Militia takes over national wildlife refuge headquarters in Oregon

No, you can't.

In all seriousness what my point was is that on one side of the political spectrum if the individuals they agree with feel hurt or marginalized... Those being accused of hurting or marginalizing them are disregarded when they present their case because they "don't have the same experiences" and therefore are automatically wrong and need to apologize and acknowledge their privilege (in some cases by people worth millions and millions of dollars). Yet in this case people that don't have the same experiences as ranchers with hundreds or thousands of acres of land don't apply that logic to their own situation.

"When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." - Louis C.K. Is the quote I see summing up the stance of the individuals that have no problem with stifling freedom of the press. That doesn't apply to people that disagree with the ranchers...

Some help has arrived for the patriots in Oregon. No word on whether or not they brought snacks.

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

Jesus.

xsanguine wrote:Jesus.

He posts M-F from 8am-5pm EST. He prefers to be addressed as Bob.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Jesus.

He posts M-F from 8am-5pm EST. He prefers to be addressed as Bob.

Bob J. Christ will love this.

xsanguine wrote:No, you can't.

In all seriousness what my point was is that on one side of the political spectrum if the individuals they agree with feel hurt or marginalized... Those being accused of hurting or marginalizing them are disregarded when they present their case because they "don't have the same experiences" and therefore are automatically wrong and need to apologize and acknowledge their privilege (in some cases by people worth millions and millions of dollars). Yet in this case people that don't have the same experiences as ranchers with hundreds or thousands of acres of land don't apply that logic to their own situation.

"When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." - Louis C.K. Is the quote I see summing up the stance of the individuals that have no problem with stifling freedom of the press. That doesn't apply to people that disagree with the ranchers...

Based on the old saying, "put yourself in their shoes," you're saying people do not put themselves in other's shoes before they criticize or cast judgement? That would be a pretty fair assessment of everything. However, are you not guilty of the same behavior? Every time there is a thread about women's rights or race, you often point out it is merely a bunch of "social justice warriors" whining about nothing. This ignores a documented history of patterned discrimination in this country, and you are certainly not putting yourself in other's shoes. I always find this odd. You think the state is manipulative and oppressive, and serves only the interest of those in power, yet you somehow act as if a federal government whose legislative body is 80% white males is out to protect everybody's interests.

Behind The Scenes In Oregon, Ammon Bundy Preaches Revolution

But Bundy is not spreading the word of God, though he’s a devout Mormon. Instead, Bundy is telling local residents that the federal government is illegitimate, that the county government is the highest authority in the land, and that they should arrest their local sheriff and subject him to a citizen grand jury if he sides with the treacherous feds.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/10/behind-the-scenes-in-oregon-ammon-bundy-preaches-revolution.html

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:No, you can't.

In all seriousness what my point was is that on one side of the political spectrum if the individuals they agree with feel hurt or marginalized... Those being accused of hurting or marginalizing them are disregarded when they present their case because they "don't have the same experiences" and therefore are automatically wrong and need to apologize and acknowledge their privilege (in some cases by people worth millions and millions of dollars). Yet in this case people that don't have the same experiences as ranchers with hundreds or thousands of acres of land don't apply that logic to their own situation.

"When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." - Louis C.K. Is the quote I see summing up the stance of the individuals that have no problem with stifling freedom of the press. That doesn't apply to people that disagree with the ranchers...

Based on the old saying, "put yourself in their shoes," you're saying people do not put themselves in other's shoes before they criticize or cast judgement? That would be a pretty fair assessment of everything. However, are you not guilty of the same behavior? Every time there is a thread about women's rights or race, you often point out it is merely a bunch of "social justice warriors" whining about nothing. This ignores a documented history of patterned discrimination in this country, and you are certainly not putting yourself in other's shoes. I always find this odd. You think the state is manipulative and oppressive, and serves only the interest of those in power, yet you somehow act as if a federal government whose legislative body is 80% white males is out to protect everybody's interests.

I do agree with that but I am also including myself in that group. I've never owned hundreds of thousands of acres and not only that I don't have experience with owning that kind of land in the west where it's a lot different than say my uncle who owns 300 acres in Branch county, MI. I don't fully understand the ranchers grievances but what I do understand is the relationship between individuals and a state that has assumed a monopoly over the violence and initiation of force. Not knowing these individuals I can only speculate as to what types of people they are.
This is in contrast to women's rights or race where an individual can have knowledge about these things. We can use their own words to get a sense of what they're talking about when they claim they're discriminated against. So when women trot out the 77 cents to every dollar or the 1 in 4 college women are raped... We can then ask them for the statistics and argue them on the point.
So yes, there's a huge difference between walking in someone's shoes and having even a base understanding of certain kinds of relationships. Having grown up in a relatively urban environment and then living in the biggest urban environment for 10 years I feel I can use those experiences and observations to understand not just the grievances (there are plenty of legitimate gripes in the black community) but also the stuff that maybe some place like Fox News gets right while CNN misrepresents for their own purposes. And that goes vice versa. I'm specifically remembering the two cops that were killed in their car in Bed Stuy and I was working, literally able to throw a crumbled up piece of paper (as opposed to a baseball) and hit the car where the officers law dead.... And when I came up from the studio in the basement to step outside and seeing a large group of residents (Bed Stuy in a black neighborhood and this specific block is the infamous Marcy housing projects) taunting and intimidating EMS and saying things like fuck the police and "I hope them niggas is dead" this and that. Then turning on CNN and watching them interview the same woman I watched them interview that day about how sad the neighborhood is and how they won't stand for it... And I remembered watching them go through dozens of people before they could get to one that... And maybe this is prejudice of me... But didn't appear to be a resident of the neighborhood which raises my suspicions radar, etc.
I guess the reason why I bring that up is that those experiences are not isolated. I have many, many experiences to draw experiences from.
I don't have a lot of experience with militia or redneck types, for better or for worse. I don't have ANY experience with owning land and know even LESS than owning large tracts of land used for grazing out west near BLM property. Maybe a lot of these individuals who feel they're racist domestic terrorists do have that kind of experience but I'm going out on a limb suggesting they don't.
To those that say I can't understand their grievances because I'm not black, a woman, this or that and therefore whatever they say they are being discriminated against for... I have to accept that and then make changes to my life to make them happy not because I agree... But because they're the ones that say they whatever is happening is happening and since I'm white I need to take their word for it. It doesn't work the other way, though. If white people feel naturally prejudiced based on their experiences, which are backed up by loads of crime data... Do they get the same treatment? Of course not.

This is very different than opposing the concept of a state. Keep in mind my comments are geared towards the individuals who don't have any interest in learning about what is actually going on but want to use it as an opportunity to disparage a symbol of what their opponent represents. Bob is the king at misrepresenting what is actually happening so that he can make funny jokes about it from a polarized position... And it's hilarious when Bob does it because he is trying to be funny and we all realize that. Others take it more seriously.

When have I ever acted like the federal government is out to protect everybody's interests?

Jesus that was longer than I thought it would be.

I made sure to avoid the 'A' word, lest we get into a game of No True Scotsmen again. =D

has anyone asked the guy who hates the government so much why he accepted a $500,000 loan from the government?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:has anyone asked the guy who hates the government so much why he accepted a $500,000 loan from the government?

I'm guessing he needed the money. Did he have to pay it back with interest?

DWags wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:has anyone asked the guy who hates the government so much why he accepted a $500,000 loan from the government?

I'm guessing he needed the money. Did he have to pay it back with interest?

I don't really know.. but I do admire this fine patriot's efforts to keep the government out of his life.

If you could, please stop mailing these guys dildos and bags of dicks.
http://gawker.com/angry-militia-leader-stop-mailing-us-dildos-1752580458

so the leader of Y'all Qaeda and Vanilla ISIS is now occupying a different government location... this time, he got to ride in a police car..

Is this "militia" from the left? Of course they're not called that by their buddies in the press:

Violent Pipeline Protesters Are Obama-Approved. Peaceful Ranchers? Not So Much

The Obama administration has one standard for favored protesters vs. a harsher standard for protesters with whom it disagrees.

Last week, the administration said it would allow protesters of the Dakota Access oil pipeline to stay on federal lands. This decision was made despite clashes between armed activists and police authorities, and a request for assistance by a sheriff. Notably, the clashes and protests are taking place two years after the Army Corps of Engineers held nearly 400 meetings about the pipeline, and made nine requests for meetings with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe that were not attended by the Tribe.

This is the Tribe that is now protesting the pipeline, along with various environmental activists.

Compare this to another recent protest on federal land — the 2015 rancher protest in Oregon. Armed like many of the pipeline protesters, ranchers took over federal land in order to make a statement against increasing federal land grabs, in support of Cliven Bundy, who regularly trespassed on federal land laws in protest. In contrast to today’s protests, the ranchers engaged in no violence. Yet law enforcement agents began arresting them after just 24 days. The crackdown resulted in the death of one rancher, Lavoy Finicum, when he left the wildlife refuge to drive to a nearby town. Although the ranchers were armed, they were peaceful, and Finicum was killed after police fired on him despite no dangerous actions by the rancher.

Enabling Pipeline Protesters

In stark contrast to the small, low-key rancher protest, hundreds of members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and armed environmental activists have been camping out for two months on federal lands in North Dakota and Iowa, protesting the construction of the four-state Dakota Access oil pipeline. The protests have resulted in violence, with both sides blaming the other.

Members of the tribe say the pipeline endangers sacred sites near its reservation and endangers the tribe’s water supply, and that the construction company has already destroyed sacred sites. (The tribe’s “media backgrounder” can be found here.) However, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation, “Archaeologists inspected the 1.3-mile section along the route of the Dakota Access pipeline in southern North Dakota, and found no signs Native American tribal artifacts are present, despite what protesters argue.”

Mercer County Sheriff Dean Danzeisen of North Dakota sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch expressing his concerns about their guns. “They are armed, hostile, and engaged in training exercises which can only be intended to promote violence, whether on Corps property or elsewhere.” Dealing with the protesters also costs law enforcement extra money for overtime.

Yet federal agents say they have no intention of removing the trespassers, declaring they have a free speech right to be on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ land. The Corps has encouraged the protesters to move to adjacent land where they have a permit to stay, but they refuse.

The only law they could possibly be breaking is not obtaining a permit for dispersed camping, because if there are more than 75 people, you are supposed to get one.

PS.  I do not support these people.  I appreciate their passion, but they are not approaching it the right way.  There is a process of tribal consultation which allows their input.  That process was completed.  There is a question if it was completed properly, but to me, that's the only avenue of impact that they legally have.  I mean, they have a RIGHT to protest, but I don't think the law will ever be on their side.

PPS.  You don't really think that Finnecum was not threatening, do you?  Did you see the video?

PPPS. Get your information from some less wacko sources dude. "Relatively low key rancher protest" lol.

Interesting - at least *9* of the so-called militia members were FBI people. I'm thinking the FBI might have outnumbered the occupiers in that encampment.

Defense rests with witness confirming he was FBI informant and ran occupation's shooting range

One of them helped train the militia to shoot better.....

While at the refuge, Minoggio said he was asked to oversee the shooting range, which earlier testimony revealed was by the refuge boat launch. He said he provided training on firearms safety and proficient use of firearms to the occupiers.

Minoggio was one of 15 confidential informants who fed the FBI information about the occupiers, testimony showed.

Nine of the 15 were at the refuge for various lengths of time between Jan. 4 and Jan. 26, according to a statement that Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Gabriel read to jurors. Those nine included the three who have been identified at trial: Minoggio, defense witness Terri Linnell of California and Mark McConnell, who was the driver of the Jeep that Ammon Bundy was riding in when he was arrested on Jan. 26.

The whole bunch are a bunch of deadbeats who think that Federal land is their to use as they see fit.

Next time I hope the government sends every one home in a box and let the deadbeat father who seems to be their ringleader fall further in dbt by paying for funerals.

Last time we, as a country, put up with assholes like this until a couple of them bombed a Federal Building in OKC.

They already killed the guy in a wheelchair. Isn't that enough dead whites for you, GRR? Or do you really need the rest be killed to satisfy your sensitivities?

GRR thinks it's bullshit when a cop kills someone after they attack him and try to take his gun but wants the government to "send them home in a box" for breaking and entering. The variable difference is skin color.

GRR Spartan wrote:The whole bunch are a bunch of deadbeats who think that Federal land is their to use as they see fit.

Next time I hope the government sends every one home in a box and let the deadbeat father who seems to be their ringleader fall further in dbt by paying for funerals.

Last time we, as a country, put up with assholes like this until a couple of them bombed a Federal Building in OKC.

Are you good with the pipeline trespassers because they're not militia?

No he's good with them because he has to be okay with the situations his "team" is okay with.