Jump to content

Babbitt is a Terrorist


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So your qualifying the definition of a terrorists now?  

 

And you are now on record is being ok with the on site execution of American citizens?

 

Stick to the subject, Chef Jim Crow.  You fellas seems to like terrorists a lot. I’m just curious which other terrorists you like.  Is it the Unabomber?  Maybe the Shoe Bomber guy?  You guys might want to get baseball/terrorist cards made so you can trade them amongst each other.  Like, you could trade a Unambomber rookie for a Babbitt.  Might be cool.  Give it a shot. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Stick to the subject, Chef Jim Crow.  You fellas seems to like terrorists a lot. I’m just curious which other terrorists you like.  Is it the Unabomber?  Maybe the Shoe Bomber guy?  You guys might want to get baseball/terrorist cards made so you can trade them amongst each other.  Like, you could trade a Unambomber rookie for a Babbitt.  Might be cool.  Give it a shot. 

 

Nope.  Not playing your game.  Are there specific government buildings being attacked you're good with a shoot on site directive?  The Capitol is obviously ok.  What about municipal law enforcement buildings?  Are those a green light for shoot on site? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

The police could have had a field day shooting "terrorists" all last summer.  Looks like they missed their chance...

 

Not so faster there Doc.  We have yet to hear from our resident terrorist expert @SectionC3 regarding what constitutes a terrorists that can be shot on site by police.  So far we have established that breaking into the Capitol is an exterminate at all costs target.  We wait his legal opinion if there are any other buildings that have a shoot on site mandate.  

 

Stay tuned............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chef Jim said:

Not so faster there Doc.  We have yet to hear from our resident terrorist expert @SectionC3 regarding what constitutes a terrorists that can be shot on site by police.  So far we have established that breaking into the Capitol is an exterminate at all costs target.  We wait his legal opinion if there are any other buildings that have a shoot on site mandate.  

 

Stay tuned............

 

Doesn't matter.  We've changed the definitions of "insurrection" and "terrorist" and even what it is someone has to do to be (worse than) Hitler or for an event to be worse than the Civil War or 9/11.  Might as well go down the idiot road with them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Doesn't matter.  We've changed the definitions of "insurrection" and "terrorist" and even what it is someone has to do to be (worse than) Hitler or for an event to be worse than the Civil War or 9/11.  Might as well go down the idiot road with them...

 

Not to mention you'll get shot if you climb the WH fence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Not so faster there Doc.  We have yet to hear from our resident terrorist expert @SectionC3 regarding what constitutes a terrorists that can be shot on site by police.  So far we have established that breaking into the Capitol is an exterminate at all costs target.  We wait his legal opinion if there are any other buildings that have a shoot on site mandate.  

 

Stay tuned............

 

I’m still waiting on your selection of your second favorite terrorist.  I’m not sure if you’re a Unabomber guy or a Shoe Bomber guy.  Maybe you prefer Dylann Roof.  I don’t know.  Either way, we really need to drill down on this issue.  Maybe you and Doc could even have a Terrorist Draft in which you select your favorite terrorists.  I can see it now:   “Chef Jim Crow is trading DoQ Eric Rudolph and a first-round selection in next year’s draft for the KKK and a seventh-round pick in 2023.”  Great stuff!

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the world is this discussion about? If the people in that hallway  were indeed the threat that many on here are desperate to say that they were then the appropriate police response would’ve been to open fire on ALL of them! Not pick out one to make an example of. The officer made a mistake! Is it really so hard to admit that? Do we have to adhere to the Party line on everything at all costs? Sheeesh

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I’m still waiting on your selection of your second favorite terrorist.  I’m not sure if you’re a Unabomber guy or a Shoe Bomber guy.  Maybe you prefer Dylann Roof.  I don’t know.  Either way, we really need to drill down on this issue.  Maybe you and Doc could even have a Terrorist Draft in which you select your favorite terrorists.  I can see it now:   “Chef Jim Crow is trading DoQ Eric Rudolph and a first-round selection in next year’s draft for the KKK and a seventh-round pick in 2023.”  Great stuff!

 

Logic is not your strong suit counselor.  How have you come to the conclusion that I give a rats ass about the woman shot.  Please elaborate. 

 

Check.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

What in the world is this discussion about? If the people in that hallway  were indeed the threat that many on here are desperate to say that they were then the appropriate police response would’ve been to open fire on ALL of them! Not pick out one to make an example of. The officer made a mistake! Is it really so hard to admit that? Do we have to adhere to the Party line on everything at all costs? Sheeesh

Not in the eyes of the law he didn’t.  She shouldn’t have been there.  She shouldn’t have behaved in a threatening manner.  The idea that, somehow, officer error contributed to her death is ludicrous.  It’s too bad that somebody had to bury a loved one, but let’s be clear.  Her death is the result of her error, and nothing about her behavior on the day in question deserves veneration.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Not in the eyes of the law he didn’t.  She shouldn’t have been there.  She shouldn’t have behaved in a threatening manner.  The idea that, somehow, officer error contributed to her death is ludicrous.  It’s too bad that somebody had to bury a loved one, but let’s be clear.  Her death is the result of her error, and nothing about her behavior on the day in question deserves veneration.  

Veneration? Not sure how that applies to my comment. But go ahead, stay stuck in your narrative, and see how much healing we get in this country.  The officer's actions were wrong. It doesn't make him a horrible human being, but his actions were still wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Not in the eyes of the law he didn’t.  She shouldn’t have been there.  She shouldn’t have behaved in a threatening manner.  The idea that, somehow, officer error contributed to her death is ludicrous.  It’s too bad that somebody had to bury a loved one, but let’s be clear.  Her death is the result of her error, and nothing about her behavior on the day in question deserves veneration.  

 

Like I told Billyboy, you just eviscerated BLM and their narrative.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Veneration? Not sure how that applies to my comment. But go ahead, stay stuck in your narrative, and see how much healing we get in this country.  The officer's actions were wrong. It doesn't make him a horrible human being, but his actions were still wrong.

The first step to healing is admitting that the insurrection was wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

The first step to healing is admitting that the insurrection riots was are wrong.  

 

FIFY and likewise.  We've already done it.

Edited by Doc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

No problem here, those people should not have done what they did that day. Now you go! 


This is how the tiny minded operate. The fact that we are unhappy the police killed her to them means we supported the riot and and get stupid nicknames like Insurrection Jim.  They make some mind boggling leaps. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Chef Jim said:


This is how the tiny minded operate. The fact that we are unhappy the police killed her to them means we supported the riot and and get stupid nicknames like Insurrection Jim.  They make some mind boggling leaps. 

Insurrection Jim is a good one.  Maybe you can lead your comrades in the revolution with a spatula.   
 

The next step toward reconciliation is admitting that Donald Trump encouraged the insurrection, and that the insurrection threatened our democracy. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Insurrection Jim is a good one.  Maybe you can lead your comrades in the revolution with a spatula.   
 

The next step toward reconciliation is admitting that Donald Trump encouraged the insurrection, and that the insurrection threatened our democracy. 

 

Threatened our Democracy.  Bwahahahahahahhaha!!

 

We're done here. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Insurrection Jim is a good one.  Maybe you can lead your comrades in the revolution with a spatula.   
 

The next step toward reconciliation is admitting that Donald Trump encouraged the insurrection, and that the insurrection threatened our democracy. 

All said while ignoring the current administration violations of the Constitution through ignoring Supreme Court decisions and lawless immigration policy while simultaneously spreading the virus across the country.  Get you're head out of Trump's ass and take a good look around! 

Edited by All_Pro_Bills
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

So if I tell you to go to the bar for a drink and you get drunk and kill someone I'm liable?  

 

This is the number one reason I'm a conservative.  Stop being dumbasses and take responsibility for your own actions.  

 

EDIT:  And BTW Trump didn't even tell them to go to the bar.  He told them to go to the street the bar was on.  

Edited by Chef Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So if I tell you to go to the bar for a drink and you get drunk and kill someone I'm liable?  

 

This is the number one reason I'm a conservative.  Stop being dumbasses and take responsibility for your own actions.  

 

EDIT:  And BTW Trump didn't even tell them to go to the bar.  He told them to go to the street the bar was on.  

 

Doesn't matter - Ashli was not an innocent bystander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yes but those were GOOD riots. You need to know how to read a riot. 

 

True.  Killing and injuring and looting and destroying stuff in the name of justice is always a good look...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Neither was Trump, and that’s the problem I have with Insurrection Jim & Co.

 

Dems pols weren't innocent bystanders last year during the months-long insurrections which did exponentially more damage to the country than several hours of self-limited rioting could ever do.  That's the problem we have with you and Co.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...