#fixeditforyou
4 Likes
Hm⌠thatâs a new one. The Bill Of Rights protects individual rights of people on United States soil*, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution actually states the reverse of that twisted logic fart from Cliven Bundy.
*technically
4 Likes
Glad to have you back.
Theyâre occupying a facility on a protected ecosystem. Theyâve threatened anyone who interferes with them.
So: terrorists. (Although I would also accept âammosexual gangstersâ as a valid pejorative.)
6 Likes
Donât even get me started on the helicopters! Iâm in Southwest Waterfront and the Anacostia Helicopter Facility is just south of here. Some days they go all night infringing our personal freedoms with the noise, noise, noise! They flew an Osprey one day, and wow, those things are loud. I havenât seen the Ninjas rappelling down from above yet, but I guess thatâs the point, I wouldnât be here if I ever did⌠
Ninjas? Totally unrealistic, Black Helicopters do transport paramilitary shock troops!
1 Like
The latter works for me, though Iâd amend it to âammosexual stooges working (perhaps unwittingly) for gangstersâ:
The Bundy crew is being manipulated by powerful interests who want to privatize public lands. This is not new. In the 1970s: it was called the Sagebrush Rebellion. In the 1990s: the Wise Use Movement. These are efforts by mining, timber, grazing, oil and gas interests to privatize your public lands.
Our public lands are crucial for wildlife, purifying water and air, providing recreation and tourist dollars for local economies. Know this: more and more extraction is occurring ON OUR PUBLIC lands. Time to stop this.
The false narrative here is that big, bad government types are trying to stir up trouble. In reality, from Ted Cruz to powerful extractive industries, they are desperately seeking ways to give these lands, our lands back to the states. Then: let the extraction begin with sales of our prized lands to the highest bidder.
Contact your Congressperson. Contact the White House. Write letters to the editor.
20 Likes
Possibly the most relevant post on this thread so far.
4 Likes
Never, if that âBubba on Bubbaâ is your thang!
Would somebody please correct the typo. The Hammonds are ranchers. Not ârangersâ.
9 Likes
No they donât. The âfugitivesâ in this case arenât there. In fact theyâre not even fugitives, they have stated that they intend to turn themselves in when ordered to and serve their sentences.
(Which were imposed due to the IMO iniquitous application of a mandatory-minimum sentencing provision in an antiterrorism act to something that is almost certainly not terrorism)
1 Like
That would be 9AM today, last I heard. Brought this all on, in fact.
This is them NOT showing up.
The criminals can defend themselves, you noble paladin.
1 Like
Pretty much. If you read the Hammond side of the story, theyâll attempt to describe their use of fire as ecologically responsible, and in keeping with the "Native American"maintenance of the prairie ecosystem, and unfortunately not in keeping with âWashingtonâsâ love of trees. So, I wanted to know what sort of ecosystem the Malheur refuge was supposed to be.
You know that terrorist can be applied to a number of people and activities, right? Terrorist =/= evil brown guys no matter how much you want it to.
10 Likes
See how innocent these âfat middle aged white guysâ are? They would NEVER have âdeep beliefsâ regarding religion or martyrdom, amirite?!? Theyâre just a buncha guys havin some fun in the woods, and totally NOT engaging in any sort of provocative or confrontational behavior.
11 Likes
Lovely to see yet another round of dictionary semantic debate. Seriously donât know why yâall keep humoring thatâŚ
10 Likes
There is also the Mormon angle to consider here:
5 Likes
Iâll start by saying that I donât support the Bundys. That said, the flippant use of terrorist seems a bit hyperbolic. They have a right to protest. They have a right to self defense. Those rights donât go away just because they are racists. No one has been harmed. No property has been destroyed, except maybe a door lock or two. They are in a remote location so the potential to harm civilians is very limited. The land being occupied is federal land with the feds being the object of their protest. Would their protest be legitimate if they were not armed? Is it the guns that make it terrorism? Were the Black Panthers terrorists when they occupied a ROTC office or marched on a state capital with guns? Is the occupation of government property not an acceptable form of protest. Should we decry all protestors that occupy parks and intersections? Do we only tolerate protest with which we agree or from groups that arenât objectionable? These people seem to have a pretty good handle on how to work the media for publicity. They go to the middle of nowhere for a protest which would normally get you zero press, but take guns and twitter loses its mind. Since they are in the middle of nowhere no one is really in much danger which results in the state not wanting to get some bad PR like Ruby Ridge or whatever. Itâs not like they are intimidating the federal government who possesses tanks and missiles and machine guns. Is sitting on a college campus and getting sprayed in the face with pepperspray the only legitimate form of protest. Why canât protestors arm themselves in order to not be beaten, tazed, gassed, sprayed, arrested, etc by the police or federal agents?
Labeling a group of people that havenât destroyed property, havenât caused harm to anyone, havenât taken hostages, havenât endangered the public as terrorists for simple political advantage endangers future activism that you might agree with and empowers the federal government to further curtail civil rights and spy on us more. Sometimes defending the rights of all requires defending the rights of distasteful people.
4 Likes
and sometimes it means letting justice run its course. The system worked, the arsonists need to go to jail now.
13 Likes
