Yup. This is For Certain.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

Given the fact that George Washington dealt with insurrections with federal force chances are he would do the same with this group of malcontents.  And don't forget Lincoln.  As soon as they fire a shot the war is on.  Hoover used McArthur against WWI vets in Washington D.C.  And Eisenhower sent troops against rednecks.

[The Grand Nudger]

That this group is receiving special treatment is, I think, inarguable. When armed people take something over in the US we send swat at the least, and they bring the situation to "resolution".  

That's what we do.  It doesn't matter if what they take over is a lemonade stand or a federal wildlife reserve.  It doesn't matter if they're protesting something -while- pointing their guns at the outside world.  If I stood here -in my own lawn- pointing guns out at the world as it passed by, I would -and should- be met with force and  swift "resolution". I think that there are reasons we're acting differently here...but nothing so noble as has been suggested (nor do I think that we've held the triggermen at bay because the "protesters" are white). They have publicity, and their stunt is politically useful. This almost guarantees that we'll allow it, and that we won't treat it as roughly as we treat any number of similar situations.

[The Grand Nudger]

to add:

I think the danger here, in allowing this to continue (beyond the difficulty of such special treatment) is that while most of these people probably don't intend to ever fire a single shot.......

-there's gonna be at least one nut on the firing line that's considered it, at a minimum..if not actively anticipating the opportunity.  Especially as other groups begin to filter in for line relief, as has happened. If you think that this is somehow different from the manner in which situations like this evolve overseas (thus comparisons to isis or other militant groups) I can tell you from personal experience that it is not. The initial group is almost always negotiating something.....it's the coat-tail riders you have to watch out for.

As to the contention that serves as the impetus for their ridiculous little insurrectuion. A decade ago the last vestiges of the industry I depended upon where I lived were shipped overseas. I feel for ranchers...as they find themselves overextended with an outdated business model, lives and homes in fiscal peril. I've been there. I didn't start a faux rebellion in the brush, I got a new job.

[paulpablo]

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.

Given the fact that George Washington dealt with insurrections with federal force chances are he would do the same with this group of malcontents.  And don't forget Lincoln.  As soon as they fire a shot the war is on.  Hoover used McArthur against WWI vets in Washington D.C.  And Eisenhower sent troops against rednecks.

All of these presidents did this in a different age.  The point is what would they do now.  This isn't in Washington DC, it's not Eisenhower vs the state of Arkansas national guard, they're a relatively small group of people in a small hut in the middle of nowhere.
Also this isn't the 1700s when George Washington was around, or the 1800s when Lincoln was around, Presidents have to be more media savvy these days, more careful how they act diplomatically, as rhythm says they have publicity now, I'm over here in England typing to you about it and were all on this forum typing all over the world about it.
I agree with the point you make about as soon as they fire a shot the war is on.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Given the fact that George Washington dealt with insurrections with federal force chances are he would do the same with this group of malcontents.  And don't forget Lincoln.  As soon as they fire a shot the war is on.  Hoover used McArthur against WWI vets in Washington D.C.  And Eisenhower sent troops against rednecks.

All of these presidents did this in a different age.  The point is what would they do now.  This isn't in Washington DC, it's not Eisenhower vs the state of Arkansas national guard, they're a relatively small group of people in a small hut in the middle of nowhere.
Also this isn't the 1700s when George Washington was around, or the 1800s when Lincoln was around, Presidents have to be more media savvy these days, more careful how they act diplomatically, as rhythm says they have publicity now, I'm over here in England typing to you about it and were all on this forum typing all over the world about it.
I agree with the point you make about as soon as they fire a shot the war is on.

I would give them 180 seconds to throw down their guns and get on the ground face down with their arms extended.  If they didn't comply I would have 2 AC130 gun ships fly over the area and saturate it with their full ammo loads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVXBHNvpTcg

As it says in Ezra 6:11 (CEB) = "I also decree that if anyone disobeys this edict, a beam is to be pulled out of the house of the guilty party, and the guilty party will then be impaled upon it. The house will be turned into a trash heap."

Those guys knew how to kick butt.

[account_inactive]

Well, this is interesting. Oregon judge wants to send bill to militia.

https://www.rt.com/usa/328695-judge-bill...n-militia/

[The Grand Nudger]

A sweetheart deal, they ought to take it.  Their options will get progressively shittier the longer this continues and the less of the limelight it soaks up. Is it just me or is something fundamentally screwed when we have a public official in the US politely asking out of state militants to leave his jurisdiction?

[account_inactive]

A sweetheart deal, they ought to take it.  Their options will get progressively shittier the longer this continues and the less of the limelight it soaks up.  Is it just me or is something fundamentally screwed when we have a public official in the US politely asking out of state militants to leave his jurisdiction?

Yes, just a bit.

[Minimalist]

Stephen Colbert has some fun with the assholes.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/stephen-...breakfast/

Includes video.

[account_inactive]

VICE are discussing the Oregon situation live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26_jfzGJbIM