Sounds like someone is sowing some chaos.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

None of them functioned did they. 

"Didn't go boom" does not equate to "non-functional."

When referring to bombs, "non-functional" means that they were incapable of detonating.  That is not the case with these bombs.  The authorities have already said these bombs were functional - capable of detonating.  But they had not gone off and the packages were intercepted and properly handled by experts to prevent anyone from getting hurt.

 

2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Do you really believe that if the person wanted to hurt someone that it is coincindental that none of the NINE have functioned. Highly unlikely. Plus there was no way the bombs would have gotten to the addressee. Way to much mail security for that

None of the nine packages were opened by their intended targets or people who were unaware of what was inside.  They were properly handled by bomb experts and prevented from detonating (or in one case, a package was detonated on purpose by experts to ensure it wouldn't hurt anyone).

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

My car is parked in the parking lot. It’s functional but isn’t currently functioning. Just because a bomb didn’t go off or didn’t reach it’s intended destination you want to dismiss it? Does that lessen the severity in your eyes? I’d be willing to bet that if it were republicans that were intended targets of bombs you’d be singing a different tune.

Damn you can be difficult to converse with sometimes.

1. I said earlier that there was virtually no chance of one of the bombs reaching the addressee due to mail facility screening and the individual security they have. I DID NOT say that reduces the severity of the situation or that the seriousness of the whole thing.

2. You lose your bet. This is inexcusable regardless of the political affiliation of the addresses and I thought I made that clear earlier.

3. I am no bomb expert so I have no way of knowing whether the bombs were functional or not, anymore than you do. You just took a swipe at FOX saying they weren't. The particular reporter backed that up with the expert opinion of a former CIA counter terrorism guy.

Best thing for all of us now is to just wait until more facts come out and someone is caught.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Umm.....if the POTUS continuously tells his supporters to act violently and his supporters start doing violent things, yes, absolutely yes, he holds some accountability for those actions. I wish that people didn't worship him so much that they will do things because he tells them to, but that's just not the case. He holds an enormous amount of influence over his supporters. That's like not holding Adolph Hitler responsible for the Holocaust, because he never physically killed any Jews. That's not how accountability works.

Is Trump accountable for the attempted assassination of Steve Scalise? 

Do you envision, in the absence of Trump’s presidency, these psychotics would otherwise withhold from carrying out their egregious acts, notwithstanding numerous similar actions which predated his presidency?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

28 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Damn you can be difficult to converse with sometimes.

1. I said earlier that there was virtually no chance of one of the bombs reaching the addressee due to the security they have. I DID NOT say that reduces the severity of the situation or that the seriousness of the whole thing.

2. You lose your bet. This is inexcusable regardless of the political affiliation of the addresses and I thought I made that clear earlier.

3. I am no bomb expert so I have no way of knowing whether the bombs were functional or not, anymore than you do. You just took a swipe at FOX saying they weren't. The particular reporter backed that up with the expert opinion of a former CIA counter terrorism guy.

Best thing for all of us now is to just wait until more facts come out and someone is caught.

When instead of condemning the actions you state that the bombs didn’t go off, didn’t reach the intended target or list democrats that made pleas for people to vocal oppose the GOP it isn’t a far stretch to believe you are excusing it. In fact your talking points have all been made by right wing media outlet Fox News, who rather than condemn the act wants to downplay it because no one was killed or injured. But the key point you’re purposely avoiding is Trump has incited violence through his rhetoric. A leaders words have power. Trump doesn’t care about his words and how people will interpret them. He refers to media as the enemy of the people, constantly incites fear by creating false political agendas of Democrats, and incites violence of political foes. Yet you rather focus on bombs not detonating. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

29 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Is Trump accountable for the attempted assassination of Steve Scalise? 

Do you envision, in the absence of Trump’s presidency, these psychotics would otherwise withhold from carrying out their egregious acts, notwithstanding numerous similar actions which predated his presidency?

Dang Legal Eagle, talk about false equivalencies. You know the Scalise shooting isn’t an adequate defense for Trump not being accountable for other acts of violence. 

Now do you invision America having a POTUS who doesn’t engage in violent rhetoric? All the other leaders that predated Trump’s tenure in the WH never engaged in this type of behavior. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Dang Legal Eagle, talk about false equivalencies. You know the Scalise shooting isn’t an adequate defense for Trump not being accountable for other acts of violence. 

Now do you invision America having a POTUS who doesn’t engage in violent rhetoric? All the other leaders that predated Trump’s tenure in the WH never engaged in this type of behavior. 

I’m not using it as a defense to anything, Clever Professor. Yes, during the tenures of presidents with seemingly “peaceful rhetoric,” equally egregious acts still occurred. My point is that people who carry out these acts are psychotic, irrespective of the President’s rhetoric. His words do not serve as the intervening element that causes these lunatics to spring into action. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

23 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Dang Legal Eagle,

And LOL, at least you can make your “insults” funny. Seriously, I love it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

29 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Dang Legal Eagle, talk about false equivalencies. You know the Scalise shooting isn’t an adequate defense for Trump not being accountable for other acts of violence. ---because it doesn't fit your narrative. What act of violence is Trump responsible for?

Now do you invision America having a POTUS who doesn’t engage in violent rhetoric? --you are a Clever Professor and can't spell "envision."?

All the other leaders that predated Trump’s tenure in the WH never engaged in this type of behavior. --hope you aren't teaching history. Ever heard of that good democrat Andrew Jackson? The Cherokees do.

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

And LOL, at least you can make your “insults” funny. Seriously, I love it.

Well I didn’t intend it as an insult. I thought it worked nicely with your profession and our beloved birds at AU. But I’m sure PT will be happy to see your love for me. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, GiveEmElle said:

Well I didn’t intend it as an insult. I thought it worked nicely with your profession and our beloved birds at AU. But I’m sure PT will be happy to see your love for me. 

It was very creative, indeed.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m not using it as a defense to anything, Clever Professor. Yes, during the tenures of presidents with seemingly “peaceful rhetoric,” equally egregious acts still occurred. My point is that people who carry out these acts are psychotic, irrespective of the President’s rhetoric. His words do not serve as the intervening element that causes these lunatics to spring into action. 

Now that’s where we disagree. Would a man have gone into a pizza parlor with a gun looking to stop a child sex ring had there not been rhetoric that alluded to it?  Trump himself even declared Holder’s rhetoric dangerous but doesn’t apply the same standard to his own. Dismissing rhetoric as a motivating factor for violence isn’t logical. Just ask Holocaust survivors. Rhetoric eventually led to genocide for the Jews. 

[johnnyAU 3,644]

Absolutely ridiculous to blame a president for the actions of a deranged individual. There have always been, and will always be nut jobs committing violent acts due to their beliefs. 

Just more political BS. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

26 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Now that’s where we disagree. Would a man have gone into a pizza parlor with a gun looking to stop a child sex ring had there not been rhetoric that alluded to it?  Trump himself even declared Holder’s rhetoric dangerous but doesn’t apply the same standard to his own. Dismissing rhetoric as a motivating factor for violence isn’t logical. Just ask Holocaust survivors. Rhetoric eventually led to genocide for the Jews. 

We can disagree. I respect your view and I appreciate the civility extended to mine. Glad to exchange views and understand each other. This forum can use more of that!

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

25 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Absolutely ridiculous to blame a president for the actions of a deranged individual. There have always been, and will always be nut jobs committing violent acts due to their beliefs. 

Just more political BS. 

No one is blaming him for the bombs. We are stating that is rhetoric is irresponsible and incites violence, like trying to murder people. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

27 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Absolutely ridiculous to blame a president for the actions of a deranged individual. There have always been, and will always be nut jobs committing violent acts due to their beliefs. 

Just more political BS. 

What about when a guy who grabs a woman's breast says as a defense "the President of the United States says it's OK to grab women by their private parts."  Can we blame him then?

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/southwest-airlines/2018/10/23/trump-says-ok-grab-women-groping-suspect-tells-fbi-after-southwest-airlines-flight-texas

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

No one is blaming him for the bombs. We are stating that is rhetoric is irresponsible and incites violence, like trying to murder people. 

We disagree with the notion that the President’s words essentially spawn attempted murder/acts of domestic terror. Do you honestly think the President says something, someone hears it, and they’re triggered to perform an act they otherwise would not have even fathomed in the first place? Or that they even fathomed it, and after hearing the President, they chose to act upon the thought as a result? Again, these sorts of actions are not novel.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

We can disagree. I respect your view and I appreciate the civility extended to mine. Glad to exchange views and understand each other. This forum can use more of that!

There’s a rumor you have my number. Lol

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, GiveEmElle said:

There’s a rumor you have my number. Lol

 

Your phone number? I do not.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Mob mentalities". 

Gee, where have I heard that before?

 

You telling me that there isn't individuals on the left and right that have a mob mentality? Yes or No? Pony Up man.

One of the morning CNN articles about what we know so far actually used the phrase also toward American politics as a whole (left and right) as I did. So I didn't hear it on Fox and I didn't hear it from Trump.

Proud Boys, Antifa for example? Think those two run with mob mentalities in regards to their beliefs on American politics. Wait... did I just call out two groups that are involved in what could be considered political terrorism.... I was told I don't do that.

Hell, voted for Hillary and identify as an Independent. Still if I sway in any way from some individuals thinking around here they try and throw me under as a Trumpster. See the above for example. I use mob mentality about both extremes and your immediate reaction is to go emoji time and try and tie me in as a alt-righter.

Still waiting on that suspect list and who is responsible btw detective.

[augolf1716 21,283]

3 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

There’s a rumor you have my number. Lol

 

867-5309

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Just now, augolf1716 said:

876-5309

Lol, I have tickets for Tutone in couple weeks. He will be with Rick Springfield, Loverboy, and Greg Khin.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

867-5309

Did you get that number on the wall?

[augolf1716 21,283]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Did you get that number on the wall?

I would never get a number off the wall.................................😎 well maybe

[AUFAN78 3,926]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

We disagree with the notion that the President’s words essentially spawn attempted murder/acts of domestic terror. Do you honestly think the President says something, someone hears it, and they’re triggered to perform an act they otherwise would not have even fathomed in the first place? Or that they even fathomed it, and after hearing the President, they chose to act upon the thought as a result? Again, these sorts of actions are not novel.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” President Obama

[AUFAN78 3,926]

8 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

867-5309

Jenny