Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Y'all Qaeda

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Apollo wrote: View Post
    The main difference here is that the Bundys aren't raping and stoning women, tossing homosexuals off buildings, blowing up buildings, murdering people in mass volumes for not being Islamic, yada, yada, yada.

    There's a huge distance between the Bundy's right now and radical Islam right now. Is what they're doing right? No. Is it crazy? Yes. Are they as dangerous as radical Islam? No, it would appear to be media sensationalism.
    Oh, I agree that they're not even close in terms of danger. The meme was a joke more than anything.

    But having said that, even a minuscule overlap with radical Islam isn't anything to be proud of.

    Comment


    • #32
      My understanding of the issue and the general background:

      Further, we're talking about hardline constitutionalists. They don't want to give what they perceive to be an inch more because they feel their constitution (their "guaranteed" freedoms) is being slowing erroded. They feel that the US federal government is ignoring the constitution and is slowly chipping away at it by doing small things counter to it over a long time span. In their constitution it states the right to bare arms and to responsibilities of American citizens in regards to militias. To a general public outside the US this contrasts what we're accustomed to and so it's entirely shocking. To a general American public full of people ignorant to what America was and was meant to be it is also shocking; especially if you watch American news networks which all are clearly serving political circles and not the pure facts.

      If this was happening in 1916 the general American population might view it differently but it's the year 2016 and things have changed. The America they're trying to cling to by force is gone. One could argue if general Americans can't be bothered to pay attention, can't be bothered to think critically or ask questions and can't be bothered to contact their representatives when they feel something is wrong then they don't deserve the document to begin with. One could also argue that this document was drafted in a different time which faced different challenges and so it's out of touch with how the world is today in some regards.

      Nilanka wrote: View Post
      Oh, I agree that they're not even close in terms of danger. The meme was a joke more than anything.

      But having said that, even a minuscule overlap with radical Islam isn't anything to be proud of.
      One could also argue that there is more overlap with the revolutionaries who won their independence from the British. They're in line with those guys, they're fighting under the terms those guys documented in their constitution. The problem is that things have changed and clearly Americans (overall) don't agree with that or see value in that anymore or else this wouldn't be a huge deal to everyone.

      These militia groups essentially believe the following:
      "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

      That's the extent of my understanding of what's happening there. I wanted to make it clear that no one is killing anyone there in the name of God. This standoff if about one groups understanding of a document which they feel gives them authority and another group voted by the people which they feel gives them authority.


      Update
      Here is a new twist:
      The leader of an American Indian tribe that regards an Oregon nature preserve as sacred issued a rebuke Wednesday to the armed men who are occupying the property, saying they are not welcome at the bird sanctuary and must leave.

      The Burns Paiute tribe was the latest group to speak out against the self-styled militia, which has taken several buildings at the preserve to protest policies governing the use of federal land in the West.

      "The protesters have no right to this land. It belongs to the native people who live here," tribal leader Charlotte Rodrique said.

      She spoke at a news conference at the tribe's cultural centre, about a half-hour drive from Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which is being occupied by some 20 men led by Ammon Bundy, whose father Cliven was at the centre of a standoff in Nevada with federal officials in 2014 over use of public lands. Both has different value and understanding of the constitution.

      Ammon Bundy is demanding that the refuge be handed over to locals.

      Rodrique said she "had to laugh" at the demand, because she knew Bundy was not talking about giving the land to the tribe.
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/oregon-...ribe-1.3392677

      Comment


      • #33
        Ammon Bundy said he prayed about the matter and "clearly understood that the Lord was not pleased with what was happening to the Hammonds."

        The Hammonds said they lit the fires to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

        "I did exactly what the Lord asked me to do," Bundy said in a YouTube video posted last week in which he appeals to people to join him in Oregon to protest the treatment of the Hammonds.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0cad15e62836f

        Bundy would probably be willing to fire his gun if the government attempted to oust him. He may not be killing in the name of God, but he most definitely is doing, what he believes to be, God's work.

        Comment


        • #34
          Nilanka wrote: View Post
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0cad15e62836f

          Bundy would probably be willing to fire his gun if the government attempted to oust him. He may not be killing in the name of God, but he most definitely is doing, what he believes to be, God's work.
          Crazy, extreme people will find something to support their lunacy regardless. My fear is that this ends in a Waco style onslaught. If the Feds want to take them it will be swift. The hold up here is clearly they don't want anyone to die and they also probably don't want this guy to become a martyr to some extreme cause.

          Comment


          • #35
            Apollo wrote: View Post
            Crazy, extreme people will find something to support their lunacy regardless. My fear is that this ends in a Waco style onslaught. If the Feds want to take them it will be swift. The hold up here is clearly they don't want anyone to die and they also probably don't want this guy to become a martyr to some extreme cause.
            Anybody have the over/under on this. Have Feds -3.0 vs Crazy Off-grid Gun Nuts. Hope it isn't PPV

            Comment


            • #36
              raptors999 wrote: View Post
              Anybody have the over/under on this. Have Feds -3.0 vs Crazy Off-grid Gun Nuts. Hope it isn't PPV
              I would have to put my money down on the Feds. These Bundy's probably feel unstoppable now after their last government confrontation where they won. I don't think it goes that way this time.

              Comment


              • #37
                Apollo wrote: View Post
                I would have to put my money down on the Feds. These Bundy's probably feel unstoppable now after their last government confrontation where they won. I don't think it goes that way this time.
                Complacency is always a factor after a win. Think the third matchup decides the series.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Apollo wrote: View Post
                  The main difference here is that the Bundys aren't raping and stoning women, tossing homosexuals off buildings, blowing up buildings, murdering people in mass volumes for not being Islamic, yada, yada, yada.

                  There's a huge distance between the Bundy's right now and radical Islam right now. Is what they're doing right? No. Is it crazy? Yes. Are they as dangerous as radical Islam? No, it would appear to be media sensationalism.
                  For American citizens, domestic terrorism is actually the bigger danger.

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us...or-threat.html

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Bendit wrote: View Post
                    First bold: I get that a lot (only from the usual few here). But crickets after that. Explain please and how much it smells.

                    Second bold: Again, explain how. Are you trying to equate the plight of the black people in America borne out of slavery with any other group of immigrants who may have suffered their own group subjugation by the already settled population?

                    Third bold: And you do? Explain again...or I'll take it as more crickets not chirping.

                    As far as Charles Cobb....I fail to see the relevance. You are again conflating and equating the struggles of the profound injustices suffered by black people in 20th century America (I'll make it easy for you) with these yahoos in Oregon? Cobb as I see it understands the need for armed protection against vile Klan types and local state govts who sent out their goons to intimidate any who protested their basic CIVIL RIGHTS. Taking over a designated National Park (wildlife preserve) is NOT a civil right nor was one taken away. Go to a court.

                    And if you have "the right to bear arms" on your mind, the 2nd Amendment was some 200 years ago. Most things progress but conservatives give new meaning to living in the past when muskets was the weapon of the century and loading it wasnt considered a problem. You are aware that most states have their so called "state militias" and the Feds now have drones to piss on any cowboys who believe they can commit a serious insurrection. These guys goals (do they have any) are laughable alongwith you defending the indefensible.

                    ps...I think you have another Bendit confused with your last couple of sentences. And we both seem to disagree with you.
                    Obama has said four times the Australian model of gun control is great. That model was confiscation. That's what he really thinks. It's what he would do if he could but he can't. That's why all you guys want to amend the constitution. It isn't so that you can pass more background check legislation. Let's be honest about it at least.

                    The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Those are all civil rights. Not sure what is confusing about that. Seems pretty simple. And I was talking about the civil right to bear arms in the second amendment (not sure why you put it in quotes. it's right there in the bill of rights). All Americans have it. Even ones you don't like.

                    What am I defending? If a bunch of guys want to occupy an abandoned bird sanctuary what do I care? I remember when OccupyWallStreet embodied the notion that dissent was the highest form of patriotism? So, these guys are like super patriots, right? And when Obama's former attorney general participated in the armed seizure and occupation of an ROTC building on campus he was just being patriotic. What do I care?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      SkywalkerAC wrote: View Post
                      For American citizens, domestic terrorism is actually the bigger danger.
                      I would say they're equally threatening unless you don't believe in the official 911 story or the previous failed attempts on the WTC.

                      This news dropped yesterday:
                      "Military age men" at San Diego's southern border
                      "Credible threat" posed by unknown Afghans and Pakistanis

                      Among the several dozen Pakistani and Afghan men who have entered the U.S. illegally, coming into San Diego from Tijuana, two were found to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a letter sent by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter to the Department of Homeland Security.

                      Muhammad Azeem and Muktar Ahmad, both in their 20s, surrendered to U.S. Border Patrol agents in September, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. One was listed on the Terrorist Screening Database for “associations with a known or suspected terrorist. The other was a positive match for derogatory information in an alternative database,” according to Hunter’s letter.

                      Azeem and Ahmad are among dozens of men — described by Border Patrol agents as “military age and carrying U.S. cash” who began entering the U.S. through a Tijuana-based human-smuggling pipeline in September.

                      Pakistanis and Afghans crossing the border illegally in the San Diego sector are pretty unusual, according to Border Patrol statistics. In 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained fewer than 400 Pakistanis throughout the entire United States — at the ports of entry, airports, and along the border between ports.

                      Between October 1, 2014, and Sept. 30, 2015, the San Diego sector of the Border Patrol detained 18 Pakistanis and 1 Afghan, according to Border Patrol statistics. Between October 1 and mid-November of last year, 2 Afghans and 22 Pakistanis reportedly surrendered to Border Patrol agents.

                      “We have detained more Pakistanis and Afghans in the first month of this fiscal year than we did all last year,” assistant chief Richard Smith confirmed in November.

                      In the month and a half since mid-November, 3 more Afghans and 6 more Pakistanis were detained by the Border Patrol (not including those detained at the ports of entry).
                      http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2...thern-border/#

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        slaw wrote: View Post
                        Obama has said four times the Australian model of gun control is great. That model was confiscation. That's what he really thinks. It's what he would do if he could but he can't. That's why all you guys want to amend the constitution. It isn't so that you can pass more background check legislation. Let's be honest about it at least.

                        The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Those are all civil rights. Not sure what is confusing about that. Seems pretty simple. And I was talking about the civil right to bear arms in the second amendment (not sure why you put it in quotes. it's right there in the bill of rights). All Americans have it. Even ones you don't like.

                        What am I defending? If a bunch of guys want to occupy an abandoned bird sanctuary what do I care? I remember when OccupyWallStreet embodied the notion that dissent was the highest form of patriotism? So, these guys are like super patriots, right? And when Obama's former attorney general participated in the armed seizure and occupation of an ROTC building on campus he was just being patriotic. What do I care?
                        Your para 1: Obama can say a thousand times how much he likes the Australian law...it only makes it an opinion. He has to deal with the US constitution, settled law and SC decisions on the matter and of course the very real intractability of a party in Congress who are cowed by the NRA and their backers the gun manufacturers. And lets not forget the state legislatures (2/3ds I believe). In short amending their constitution is near impossible. Pipedream. And I didnt say it. Hence his very modest attempt to just tighten the enforcement mechanisms of current laws. That is the reality and it is being twisted. You may visit Ted Cruz' website and see how he depicts the President of the US.

                        Your para 2: I regret to inform that you do not understand that there is a distinct difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties". This link contains a basic layout of the differences...

                        http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil...liberties.html

                        I like them all only if they do not overtly trample on both liberties AND rights. No fudging allowed and everyone included.

                        Your para 3: Oh man you are really digging deep into the mucky world of con. tabloid journos re Holder. To begin with he was a freshman at Columbia in an era which was rife with campus political dissent on race matters and the Vietnam war and participated in extensively by both black and white students. Columbia U also happened to be a hotbed. Tell us was it the Daily Caller or The Blaze you consulted for that bon mot. Minor point but you fail to see the difference in the examples you cite? In neither federal property was commandeered under threat of arms nor violence....or right of passage denied to any to use/travel thru the area so far as I know. No heavy automatic weaponry or road blockades were used.

                        I was unaware but a quick reading of more reputable sources say it was a peaceful sit-in protest re Holder, no arms (provide a credible link of discovery and proof if you have it) were involved and peaceably resolved. Do ya think that when Holder went thru his confirmation hearings some Republican/s might not have brought up his "criminal" background? This is getting ridiculous.

                        Captain America is a super patriot. Beware of those who thump their chest proclaiming the same. More likely charlatans.

                        http://www.snopes.com/eric-holder-pa...f-rotc-office/
                        Last edited by Bendit; Thu Jan 7th, 2016, 04:12 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Yes, I appreciate the legal distinction between civil rights and civil liberties but in ordinary usage there is no difference between civil rights and civil liberties and they are used interchangeably all the time. And, of course, civil liberties are rights and freedoms by definition. If my usage offends your sensibilities I'll post a micro-aggression warning from now on.

                          As for Obama, when the leader of the free world repeatedly says he envies a program of firearm confiscation it means more to people than the views of anonymous internet posters. And I love how opposition to the left's positions is always nefarious in some way - of course there couldn't be any principled opposition to gun control, it's just the NRA and gun manufacturers as evil puppeteers controlling the mindless hordes.

                          As for Holder, it appears there is a dispute about whether the protestors were armed or not but there is no dispute he was involved in an illegal occupation of public property. And I pulled the reference from Reason magazine blog post but Reason probably isn't "credible" because it doesn't just regurgitate progressive talking points, so I won't bother posting a link.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            slaw wrote: View Post
                            Yes, I appreciate the legal distinction between civil rights and civil liberties but in ordinary usage there is no difference between civil rights and civil liberties and they are used interchangeably all the time. And, of course, civil liberties are rights and freedoms by definition. If my usage offends your sensibilities I'll post a micro-aggression warning from now on.

                            As for Obama, when the leader of the free world repeatedly says he envies a program of firearm confiscation it means more to people than the views of anonymous internet posters. And I love how opposition to the left's positions is always nefarious in some way - of course there couldn't be any principled opposition to gun control, it's just the NRA and gun manufacturers as evil puppeteers controlling the mindless hordes.

                            As for Holder, it appears there is a dispute about whether the protestors were armed or not but there is no dispute he was involved in an illegal occupation of public property. And I pulled the reference from Reason magazine blog post but Reason probably isn't "credible" because it doesn't just regurgitate progressive talking points, so I won't bother posting a link.
                            Personally I try to be careful about my arguments and representation of the facts as I see and understand them. No blurring the lines if I can help it. Conflation of two very distinctive aspects of the constitution in a serious discussion we had especially thru the medium we are using is counter productive and confuses the back n forth.

                            Pres. Obama I think is well aware of his limitations on the issue. If Sandy Hook could not elicit a modicum of understanding that people have to work together to emeliorate the gun issue and try basic common sense controls (like intelligent trigger controls restricted to the owner)...nothing will it seems. The purity of the word as written way back then and in my/many view that there is a misinterpretation of the amendment written about 200 years ago doesnt seem to matter. Genesis redux forever.

                            I understand Thomas Jefferson was all for changing the constitution every 20 years/generation to just keep up with the times. Now there's a thought. Thats too short probably. How about 50 yrs?

                            There is no dispute about Holder...only in the minds of those who want to rake the muck for political gain. The same people tried their damnedest to lay some stuff on Obama and came up with zilch and that pissed them off even more so it was character assasination by association.That he is a genuinely good man is something they cant comprehend because they havent experienced a principled person in high office never mind the presidency.

                            Ammon Bundy should read this perhaps...

                            “The preservation of parks, wilderness, and wildlife has also aided liberty by keeping alive the 19th century sense of adventure and awe with which our forefathers greeted the American West. Many laws protecting environmental quality have promoted liberty by securing property against the destructive trespass of pollution. In our own time, the nearly universal appreciation of these preserved landscapes, restored waters, and cleaner air through outdoor recreation is a modern expression of our freedom and leisure to enjoy the wonderful life that generations past have built for us.”

                            Ronald Reagan
                            Just so Obama gets a quote in here:

                            “The epidemic of gun violence in our country is a crisis. Gun deaths and injuries constitute one of the greatest threats to public health and to the safety of the American people. Every year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Suicides. Domestic violence. Gang shootouts. Accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children. We’re the only advanced nation on earth that sees this kind of mass violence with this frequency.”

                            Barack Obama
                            I actually try to get to conservative web sites occasionally...cannot learn anything substantive from the trashy ones no matter the stripe. Try the NRO, American Spectator and Atlantic (these maybe too mild for you) ...I'd be surprised if they published the Holder "story".
                            Last edited by Bendit; Thu Jan 7th, 2016, 09:19 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Joey wrote: View Post
                              And Constitutions haven't been amended in the past to accommodate changing world views and societal norms?

                              And by "crazy", I meant (very callously I admit) those who have been diagnosed as mentally unstable. Right now, depending on how you go about it, ANYONE can get a semi-automatic assault rifle in the States. Legally. Its ridiculous and completely unconscionable.

                              You disagree with closing loopholes that allow people diagnosed as mentally unstable to get guns?
                              The issue is his illegal executive actions. Rand Paul actually does a decent job of explaining the issue. Watch the video I've linked to. I'd be interested to hear what you guys think.

                              Also, it's important to note that constitutionally the States can impose stricter gun laws. The second amendment only applies federally. It can be ammended but there is a process that has to be followed.

                              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P-pSboOoYSg
                              Sunny ways my friends, sunny ways
                              Because its 2015

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                On these Hammonds. No where in the constitution do they have the right to occupy a federal building. They have every right to protest and the public has every right to disagree or agree with them.

                                These guys might be crazy, but they also might feel like they are out of options. That said, I disagree with their method of protest.
                                Sunny ways my friends, sunny ways
                                Because its 2015

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X