It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[PredFan]

Did the resistance start? I was out for a while, what did I miss?

Yes, the resistance has started. it was a humble beginning, but a beginning none the less.

 

[flacaltenn]

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

Betcha your nose was totally out of joint about the "Hands Up -- Don't Shoot" fantasy in St. Louis -- wasn't it?
You probably have SITUATIONAL problems with state Authority.. And view govt over-use of force as some kind of really useful tool to use against people you DON'T like.

Let's test your consistency here. Tell me how much you APPROVE of this BOMBING of an entire black neighborhood to end a "stand-off"... Hope you've heard of it..

25 Years Ago: Philadelphia Police Bombs MOVE Headquarters Killing 11, Destroying 65 Homes | Democracy Now!

 

[flacaltenn]

Did the resistance start? I was out for a while, what did I miss?

Wars have many battles. The resistance is currently the "political insiders" versus "political outsiders".. Have you slept thru this? If either or both convention ends in the PARTIES usurping the will of the voters --- it WILL get loud and nasty...

 

[IsaacNewton]

Did the resistance start? I was out for a while, what did I miss?

Yes, the resistance has started. it was a humble beginning, but a beginning none the less.

Where did it start? Was there a barricade? Did someone organize enough pizza and beer? Is it on youtube yet?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Did the resistance start? I was out for a while, what did I miss?

Wars have many battles. The resistance is currently the "political insiders" versus "political outsiders".. Have you slept thru this? If either or both convention ends in the PARTIES usurping the will of the voters --- it WILL get loud and nasty...

Oh the Republican convention IS going to be a barn burner, probably literally, because Trump will be denied the nomination. I want to see him get 1236 delegates, one short. And then let the show begin!

 

[PredFan]

Did the resistance start? I was out for a while, what did I miss?

Yes, the resistance has started. it was a humble beginning, but a beginning none the less.

Where did it start? Was there a barricade? Did someone organize enough pizza and beer? Is it on youtube yet?

It started here in Orlando, Florida. No barricade was needed, it was done in relative secrecy. Beer was consumed. It is not nor will it be on YouTube

 

[P@triot]

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Once again....thank you for proving my point for me. The federal government cannot deny someone marriage (gay or otherwise). But they also can't force it on the American people. They have no authority over it so they have to stay out of it.

You either don't comprehend what you are reading here or you are desperately grasping at straws. Either way, with each post your simply supporting what I've already proven to be true.

Please post an example of two men or two women taken by the state and forced to marry. Otherwise, STFU.

Wow....taking nonsensical to a whole new level I see. The issue is not taking people and forcing them to marry - the issue is forcing all states to recognize gay marriage. The federal government has no such authority. Not only have we already proven that by marriage not being one of the 18 enumerated powers, but we can further prove it by a look at the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Sorry junior - but once again this is cut & dry. It could not be any more clear. It is illegal for the federal government to force the states to do anything when it comes to marriage. Furthermore, the voters of each individual state have the right to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage. If the voters of New York do - so be it. If the voters of Oklahoma do not - so be it. That's the entire point of the United States. 50 individual states, controlled by the people, united only in 18 specific, enumerated powers.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing.

 

[P@triot]

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Once again....thank you for proving my point for me. The federal government cannot deny someone marriage (gay or otherwise). But they also can't force it on the American people. They have no authority over it so they have to stay out of it.

You either don't comprehend what you are reading here or you are desperately grasping at straws. Either way, with each post your simply supporting what I've already proven to be true.

Please post an example of two men or two women taken by the state and forced to marry. Otherwise, STFU.

I love when liberals get pissed off because they got annihilated with facts in an argument. This right here is a prime example of why they hate the U.S. Constitution so much. It prevents them from forcing their skewed and radical ideology down the throats of others. So they desperately try to misinterpret the Constitution. The problem is, it is so well written, so cut & dry, that it really leaves them no argument if they are debating someone who is informed on the U.S. Constitution. And that is when they turn to insults and violence...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Once again....thank you for proving my point for me. The federal government cannot deny someone marriage (gay or otherwise). But they also can't force it on the American people. They have no authority over it so they have to stay out of it.

You either don't comprehend what you are reading here or you are desperately grasping at straws. Either way, with each post your simply supporting what I've already proven to be true.

Please post an example of two men or two women taken by the state and forced to marry. Otherwise, STFU.

Wow....taking nonsensical to a whole new level I see. The issue is not taking people and forcing them to marry - the issue is forcing all states to recognize gay marriage. The federal government has no such authority. Not only have we already proven that by marriage not being one of the 18 enumerated powers, but we can further prove it by a look at the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Sorry junior - but once again this is cut & dry. It could not be any more clear. It is illegal for the federal government to force the states to do anything when it comes to marriage. Furthermore, the voters of each individual state have the right to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage. If the voters of New York do - so be it. If the voters of Oklahoma do not - so be it. That's the entire point of the United States. 50 individual states, controlled by the people, united only in 18 specific, enumerated powers.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing.

Marriage is a contract, what you suggest allows a state to declare a contract null and void and deny a married couple of the rights of all married couples based on gender.

See Art. III, sec 2 on the Federal Government, that being the Supreme Court, on their jurisdiction "to Controversies between two or more States - between a State and Citizens of another State".

If the people vote to deny a gay or lesbian couple to marry can they also deny a couple of different races, creeds or ethnicity the right to marry?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Linking it is easy. Understanding it it is above your paygrade.

The first step to understanding is actually reading it, which you have never done.

Lord Soros tells you what you think, and that's the end of it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution to you fascists is just something you like to wrap yourself up to excuse attacking others.

What does the Constitution mean, Comrade?

1. Exactly what it says. It's plain English, read the fucking thing.
2. Exactly what the SCOTUS wants it to say at any given second; the text is irrelevant.
3. The constitution is not compatible with progressive rule so is ignored.
4. Both 2 and 3

 

[Pogo]

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Once again....thank you for proving my point for me. The federal government cannot deny someone marriage (gay or otherwise). But they also can't force it on the American people. They have no authority over it so they have to stay out of it.

You either don't comprehend what you are reading here or you are desperately grasping at straws. Either way, with each post your simply supporting what I've already proven to be true.

Please post an example of two men or two women taken by the state and forced to marry. Otherwise, STFU.

I love when liberals get pissed off because they got annihilated with facts in an argument. This right here is a prime example of why they hate the U.S. Constitution so much. It prevents them from forcing their skewed and radical ideology down the throats of others. So they desperately try to misinterpret the Constitution. The problem is, it is so well written, so cut & dry, that it really leaves them no argument if they are debating someone who is informed on the U.S. Constitution. And that is when they turn to insults and violence...

Informed on the Constitution you say?
The one with the First Amendment in it batting leadoff? That Constitution?

​

There ain't no way to unsay that.

Soooooooo.... this is where you "turn to insults and violence", is it?

Bring it.

Get your pitcher in da paper. Along with...

 

[Pogo]

Did the resistance start? I was out for a while, what did I miss?

Wars have many battles. The resistance is currently the "political insiders" versus "political outsiders".. Have you slept thru this? If either or both convention ends in the PARTIES usurping the will of the voters --- it WILL get loud and nasty...

Oh the Republican convention IS going to be a barn burner, probably literally, because Trump will be denied the nomination. I want to see him get 1236 delegates, one short. And then let the show begin!

I think he's already familiar with the concept of "short".

 

[Uncensored2008]

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

IF one of you Bolsheviks were to ever read the document, you may find that the answers are embedded. Now I grant that you would be purged from the party for such heresy, but still....

The answer is simple, search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

How do we know this? (WARNING: Constitution Follows, democrats may suffer severe burns in reaction!)

Simple, the Constitution says so;

{"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."}

Not George Soros, your owner. Not Debbie Shultz, the leader of your filthy party, not the unelected dictators of the SCOTUS, but the actual document itself, which I am convinced no forum leftist has ever read.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh the Republican convention IS going to be a barn burner, probably literally, because Trump will be denied the nomination. I want to see him get 1236 delegates, one short. And then let the show begin!

BUT you dumbocrat sheep will smile and take it up the ass as Hillary is crowned in defiance of the will of the voters!

Party above all.

 

[Skylar]

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

IF one of you Bolsheviks were to ever read the document, you may find that the answers are embedded. Now I grant that you would be purged from the party for such heresy, but still....

The answer is simple, search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

How do we know this? (WARNING: Constitution Follows, democrats may suffer severe burns in reaction!)

Simple, the Constitution says so;

{"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."}

Not George Soros, your owner. Not Debbie Shultz, the leader of your filthy party, not the unelected dictators of the SCOTUS, but the actual document itself, which I am convinced no forum leftist has ever read.

Yeah, your conspiracy babble about Soros and 'Shultz' isn't the constitutional definition of anything.

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution

 

[Wry Catcher]

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

IF one of you Bolsheviks were to ever read the document, you may find that the answers are embedded. Now I grant that you would be purged from the party for such heresy, but still....

The answer is simple, search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

How do we know this? (WARNING: Constitution Follows, democrats may suffer severe burns in reaction!)

Simple, the Constitution says so;

{"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."}

Not George Soros, your owner. Not Debbie Shultz, the leader of your filthy party, not the unelected dictators of the SCOTUS, but the actual document itself, which I am convinced no forum leftist has ever read.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Constitution to you fascists is just something you like to wrap yourself up to excuse attacking others.

What does the Constitution mean, Comrade?

1. Exactly what it says. It's plain English, read the fucking thing.
2. Exactly what the SCOTUS wants it to say at any given second; the text is irrelevant.
3. The constitution is not compatible with progressive rule so is ignored.
4. Both 2 and 3

PLAIN ENGLISH? SUCH AS:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
​

What limit is imposed on the phrase "common defence"?

• common means prevalent, thus
  • Disease
  • Invasion

Defense means to protect. Thus COTUS provides the Congress the power to collect taxes to fund our military and preventative medicine.

Example of PLAIN ENGLISH!

What limit is imposed on the phrase "general Welfare"?

"general" affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread; and,

"welfare" the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group; thus PLAIN ENGLISH defines the general Welfare as a power of The Congress to collect taxes to protect the citizens of the united states from all enemies foreign, domestic, bacterial or viral.

So simple even a child can understand it.

 

[P@triot]

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

IF one of you Bolsheviks were to ever read the document, you may find that the answers are embedded. Now I grant that you would be purged from the party for such heresy, but still....

The answer is simple, search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

How do we know this? (WARNING: Constitution Follows, democrats may suffer severe burns in reaction!)

Simple, the Constitution says so;

{"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."}

Not George Soros, your owner. Not Debbie Shultz, the leader of your filthy party, not the unelected dictators of the SCOTUS, but the actual document itself, which I am convinced no forum leftist has ever read.

Yeah, your conspiracy babble about Soros and 'Shultz' isn't the constitutional definition of anything.

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution

I've done this multiple times already. The fact that you pretend like I haven't because you cannot formulate a new argument for why you get to ignore the U.S. Constitution and push your fascist ideology on others doesn't change the reality.

 

[Faun]

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

And you have Janet Reno stating that if she had KNOWN the Davidians were spreading fuel -- she would have STOPPED the assault. Testimonies vary as to what was actually heard. But either they KNEW the Davidians were spreading fuel and lobbed those incendiary devices ANYWAY or they never heard anything of the sort -- they staged a millitary style attack on civilians without any regard for providing an evac or safety plan.. You love yourself some military justice ---- don't ya???

The FBI was recording the Davidians and their conversation about dousing their own compound with Coleman fuel was happening as law enforcement was tearing down walls and firing tear gas. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Janet Reno was listening live as they carried out their own demise.