Archy1221 Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 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
Archy1221 Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 2 minutes ago, knapplc said: Whatever helps you sleep at night. asks for proof on a salacious and outrageous claim, gets this is response Liberal playbook in action in real-time. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 53 minutes ago, knapplc said: I can't show you what you refuse to see. It's pretty plain for everyone else. What you choose NOT to see is your issue. FIFY Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Archy1221 said: Geesh, I missed the defense of the bombers here! Wow......Arguing that a terrorist shouldn't be called a terrorist sure seems like a defense to me. 1 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 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
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Wow......Arguing that a terrorist shouldn't be called a terrorist sure seems like a defense to me. You have to WANT to not see it. Sad. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 11 minutes ago, DevoHusker said: 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 ...? Finally some sanity here. 1 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, knapplc said: You have to WANT to not see it. Sad. 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. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 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. 1 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 41 minutes ago, knapplc said: 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. so...he didn't say it. Got it. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 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
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 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? 1 Link to comment
teachercd Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Not as a R but does Mark Cuban get (more) interested in maybe running? I actually think he has some interesting ideas. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 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
Recommended Posts