Yup. This is For Certain.

[Minimalist]

Perhaps you missed Post #39 in the flurry but in spite of the fact that the cops are not supposed to go in with guns blazing they seem to do it quite often.

If the fuckers resist arrest, particularly if they are pointing guns at the cops, why should the cops not act to protect themselves?

Min, since when in the world are you in the side of the police against anyone??? Fuck the police.

If someone actually points a gun at them they really deserve what follows.  Try to distinguish that from when they stop a guy for a broken tail light and then shoot him in the back when he runs away.

[downbeatplumb]

Fuck the police? No, dumbass, without the police you'd be fucking screwed. I will take what you say at face value as well since you've done the same thing with other posters here.

Oh I'm serious about fuck the police. I've had literally 0 positive interactions with the police in my life and neither has anybody I know. The US is totally over policed, and most police are lazy fucks who harass people and don't prevent crime, don't give a shit when you have your stuff ripped off. They are modern day tax collectors. I'm 100% serious about that. What I don't get is all the police dick riding that's been going on in this thread.

My bike was stolen. The police recovered it that night. I wasn't expecting to see that shit again. Police also gave me a ride home when I was knocked off a different bike. I don't have much luck with bikes.

[Minimalist]

So it seems that more and more crazies are being drawn into the vortex.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/bundy-mi...-security/

Bundy militia standoff escalates when another heavily-armed group arrives to provide ‘security’

Perhaps the government does have a plan.  Get them all in one spot and then....

[account_inactive]

Just waiting for CapnAwesome to come into the thread and defend terrorists again. But on a more serious note, let's hope these fucking morons get dealt with. I don't really care what way they get dealt with anymore to be honest.

[CapnAwesome]

Just waiting for CapnAwesome to come into the thread and defend terrorists again. But on a more serious note, let's hope these fucking morons get dealt with. I don't really care what way they get dealt with anymore to be honest.

I don't think we should call them terrorists, as they haven't committed any violence or terror. Expanding the definition of terrorism, like you guys have all done in this thread, is very scary and George Busheque. The neocons have always wanted a broader definition of terrorism. Especially considering that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have called for shutting down terrorist websites, expanding the definition of terrorism to any armed protesters has real free speech ramifications. Calling for the murder of these protesters, as some of you have, is really despicable. The idea that the government would shoot these guys if they were black or muslim (regardless of whether or not it's true) is NOT a good reason to go in and shoot them.

I don't support the agenda of these guys any more then any of you, but there are larger and more important issues at play that you guys just can't see.

Dan Carlin talks about this really well starting around 56:00 http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-ho...ding-page/

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Just waiting for CapnAwesome to come into the thread and defend terrorists again. But on a more serious note, let's hope these fucking morons get dealt with. I don't really care what way they get dealt with anymore to be honest.

I don't think we should call them terrorists, as they haven't committed any violence or terror. Expanding the definition of terrorism, like you guys have all done in this thread, is very scary and George Busheque. The neocons have always wanted a broader definition of terrorism. Especially considering that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have called for shutting down terrorist websites, expanding the definition of terrorism to any armed protesters has real free speech ramifications. Calling for the murder of these protesters, as some of you have, is really despicable. The idea that the government would shoot these guys if they were black or muslim (regardless of whether or not it's true) is NOT a good reason to go in and shoot them.

I don't support the agenda of these guys any more then any of you, but there are larger and more important issues at play that you guys just can't see.

Dan Carlin talks about this really well starting around 56:00 http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-ho...ding-page/

They committed armed insurrection against the American people by taking over a federal facility by armed force.  They are outlaws. George Wshington would have sent the army in against them.

[KUSA]

If the Oregon militiamen were Muslim or black, they’d be dead by now

If they were muslim they would have blown the building up after severing everyone's head.

If they were black they would have looted the town of all the tv sets.

[paulpablo]

I don't think we should call them terrorists, as they haven't committed any violence or terror. Expanding the definition of terrorism, like you guys have all done in this thread, is very scary and George Busheque. The neocons have always wanted a broader definition of terrorism. Especially considering that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have called for shutting down terrorist websites, expanding the definition of terrorism to any armed protesters has real free speech ramifications. Calling for the murder of these protesters, as some of you have, is really despicable. The idea that the government would shoot these guys if they were black or muslim (regardless of whether or not it's true) is NOT a good reason to go in and shoot them.

I don't support the agenda of these guys any more then any of you, but there are larger and more important issues at play that you guys just can't see.

Dan Carlin talks about this really well starting around 56:00 http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-ho...ding-page/

They committed armed insurrection against the American people by taking over a federal facility by armed force.  They are outlaws. George Wshington would have sent the army in against them.

I think George Washington would probably be more tactical than that.  They are occupying a building in the middle of nowhere and not a direct threat to anyone who doesn't disturb them.  Yes they have occupied a federal building, but it's a wildlife reserve, strategically I doubt it's of much importance.

I personally think that's the bottom line.  The main reason they the government isn't reacting with direct isn't because these people are white or because they're not Muslim, but because they have calculated that it isn't necessary yet.

I just hope for the best result depending on what the truth is about the circumstances are now, which I don't know yet.

If these Bundy people are destroying wildlife to a very significant degree and the government is just trying to be reasonable with them then I hope the Bundy ranchers are dealt with and if they are stubbornly resisting reasonable laws then eventually it might result in them being shot.  From what I've read this might be likely.

If the government is taxing, fining and putting unreasonable pressure on the ranchers then obviously I'd be happy if the ranchers got away with all this and the government backs down and gives them a little more freedom.

I don't see why people get emotional and overlook little nuances in arguments and say seemingly illogical things in arguments like this.
Like you used your time travel device, mind reading device and determined you know what George Washington would do in this exact situation, you then used your religion and race changing device and turned the ranchers into black Muslims so you know for a fact that if black Muslims occupied a building in the middle of no where they would have been shot to death by now.

[Minimalist]

See what I mean, everyone?

[account_inactive]

See what I mean, everyone?

I don't even know what you're talking about.