Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.
Herm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:05 am
This group was not a militia.
They were not called up to supplement a regular army. They were not in opposition of a regular army. Most of these guys don’t look to be able-bodied.
Furthermore... they were also not well regulated so, while their right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, their right to form as a militia is not.
I’m alleging that the original poster of this topic only feels this way because she shares the same political views as these TERRORISTS.
I can’t prove it but that’s just my opinion.
Why has a local television station decided to call innocent people "terrorists"?
If I were the manager of a newsroom, I would have chosen to use “alleged terrorists” or “accused terrorists”.
I certainly would not call them a militia.
First, even if the outrage was genuine (more on that in a moment), this group meets the definition of being a militia about as much as Count Chocula meets the definition of being a vampire.
Second, and more relevant, is that I don't believe for one second that the objection is based on anything remotely close to an honestly held belief. Instead, every indication points to this just being a ploy to get attention from this board (again). It's not about arguing a position but rather posting something deliberately provocative in order to get a reaction.
I suppose I might take his offense at seeing a group of people described in a pejorative manner a bit more seriously if he was able to get through a single post without dropping 2 or 3 slurs of other groups. Or if he was remotely close to being consistent in applying his standards (if these guys are innocent until proven guilty, then so are BLM). Or if it wasn't obvious that he knew exactly what that tweet said and still completely mischaracterized it anyway. Or if he did anything other than deflect when gaping holes were punched in his assertions.
But this isn't about being taken seriously. This is about a troll getting his jollies. While I understand the concept of this phenomenon, I doubt I will ever be able to fully understand how deliberately getting people to think you are an asshole provides any sense of fulfillment.
Herm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:05 am
This group was not a militia.
They were not called up to supplement a regular army. They were not in opposition of a regular army. Most of these guys don’t look to be able-bodied.
Furthermore... they were also not well regulated so, while their right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, their right to form as a militia is not.
I’m alleging that the original poster of this topic only feels this way because she shares the same political views as these TERRORISTS.
I can’t prove it but that’s just my opinion.
Why has a local television station decided to call innocent people "terrorists"?
Herm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:05 am
This group was not a militia.
They were not called up to supplement a regular army. They were not in opposition of a regular army. Most of these guys don’t look to be able-bodied.
Furthermore... they were also not well regulated so, while their right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, their right to form as a militia is not.
I’m alleging that the original poster of this topic only feels this way because she shares the same political views as these TERRORISTS.
I can’t prove it but that’s just my opinion.
Why has a local television station decided to call innocent people "terrorists"?
Innocent and dead to rights.
Let's see how quickly Local 4 calls black people who actually kill others "terrorists" while white people who talk about it get labeled "terrorists."
Herm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:05 am
This group was not a militia.
They were not called up to supplement a regular army. They were not in opposition of a regular army. Most of these guys don’t look to be able-bodied.
Furthermore... they were also not well regulated so, while their right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, their right to form as a militia is not.
I’m alleging that the original poster of this topic only feels this way because she shares the same political views as these TERRORISTS.
I can’t prove it but that’s just my opinion.
Why has a local television station decided to call innocent people "terrorists"?
If I were the manager of a newsroom, I would have chosen to use “alleged terrorists” or “accused terrorists”.
I certainly would not call them a militia.
The station owners of 2 and 7 should call 4 out on it. Nothing like a little healthy competition, oh, and some journalistic ethics.
No... they should not. That would be incredibly unprofessional. Nothing about your suggestion breeds healthy competition and calling out your peers is not part of journalistic ethics. In fact... your idea is the exact opposite of healthy and ethical. Even if it weren’t, the owners of 2 and 7 have more important things to do than carry on with your silly little vendetta.
Herm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:05 am
This group was not a militia.
They were not called up to supplement a regular army. They were not in opposition of a regular army. Most of these guys don’t look to be able-bodied.
Furthermore... they were also not well regulated so, while their right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, their right to form as a militia is not.
I’m alleging that the original poster of this topic only feels this way because she shares the same political views as these TERRORISTS.
I can’t prove it but that’s just my opinion.
Why has a local television station decided to call innocent people "terrorists"?
If I were the manager of a newsroom, I would have chosen to use “alleged terrorists” or “accused terrorists”.
I certainly would not call them a militia.
The station owners of 2 and 7 should call 4 out on it. Nothing like a little healthy competition, oh, and some journalistic ethics.
No... they should not. That would be incredibly unprofessional. Nothing about your suggestion breeds healthy competition and calling out your peers is not part of journalistic ethics. In fact... your idea is the exact opposite of healthy and ethical. Even if it weren’t, the owners of 2 and 7 have more important things to do than carry on with your silly little vendetta.
So it's okay for a news organization to convict someone before they are convicted? "Terrorism" is the accusation.
Herm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:05 am
This group was not a militia.
They were not called up to supplement a regular army. They were not in opposition of a regular army. Most of these guys don’t look to be able-bodied.
Furthermore... they were also not well regulated so, while their right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, their right to form as a militia is not.
I’m alleging that the original poster of this topic only feels this way because she shares the same political views as these TERRORISTS.
I can’t prove it but that’s just my opinion.
Why has a local television station decided to call innocent people "terrorists"?
If I were the manager of a newsroom, I would have chosen to use “alleged terrorists” or “accused terrorists”.
I certainly would not call them a militia.
The station owners of 2 and 7 should call 4 out on it. Nothing like a little healthy competition, oh, and some journalistic ethics.
No... they should not. That would be incredibly unprofessional. Nothing about your suggestion breeds healthy competition and calling out your peers is not part of journalistic ethics. In fact... your idea is the exact opposite of healthy and ethical. Even if it weren’t, the owners of 2 and 7 have more important things to do than carry on with your silly little vendetta.
So it's okay for a news organization to convict someone before they are convicted? "Terrorism" is the accusation.
Are you okay with cops not calling out bad cops?
This is why society rarely improves.
No and news organizations do not have the authority to convict anyone. That’s just silly.
No
Herm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:05 am
This group was not a militia.
They were not called up to supplement a regular army. They were not in opposition of a regular army. Most of these guys don’t look to be able-bodied.
Furthermore... they were also not well regulated so, while their right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, their right to form as a militia is not.
I’m alleging that the original poster of this topic only feels this way because she shares the same political views as these TERRORISTS.
I can’t prove it but that’s just my opinion.
Why has a local television station decided to call innocent people "terrorists"?
If I were the manager of a newsroom, I would have chosen to use “alleged terrorists” or “accused terrorists”.
I certainly would not call them a militia.
The station owners of 2 and 7 should call 4 out on it. Nothing like a little healthy competition, oh, and some journalistic ethics.
No... they should not. That would be incredibly unprofessional. Nothing about your suggestion breeds healthy competition and calling out your peers is not part of journalistic ethics. In fact... your idea is the exact opposite of healthy and ethical. Even if it weren’t, the owners of 2 and 7 have more important things to do than carry on with your silly little vendetta.
So it's okay for a news organization to convict someone before they are convicted? "Terrorism" is the accusation.
Are you okay with cops not calling out bad cops?
This is why society rarely improves.
No and news organizations do not have the authority to convict anyone. That’s just silly.
No
You’re being dramatic
So, they don’t convict, but label innocent people who have not gone to trial AS IF they are already guilty. Got it.
Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:10 pm
Gotta love the special people that quote pages of comments and then give a one or two word response.
That person is quoting the bottom post and responding to it. Hitting the quote button brings all the others along with it and on a phone editing all that other stuff out is a bitch. On a computer it would just be lazy.
Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:10 pm
Gotta love the special people that quote pages of comments and then give a one or two word response.
This happens quite often in this forum. I wonder why you would think the people who do it are special? It seems to me that they are just part of the normal routine here.
Unless you intended for that to be an insult, in which case... wow... you really got me. Nice one!
lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:29 pm
Not “allegedly.” Local 4 really did convict them BEFORE and in spite of a trial.
Ma’am... Local 4 is a TV station. They have no power to convict anyone for anything. Courts do that. Judges and juries do that. TV stations make TV shows and sell ad time.
And how does one go about doing something in spite of an event that hasn’t happened yet?
Note: I did my best to delete all the other posts that would have been included in this quote other than the one I was responding to. And my response was more than one word.
