The Left At It Again

[GMDino]

(03-13-2016, 04:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure with the "no one agreed with me" suggestion as nobody outside of a few left-leaning hypocrites in this forum were quick to label the occupation in Oregon terrorism; no one with any integrity did so.

Just like watching folks dance and try to split hairs to prove they are not hypocritical.  Do you happen to have that definition or Terrorism that "everyone" was linking in the Oregon thread? 

Point of order:   I never said you did it or which instance I was talking about.   I made a broad statement without calling anyone names.

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2016, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all: Where was the danger to human life in the Oregon standoff? You had a bunch of folks occupying an empty building in the middle of nowhere.

But in the protester's scenario you have people rushing the stage (I know more facts need) and you have people engaging in fights. 

Here's the latest on the Oregon standoff charges:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKCN0WB2ZM

Click on the link, hit control f, type in terror and tell how many times it appears. You can then type in danger and tell me how many times it references the occupation being  danger to human life.

But this has gone on quite long enough. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday. I'm going to build a table. 

People illegally occupying a federal property and threatening violence with deadly weapons if police act on their illegal occupation. That is a danger to human life. I'm trying to ascertain what occurred at the event because I do not know. All I know is someone was a jag and was interrupting, and someone rushed the stage. I have asked what was said, who rushed the stage, if we know why. These things are all necessary for me actually form an opinion. You claim it is hypocritical but I knew more about the Oregon situation when I said what I said than I know about this incident. I don't even know whether the person that rushed the stage was pro or anti Trump.

As for your link, not going to bother. Why? Because often times our government doesn't throw the full weight of the law at people when doing so could risk inciting more to do the same.

(03-13-2016, 04:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I didn't name anyone, just an "if the shoe fits...."

Except, you did. By saying those that called it terrorism were people without integrity. Specifically naming names is not necessary with those qualifiers for it to be a personal insult.

But enjoy building your table.

[Sovereign Nation]

If Oregon was terrorism, then Chicago was terrorism.

Chicago was worse though. The potential for innocents to be victims was greater. Oregon at least was secluded and LE knew what they were getting into.

[BmorePat87]

He could have refused them entrance into his private event. He chose to not speak.

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-13-2016, 06:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He could have refused them entrance into his private event. He chose to not speak.

Kinda hard to keep people out of his private event when they are in disguise.

Check out Crowder's Journey to Bernie video.  I doubt anyone there knew that he wasn't sincere and was making fun of them.

[BmorePat87]

(03-13-2016, 06:25 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Kinda hard to keep people out of his private event when they are in disguise.

Check out Crowder's Journey to Bernie video.  I doubt anyone there knew that he wasn't sincere and was making fun of them.

Oh, well, his choice. He should probably pay for better security.

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-13-2016, 06:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Oh, well, his choice. He should probably pay for better security.

Isn't Secret Service supposed to be the best of security?

[BmorePat87]

(03-13-2016, 06:49 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Isn't Secret Service supposed to be the best of security?

Security for the event, not for him. 

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-13-2016, 06:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Security for the event, not for him. 

Doesn't SS have a say in the security team for the event?

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 04:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As for your link, not going to bother. Why? Because often times our government doesn't throw the full weight of the law at people when doing so could risk inciting more to do the same.

I must be reading this wrong. Are you saying the government lessens charges to deter folks from following suit?

[BmorePat87]

(03-13-2016, 07:01 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Doesn't SS have a say in the security team for the event?

I honestly don't know. I'm sure they guide the in house security, but apparently that crew didn't do as good of a job vetting guests. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 07:01 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Doesn't SS have a say in the security team for the event?

You have to do what ever you can to blame Trump.

If you go back and look at the posts here, I person said Trump was soft for not showing up; while another said he should ignore the protesters, and now a third is saying he should have better security,

You cannot make this stuff up.......and folks wonder why Trump is so popular.  

[GMDino]

(03-13-2016, 09:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You have to do what ever you can to blame Trump.

If you go back and look at the posts here, I person said Trump was soft for not showing up; while another said he should ignore the protesters, and now a third is saying he should have better security,

You cannot make this stuff up.......and folks wonder why Trump is so popular.  

Could be all the people who defend him...but say they aren't supporting him?

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 09:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I honestly don't know. I'm sure they guide the in house security, but apparently that crew didn't do as good of a job vetting guests. 

What would you recommend as a vetting process for people that entered the facility?

"Do you think you deserve stuff that others work for?"

[*bfine32*]

(03-13-2016, 09:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Could be all the people who defend him...but say they aren't supporting him?

Just because I find humor and hypocrisy in those that try so hard to paint him in a bad light; doesn't mean I support him. But as I've said: I take him over anything the Dems have to offer.  

[JustWinBaby]

They disrupted to the point of silencing someone's voice. That's shameful, but it's mostly late teen/early 20-somethings tend not to be respectful. Same thing with the shoving and punches - those guys don't know when to shut their mouth (on both sides).

But it's not nearly as bad as made out. Only 5 arrests, and one of those was supposedly a reporter that must have annoyed the cops. Did not hear of any injuries.

St. Louis seems to have been much worse. But they weren't inside, at a private event, to prevent someone from speaking. And you can say it was Trump's choice, but reality is he made the right decision as there were too many protestors inside and things could only have gotten worse.

[GMDino]

(03-13-2016, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just because I find humor and hypocrisy in those that try so hard to paint him in a bad light; doesn't mean I support him. But as I've said: I take him over anything the Dems have to offer.  

Did I say you?

[BmorePat87]

(03-13-2016, 09:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What would you recommend as a vetting process for people that entered the facility?

"Do you think you deserve stuff that others work for?"

Anyone without a white hood?

Seriously, though, I heard on the news that they often are checking people in line and asking them to leave when they don't "look" right. The huge number of college kids,
particularly minorities, should have tipped them off.

It comes with the territory, though. If you're going to just spread hatred, you're going to have backlash. Instead of playing the victim, he could have had his security team clear out the protestors and continued on. 

[BmorePat87]

I don't think anything I said was hypocritical or trying to paint him in a bad light. Instead of whining about people "silencing" him, maybe he could have just talked. He should get a handle on his own events, because there will be more like this if he doesn't tone down the rhetoric.

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-13-2016, 09:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Did I say you?

I think it was inferred and I do remember seeing one quote from someone that said Bfine supported Trump, even though he has been on record saying repeatedly that he doesn't support him.