Terrorist plot to attack the U.S. thwarted

The guy is probably an undercover agent himself.

The whole scenario might be a diversion for the most recent Ferguson fumble-flop.

Probably a drill exercise that was "allowed" to leak to the MSM.

Gives the Feds good excuses for more ridged enforcement.

Looks like a useful idiot if anything.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
I'm sorry, why not take the time to recognize what it was a response to. But since you're stuck on one off topic comment: My reply is that his thread isn't about constitutional violations. Stop trying to detract from the conversation at hand in attempt to derail and decredit my statements. If you want to discuss that, start a thread.

Your argument is based on the notion that your government is acting against the constitution, and that therefore a political ideology to overthrow that government should be supported. YOU stated this, YOU brought up the constitution as an excuse for this opinion, NOT me.

If anyone is attempting to derail this and distract it is you, anyone can go back through this thread and see that it was in fact you who brought up the constitution as an explanation for why these people are making terrorist threats against their own government and society.

Don't complain about breaches of the constitution being an excuse for this, then claim that I'm trying to distract the debate when you have no valid argument against the opposition to your own point, it's weak and transparent.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
I'm sorry, why not take the time to recognize what it was a response to. But since you're stuck on one off topic comment: My reply is that his thread isn't about constitutional violations. Stop trying to detract from the conversation at hand in attempt to derail and decredit my statements. If you want to discuss that, start a thread.

Your argument is based on the notion that your government is acting against the constitution, and that therefore a political ideology to overthrow that government is either "understandable" or should be supported. YOU stated this, YOU brought up the constitution as an excuse for this opinion, NOT me.

If anyone is attempting to derail this and distract it is you, anyone can go back through this thread and see that it was in fact you who brought up the constitution as an explanation for why these people are making terrorist threats against their own government and society. You provided a weak link to a perfectly reasonable national security plan to prevent terrorism in an attempt to make it seem more sinister than it actually is.

If you can't find enough evidence as to why people should "understand" or even agree with these extremist views don't cry about it and blame everyone else. You raised the issue of the unconstitutional actions of your government, and then you failed to back it up with anything or value.

Don't complain about breaches of the constitution being an excuse for this, then claim that I'm trying to distract the debate when you have no valid argument against the opposition to your own point, it's weak and transparent.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I wonder how many times I have to quote:

...can be labeled a potential domestic terrorist.

Before it sinks in what my point is.


You went on about one off topic comment:


originally posted by: EternalSolace

The biggest question: How's the public doing in holding their politicians accountable for upholding the constitution?

I'm, actually really interested in this.
Can you provide a list of the examples of the US government breaching the constitution? Without the entirely legal and right process of amendments?

And started demanding a list of constitutional violations in which I replied that this thread isn't about.

Let me reiterate since you're lacking in the ability to follow a thread.


I questioned whether he was a terrorist or a pissed off American because of government violations of the constitution. I showed the government definition of a domestic terrorist. Then I provided several examples of why one would be labeled a domestic terrorist which includes essentially questioning government overreach and/or violations of constitution. Which lends credence to my original query of whether he was a terrorist or a pissed off American.

No, you got sidetracked. You started off on a tangent to fullfil a personal agenda. You continue to go off topic in an attempt to further your agenda.

Your argument is based on the notion that your government is acting against the constitution, and that therefore a political ideology to overthrow that government is either "understandable" or should be supported.

My argument is that he might not be a terrorist.

And to further drive the point home. Read through CancerWarrior's post and apply that to my first post. CancerWarrior put to words perfectly the point that I stated in a crass way.

At any rate, I've said my peace and will leave it at that.