The protestors may have been thugs but until they fire the first shot, or break any law, they are indeed peaceful and any lawyer worth his salt would argue just that.
Not if the "peaceful protesters" were trespassing on Federal land and obstructing LE, they wouldn't. Or they would, and they'd be wrong. Besides, we both know lawyers will say anything that isn't knowingly false to defend their client. ;-)
And again, lining up LE in your sights and saying you're putting your women up front to be killed first is not peaceful, IMO.
People dying in the basement prior to planes hitting
Please to cite an expert (in applicable fields) who can verify this occurrence.
They were just normal workers, sorry.
No need for experts that you despise, mr know-it-all
THe architects are in on the crazy conspiracy theories, surely!
State your sources and name the workers and architects. Otherwise what you're presenting is just hearsay btw, from the shoddy, 3rd world grade construction work I've seen in the US just "architects" alone means about as much to me as "hot dog vendors".
People dying in the basement prior to planes hitting
Please to cite an expert (in applicable fields) who can verify this occurrence.
They were just normal workers, sorry.
No need for experts that you despise, mr know-it-all
THe architects are in on the crazy conspiracy theories, surely!
State your sources and name the workers and architects. Otherwise what you're presenting is just hearsay btw, from the shoddy, 3rd world grade construction work I've seen in the US just "architects" alone means about as much to me as "hot dog vendors".
The protestors may have been thugs but until they fire the first shot, or break any law, they are indeed peaceful and any lawyer worth his salt would argue just that.
Not if the "peaceful protesters" were trespassing on Federal land and obstructing LE, they wouldn't. Or they would, and they'd be wrong. Besides, we both know lawyers will say anything that isn't knowingly false to defend their client. ;-)
And again, lining up LE in your sights and saying you're putting your women up front to be killed first is not peaceful, IMO.
Like I said earlier, the BLM went there to do something, they knew what to expect they should have done it.
If people are breaking the law, arrest them...if they shoot, kill them.
This deadbeat had been not paying his fees for over 20 years....one of the court orders they are acting on was from 1993.
I don't question this ranchers guilt.
I question the motives, timing and methods used to do it...or now in hindsight, not do it.
I also don't believe that normal people have the capacity to waltz into crowded public places and started gunning down people ala a video game. That takes both drugs and mind control to happen. And low and behold, most cited assassins or patsies or whatever have indeed had ties to US military mind control operations...pinch, poke, they're Manchurian Candidates.
Anyway, Sandy Hook was planned and there is a ton of corroboration on that. Just look into it. It's out there.
Look man, I don't wanna get into this, but I gotta say the Sandy Hook conspiracy thing is not only ridiculous, but disrespectful to the lives of the children who were murdered and their families (yeah yeah, that guy smiled nervously before going in front of millions of people a day after his daughter was murdered, I get that).
Look at this fucking kid. Does this look like a sane person to you?
Jesus Christ, even looking at his face was something I did not want to do.
You can yell in the wind all you like about manchurian candidate/patsy shit, but this was a kid with mental problems who resented those children for taking his mother away from him. Sometimes things are that simple. There isn't a conspiracy behind everything.
This was one of, if not THE worst mass murders ever. Show some respect dude. Please.
With all that said, I definitely agree not everything is how it seems and there are many others to put stock in besides this (and the Boston Bombing - fucking "actors"? Really? People had the nerve to say the guy who's legs were completely blown off was fake. This is what I mean about going off the rails. Don't be that guy).
And Harvey, for the record I'm not trying to jump in here and dogpile on you. Just that Sandy Hook thing always bugs me when people claim it was fake or staged or whatever.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting.
IÔÇÖm trying to wrap my head around this Nevada Ranch ordeal. HereÔÇÖs what I understand thus far. We have this deadbeat rancher who owes the government money (anywhere from $200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask) and he refuses to pay. Instead of putting a lien on his assets which is typically how the government deals with citizens who owe money, they send out armed troops, at a cost higher than the debt owed, to somehow settle this issue. I donÔÇÖt believe our government is stupid so they had to know even before they took these somewhat unusual actions that supporters of this rancher would show up to protest. Sure enough the protestors show up, are labeled as ÔÇ£domestic terroristsÔÇØ and the troops were called off accomplishing nothing.
I see lots of problems here.
First off this rancher is wrong for not paying his fees regardless of how he rationalizes not doing so. As they say in Goodfellas ÔÇ£F U, pay meÔÇØ.
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt. If just owing the government millions of dollars is such a crime why have people who have owed millions in tax dollars not only not been visited by armed troops, but many have been guests of the White House over the last 30 years.
And finally calling peaceful protestors domestic terrorists is wrong no matter who says it. Until a protestor breaks a law they are well within their rights to do so. It would have been equally wrong to call the ÔÇ£OccupyÔÇØ protestors domestic terrorists even when some of them did break the law and destroy both public and private property. There is REAL terrorism going on in our inner cities on a daily basis with literally hundreds of Americans being murdered yet we donÔÇÖt send in troops to solve this much greater problem.
It seems to me there is something else going on in Nevada that I either donÔÇÖt see or understand. If you want to put me in the loony conspiracy theory box because I do, have at it. Like most issues the answer is probably ÔÇ£follow the moneyÔÇØ and in this case that would be money beyond what is owed by the rancher and what we spent to unsuccessfully collect it. Something here seems fishy to me and I have to wonder who might be profitting.
Right-wingers like Rock have no problem spending large amounts of money to send hordes of cops to brutalize Occupy kids, but they get hinky when it comes to going after wealthy establishment types with force.
Isn't that cute? Rock will excuse almost any act of violence against poor people or Dirty Fucking Hippies by his beloved boys in blue, but "armed troops" - actually just agents, not "troops," but I guess Posse Comitatus doesn't ring a bell down there in Texas - in a case involving a 20 year scofflaw gets his hackles up.
Cops can taser some kid to death for painting a wall and Rock just thinks the kid should have taken his beating and learned some sort of big lesson - but a right-wing lunatic just needs to be treated with kid gloves and "liens."
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt.
The guy has a heavily armed militia coming to his aid no wonder they send in armed troops to collect a bill of "$200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask".
Obviously they did their homework on the guy and knew about his connections beforehand.
I don't see a problem, the troops were armed (which I assume also is legal) and remained perfectly peaceful. Call it a troops meet militia lovefest.
And someone tell Jennifer Scalzo that it is an American tradition for peaceful, female demonstrators to not wear a top. Body paint, maybe. Ok, camo of you must.
Yet they backed off......if they knew what they were going to do and what to expect, and went prepared to do it, friggin' do it.
Like I said earlier....I'm not defending anyone in this scenario, something just seems fishy.
Both sides got to show their force and went home peacefully.
Next time the troops will know how much militia will be there in approximately what number and in what time frame. They will know who they are and where they come from and the militia will be easy to stop or easy to engage depending the troop's strategy. This time around they probably just tested the militia's response time.
When armed groups oppose each other, all that matters to me is to be far enough away, I don't have any sympathy or interest for either side.
I may be wrong, but I think what's fishy and what you're glossing over is we don't send armed troops to collect debts from citizens...ever.
This is simply stupid. We send armed cops and agents to seize the property of debtors in this country EVERY SINGLE DAY. Calling them "TROOPS" ala Hannity doesn't change that.
I may be wrong, but I think what's fishy and what you're glossing over is we don't send armed troops to collect debts from citizens...ever.
Well, apparently you do, at least when the debtor is connected to an armed militia.
Personally I don't find this fishy, to me this seems adequate.
So let's say you owe $600.000 (let's take the median) to the government and you refuse to pay. What happens next? I guess at some point they will arrest you and throw your ass in jail, right? So you have an army-like group that enjoys to play dress-up like they'd go to war and who carry assault rifles and who are perfectly willing to come and put themselves in authority's way. Who would you send then? An un-armed tax collector to be intimidated?
I'm not into this wild west mentality bullshit. I'm a strong supporter of the state monopoly on the use of force and I find it ridiculous to allow citizens to own assault weapons and parade around with them. Before Harv mentions the AK47 photo, yes, when we lived in Guinea we had to pay someone to stand in front of our house at night to let off a few rounds into the air if he heard someone on the other side of the wall. It was a necessity. We had chosen to live outside of the city in a mixed neighborhood with everything, from shacks to single floor cabin-like structures all the way up to 3-storey villas all on our "block". Everybody who wasn't living in a tin roof shack had armed guards. Directly next to us was a small orphanage which also had an armed guard. One night they got robbed and their guard was shot in the head. If you wanted the police to come you'd have to pay them money first so they could fuel their car. Living in a basically non-governed non-policed country wasn't the most comfortable feeling.
Well obviously they did in this case, but it's certainly not the norm.
I believe if I owed $600,000 to the government they would put a lien on my home and assets, possibly evict me from my home and if I objected by breaking the law, put me in jail.
And when they came to evict you from your home, guess what?
They'd be wearing guns.
Did LazyWolf hack your account? Is he the one posting this silliness?
I'm not into this wild west mentality bullshit. I'm a strong supporter of the state monopoly on the use of force and I find it ridiculous to allow citizens to own assault weapons and parade around with them. Before Harv mentions the AK47 photo, yes, when we lived in Guinea we had several guns in the house and we paid someone to stand in front of our house at night to let off a few rounds into the air if he heard someone on the other side of the wall. It was a necessity. We had chosen to live outside of the diplomat's and business districts in the inner city and instead had moved to a mixed neighborhood with everything, from shacks to single floor cabin-like structures all the way up to 3-storey villas all on our "block". Everybody who wasn't living in a tin roof shack had armed guards. Directly next to us was a small orphanage which also had an armed guard. One night they got robbed and their guard was shot in the head. If you wanted the police to come you'd have to pay them money first so they could fuel their car. Living in a basically non-governed non-policed country wasn't the most comfortable feeling.
Why did you make that picture posing next a Kalashnikov though? You could've chosen to carry around guns for safety reasons without making pictures of them. Not that it's bad doing that, but why condemn the so-called 'wild west mentality' then?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
day said:
And Harvey, for the record I'm not trying to jump in here and dogpile on you. Just that Sandy Hook thing always bugs me when people claim it was fake or staged or whatever.
Cool, you have every right to voice your opinion. Clearly, I don't see things the same as you, especially the whole people died so we're not allowed to talk about how that might have happened differently from what proven liars aka the mainstream media has dictated to us.
When you find yourself constantly wishing that others would stop voicing their opinions, that's when ya lost.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Rishan said:
HarveyCanal said:
Rishan said:
^^^^^ that was aimed at 2nd para, 2nd sentence
Sure, the people controlling these Manchurian Candidates are absolutely certifiable.
and in the general populace? no sociopaths, no personality disorders carrying out these crimes?
Sometimes, yes. But we've always had crazy people among us. The problem now is that people who do suffer from mental issues are having dozens of psychotropic drugs forced down their gullet which not only doesn't cure any of their ails but also has a tendency to turn them towards extreme violence. Maybe you don't see it the same as me, but I see this as being done on purpose. Just look at the veteran suicide rate right now where some are reporting that we see as many as 22 suicides per day. And of those veterans committing suicide, only 15% of them have actually been in combat. But I guarantee that 95% of them have been taking prescribed psychotropic drugs. Again, someone from above is doing this shit on purpose.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
And awesome, Frank. When it works for you, it's not only functional but fashionable. But anybody else feels the need to wield a gun for their own protection and they are automatically beneath you and need to be called something horribly derogatory.
Wherein Harvey, who thinks that anyone who doesn't share his reason-defying, highly paranoid, gun-totin' lifestyle is "complicit," accuses mentally healthy people of riding a "high horse."
I'm not into this wild west mentality bullshit. I'm a strong supporter of the state monopoly on the use of force and I find it ridiculous to allow citizens to own assault weapons and parade around with them. Before Harv mentions the AK47 photo, yes, when we lived in Guinea we had several guns in the house and we paid someone to stand in front of our house at night to let off a few rounds into the air if he heard someone on the other side of the wall. It was a necessity. We had chosen to live outside of the diplomat's and business districts in the inner city and instead had moved to a mixed neighborhood with everything, from shacks to single floor cabin-like structures all the way up to 3-storey villas all on our "block". Everybody who wasn't living in a tin roof shack had armed guards. Directly next to us was a small orphanage which also had an armed guard. One night they got robbed and their guard was shot in the head. If you wanted the police to come you'd have to pay them money first so they could fuel their car. Living in a basically non-governed non-policed country wasn't the most comfortable feeling.
Why did you make that picture posing next a Kalashnikov though? You could've chosen to carry around guns for safety reasons without making pictures of them. Not that it's bad doing that, but why condemn the so-called 'wild west mentality' then?
The picture was very clearly meant in good fun and especially done to illustrated a post on the now long defunct Deepfunk forum. I think pretty much everybody who saw it at the time understood the joke.
HarveyCanal said:
And awesome, Frank. When it works for you, it's not only functional but fashionable. But anybody else feels the need to wield a gun for their own protection and they are automatically beneath you and need to be called something horribly derogatory.
Get off you high horse already.
AK47s in West Africa are the norm, it's the most functional, reliable, low maintenance gun you can get for the money and if used by guards outside the house perfectly adequate.
I don't believe in assault rifles for home protection. The most idiotic thing to do is fire an assault weapon indoors. There's way too much danger of stray bullets or projectiles going through walls and causing collateral damage next door. They're also way too bulky for indoor home protection and not easy enough to use. That's why I opted for a short barreled, tactical 12 gauge with pistol grip and flashlight/laser combo loaded with buckshot that will tear a body apart but won't go through our walls and fuck up my record room. We have a very high rate of violent home invasions in Costa Rica. People on the regular get beat to a pulp until they say where the safe is, express kidnappings are en vogue where they take you with them and drive you from ATM to ATM and empty your accounts. I don't have a bank account, no credit card and no safe. We don't ever keep much cash at the house and don't have any iPhones, tablets or other in demand gadget shit like that so if someone should ever forcefully enter our property, the sensitive choice is to let them think "oh there's a guy with a flashlight-" and that was that. Again, this is because the police force here is completely useless. Response time is generally over 30-45 minutes and the cops often wait outside to make sure the perpetrators have left before entering because they're such a peace loving people... well, I'm not. I've never been a pacifist and Ive never been anti-gun. This doesn't mean I can't still find it ridiculous and borderline sociopathic behavior to parade around with assault rifles and camo gear to protect your comrade's cattle from being confiscated by the government while your kids are bathing in a river right next to you. Standing up to any government troop or armed officials with a gun in your hands is showing off that you're ready to engage which is completely idiotic to me. It's a stupid macho thing to do that can only end bad if nobody wants to be a wimp (like you so much enjoy to put it) and back down. If you find that perfectly normal then be it. I have not much hope or even the desire to help you change your mind on this.
Also, you mentioned how you keep guns in the house but haven't fired a weapon in many years. If you don't go to the range on the regular and fire a couple of hundred rounds each month you're more likely to cause harm to yourself than be able to react and actually hit an aggressor should there ever arise a situation where you really would need a gun. I'm always more happy to live where I feel that I don't need one. Owning a gun comes with many responsibilities and regular training is only one of them.
People dying in the basement prior to planes hitting
Please to cite an expert (in applicable fields) who can verify this occurrence.
They were just normal workers, sorry.
No need for experts that you despise, mr know-it-all
THe architects are in on the crazy conspiracy theories, surely!
State your sources and name the workers and architects. Otherwise what you're presenting is just hearsay btw, from the shoddy, 3rd world grade construction work I've seen in the US just "architects" alone means about as much to me as "hot dog vendors".
Look, I have a bunch of things to do and can't spend too much time with this but from the few statements by these architects that I've read I don't think that any address why the towers collapsed. Repeatedly they say how the impact of the planes didn't cause the collapse. Nobody argues that. It was the superheated fire caused by tons of jet fuel. In a fire like this you have a so called chimney effect, where air is sucked into the fire and the heat gets concentrated towards the center and up into air ducts and elevator shafts etc. as it can't escape to the sides because of the air streaming in towards the fire, feeding it with oxygen. No architect, especially not one who designs family homes or even "10 million gyms" like the first example has ever learned anything about how to build a skyscraper steel and concrete structure that can withstand a furnace-like, super heated, raging inferno caused by a fully fueled airliner.
20+ years ago when I was still part of the work force I was trained as a machinist complete with welders license. This training included destructive stress tests on steel bolts of various sizes an let me tell you if those bolts are large enough they cause quite a bang. At construction jobs as a iron worker I've welded steel structures of warehouses and experienced how steel bars deform under irregular, local heat exposure and the force of these powers. I'm not claiming I can even remotely understand or explain the exact sequence of events that caused these towers to collapse but I do know from first hand experience in welding and forging iron how steel changes its physical properties under extreme heat. My grandfather was a blacksmith and some of my first childhood memories are watching him forge his own horseshoes and even chains from plain steel bars, witnessing how you can form or deform white hot, solid iron with a relatively small amount of force.
I don't understand the significance of the claim "people heard explosions before the collapse" statement as proof of a controlled demolition. You don't explode demolition charges minutes or hours before the actual demolition.
Again, it is clear that gas and water pipes would have exploded under exposure to that much heat. Also, demolition charges going off would have been caught on video by the uncountable cameras that recorded the events.
Again, I ask you why anybody should have gone through the trouble of placing demolition charges with such precision and effort to cause a near geometrical collapse when they could have just blown the building up towards one side the moment the planes hit.
Most and for all, who would have planned an event like this with so many potential variables and so many things that could go another way?
I could go on and on but seriously, I don't have the time to do this right now and to be perfectly honest, the whole event is just too sad and too evil for me to want to spend much time with researching it. Sometimes I'm a wimp like that. Also, trying to be a voice of reason feels somewhat uncomfortably out of character to myself.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Gotcha, Frank. If a destitute, drugged-out wannabe gangsta breaks into your castle, you are going to blast him to pieces. But if it's some official army dudes in military gear doing it, you're just going to bend over. Sounds lovely.
Gotcha, Frank. If a destitute, drugged-out wannabe gangsta breaks into your castle, you are going to blast him to pieces. But if it's some official army dudes in military gear doing it, you're just going to bend over. Sounds lovely.
Exactly.
I'm soft like that and would rather trust my diplomatic skills in dealing with uniforms that last were employed when fleeing through a West African country under martial law. How wimp-ish, I know... a real man would have held the castle up to the last bullet, Alamo style.
Gotcha, Frank. If a destitute, drugged-out wannabe gangsta breaks into your castle, you are going to blast him to pieces. But if it's some official army dudes in military gear doing it, you're just going to bend over. Sounds lovely.
Shouldn't there be a difference between west African country X and Teh United States of America, re: civility? Leader of the free-to-blow-each-other's-brains-out world sounds kind of clunky to me.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Duderonomy said:
HarveyCanal said:
Gotcha, Frank. If a destitute, drugged-out wannabe gangsta breaks into your castle, you are going to blast him to pieces. But if it's some official army dudes in military gear doing it, you're just going to bend over. Sounds lovely.
Shouldn't there be a difference between west African country X and Teh United States of America, re: civility? Leader of the free-to-blow-each-other's-brains-out world sounds kind of clunky to me.
Hey, whatever keeps peoples' principles and barbs on a sliding scale.
Also, it kinda sounds like: only keep a gun in black or brown countries, but never that in the sanctity of a white country.
Gotcha, Frank. If a destitute, drugged-out wannabe gangsta breaks into your castle, you are going to blast him to pieces. But if it's some official army dudes in military gear doing it, you're just going to bend over. Sounds lovely.
Shouldn't there be a difference between west African country X and Teh United States of America, re: civility? Leader of the free-to-blow-each-other's-brains-out world sounds kind of clunky to me.
Hey, whatever keeps peoples' principles and barbs on a sliding scale.
Also, it kinda sounds like: only keep a gun in black or brown countries, but never that in the sanctity of a white country.
What else can I do but give up and bend over to this overpowering logic, disarming righteousness and clever formulated criticism of my ever present, latent racism. Please be gentle. Once you're done, don't wake me up but please make sure to lock the door behind you.
Further on I wish you the best of luck in your brave fantasy war against the forces of evil, don't lose the faith and always keep your gun clean and lubricated.
I'm with Day, when it comes to my feelings on stuff like Sandy Hook.
But to be fair there were 10 pages of taunting for details on what some people believe.
Then when they finally gave details the inevitable attacks and counter attacks started.
The CTs start with a rational view. The media has a history of bias, distortion and falsehoods. Thus they can't be trusted.
Most of us can agree with that.
Gotcha, Frank. If a destitute, drugged-out wannabe gangsta breaks into your castle, you are going to blast him to pieces. But if it's some official army dudes in military gear doing it, you're just going to bend over. Sounds lovely.
Shouldn't there be a difference between west African country X and Teh United States of America, re: civility? Leader of the free-to-blow-each-other's-brains-out world sounds kind of clunky to me.
Yeah that's a good point. In Africa they do it out of desperation because they're hungry and dirtpoor. Why should this happen in America, the richest nation on earth.
Gotcha, Frank. If a destitute, drugged-out wannabe gangsta breaks into your castle, you are going to blast him to pieces. But if it's some official army dudes in military gear doing it, you're just going to bend over. Sounds lovely.
To anyone but a certified tough guy like yourself, one of the two examples would be committing a crime. Sane people know which one. The "official army dudes' (is that an Alex Jones phrase), generally aren't showing up armed without a good reason.
But hey, I understand in your world of tough guys vs. wimps, you have to see them both as the same.
What seems strange to me is that many of you believe that the great majority of police in the U.S. are corrupt.
That they cheat, steal and murder and then cover it up though lies and secrecy.
That they control and manipulate our judicial system to convict innocent people.
Yet the idea that our government could ever do the same exact thing on a larger scale is crazy talk.
While I believe neither, I find this concept to be very weird.
No, intelligent people just make a distinction between ordinary corruption and laziness and deliberately murdering a score of children in order to pursue some absurd political agenda.
You and Harvey don't make that distinction, so you both lend credence (albeit to different degrees) to the shitheaded fuckstains who push the "Sandy Hook was a false flag" obscenity.
Comments
Not if the "peaceful protesters" were trespassing on Federal land and obstructing LE, they wouldn't. Or they would, and they'd be wrong. Besides, we both know lawyers will say anything that isn't knowingly false to defend their client. ;-)
And again, lining up LE in your sights and saying you're putting your women up front to be killed first is not peaceful, IMO.
State your sources and name the workers and architects. Otherwise what you're presenting is just hearsay btw, from the shoddy, 3rd world grade construction work I've seen in the US just "architects" alone means about as much to me as "hot dog vendors".
Right?
some hot dog vendors: http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
some workers: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
and some more http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/shaking.html
Like I said earlier, the BLM went there to do something, they knew what to expect they should have done it.
If people are breaking the law, arrest them...if they shoot, kill them.
This deadbeat had been not paying his fees for over 20 years....one of the court orders they are acting on was from 1993.
I don't question this ranchers guilt.
I question the motives, timing and methods used to do it...or now in hindsight, not do it.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Look man, I don't wanna get into this, but I gotta say the Sandy Hook conspiracy thing is not only ridiculous, but disrespectful to the lives of the children who were murdered and their families (yeah yeah, that guy smiled nervously before going in front of millions of people a day after his daughter was murdered, I get that).
Look at this fucking kid. Does this look like a sane person to you?
Jesus Christ, even looking at his face was something I did not want to do.
You can yell in the wind all you like about manchurian candidate/patsy shit, but this was a kid with mental problems who resented those children for taking his mother away from him. Sometimes things are that simple. There isn't a conspiracy behind everything.
This was one of, if not THE worst mass murders ever. Show some respect dude. Please.
With all that said, I definitely agree not everything is how it seems and there are many others to put stock in besides this (and the Boston Bombing - fucking "actors"? Really? People had the nerve to say the guy who's legs were completely blown off was fake. This is what I mean about going off the rails. Don't be that guy).
Right-wingers like Rock have no problem spending large amounts of money to send hordes of cops to brutalize Occupy kids, but they get hinky when it comes to going after wealthy establishment types with force.
Isn't that cute? Rock will excuse almost any act of violence against poor people or Dirty Fucking Hippies by his beloved boys in blue, but "armed troops" - actually just agents, not "troops," but I guess Posse Comitatus doesn't ring a bell down there in Texas - in a case involving a 20 year scofflaw gets his hackles up.
Cops can taser some kid to death for painting a wall and Rock just thinks the kid should have taken his beating and learned some sort of big lesson - but a right-wing lunatic just needs to be treated with kid gloves and "liens."
Sheesh.
Oh, right, cops never, ever fuck with anyone because of how they look.
And no one ever gets convicted as a result of such.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
This is simply stupid. We send armed cops and agents to seize the property of debtors in this country EVERY SINGLE DAY. Calling them "TROOPS" ala Hannity doesn't change that.
And when they came to evict you from your home, guess what?
They'd be wearing guns.
Did LazyWolf hack your account? Is he the one posting this silliness?
and in the general populace? no sociopaths, no personality disorders carrying out these crimes?
Why did you make that picture posing next a Kalashnikov though? You could've chosen to carry around guns for safety reasons without making pictures of them. Not that it's bad doing that, but why condemn the so-called 'wild west mentality' then?
Cool, you have every right to voice your opinion. Clearly, I don't see things the same as you, especially the whole people died so we're not allowed to talk about how that might have happened differently from what proven liars aka the mainstream media has dictated to us.
When you find yourself constantly wishing that others would stop voicing their opinions, that's when ya lost.
Sometimes, yes. But we've always had crazy people among us. The problem now is that people who do suffer from mental issues are having dozens of psychotropic drugs forced down their gullet which not only doesn't cure any of their ails but also has a tendency to turn them towards extreme violence. Maybe you don't see it the same as me, but I see this as being done on purpose. Just look at the veteran suicide rate right now where some are reporting that we see as many as 22 suicides per day. And of those veterans committing suicide, only 15% of them have actually been in combat. But I guarantee that 95% of them have been taking prescribed psychotropic drugs. Again, someone from above is doing this shit on purpose.
Get off you high horse already.
I couldn't make this shit up.
The picture was very clearly meant in good fun and especially done to illustrated a post on the now long defunct Deepfunk forum. I think pretty much everybody who saw it at the time understood the joke.
AK47s in West Africa are the norm, it's the most functional, reliable, low maintenance gun you can get for the money and if used by guards outside the house perfectly adequate.
I don't believe in assault rifles for home protection. The most idiotic thing to do is fire an assault weapon indoors. There's way too much danger of stray bullets or projectiles going through walls and causing collateral damage next door. They're also way too bulky for indoor home protection and not easy enough to use. That's why I opted for a short barreled, tactical 12 gauge with pistol grip and flashlight/laser combo loaded with buckshot that will tear a body apart but won't go through our walls and fuck up my record room. We have a very high rate of violent home invasions in Costa Rica. People on the regular get beat to a pulp until they say where the safe is, express kidnappings are en vogue where they take you with them and drive you from ATM to ATM and empty your accounts. I don't have a bank account, no credit card and no safe. We don't ever keep much cash at the house and don't have any iPhones, tablets or other in demand gadget shit like that so if someone should ever forcefully enter our property, the sensitive choice is to let them think "oh there's a guy with a flashlight-" and that was that. Again, this is because the police force here is completely useless. Response time is generally over 30-45 minutes and the cops often wait outside to make sure the perpetrators have left before entering because they're such a peace loving people... well, I'm not. I've never been a pacifist and Ive never been anti-gun. This doesn't mean I can't still find it ridiculous and borderline sociopathic behavior to parade around with assault rifles and camo gear to protect your comrade's cattle from being confiscated by the government while your kids are bathing in a river right next to you. Standing up to any government troop or armed officials with a gun in your hands is showing off that you're ready to engage which is completely idiotic to me. It's a stupid macho thing to do that can only end bad if nobody wants to be a wimp (like you so much enjoy to put it) and back down. If you find that perfectly normal then be it. I have not much hope or even the desire to help you change your mind on this.
Also, you mentioned how you keep guns in the house but haven't fired a weapon in many years. If you don't go to the range on the regular and fire a couple of hundred rounds each month you're more likely to cause harm to yourself than be able to react and actually hit an aggressor should there ever arise a situation where you really would need a gun. I'm always more happy to live where I feel that I don't need one. Owning a gun comes with many responsibilities and regular training is only one of them.
Look, I have a bunch of things to do and can't spend too much time with this but from the few statements by these architects that I've read I don't think that any address why the towers collapsed. Repeatedly they say how the impact of the planes didn't cause the collapse. Nobody argues that. It was the superheated fire caused by tons of jet fuel. In a fire like this you have a so called chimney effect, where air is sucked into the fire and the heat gets concentrated towards the center and up into air ducts and elevator shafts etc. as it can't escape to the sides because of the air streaming in towards the fire, feeding it with oxygen. No architect, especially not one who designs family homes or even "10 million gyms" like the first example has ever learned anything about how to build a skyscraper steel and concrete structure that can withstand a furnace-like, super heated, raging inferno caused by a fully fueled airliner.
20+ years ago when I was still part of the work force I was trained as a machinist complete with welders license. This training included destructive stress tests on steel bolts of various sizes an let me tell you if those bolts are large enough they cause quite a bang. At construction jobs as a iron worker I've welded steel structures of warehouses and experienced how steel bars deform under irregular, local heat exposure and the force of these powers. I'm not claiming I can even remotely understand or explain the exact sequence of events that caused these towers to collapse but I do know from first hand experience in welding and forging iron how steel changes its physical properties under extreme heat. My grandfather was a blacksmith and some of my first childhood memories are watching him forge his own horseshoes and even chains from plain steel bars, witnessing how you can form or deform white hot, solid iron with a relatively small amount of force.
I don't understand the significance of the claim "people heard explosions before the collapse" statement as proof of a controlled demolition. You don't explode demolition charges minutes or hours before the actual demolition.
Again, it is clear that gas and water pipes would have exploded under exposure to that much heat. Also, demolition charges going off would have been caught on video by the uncountable cameras that recorded the events.
Again, I ask you why anybody should have gone through the trouble of placing demolition charges with such precision and effort to cause a near geometrical collapse when they could have just blown the building up towards one side the moment the planes hit.
Most and for all, who would have planned an event like this with so many potential variables and so many things that could go another way?
I could go on and on but seriously, I don't have the time to do this right now and to be perfectly honest, the whole event is just too sad and too evil for me to want to spend much time with researching it. Sometimes I'm a wimp like that. Also, trying to be a voice of reason feels somewhat uncomfortably out of character to myself.
Exactly.
I'm soft like that and would rather trust my diplomatic skills in dealing with uniforms that last were employed when fleeing through a West African country under martial law. How wimp-ish, I know... a real man would have held the castle up to the last bullet, Alamo style.
Shouldn't there be a difference between west African country X and Teh United States of America, re: civility? Leader of the free-to-blow-each-other's-brains-out world sounds kind of clunky to me.
Hey, whatever keeps peoples' principles and barbs on a sliding scale.
Also, it kinda sounds like: only keep a gun in black or brown countries, but never that in the sanctity of a white country.
What else can I do but give up and bend over to this overpowering logic, disarming righteousness and clever formulated criticism of my ever present, latent racism. Please be gentle. Once you're done, don't wake me up but please make sure to lock the door behind you.
Further on I wish you the best of luck in your brave fantasy war against the forces of evil, don't lose the faith and always keep your gun clean and lubricated.
But to be fair there were 10 pages of taunting for details on what some people believe.
Then when they finally gave details the inevitable attacks and counter attacks started.
The CTs start with a rational view. The media has a history of bias, distortion and falsehoods. Thus they can't be trusted.
Most of us can agree with that.
Yeah that's a good point. In Africa they do it out of desperation because they're hungry and dirtpoor. Why should this happen in America, the richest nation on earth.
To anyone but a certified tough guy like yourself, one of the two examples would be committing a crime. Sane people know which one. The "official army dudes' (is that an Alex Jones phrase), generally aren't showing up armed without a good reason.
But hey, I understand in your world of tough guys vs. wimps, you have to see them both as the same.
That they cheat, steal and murder and then cover it up though lies and secrecy.
That they control and manipulate our judicial system to convict innocent people.
Yet the idea that our government could ever do the same exact thing on a larger scale is crazy talk.
While I believe neither, I find this concept to be very weird.
No, intelligent people just make a distinction between ordinary corruption and laziness and deliberately murdering a score of children in order to pursue some absurd political agenda.
You and Harvey don't make that distinction, so you both lend credence (albeit to different degrees) to the shitheaded fuckstains who push the "Sandy Hook was a false flag" obscenity.
Does the word albeit ever get used in Texas?
A