Jump to content


What is the future of the Republican Party?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

Knowing you can’t back up bulls#!t claims makes me sleep just fine.  Now back to business

 

Show me where Josh Hadley specifically defended Timothy McVeigh like your headline said.  Show me where he defended the bombing.  Show me where he said the bombers were justified.  
 

you won’t because you can’t.   

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Just now, Archy1221 said:

Show me where Josh Hadley specifically defended Timothy McVeigh like your headline said.  Show me where he defended the bombing.  Show me where he said the bombers were justified.  
 

you won’t because you can’t.   

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Link to comment

59 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

The headline is not accurate. 

 

I did not read that the author defended McVeigh. I did not read that he defended the bombing itself, nor did I read that the bombing was somehow justified ...?    

Link to comment
Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

What's sad is you being disingenuous to score some unseen point. Please share with me where that says what the headline says it does.  

 

Dude. Read what he wrote, and the context in which he wrote it. It's plain to see.

 

That he didn't name a dude BY NAME who had killed 168 people shouldn't be a surprise.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment

1 minute ago, DevoHusker said:

 

so...he didn't say it. Got it. 

 

Do you think a newspaper would have published overt praise of Timothy McVeigh in 1995 after he killed 168 people?

 

A sober read of that article, defending militants in the wake of that bombing... I just don't know how a rational person looks at that and says that's not tacit support.

 

I mean, you're on record as giving Hawley a pass for this so... great? 

 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Do you think a newspaper would have published overt praise of Timothy McVeigh in 1995 after he killed 168 people?

 

A sober read of that article, defending militants in the wake of that bombing... I just don't know how a rational person looks at that and says that's not tacit support.

 

I mean, you're on record as giving Hawley a pass for this so... great? 

 

 

I read it more as in he was try to differentiate between the heinous act of McVeigh, by pointing out that others affiliated would never do something like that.

"Many of the people populating these movements are not radical, right-wing, pro-assault weapons freaks as they were originally stereotyped"

"Feeling alienated from their government and the rest of society, they often become disenchanted and slip into talks of 'conspiracy theories' about how the federal government is out to get them"

That certainly does not look like it condones McVeigh's actions, or justify the 168 deaths. 

 

And, I am not on record either way so...what?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

I read it more as in he was try to differentiate between the heinous act of McVeigh, by pointing out that others affiliated would never do something like that.

"Many of the people populating these movements are not radical, right-wing, pro-assault weapons freaks as they were originally stereotyped"

"Feeling alienated from their government and the rest of society, they often become disenchanted and slip into talks of 'conspiracy theories' about how the federal government is out to get them"

That certainly does not look like it condones McVeigh's actions, or justify the 168 deaths. 

 

And, I am not on record either way so...what?

 

Literally wrote that in the wake of McVeigh's bombing. What do you think he was writing about? Why that message, then?

 

He just happened to be speaking favorably about militias just after a militia guy killed 168 people?

 

C'mon, man.

 

 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...