(01-17-2022 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-17-2022 10:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 09:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-16-2022 08:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://twitter.com/AP/status/1482567684315398146

The AP further quotes the FBI as saying they are 'continuing to work to find a motive.'

Not to be outdone, Michigan's attorney general, Democrat Dana Nessel, raised the possibility that white supremacists were at ultimate fault for the attack.

But getting back to Happy Meal -- Happy Meal noted in a statement late Saturday night that we still needed to learn the "motivations of the hostage-taker." Huh?
This is well after after the situation was already resolved, and well, well after the demands were made. I guess the demand for the release of a person known as 'Lady Al-Qaeda' really has no import on Happy Meal or on the FBI as to 'motive'.

And yes, Happy Meal did note it was an 'act of terror'. Happy Meal also made the statement in which he pledged to stand against "the rise of extremism in this country," even though the attacker was not radicalized in the United States.

Happy Meal himself cannot verbalize the motive of the hostage taker -- and vapidly moves on about the 'rise of extremism in this country'. I mean, why not take a shot at trying to write this up as some form of domestic terror when the Dementia Poster Child of 2022 cant seem to verbalize either the correct source of this terror, nor the target of the terror, nor the goal of the terror.

This post reads exactly like this article I just read… interesting.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/michiga...st-attack/

I think the points are pretty good. What do you think about Biden's rather vague hand wavey language? You seem to to chalk it up as the end all and be all for the subject.

I mean, Biden went out of his way to label Rittenhouse a white supremacist, and here, he can only make vague statements about terror and only obliquely imply about the issue of 'domestic terror'. Quick on the trigger to blame domestic terror (falsely), and here simply waxes stupidly about a general 'act of terror' and tries to shoehorn a thing about domestic terror into the conversation.

But I guess Happy Meal's hand waving and avoiding the real issue and subtly denoting 'domestic terrorism' is pretty solid for you?

Are you comfortable with that? Do you see the hand waving occurring? Do you care?

Biden made a mistake in speaking about Rhittenhouse well before he had the facts and stepped in it.

I guess you like that approach as it seems, in this instance, you would have preferred he label it an act of terror (or terrorism or whatever) off the bat?

Or would you prefer he wait, like he should have done with Rhittenhouse?

I would prefer that the Dementia weekly poster child not try and label or insinuate that everything under the sun is the result of 'domestic terrorism' or 'white supremacists', as he is seemingly wont to do. Same applies to his comments equating anyone opposing the 'Democratic standardization of emphasizing efforts that will make it easier to commit fraud in elections' that they are highlighting as an acolyte of Jefferson Davis, or being equivalent to Bull Connor (as Happy Meal did expressly not that long ago)

But given that that topic will seemingly be the Democratic election platform, I can understand the crass reluctance.

Given this guy's explicit demands, and given his explicit targets, I would think that labeling it an 'Islamic terrorist act' or an 'anti-Semitic terrorist act' seemed appropriate. But those are terms that are apparently verbotten to the progressive wing of the Democratic party (that is, almost the entirety of the party) and probably wont be verbalized.

And instead, we see the shitbird attempts to implicate this on 'domestic terror'.

Too bad this, and the Waukesha killings didnt fit the acceptable 'terror act de jure' that can be verbalized by the Democratic party for the most part. This one didnt get smothered like Waukesha, so the next best thing for a Democrat to do is broadly peak about 'an act of terror', and maybe stretch it to try and implicate 'radicalized domestic terrorists'.

Ah, so in this instance you want him to wade in with the broad label right at the time of the incident. If he's going to make a mistake once, he might as well double down and keep making it!