Right Wing Militants Seize Federal Building!

[birdog1960]

 

It should seem obvious that all Cruz is doing is trying to calm everyone down so that this can end without any violence or hysteria. You will disagree, but I don't read a call to 'disarm' in any of that.

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

[DC Tom]

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.

No, there wouldn't. We'd all know it was a metaphor.

[birdog1960]

No, there wouldn't. We'd all know it was a metaphor.

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.

Edited January 4, 2016 by birdog1960

[B-Man]

Back to the thread..................................

 

 

 

TWO CNNS IN ONE!

 

 

● Face it, Oregon building takeover is terrorism.

 

—CNN, today

 

.

● Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don’t get it.

—CNN, October 5, 2011.

 

 

 

As John Podhoretz tweeted yesterday, “So it’s OK to occupy a park near Wall Street but not an empty office building in the middle of Oregon? I’m against both. How about you?”

 

Adding, “Admit it. You like people who have your politics and you make allowances, and you want people whose politics you hate to be arrested.”

 

 

This is CNN.

 

 

 

.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223073/

 

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by B-Man

[Chef Jim]

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.

 

Cool so do you have is email address or phone number? Or is their some other means you used to ask him what he meant?

[Deranged Rhino]

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.

 

You often fall under the delusion that just because you think something it must therefor be true.

 

...Which makes it very difficult to be open minded and learn new things.

[Azalin]

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

 

To put it bluntly, a command to disarm usually means to hand over your weapons. We all know that most - if not all- of these people are pissed-off militia members, but let's not get carried away with that stereotype. Do you really think that they're all hunched down, heads poking up just above window-level, their rifles cocked, aimed, and ready to start blasting peoples' heads off? Cruz is telling them - and everyone else - to calm down, relax, and try to work this thing out. Think about it for a second - do you really think that he would win their trust by singling them out like that?

[birdog1960]

 

To put it bluntly, a command to disarm usually means to hand over your weapons. We all know that most - if not all- of these people are pissed-off militia members, but let's not get carried away with that stereotype. Do you really think that they're all hunched down, heads poking up just above window-level, their rifles cocked, aimed, and ready to start blasting peoples' heads off? Cruz is telling them - and everyone else - to calm down, relax, and try to work this thing out. Think about it for a second - do you really think that he would win their trust by singling them out like that?

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.

[IDBillzFan]

 

You often fall under the delusion that just because you think something it must therefor be true.

 

...Which makes it very difficult to be open minded and learn new things.

 

Exactly. I genuinely appreciate the irony that the one person who thinks he's an authority on intelligence battles gatorman for being the biggest idiot on this board.

[birdog1960]

 

Exactly. I genuinely appreciate the irony that the one person who thinks he's an authority on intelligence battles gatorman for being the biggest idiot on this board.

if all else fails go ad hominem...

 

do you all never deviate from the con playbook?

Edited January 4, 2016 by birdog1960

[Azalin]

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.

 

Cruz cut his political teeth here in Texas, arguably the most pro-gun State in the nation. I just don't see him alienating them by calling them out like that. Then again, you are free to interpret his words however you like.

do you all never deviate from the con playbook?

 

By that logic, 'poophead' is a mainstay of the lib playbook.

[B-Man]

Good article................too long for those who are blind.

The Case for Civil Disobedience in Oregon

by David French

Watching the news yesterday, a person could be forgiven for thinking that a small group of Americans had literally lost their minds. Militias are marching through Oregon on behalf of convicted arsonists? A small band of armed men has taken over a federal building? The story practically writes itself.

Or does it? Deranged militiamen spoiling for a fight against the federal government make for good copy, but what if they’re right? What if the government viciously and unjustly prosecuted a rancher family so as to drive them from their land? Then protest, including civil disobedience, would be not just understandable but moral, and maybe even necessary.

{snip}

In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “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.”

At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case.

{snip}

The federal government, however, was not content to let the matter rest. Despite the absence of any meaningful damage to federal land, the U.S. Attorney appealed the trial judge’s sentencing decision, demanding that the Hammonds return to prison to serve a full five-year sentence.

The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled against the Hammonds, rejecting their argument that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by filing an appeal and dismissing the trial court’s Eighth Amendment concerns. The Hammonds were ordered back to prison. At the same time, they were struggling to pay a $400,000 civil settlement with the federal government, the terms of which gave the government right of first refusal to purchase their property if they couldn’t scrape together the money.

There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property. To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.

If that’s the case, civil disobedience is a valuable course of action. By occupying a vacant federal building, protesters can bring national attention to an injustice that would otherwise go unnoticed and unremedied. Moreover, they can bring attention once again to the federal government’s more systemic persecution of private landowners.

While civil disobedience is justified, violence is not. So far, no one has been hurt, the “occupation” is occurring in a vacant federal building in the middle of nowhere, and there is no reported threat to innocent bystanders. It would be absurd for the federal government to treat the protesters like it treated the men and women at Waco or Ruby Ridge, and it would be absurd for the protesters to shoot police officers who are ordered to reasonably and properly enforce the law. The occupation is far less intrusive and disruptive than the Occupy Movement’s dirty and violent seizure of urban public parks, and authorities permitted that to go on for weeks. Now is the time for calm, not escalation.

I sympathize with the ranchers’ fury, and I’m moved by the Hammonds’ plight. According to multiple accounts, they are good American citizens. Even the prosecutor noted that they “have done wonderful things for their community.” The district court noted that the character letters submitted on the Hammonds’ behalf were “tremendous” and that “these are people who have been a salt in their community.” Yet now they’re off to prison once again — not because they had to go or because they harmed any other person but because the federal government has pursued them like a pack of wolves.

They are victims of an all-too-common injustice. Ranchers and other landowners across the country find themselves chafing under the thumb of an indifferent and even oppressive federal government. Now is the time for peaceful protest. If it gets the public to pay attention, it won’t have been in vain.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

[IDBillzFan]

if all else fails go ad hominem...

 

do you all never deviate from the con playbook?

 

Please...you've been getting your ass beat by everyone not named gatorman on this subject and yet you continue to make it sound like you just got off the phone with Ted Cruz.

 

There are nutbags standing in an empty building to protest something. Beyond that, we can take everything you genuinely know about what is going on, write it down on a piece of paper, crumble up the paper and fit it comfortably up the ass of a gnat.

[DC Tom]

a metaphor for what exactly? you'd be wrong.

 

A metaphor for "you need to stop what you're doing and go home."

 

News flash: Eric Wood isn't really a "warrior" "battling" in "the trenches." Peyton Manning doesn't actually sling a gun. Alexander Ovechkin isn't a Russian sniper. Donald Trump is not literally "under fire" for being The Donald. Politics is not a "battleground." Obama did not literally mean that the New Horizons oil was "assaulting" the Gulf Coast and require a "battle plan" to fix. Hillary Clinton isn't "besieged" by controversy, and her "war chest" isn't literally intended for war, nor does she marshal "the ranks" of an "army" of volunteers in the "front lines" while she plans her "campaign" in the "war room"

[birdog1960]

 

A metaphor for "you need to stop what you're doing and go home."

 

News flash: Eric Wood isn't really a "warrior" "battling" in "the trenches." Peyton Manning doesn't actually sling a gun. Alexander Ovechkin isn't a Russian sniper. Donald Trump is not literally "under fire" for being The Donald. Politics is not a "battleground." Obama did not literally mean that the New Horizons oil was "assaulting" the Gulf Coast and require a "battle plan" to fix. Hillary Clinton isn't "besieged" by controversy, and her "war chest" isn't literally intended for war, nor does she marshal "the ranks" of an "army" of volunteers in the "front lines" while she plans her "campaign" in the "war room"

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.

 

Please...you've been getting your ass beat by everyone not named gatorman on this subject and yet you continue to make it sound like you just got off the phone with Ted Cruz.

 

There are nutbags standing in an empty building to protest something. Beyond that, we can take everything you genuinely know about what is going on, write it down on a piece of paper, crumble up the paper and fit it comfortably up the ass of a gnat.

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.

[DC Tom]

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.

My point being that metaphors are common, and commonly used, particularly military metaphors. And your selective interpretation of them as literal nased on your own narrow politically partisan bias is thoroughly retarded (in a literal, not metaphorical, sense.)

[birdog1960]

My point being that metaphors are common, and commonly used, particularly military metaphors. And your selective interpretation of them as literal nased on your own narrow politically partisan bias is thoroughly retarded (in a literal, not metaphorical, sense.)

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/

Edited January 5, 2016 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

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/

By that argument, it's still metaphorical. Because if you want to be that literal, TED CRUZ IS NOT IN THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND AND CAN'T GIVE THAT ORDER.

 

Now stop being a putz, and grow up.

[justnzane]

Back to the thread..................................

 

 

 

TWO CNNS IN ONE!

 

 

● Face it, Oregon building takeover is terrorism.

 

—CNN, today

 

.

● Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don’t get it.

—CNN, October 5, 2011.

 

 

 

As John Podhoretz tweeted yesterday, “So it’s OK to occupy a park near Wall Street but not an empty office building in the middle of Oregon? I’m against both. How about you?”

 

Adding, “Admit it. You like people who have your politics and you make allowances, and you want people whose politics you hate to be arrested.”

 

 

This is CNN.

 

 

 

.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223073/

 

.

This is a flawed comparison as the Occupiers were not armed to the teeth, willing to die. If you are going down that road, you could compare them to the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam era as well or black people during civil rights moment and still be just as flawed.

[birdog1960]

By that argument, it's still metaphorical. Because if you want to be that literal, TED CRUZ IS NOT IN THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND AND CAN'T GIVE THAT ORDER.

 

Now stop being a putz, and grow up.

when all else fails...