Advertisement
by Jolthig » Thu May 12, 2016 8:42 am
by The Rich Port » Thu May 12, 2016 12:34 pm
Crurnlark wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:I sincerely doubt they were there as "human shields".
Sharp claims to maintain a family gospel band, the siege was dominated by mormons.
Entirely reasonable they were there entirely to sing songs, but that they were there is despicable, yes.
Leaving her children unattended is hardly a better scenario, considering the thin ice she was on with child welfare services as is.
Really mate- just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them less of a person.
by Risottia » Thu May 12, 2016 12:38 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy is suing the federal judge handling his criminal case stemming from an armed standoff with government agents, with a complaint that accuses President Barack Obama, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid and one of Reid's sons of plotting to steal Bundy's property.
by Genivaria » Thu May 12, 2016 12:53 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Crurnlark wrote:Leaving her children unattended is hardly a better scenario, considering the thin ice she was on with child welfare services as is.
Really mate- just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them less of a person.
... She brought her children to a terrorist party.
Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.
by Imperializt Russia » Fri May 13, 2016 12:44 am
Crurnlark wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:I sincerely doubt they were there as "human shields".
Sharp claims to maintain a family gospel band, the siege was dominated by mormons.
Entirely reasonable they were there entirely to sing songs, but that they were there is despicable, yes.
Leaving her children unattended is hardly a better scenario, considering the thin ice she was on with child welfare services as is.
Really mate- just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them less of a person.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Crurnlark » Fri May 13, 2016 5:54 am
The Rich Port wrote:... She brought her children to a terrorist party.
Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.
Imperializt Russia wrote:I think you quoted the wrong post.
She took her children to an armed protest. That is not acceptable.
by Zeinbrad » Fri May 13, 2016 6:05 am
Crurnlark wrote:The Rich Port wrote:... She brought her children to a terrorist party.
Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.
Look, I know the word terrorist never meant anything in the first place, being a geopolitical boogeyman we made up to go invade places for oil (EDIT: and has since then been expanded to include a wide, very real gallery of enemies of America), but if you are identifying people that haven't attacked civilians as terrorists, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.
Would that mean it is twice as meaningless, or is it like multiplying 0 by 2?Imperializt Russia wrote:I think you quoted the wrong post.
She took her children to an armed protest. That is not acceptable.
She took her children to an armed protest without illegal intent. Ill advised? Sure. Unacceptable? Not so much.
by Crurnlark » Fri May 13, 2016 6:11 am
Zeinbrad wrote:Dangerous? Yes.
by Zeinbrad » Fri May 13, 2016 6:16 am
by Ifreann » Fri May 13, 2016 6:20 am
Crurnlark wrote:The Rich Port wrote:... She brought her children to a terrorist party.
Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.
Look, I know the word terrorist never meant anything in the first place, being a geopolitical boogeyman we made up to go invade places for oil (EDIT: and has since then been expanded to include a wide, very real gallery of enemies of America), but if you are identifying people that haven't attacked civilians as terrorists, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.
Would that mean it is twice as meaningless, or is it like multiplying 0 by 2?Imperializt Russia wrote:I think you quoted the wrong post.
She took her children to an armed protest. That is not acceptable.
She took her children to an armed protest without illegal intent. Ill advised? Sure. Unacceptable? Not so much.
by Crurnlark » Fri May 13, 2016 6:23 am
Zeinbrad wrote:So if I bring my kids to an armed siege with plenty of people willing to shoot at law enforcements...I'm not endangering the enough for them to taken away?
This isn't because of what she protested, this is because she brought her kids to a place were they could of gotten injured or worse.
by Imperializt Russia » Fri May 13, 2016 10:14 am
Crurnlark wrote:The Rich Port wrote:... She brought her children to a terrorist party.
Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.
Look, I know the word terrorist never meant anything in the first place, being a geopolitical boogeyman we made up to go invade places for oil (EDIT: and has since then been expanded to include a wide, very real gallery of enemies of America), but if you are identifying people that haven't attacked civilians as terrorists, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Ifreann » Fri May 13, 2016 11:11 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Crurnlark wrote:Look, I know the word terrorist never meant anything in the first place, being a geopolitical boogeyman we made up to go invade places for oil (EDIT: and has since then been expanded to include a wide, very real gallery of enemies of America), but if you are identifying people that haven't attacked civilians as terrorists, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.
No. It really hasn't.
by The Rich Port » Fri May 13, 2016 11:28 am
Crurnlark wrote:Zeinbrad wrote:So if I bring my kids to an armed siege with plenty of people willing to shoot at law enforcements...I'm not endangering the enough for them to taken away?
This isn't because of what she protested, this is because she brought her kids to a place were they could of gotten injured or worse.
After a quick look at generic child endangerment laws... it looks like I'm going to have a very difficult time arguing this position.
But again, her children were taken away tied to an assault on an officer charge where they didn't make their intentions clear and physically grabbed her.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Europa Undivided, Google [Bot], Herador, Infected Mushroom, Page
Advertisement