WTF is going on in Oregon?

[FillJackson]

just saw this on my twitter

"I am scared to death," says resident of #Burns Oregon as armed militants enter town, take over a federal facility and talk of martyrdom.

I talked to Ryan Bundy on the phone again. He said they're willing to kill and be killed if necessary. #OregonUnderAttack

[FillJackson]

Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html)
"After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation."

The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.

The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.

Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.

In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute." :facepalm

It's that Cliven Bundy bullshit again.

[GIF REACTION]

Sup Phil

[ROCSteady]

I thought the West Coast and particularly states like Oregon were supposed to be all peaceful because of all the forward thinkers and whatnot?

Isn't Oregon where most hippies, pacifists and inclusive folk wanna pilgrimage to nowadays?

[dunksby]

What religion do these peaceful men adhere to?

[FillJackson]

I thought the West Coast and particularly states like Oregon were supposed to be all peaceful because of all the forward thinkers and whatnot?

Isn't Oregon where most hippies, pacifists and inclusive folk wanna pilgrimage to nowadays?

Yeah, but that's the cities of the Western part of the state. The Eastern part is probably closer to Idaho.

Also the folks doing this are not from Oregon.

[TripleA]

Oregon is actually not that liberal outside of Eugene and Portland.
Eastern Oregon is pretty much Idaho. Their is lot of hardcore militants in the western part of the country.

[DonDadda59]

So from what I gather an armed 'militia' commandeered a government facility in order to protest the arrest of some arsonists... And this armed 'militia' is claiming they are willing to kill or be martyred for their cause?

Back in my day they used to call that 'Terrorism'.

[TripleA]

So from what I gather an armed 'militia' commandeered a government facility in order to protest the arrest of some arsonists... And this armed 'militia' is claiming they are willing to kill or be martyred for their cause?

Back in my day they used to call that 'Terrorism'.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/militia_continue_occupation_of.html
:(

[TripleA]

Law enforcement agencies are remaining mum about plans to end militiamen's occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters.

A splinter group of militia in town to support a local ranching family took over the federal office Saturday afternoon in a development that stunned the community and visiting militia.

Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said in a statement late Saturday that "a collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution."

Here's a summary of key elements of this unfolding story:

Damn

[TripleA]

[QUOTE]The backdrop: Militiamen from several states came to Burns to protest the impending imprisonment of two Harney County ranchers. They participated in several community meetings and organized a rally and protest march that occurred without controversy on Saturday. The march lasted about an hour and involved about 300 people

[DonDadda59]

Hopefully this doesn't turn into another Waco standoff...

[TripleA]

But first the fear had to be faced.

"I am scared to death," said Shonna McKay, wearing a black t-shirt with "Harney County Stand Down" imprinted on the back. "Everyone here should know what your agenda is."

Another resident said locals would be left to "patch the holes" and "bury the dead" should events take a turn for the worst.

Brandon Curtiss, who identified himself as president of an Idaho militia group, repeatedly tried to tamp down fears of violence.

"We are not coming into your town to shoot it up," Curtiss said. "We won't fire anything unless we're fired upon."

Curtiss said he and others were there to support the Hammonds in what they see as an illegal prosecution. Some militia members contend the federal government had no authority to prosecute the Hammonds for setting range fires because it doesn't rightfully control land in Harney County. Militia members Friday night repeatedly cited their determination to act to uphold the Constitution.

Local residents questioned militia members about social media posts that urged violence or otherwise invoked threatening language. Curtiss tried to distance himself and others, saying they had no control over such rhetoric.
What the heck.

[TripleA]

Hopefully this doesn't turn into another Waco standoff...
What gives them any legal protection when they aren't even from the county.

[BasedTom]

northwest front maybe?

they have a pretty flag at least

[Nick Young]

I thought the West Coast and particularly states like Oregon were supposed to be all peaceful because of all the forward thinkers and whatnot?

Isn't Oregon where most hippies, pacifists and inclusive folk wanna pilgrimage to nowadays?
Every so often, a Charles Manson rises.

[HitandRun Reggie]

Right in the middle of waterfowl season on the refuge on a Sunday during Christmas vacation. Ewwww I bet these guys are going to piss off a lot of hunters if their action shuts down the entire refuge.

[Kungfro]

Worth reading up on the Hammond's and what their sentence is about. Long read, but fascinating. Government has been ****ing with that family for years. Although with the source being "theconservitivetreehouse" maybe take it with a grain of salt.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

[Trollsmasher]

so their 'terrorism' sentence is a based on a witness who was 13 years old at the time, became estranged from the family later and was clearly mentally ill as even the judge noted his testimony was not credible:lol

that all also happened after decades of goverment bullying

no wonder Americans love their 2nd Amendment so much if this is a typical example of the tyrannical federal goverment

[Take Your Lumps]

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width960/img/oregonian/photo/2016/01/02/burns-protest-55fff86bc2e62e94.jpg

:oldlol: at the random "Go Home BLM" sign. Like there are black people in Oregon.

[Trollsmasher]

http://image.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width960/img/oregonian/photo/2016/01/02/burns-protest-55fff86bc2e62e94.jpg

:oldlol: at the random "Go Home BLM" sign. Like there are black people in Oregon.
Bureau of Land Management m8

[Akrazotile]

http://s28.postimg.org/bw4n696bx/burns_3_jpg_w_640.jpg


Nice lookin family :confusedshrug:

[highwhey]

white privilege

[Akrazotile]

I don't know the backstory to all this so I can't obviously form an opinion on who is 'right' in this case. But it would be absolutely no surprise if the government was purposely trying to nitpick and ensnare particular people in this region for their political views. Just a couple years ago we had the IRS doing the exact same thing.

This is the problem with libtards. Nothing else matters to them but gay marriage. And some dumb ideology about the nature of wealth gaps which they have no understanding of.

The actual purpose of government, history of government, methods of government, abuses of government, etc. are not things they care about.

If a politicians says "Hey! I don't hate black people. I want gays to get married. Lemme get your vote!"

The average stupid liberal dummy will vote for them, no questions asked. The government preys on lazy people with easy TRIGGERS.

Gay marriage and global warming are the liberals' triggers. Any politician who stands up and makes an empty speech about that shit will get hordes of ignorant shmucks looking for a way to be superior into their corner. Meanwhile? They give the government carte blanche to illegally go after anyone who opposes them, even with mere speech, on anything else - foreign policy, taxation, domestic rights, etc.

Gays and global warming. Liberal priorities. All day errday.

[FrobeShaw]

the same people who jump on other protesters have a mighty change of tune here. surprising

[TripleA]

the same people who jump on other protesters have a mighty change of tune here. surprising

They are literally carrying guns and making threats. Their Is one thing to peacefully protest and it's another thing to harass and cause disturbances.

[FrobeShaw]

They are literally carrying guns and tweeted threats.
they're also white so it's okay

[DonDadda59]

white privilege

Even the Radicalized Whites experience it. What a time to be alive. :applause:

Sooooooooo... When can we expect the National Guard to be called in? :confusedshrug:

[Akrazotile]

they're also white so it's okay


This is how the simple, untrained eye sees it.

But the reality is, it's deeper than that.

People like this, who are articulating their positions with some degree of measure and reason, and coordinating this thing with some degree of organization, seem more intelligent. And we perceive that as being able to be worked with. Intelligent people can be reasoned with, and also usually have greater prospects and therefore more to lose. It's a fact. We find intelligent people less threatening for a reason. We fear wild, belligerent, incoherent angry mobs. Calculated people who can articulate feel less threatening.

The fastest growing demographic in the country at the last census was Asians. But you don't hear people complaining about that, even though they're not white. Because we understand what Asian immigrants are generally about, we understand their culture, and we know they're not here just to make a mess.

Black Lives Matters protesters are just the worst of the worst. Look at what goes in their rallies. Look at what went on at the Superdome after Katrina. People do not find black culture and large groups of black people very cuddly and disarming. Most people find it quite scary, tbh. And that is based on their culture, and all the examples we have seen of what usually happens when they gather, be it at the Source Awards, Essence week, protests, wherever. Ridiculousness almost always ensues.

Human brains process information based on all the known factors. Nobody has to apologize for that. While I personally disagree with the approach these guys are taking, the fact is they don't come off as senseless and unpredictable as a rabbid group of blm protestors. That's just the way it is. You can be upset all you want about the reality of that situation. But the rest of us have the right to see the situation as we please. And if you want to tell yourself its only about race, go ahead. Youre wrong, but that's probably more comforting for you than accepting the truth.

[FrobeShaw]

armed occupation is the greatest form of articulate discourse. more essays please

[TripleA]

He dindu nuffin all he did was set fires on federal land when their was drought.

[Akrazotile]

armed occupation is the greatest form of articulate discourse. more essays please


Just givin you the truth. Which I know you dont particularly care for.

[FrobeShaw]

No, you're really not. You're obsessed with "liberals" and think you're fighting for a cause on a random basketball message board.

[NumberSix]

they're also white so it's okay
Well, they're a militia so that does put them onto different legal ground than a bunch of rioters.

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, but are people going to ever understand the court system? If you have a grievance, you handle it through the legal system. Not by rioting or occupying public property. These guys are just as dumb as the blacklivesmatter numbskulls who decide they're going to occupy public streets, highways or cause problems at an airport.

If you think you have been wronged, file a lawsuit.

[dude77]

I heard that they sentenced the hammond people for the fire thing .. they served their sentence and now the feds went them to serve more time .. that's bullshit .. I don't know if that's the main reason they're doing this though

[DonDadda59]

He dindu nuffin all he did was set fires on federal land when their was drought.

The convicted arsonists have distanced themselves from the gun-toting maniacs. Their lawyer released a statement not too long ago saying that Bundy and his terrorist buddies don't represent his clients or their views. The Hammonds (the convicted arsonists) are planning on turning themselves in tomorrow to serve their 5 year prison sentence. Of course the armed terrorists are saying that they will fight against any such move... Against the wishes of the people in question.


The Harney County Sheriff's office said Sunday that the group of protesters claimed to be part of "militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."

-NBC News


Just your run of the mill Al Craqa operatives doing what they do.


In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html


http://i.imgur.com/UdTfs.gif

[TripleA]

What happen was they were sentenced for a sentence lower than the 5 year minimum in a federal act. Now the federal government wants them to serve the rest of the five years. I think the federal government is overcharging in this case but the Occupiers are fools because their occupying public property and doing nothing but creating more problems. They probably actually don't care about this case they care more of the fact the U.S government can establish protected lands like the one their occupying and make them have to accept the laws in those lands.

[FrobeShaw]

The convicted arsonists have distanced themselves from the gun-toting maniacs. Their lawyer released a statement not too long ago saying that Bundy and his terrorist buddies don't represent his clients or their views. The Hammonds (the convicted arsonists) are planning on turning themselves in tomorrow to serve their 5 year prison sentence. Of course the armed terrorists are saying that they will fight against any such move... Against the wishes of the people in question.


The Harney County Sheriff's office said Sunday that the group of protesters claimed to be part of "militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States."

-NBC News


Just your run of the mill Al Craqa operatives doing what they do.


In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he added. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html


http://i.imgur.com/UdTfs.gif
articulate and civilized :bowdown:

[DonDadda59]

What happen was they were sentenced for a sentence lower than the 5 year minimum in a federal act. Now the federal government wants them to serve the rest of the five years. I think the federal government is overcharging in this case but the Occupiers are fools because their occupying public property and doing nothing but creating more problems. They probably actually don't care about this case they care more of the fact the U.S government can establish protected lands like the one their occupying and make them have to accept the laws in those lands.

The terrorists don't care about the Hammonds, they're using them as an excuse to do what they're doing in one town/county. If you listen to what the leader of the 'militia' is saying- they are planning on seizing federal buildings and land to use them as they see fit. This is armed treason against the United States, an insurrection. They are hoping that other 'militias' nationwide will rise up and do the same thing.

[TripleA]

The terrorists don't care about the Hammonds, they're using them as an excuse to do what they're doing in one town/county. If you listen to what the leader of the 'militia' is saying- they are planning on seizing federal buildings and land to use them as they see fit. This is armed treason against the United States, an insurrection. They are hoping that other 'militias' nationwide will rise up and do the same thing.

Pretty much they want to be immune to the laws of federal government while my ass will be fined badly if I litter in a protected area.

[DonDadda59]

The story about/statement from the convicted arsonists-


Oregon ranchers reject Cliven Bundy family occupation

BURNS, Ore. - A group of angry anti-government protesters have occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon in what they say is an act of solidarity for a pair of ranchers facing jail time for burning government land.

However, the Hammond family, the Oregon ranchers at the center of the dispute, say they don't want them there, reports CBS affiliate KOIN in Portland, Ore.

Ammon Bundy - the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in an armed standoff with the government over grazing rights - told The Oregonian on Saturday that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for militia members to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."

The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-ranchers-reject-cliven-bundy-family-occupation/



The people they're supposedly standing up for are telling them to f*ck off. But that's no matter, they're gonna party like it's 1861.

So articulate and brave. Gay marriage. :applause:

[Akrazotile]

The story about/statement from the convicted arsonists-


Oregon ranchers reject Cliven Bundy family occupation

BURNS, Ore. - A group of angry anti-government protesters have occupied a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon in what they say is an act of solidarity for a pair of ranchers facing jail time for burning government land.

However, the Hammond family, the Oregon ranchers at the center of the dispute, say they don't want them there, reports CBS affiliate KOIN in Portland, Ore.

Ammon Bundy - the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in an armed standoff with the government over grazing rights - told The Oregonian on Saturday that he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for militia members to come help him. He said "this is not a time to stand down. It's a time to stand up and come to Harney County," where Burns is located. Below the video is this statement: "(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."

The Hammonds said they have not welcomed the Bundy's help.

"Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family," the Hammonds' lawyer W. Alan Schroeder wrote to Sheriff David Ward.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-ranchers-reject-cliven-bundy-family-occupation/



The people they're supposedly standing up for are telling them to f*ck off. But that's no matter, they're gonna party like it's 1861.

So articulate and brave. Gay marriage. :applause:


That's why I was just speaking in general about these militia organizations and their interaction with the govt, as well as how we perceive different groups and their protests.

First thing I said was I dont know the specifics of this situation so I'm not taking any sides on the individual matter. Just like I said when stories like Michael Brown and Eric Gardner broke. I said let's not jump to either side right away but hear the facts first as they come out.

All Ive said in here relates to more general topics. So portraying me as having taken any side in this thing would be false.

[Akrazotile]

In fact, even tho I am geberally small govt, I am in favor of the federal govt comandeering sensitive lands and ecosystems for preservation purposes. It's too temptng for smaller factions to squabble over them.

So if this guy did burn down a forest just bc it was considered federal land and h was protesting big govt, then I say you have to punish him. It wouldnt surprise me if that happened. But someone else in this thread made mention of a very shoddy trial etc and that also would not surprise me at all.

So I dont know the specifics and I dont claim to. Im just telling you why it's not the exact same situation as a blm protest. You can belive it or not, like it or not, or do whatever you want. Im just tellin you how some people see it.

[NumberSix]

It's statistically proven that Al Craqa are the most violent people in America

Why can't those peckerwoods just be normal civilians
Lol? No it isn't. The blacks are literally more violent than everybody else combined.

[TripleA]

Lol? No it isn't. The blacks are literally more violent than everybody else combined.

He is a white troll don't respond to him.

[Akrazotile]

The terrorists don't care about the Hammonds, they're using them as an excuse to do what they're doing in one town/county. If you listen to what the leader of the 'militia' is saying- they are planning on seizing federal buildings and land to use them as they see fit. This is armed treason against the United States, an insurrection. They are hoping that other 'militias' nationwide will rise up and do the same thing.


What is the difference between treason and revolt, as you see it?

Revolutionists are praised throughout history and revolution often held as an ideal today.

It's a pretty fine line methinks.

[Akrazotile]

He is a white troll don't respond to him.


Threw him on the ignore list :cheers:

1. PhantomCreep
2. Fallen Angel.


WHO ELSE WANT SOME!?

[NumberSix]

What is the difference between treason and revolt, as you see it?

Revolutionists are praised throughout history and revolution often held as an ideal today.

It's a pretty fine line methinks.
The difference is whether you win. If you win, it's a revolution. If you lose, it's treason.

[Akrazotile]

The difference is whether you win. If you win, it's a revolution. If you lose, it's treason.


:oldlol: I suppose that's well put.


Guess we'll see how it works out for these guys.

[Norcaliblunt]

Appears to be deeply rooted in the Anti-American tradition of Mormonism. Oh well I don't really care either way. Hope no one gets hurt though.

[Akrazotile]

This message is hidden because Fallen Angel is on your ignore list.

This message is hidden because Fallen Angel is on your ignore list.

This message is hidden because Fallen Angel is on your ignore list.


:roll:

[TripleA]

Looks like lardo is having a meltdown. Just stop your white.

[Nick Young]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX1EV-8UoAARCJS.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX00NgfUQAAFsbI.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX0O-FvWYAA7g9o.png
self loathing whities are the worst people in the world. You are a disgrace to your race.

[NumberSix]

self loathing whities are the worst people in the world. You are a disgrace to ALL PEOPLE.
fixed.

[DonDadda59]

self loathing whities are the worst people in the world. You are a disgrace to your race.

:no:

GOAT.

[FillJackson]

I don't know the backstory to all this so I can't obviously form an opinion on who is 'right' in this case. But it would be absolutely no surprise if the government was purposely trying to nitpick and ensnare particular people in this region for their political views.
Just a couple years ago we had the IRS doing the exact same thing.
What are you referring to with the IRS?

[Akrazotile]

What are you referring to with the IRS?



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-chairman-documents-prove-irs-political-targeting-of-conservatives/article/2568899

IRS used donor lists to hunt out people who supported any conservative causes, and made them targets for IRS audits.

[FillJackson]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-chairman-documents-prove-irs-political-targeting-of-conservatives/article/2568899

IRS used donor lists to hunt out people who supported any conservative causes, and made them targets for IRS audits.
That link does not provide any evidence for you claim.

[Akrazotile]

That link does not provide any evidence for you claim.


I just posted the first google link to the story.

This was not some secret. I don't know if you were in a coma for a month or what, but the IRS admitted it and Holder opened an investigation into them for it.

Here's a link (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-irs-idUSBRE94E02J20130515) to the reuters story.

[FillJackson]

I just posted the first google link to the story.

This was not some secret. I don't know if you were in a coma for a month or what, but the IRS admitted it and Holder opened an investigation into them for it.

Here's a link (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-irs-idUSBRE94E02J20130515) to the reuters story.
Yes, I know about the IRS story, but you have the story wrong. There was a lot of smoke in 2013 when it broke, but by 2015 the investigations concluded there was no criminal fire.
The Reuters link is from 2013.
In 2015 the Justice Department found no evidence of political discrimination. [QUOTE]No criminal charges will be filed in the two-year investigation into whether any Internal Revenue Service officials, including Lois Lerner, committed crimes in connection with the handling of tax-exemption applications by conservative groups, the Justice Department announced Friday.

[FillJackson]

The issue with the political groups the IRS was reviewing is that purely political groups are not entitled to 501(c)(4) status. This status is supposed to be for groups that promote "social welfare." However, the IRS allows some political activity, but even within the IRS this was not clearly spelled. out.

The IRS now says these groups can streamline the process if they confirm that for "past, present and future years" that "political campaign intervention involves less than 40 percent of both their spending and time" and that more than 60% of the their spending and time went to social welfare groups.

During the years of this investigation no Tea Party group was actually denied this status, but three chapters of a group called Emerge that was dedicated to developing female Democratic candidates was denied this status. They had to convert to 527 status, the normal status for political groups.

[KNOW1EDGE]

The RTC predicted Al Craqa would become a thing on social media, and he was right.

#YallQaeda is trending in America :roll:

How you doing today sweety?

PM me if you need anything, I know your going through a bit of a rough patch emotionally, I am here for you. Hang in there

[Akrazotile]

Yes, I know about the IRS story, but you have the story wrong. There was a lot of smoke in 2013 when it broke, but by 2015 the investigations concluded there was no criminal fire.
The Reuters link is from 2013.
In 2015 the Justice Department found no evidence of political discrimination.

The Senate Finance Committee also concluded nothing criminal occurred. They did search for groups with "Tea Party" in their name for extra scrutiny, but also searched for groups with "Progressive" in their name


Well I cant speak to the specs of the investigation, but the IRS admitted to discriminatory practices and targetting at the time the story came out.

So I dont know why an investigation two years later would say "wait, no, it didnt happen."

Since they already admitted it.

But ok I guess.

[FillJackson]

Well I cant speak to the specs of the investigation, but the IRS admitted to discriminatory practices and targetting at the time the story came out.

So I dont know why an investigation two years later would say "wait, no, it didnt happen."

Since they already admitted it.

But ok I guess.
You have to actually point me to where they admitted discriminatory targeting because I don't remember that happening.

Which is why this scandal fizzled out.

[dunksby]

Reuters calls them protesters :lol
Protesters occupy Oregon wildlife refuge as dispute over Western range flares. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-standoff-idUSKBN0UH0N920160104)
Is it just me who thinks occupying a federal building with guns is very serious and immediately removes you from being considered a protester?

[Raymone]

Reuters calls them protesters :lol
Protesters occupy Oregon wildlife refuge as dispute over Western range flares. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-standoff-idUSKBN0UH0N920160104)
Is it just me who thinks occupying a federal building with guns is very serious and immediately removes you from being considered a protester?

If we can refer to looters breaking into stores and stealing TVs as protestors, I'm fine with referring to these gun owners as protestors.

[dunksby]

If we can refer to looters breaking into stores and stealing TVs as protestors, I'm fine with referring to these gun owners as protestors.
They have occupied a federal building using guns, maybe you can refer to them as "gun owners" and "protestors" but don't include me in your brainless circle.

[Raymone]

They have occupied a federal building using guns, maybe you can refer to them as "gun owners" and "protestors" but don't include me in your brainless circle.

But if they were black and looting/destroying instead of occupying, you'd call them protestors?

[dunksby]

But if they were black and looting/destroying instead of occupying, you'd call them protestors?
No, I called them rioters and hooligans back then, and will label anyone who destroys public and private property. Now what does that have to do with anything? These assholes have declared war on America and need to be treated as enemy combatants.

[NumberSix]

No, I called them rioters and hooligans back then, and will label anyone who destroys public and private property. Now what does that have to do with anything? These assholes have declared war on America and need to be treated as enemy combatants.
Well, it's not like they're burning down buildings, cop cars and destroying city blocks.

Don't get me wrong, I think these people are just as dumb as the BLM protestors who think it's ok to shut down a highway. But there actually is some grey legal ground here. Their beef seems to be that they don't think the federal government can claim the land in states as federal property. It would appear by the governments lack of a reaction that they don't actually know what they're able to do.

[DonDadda59]

Well, it's not like they're burning down buildings, cop cars and destroying city blocks.

Don't get me wrong, I think these people are just as dumb as the BLM protestors who think it's ok to shut down a highway. But there actually is some grey legal ground here. Their beef seems to be that they don't think the federal government can claim the land in states as federal property. It would appear by the governments lack of a reaction that they don't actually know what they're able to do.

:yaohappy:

And you actually believe that. They're waiting them out because they don't want another Waco (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er7gzj0BbSE) on their hands. The terrorists have made it clear through their discourse with the media that they are willing to shoot it out if provoked.

Right now they don't have any hostages, so the best strategy is to wait them out. They claim they are willing to occupy the facility for years, but how much supplies and patience do they really have?

[KyrieTheFuture]

YallQaeda is hilarious

Committing YeeHawed is absolutely amazing

[Akrazotile]

YallQaeda is hilarious

Committing YeeHawed is absolutely amazing


:roll:

[FillJackson]

YallQaeda is hilarious

Committing YeeHawed is absolutely amazing
I think the first notice I saw of this was someone on twitter saying the redneck caliphate had been declared.

Saw someone link to this article (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/04/3735722/meet-the-child-abusing-arsonists-at-the-center-of-the-oregon-militia-standoff/). Wow. I think the arsonists deserve their 5 years. The first arson was set to hide the fact they there were illegally hunting deer. They set the fire knowing there were campers nearby AND the fire almost killed their nephew who they told to start the fire. He was surrounded by flames and had to hide in a creek. The second fire was started during a "burn ban" because firefighters were in the area.

[Hawker]

Public land is technically the people's land anyway. It's just managed by the BLM.

[HitandRun Reggie]

The ranchers these guys are protesting for have turned themselves in to authorities , and do not endorse the protest. Which makes these guys look like idiots. What are they fighting for now? :facepalm

[dunksby]

:oldlol:

http://i.imgur.com/5ZQVKv9.jpg

[Dresta]

The spirit of Patrick Henry lives on :rockon: .

[andgar923]

:oldlol:

http://i.imgur.com/5ZQVKv9.jpg

One person's 'patriot' is another's 'terrorist'.

[Patrick Chewing]

The Feds own too much land. That needs to be changed.

[dunksby]

The spirit of Patrick Henry lives on :rockon: .
No 1500 essay from you, interesting.:lol

[Dresta]

Reuters calls them protesters :lol
Protesters occupy Oregon wildlife refuge as dispute over Western range flares. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-standoff-idUSKBN0UH0N920160104)
Is it just me who thinks occupying a federal building with guns is very serious and immediately removes you from being considered a protester?
I dunno, but it doesn't seem to remove you from being considered for and appointed Attorney General by Mr. Obama.

[97 bulls]

Why haven't the police or authorities run in and put these guys down? ???? According to Pat Chewing and UK2K, this is protocol

[dunksby]

I dunno, but it doesn't seem to remove you from being considered for and appointed Attorney General by Mr. Obama.
Your pretend scholar game is slipping, nobody mentioned Mr. Obama, come on write us an essay.

[RoseCity07]

I live in Portland and I just want to say that no one here gives a shit, no on is talking about it, and all around no one cares.

[Overdrive]

Well, they're a militia so that does put them onto different legal ground than a bunch of rioters.

I don't get this about the US. They can invade foreign countries in a heartbeat, but not a federal building? Are there any hostages?

If a militia entered a federal building in my "neutral", pacifistic country the president could and most likely would proclaim "state of exception" and stomp them with the army.

[NumberSix]

I don't get this about the US. They can invade foreign countries in a heartbeat, but not a federal building? Are there any hostages?

If a militia entered a federal building in my "neutral", pacifistic country the president could and most likely would proclaim "state of exception" and stomp them with the army.
Here's what you don't understand though. The fact that they have guns is utterly irrelevant from a legal standpoint. People keep focused on the fact that they are armed, but they haven't done anything illegal. They have not shot anybody or threatened anyone. They're legally carrying. So the fact that they have guns is not relevant.

So what do we have? We have a bunch of people gathered on public property.

Just imagine a bunch of BLM protesters gathered in some government department quietly doing interviews about how they think this department is doing injustices. Would you think the army should be sent in to "stomp them"?

[97 bulls]

Here's what you don't understand though. The fact that they have guns is utterly irrelevant from a legal standpoint. People keep focused on the fact that they are armed, but they haven't done anything illegal. They have not shot anybody or threatened anyone. They're legally carrying. So the fact that they have guns is not relevant.

So what do we have? We have a bunch of people gathered on public property.

Just imagine a bunch of BLM protesters gathered in some government department quietly doing interviews about how they think this department is doing injustices. Would you think the army should be sent in to "stomp them"?
What??? Did they? Or did they not TAKE OVER a Federal Building. And threatened anyone to deft them?

[NumberSix]

What??? Did they? Or did they not TAKE OVER a Federal Building. And threatened anyone to deft them?
Well, I don't know exactly what "take over" means. BLM "took over" an airport. That doesn't mean they were violent, threatened anybody or did anything illegal.

If BLM protestors marched around legally carrying guns, I would have no problem with that. That's a perfectly legal thing to do.

I'm not saying these militia guys haven't done anything illegal. Maybe they have. But I haven't heard of any specific thing. They do have a right to legally carry their guns and they do have a legal right to protest this government agency.

[9erempiree]

The difference here?

Police were notified of weapons being present. Same scenario as carrying a big @ss knife as long as it is visible while carrying it.

Comparing this incident to other past incidents where people were shot or killed is ridiculous. Those incidents involved suspects brandishing a weapon where law enforcement had no clue what the intention was.

It's like me telling you to come over to my house because I want to showoff my new gun versus you just coming to my house and I pull the gun out. There is a level of threat in the second scenario.

[UK2K]

Why haven't the police or authorities run in and put these guys down? ???? According to Pat Chewing and UK2K, this is protocol
Is it?

Who is in danger?

Amazingly, people can literally burn down buildings, and you're cool with it, but you think we should drop napalm on some dudes who are sitting in a welcome center 100 miles from anything important.

What have they destroyed? Who is at risk? Why do the rioters in Baltimore get space to destroy, but when these guys sit in an empty building, you think police should slaughter them all?

Biased much?

[97 bulls]

Well, I don't know exactly what "take over" means. BLM "took over" an airport. That doesn't mean they were violent, threatened anybody or did anything illegal.

If BLM protestors marched around legally carrying guns, I would have no problem with that. That's a perfectly legal thing to do.

I'm not saying these militia guys haven't done anything illegal. Maybe they have. But I haven't heard of any specific thing. They do have a right to legally carry their guns and they do have a legal right to protest this government agency.
Correct me if I'm weong, but didn't they threaten to SHOOT anyone that tries to stop them?

[UK2K]

Correct me if I'm weong, but didn't they threaten to SHOOT anyone that tries to stop them?
Ok, I will.

You're wrong.

They said they would defend themselves if forcibly removed.

They never said 'we'll shoot you'.

Maybe if you stopped trying to phrase your posts with lies and obvious slants, people may take you more seriously.

[97 bulls]

Is it?

Who is in danger?

Amazingly, people can literally burn down buildings, and you're cool with it, but you think we should drop napalm on some dudes who are sitting in a welcome center 100 miles from anything important.

What have they destroyed? Who is at risk? Why do the rioters in Baltimore get space to destroy, but when these guys sit in an empty building, you think police should slaughter them all?

Biased much?
No. Remember what I stated in the other thread. Blacks arent afforded the same discretion. I would much rather any situation to end peacefully. My whole argument is that and ONLY that. You were the one saying that the police and or authorities will come in guns a blaze and sort out the who what when and why later.

[97 bulls]

Ok, I will.

You're wrong.

They said they would defend themselves if forcibly removed.

They never said 'we'll shoot you'.

Maybe if you stopped trying to phrase your posts with lies and obvious slants, people may take you more seriously.
Lol. What does defend themselves mean???

[NumberSix]

Correct me if I'm weong, but didn't they threaten to SHOOT anyone that tries to stop them?
I haven't heard that, but obviously if their making terrorist threats, that changes things.

[highwhey]

Ok, I will.

You're wrong.

They said they would defend themselves if forcibly removed.

They never said 'we'll shoot you'.

Maybe if you stopped trying to phrase your posts with lies and obvious slants, people may take you more seriously.
What does defending themselves entail? Defending themselves from what? They are breaking the law. Period. Learn some deductive skills you imbecile.

[NumberSix]

Lol. What does defend themselves mean???
I assume it means if this agency attempts to use force against them, they will defend themselves.

To be clear, I would not advocate that. If the government does use force, I would advocate complying. Do what they say and if you believe your rights have been violated, handle it in court.

[UK2K]

What does defending themselves entail? Defending themselves from what? They are breaking the law. Period. Learn some deductive skills you imbecile.
I dont know what it entails.

But if you want to consider it threatening, fine, when they decide to give up, put them in jail.

But why would you ever decide to send in law enforcement when they're no threat to anyone? Are you that eager to risk someone's life to prove a point? You all despise law enforcement so much, yet now you want them to go in and slaughter citizens of this country.

They shows the kind of people you are. The kind willing to risk people's lives for no reason, to try and make a political statement.

I'll sit here all day and tell you they're out of line, and are all stupid for doing what they're doing, but if you want to risk your own life to set off a firefight for no reason, then go do it yourself, and stop screaming for the very people you demonize on this board every day to risk their lives when they don't need to.

[97 bulls]

I dont know what it entails.
Sure you do. You just don't want to acknowledge it.



But why would you ever decide to send in law enforcement when they're no threat to anyone? Are you that eager to risk someone's life to prove a point? You all despise law enforcement so much, yet now you want them to go in and slaughter citizens of this country.

They shows the kind of people you are. The kind willing to risk people's lives for no reason, to try and make a political statement.

I'll sit here all day and tell you they're out of line, and are all stupid for doing what they're doing, but if you want to risk your own life to set off a firefight for no reason, then go do it yourself, and stop screaming for the very people you demonize on this board every day to risk their lives when they don't need to.
I know you're responding to another poster, but I must step in. YOU said that it's proper procedure for law enforcement to shoot first and sorry out the details later. Now you're kinda backtracking here.

[97 bulls]

I assume it means if this agency attempts to use force against them, they will defend themselves.

To be clear, I would not advocate that. If the government does use force, I would advocate complying. Do what they say and if you believe your rights have been violated, handle it in court.
This is what I like about you Six. We may disagree but at least you're reasonable.

[jongib369]

Wait why are they doing this?

What did Bundy do exactly?

[Dresta]

Your pretend scholar game is slipping, nobody mentioned Mr. Obama, come on write us an essay.
What are you babbling about, boy? I don't always have time to write replies to baboons like yourself who don't even remotely know the history of what they're talking about. The US has a long history of Civil Disobedience, and if the government had dealt with every situation like you seem to be suggesting, they'd have killed a whole load of people, completely needlessly.

I mean, this post:


No, I called them rioters and hooligans back then, and will label anyone who destroys public and private property. Now what does that have to do with anything? These assholes have declared war on America and need to be treated as enemy combatants.
:facepalm

'Enemy combatants'? 'Declared war on America'?

Get real. The US Federal Government is not America, or can't you understand that? It is an administrative/bureaucratic cancer that is sucking the life-blood of many of its citizens - it is quickly becoming a reprehensible monster, and if it took the kind of action you seem to want, it'd be even more so.

The blind worship of government is the most un-American thing imaginable, so stop it, or i'll accuse you of 'declaring war on America.'

And lol @ your intellectual insecurity - one does not have to be a 'scholar' to read or care about history, or to have opinions regarding politics and society - one only needs to be human. People like you, who think no point longer than a few lines is worth making, who get their politics usually from comedic types, and their history and economics from journalists, are only half-human in my book - gaping apes just waiting for the next means of gratuitous stimulation, which is almost the only thing you do (games, films, tv, sport, internet, porn, etc.).

The modern age and its brevity :bowdown: - hallelujah!!!


No. Remember what I stated in the other thread. Blacks arent afforded the same discretion. I would much rather any situation to end peacefully. My whole argument is that and ONLY that. You were the one saying that the police and or authorities will come in guns a blaze and sort out the who what when and why later.
Blacks were and have been afforded the same discretion, repeatedly, and one person who made use of this 'discretion' went on to become US Attorney General under Barack Obama (Eric Holder). They weren't needlessly stormed by Federal troops, like you seem to want done here - no, actually their demands were acquiesced to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211350/Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-armed-took-protest-Columbia-occupied-school-office-FIVE-days.html


Even though university officials initially decried their actions as they went against the school's rules, given the circumstances, they found it appropriate to rename the space the Malcolm X Liberation Center and declined to press any punitive charges against the students involved.


:roll:

Unlike the nihilistic rioters in Ferguson and elsewhere (they riot for the joy of destruction - don't pretend it's anything else), these people haven't actually hurt anyone, or damaged any property. It's not so simple as saying 'dey breakin da law: send in da feds' - for that is the very express purpose of Civil Disobedience, and black people have made very good use of it in America.

Basically, when it is unruly blacks engaged in Civil Disobedience, they have a legitimate gripe, and deserve to be given what they want in every respect; whereas, when 'rednecks' engage in the same behaviour, they should all be taken down for BREAKIN DA LAW!!! Sorry buddy, but if you have a grasping and excessively powerful Federal superstate, abusing people and bullying them off their own property, in a country renowned for the spirit of rebellion (not to mention liberty), then these sorts of things are both necessary and inevitable. Dealing with them like Bashar-al-Assad would is generally not the way things are done in the USA, and if it were, the Black Civil Rights movement would never have got very far, that's for sure.

[dunksby]

What are you babbling about, boy? I don't always have time to write replies to baboons like yourself who don't even remotely know the history of what they're talking about. The US has a long history of Civil Disobedience, and if the government had dealt with every situation like you seem to be suggesting, they'd have killed a whole load of people, completely needlessly.

I mean, this post:


:facepalm

'Enemy combatants'? 'Declared war on America'?

Get real. The US Federal Government is not America, or can't you understand that? It is an administrative/bureaucratic cancer that is sucking the life-blood of many of its citizens - it is quickly becoming a reprehensible monster, and if it took the kind of action you seem to want, it'd be even more so.

The blind worship of government is the most un-American thing imaginable, so stop it, or i'll accuse you of 'declaring war on America.'

And lol @ your intellectual insecurity - one does not have to be a 'scholar' to read or care about history, or to have opinions regarding politics and society - one only needs to be human. People like you, who think no point longer than a few lines is worth making, who get their politics usually from comedic types, and their history and economics from journalists, are only half-human in my book - gaping apes just waiting for the next means of gratuitous stimulation, which is almost the only thing you do (games, films, tv, sport, internet, porn, etc.).

The modern age and its brevity :bowdown: - hallelujah!!!


Blacks were and have been afforded the same discretion, repeatedly, and one person who made use of this 'discretion' went on to become US Attorney General under Barack Obama (Eric Holder). They weren't needlessly stormed by Federal troops, like you seem to want done here - no, actually their demands were acquiesced to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211350/Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-armed-took-protest-Columbia-occupied-school-office-FIVE-days.html



:roll:

Unlike the nihilistic rioters in Ferguson and elsewhere (they riot for the joy of destruction - don't pretend it's anything else), these people haven't actually hurt anyone, or damaged any property. It's not so simple as saying 'dey breakin da law: send in da feds' - for that is the very express purpose of Civil Disobedience, and black people have made very good use of it in America.

Basically, when it is unruly blacks engaged in Civil Disobedience, they have a legitimate gripe, and deserve to be given what they want in every respect; whereas, when 'rednecks' engage in the same behaviour, they should all be taken down for BREAKIN DA LAW!!! Sorry buddy, but if you have a grasping and excessively powerful Federal superstate, abusing people and bullying them off their own property, in a country renowned for the spirit of rebellion (not to mention liberty), then these sorts of things are both necessary and inevitable. Dealing with them like Bashar-al-Assad would is generally not the way things are done in the USA, and if it were, the Black Civil Rights movement would never have got very far, that's for sure.
Now that's better :applause: :bowdown:

[UK2K]

Sure you do. You just don't want to acknowledge it.



I know you're responding to another poster, but I must step in. YOU said that it's proper procedure for law enforcement to shoot first and sorry out the details later. Now you're kinda backtracking here.
You keep making shit up... not going to respond anymore. I never anything remotely close to that, and I also acknowledge common sense would say why not cut the power and water, let tem freeze, and arrest them when they come out since, as I said, nobody is in danger.

Or you can just keep telling me what I said... cause your version is what you want to hear.

I said cops should shoot first and ask questions later? Dude... I don't know if your brain only allows you to absorb specific bits and pieces during these discussions ... but you're an idiot. That's twice in a page where you tried to tell me what I said, and neither instance was remotely close to anything I've ever said.

[97 bulls]

[QUOTEWhat part of their job did they not do properly? The only issue I saw with their behavior was driving so close to a suspect with a gun. They should have approached from a distance, but as I said, doing so without backup could lead to a shootout in the middle of a park[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]What part of their job did they not do properly? The only issue I saw with their behavior was driving so close to a suspect with a gun. They should have approached from a distance, but as I said, doing so without backup could lead to a shootout in the middle of a park[QUOTE]

These are your quotes UK2UK. It seems you feel they had no choice but to approach this person with a gun. You feel they did their job "properly". You feel that them not staying at bay and waiting for backup and trying to defuse the situation would've resulted in a shootout. So they had to go in post haste. Translation guns a blazing. Seeing as how they drove up and shot the kid within seconds.

Granted. You didnt use the exact phrase "guns a blazing". But thats what those cops did to that kid, and you agreed wirh it and called their actions proper. My stance was that If this is the proper response, why dont they always do this? Like in this situation

[UK2K]

[QUOTE]What part of their job did they not do properly? The only issue I saw with their behavior was driving so close to a suspect with a gun. They should have approached from a distance, but as I said, doing so without backup could lead to a shootout in the middle of a park[QUOTE]

These are your quotes UK2UK. It seems you feel they had no choice but to approach this person with a gun.

That's not what I said, at all. I don't know if you have trouble comprehending words, or you are intentionally making shit up. Find me where I said 'they had no choice but to approach the person with a gun'. They most definitely could have waited, but there could be 1000 reasons why they didn't.



You feel they did their job "properly". You feel that them not staying at bay and waiting for backup and trying to defuse the situation would've resulted in a shootout. So they had to go in post haste. Translation guns a blazing. Seeing as how they drove up and shot the kid within seconds.
No, I said they made the decision that they felt was best, at the time. Would I have made the same decision? No, but I understand why they did it. Especially if, when they arrived, they witnessed the kid pointing the gun at people. I'd also like to point out that the officers didn't begin firing until the kid PULLED THE GUN OUT OF HIS PANTS in plain view of the police officers. Why? Why didn't he just lay down like a normal person? That's what I saw. I saw a person, with a gun, when confronted by police, pull said gun out without hesitation. A passive person, looking to avoid confrontation, would do the opposite, yes?. That's what the cops saw too, and that's why he was shot.

Was it the best decision, looking at it 6 months later, knowing what we know now? No, but AT THE TIME, IN THAT MOMENT (and that's how a jury looks at it), they determined immediate contact was the best option, and I can't sit here and say they were wrong for thinking it. And neither can you. And that's why they were not found guilty.



Granted. You didnt use the exact phrase "guns a blazing". But thats what those cops did to that kid, and you agreed wirh it and called their actions proper. My stance was that If this is the proper response, why dont they always do this? Like in this situation

Their actions were proper. There were IMMEDIATE THREATS to the safety of those around, and they decided it was the best course of action. I wouldn't have done what they did, but I was not in their shoes. If I had been, and my partner suggested we drive up, I'd have said 'let's go'.

Whose life is in danger right now? Nobody. I don't know why you keep ignoring my question, but...

So do you have a problem with them driving up on the kid, or them shooting the kid once he pulled the gun on them? What's the issue you are struggling with?

[97 bulls]

So do you have a problem with them driving up on the kid, or them shooting the kid once he pulled the gun on them? What's the issue you are struggling with?
I have a huge problem with how those officers handled that whole situation.

I don't feel they needed to pull right up on him because all that does is escalate the situation. We disagree because you called it "proper". Or to be precise, you used the word "properly". My rebuttal is, why don't they always act that way in these situations???

They didn't assess the situation. Understand, this was a response to a 911 call. ONE call at that. I'm sure they knew no one had been shot, so why carry on like that? All they had was what the 911 operator told them. Which was wrong. They didn't know he pointed the gun, they didn't see for themselves, hell he was sitting at a table when they pulled up. These officers used 0 zero, discernment. And for that, an innocent kid is dead.

Lastly, I'd have no gripe is this was how police typically handle these situations, but it's not, especially not when the suspect is white. I asked and anyone else to show different and you cant. Mind you, I'm not saying the police don't shoot white men. But when they do, it's after every other measure has been exausted. Why can't we receive the same level of patience

[97 bulls]

What are you babbling about, boy? I don't always have time to write replies to baboons like yourself who don't even remotely know the history of what they're talking about. The US has a long history of Civil Disobedience, and if the government had dealt with every situation like you seem to be suggesting, they'd have killed a whole load of people, completely needlessly.

I mean, this post:


:facepalm

'Enemy combatants'? 'Declared war on America'?

Get real. The US Federal Government is not America, or can't you understand that? It is an administrative/bureaucratic cancer that is sucking the life-blood of many of its citizens - it is quickly becoming a reprehensible monster, and if it took the kind of action you seem to want, it'd be even more so.

The blind worship of government is the most un-American thing imaginable, so stop it, or i'll accuse you of 'declaring war on America.'

And lol @ your intellectual insecurity - one does not have to be a 'scholar' to read or care about history, or to have opinions regarding politics and society - one only needs to be human. People like you, who think no point longer than a few lines is worth making, who get their politics usually from comedic types, and their history and economics from journalists, are only half-human in my book - gaping apes just waiting for the next means of gratuitous stimulation, which is almost the only thing you do (games, films, tv, sport, internet, porn, etc.).

The modern age and its brevity :bowdown: - hallelujah!!!


Blacks were and have been afforded the same discretion, repeatedly, and one person who made use of this 'discretion' went on to become US Attorney General under Barack Obama (Eric Holder). They weren't needlessly stormed by Federal troops, like you seem to want done here - no, actually their demands were acquiesced to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211350/Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-armed-took-protest-Columbia-occupied-school-office-FIVE-days.html



:roll:

Unlike the nihilistic rioters in Ferguson and elsewhere (they riot for the joy of destruction - don't pretend it's anything else), these people haven't actually hurt anyone, or damaged any property. It's not so simple as saying 'dey breakin da law: send in da feds' - for that is the very express purpose of Civil Disobedience, and black people have made very good use of it in America.

Basically, when it is unruly blacks engaged in Civil Disobedience, they have a legitimate gripe, and deserve to be given what they want in every respect; whereas, when 'rednecks' engage in the same behaviour, they should all be taken down for BREAKIN DA LAW!!! Sorry buddy, but if you have a grasping and excessively powerful Federal superstate, abusing people and bullying them off their own property, in a country renowned for the spirit of rebellion (not to mention liberty), then these sorts of things are both necessary and inevitable. Dealing with them like Bashar-al-Assad would is generally not the way things are done in the USA, and if it were, the Black Civil Rights movement would never have got very far, that's for sure.
You totally distorted what I stated and your example is a weak one. It seems that Holder and his associates staged a sit in. That's hardly cause for the Feds to get involved. They said he had a weapon, calling it 'armed' but even that seems sketchy. And they sure as hell didn't have guns

[UK2K]

I have a huge problem with how those officers handled that whole situation.

I don't feel they needed to pull right up on him because all that does is escalate the situation. We disagree because you called it "proper". Or to be precise, you used the word "properly". My rebuttal is, why don't they always act that way in these situations???

Because every situation is different. If there was a 'how to be a police officer' guide, it'd be a lot more simple. I answered your question, several times, that the officers on scene, based on the information they had and what they witnessed, felt that confronting the suspect was the quickest way to eliminate the threat. If I had to guess, I would say that they assumed the kid would drop his gun and drop to the ground the second they pulled up. Well, he didn't he pulled the gun out as they approached. That's called stupidity, and that's why it was a lawful shoot.



They didn't assess the situation. Understand, this was a response to a 911 call. ONE call at that. I'm sure they knew no one had been shot, so why carry on like that? All they had was what the 911 operator told them. Which was wrong. They didn't know he pointed the gun, they didn't see for themselves, hell he was sitting at a table when they pulled up. These officers used 0 zero, discernment. And for that, an innocent kid is dead.

Ok, so you disagree with the way they approached the suspect? Cool, me too. But at the time, in their state of mind, this is all they knew from the caller:


"It's probably fake, but you know what, he's scaring the (expletive) out of (inaudible)...He's sitting on the swing right now, but he keeps pulling it in and out of his pants and pointing it at people. Probably a juvenile, you know? … I don't know if it's real or not, you know?"

The bolded part, right there. The rest was not relayed to the officers, so they had no idea he was a juvenile, or that it may be fake.
And this:


Mr. McGinty noted that the officers had never been told that the original caller suggested the gun might be a fake. “Had the officers been aware of these qualifiers, the training officer who was driving might have approached the scene with less urgency,” said Mr. McGinty, who said the officers could not be penalized for what they did not know. “Lives may not have been put at stake.”

So police responded by showing up, pulling up (whether right or wrong), and ordering him to put his hands up (according to the WKYC link I am looking at now). He didn't, he reached for his gun. That is why he is dead. Not because of what the officer did or didn't do, but because his first reaction was to reach for, and pull out, the gun. Period.


Lastly, I'd have no gripe is this was how police typically handle these situations, but it's not, especially not when the suspect is white. I asked and anyone else to show different and you cant. Mind you, I'm not saying the police don't shoot white men. But when they do, it's after every other measure has been exausted. Why can't we receive the same level of patience

You're right, its not typical. It's also not typical for a police officer to jump onto the side of a rolling semi truck to stop it because the driver is having a heart attack, but I saw a video of just that the other day. There is no such thing as 'typical' in police work. That's what you don't seem to be able to understand. As with the military, there is no 'when this happens, you do this' and that's it. That's why a jury has to look at incidents from the officers state of mind at the time the incident occurred. Because things are different in the heat of the moment, as opposed to you watching the video weeks later.


Officer Loehmann told the grand jury that he fired out of fear for his safety after Tamir reached into his waistband and grabbed the pellet gun, which he believed to be real.

That's why he didn't receive any chance to explain himself. Because what the officer said is true, the kid never made any attempt to stand down, but rather, PULLED OUT THE ****ING GUN as officers approached. Are you seriously asking why officers should be able to defend themselves from a perceived immediate deadly threat?

The real question is, would you have waited to pull the trigger when you saw him pull the gun? Honestly? Would you allow a suspect (keep in mind, you know NOTHING about this person other than he has a gun and is pointing it at people) to pull his gun out and point it at your face from 3 feet away? I wouldn't have either.

[dunksby]

Burns, Oregon (CNN)The armed occupiers who took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon will soon reveal their departure date, one of the group's leaders said Tuesday at a press conference.

"Friday at seven, we will be going into town and holding a meeting with the community to explain to the community ... why we are here and when we will be leaving," LaVoy Finicum said.

He didn't say exactly where the meeting would be held in the nearby town of Burns. Ammon Bundy, the group leader who usually addresses the media, will attend, he said.

The group has occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeast Oregon for 11 days to protest federal land policies.

On Monday, the occupiers used government equipment to uproot and tear down a fence at the request of a local rancher, CNN affiliate KTVZ reported. They said it was part of the group's bigger plan to return federal land to residents of Harney County.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a statement Tuesday, saying: "Removing fences, damaging any Refuge property, or unauthorized use of equipment would be additional unlawful actions by the illegal occupiers. Any movement of cattle onto the Refuge or other activities that are not specifically authorized by USFWS constitutes trespassing.

"If they take down the fences, it hurts the Refuge, but it also destroys the positive conservation impacts reaped from decades of direct collaboration and sweat equity paid by the Harney County (and surrounding) communities, ranchers, landowners, partners and friends."


Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said there's been an increase in "vandalism, harassment and intimidation reports" since the group took over the wildlife refuge.

Some of the occupiers have been able to leave and return to the refuge center. And protest leaders have also called on supporters near and far to come join their cause.

The result, according to Ward: the harassment and intimidation of police and civilians, including workers for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that runs the refuge.

"There are continual reports of law enforcement officers and community members being followed home; of people sitting in cars outside their homes, observing their movements and those of their families; and of people following them and their families as they move around the community," Ward said Monday.
Wow!

[Nanners]

I think the authorities have handled this whole thing the right way. You dont go in there guns blazing and create another Waco or Ruby Ridge type situation.

[rufuspaul]

I just love that this group pleaded on the internet (invented and regulated by the U.S. government) for people to send them food and supplies and the internet responded by sending them boxes of dildos. :oldlol: Trolls rule the world.

[Nanners]

I just love that this group pleaded on the internet (invented and regulated by the U.S. government) for people to send them food and supplies and the internet responded by sending them boxes of dildos. :oldlol: Trolls rule the world.

what kind of whack ass millitia has to solicit for donated supplies in order to occupy a building for a week :oldlol:

[highwhey]

So do these people have jobs or what?

[AlphaWolf24]

So do these people have jobs or what?


I'm going to go out on a limb and say NO...


just some Bum azz hillbilly's....prolly all pissed at the world because they got fat wives or aint gettin no pussay at all....

that's what they get for living out in the middle of no where.


getting mad over land that no one uses:lol

[eliteballer]

This is so outrageous. They just need to cut power and freeze the bastards out.

[dunksby]

Oregon refuge occupier arrested for taking government vehicle to market :lol


A member of the group of armed men who have seized a U.S. wildlife refuge in Oregon in an anti-government protest has been arrested after driving a government vehicle to a local supermarket, officials said.

The arrest was the first made since the group took over buildings at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Jan. 2 in the latest conflict over the U.S. government's control of land in the West.

Law enforcement officials had so far kept their distance from the site, located about 30 miles (48 km) south of the small town of Burns in Oregon's rural southeast, in an effort to avoid a violent confrontation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKCN0UU0QV

Apparently they have paved the road in the middle of the refuge too :facepalm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYuwcqVUoAAsUJg.jpg

[Raymone]

1 dead, 8 arrested (http://katu.com/news/local/leader-of-oregon-occupation-ammon-bundy-three-others-arrested)

[dunksby]

1 dead, 8 arrested (http://katu.com/news/local/leader-of-oregon-occupation-ammon-bundy-three-others-arrested)
Good, hopefully the rest of these morons surrender peacefully.

[FillJackson]

Personally, I'm very glad that Pete Santilli was one of those http://thepetesantillishow.com/.

[FillJackson]

Good, hopefully the rest of these morons surrender peacefully.
Doesn't look like it yet. Calls are being made for other militia members to join them. The youtube channel of one of the guys in the compound is talking about making his stand. He's also ranting about the Real Jews and the Fake Jews and the Bilderberg Group The women at the compound have been sent away.

Among the people making the calls is a guy said to be a friend of Timothy McVeigh.

10:30 Pacific Time is the news conference about the arrest/shooting.

The "Daddy swore an oath guy" was in Arizona at the time and turned himself in.

[FillJackson]

Bundy and several fellow occupiers were pulled over Tuesday on Highway 395, a law enforcement official said. According to The Oregonian, they were headed to the city of John Day, where they were set to participate in a community meeting set up by local residents.

Everyone obeyed orders to surrender except two people: LaVoy Finicum and Bundy's brother, Ryan Bundy, the official told CNN.

Shots were fired, but it's unclear who fired first, the source said. Ryan Bundy was injured, and Finicum died.

With their leader Bundy in police custody and their spokesman, Finicum, dead, it's unclear if the remaining occupiers will dig in their heels at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which they have occupied for 26 days-- or if their resolve will wane.

Finicum was one of the most outspoken occupiers who took over the refuge near Burns on January 2 to protest federal land policies.

Earlier this month, the father of 11 told CNN he doesn't want to die -- but would never go behind bars.

"I'm just not going to prison," Finicum said. "Look at the stars. There's no way I'm going to sit in a concrete cell where I can't see the stars and roll out my bedroll on the ground. That's just not going to happen. I want to be able to get up in the morning and throw my saddle on my horse and go check on my cows. It's OK. I've lived a good life. God's been gracious to me."http://www.ktvz.com/news/oregon-protest-leader-ammon-bundy-is-arrested/37654910?platform=hootsuite

[FillJackson]

Facebook post of a guy close to this. Video says that somefolks surrended, but the dead man refused to and tried to escape in a vehicle, hit a snow bank and then charged police . My guess is he hit the snowbank trying to avoid a blockade of the road.

https://www.facebook.com/melvin.lee.733/posts/1094937370539445

Also FBI gave the rest of the folks on the compound a deadline of 4am to leave the refugee.

[dunksby]

Doesn't look like it yet. Calls are being made for other militia members to join them. The youtube channel of one of the guys in the compound is talking about making his stand. He's also ranting about the Real Jews and the Fake Jews and the Bilderberg Group The women at the compound have been sent away.

Among the people making the calls is a guy said to be a friend of Timothy McVeigh.

10:30 Pacific Time is the news conference about the arrest/shooting.

The "Daddy swore an oath guy" was in Arizona at the time and turned himself in.
They had their little picnic stand off, now they better surrender or be put down.

[BlakFrankWhite]

Terminate these attention-seeking phegget wh0res

[UK2K]

Facebook post of a guy close to this. Video says that somefolks surrended, but the dead man refused to and tried to escape in a vehicle, hit a snow bank and then charged police . My guess is he hit the snowbank trying to avoid a blockade of the road.

https://www.facebook.com/melvin.lee.733/posts/1094937370539445

Also FBI gave the rest of the folks on the compound a deadline of 4am to leave the refugee.

They're not leaving.

About a week ago, I started a thread about the FBI dressing up like the 'militia' and running people off the road, threatening the townspeople who go to the meetings that support these guys.

Ironically, I don't remember FBI being dressed up like looters during Ferguson or Baltimore, running around terrorizing people. In fact, I saw the exact opposite.

It'll get worse before it gets better. I saw on FB they said they were willing to die. If indeed the FBI does slaughter them, they're going to have big issues. Not because people agree with the Bundy cause, but because people who oppose an oppressive government will have all the evidence, and motivation, they need, to act.

[FillJackson]

If indeed the FBI does slaughter them, they're going to have big issues.
:facepalm



yes, there is a bunch intending to stay and they are preparing for combat. Sun is up very soon. Hopefully they will wait them out.


...... one of the dudes literally just said. "Who wants a muffin? We are American's after all, we like to eat fat shit."