Militiamen Take Over Federal Wildlife Refuge

[Gravekeeper]

Bundy's fucknuts have stormed and seized a federal building.

I didn't see even a blip about this on the news yesterday. I assume because they're white. Now they're on the news today but they're being referred to as "armed protesters". Cus if you seize a federal building with a group of gun toting fucknuts and state up front you're willing to use violence you're still a "protester". They're also calling for anyone who agrees with them to come hole up and join them.

If you're white that is. I would love to see how this would play out if armed but not lily white protesters stormed a federal building.

[BlaqueKatt]

They're also calling for anyone who agrees with them to come hole up and join them.

amusingly enough, the "protestors" are at the fairgrounds, however the ones "holding" the building(the Bundy kids) number six to twelve according to a reporter that actually went there and checked her facts.

[Gravekeeper]

amusingly enough, the "protestors" are at the fairgrounds, however the ones "holding" the building(the Bundy kids) number six to twelve according to a reporter that actually went there and checked her facts.

Ah, they're doing it because god told them too. Of course.

I don't get the "actually went there and checked her facts" comment however. You mean the story evolved as it was investigated? Isn't that what is suppose to happen? I'd give you that if the cable media had made a massive deal out of this for days. But they didn't even squeak about it till this morning.

God told them so instead of Allah, so. -.-

[BlaqueKatt]

I don't get the "actually went there and checked her facts" comment however. You mean the story evolved as it was investigated?

She actually interviewed the Bundy kids in the building, while every other news outlet took the, well domestic terrorists, word on how many people were(impossibly) in the building.

rolling stone has a decent write up about why the ranchers were charged(two fires one to cover poaching, one to protect from a wildfire-but it endangered firefighters in the area)

yes they're mad because they can't read the full name of a law.

and the ranchers being charged say they want no part of this, they're reporting to serve their sentence on monday.

[Gravekeeper]

She actually interviewed the Bundy kids in the building, while every other news outlet took the, well domestic terrorists, word on how many people were(impossibly) in the building.

That really doesn't merit the comment though. She "actually" interviewed them, sure, because she's a local reporter and the first one on the scene. Other news outlets barely mentioned it last night and are tiptoeing around it this morning.

I mean, I'd agree if the media had grabbed the ball and ran with it but half the problem with all this is they didn't. Because it involves white Christians. The difference in coverage is kind of infuriating. Even this morning they were calling them "armed peaceful protesters" and crap like that.

And yes, I know why they're mad. Though the Hammond thing seems to just be an excuse for these morons. They're also demanding the federal government release the refuge itself. >.>

Funny that the Hammonds want nothing to do with them though.

Another local reporter is on site with them now. They've shut up about their numbers and are holding a press conference.

[BlaqueKatt]

heh, some people are referring to them a y'allqueda on social media

[Gravekeeper]

heh, some people are referring to them a y'allqueda on social media

I saw that. Y'allqaeda on a Yeehad, ehe.

[Canarr]

I saw that. Y'allqaeda on a Yeehad, ehe.

Honestly, are those guys really a threat to anything except the public image of ranchers?

[s_stabeler]

In a sense, they are- but only inasmuch as they are idiots with guns, who have proved that they aren't exactly willing to be reasonable.


oh, and they are in fact protesters, even if they are armed, since their actions are meant to protest the actions of the government. That said protest is not actually very popular is irrelevant.

[Gravekeeper]

oh, and they are in fact protesters, even if they are armed, since their actions are meant to protest the actions of the government. That said protest is not actually very popular is irrelevant.

Whether or not they meet the strict definition of the word wasn't the point. The point is that they are only still "peaceful protesters" because they are white Christians. An armed group seizing federal property, threatening violence and talking like they're ready to martyr themselves are not "peaceful protesters".

[Canarr]

It's indeed highly probable that the same group would have already been forcibly ejected from the premises by SWAT or similar if they were black.

[Hyena Dandy]

So, should they be forcibly ejected, or shouldn't they?

I think we ought to apply the same standard. This is usually how we argue something should be treated when it's black protesters. Unless we want to argue that the situation should be reversed, where we're hands off on black people and shoot white people, we should be arguing that this is the ideal way for the government to handle it.

[SkullKing]

Just thought this might be interesting to the discussion: It compares pricing of grazing in public vs private lands

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...cent-discount/

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

It's the type of public space they're occupying. Most Americans don't go to the treasure trove of preserves they have at their disposal.

If however these protesters chose to occupy a different public space, they'd have problems. An overpass? Yes. A Military depot? Yes. A treasury building? Of course.

Parks and Rec? It's a very specific target selection where if the government goes in and creates a firefight they will get blamed for it. All they have to do is cut off supplies and set up a camp and wait. It will still go on for months, but these protestors brought supplies with them so this was perfectly anticipated.

The question is does the public feel like people need to die in the course of arresting these people? The answer to that is probably no given how low priority the venue is. The difference between this and BLM is that BLM has been choosing urban, public targets. Not rural, secluded targets. I honestly don't know you'd have a different reaction in that case. Any government agent is going to face a firestorm for starting a firefight in a rural area. Not just because of race, but mostly because it's really easy to let them starves themselves that way. In an urban, commerce based area the stakes get raised. You can't shut down a block of a city for 3 months while protesters tire themselves out. That can kill local business.

[Gravekeeper]

Yeah, they chose the location well. It lets them masturbate their idiocy but also carries a low risk of actually having to put their money where their mouth is so to speak. They are idiots and should be left to be idiots until they realize they are idiots. Cold, hungry idiots without access to indoor plumbing. Much as they deserve to find out the actual consequences of their actions.

I would say the problem is whether or not any other crazy idiots heed their call and come join them. If their rally call starts to work authorities will have to step in before the situation becomes too big to handle.

Waiting out a bunch of fucking idiots is one thing. Letting them set up an armed encampment is another.