birdog1960

Or has the Obama administration ceded the facility to the state of Oregon http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/04/cruz-oregon-militia-should-stand-down-peaceably/ due to your insistence on clouding the actual issue with unrelated events and groups, lets look at a very different take on how those groups/events might contrast: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/01/oregon-standoff-clear-case-white-privilege-160105053136857.html The largest protests took place in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, and more recently, Chicago and Detroit. Early Black Lives Matter protests were met with militarised police and their familiar fixings - tanks, tear gas, and indiscriminate mass arrests. Indeed, the images of police aggression against the protesters served as a lurid metaphor for the violent law enforcement inflicted on Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, and the string of victims that gave rise to the protests. The Bundy-led militia toted heavy weaponry, promised to respond with force if needed, and even enlisted the mastermind behind the wave of anti-Muslim protests that swept through the United States in 2015... Black Lives Matters protesters were unarmed, spearheaded largely by students and young adults, and organised in public forums. Most importantly, they seized no government property nor adversely occupied any federal buildings. Their exercise of free speech, however, was met with repeated opposition, and more often than not, violent suppression. Juxtapose this with recent events in Oregon. The Bundy-led militia toted heavy weaponry, promised to respond with force if needed, and even enlisted the mastermind behind the wave of anti-Muslim protests that swept through the United States in 2015, John Ritzheimer. No police were on site. Enabling the militia to march into town, meddle in a purely local matter, and accomplish their mission. Instead of being met with police opposition, the white militiamen were extended full-scale police cooperation. A response that would never be extended to black protesters in the US, who convene in public streets and spaces brandishing no weaponry but only their blackness, which for law enforcement, appears to be far more threatening than the military-fatigued, rifled, "kill-or-be-killed" menace posed by the Oregon militants.

then substitute requesting for demanding. so what? doesn't change the argument. would you like to alo know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. it might somehow relate in your or tom's mind re the discussion or at the very least add to the obfuscation.

I was thinking about this part of the argument this am. by this reasoning, if an army had another army surrounded and outgunned and demanded that they stand down, they wouldn't literally be demanding stand down since it doesn't follow the chain of command. one can envision many other law enforcement or military examples that also don't involve it. this is one of the weakest arguments I've seen from you in some time and that is really saying something.

i'm sure there are many who are envious of your superior debate skills as evidenced in this thread. awesome. definitely not idiotic. LA, can we have a ruling?

nah, not ad hominem at all…definitely not. nope. uh uh. never.

i'm thinking that's a metaphor. perhaps you can get LA to make a ruling for you.

when all else fails...

wow. you really can't see the distinction. let me try again. the crazies being discussed are armed. thus the military description is appropriately literal and not metaphorical now lets mix in a bit of religion: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/why-the-bundy-militia-mixes-mormon-symbolism-with-anti-government-sentiment/

the difference being that eric wood, peyton manning, new horizon and hillary clinton weren't armed and illegally occupying gov't property. subtle distinction but i trust even you can appreciate it. it's worth mentioning that those continually claiming victory againstt me are my debate opponents. it's kinda like the patriots supplying there own game officials…oh wait.

if all else fails go ad hominem... do you all never deviate from the con playbook?

as I said before, words have consequences especially in situations like this and especially if you are the president and saying it. if that's not what he meant. it was a pretty unpresidential thing to say. i'm of the camp that believes he meant to convey what those words are well known to mean. you can disagree.

a metaphor for what exactly? you'd be wrong. pretty specific words? whuy not say "cal down" or "step back" or some other much more nebulous term if that is what he meant? umm...because that's not what he meant.

agreed. how does that not mean disarm? how is that not interpreted as an imminent threat as I just stated?

if Obama requested that the miltants stand down would there be any debate re his meaning? I think not, nor should there be for cruz. if he didn't mean what the words are known to convey then it was a serious mistake.

so you think he is unaware of the definition of the word? unaware that the perps are armed? I don't like the guy's politics but I aslo don't think he's stupid. if you plan on voting for him you better hope he knew the implications of those words. subtlety and precision in language are big parts of diplomacy

stand-down or standdown [stand-doun] /ˈstændˌdaʊn/ SpellSyllables Word Origin noun 1. Military. a temporary cessation of offensive actions; cease-fire; truce: a stand-down for the Christmas holidays. 2. a work stoppage or layoff. I don't think cruz was refewrring to a work stoppage do you? care to link an alternative definition for the trem? what do you think he meant?

good for cruz. "stand down" implies imminent threat by those being asked to do so, no? so when will the nutjobs here agree with him? at any rate, I doubt cruz lost many votes here. those sympathetic to this movement are most likely trump or paul supporters.

those are separate, legitimate questions that should be asked of each discreet group and incident. but nice try....

here's a better analogy. an anti nuke group stages an armed occupation of a government run nuclear waste site. how do you think your far right wacko friends would view that?

armed occupation of federal property is criminal and treasonous. how could it not be?

so we're agreed that the act is illegal and treasonous? take issue? do you mean condemn? are we agreed that the act is treasonous?

and it's not salient to the debate. just like almost all of your arguments

not one con here has actually debated the legal or moral justification for this act. even if one proposes a reasonable cause, the methods of protest here can't be reasonably defended. the con argument centers on supposedly analogous acts among disparate groups. i'm shocked! the act is illegal and traitorous. what other groups have done doesn't change that.

hmmm...so I can't be against American slavery unless I publicly renounce rome? well no. they are separate issues. once again one of the cons is trying to unnecessarily complicate a relatively straightforward issue: southern American slavery. wanna talk about ancient roman ethics and morals (which were sorely lacking btw- they invented crucifixion)? that's a separate discussion. start a new thread. I suspect we might finally agree on something there.

well, no. the liberals here are celebrating this move, not whining it's the cons that are whining. not sure about what exactly but ostensibly it seems to be about "erasing history". my suspicions lie elsewhere. but happy new year to you too. don't believe i'm entitled to anything from you. i believe you have a nearly worthless argument without sourcing. i also believe what you said above is much more honest than when you said this: "I don't post sources because I read books and primary sources." honesty, however, is not virtuous in this case.