then move to a state with an R governer. Simple

And if you want to live in a quasi-theocracy, we even have that as an option in the American Samoa and northern Marina islands, where abortion is illegal and society is closed on Sundays

Had nothing to do with R or D, these were anarchists who don’t like any government (and didn’t like Trump either as some itt seem to assume).

Sure, keep telling yourself that...

No need to tell myself that, I can hear it straight from their mouths. https://www.wilx.com/2020/10/09/suspect ... dia-posts/

tommy1808 · Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:20 am

Jetty wrote:
bgm wrote:
Jetty wrote:
Had nothing to do with R or D, these were anarchists who don’t like any government (and didn’t like Trump either as some itt seem to assume).

Sure, keep telling yourself that...

No need to tell myself that, I can hear it straight from their mouths. https://www.wilx.com/2020/10/09/suspect ... dia-posts/

yeah.. no

Meet Pete Musico, co-founder of the Wolverine Watchmen militia

from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... litia.html

His hat definitely says "I am not supporting Trump" then i guess?

best regards
Thomas

apodino · Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:49 am

This is a horrible event, and these terrorists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That being said, after this happened, Whitmer laid a beautiful political trap for Donald Trump. She knew that by blaming him from this even though it wasn't his fault, Trump would respond by coming after her and not denouncing these idiots. Of course Trump fell into it hook line and sinker, and now the talking point is why he won't denounce these guys when he would antifa and BLM? If Whitmer hadn't said anything about Trump when this happened, Trump would have probably denounced these people. Instead Whitmer invoked his name and got him to respond. A beautiful political move.

scbriml · Mon Oct 12, 2020 6:54 am

tommy1808 wrote:
His hat definitely says "I am not supporting Trump" then i guess?

Perhaps he's wearing it ironically? :lol:

tommy1808 · Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:16 am

apodino wrote:
Trump would have probably denounced these people..

and you are thinking that because of his history of denouncing right wing groups?

best regards
Thomas

Lilienthal · Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:59 am

apodino wrote:
This is a horrible event, and these terrorists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That being said, after this happened, Whitmer laid a beautiful political trap for Donald Trump. She knew that by blaming him from this even though it wasn't his fault, Trump would respond by coming after her and not denouncing these idiots. Of course Trump fell into it hook line and sinker, and now the talking point is why he won't denounce these guys when he would antifa and BLM? If Whitmer hadn't said anything about Trump when this happened, Trump would have probably denounced these people. Instead Whitmer invoked his name and got him to respond. A beautiful political move.

That's some impressive mental gymnastics right there...

Have you forgotten the TV debate where he told the so called Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by"? That disgusting "good people on both sides" remark when facists marched in your streets? Look at the media coverage of militias that have occupied city centers in America over the last weeks. The vast majority of them wear Trump patches and flags. He enabled these people. They are his voters and he's not going to antagonize them.

It doesn't matter much if he's pressured by his advisors every once in a while to come out and say that he's "um.... yeah... totally condemning every white supremacy group", when he never says these words when it actually counts or when he's spontaneously called out.

tommy1808 · Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:03 am

Lilienthal wrote:
apodino wrote:
This is a horrible event, and these terrorists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

That being said, after this happened, Whitmer laid a beautiful political trap for Donald Trump. She knew that by blaming him from this even though it wasn't his fault, Trump would respond by coming after her and not denouncing these idiots. Of course Trump fell into it hook line and sinker, and now the talking point is why he won't denounce these guys when he would antifa and BLM? If Whitmer hadn't said anything about Trump when this happened, Trump would have probably denounced these people. Instead Whitmer invoked his name and got him to respond. A beautiful political move.

That's some impressive mental gymnastics right there...

Have you forgotten the TV debate where he told the so called Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by"?

"Liberate Michigan" ..... those militia terrorists listened, and went about implementation.

best regards
Thomas

Newark727 · Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:30 pm

apodino wrote:
If Whitmer hadn't said anything about Trump when this happened, Trump would have probably denounced these people.

He's never shown any sign that he deserves this kind of benefit of the doubt. And if merely mentioning his name is a "political trap" - that says far more about Trump than it does about Whitmer.

casinterest · Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:32 pm

Newark727 wrote:
apodino wrote:
If Whitmer hadn't said anything about Trump when this happened, Trump would have probably denounced these people.

He's never shown any sign that he deserves this kind of benefit of the doubt. And if merely mentioning his name is a "political trap" - that says far more about Trump than it does about Whitmer.

Funny how "Law and Order" went right out the window when Political Opponents were the target. This whole fiasco highlights that fairness and balance does not resonate within the Trump administration.

Pyrex · Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:32 pm

It is funny that the FBI mentions in the indictment that they called Whitmer a tyrant literally a day after she vowed to not respect a Michigan Supreme Court decision against her.

casinterest · Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:57 am

Pyrex wrote:
It is funny that the FBI mentions in the indictment that they called Whitmer a tyrant literally a day after she vowed to not respect a Michigan Supreme Court decision against her.

And this justifies the Terrorists how?

Pyrex · Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 am

casinterest wrote:
Pyrex wrote:
It is funny that the FBI mentions in the indictment that they called Whitmer a tyrant literally a day after she vowed to not respect a Michigan Supreme Court decision against her.

And this justifies the Terrorists how?

It doesn't. It is also completely irrelevant to the merits of the FBI case, so they should stick to providing evidence and not value judgements. Plenty of people believe Whitmer is a tyrant (that is just the objective truth), most people are smart enough not to fall into an obvious FBI set-up.

tommy1808 · Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:51 am

Pyrex wrote:
Plenty of people believe Whitmer is a tyrant (that is just the objective truth),.

She is a tyrant because the MI Supreme Court declared a 1945 law unconstitutional that has been on the books since.. well.. 1945.....? How? Even District Judge Paul Lewis Maloney didn´t know it was unconstitutional after all.....

best regards
Thomas

casinterest · Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:26 pm

Pyrex wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Pyrex wrote:
It is funny that the FBI mentions in the indictment that they called Whitmer a tyrant literally a day after she vowed to not respect a Michigan Supreme Court decision against her.

And this justifies the Terrorists how?

It doesn't. It is also completely irrelevant to the merits of the FBI case, so they should stick to providing evidence and not value judgements. Plenty of people believe Whitmer is a tyrant (that is just the objective truth), most people are smart enough not to fall into an obvious FBI set-up.

The FBI reported on their motivations, but why is someone a Tyrant for trying to protect their citizens from Covid?
Judges in other states have upheld the emergency powers. Also the ruling was by a partison elected Supreme Court. Those folks are politicians, not judges.

tommy1808 · Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:34 pm

casinterest wrote:
Pyrex wrote:
casinterest wrote:

And this justifies the Terrorists how?

It doesn't. It is also completely irrelevant to the merits of the FBI case, so they should stick to providing evidence and not value judgements. Plenty of people believe Whitmer is a tyrant (that is just the objective truth), most people are smart enough not to fall into an obvious FBI set-up.

The FBI reported on their motivations, but why is someone a Tyrant for trying to protect their citizens from Covid?
Judges in other states have upheld the emergency powers. Also the ruling was by a partison elected Supreme Court. Those folks are politicians, not judges.

i can see how the extremely broad authority could be unconstitutional, and just wasn´t run by a court before. But it was still on the books and using a law that has been on the books for 75 years doesn´t make one a tyrant.

best regards
Thomas

Revelation · Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:18 pm

Y'all are over-thinking this. These goons just heard LIBERATE MICHIGAN and went with that. Whatever things they needed to twist to fit the agenda were add ons.

Pyrex · Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:56 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Pyrex wrote:

It doesn't. It is also completely irrelevant to the merits of the FBI case, so they should stick to providing evidence and not value judgements. Plenty of people believe Whitmer is a tyrant (that is just the objective truth), most people are smart enough not to fall into an obvious FBI set-up.

The FBI reported on their motivations, but why is someone a Tyrant for trying to protect their citizens from Covid?
Judges in other states have upheld the emergency powers. Also the ruling was by a partison elected Supreme Court. Those folks are politicians, not judges.

i can see how the extremely broad authority could be unconstitutional, and just wasn´t run by a court before. But it was still on the books and using a law that has been on the books for 75 years doesn´t make one a tyrant.

best regards
Thomas

But being told by a state Supreme Court not to use that law and then just turning around and completely ignoring the court does, though.

casinterest · Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:03 pm

Pyrex wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

The FBI reported on their motivations, but why is someone a Tyrant for trying to protect their citizens from Covid?
Judges in other states have upheld the emergency powers. Also the ruling was by a partison elected Supreme Court. Those folks are politicians, not judges.

i can see how the extremely broad authority could be unconstitutional, and just wasn´t run by a court before. But it was still on the books and using a law that has been on the books for 75 years doesn´t make one a tyrant.

best regards
Thomas

But being told by a state Supreme Court not to use that law and then just turning around and completely ignoring the court does, though.

She asked for an extension and a review in order to save lives. That is not ignoring the court.

NIKV69 · Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:51 pm

Revelation wrote:
Y'all are over-thinking this. These goons just heard LIBERATE MICHIGAN and went with that. Whatever things they needed to twist to fit the agenda were add ons.

Oh yea sure, these guys weren't thinking about this before Trump said that? Come on you can't really think we are going to believe that? The plan had to be in place well before and the higher courts keep ruling against her for her actions. Again if you insult people you don't agree with politically and threaten to take any of their rights away ad nauseum these fringe whacks are bound to organize etc.

Stop blaming Trump he is a small part in this.

alfa164 · Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:01 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Y'all are over-thinking this. These goons just heard LIBERATE MICHIGAN and went with that. Whatever things they needed to twist to fit the agenda were add ons.

Oh yea sure, these guys weren't thinking about this before Trump said that? Come on you can't really think we are going to believe that? The plan had to be in place well before and the higher courts keep ruling against her for her actions. Again if you insult people you don't agree with politically and threaten to take any of their rights away ad nauseum these fringe whacks are bound to organize etc. Stop blaming Trump he is a small part in this.

Do you have any evidence to support those claims? I am betting on "no".

Since you are assuming, "The plan had to be in place well before and the higher courts keep ruling against her for her actions...", then you must also assume that the plan was in place before the Governor announced her plans to protect the citizens of her state; Trump's tweet came less than 8 days after she announced those policies. Or maybe 8 days is the "magic time period" to formulate a violent overthrow of a State government... is that you contention?

And again - do you have any evidence? Any facts at all?

:roll:

FGITD · Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:10 pm

alfa164 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Y'all are over-thinking this. These goons just heard LIBERATE MICHIGAN and went with that. Whatever things they needed to twist to fit the agenda were add ons.

Oh yea sure, these guys weren't thinking about this before Trump said that? Come on you can't really think we are going to believe that? The plan had to be in place well before and the higher courts keep ruling against her for her actions. Again if you insult people you don't agree with politically and threaten to take any of their rights away ad nauseum these fringe whacks are bound to organize etc. Stop blaming Trump he is a small part in this.

Do you have any evidence to support those claims? I am betting on "no".

Since you are assuming, "The plan had to be in place well before and the higher courts keep ruling against her for her actions...", then you must also assume that the plan was in place before the Governor announced her plans to protect the citizens of her state; Trump's tweet came less than 8 days after she announced those policies. Or maybe 8 days is the "magic time period" to formulate a violent overthrow of a State government... is that you contention?

And again - do you have any evidence? Any facts at all?

It's an interesting argument to make, given that their timeline is pretty well recorded.

Trump tweets on April 17

The kidnapping plot was devised in June, and was still in planning by September. These groups definitely were anti government beforehand, but they apparently felt they had the sympathy of the president, and that gave them some sort of confidence boost to act.

This was not some extraordinarily complex terrorist plot years in the making. Their main plan was literally "get people with guns, storm capital. Hold "court""

Competent terrorists (thankfully most don't fall in this category) probably could have come up with a better plan on the car ride over to their attack.

Pyrex · Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:42 pm

casinterest wrote:
Pyrex wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

i can see how the extremely broad authority could be unconstitutional, and just wasn´t run by a court before. But it was still on the books and using a law that has been on the books for 75 years doesn´t make one a tyrant.

best regards
Thomas

But being told by a state Supreme Court not to use that law and then just turning around and completely ignoring the court does, though.

She asked for an extension and a review in order to save lives. That is not ignoring the court.

And just got told no, again. And continues to ignore the court.

casinterest · Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:34 pm

Pyrex wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Pyrex wrote:

But being told by a state Supreme Court not to use that law and then just turning around and completely ignoring the court does, though.

She asked for an extension and a review in order to save lives. That is not ignoring the court.

And just got told no, again. And continues to ignore the court.

No, just doing the hard work of protecting the people from bad judges and a serious disease. it is a difficult tightrope to walk when so many people are so ignorant about how deadly Covid is.

Revelation · Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:44 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Y'all are over-thinking this. These goons just heard LIBERATE MICHIGAN and went with that. Whatever things they needed to twist to fit the agenda were add ons.

Oh yea sure, these guys weren't thinking about this before Trump said that? Come on you can't really think we are going to believe that? The plan had to be in place well before and the higher courts keep ruling against her for her actions. Again if you insult people you don't agree with politically and threaten to take any of their rights away ad nauseum these fringe whacks are bound to organize etc.

Stop blaming Trump he is a small part in this.

If Trump wanted no blame, he should have STFU and done his job as President and stayed out of states issues.

Instead the man-child thrives on stirring up shit instead of actually leading the country.

Others have addressed the timeline issue.

bgm · Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:01 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Stop blaming Trump he is a small part in this.

A small but nonetheless significant part. Thanks for admitting that.

GDB · Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:38 am

Former Michigan Terrorist (stop with this 'Militia' BS) members, Terry Nicholls and Timothy McVeigh. (The latter mass murdering terrorist written out of GOP/Trumpist 'history' as lets face it, his views were rather close to the current amateur hour clowns and the MAGA crowd).
Which also handily exposes the big lie of 'leftist terrorism' in the US, (since when? Those SLA idiots in the early 70's or the 'Weathermen' of 50 years ago?)
I would take the view of law enforcement professionals not idiots, all the fake excuses from some on here don't change that.

tommy1808 · Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:49 am

GDB wrote:
Which also handily exposes the big lie of 'leftist terrorism' in the US

well... according to a user in this threat they are leftist terrorists... close to BLM and so on.... :biggrin:

best regards
Thomas

seb146 · Wed Oct 14, 2020 5:18 pm

Pyrex wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

The FBI reported on their motivations, but why is someone a Tyrant for trying to protect their citizens from Covid?
Judges in other states have upheld the emergency powers. Also the ruling was by a partison elected Supreme Court. Those folks are politicians, not judges.

i can see how the extremely broad authority could be unconstitutional, and just wasn´t run by a court before. But it was still on the books and using a law that has been on the books for 75 years doesn´t make one a tyrant.

best regards
Thomas

But being told by a state Supreme Court not to use that law and then just turning around and completely ignoring the court does, though.

Are you saying the governor of a state has no right to protect their citizens but armed thugs do?

CitizenJustin · Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:50 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
I am not sure his special case, all knowing god and such, wouldn't apply he wanted all the violence in his name since he must have known.

It was just an example of one logical fallacy, now you find a second.

Talking about ideas that deserve their own threads, lol!

Any one want to discuss 13 domestic terrorists who wanted to blow up bridges to thwart police and identified the homes of law enforcement officers as a part of their plot?

I saw quite a few "good men sometimes have to do evil things" Postings on Facebook just recently, i would expect those terrorists had some ideas among those lines.

Any Chance they could find enough Black cops to blow up?

Best regards
Thomas

This is like when they say school shootings and dead babies are the price we have to pay for “freedom”. Now this is profound ignorance.

Pyrex · Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:03 pm

casinterest wrote:
Pyrex wrote:
casinterest wrote:

She asked for an extension and a review in order to save lives. That is not ignoring the court.

And just got told no, again. And continues to ignore the court.

No, just doing the hard work of protecting the people from bad judges and a serious disease. it is a difficult tightrope to walk when so many people are so ignorant about how deadly Covid is.

Oh, so now a politician ignoring judges if they think they are doing it "for the good of the people" is a good thing? Good to know, will keep that in mind, I am sure it will come in handy in the future.

tommy1808 · Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:17 pm

Pyrex wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Pyrex wrote:

And just got told no, again. And continues to ignore the court.

No, just doing the hard work of protecting the people from bad judges and a serious disease. it is a difficult tightrope to walk when so many people are so ignorant about how deadly Covid is.

Oh, so now a politician ignoring judges if they think they are doing it "for the good of the people" is a good thing? Good to know, will keep that in mind, I am sure it will come in handy in the future.

Since when do executives implement court rulings before they got to the highest possible court? Since when does anyone do that? How many courts have ruled Trump has to turn his tax returns over so far, yet he didn't do it? And he doesn't even have as much as a public health argument to make. Has his admin reunited all separated immigrant kids yet, as required by court order? Are they even trying?

Best regards
Thomas

casinterest · Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:58 pm

Pyrex wrote:
casinterest wrote:
Pyrex wrote:

And just got told no, again. And continues to ignore the court.

No, just doing the hard work of protecting the people from bad judges and a serious disease. it is a difficult tightrope to walk when so many people are so ignorant about how deadly Covid is.

Oh, so now a politician ignoring judges if they think they are doing it "for the good of the people" is a good thing? Good to know, will keep that in mind, I am sure it will come in handy in the future.

you are the one saying she ignored . She didn't. She worked through the law to move forward and protect the citizens from some genocidal psychopaths in Michigan.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net