The New (Domestic) War on Terror

[SDHornet]

Maybe everyone else realized this, but I just figured it out. The phrase racist has lost its power, so domestic terrorist is the new maligning label.

It's thrown out there to delegitimize and shut down discussion.

Surely you realized this way before the narrative switch to "domestic terrorist".

[SeattleGriz]

Maybe everyone else realized this, but I just figured it out. The phrase racist has lost its power, so domestic terrorist is the new maligning label.

It's thrown out there to delegitimize and shut down discussion.

Surely you realized this way before the narrative switch to "domestic terrorist".

I did, I just didn't realize the terms switched until yesterday. Haven't really given two shits about the discussion.

[SDHornet]

Surely you realized this way before the narrative switch to "domestic terrorist".

I did, I just didn't realize the terms switched until yesterday. Haven't really given two shits about the discussion.

"Domestic terrorist" give the gubmint cover to further violate the 4th Amendment for those engaging in "wrongthink" or anyone else deemed enemies of the State.

[SeattleGriz]

I did, I just didn't realize the terms switched until yesterday. Haven't really given two shits about the discussion.

"Domestic terrorist" give the gubmint cover to further violate the 4th Amendment for those engaging in "wrongthink" or anyone else deemed enemies of the State.

Agreed. We saw how the FBI lied about Carter Page and especially with Kevin Clinesmith to bypass the 4th amendment. Now with the broad term of domestic terrorist, it allows tearing down of general population protections.

[AZGrizFan]

I did, I just didn't realize the terms switched until yesterday. Haven't really given two shits about the discussion.

"Domestic terrorist" give the gubmint cover to further violate the 4th Amendment for those engaging in "wrongthink" or anyone else deemed enemies of the State.

Beginning with confiscation of firearms.

[BDKJMU]

MSNBC's Nicole Wallace suggests we use a drone strike on Trump:

And people want to say MTG is wackadoodle...

[kalm]

MSNBC's Nicole Wallace suggests we use a drone strike on Trump:

And people want to say MTG is wackadoodle...

Yeah...she “suggested”....

Next you’re going to agree with me that Al Awaki strike was wrong too?

[Bobcat]

Oh but he wants you to think that!

I don’t care what you think. I’m not here for validation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Validation is the only reason you are here. Your response made me laugh out loud. It's sad

[Col Hogan]

MSNBC's Nicole Wallace suggests we use a drone strike on Trump:

And people want to say MTG is wackadoodle...

Yeah...she “suggested”....

Next you’re going to agree with me that Al Awaki strike was wrong too?

It was wrong...and I’m willing to wager that Wallace would agree...

Yet, she brings up the possibility of doing it against Trump supporters...

[kalm]

Yeah...she “suggested”....

Next you’re going to agree with me that Al Awaki strike was wrong too?

It was wrong...and I’m willing to wager that Wallace would agree...

Yet, she brings up the possibility of doing it against Trump supporters...

If you don’t understand the rhetorical nature of that question and who is asking it, there’s no hope for you on this one, Colonel.

[UNI88]

It was wrong...and I’m willing to wager that Wallace would agree...

Yet, she brings up the possibility of doing it against Trump supporters...

If you don’t understand the rhetorical nature of that question and who is asking it, there’s no hope for you on this one, Colonel.

Was the question rhetorical or leading?

And if it was rhetorical, doesn't that mean that she is advocating for striking against people who incite "domestic terrorism or extremism"?

I still don't understand how MAGAts are domestic terrorists or extremists and BLM/AnTiFa rioters aren't. Where is that line drawn? It seems to be based on whether someone agrees with the cause and ideology.

[kalm]

If you don’t understand the rhetorical nature of that question and who is asking it, there’s no hope for you on this one, Colonel.

Was the question rhetorical or leading?

I don’t know. Not my video and it didn’t show enough of the discussion to make that call.

[houndawg]

Interesting article and a scary proposition. Greenwald is spot on.

I warned conservatives about government overreach during the Portland riots and I'll warn liberals now. Any law that expands the power of the government to restrict conservative causes/actors can also be used to restrict liberal causes/actors in the future.

The good news is that the Prez can do what he wants at the end of his term and not be held accountable. Can you say "payback"? I knew you could...