DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 If you call people on Twitter calling for houses of white people to be burned down, and instead people burning down and looting their own neighborhoods, organized, then maybe. However, I disagree with the organizational structure and direct plans than a terrorist attack typically has applying to said situation You'd be surprised at the amount of organization that goes in to most mass protests. There's professional protesters who do nothing more than go around and help organize protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 You'd be surprised at the amount of organization that goes in to most mass protests. There's professional protesters who do nothing more than go around and help organize protests. George Soros bankrolls a lot of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 George Soros bankrolls a lot of it He's a convenient bogeyman, like the Koch Brothers for the left. ANSWER and the international anarchists union (who are highly organized, ironically) are involved in a lot of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 the act is illegal and traitorous. what other groups have done doesn't change that. Are the similar actions by blacklivesmatter, occupy Wall Street, and campus protests similarly illegal and traitorous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 He gets it. He just doesn't accept it. He toes the liberal line that the justice system is only fair if it gives preferential treatment to the people it's been historically unfair to. You're right of course, but Gator is not a liberal, nor does he believe in liberal ideals. He's a statist -- which happens to describe much of the modern left -- but he's not a liberal. True Liberals believe in personal freedom, limited government, and the protection of the individual from the mob. True Liberals value different opinions, education, and a vigilant partnership with government rather than a wholesale forfeiture of individual rights in the name of security. These views contrast sharply with Gator's own posts, expressed beliefs and values. Calling Gator a liberal is not only untrue, it's an unfair portrayal of what liberalism actually stands (or stood) for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Calling Gator a liberal is not only untrue, it's an unfair portrayal of what liberalism actually stands (or stood) for. Yeah, well...calling him an idiot is unfair to idiots, but I do it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Are the similar actions by blacklivesmatter, occupy Wall Street, and campus protests similarly illegal and traitorous? those are separate, legitimate questions that should be asked of each discreet group and incident. but nice try.... Edited January 4, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 Yeah, well...calling him an idiot is unfair to idiots, but I do it anyway. Oh, you are just angry and frustrated. Maybe try getting out of the apartment sometime this year. It might do you some good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 those are separate, legitimate questions that should be asked of each discreet group and incident. but nice try.... Not when discussing the inconsistency of the criminal justice system, and your liberal embracing of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Who, exactly, is being terrorized by this protest? And how is it becoming lost that this is a protest against a gross injustice committed against US citizens by it's Federal Government? Does it not strike anyone that this peaceful occupation of an abandoned government owned log cabin, which was most likely reported by the occupiers themselves, was done precisely to bring attention to the gross injustice being carried out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 Not when discussing the inconsistency of the criminal justice system, and your liberal embracing of it. Right wingers do something wrong and its time to blame the system. What, no one attacking the media yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Right wingers do something wrong and its time to blame the system. What, no one attacking the media yet? No one is saying that. Most of us are saying the following; -their cause has a point and the government has gone overboard in this case. -they are not damaging property, terrorizing anyone, committing acts of violence or harming anyone. -some disagree with their method of protest by moving into an abandoned federal cabin but to this point it has been harmless and no property is destroyed personal or government. Edit- and most here are smart enough to see the difference in the way these guys are being portrayed compared to the spoiled !@#$s who destroyed half of ferguson and rioted in Baltimore. Edited January 4, 2016 by drinkTHEkoolaid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Who, exactly, is being terrorized by this protest? And how is it becoming lost that this is a protest against a gross injustice committed against US citizens by it's Federal Government? Does it not strike anyone that this peaceful occupation of an abandoned government owned log cabin, which was most likely reported by the occupiers themselves, was done precisely to bring attention to the gross injustice being carried out? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Yeah, well...calling him an idiot is unfair to idiots, but I do it anyway. Touche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Could there be a clearer indicator of how they think the politics will go ? White House is referring to situation in Oregon as a 'local' law enforcement matter despite its taking place in federal bldg and FBI investigating Here Are Five Reasons You Should Side With The Hammond Family by Ben Shapiro You should have sympathy for Steven and Dwight Hammond because they are, by all accounts, decent and generous community members attempting to survive as ranchers in the face of a massive federal bureaucracy violating their rights. Here’s everything you need to know about the Hammond family and why they’re now at the center of a national firestorm. The Federal Government Has Been Trying To Push The Hammonds Off Their Land. The federal government owns huge swaths of land in the western United States via the Bureau of Land Management, ranging from 84.5 percent of all territory in Nevada to 53.1 percent of all territory in Oregon. The federal Fish and Wildlife Service has designs on the land owned by the Hammond family, and to that end, they bought up all the land surrounding the Hammonds, and then apparently began choking out the Hammonds’ access to water and grazing rights. Suffice it to say that in plea arrangements regarding arson charges (to be discussed shortly) the Hammonds agreed to give the BLM first right of refusal on a sale of their property In a plea agreement. Their “Arson” Was An Attempt to Protect Their Land Use. In 2001, the Hammonds initiated a burn on their property – the goal of which, according to the Hammonds, was to kill weeds that suck up water. The fire expanded outside their property and burned 138 acres of federal land. The Hammonds put out the fire themselves; no federal firefighters were used. According to the Hammonds, they called BLM beforehand for permission. In 2006, the Hammonds initiated a backfire in order to prevent their property from being burned by lightning. One acre of federal land was apparently burned. The federal government charged the father-and-son duo under anti-terrorism laws, calling for a five-year mandatory minimum federal sentence. The Hammonds Are Good Members Of Their Community. The judge, in originally sentencing Steven and Dwight Hammond, stated, “With regard to character letters and that sort of thing, they were tremendous. These are people who have been a salt in their community and liked, and I appreciate that…I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum and because, to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here. And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute.” The Feds Want All Ranchers On Notice That They Rule The Roost. It’s not just the Hammonds. The Oregon Farm Bureau protested the Hammonds’ convictions, stating: This prosecution will have a chilling effect across the West among ranchers and others who rely on federal allotments and permits. It will harm the positive relationship many ranchers and organizations have worked to forge with the bureau, and the hard work that has been done on the range. It also is hypocritical given BLM’s own harm to the range, which goes without consequence. It is unjust. OFB worked quietly behind the scenes with BLM through the spring and summer. That diligent diplomatic effort was fruitless. The Hammonds Are Not Interested In Violence. Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a similar dispute with the BLM in 2014, headed up to Oregon with armed citizens to take over an empty facility at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. They left a peaceful protest in order to do so The media have chosen to focus on the Bundy move because it’s more spectacular in terms of the headlines. But the Hammonds’ story is a pure example of what an insanely powerful, unelected bureaucracy can achieve when it goes unchecked. And there’s no question that as the government expands, conflagrations like the Hammonds/Bundys will become more and more common. http://www.dailywire.com/news/2303/here-are-five-reasons-you-should-side-hammond-ben-shapiro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Who, exactly, is being terrorized by this protest? The Hammonds are convicted terrorists (for "maliciously destroying federal property by fire.") So they're supporting terrorism, legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Wait , that's not the Left's narrative.......................... Cruz to Oregon Protesters: 'Stand Down' Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz asked that armed protesters occupying a federal building in Oregon since Saturday "stand down peaceably," NBC News reported. "We don't have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence against others," Cruz told reporters in Iowa. The site wrote that Cruz said "our prayers" were with law enforcement officials dealing with the standoff, which claims it is pushing for limits on federal control over large swaths of land and includes Ammon and Ryan Bundy, the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. Read it at NBC News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 This is interesting, too... The statute the Hammonds were charged under, 18 USC SS 844: Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both. The statute they weren't charged under, 18 USC SS 1855: Whoever, willfully and without authority, sets on fire any timber, underbrush, or grass or other inflammable material upon the public domain or upon any lands owned or leased by or under the partial, concurrent, or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, [...stuff about Indian land...] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Ain't that some ****? The anti-terrorism statute specifies a minimum sentence of five years, but the public lands statute specifies a maximum of five years, for largely the same crime. Nice, consistent legislation there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 The Hammonds are convicted terrorists (for "maliciously destroying federal property by fire.") So they're supporting terrorism, legally. My point, in part, was to take umbrage with the expanding definition of terrorism, and laws applicable as such. It is unequivocally abhorrent that what the Hammonds did would be considered terrorism by the Federal Government. To further expand on that by criminalizing peaceful protesters supporting US citizens against truly despotic acts committed by an unelected Federal bureaucracy is antithetical to every foundational value of a free society. That the acts perpetrated by the government against it's citizens are being overlooked in favor of criminalizing a peaceful protest over such acts is everything that is wrong with today's news media, and everything that is wrong with the national political dialogue of our times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 My point, in part, was to take umbrage with the expanding definition of terrorism, and laws applicable as such. No argument. It is unequivocally abhorrent that what the Hammonds did would be considered terrorism by the Federal Government. Particularly given that there was another applicable, non-terrorism statute. I'd like to know why the prosecutor choose the charges they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts