# Wingnuts with guns...



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*FBI Raids Midwest Towns In Operation Believed To Target Michigan Militias*



> The FBI conducted raids Saturday night in the Washtenaw and Lenawee county area in an investigation tied to Hutaree, a Christian-oriented militia group based in Lenawee County, AnnArbor.com has learned.
> 
> [...] Michigan militia members say five people were arrested - including one known member of Hutaree. They said the raid occurred at a meeting of Hutaree members in the Ann Arbor area.





> *I found this reported chat with a Hutaree leader on an online message board dated today:*
> 
> [04:13] mark_Koernke_ I just left a shouting match about 20 minutes ago with a little over a hundred militiamen who are on the move right now. The arguement was over not if but rather where to hit them. Trying to calm them down was useless and they are not going to let this lie. They will identify the straglers or pickets first and wipe them out. By what the radiio crew said the recon teams have all of the hiddy holes
> 
> ...





> Dave N.: FWIW, Koernke was one of the leading figures of the militia movement in the 1990s, and was well known for inflammatory and paranoid rhetoric.
> 
> Early reports are that these arrests involve people who were manufacturing and selling pipe bombs -- which is something of a constant refrain among Patriot movement people. Pipe-bomb busts brought down a number of militia groups in the '90s, most notably the Washington State Militia.
> 
> But of course, what we'll hear from the militiamen is that this is just the first step in liberals' evil plot to round up conservatives and put them in concentration camps. And it sounds like at least a few of them are getting itchy trigger fingers. If you're in law enforcement in Michigan, take extra care this week.


(Crooks&Liars)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Che Guevera Action Figure:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

people who are unaware can't fathom the number of christian militias and nutbars with guns down there. I guess though, it makes the country far harder to invade...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gun nut with wings:


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Please expand on the inclusion of the action figure MF.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Please expand on the inclusion of the action figure MF.


Available exclusively at DiD Corpration. "With stunning real-life looking head sculpt!" Comes with two guns: pistol and wood & metal rifle. 1:1 scale black T-shirt included with purchase.

DID Corporation.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Gun nut with wings:


That angel has a TRAMP stamp. What is the world coming to?:lmao:


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Gee, MF, a disinterested observer might conclude that I struck a nerve....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They're just "nuts with guns" unless you admire them.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

The "founding fathers" were just nuts with guns too...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Gee, MF, a disinterested observer might conclude that I struck a nerve....


I was thinking the same thing.

Thank god for che when you need deflection!


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

imnothng said:


> The "founding fathers" were just nuts with guns too...


and what were this new group fighting for again?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> and what were this new group fighting for again?


Who knows? But whether you call them nuts will depend on whether you agree with them or not. Is Che Guevara a Marxist nut with a gun, or someone whose revolutionary spirit you admire?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

imnothng said:


> The "founding fathers" were just nuts with guns too...


Ever notice how religious that sounds? "Founding fathers." Kind of like "the holy father." I've noticed Americans tend to talk about those infallible founding fathers the way Catholics talk about the Pope and the Vatican, too.

And the right to bear arms was originally meant to allow people to possess guns to scare off predators that might encroach on their farmland. Or maybe the British.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Who knows? But whether you call them nuts will depend on whether you agree with them or not. Is Che Guevara a Marxist nut with a gun, or someone whose revolutionary spirit you admire?


A Marxist with a gun whose revolutionary spirit I admire. Don't know why you believe "Marxist" and "someone whose revolutionary spirit you admire" are exclusive of each other.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Who knows? But whether you call them nuts will depend on whether you agree with them or not. Is Che Guevara a Marxist nut with a gun, or someone whose revolutionary spirit you admire?


So it's fine with you that there are religious extremists with armed militias running around then?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> And the right to bear arms was originally meant to allow people to possess guns to scare off predators that might encroach on their farmland. Or maybe the British.


It was intended to give the people enough force to overthrow the federal government should it fail to honour the Constitution.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Who knows? But whether you call them nuts will depend on whether you agree with them or not. Is Che Guevara a Marxist nut with a gun, or someone whose revolutionary spirit you admire?


One should refrain from calling them nuts when confronting them in person while they are carrying arms.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

WIng gun with nuts:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It was intended to give the people enough force to overthrow the federal government should it fail to honour the Constitution.


If that were the intention, it seems to have worked quite well hasn't it.

As soon as we can figure out where che fits into america's intentions, we should be all set.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> If that were the intention, it seems to have worked quite well hasn't it.
> 
> As soon as we can figure out where che fits into america's intentions, we should be all set.


It dos not command anyone to take action when the Constitution is being ignored. It only allows for the citizenry to respond if they so choose.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It dos not command anyone to take action when the Constitution is being ignored. It only allows for the citizenry to respond if they so choose.


so, there's a flaw is what you're saying.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I can't wait to see where che fits into this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I can't wait to see where che fits into this.


Che is either a nut with a gun, or a hero--depends on how you look at it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Che is either a nut with a gun, or a hero--depends on how you look at it.


yes macfury. very good. We get that.

I asked you whether you thought it was ok for religious extremists to have militias. Depending, on how you, looked at it.

Some may feel it isn't ok even if the extremist shared some of their views.

But because you brought up che, I have to conclude you do think it's ok.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In the context of the U.S., yes I think it's OK for religious groups to have militias, provided those groups obey the same rules as other militias.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In the context of the U.S., yes I think it's OK for religious groups to have militias, provided those groups obey the same rules as other militias.


oh. In the context of the US. Was Che in the US?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> oh. In the context of the US. Was Che in the US?


No. I have no idea if he was considered a nut with a gun or a hero in the various countries in which he traveled. I suspect "nut with a gun" in Bolivia.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No. I have no idea if he was considered a nut with a gun or a hero in the various countries in which he traveled. I suspect "nut with a gun" in Bolivia.


right. Nothing to do with the thread really, you just pulled a reference to someone with gun out of your head, and thought it relevant. Classic macfury.

Though one interesting thing out of this, is that you are for religious extremists being allowed armed militias in our country. All 'playing by the rules' of course.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> right. Nothing to do with the thread really, you just pulled a reference to someone with gun out of your head, and thought it relevant. Classic macfury.
> 
> Though one interesting thing out of this, is that you are for religious extremists being allowed armed militias in our country. All 'playing by the rules' of course.


Of course not. Though I suppose if you're not very imaginative it might look that way. Let me spell it out for you. CubaMark calls the religious militia in Michigan "wingnuts with guns" yet he holds Che Guevara in high esteem. Both could be judged "wingnuts with guns" depending on one's philosophical and historical outlook.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Of course not. Though I suppose if you're not very imaginative it might look that way. Let me spell it out for you. CubaMark calls the religious militia in Michigan "wingnuts with guns" yet he holds Che Guevara in high esteem. Both could be judged "wingnuts with guns" depending on one's philosophical and historical outlook.


I suppose if you were actually able to compare someone fighting in a revolution in a foreign country to religious extremist militias in the US, maybe it works for you.

Let me spell it out for you. The comparison is purely ludicrous. But anything, to make a point eh macfury?

So, I suppose it's ok for Extremist Muslims to set up armed militias, that's ok with you too?

Just thought I'd take the ludicrous, and make fun of it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I suppose if you were actually able to compare someone fighting in a revolution in a foreign country to religious extremist militias in the US, maybe it works for you.
> 
> Let me spell it out for you. The comparison is purely ludicrous. But anything, to make a point eh macfury?
> 
> So, I suppose it's ok for Extremist Muslims to set up armed militias, that's ok with you too?


All I can do is shake my head and wonder what you're smokin'.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> All I can do is shake my head and wonder what you're smokin'.


Me? It's macfury who coming up with this crap. I'm merely making fun of it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Me? It's macfury who coming up with this crap. I'm merely making fun of it.


You mean you think you're making fun of it?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> You mean you think you're making fun of it?


oh jesus christ sinc.

he makes an foolish stab at comparing some revolutionary fighter to the armed militias in the US, because, as I suspected, he supports the american christians arming themselves to the teeth so they can take down the government if need be.

So obvious.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Only to you gt, only to you. "an foolish"?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well if you're here to point out some spelling mistakes, at least I know what you're good for here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Spelling? And here I thought it was grammar.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I suppose if you were actually able to compare someone fighting in a revolution in a foreign country to religious extremist militias in the US, maybe it works for you.
> 
> Let me spell it out for you. The comparison is purely ludicrous.


It might have ended on the night of April 18, 1775 when 77 Minutemen were attacked by the British troops under General Gage in Concord. If it hadn't formed the nexus of the American Revolution that is. If it had ended there, history would have written them off as "wingnuts with guns." 

History decides which revolutionaries and insurrectionists are "wingnuts."

SINC gets it.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I may not be christian, but I will gladly fight along side these "nuts" when Islam extremists get the balls to fight like men.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

how noble.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It might have ended on the night of April 18, 1775 when 77 Minutemen were attacked by the British troops under General Gage in Concord. If it hadn't formed the nexus of the American Revolution that is. If it had ended there, history would have written them off as "wingnuts with guns."
> 
> History decides which revolutionaries and insurrectionists are "wingnuts."
> 
> SINC gets it.


but your knee jerk Che reference, belies the fact that you, not history, have already decided.

Sinc is busy correcting grammar. Or spelling.

I get it though. Clear as a bell. Just have to look past your rhetoric and deflections is all.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

History decides nothing. History is essentially mutable. Its content depends on who is telling the story. Context remains key at all times.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I agree Max.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> History decides nothing. History is essentially mutable. Its content depends on who is telling the story. Context remains key at all times.


Max I agree with you. History provides fodder, and storytellers provide context.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: You're the Pope. The Pope I tells ya! You go GT and I to agree on something again.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

imnothng said:


> One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I may not be christian, but I will gladly fight along side these "nuts" when Islam extremists get the balls to fight like men.


Ummm... if you take a look at these groups, "islam extremists" aren't exactly at the top of their list. More like "gubberment", the ATF and anyone who doesn't believe the Apocalypse is nigh.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Macfury said:


> It was intended to give the people enough force to overthrow the federal government should it fail to honour the Constitution.


This is not entirely correct, this is an interpretation, about as correct as fjnmusic's statement which is an interpretation. This issue has been contested for many years since it had been written. Unfortunately we will never truly know the real intent the statement. How this right is used is not equal to its intent.

Here is a write up on CNN's page about this incident with new details...
'Christian warrior' militia accused in plot to kill police - CNN.com

.... sounds like gun nuts to me.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

ertman, thanks for the update - this quote from the article you linked pretty much says it all...



> The five-count indictment unsealed Monday charges that between August 2008 and the present, the defendants, acting as a Lenawee County, Michigan, militia group, conspired to use force to oppose the authority of the U.S. government.
> 
> Attorney General Eric Holder called it "an insidious plan by anti-government extremists."
> 
> The group says on its Web site that Hutaree means "Christian warrior" and proclaims on its home page, "Preparing for the end time battles to keep the testimony of Jesus Christ alive."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If the attack had led to the uprising they had hoped for, they might have been heralded as firing "the shot heard round the world." But shooting cops at random to get attention is nothing I can get behind.

I did read the indictment and it's interesting what qualifies as a "weapon of mass destruction." Under this definition, George Bush was correct in his assertion that Iraq held them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so many ifs... So many ways to vindicate your heroes!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Who are my heroes, 'groove?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you tell us macfury.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> so many ifs... So many ways to vindicate your heroes!


Which heroes have I vindicated?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

this sort of reminds me of my 5 year old nephew. Always asking why or something every ten minutes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If you're not man enough to follow up on your own comments gt, I appreciate that you are at least open about it.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

groovetube said:


> this sort of reminds me of my 5 year old nephew. Always asking why or something every ten minutes.


That's funny, because my 2.5 year old continually avoids questions that he doesn't want to answer. You accused him of "vindicating his heroes" and he asked which "heroes" are you referring to - twice.

So, do you have an answer for him, or are you admitting your accusation was false?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh don't be childish macfury. You spend enough posts making slippery insinuations, so don't whimper when someone throws it back.

You still haven't addressed whether you feel it's ok to allow extremist muslim groups to run and train armed militias here. As long as, they play by the rules of course...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hayesk said:


> That's funny, because my 2.5 year old continually avoids questions that he doesn't want to answer. You accused him of "vindicating his heroes" and he asked which "heroes" are you referring to - twice.
> 
> So, do you have an answer for him, or are you admitting your accusation was false?


I never accused him of anything. Though I may be guilty of playing the game as macfury.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> oh don't be childish macfury. You spend enough posts making slippery insinuations, so don't whimper when someone throws it back.
> 
> You still haven't addressed whether you feel it's ok to allow extremist muslim groups to run and train armed militias here. As long as, they play by the rules of course...


To be honest, I'm curious now. You're wiggling out of this one, GT. Which heroes are you insinuating? Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Wolfowitz? The whole neo-con bunch?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> You still haven't addressed whether you feel it's ok to allow extremist muslim groups to run and train armed militias here. As long as, they play by the rules of course...


I believe they should have the same right to bear arms as any other citizen. They should be arrested and stripped of those arms if they circumvent the law. The term "extremist" is the important phrase here. If by "extremist" means that they have already agreed to a plan to break the law, then my answer is "no."

Your turn, gt.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ertman said:


> This is not entirely correct, this is an interpretation, about as correct as fjnmusic's statement which is an interpretation. This issue has been contested for many years since it had been written. Unfortunately we will never truly know the real intent the statement. How this right is used is not equal to its intent.
> 
> Here is a write up on CNN's page about this incident with new details...
> 'Christian warrior' militia accused in plot to kill police - CNN.com
> ...


Here in Canada we interpret "the right to bear arms" to mean you are free to wear short sleeves even in the winter time.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> To be honest, I'm curious now. You're wiggling out of this one, GT. Which heroes are you insinuating? Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Wolfowitz? The whole neo-con bunch?


are you guys high? Seriously?

I simply sarcastic about macfury's post. There are no direct references, to any heros or any other public figure. Nor have I in any way accused anyone specifically of vindicating a hero. A sarcastic echo of macfurys post! 

Just wow people.

I'm not the one wigging out and seeing something not there.


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Though I may be guilty of playing the game as macfury.


OMG now you're admitting to "playing the game as macfury" who are you really?:lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I believe they should have the same right to bear arms as any other citizen. They should be arrested and stripped of those arms if they circumvent the law. The term "extremist" is the important phrase here. If by "extremist" means that they have already agreed to a plan to break the law, then my answer is "no."
> 
> Your turn, gt.


extremist means they've agreed to a plan to break the law?

Who made this definition up, you?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

markceltic said:


> OMG now you're admitting to "playing the game as macfury" who are you really?:lmao:


I would have thought it was rather obvious, but it -is- a forum I guess....


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> are you guys high? Seriously?
> 
> I simply sarcastic about macfury's post. There are no direct references, to any heros or any other public figure. Nor have I in any way accused anyone specifically of vindicating a hero. A sarcastic echo of macfurys post!
> 
> ...


Yeah, well, I blame them. Warmongers. And I'm not scared to admit it either.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> extremist means they've agreed to a plan to break the law?
> 
> Who made this definition up, you?


No, I said that if a plan to break the law is inherent in one's definition of extremism, then obviously the question has already been answered.

Thanks for identifying my "heroes." The ones I vindicated.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, I said that if a plan to break the law is inherent in one's definition of extremism, then obviously the question has already been answered.
> 
> Thanks for identifying my "heroes." The ones I vindicated.





> If by "extremist" means that they have already agreed to a plan to break the law, then my answer is "no."


Guess I misunderstood this sentence.

So to actually answer my question, which if you read it said, if they play by the rules, this wasn't necessary at all. So to cut out your babble, I assume it's a simple, yes?

And my post very clearly, didn't say you vindicated anyone. Get off the merry go round and keep up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> so many ifs... So many ways to vindicate your heroes!





groovetube said:


> snd my post very clearly, didn't say you vindicated anyone. Get off the merry go round and keep up.


That's right. You didn't say who my heroes are, You just said that I was vindicating them. The fact that you won't identify my heroes is why we are having this discussion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's right. You didn't say who my heroes are, You just said that I was vindicating them. The fact that you won't identify my heroes is why we are having this discussion.


show me where I said YOU vindicated anyone. Then maybe you can stop going in circles.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think there's a single person viewing this thread who can say I haven't given you enough of a chance to clarify your comments.

Thanks for participating, gt.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't think there's a single person viewing this thread who can say I haven't given you enough of a chance to clarify your comments.
> 
> Thanks for participating, gt.


No macfury. I have clarified many times. Boy you enjoy useless circles don't you!!

First, you show me where I specifically said YOU vindicated anyone.

Then perhaps we can move on on your question.

Let's hear it...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that's what I thought.

Sorry pal until you point out where I said it, you're simply spinning out.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*ahem* I'm with GT - you've avoided his point, which called you out on the inclusion of an unrelated icon / image to derail this thread, therefore:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> First, you show me where I specifically said YOU vindicated anyone.
> 
> Then perhaps we can move on on your question.
> 
> Let's hear it...





groovetube said:


> so many ifs... So many ways to vindicate your heroes!


Now go ahead and move on to his question gt.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *ahem* I'm with GT - you've avoided his point, which called you out on the inclusion of an unrelated icon / image to derail this thread, therefore:


 I've already explained why I included the image.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well I tried hard to imitate, but macfury truly is the master here of circular debates and deflections.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Now go ahead and move on to his question gt.





> So many ifs... So many ways to vindicate your heroes!


so, where did I specifically say macfury vindicated someone sinc? Where? Is there invisible text there?

I sarcastically said there were many ways to vindicate one's heros, but I don't see any specific references to anyone doing so, do you?

However, we've magically gotten past macfury having to admit he's ok with Extremist Muslim groups running armed militias in our country now didn't we!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> so, where did I specifically say macfury vindicated someone sinc? Where? Is there invisible text there?
> 
> I sarcastically said there were many ways to vindicate one's heros, but I don't see any specific references to anyone doing so, do you?





groovetube said:


> so many ifs... So many ways to vindicate your heroes!


Yes I do see a very specific reference. The word "your" is possessive and insinuates that he has vindicated his heros.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yes I do see a very specific reference. The word "your" is possessive and insinuates that he has vindicated his heros.


insinuates -who- sinc? 

I see no reference to macfury specifically. "Your", could be anyone reading the post. Sorry. But nice of you to come galloping in with great thunder to macfury's assistance


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> insinuates -who- sinc?
> 
> I see no reference to macfury specifically. "Your", could be anyone reading the post. Sorry. But nice of you to come galloping in with great thunder to macfury's assistance


The following four posts are in succession and clearly you intended "your" to be MF. You proved it in post #54 then you responded to MF after he asked you who his heros were.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

groove.. seriously... it's pretty obvious you were referring to MF when you wrote that.... and if that's not how you intended it to be taken, then you need to edit yourself.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> The following four posts are in succession and clearly you intended "your" to be MF. You proved it in post #54 then you responded to MF after he asked you who his heros were.


for the love of GOD sinc.

the previous posts, included other people. Tell the whole story!

My second post, you will notice I referred to macfury directly.

The earlier one, I didn't even quote him.

I didn't clearly intend it whatsoever, no matter how many times you stamp your feet sinc. Just can't stand it can you...
LOL.

Now this is getting reeeeeallly really moronic.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh I can stand it, no problem. It's you gt who is getting all fussed and squirming around the issue.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. 

Oh god sinc.

No I'm just fine about it thanks. Both you and macfury went ballistic into a merry go round desparate to put words into my post that weren't there. At all.

lmao. Way to derail a thread.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What are you going to do now GT? Go over to MacMagic and let loose?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well you pair seemed to let loose here already.

Maybe the thread will get back on track after you figure things out.

Things seemed to really go funky after I asked you whether a muslim extremist group should be allowed to run armed militias here if they played by the rules.

Never did get a straight answer, and I guess a real distraction was required LOL.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> ..... I asked you whether a muslim extremist group should be allowed to run armed militias here if they played by the rules.
> 
> Never did get a straight answer, and I guess a real distraction was required LOL.


Sure you did.



Macfury said:


> I believe they should have the same right to bear arms as any other citizen. They should be arrested and stripped of those arms if they circumvent the law. The term "extremist" is the important phrase here. If by "extremist" means that they have already agreed to a plan to break the law, then my answer is "no."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

That's NOT what I asked.

I didn't ask whether they had the right to bear arms, and there was no need to qualify your answer based on whether they were breaking the law at all, confusing your answer. 

Now, without any roundabouts, circles, deflections for pages.

Should Extremist Muslim groups be allowed to run their own militia training groups, *if they play by the rules*?

yes or no?


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

In North America? No. In Iran, who cares?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Should Extremist Muslim groups be allowed to run their own militia training groups, *if they play by the rules*?


Give me some examplse of "Extremist" groups.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I expected this. I'm not surprised.

ANY. ALL.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I expected this. I'm not surprised.
> 
> ANY. ALL.


Give me an example of a Muslim group you consider Extremist. ANY or ALL!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Give me an example of a Muslim group you consider Extremist. ANY or ALL!


Yes or no.

I understand if you don't want to answer the question.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

Ok, groove is unable to answer a question. Please allow me to supply an example.

The Taliban.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

imnothng said:


> Ok, groove is unable to answer a question. Please allow me to supply an example.
> 
> The Taliban.


No, they should not be allowed to form a militia.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey! This thread is about wingnuts with guns.







​


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

Macfury said:


> No, they should not be allowed to form a militia.


There ya go groove. See how easy that was.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

*ignore*


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

This is entertaining. Some of the artistry demonstrated in the skating here makes Annie Frechette look like an amateur. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> This is entertaining. Some of the artistry demonstrated in the skating here makes Annie Frechette look like an amateur.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


:lmao::lmao:OH YEAH!:clap::clap:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yup. 4 or 5 pages, and still, not an answer to my original question.

Then, there was a big merry go round when some had a little trouble with reading comprehension, read something that, clearly isn't there. Probably still think it's there lol.

Anything. But answer the original question.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems to me for a guy who has not answered an original question himself, you request just might be falling on deaf ears HOH. As MacGuiver points out, yer still cutting triple axles, but trippin' on them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Seems to me for a guy who has not answered an original question himself, you request just might be falling on deaf ears HOH. As MacGuiver points out, yer still cutting triple axles.


What do you know about this thread sinc? You're merely here to crap on me and you know screw all what actually happened here.

Because if you did, you'd know I asked macfury a question a looong time ago, before you arrived, but he has tapped danced the entire time, and NEVER answered the question. 

So what "original question", are YOU talking about???? I was the one who asked it in the first place. 

If you're here merely to crap, bug off.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well that's about the best I can expect as an answer from macfury.


So we've spent how many pages now, without a simple answer to a question asked oh maybe 6 pages ago. Of course usual the absolutely brainless assumption I referred to him in a post about vindicating one's heros, bought him a few pages and and had a few of his cronies jump in to help stab helped a lot too.

Good show boys.

Let me know when you're done acting like a child and can have a conversation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Perhaps you can analyze this for me. I believe I answered all of GT's questions, and he answered...NONE! 

Does that about sum it up?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> SINC: Perhaps you can analyze this for me. I believe I answered all of GT's questions, and he answered...NONE!
> 
> Does that about sum it up?


MF: That pretty much covers it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury has DODGED the question, never answered it at all, and, neither of you, have shown what question I have to answer.

I have told both of you 50 times, the post in question, DID NOT address macfury directly.

And sinc is merely here to be an arse. Not to contribute in any way. But that's hardly surprising for the sinc...

Let me know when you're done dodging...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so to sum up, without the additional noise from sinc et al.

Original question dodged by macfury:

Since you're ok with extremist religious groups running armed militias, are you ok with the group being an extremist muslim group, as long as they play by the rules?

Only received a dodged answer so far, and then spent several pages looking for something to create a huge diversion.

But that's happened before with macfury.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I have told both of you 50 times, the post in question, DID NOT address macfury directly.


While others besides me continue to tell you it did?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> While others besides me continue to tell you it did?


I am the author of the post. If I meant that macfury vindicated his heros, *I would say so.*

Since I very clearly did not, and* I am telling you that I did not*, there is no answer to that question. Now I have clarified in basic english, the intent, and meaning of the post.

Now if that isn't clear enough, there is nothing on this green earth, that can help you.

Thank you, for helping turn the thread into a childish mess of nonsense. Thankyou, for doing nothing, but come here to stab. You must be proud, of your usual contributions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

classy sinc. But that's to be expected of you I guess.

I'm sorry to CM for the thread being derailed from the topic, but macfury has decided to play games, and sinc, well he's here to crap disturb.

Well done sinc.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> SINC: Perhaps you can analyze this for me. I believe I answered all of GT's questions, and he answered...NONE!
> 
> Does that about sum it up?


Yeah you definitely answered his questions. He's performing his usual circular argument ice dance routine. I think its best to just ignore him and save pulling your hair. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah you definitely answered his questions. He's performing his usual circular argument ice dance routine. I think its best to just ignore him and save pulling your hair.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


ah. Another righteous right soldier in for the kill.

Anything to contribute to the actual topic? I bet not.

When you bunch of high fivers are ready to get back on topic, and address the questions pertaining to the topic, great.

Otherwise, save your high fives. It's childish.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

here's the question again:

Since you're ok with extremist religious groups running armed militias, are you ok with the group being an extremist muslim group, as long as they play by the rules?

I see no answer, to this question. Only desperate a righteous right club dancing around derailing the thread.

It's ok macfury, if you don't want to answer, I'll take that as a response as well. Not unexpected of course.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

(I have no idea why I'm wading into this...)

With all due respect to everyone involved, this thread has to be the closest thing I've seen to a schoolyard taunting session since joining ehMac. 

Can't everyone just cool off and start again? It is an interesting thread and many people have made good, thought provoking posts. It's discouraging when you see something like this go so out of control and end up a waste of bandwith such as this.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sure is mr jimmy. I've made several attempts to get it back to when we were actually discussing the actual topic of the thread, but now the high fiving has started, and when people who have nothing to do with the topic of the thread nor care start jumping in to throw shots, it's never a good thing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thanks, St. Groovetube for the speech exonerating yourself.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

macfury, when you're done posting pictures and cartoons, there's a topic to chat about.

We left off at you being fine with extremist religious groups arming themselves (like the original post) and forming militias, as long as they played by the rules.

I asked whether that would be ok if they were muslim.

And all hell broke loose. So, if the high fivin', and cartoon pictures, sandbox swipes can end, we can pick it up where it was left off.

Your call.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Did I answer his question about Muslim extremist groups?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

never mind sinc. He's only here to throw punches. He has no interest in the original topic.

you said, not if they are breaking the law.

That, after I specifically said "if they are playing by the rules". So no, you dodged.

I don't know why it's so hard to address a very, simple question. It's only taken about 6 or 7 pages.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> SINC: Did I answer his question about Muslim extremist groups?


Yep. You answered "yes" seven minutes after he asked. I guess groove didn't notice it:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep. You answered "yes" seven minutes after he asked. I guess groove didn't notice it:


wrong sinc. Please do try to keep up.

That was the answer, to the first question about religious militias. Please see the next question, about MUSLIM militias.

You missed that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think it's rather obvious at this point, that macfury is incapable of directly addressing the issue of muslim militias. 

I can't say that I'm surprised, which is exactly why I asked the question.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> wrong sinc. Please do try to keep up.
> 
> That was the answer, to the first question about religious militias. Please see the next question, about MUSLIM militias.
> 
> You missed that.


I'm assuming MF included Muslims in his original answer, no? Would they not fall under the religious banner?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I'm assuming MF included Muslims in his original answer, no? Would they not fall under the religious banner?


You -might- assume, but I asked to clarify, that he also included muslims. ( http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/85531-wingnuts-guns-4.html#post948609 )

He failed to address it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I think it's rather obvious at this point, that macfury is incapable of directly addressing the issue of muslim militias.
> 
> I can't say that I'm surprised, which is exactly why I asked the question.


Once again, MF answered your question, just 12 minutes after you asked it:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

read his answer again sinc. He referred to the right to bear arms, not form and train militia groups.

2 different things, altogether.

Then he went on to define extremist, as someone(s) who have already agreed to break the law.

A complete, dodge.

FAIL.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> read his answer again sinc. He referred to the right to bear arms, not form and train militia groups.
> 
> 2 different things, altogether.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree. It was you who put the caveat in place when you asked the question:

"You still haven't addressed whether you feel it's ok to allow extremist muslim groups to run and train armed militias here. As long as, they play by the rules of course..."

His reply was "NO" if they break the law, which refers to your comment "play by the rules".

The whole question is moot by adding the word "here" to your question. Here implies Canada and no one here is allowed to "run and train armed militias". Last time I checked it was illegal in Canada.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Always a way, to dodge the real question... if he was unsure, I'm happy to clarify.

I merely wanted him to clarify, when he said that he was ok with religious extremist groups arming themselves and forming militias, that that included muslims, as long as they played 'by the rules'.

Simple. But any of his responses, have danced around it. Simply, amazing!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

You guys should phone each other and work it out in minutes as opposed to days.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

would certainly kill the high fivin' crew in a hurry.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

If crazed, right-wing, religious extremist militias ever come to Canada, you two won't be on my "must call" list. We'd spend more time arguing about the definition of "is" than taking cover...

In the meantime, the Hutaree loonies have appeared in court:


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*So now the Tea Party wingnuts want to be (even better) armed... *

*Okla. tea parties and lawmakers envision militias*



> tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.





> Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.
> "Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma. The state observes the 15th anniversary of the anti-government attack on Monday. Such actions could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals," he said.





> State Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, a Republican candidate for governor who has appealed for tea party support, said supporters of a state militia have talked to him, and that he believes the citizen unit would be authorized under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
> The founding fathers "were not referring to a turkey shoot or a quail hunt. They really weren't even talking about us having the ability to protect ourselves against each other," Brogdon said. "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."





> "If the intent is to create a militia for disaster relief, we have the National Guard," said Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Anything beyond that purpose should be viewed with great concern and caution."


(AP / YahooNews)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

From my cold dead hands, CubaMark, will they take the Constitution ............ We shall see. Paix, mi amigo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> From my cold dead hands, CubaMark, will they take the Constitution ............ We shall see. Paix, mi amigo.



It's already gone, Dr. G. They left a little blank card in its place.


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

I don't think so, now who's over reaching.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It's already gone, Dr. G. They left a little blank card in its place.


Luckily, we shall get the Constitution back with Obama as president. No Tea Party/NRA coalition shall take that from us. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Luckily, we shall get the Constitution back with Obama as president. No Tea Party/NRA coalition shall take that from us. Paix, mon ami.


Just as I trust the weasel to guard the henhouse, so shall I trust the constitution to Obama.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Well, luckily, the US Constitution is in good hands with or without your trust. Paix, mon ami. As it says on the US dollar bill "In God We Trust ........... all others pay cash".


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Just as I trust the weasel to guard the henhouse, so shall I trust the constitution to Obama.


:eek

:lmao:

I'm reminded of that fierce sentinel, The Skibbereen Eagle of yore, which issued the pompous warning that it was "keeping an eye on the Tsar* of Russia".

We all know what happened to the Tsar. I trust Mr. Obama is both up on his Russian history and the contents of this thread - for his own sake.

* (He was toying with the idea of grabbing some of China. Ah, for the days of Empire!)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> (He was toying with the idea of grabbing some of China. Ah, for the days of Empire!)


Now all China needs to do is decide when to cash in its loans to the U.S., then tot up the number of states it wants.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Now all China needs to do is decide when to cash in its loans to the U.S., then tot up the number of states it wants.


Yep. Good for them.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*The Tea Party's Racist Roots Are Showing*



> If you think that the Tea Partiers are just a bunch of misinformed Republicans who hate paying taxes, think again. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center who monitors the activities of extremist hate groups, the Tea Party is actually helping to strengthen the white supremacist movement in America, and has helped to re-energize some specific hate groups that were on the verge of extinction. Mike Papantonio talks about this with Mark Potok, editor of the SPLCs monthly Intelligence Report.


(See the video at Crooks and Liars, although it's not loading for me now - here it is on YouTube)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated*



> Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.


Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated - NYTimes.com


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

...are you postulating that there are no wealthy, educated racists in the USA?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> ...are you postulating that there are no wealthy, educated racists in the USA?


No more than that there would be no large contingent of middle class Democrat racists. I posted that because I just heard about the poll on the radio.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Yes, the American Right really has gone insane*



> It's a reminder that the Republican mainstream made a right turn at scary, and have arrived right at stark raving mad.


(Catch the video at Crooks & Liars)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's just marketing for a book. The Tea Party movement hasn't been driven insane--they're merely going to drive Obama out of office using the handy tool of elections.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Tea Parties Rage as Taxes Hit Lowest Level Since 1950*





> For almost a year and a half, furious Tea Party protesters have been chanting "Taxed Enough Already." But as it turns out, "taxed enough" actually means "at the lowest levels since 1950." That's the word from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which found that Americans paid the smallest overall tax bill since Harry Truman was in the White House.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> That's just marketing for a book. The Tea Party movement hasn't been driven insane--they're merely going to drive Obama out of office using the handy tool of elections.


Right on, Brother MF. And, if the ballot box does not work, there are always the NRA Tea Baggers. Add to this mix a few people who know God is on our side, and that should be enough to bring about the Second American Revolution. I can just see Joe the Plumber riding in his Hummer and crying out "The socialist reds are coming ........... the socialist reds are coming." We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> *Tea Parties Rage as Taxes Hit Lowest Level Since 1950*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lies and statistics. If the Tea Party says that they are being taxed more, than they are being taxed more. The overall rates may be lower, but they have much higher incomes. Thus, they pay more taxes. Do the math, mi amigo. Don't let socialist pseudo-mathematicians blind you from the reality. See the light.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*CA Woman Killed By Police After Confronting Census Worker With Gun*



> I can hear the sound of right wing nutters' heads exploding all across the country already. I have no doubt someone on Fox or the usual suspect in the world of hate radio will deem this a government execution of a brave American who stood up against President Obama and his evil, socialist empire.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Census is an invasion of privacy, but guns are not required to fight it.

(How much time do you spend on that site anyway, Cubamark--it's a know wing nutter hangout.)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Hah! "_known_" by who? Did Sean Hannity tell you to say that?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Hah! "_known_" by who? Did Sean Hannity tell you to say that?


Who is Sean Hannity? 

A leprechaun???


----------

