|Bort - 2016-01-05 |
Very nice work!
At the end, I get their frustration that the FBI isn't taking a stronger stand against these nincompoops. But the FBI also learned the lessons from Ruby Ridge and Waco, that waiting them out is almost always the better strategy. There can be a point where violence is called for, but don't jump the gun, figuratively/literally.
As it is, these guys are a joke, almost literally; at least that's what everyone thinks of them. They took over, what, a gift shop to protest the sentencing of guys who are perfectly willing to serve their time. Wait until these guys run out of beef jerky or toilet paper -- whichever comes first -- and they'll come crawling out, at which point they can be arrested peacefully.
In the meantime, I recommend some psyops in the form of playing lots of Vanilla Ice and Milli Vanilli.
Seriously though, I do hope it all ends peacefully, but let this be a reminder that this is pretty much the rest of Oregon outside of Portland. I'm surprised something like this didn't happen years earlier.
I wish they'd just send in ED209 to end this in 5-10 seconds.
How about someone just reading tweets that mock these idiots? Let them know the world is laughing at them.
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2016/ 01/06/decembrists-frontman-colin-meloy-tweeted-erotic-fanfiction-a bout-the-militia-standoff-and-its-awesome
|StanleyPain - 2016-01-05 |
It's a little disturbing that so many leftists, who constantly do their regressive Democracy Now/Huff Post routine over even the most minute news of anything the Obama administration is doing that forwards Bush's police state nonsense are now falling all over themselves wanting the government to violently clash with these people and/or make sure that we all call them TERRORISTS when of course the definition is so vague that it would easily apply to, say, Occupy Wall Street or the Black Lives Matter who have already suffered the ludicrous authoritarian overreaction standard now.
These guys are shitheads and, yes, many of them have ties to Oath Keepers and groups that openly advocate violence, but until they start killing people maybe we should tone down the talk of wanting the government to quash protests we disagree with with some kind immediate, brutish response.
Once you arm yourself and take over buildings while threatening to kill anyone that tries to arrest you, you lose that cover of being a protestor.
You're just a potentially violent and armed criminal.
I don't want them harmed.
But it is a pretty hard thing to take, seeing them treated like this (and at the Bundy Ranch), while the treatment of anyone that fails the paper bag test is so...different.
One can point out the latter without wishing for the former.
What's it like on White Supremacy Al Qaeda ranch, Stanley, is there an address we can air drop some "food" to you?
You got your nigger killing gun loaded?
OWS and BLM weren't calling for the violent overthrow of the government and they weren't/aren't armed protests. At what point do you wait for their rhetoric to turn real?
Just tear gas the fuck out of these conservatardz, let them hurt themselves in their panic, there'll probably be some negligent discharge on their part, which will give the stormtroopers their signal to blitz.
Or, one sniper round to Ammon Bundy's head. That should do it. I wish there were some way I could offer my services to the FBI for just that one shot. Shit, I'd pay double taxes for a year for that privilege.
Fuck these guys for assuming that they'd pop-off CW2, bunch of John Brown wanna-bes.
No! I'm enjoying the show of these guys tweeting for snacks and socks. Let it go on a bit longer.
Yeah, I would agree with you StanleyPain, but I hate guns.
I hate that white rednecks are allowed to shit all over everything with guns in their hands and suffer no ramifications whatsoever. I also think a lot of the kill-them-all-with-drones banter from the Left directed toward these people is tongue-in-cheek. I don't think anyone is calling for the actual mass execution of people, just the kind of response from law enforcement that might be meted toward protesters in a city.
If this was a hotel workers strike over overtime pay in Sacramento, and everybody brought a gun to make some kind of point, how do you think things would turn out? Keep in mind a peaceful BLM protest was just shot up by white supremacists.
I will agree that many of the leftists calls for drone strikes and such are facetious.
It's basically a pointing out of the hypocrisy that we see on a regular basis. People peacefully protesting the killing of an unarmed civillian get tear gas and billy clubs, but others who camp out on a bridge and point loaded guns at police officers get nothing.
My personal stance is that violent, strong-armed militarized police actions are wrong, and should not be used on anyone. And the quickest way for that to happen is for violent, strong-armed militarized police actions to be used on everyone.
I'm not saying they should all be killed, but a lot of them should get maimed.
|Fezren - 2016-01-05 |
My prediction is that everything will end peacefully. They have a lot more support than you lefties think they do, and the feds have no real reason to cause an incident because they really aren't hurting anything.
I think they're being overly dramatic and picking a fight they can't win, but I also think that anyone who calls them terrorists is an intellectually dishonest shithead. How can a group that inspires no terror whatsoever be considered terrorists? They haven't threatened to take any aggressive action whatsoever, they haven't hurt anyone, they haven't even damaged any property.
I get tired of hearing the comparison to Waco and Ruby Ridge also. They aren't really the same at all. If you disagree, again I have to say you are either being intellectually dishonest or you're just an idiot that doesn't know what happened in either incidents or how to make a valid comparison.
And the answer to the question, what would happen if these were all black or arab guys? The only thing that would be different is the sympathy they'd get from the hypocritical lefty fucks calling these guys terrorists.
The lefties are really letting their hatred show.
SolRo, stay classy you ridiculous piece of shit.
infinite zest, fuck you, and fuck Portland too.
HA HAHA HAAHHAHA.
Waugh, I love you.
Fuck you too, whoever you are. Did you read what I wrote or were blinded by "Portland?" A better way of phrasing it might have been "don't move to Oregon." We don't want you either.
they're not terrorists in the modern sense of "attacking civilian populations in order to make psychological impacts against opposing governments", but they are committing a very large act of propaganda by the deed, which is the basic idea of terrorism.
if the government does nothing, they get to say the beat the government. point militia.
if the government does anything remotely aggressive, they get to be vindicated in the rightist press/web, and possibly become martyrs (ironyyyyyyyyy). point militia.
they've actually devised a wonderful double-bind.
All the government has to do is wait them out. They aren't garnering any public sympathy -- even the guys they're ostensibly doing this for don't want them to -- and when they finally run out of snacks, they'll humiliate themselves with surrender, not a heroic stand.
Bort, i personally agree with you, especially since i really would like the whole thing to avoid violence. the sympathy they are garnering is entirely on the right; the more extreme end a la the oath keepers, &c &c
|Ocyrus - 2016-01-06 |
Stars for deer carnage.
|tesla_weapon - 2016-01-06 |
How disappointing. 6 grandpas in cowboy hats does not a militia make. They're breaking the law right? They will at least be arrested? If anything they should be charged with being morons. There's something in the constitution about being stupid isn't there? Also, they wouldn't really shoot a police officer would they? That would be monumentally stupid.
There's photos of Al Bundy sitting down with a bunch of reporters around him, surely some smart cop can just pretend to be a reporter and then just put the wanker in cuffs? Maybe all the righties here are correct in saying that they have support, and they have friends in the Beaurau of Land Management and know some National Parks rangers high up in the chain of command.
They're saying they did nothing wrong, since the building was unoccupied (so the analogy of running into a government building during business hours with a gun is a little off, as then they'd be shot on site no matter their race or creed) but the movement's pretty dumb. Think of it this way: would you defend your friend who was out in the forest and accidentally dropped their lit cigarette butt, lit a firecracker or started a BBQ which started a forest fire that spread, causing damage to federal and potentially private property? If you're like me, you probably would but if he or she was caught then you wouldn't put up much of a fuss for their negligence if they got jail time.
Here, the arson was deliberate. And that's something I can't get behind. Burns is a tiny little place so there's not much to catch on fire, but that doesn't change the fact that arson is arson.
|chumbucket - 2016-01-06 |
This nation is hilarious.
|Void 71 - 2016-01-06 |
My only problem with these guys is that they're not calling for the abolition of the Constitution and a return to the Articles of Confederation. You can't protest a strong centralized federal government while clutching a copy of the document that gave birth to it. Well, you can, but it's a bit like protesting gay marriage while beating off to tranny porn.
|John Holmes Motherfucker - 2016-01-06 |
Got myself a Netflix membership for Christmas, and now I have no idea what's going on the world. What is this about?
That's a rhetorical question. I'll google it.
Whatcha been watching Mr. Motherfucker? I just finished re-watching The Rockford Files, and that Making a Murderer thing.
Hi John! How are you? I've been worried about you, I am glad you are OK.
I should really get my own; I'm still leaching off my ex housemate's ex girlfriend's dad's account, whom I met for approx. 30 seconds once. It's the maximum number of users you can get on an account, but there's a lot of "Because you liked My Little Pony Friendship is Magic" probably showing up next to "Because you liked Narcos.." plus I usually have to use it at 2 in the morning or so, because everybody else is on there the rest of the time..
Narcos is really good, although I didn't like the Scorsese-style narration, and definitely watch Beasts of No Nation, which is the best movie of the year but sadly probably won't get considered for awards because it was a Netflix film. Animation-wise Bojack Horseman (season 2) is really good, and I enjoyed the fuck out of F is for Family, for all six episodes anyway..
I like both MLP and Narcos equally, just saying they're very different content, unless there's some fan fiction to prove it.. I wonder who Pablo Escobar would be in the MLP universe..
|EvilHomer - 2016-01-07 |
Some questions for everybody; answer however you like, because every viewpoint is valuable:
1. How do we define the word "terrorist"? Are the militia terrorists? What about the Hammonds, or the peaceful protesters who were on-site days before?
2. What do you believe the proper response should be? Which authorities should handle this situation, and in what way?
3. How did you feel about Waco, Ferguson, or OWS? Do you believe the authorities responded appropriately during those events?
4. How much of threat, directly, do you believe terrorists pose to you or your loved ones?
5. Is it wise to curtail liberties in the name of national security? Ultimately, which is more valuable - freedom, or safety?
6. How appropriate is the name "Y'all Qaeda", given that it alludes to a group financed, trained, and in at least some cases actively directed by, the US military and CIA?
7. Is casual racism and the dehumanization of sociopolitical outsiders acceptable? If not, can exceptions sometimes be made, if the targets of our contempt are Bad People?
8. How has America changed since George W Bush left office?
"Is it wise to curtail liberties in the name of national security? Ultimately, which is more valuable - freedom, or safety?"
This is not a well-formed question, because it seems to be calling for having an absolute of one or an absolute of the other. Security and freedom are both necessary, but there will inevitably be points at which tradeoffs are called for.
Goodness gracious, Homer! That's a peck of questions.
The Paiute Tribe had their presser yesterday. Some highlights.
"They just need to get the hell out of here," said Jarvis Kennedy, a member of the tribal council. "They didn't ask anybody, we don't want them here...our little kids are sitting at home when they should be in school."
"We as a tribe view that this is still our land no matter who's living on it," Rodrique said.
Rodrique said the tribe never ceded its rights to the land. It works with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to preserve archaeological sites.
"We feel strongly because we have had a good working relationship with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge," she said. "We view them as a protector of our cultural rights in that area."
The tribal council met with archaeologists at the refuge Tuesday. Tribal leaders said they're worried the militants could damage archaeological sites.
The multiple question questions are frustrating, but I'll give it a go...
1. These guys are hilariously misguided sovereign citizens and if the words "sovereign citizen" don't make you LOL then welp.
2. The feds should rope off the nature preserve to everyone. Give 'em a few days in the cold with no press and see what happens.
3. This question is kinda fucked because those three things are nothing at all alike.
4. No threat to me at all but I don't live in the area. I'm sure someone is pissed they are missing work to stay home with their kids because the local schools are closed for MEN WITH GUNS.
5. See Bort's reply.
6. You might be confusing Al Qaeda with Mujahideen.
7. No, but these folks are making it super easy. Welcome to the internet.
8. Straight to hell on a greased slide.
Sexy Duck Cop
1) Anyone who uses the threat of violence to advance a political agenda without a reasonable belief they are acting in self-defense. Usually, but not always, non-state actors.
2) Starve them out and arrest them when they run out of beer.
3) You're asking aseveral unrelated questions here, and I'
m typing on a phone.
4) Minimal, but it does exist. Just because Bush exaggerated the threat doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are people who want us dead. Keeping them busy abroad helps keep them away from us.
5) Never liked this question. It's loaded. Are we in direct, immediate danger? Then safety. Is there a vague, abstract threat that might never materialize? Freedom.
7) Also way too broad. Muslims and Pol Pot supporters are both "outsiders". I can't answer that.
8) Way more liberal, largely due to technology, but the threat of regressing to reactionary fear is always one terrorist attack away.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|