Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is pretty low and slimy to say a man that fostered many children, to be outstanding and responsible people, made his money by fostering children... How progressive of you.
This was called a "take over" by the media. The media blew this up bigger than it originally was.
It was a protest. Nothing more.
Exercising the individual right to protect ones self, was not the only right being exercised as the media led everyone to believe was the only issue.
The right to protest is a 1st amendment right.
The 2nd protects the 1st, when government doesn't want to hear what you are saying, and tells you to shut up and leave, or violence will occur.
The 2nd amendment reminds the government, who they really work for.
With that said:
This was no way "a take over".
Because the protesters were in fact exercising their 2nd amendment rights, the federal employees were scared to show up for work, schools were shut down and an over reaction took place, with the media fueling the misinformation and focusing on the weapons. Armed militants, became the new meme.
There was nothing militant about it, until government issued threats of violence & arrest if they didn't leave. Denying them their 1st amendment, with violence, right off the bat. Whoa... Taking it to a new level. They hunkered down harder and more convinced government is bad. The entire reason, they were armed. To secure a Free State, where the 1st amendment rules over the governments forced silence.
It's amazing that you're able to fool yourself into believing this twisted bunch of nonsense. What if a bunch of armed black men, or armed Arabs, showed up and holed themselves up in a government building? Would they just be "protesters", then?
You're not fooling anyone. The American people weren't fooled and didn't buy into this group and their "cause." Too bad for you and your ideology.
That is pretty low and slimy to say a man that fostered many children, to be outstanding and responsible people, made his money by fostering children... How progressive of you.
Very few people take in foster kids because they want to help kids, most do it for the $700-$1200 a month they receive (per child). If you doubt me, then check the outcome for kids raised in foster homes in terms of educational achievement, income as an adult and incarceration rate. So please save the outrage for someone who doesn't know anything about foster care.
That is pretty low and slimy to say a man that fostered many children, to be outstanding and responsible people, made his money by fostering children... How progressive of you.
This was called a "take over" by the media. The media blew this up bigger than it originally was.
It was a protest. Nothing more.
Exercising the individual right to protect ones self, was not the only right being exercised as the media led everyone to believe was the only issue.
The right to protest is a 1st amendment right.
The 2nd protects the 1st, when government doesn't want to hear what you are saying, and tells you to shut up and leave, or violence will occur.
The 2nd amendment reminds the government, who they really work for.
With that said:
This was no way "a take over".
Because the protesters were in fact exercising their 2nd amendment rights, the federal employees were scared to show up for work, schools were shut down and an over reaction took place, with the media fueling the misinformation and focusing on the weapons. Armed militants, became the new meme.
There was nothing militant about it, until government issued threats of violence & arrest if they didn't leave. Denying them their 1st amendment, with violence, right off the bat. Whoa... Taking it to a new level. They hunkered down harder and more convinced government is bad. The entire reason, they were armed. To secure a Free State, where the 1st amendment rules over the governments forced silence.
Even the Oath Keepers are honest here. Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
Quote:
“This is an armed occupation of a government building and the only people staying there should be the armed men who are willing to die there with Ammon Bundy and his brothers and a couple of embedded reporters. If adults want to visit them and put themselves at risk, that is their choice, but don’t bring children. If a dozen men die in a shootout, that is one thing, but if children die, there will be a civil war.” (Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers)
There was nothing militant about it, until government issued threats of violence & arrest if they didn't leave. Denying them their 1st amendment, with violence, right off the bat. Whoa... Taking it to a new level. They hunkered down harder and more convinced government is bad. The entire reason, they were armed. To secure a Free State, where the 1st amendment rules over the governments forced silence.
So if I decided to exercise my first amendment right by staging an armed, "peaceful protest", in your home while you were away, and threatened to use violence against you if you tried to remove me, you'd be OK with that?
That is pretty low and slimy to say a man that fostered many children, to be outstanding and responsible people, made his money by fostering children... How progressive of you.
You're right of course such individuals are usually referred to in conservative circles as poverty pimps and welfare queens.
Quote:
This was called a "take over" by the media. The media blew this up bigger than it originally was.
It was a protest. Nothing more.
Don't recall any complaints coming from you or the "protesters" regarding there being too much coverage because wasn't that the point? After all there was a protest march being conducted in Burns on behalf of the Hammonds and while I can only surmise that the reason that the Bundy's broke off from the peaceful scheduled protest march to go and "occupy" the Malheur refuge was the the march wasn't receiving enough media attention. Its an old tactic, one that I've been involved in employing from time to time; march against Apartheid gets no attention, take over the Dean's office. For the media marches are a dime a dozen, take overs, occupations, sit down strikes call it what you like, that's something different.
Quote:
The 2nd protects the 1st,
How'd that work out for Finicum?
Quote:
when government doesn't want to hear what you are saying, and tells you to shut up and leave, or violence will occur.
As I mentioned above, there was a protest march held the day that this all began, no arrest, no violence. Everyone has a right to protest and people protest all the time, but the 1st Amendment doesn't protect unlawful acts such as taking over government offices, chaining one's self to the gates of facilities etc. For all the criticism of the left they at least understand this principle and to my knowledge never complain when they are arrested essentially because that was the whole point in the first place.
Which brings me to these folks.
You want to bring national attention to the Hammonds. A protest march isn't getting you the attention that you think is appropriate so you step-up the protest and occupy, take over, close down whatever a local federal office/compound fine. In short notice the police show up, then the local press who feed it to the national press and suddenly you are front page of the New York Times, goal accomplished.
The government let's you have you 15 minutes, gets tired of the whole thing because it needs to get back to doing what the government does. So… the police tell you that you got great press, but now its time to go. You decide that you want an extra 15 minutes so you tell the cops that you won't go voluntarily. You sit down and start singing the rancher version of "We Shall Over Come," police say ok, come in and start dragging limp cowboys out by their spurs and load them in the back of the paddy wagon. Great optics, photographers take a lot of pictures of dragged cowboys, people in the rest of the country go, hey why is the government arresting these cowboys (everybody loves cowboys). The worst charge would be some misdemeanor trespass or resting arrest without violence. Cowboys are release from jail and cowboy spokesman flies out to New York to explain what went down on the Today Show. Win-Win.
But no…
Instead we get cowboy/militia guys all decked out in camo, tactical vests and AR-Carbines with extra mags pretending the bloody Malheur refuge is the freaking Alamo, only problem nobody in the Refuge has the stones of a Davie Crocket or Jim Bowie. By putting the 2nd Amendment first, they lose the 1st Amendment and so obscure the original topic that the protest becomes absolutely pointless. Then when it comes time to pay the piper, some think shooting their way out of the problem is a good move, while the rest cry and whine about how they just want to go home.
Dude, the kids from Occupy had more testicular fortitude.
That is pretty low and slimy to say a man that fostered many children, to be outstanding and responsible people, made his money by fostering children... How progressive of you.
The man said that he made his income from the states payments for fostering. Are you saying that Levoy is low and slimy?
Quote:
Finicum told OPB the foster-care payments comprised a large share of his income. A 2010 tax filing showed Catholic Charities paid the family $115,343 in 2009, the public-broadcasting station reporter.
That is pretty low and slimy to say a man that fostered many children, to be outstanding and responsible people, made his money by fostering children... How progressive of you.
You're right of course such individuals are usually referred to in conservative circles as poverty pimps and welfare queens.
Don't recall any complaints coming from you or the "protesters" regarding there being too much coverage because wasn't that the point? After all there was a protest march being conducted in Burns on behalf of the Hammonds and while I can only surmise that the reason that the Bundy's broke off from the peaceful scheduled protest march to go and "occupy" the Malheur refuge was the the march wasn't receiving enough media attention. Its an old tactic, one that I've been involved in employing from time to time; march against Apartheid gets no attention, take over the Dean's office. For the media marches are a dime a dozen, take overs, occupations, sit down strikes call it what you like, that's something different.
How'd that work out for Finicum?
As I mentioned above, there was a protest march held the day that this all began, no arrest, no violence. Everyone has a right to protest and people protest all the time, but the 1st Amendment doesn't protect unlawful acts such as taking over government offices, chaining one's self to the gates of facilities etc. For all the criticism of the left they at least understand this principle and to my knowledge never complain when they are arrested essentially because that was the whole point in the first place.
Which brings me to these folks.
You want to bring national attention to the Hammonds. A protest march isn't getting you the attention that you think is appropriate so you step-up the protest and occupy, take over, close down whatever a local federal office/compound fine. In short notice the police show up, then the local press who feed it to the national press and suddenly you are front page of the New York Times, goal accomplished.
The government let's you have you 15 minutes, gets tired of the whole thing because it needs to get back to doing what the government does. So… the police tell you that you got great press, but now its time to go. You decide that you want an extra 15 minutes so you tell the cops that you won't go voluntarily. You sit down and start singing the rancher version of "We Shall Over Come," police say ok, come in and start dragging limp cowboys out by their spurs and load them in the back of the paddy wagon. Great optics, photographers take a lot of pictures of dragged cowboys, people in the rest of the country go, hey why is the government arresting these cowboys (everybody loves cowboys). The worst charge would be some misdemeanor trespass or resting arrest without violence. Cowboys are release from jail and cowboy spokesman flies out to New York to explain what went down on the Today Show. Win-Win.
But no…
Instead we get cowboy/militia guys all decked out in camo, tactical vests and AR-Carbines with extra mags pretending the bloody Malheur refuge is the freaking Alamo, only problem nobody in the Refuge has the stones of a Davie Crocket or Jim Bowie. By putting the 2nd Amendment first, they lose the 1st Amendment and so obscure the original topic that the protest becomes absolutely pointless. Then when it comes time to pay the piper, some think shooting their way out of the problem is a good move, while the rest cry and whine about how they just want to go home.
Dude, the kids from Occupy had more testicular fortitude.
The right to protest is a 1st amendment right.
The 2nd protects the 1st, when government doesn't want to hear what you are saying, and tells you to shut up and leave, or violence will occur.
Not exactly. 'Fighting words' pretty much null-and-void the 1st.
Little something called 'breach of the peace.'
Quote:
It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. “Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.” [Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
