DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 12 minutes ago, knapplc said: 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. Read it again. Many of the people populating these movements are not radical, right-wing, pro-assault weapons freaks as they were originally stereotyped He was writing to distance some/most members of the militia group from the radical beliefs and actions of people like McVeigh, because McVeigh's actions created the response you are showing here today "because McVeigh did it, they ALL wanted to do it", which of course isn't true. C'Mon 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Just now, DevoHusker said: Read it again. Many of the people populating these movements are not radical, right-wing, pro-assault weapons freaks as they were originally stereotyped He was writing to distance some/most members of the militia group from the radical beliefs and actions of people like McVeigh, because McVeigh's actions created the response you are showing here today "because McVeigh did it, they ALL wanted to do it", which of course isn't true. C'Mon He's saying there are good people in militias. Just after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building. I mean... OK. I get that you interpret that to not be apologetic toward McVeigh. But you see how other people can read it that way, yes? 1 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 7 minutes ago, knapplc said: But you see how other people can read it that way, yes? Absolutely. But it/he never said he supported McVeigh or whatever it was that you insinuated originally. (my damn jinky memory again ) Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Just now, DevoHusker said: Absolutely. But it/he never said he supported McVeigh or whatever it was that you insinuated originally. So why do you think he wrote an article painting militias in a favorable light days after a guy from a militia killed 168 people? Just coincidence? Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Just now, knapplc said: So why do you think he wrote an article painting militias in a favorable light days after a guy from a militia killed 168 people? Just coincidence? Welp, I thought we had gotten somewhere. Guess not. He didn't paint some militias in a favorable light. He pointed out that some people involved were not like McVeigh. Why are you continuing to beat on this? 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Just now, DevoHusker said: Welp, I thought we had gotten somewhere. Guess not. He didn't paint some militias in a favorable light. He pointed out that some people involved were not like McVeigh. Why are you continuing to beat on this? I do not get why you're trying to whitewash what he wrote. Quote Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the men who carried out the bombing that killed 168 people, had ties to the Michigan Militia, an antigovernment group dating back to the 1990s. "Many of the people populating these movements are not radical, right-wing, pro-assault weapons freaks as they were originally stereotyped," Hawley wrote of militia groups. "Dismissed by the media and treated with disdain by their elected leaders, these citizens come together and form groups that often draw more media fire as anti-government hate gatherings." He added: "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." Also in the column, Hawley said Mark Fuhrman, the Los Angeles police detective whose use of racial slurs became known during OJ Simpson's trial, was being unfairly depicted as a racist. "In this politically correct society, derogatory labels such as 'racist' are widely misused, and our ability to have open debate is eroding," he wrote. He's defending people in these militias, in the immediate aftermath of McVeigh's bombing which killed 168 people. Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Just now, knapplc said: I do not get why you're trying to whitewash what he wrote. He's defending people in these militias, in the immediate aftermath of McVeigh's bombing which killed 168 people. Yes, he is....Because they are NOT LIKE McVeigh. Not everyone that believes in limited government and the Constitution want to bomb a Federal building...or storm the Capital. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 1 minute ago, DevoHusker said: Because they are NOT LIKE McVeigh. He doesn't say this. Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Just now, knapplc said: He doesn't say this. It is exactly what he said. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Just now, DevoHusker said: It is exactly what he said. He never mentions McVeigh by name, and never draws any disparities between McVeigh and other militia members. Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, knapplc said: He never mentions McVeigh by name, and never draws any disparities between McVeigh and other militia members. Exactly. And yet, your post (in super serious large red font) said: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ GOP Sen. Josh Hawley wrote a column in defense of the Oklahoma City bomber when he was 15 The Kansas City Star reported that following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Hawley wrote a column for his hometown paper, The Lexington News, in which he warned against calling anti-government militia members domestic terrorists. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols - the men who carried out the bombing that killed 169 people - had ties with the Michigan Militia, an anti-government group dating back to the 1990s. "Many of the people populating these movements are not radical, right-wing, pro-assault weapons freaks https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-sen-josh-hawley-wrote-a-column-in-defense-of-the-oklahoma-city-bomber-when-he-was-15/ar-BB1d51nG?ocid=st 1 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 Which is why I said you were being disingenuous. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said: Exactly. And yet, your post (in super serious large red font) said: Yeah. We've covered this. You're just talking in circles now. 1 hour 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. 1 hour 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? 48 minutes ago, knapplc said: 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. 1 minute ago, DevoHusker said: Which is why I said you were being disingenuous. We're going to have to agree to think each other is being disingenuous. Because this seems pretty clear to me, yet you see it different. So it goes. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 25, 2021 Share Posted January 25, 2021 1 hour ago, teachercd said: Not as a R but does Mark Cuban get (more) interested in maybe running? I actually think he has some interesting ideas. He could be an interesting candidate. I have better candidates in mind for myself, but would keep an open mind and hear him out on ideas for sure 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 3 hours ago, knapplc said: Yeah. We've covered this. You're just talking in circles now. We're going to have to agree to think each other is being disingenuous. Because this seems pretty clear to me, yet you see it different. So it goes. Updated headline @DevoHusker Should we post it in big fancy red letters. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts