Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2016-01-02/peaceful-protest-followed-by-oregon-wildlife-refuge-action

How can they be terrorists if they aren't even Muslim?

Ah shit, you're right. Can we get a thread name change? Swap "terrorists" with "Patriots" please Ush.

Send in the FBI. I want another Waco.

Nothing of value would be lost.

Originally posted by Lucius
Send in the FBI. I want another Waco.

wow your seriously sick. waco was one of the most tragic events, government boot strapped CRIMINAL THUGS shooting families.

Of course he's sick. He's one of those who thinks it's perfectly ok to kill unborn babies. Sell their parts too. What, you expect people like that to have morals? Course he also backs the most criminal lying Presidential candidate of all-time who was directly responsible for getting four Americans killed in Benghazi because of her negligence. What does that tell you about his moral character, hmmm?

Way to stay on topic, guys...

Originally posted by Star428
Of course he's sick. He's one of those who thinks it's perfectly ok to kill unborn babies. Sell their parts too. What, you expect people like that to have morals? Course he also backs the most criminal lying Presidential candidate of all-time who was directly responsible for getting four Americans killed in Benghazi because of her negligence. What does that tell you about his moral character, hmmm?

I agree and with Benghazi the reason why Obama ****ed it up was because him and Bush go by the same nation building policy/foreign aid/foreign intervention. Overthrowing Ghadiffi was one of the worst foreign policy moves along with overthrowing Hussain in Iraq. Complete failures.

Idk how can you support abortion and say you care about people. Their is no life if we don't protect the life of the unborn. Also Planned Parenthood is a nazi racist eugenics death cult/satanic and pure evil. Ur right man he has a sick/disturbed mind idk clearly demonic. He is morally sick idk clearly he has mental problems.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Way to stay on topic, guys...

luciouis is the one saying he wants another waco to happen thats not funny thats purely disgusting/evil and serial killer like. waco was pure evil the federal government thugs killed innocent peaceful people led by that thug ratfaced bastard reno. clearly he needs some serious help.

Ok cut it out on the accusation of people being mentally ill because they support abortion. That's unreasonable posting and I'll ban if it's done again.

Say something on-topic or don't post.

This is... not exactly unexpected, it's pretty much the type of thing the FBI has warned about, isn't it?

Militia groups are a known problem, and taking over a not-in-use federal building is not as bad as it could be, but yea, this is a massive criminal act.

I find it interesting they tried to invite the locals, were blown off, and... did it anyway, showing no real respect for the locals.

Originally posted by Agusto Pinochet
I agree and with Benghazi the reason why Obama ****ed it up was because him and Bush go by the same nation building policy/foreign aid/foreign intervention. Overthrowing Ghadiffi was one of the worst foreign policy moves along with overthrowing Hussain in Iraq. Complete failures.

I agree with the general sentiment, but unlike Hussain, Ghadaffi was a revolution-in-progress already, without really a good outcome- he'd already ordered the destruction/cutting off water to a city that had hundreds of thousands. Neither acting nor not acting results in a stable state.





Well, because the unborn don't have brains, the mothers are people, it's their own bodies they're deciding on, it directly affects their quality of life and sometimes whether or not they live.

Remember, those who are pro-choice aren't mandating it or anything, just for allowing people control over their own bodies.

Also organizations like planned parenthood, through education and birth control, do lower the number of abortions. One of the great ironies is the pro-choice movement is better at reducing abortions than the anti-abortion movement, so who's actually caring about life there?

Normally 'death cults' don't result in *lower* levels of the thing you're complaining about. How can you call yourself anti-abortion if you're against the group most successful in lowering the amount of it?


And, really, this 'othering' of people who have a different point of view than you, trying to paint them as .. well, literally demons... rather than trying to understand and engage their point of view is the kind of thing that leads to needless violent incidents.

The people who took over this facility no down have created all kinds of demonized phantoms in their heads about the government, yet if they didn't act first, the government would be entirely content to ignore them.

These guys would probably already have been killed if they weren't white.

Originally posted by Agusto Pinochet
wow your seriously sick. waco was one of the most tragic events, government boot strapped CRIMINAL THUGS shooting families.

The government ****ed it up, but I wouldn't call a cult a "family".

David had how many pre pubed "wives"?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
These guys would probably already have been killed if they weren't white.

Why bring race into this? Then can I say something about things that would or wouldn't happen if they weren't white? Like if these guys weren't white they wouldn't of taken over a building..just drove by in a car and shot everyone up..thug style. *Playing "Thuggish Ruggish Bone" by Bone Thugs N Harmony*

Though silver lining: since they are white we know if they are killed the people won't burn down their own city in response. Racial speculation: it's fun for a girl and a boy.

Originally posted by Lucius
Send in the FBI. I want another Waco.

Nothing of value would be lost.

The fbi has made zero arrests in this incident.

These people are exercising s few of their constitution ammendmwnts and they have not harmed anyone.

OP was mistaken in calling this a terrorist event.

Paris, SB were terrorists with the aim of killing and hurting and spreading terror, these people are standing up for their rights.

The Record set straight here now.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
These guys would probably already have been killed if they weren't white.

What a stupid trolling statement.

Though I am confused about what exactly these people are standing up for and why they think occupying this building will change anything?

It said this was over the right to grazing or something. Or is this a response to a judge deciding to toss them back into jail? Since to me once your time is served that is it.

It also sets a dangerous precedent if a judge can decide "well the punishment wasn't enough we need more". They shouldn't be additionally punished because the last judge was too stupid to properly sentence them.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
These people are exercising s few of their constitution ammendmwnts and they have not harmed anyone. There is no legal statute that gives you the right to forcefully occupy a federal building, armed with guns.

It's called the second ammendment, and the people pay for that building.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It's called the second ammendment, and the people pay for that building.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give people the right to forcibly take over Federal property, nor does paying taxes.

Originally posted by Surtur
Though I am confused about what exactly these people are standing up for and why they think occupying this building will change anything?

It said this was over the right to grazing or something. Or is this a response to a judge deciding to toss them back into jail? Since to me once your time is served that is it.

It also sets a dangerous precedent if a judge can decide "well the punishment wasn't enough we need more". They shouldn't be additionally punished because the last judge was too stupid to properly sentence them.

Continued prosecution by the government over grazing, criminal prosecution by the government for burning bad vegetation that is killing their animals and land seizures.

Originally posted by Lucius
The 2nd Amendment doesn't give people the right to forcibly take over Federal property, nor does paying taxes.

I disagree.

Can you quote the passage of text from the Constitution that says "citizens have the right to take over federal property with the threat of violence"?

The second ammendment gives people the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government takeover.

So if I take a rifle and gun down a dozen police officers outside today you would assert that I'm justified and just exercising my rights?

You are killing people, so that is against the law.

Don't get upset now and throw a fit because your OP was trolling.

Ironically you have no problem with Black Lives matter and all the actual chaos they have caused.

Shows your true colors.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I disagree.

That's a shame, because it makes you wrong. Individual citizens, or even groups of citizens, don't get to just do whatever they please because they own guns and pay taxes.

You don't like the way something is done? You try and get other citizens to vote on it. You get signatures for a referendum. You call your local congressman.

Now, I happen to agree that making those two ranchers go back to prison is a shitty thing to do. Mandatory sentencing laws are bullshit, but that doesn't give people the right to threaten violence and take over property.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
So if I take a rifle and gun down a dozen police officers outside today you would assert that I'm justified and just exercising my rights?

You're half black and half Mexican. According to god fearing 'Muricans, that makes you the worst thing ever.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are killing people, so that is against the law.

Don't get upset now and throw a fit because your OP was trolling.

Ironically you have no problem with Black Lives matter and all the actual chaos they have caused.

Shows your true colors. Wait, so you're allowed to use guns to intimidate government people into giving into your demands because 2nd amendment, but if you actually use those guns it's terrorism?

Do you know what the definition of terrorism is?

Originally posted by Lucius
That's a shame, because it makes you wrong. Individual citizens, or even groups of citizens, don't get to just do whatever they please because they own guns and pay taxes.

You don't like the way something is done? You try and get other citizens to vote on it. You get signatures for a referendum. You call your local congressman.

Now, I happen to agree that making those two ranchers go back to prison is a shitty thing to do. Mandatory sentencing laws are bullshit, but that doesn't give people the right to threaten violence and take over property.



You're half black and half Mexican. According to god fearing 'Muricans, that makes you the worst thing ever. allahu akbar

I can tell you both are extremely mad, why? Who have they hurt?

Please stay on topic.

I am on topic, I'm sorry if it counters your ignorant stance.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Wait, so you're allowed to use guns to intimidate government people into giving into your demands because 2nd amendment, but if you actually use those guns it's terrorism?

Do you know what the definition of terrorism is?

Your only goal here is to cause a divisive argument. No one else but you has labeled this as terrorism. You have repeatedly sided with black lives matter, and actual terrorist organization that entices violence against the police and government. Black lives matters shuts city streets down, stops business from operating, turns over police cars and in the past has encouraged violent protests.

But you don't care about that because you are black.

So what you did was find a white issue where people are standing up for their rights in a peaceful way and have not hurt anyone and you want to call them terrorists.

You are mad at white people, when you should be mad at Obama for causing and encouraging black lives matter.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Continued prosecution by the government over grazing, criminal prosecution by the government for burning bad vegetation that is killing their animals and land seizures.

If there are plants that are literally killing their animals and they rely on these animals to make a living..I honestly don't see why there would even be a question of whether or not the vegetation should be destroyed..of course it should.

Why is it the government can't even do simple things? Unless this animal killing vegetation is also secretly some kind of cash crop.

They have imprisoned a bunch of people because of this.

Funny none of the black lives matter leaders are in prison for enciting violence against police and private citizens.

The bottom line here is this is people vs government.

The only reason liberals here have a problem with it is because its white conservatives doing it. They give zero ****s if black liberals rise up like black lives matter because they are liberal and black, so it does not count.

For what reasons does the government say these animal killing plants shouldn't be destroyed? Do they just not believe they are harmful?

As for the rest and people inciting riots..didn't Michael Brown's father at one point say "burn this place down" or something?

Originally posted by Surtur
For what reasons does the government say these animal killing plants shouldn't be destroyed? Do they just not believe they are harmful?

As for the rest and people inciting riots..didn't Michael Brown's father at one point say "burn this place down" or something?

Because technically the land is on federal ground, and even though they have paid for the grazing rights on that federal land, now the go ole govy says burning the bad vegetation is agains the law.

Typical liberal bullshit.

Originally posted by Surtur
For what reasons does the government say these animal killing plants shouldn't be destroyed? Do they just not believe they are harmful?

As for the rest and people inciting riots..didn't Michael Brown's father at one point say "burn this place down" or something?

Yes it was browns father who basically started that crap, of coarse he served no jail time because technically that is freedom of speech. Liberals will stand up for those rights because he is black, but if the person is white, lynch them. I am starting to wonder if liberals are more racist then conservatives.

TIL: If white people take over a building using guns, they're just exercising their Constitutional rights

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes it was browns father who basically started that crap, of coarse he served no jail time because technically that is freedom of speech. Liberals will stand up for those rights because he is black, but if the person is white, lynch them. I am starting to wonder if liberals are more racist then conservatives.

I just can't help wonder what would happen if a judge tried to send some black men back to prison to serve more time because he felt the previous sentence wasn't harsh enough.

Can you imagine the media shitstorm? The first thing out of some peoples mouth would be "it must be racism". I guarantee you that within 24 hours they'd have a petition up online calling for the judge to resign..and most likely also a "Go Fund Me" page open.

Originally posted by Robtard
TIL: If white people take over a building using guns, they're just exercising their Constitutional rights

TIL: If black people riot, loot, pillage, close business its ok because they are black.

Can you find a thread where rioting, looting and pillaging by black people is condoned? Every time a thread has been made on the matter, people condemn the looters while separating them form the peaceful protesters, while the opposition insist they're all the same.

So shutting down private business, streets is peaceful and condoned.

Why do you always play the same card?

You have no argument here unless you are just trying to discriminate against your own ethnicity.

You're equating a peaceful civil protest to taking over a building via force/guns as being the same.

The truth card. I try.

Are you implying that I'm a race-traitor or something? If so, stop. I did laugh though.

Prove they took over by any more then BLM tearing cities apart.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial So what you did was find a white issue where people are standing up for their rights in a peaceful way

A group using the threat of violence (guns) to take over federal property and stating that "violence is an option" if the police try to take it back is "standing up for their rights peacefully"?

The more you know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Your link is broken.

And, you didn't answer my question.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Prove they took over by any more then BLM tearing cities apart.

I don't see peaceful protest and armed takeovers as being the same, maybe that's just me.

Buy if you're insisting that what BLM does is no different than these people, what is your beef with BLM; wouldn't they also just be "exercising their rights"?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are killing people, so that is against the law.

Don't get upset now and throw a fit because your OP was trolling.

Ironically you have no problem with Black Lives matter and all the actual chaos they have caused.

Shows your true colors.



QFT.

My beef is the bias. They actually cause violence regardless if they have guns or not.

What is your beef with these people trying to defend their rights?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Your link is broken.

And, you didn't answer my question.

You didn't ask a question you ended a sentence with a question mark with no actual question.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
A group using the threat of violence (guns) to take over federal property and stating that "violence is an option" if the police try to take it back is "standing up for their rights peacefully"?

So where is the violence they have committed?

And why don't you just admit you made this thread to go after conservative white people.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
My beef is the bias. They actually cause violence regardless if they have guns or not.

What is your beef with these people trying to defend their rights?
They don't have a right to occupy Federal property or threaten insurrection against the government. No one has that right. Contrary to what you might believe, the 2nd Amendment was never supposed to allow private citizens to check the government's power. If that were the case and the founders believed in that, then Washington wouldn't have crushed the Whiskey Rebellion.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You didn't ask a question you ended a sentence with a question mark with no actual question.



So where is the violence they have committed?

And why don't you just admit you made this thread to go after conservative white people.

Can you point out to me where in the definition of terrorism it states that you have to commit violence to be a terrorist?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+terrorism

Emphasis on intimidation. The threat of violence is all that's required to commit terrorism. Are you going to tell me that walking into a federal building armed to the teeth and telling authorities that you will use violence if they try to remove you from the building is not threatening violence?

And no one has the right to do what BLM is doing, yet some how its all legal and such.

And yes that is exactly why the second amendment was written. Don't try and say it was not.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Can you point out to me where in the definition of terrorism it states that you have to commit violence to be a terrorist?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+terrorism

Emphasis on intimidation. The threat of violence is all that's required to commit terrorism.

So you say I didn't answer your question, even though you really didn't ask one, then I ask you one, you ignore it and ask a real question

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And no one has the right to do what BLM is doing, yet some how its all legal and such.

And yes that is exactly why the second amendment was written. Don't try and say it was not.
People do have the right to protest and shout slogans, you strange person.

No it wasn't. Please, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, show me the actual text that says that. As I recall, the 2nd Amendment was for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia--not a bunch of rednecks in camo chewing tobacco and watching football on their SEC TV apps.

Im not getting into a long drawn out debate on conservative white people vs liberal black people ideology. and people wonder why this country is so divided.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
My beef is the bias. They actually cause violence regardless if they have guns or not.

What is your beef with these people trying to defend their rights?

BLM is a peaceful group, there are people who cause violence during said protest, but that is not BLM's methods or supported.

The part where they took over a government buildings armed with guns and threatened violence (what the guns are for). People/groups protest all the time and they don't use guns.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
People do have the right to protest and shout slogans, you strange person.

No it wasn't. Please, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, show me the actual text that says that. As I recall, the 2nd Amendment was for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia--not a bunch of rednecks in camo chewing tobacco and watching football on their SEC TV apps.

Interesting bigotry presentation. Trying to act all smart about the consitution while being a blatent bigot at the same time is very unbecoming.

Originally posted by Robtard
BLM is a peaceful group

Now I know you are trolling because I know your not stupid or ignorant. I wont report you cause we are friends, good day.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Interesting bigotry presentation. Trying to act all smart about the consitution while being a blatent bigot at the same time is very unbecoming.
Nice dodge. Please come up with a more substantive response.

I'm not bigoted at all. Unless you think I'm a self-hating white guy, lol.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Nice dodge. Please come up with a more substantive response.

I'm not bigoted at all. Unless you think I'm a self-hating white guy, lol.

Most liberals are self hating so I understand, its ok. And what you said was bigoted, unless you consider yourself a red neck tobacco chewing person.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Most liberals are self hating so I understand, its ok.
So where's that more substantive response?

If you want to be treated as a serious debater, you should try actually debating.

Edit: LOL what? So only rednecks can make fun of other rednecks? By that logic, you're a "bigot" for insulting liberals when you're not a liberal. Please learn the real meanings of words before you use them.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Now I know you are trolling because I know your not stupid or ignorant. I wont report you cause we are friends, good day.




Yeah, LOL. That wasn't a very good joke by Rob. BLM is about as peaceful as the current day KKK. In fact, less so.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So where's that more substantive response?

If you want to be treated as a serious debater, you should try actually debating.

Trying to Marginalize someone else opinion

I see you are a real constitutionalist with this attitude.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So where's that more substantive response?

If you want to be treated as a serious debater, you should try actually debating.

Edit: LOL what? So only rednecks can make fun of other rednecks? By that logic, you're a "bigot" for insulting liberals when you're not a liberal. Please learn the real meanings of words before you use them.

If someone says all black people eat chicken waffles, watermelon what kind of statement is that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Trying to Marginalize someone else opinion

I see you are a real constitutionalist with this attitude.
I'm not interested in opinions, I'm interested in positions. A position, unlike an opinion, is something that can be contested and defended, and right now you're not doing anything to defend your position, you're simply moving from one irrelevant insult/accusation to the next.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Now I know you are trolling because I know your not stupid or ignorant. I wont report you cause we are friends, good day.

If you're just going to focus on one tiny aspect of what I said and make things up around it, I see no point.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not interested in opinions, I'm interested in positions. A position, unlike an opinion, is something that can be contested and defended, and right now you're not doing anything to defend your position, you're simply moving from one irrelevant insult/accusation to the next.

Where did I insult you, or you just making things up again like always?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If someone says all black people eat chicken waffles, watermelon what kind of statement is that?
Did I say "white people chew tobacco and watch SEC football?"

You can argue about the semantics of "insult," but here you go:
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Most liberals are self hating so I understand, its ok. And what you said was bigoted, unless you consider yourself a red neck tobacco chewing person. Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Interesting bigotry presentation. Trying to act all smart about the consitution while being a blatent bigot at the same time is very unbecoming.

Epic dodge. Oh so calling someone a bigot is a insult now, should I spend some time going back and find out how many times you call someone racist and or bigot or do you want to concede to that now?

It wasn't a dodge, I was pointing out how your comparison was faulty.

Epic dodge on the second sentence.

BLM is a terrorist group/ultra violent. Idek how they havint been arrested they've killed cops/called for the death of cops. they are criminals and enemies of the republic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LYvnqyIZc

Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, LOL. That wasn't a very good joke by Rob. BLM is about as peaceful as the current day KKK. In fact, less so.

Web007rzSOI

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you say I didn't answer your question, even though you really didn't ask one, then I ask you one, you ignore it and ask a real question Okay, so now that you've conceded that committing violence isn't a requirement to be a terrorist, merely the threat of it is enough- on what grounds are you claiming that taking over a federal building while armed and making it clear that if the police try to take it back you'll use violence is not an act of terrorism?

Ill answer this later, Im going to get indian food because I love indians.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ill answer this later, Im going to get indian food because I love indians.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2014/07/blogs/graphic-detail/20140712_gdc954.png

I'm hosting someone at my home right now from India. So

Originally posted by Surtur
I just can't help wonder what would happen if a judge tried to send some black men back to prison to serve more time because he felt the previous sentence wasn't harsh enough.

Can you imagine the media shitstorm? The first thing out of some peoples mouth would be "it must be racism". I guarantee you that within 24 hours they'd have a petition up online calling for the judge to resign..and most likely also a "Go Fund Me" page open. They weren't being sent back to prison because the judge "felt" the previous sentence wasn't harsh enough. It's because the mandatory minimum sentence for arson is five years, and the previous ruling let them off too easy, according to the law.

You should actually know what the **** you are talking about before you speak.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ill answer this later, Im going to get indian food because I love indians.

The trending hashtag for this right now is Y'all qaeda

I will mention that this situation probably can be- and should be- handled peacefully.


Unlike, say, Waco, there's no hostages. There's still time before others even need to use the facility.

It's sad that other situations aren't handled this calmly (unarmed BLM people in a mall got a riot squad recently...), but when there's room to handle something peacefully, it should be.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The trending hashtag for this right now is Y'all qaeda

Shut up you fifthy backwater Floridian!

Originally posted by NemeBro
They weren't being sent back to prison because the judge "felt" the previous sentence wasn't harsh enough. It's because the mandatory minimum sentence for arson is five years, and the previous ruling let them off too easy, according to the law.

You should actually know what the **** you are talking about before you speak.

Uh lady, I just got the information from the article posted. So please cease with your shit.

I mean hell it's one thing if this was some shit that didn't have an article posted and thus something you had to go search for..but Jesus H Christ it's not.

Plus no matter which way you spin it..someone f*cked up, royally. If the "mandatory" sentence was a specific amount of time why the hell were they released? The judge saw someone messed up and instead of saying "well gee we're some stupid motherf*ckers for this, this is on us" they try to throw people back in jail even though they were already released.

Not saying people shouldn't be in jail for arson, but once your time is served your time should be served and if a judge doesn't like it go talk to the dipshit who released them in the first place. You don't try to bring them in again unless they committed additional crimes. So again the judge saw their f*ck up and felt they hadn't been punished enough and wanted them back in jail. The "blah blah federal law" nonsense is the fault of whoever was stupid enough to release them.

If federal law was so important how the hell did these f*cks serve only a year,and one served only 3 months. That is a far cry from 5 years and when they were sentenced nobody noticed this? While they were in prison nobody noticed this? Holy shit no wonder our court system is so messed up.

Originally posted by Surtur
I mean hell it's one thing if this was some shit that didn't have an article posted and thus something you had to go search for..but Jesus H Christ it's not.

Plus no matter which way you spin it..someone f*cked up, royally. If the "mandatory" sentence was a specific amount of time why the hell were they released? The judge saw someone messed up and instead of saying "well gee we're some stupid motherf*ckers for this, this is on us" they try to throw people back in jail even though they were already released.

Not saying people shouldn't be in jail for arson, but once your time is served your time should be served and if a judge doesn't like it go talk to the dipshit who released them in the first place. You don't try to bring them in again unless they committed additional crimes. So again the judge saw their f*ck up and felt they hadn't been punished enough and forced them back to jail. The "blah blah federal law" nonsense is the fault of whoever was stupid enough to release them.

So if a murderer or rapist got released accidentally, the authorities shouldn't be allowed to put him back in jail?

Originally posted by Surtur
I just can't help wonder what would happen if a judge tried to send some black men back to prison to serve more time because he felt the previous sentence wasn't harsh enough.

Can you imagine the media shitstorm? The first thing out of some peoples mouth would be "it must be racism". I guarantee you that within 24 hours they'd have a petition up online calling for the judge to resign..and most likely also a "Go Fund Me" page open.

This is exactly what happened to these people. I wonder why this is being over looked.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So if a murderer or rapist got released accidentally, the authorities shouldn't be allowed to put him back in jail?

But this wasn't an accidental release. If it was they would of caught on as soon as the guy who served 3 months was out.

This was them being too stupid to sentence people properly. So uh, why would they go back to prison? Have we not let ruthless killers go scott free in the past because cops didn't follow proper procedures whilst arresting them? Or does shit like that just happen in the movies?

If they had been given the proper sentence of 5 years and then were accidentally released after a year that is entirely different then the courts just being too stupid to give them the proper sentence.

So I was mistaken. Earlier I said they set fire on federal land.

What actually happened was they set fire on their own land to burn bad vegetation and some of the fire went onto federal land. The land they paid the government to graze on.

And people wonder why this is so effing stupid.

Did you know the Feds own 53% of all land in Oregon?

Most of that is comprised of national forests. Surely you understand the need for national forests.

We had someone in Chicago who was legitimately released accidentally. As in he was not given the wrong sentence he was given the correct one and was just accidentally released. You know how long it took them to realize this? A day or two.

These people? Takes a year, and a whopping 9 months after one was freed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Most of that is comprised of national forests. Surely you understand the need for national forests.

Yea so hippies like you can go smoke weed in the forest and pray to Allah

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea so hippies like you can go smoke weed in the forest and pray to Allah
No, but seriously, you don't begrudge national forests, do you?

Of coarse not, but this is not about the forest. Quit moving goal posts.

TIL: TI hates forests.

TIL: Rob might get deported if Trump is elected.

I've still yet to see a sufficient explanation as to why the government doesn't want people destroying plants that poison and kill their animals?

Alright so maybe they don't trust people to know what they are doing, so then why the hell hasn't the government stepped up to get rid of this plant?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Of coarse not, but this is not about the forest. Quit moving goal posts.
That's not moving a goalpost, bruv. If anything it would be a red herring or something like that.

You were acting like the Federal government owning half the state was some kind of travesty, and I was trying to get you to see why it's reasonable that so much land would be kept out of private hands. I don't think ranchers are much for protecting forests or biodiversity.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
TIL: Rob might get deported if Trump is elected. You realize I'm an American citizen and have been in America longer than you?

So you say something ignorant but in a joking manner and when I do it you backtrack to facts

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not moving a goalpost, bruv. If anything it would be a red herring or something like that.

You were acting like the Federal government owning half the state was some kind of travesty, and I was trying to get you to see why it's reasonable that so much land would be kept out of private hands. I don't think ranchers are much for protecting forests or biodiversity.

You do know the EPA has screwed up more land then then most anyone else. Why do you rely on the Feds for everything?

But at least tell me that the government has utterly blocked off the entire building these people are in? So that nobody else can go join these people? Right? They did that, yes?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-seeks-peaceful-end-armed-standoff-oregon-federal-building-n489606

Oh. Guess not. But hey they totally told people to stay away. That is something I guess.

So it's been two days now and the government hasn't really done a thing about these terrorist All-American-Patriots.

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's been two days now and the government hasn't really done a thing about these terrorist All-American-Patriots.

It's a trick. You see the government wants the people to think they are retarded and impotent. Then BAM they are going to swarm this place.

Yes..this is what I tell myself.

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's been two days now and the government hasn't really done a thing about these terrorist All-American-Patriots.

The only difference between these people and black lives matter is race, and they can actually buy guns legally. Unlike the people in BLM and Chicago.

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's been two days now and the government hasn't really done a thing about these terrorist All-American-Patriots.

You could just refer to them as domestic terrorists. Not just for this, but for anything I think it is important to make clear if the terrorism is coming from within or coming from outside.

They occupied a federal park building.

Was the occupy movement terrorist and Black Lives Matter and all the cities they destroyed terrorism?

Also something interesting I found someone else saying about this building. Not sure if it is true:

"The entire Refuge was started as an Indian Reservation with no Indian population. The government needed a way to take the land, so they gave it to an Indian Tribe that never lived there."

If true that is quite pathetic.

Sounds like something they would do. Considering the lying and shady politians we elect like Hilary and Obama.

IMO, the authorities should just ignore these people. Truck in a few double-wide trailers and set them up with water, electricity, internet etc., to serve as a temporary replacement for the building that's being held hostage and then just wait until these yahoos get bored with their resistance roleplaying. No one gets harmed and it would cost very little, much less than having the police presence they have now.

Sounds like a plan to me. Illegals cross the border and break the law and they get free everything.

Except of course Americans profit from having a cheap "illegal" labor force. Why do you think no one really wants all "illegals" gone, sure they talk a lot, but no one is really going to deport all of them or build The Great Wall of America. Not even Trump, it's bad for business.

These people are just costing us tax dollars and offering nothing in return.

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, the authorities should just ignore these people. Truck in a few double-wide trailers and set them up with water, electricity, internet etc., to serve as a temporary replacement for the building that's being held hostage and then just wait until these yahoos get bored with their resistance roleplaying. No one gets harmed and it would cost very little, much less than having the police presence they have now.

The problem with this is where do we draw the line then? If this group can do it, why not others?

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course Americans profit from having a cheap "illegal" labor force. Why do you think no one really wants all 'illegals" gone, sure they talk a lot, but no one really going to deport all of them or build The Great Wall of America. Not really, it's bad for business.

Then pieces of shit who think this way need to leave the country. Of course it won't ever happen. We're all at the mercy of a bunch of corrupt greedy little twats. Yay, land of the free. Nope, we're the land of the green. Might as well just change the colors on the flag to the color of money.

Shoot the redneck trash in their faces and get it all on film so I can watch it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course Americans profit from having a cheap "illegal" labor force. Why do you think no one really wants all "illegals" gone, sure they talk a lot, but no one is really going to deport all of them or build The Great Wall of America. Not even Trump, it's bad for business.

These people are just costing us tax dollars and offering nothing in return.

They are standing up for their rights.

Of coarse since they are white that doesn't matter. Only minority's are allowed to break the law and get freebee's.

Originally posted by jaden101
Shoot the redneck trash in their faces and get it all on film so I can watch it.

So you must think the same about BLM and the Labor and Teachers Unions that took over the occupied capital buildings in Minnisota?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you must think the same about BLM and the Labor and Teachers Unions that took over the occupied capital buildings in Minnisota?

The problem though is that if the government sits back and lets this happen then what about those groups you mentioned? If they can take over a building and have nothing happen then won't the BLM people think it is okay for them as well? We'd have a different building occupied every week. People would be hiring motherf*ckers to go occupy buildings.

So unfortunately this situation and how it is handled will have far reaching consequences when it comes to any type of protest group and what they can get away with.

My bad it was Wisconsin

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They are standing up for their rights.

Of coarse since they are white that doesn't matter. Only minority's are allowed to break the law and get freebee's.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -T. Jefferson

Could be said that these "illegals" are practicing their "unalienable rights".

Ah so I guess the consitition contradicts itself to you then?

Have you heard of immigration laws?

That was from the Declaration of Independence

I have; it could also be said that the Mexican-wave of immigrants today are practicing what white-people did long ago.

Is this maybe just another case of the classic: "*F--- you, buddy, I got mine!" Maybe?

What was the law of the land here at the time?

You do know the Spanish killed more Indians then the White Europeans.

Yea sorry to bust your white hate speech.

The Spanish are "White Europeans" by and large. Especially back then when there was less racial mixing.

Where's my "white hate speech"? Stop with the nonsense accusations.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What was the law of the land here at the time?

You do know the Spanish killed more Indians then the White Europeans.

Yea sorry to bust your white hate speech.



Spanish back then weren't white? You sure about that? Anyway, I thought everyone had enough of this dicsussion about how the poor indians had been "wronged". I know I have. Not blaming you, of course. I know Rob probably started it.

Yeah Spain/Portugal are very much included in the idea of white European imperialism.

The big four nations doing it at the beginning (1600's) were England, Spain, Portugal and Holland. You'll rarely find people making a distinction between the Mediterranean powers and the more Northern Euroean ones when talking about Imperialism and what happened in the Americas.

White Spaniards did not found America.

And neither did Christopher Columbus.

He never even hit Ameican soil.

I don't see the need to confuse them with the Pilgrams.

Originally posted by Star428
Spanish back then weren't white? You sure about that? Anyway, I thought everyone had enough of this dicsussion about how the poor indians had been "wronged". I know I have. Not blaming you, of course. I know Rob probably started it.

TI is the one that mentioned "Indians", sporto

Originally posted by Surtur
You don't try to bring them in again unless they committed additional crimes. Why?

Originally posted by Star428
Spanish back then weren't white? You sure about that? Anyway, I thought everyone had enough of this dicsussion about how the poor indians had been "wronged". I know I have. Not blaming you, of course. I know Rob probably started it.

He went on his Blame White People thing again.

Then when I called him out they moved the goal posts.

False

False

True true. Shellhead

Why do you keep making TMNT references?

Why do you keep blaming white people for all your problems?

Stop trying to troll me, TI

No you

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Why?

Because they served the time they were sentenced to originally and were released? If they were sentenced to a set amount of time and accidentally released early that would be one thing. But they served their time, one 3 months, the other a year. In all that time nobody noticed they had the wrong sentence. Once they are out suddenly someone realizes they f*cked up and instead of owning the f*ck up and making sure it doesn't happen again they set out to re-arrest these people.

That's bullshit plain and simple. Don't call something a mandatory sentence if these people don't even notice they failed to give the "mandatory" sentence for at the very least a year. One dude would of been free for 9 months at that point. If the mandatory sentence is supposed to be 5 years and one dude served a whopping 3 months then wtf is going on in this place? Go after the person who gave the bogus ruling.

Apparently the law of united states works on the principle of "no take backsies."

Who knew.

Those guys committed a serious crime. If theres a mistake in their punishment, how is it justice to go "haha we ****ed up, off you go you scamps" instead of rectifying the situation and giving them the punishment they actually deserve? You'd rather go after the guy who made a ****ing clerical error than two convicted arsonists? Jeezus.

Who cares

Oh please, are you this naive? You realize tons of people get off on technicalities for much worse then this, right? Ranging for a variety of reasons, right down to "the police ****ed up in their investigation techniques".

Also how is it a clerical error? That wasn't noticed for 9 months? Two different people had the same mistake made with their cases? Nobody noticed?

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh please, are you this naive? You realize tons of people get off on technicalities for much worse then this, right? Ranging for a variety of reasons, right down to "the police ****ed up in their investigation techniques".

That other injustices exist does not nullify this situation. You're not even trying to defend your position, you're just bs'ing. Probably because you know you're talking a load of bollocks.

Originally posted by Nephthys
That other injustices exist does not nullify this situation. You're not even trying to defend your position, you're just bs'ing. Probably because you know you're talking a load of bollocks.

No, I'm pointing out a theme that has been in our justice system as far as people getting off on a technicality. You acted shocked and like this shit doesn't happen.

Originally posted by Surtur
No, I'm pointing out a theme that has been in our justice system as far as people getting off on a technicality. You acted shocked and like this shit doesn't happen.

No I didn't. I was perplexed at how dumb your position was. My "no take backsies" line was a joke at your expense. The legal systems failings do not elicit surprise from me.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you must think the same about BLM and the Labor and Teachers Unions that took over the occupied capital buildings in Minnisota?

Except the redneck bit. Kill them all. In the faces.