Koolblue13 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 My take on "what if they were black" is that the goal is equal application of less violent responses in reaction to unrest, not simply equal violence. I don't want a government that seeks to make the point that anyone that steps out of line is going to get bloody. I see that as tone deaf response. Let the consequences be decided by juries and judges after peaceful resolutions when ever possible. That's not as cool as gun blazing but frankly violence is **** and we need to stop celebrating it at all levels of our society. We're too in love with it. That's basically been my feeling. Some people are calling for violence against these clowns, because that's what any other fringe group would receive. No one should receive violence. I'm from Philly and remember MOVE. I remember watching Waco. Ruby Ridge. All handled awfully. Regardless of politics, there is almost always a non violent resolution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Make them stay in there awhile longer to think about it. :lol: :lol: That would be great. And way less violent/terrible than any of my ideas. Some people are calling for violence against these clowns, because that's what any other fringe group would receive. As someone calling for violence against them, that's not why. It's because I firmly believe these people are domestic terrorists at this point and that they have no business being in a civilized society. They're abusing a variety of conveniences they're afforded to "make this statement" that any other country would not allow them. I'm OK with just locking them up forever, but it'd be much cheaper to just let them have the fight they're pretending they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Living in my fantasies, clad only in her gold-lame thong-edition Depends and the pea****-feather boa, strategically draped. How absorbent are those? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 :lol: :lol: That would be great. And way less violent/terrible than any of my ideas. As someone calling for violence against them, that's not why. It's because I firmly believe these people are domestic terrorists at this point and that they have no business being in a civilized society. They're abusing a variety of conveniences they're afforded to "make this statement" that any other country would not allow them. I'm OK with just locking them up forever, but it'd be much cheaper to just let them have the fight they're pretending they want. Just so I get this straight. You are FOR risking the lives of the people who would go in forcefully and take them out? You're for these idiots families to be fatherless? You're for enraging the idiotic base that is strangely and disappointingly growing stronger and louder. that will cause more of this? Just want to make sure that's what you're advocating. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 So we just let these clowns take Govt property? What happens when the next "sovereign citizen" decides laws don't apply? I can understand the desire for Divine Retribution. Even sympathize with it. In fact, I think that's the direction I was leaning, when I first read of this. I think I came around to my present position, after making a couple of Satan's Attorney's arguments, on their behalf. In effect, I made some arguments which convinced me. For myself, I see the conflict of two, opposing, moral imperatives being involved, here. The desire for order and law, and the desire to accommodate protest. And I convinced myself to put them in the latter category. Maybe it's just me, but I think that the right to protest carries with it a societal obligation to look the other way, if a protest involves minor illegal activity. Things like minor obstruction of traffic, littering, violation of noise ordinances. Now, I can hear people, correctly, pointing out that there's a difference between, say, scattering glitter or confetti in a public space, and an armed home invasion. But after thinking about this situation, I'm at least willing to assume that these loons, for one reason or another, chose a location which was intentionally minor, almost trivial. As such, I'm willing to put taking over this, particular, location, under the category of things that, while illegal, should be ignored, for the sake of protecting the right to protest. Although, yeah, I can also see the argument that the presence of people carrying guns is a perfectly good place to draw the line between things that are "illegal, but tolerated" and "nope, we will not allow that." I can certainly see the argument that this is one of those places where a bright, black and white, line should be drawn. The notion that well, when the protester is carrying a gun, then the Rules of Engagement change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Living in my fantasies, clad only in her gold-lame thong-edition Depends and the pea****-feather boa, strategically draped. I think I just puked a bit in my mouth...some things can not be unread.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 My take on "what if they were black" is that the goal is equal application of less violent responses in reaction to unrest, not simply equal violence. I don't want a government that seeks to make the point that anyone that steps out of line is going to get bloody. I see that as tone deaf response. Let the consequences be decided by juries and judges after peaceful resolutions when ever possible. That's not as cool as gun blazing but frankly violence is **** and we need to stop celebrating it at all levels of our society. We're too in love with it. I agree with you. Also, if there was a firefight, the National Guard/Law Enforcement charged with making the arrests could get killed and that would be a tragedy. And also, killing these guys isn't the way to delegitimize them. It is not good that we have an armed group of men seizing federal property and staging a revolt. But it's a small group and they're conducting a stunt and it's in the middle of nowhere. I don't think they're actually a threat to anyone as is. I think the best move is to rebuff their crazy arguments, wait them out, and then arrest them for whatever law it is they've broken once they get bored and leave. BTW, anyone know what law they're breaking? I assume trespassing, but doing so while armed must be its own thing right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 And also, killing these guys isn't the way to delegitimize them. Oh, I think that I would be hard pressed to come up with a better way to de-legitimize these guys, than for the public to be laughing at the Internet Tough Guys "occupying" a bunch of empty buildings, unopposed, and making Facebook posts, asking for people to donate snacks. The Real World is laughing at them. I don't think there's a worse thing that can happen to their image. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) The Onion summarizes it well ... http://www.theonion.com/graphic/what-you-need-know-about-oregon-militia-standoff-52111 My favorite line ... What are the protesters’ demands?$5 million in cash and safe passage to 1874. Edited January 5, 2016 by Corcaigh 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Just so I get this straight. You are FOR risking the lives of the people who would go in forcefully and take them out? You're for these idiots families to be fatherless? You're for enraging the idiotic base that is strangely and disappointingly growing stronger and louder. that will cause more of this? Just want to make sure that's what you're advocating. No, you can do this without risking LEO's lives. They are in one building. Sure. I don't care about terrorist's famlies. They're already enraged. Are you paying attention? Hell, we should try to find a way to get more of them there so we can take out more of them in one move. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I think I just puked a bit in my mouth...some things can not be unread.. That was exactly my Dark Side goal as I fashioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 They want the Gov't to act so they can build their cult following. Then they'll have books, a TV show on Palin's network....or whatever replaced that. The original farmers want nothing to do with these guys. The local community wants nothing to do with them. Now they are just sitting there, armed with nothing to shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 That Onion article is pretty darn good. What is the militia ultimately hoping to achieve? Garner enough attention over next few weeks to be brought onstage during rally for a low-polling GOP candidate. Rick Santorum's segment on MSNBC makes him an early frontrunner in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 #DaddySworeAnOath The mocking of these people has been very entertaining. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Now they are just sitting there, armed with nothing to shoot. Doesn't even look like a top story anymore, though i'm not actually following the cable news networks right now... Looks like the biggest part of the story is they closed schools. The fact that they are still there seems to be a bullet point of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I LOVE reading about this story, it is like a late christmas gift. I just can't help but picture these guys all decked out in their best hunting regalia, ARMED TO THE TEETH, hunkered down behind a cardboard woodchuck as tumbleweed slowly roll by. TYRANNY! they shout. Hello? Anyone there? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 LOL. Anyone else this was just an elaborate scheme for these nincompoops to convince their wives to get them an extra big gift card to Cabella's this christmas? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 LOL. Anyone else this was just an elaborate scheme for these nincompoops to convince their wives to get them an extra big gift card to Cabella's this christmas? Cracker Barrel. See what I did there? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The #BlackLivesMatter movement gets to set grazing prices? No wonder these white patriots are on edge. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The #BlackLivesMatter movement gets to set grazing prices? No wonder these white patriots are on edge. Now you're going to put the BLM people into a tizzy for minimalizing their struggle 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 The rest of the article from Cork's chart. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-armed-oregon-ranchers-who-want-free-land-are-already-getting-a-93-percent-discount/ The Armed Oregon Ranchers Who Want Free Land Are Already Getting A 93 Percent Discount Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I'm pretty sure that chart and link has been posted 5 or 6 times now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Here's the thing, the Oregon ranchers aren't armed, aren't at the facility and are in jail on charges of arson. Not refusing to pay. The Bundy's in Nevada refused to pay and they are armed at the facility in Oregon. It's so logical. Edited January 5, 2016 by KAOSkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I'm pretty sure that chart and link has been posted 5 or 6 times now But no-one else was smart enough to tie it to the #BlackLivesMatter movement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now