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.
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.
The intent was not to be inside the building, until threats of arrest and violence were made by the feds, if they didn't leave immediately.
I would have no problem with an armed society protesting peacefully. No matter who or what they are labelled with.
The minute they raise their arms for no other reason but to bully, the game changes.
Can you agree.
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.
Is that what you do?
This man has character witnesses that tell a much different story than you wish to paint.
Even the Oath Keepers are honest here. Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
Willing to die, because they have been told to shut up, leave or die... They made their bed.
A peaceful protest, where threats of violence were waged by government. Say it ain't so...
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?
In my home? This didn't go into the building, until lives were threatened.
Would you make it into my home in the first place, without point a gun at me? Big difference.
When threatened, you take cover. Guess were the only cover to take was...
The intent was not to be inside the building, until threats of arrest and violence were made by the feds, if they didn't leave immediately.
I would have no problem with an armed society protesting peacefully. No matter who or what they are labelled with.
The minute they raise their arms for no other reason but to bully, the game changes.
Can you agree.
Yet the immediately went into the buildings. They even gave video tours of them in the buildings. They also posted videos of them messing in the storage building that housed NA artifacts.
If they did not intend to go into the buildings why did they immediately do so?
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.
Anyone can stand around with a sign. The fact they were armed has the pucker factor on high alert.
No one but government, pointed a gun at anyone. Of all the people with guns. it was government point them at people. People never pointed them at government. NEVER!
Willing to die, because they have been told to shut up, leave or die... They made their bed.
A peaceful protest, where threats of violence were waged by government. Say it ain't so...
Who told them to leave or die? Not the government.
Threats of violence? Not from the government.
If anything the month long occupation has shown the patience of the government in seeking a non-confrontational end.
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.
