This is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment - liberating a bird sanctuary from Big Gummit so that welfare ranchers can commit arson.

You have to love gun nuttery.

If they weren't white there'd be a huge pile of dead brown bodies now. Thank the Lord Jesus for that white skin! Yeehaw! — discoii

With all due respect discoii, you are race baiting with your OP. If you want to argue/debate/discuss the situation in Oregon that is fair game but to use the foundation of skin color to justify what has or hasn't happened seems to be a less than genuine approach.

This is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment - liberating a bird sanctuary from Big Gummit so that welfare ranchers can commit arson. — Landru Guide Us

It is a wildlife refuge that is only there because the ranchers back in the 1800's dug water ways thru the terrain to water their cattle and where cattle go, the birds will follow.

Could you please explain how they are "welfare ranchers"?

Committing arson is intentionally setting fire with the intent of destruction. Performing a controlled burn is very legal and replenishes the soil, giving it new life with the ash and providing a fire break (back burn) to remove the fuel in a defined space to stop a fire from spreading. Has anyone ever performed a controlled burn that got out of control? You betcha. Is everyone convicted of it? Hardly ever.

You have to love gun nuttery. — Landru Guide Us

Not all fools carry guns.

We both know what would have happened if 150 brown people went to some federal building armed with assault rifles and occupied it by force. There's a hypocrisy here that's part of a greater narrative, which, constrained by the racial aspect itself, is this: the American state is afraid of white people. Seriously, the American state rarely ever does anything against white people that organize politically if they are right-wingers. They let you walk around with assault rifles anywhere you go, they arrest your activists instead of just executing them on the spot (e.g. Dylan Storm Roof), they give into most of your demands (e.g. Tea Party)... being white, right-wing and politically active in America is a dream come true for any politically minded person! It's a pity that the organized ones in America are bible thumping constitutionalists, otherwise everyone would be living in some communist utopia dreamland by now instead of trying to extend the rights of some millionaire ranchers.

Gotta hand it to them though: they've got some balls even though, let's face it, they weren't really at risk anyways. At least for the time being. Let's see what these Yeehawists will actually do when the state decides to remove you them from the premises. Will they actually fight? Will the state gun down 150 white people? What would happen if they do that?

You betcha

Did you just Sarah Palin him?

YNF :D -- that's a good one.

Also something I saw was that the group claimed 150 militiamen, while other sources claimed seeing 15. If my experience serves it's probably in between. I very much doubt the 15 figure. People were probably asleep or not in the immediate vicinity. But if the last episode of Wild Bundy's Adventures is anything to gauge by the YNF isn't known for maintaining any real sort of cohesiveness or discipline outside of their hatred of all things "government" (they devolved into infighting between groups as soon as the thread had subsided), which from my own experience means that logistics aren't the strong suit of the group.



And, yes, the racial aspect of this event is palpable in the face of the recent events of Tamir Rice, as well as the difference in treatment at Ferguson.

For older white guys with guns, it's all about money unless it has to do with erectile dysfunction, prostrate issues or the failings of those who are not older white guys with guns. In this case, supporters of convicted arsonists have taken over a refuge established over 100 years ago by Teddy Roosevelt because they want to make more money grazing cattle or exploiting mineral rights.

Let's see what these Yeehawists will actually do when the state decides to remove you them from the premises. Will they actually fight? Will the state gun down 150 white people? What would happen if they do that? — discoii

Likely that family having it's own anti-government Crusade will get moment in media spotlight and get the nation talking about them for a while. With that likely they will then leave the building. You see, if really the swat-teams would go in, the media wouldn't report it in this fashion as now.

It would be reporting of "Armed and dangerous" criminals or possible terrorists in the area. First and foremost, the media wouldn't be allowed to interview the "terrorists". Schools wouldn't be just closed,the media would show schoolchildren and families being evacuated from the little town for their safety. Besides, when these people are "old friends" of the government already, the officials know them. Did the US government storm with SWAT teams last time the Bundy family was protesting? At least, I don't even remember how that ended. I think this is the reason that this isn't as sinister situation that it could be.

Typical US media frenzy that will extremely likely die out when the next BIG THING happens. And then we'll comment here that BIG THING.

We both know what would have happened if 150 brown people went to some federal building armed with assault rifles and occupied it by force. — discoii

No, I don't know what would have happened if 150 African Americans converged in rural Oregon to protest someone's prison sentence. It'd have been odd, given the demographics of rural Oregon, but I don't expect that there would have been a shootout as you suggest. The location is significant, considering I'd expect a very different response from the government had these protestors (and that's not really what they are: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/03/militia-members-occupy-us-building-in-oregon-after-protest/78226600/) staged a takeover of a federal courthouse in Manhattan, for example. I'd also expect a different response if the protestors took to the streets in an urban area and set fire to police cars.

There is a context here that cannot be overlooked, and the fact that these nuts are far away from civilization fighting for causes that most of us care little about is critical, having little or nothing to do with race. But, for the record, if these folks are all beaten with sticks and taken to jail, you won't get an objection from me.

No, I don't know what would have happened if 150 African Americans converged in rural Oregon to protest someone's prison sentence. — Hanover

Actually a possibility. If they would be armed I know what definately would happen: Americans would buy more guns to protect themselves from "Armed black Militias". What the police would do depends on a lot of things.

Besides, there have been armed black demonstrations, so it isn't so far fetched that the police would be at first quite calm in a similar situation...if they understood it's a protest, not a robbery. Totally different thing with a single African American walking in the streets with an semi-automatic rifle. That's dangerous.

Point of information: How does the Yeehawist National Front differ from the Yahooist National Front (think Gulliver's Travels, not has-been internet company)? They both seem to be operating in the USA (the Yahoos, of course, were developed in Britain--another European import).

Point noted about contextual differences, but what you said has actually happened in the past (for example, the Marin County courthouse incident or the Wounded Knee incident), and of course the circumstances are different, and that was a different time, but even granting that, protests in an urban area yield far different reactions from the police, for example, the protests in the Ferguson area yielded this:


Granted, a similar response came out from the state during Occupy Wallstreet, but not during the Tea Party rallies. So... it seems pretty clear who the state is protecting, and it's in lexical ordering, and in that lexical ordering is a heavily weighted racial adjuster yielding: more protection for whites and antagonism towards non-whites.

This is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment - liberating a bird sanctuary from Big Gummit so that welfare ranchers can commit arson. — Landru Guide Us
It is a wildlife refuge that is only there because the ranchers back in the 1800's dug water ways thru the terrain to water their cattle and where cattle go, the birds will follow.

Could you please explain how they are "welfare ranchers"?

Committing arson is intentionally setting fire with the intent of destruction. Performing a controlled burn is very legal and replenishes the soil, giving it new life with the ash and providing a fire break (back burn) to remove the fuel in a defined space to stop a fire from spreading. Has anyone ever performed a controlled burn that got out of control? You betcha. Is everyone convicted of it? Hardly ever.

You have to love gun nuttery. — Landru Guide Us
Not all fools carry guns. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You're not aware that BLM leases to ranchers on public lands are at below market value and represent a taxpayer subsidy to the "ranching lifestyle", one that degrades public lands and externalizes the costs to the taxpayers? I guess you're not very informed on the subject.

The Hammonds were convicted of arson. I guess you've decided, like the rightwing goons, to decide who is innocent and who is guilty and what a crime, outside our democratic and judicial process. We're all supposed to let you and the goons decide, it appears.

Like I always say, you and the gun nuts really have a beef with democracy and the rights of others, don't you?

Granted, a similar response came out from the state during Occupy Wallstreet, but not during the Tea Party rallies — discoii

The Tea Party didn't camp out in public places. There's a difference between protesting and living in the street.

Regarding the Oregon situation, these folks seized an unoccupied outpost, so it's not like they ousted anyone or confronted anyone. Had the media not shown up, I'm not sure anyone would have known. Who knows, maybe the same thing is going on somewhere in rural Idaho but word hasn't gotten out yet.

How does the Yeehawist National Front differ from the Yahooist National Front (think Gulliver's Travels, not has-been internet company)? — Bitter Crank

The Yahooists were replaced by the Googlists, both of whom were predated by the AOLists.

Context, context, context.

A 3 hour Tea Party Rally, as subversive as that might actually be, is less threatening to public order than a 3-week or 3 month 24/7 sit in for goodness and light. Political activities by gray-haired people with slightly wrinkly skin is less disturbing to public order than more energetic political activities by people with youthful skin and brown/blond naturally wavy hair.

A demonstration in an urban setting is more 'disturbing' than the same thing in a rural setting. 100 farmers demonstrating at the local feed mill about unfair prices isn't the same thing as 100 black folks throwing rocks at the police in the city.

Poor people getting together in large numbers, or colored folk, or undocumented aliens, or all sorts of marginal people leaving the margin and heading toward the middle of the page (so to speak) is a major unsettling challenge to the Established Order.

White working class unionized men and women going on strike against Hormel Meat (in a rural county) was worth calling out the MN National Guard to prevent them at gunpoint from blocking scabs going into the plant -- and that in a liberal state which is mostly white working class people.

Surprise!!! The Established Order protects itself, and can tell the difference between friend and foe.

We don't have to like the crap the Established Order offers, but it is a waste of outrage to complain that a bunch of white guys out in the woods weren't greeted by a SWAT team.

I don't believe the complaint is that SWAT should greet the white people, but that it'd be nice to be treated equitably -- and this is just another example in a long list of examples to highlight racial disparity in the United States.

So, equality in this case wouldn't be an equality of the lowest common denominator. Rather, all people deserve to be treated as if they are human, with the needs and rights that entails.

We don't have to like the crap the Established Order offers, but it is a waste of outrage to complain that a bunch of white guys out in the woods weren't greeted by a SWAT team. — Bitter Crank

I agreed with the first half of your post where you pointed out that varying responses to varying threats made sense, but then you devolved into arguing that really it was all political.

There is a difference between protesting in favor of greater workers rights and physically blocking people from going to work. The first is legal, the second not.

The SWAT team didn't greet the folks in Oregon, not because all the protestors were white, but because, other than the local sheriff and maybe a deputy or two, there is no additional law enforcement there, much less a SWAT team.

So, equality in this case wouldn't be an equality of the lowest common denominator. Rather, all people deserve to be treated as if they are human, with the needs and rights that entails. — Moliere

In Ferguson (which seems to be the alluded to other event), a young man stole some stuff from a convenience store, knocked down the store owner, and, when confronted by police, charged at the officer and attacked him through the officer's window. He was shot in what was described as a struggle for the officer's gun.

That death resulted in a number of false reports by witnesses at the scene, all contradicted by the physical evidence. As a result of the death being ruled justified, the citizens threw rocks, fired guns, burned buildings, and looted stores.

So, let's treat everyone equitably, but first explain to me how the two are similar so that we can properly apply precedent. Would you rather be standing in that town in Oregon right now or in Ferguson during the riots? I'd suspect the former (despite it probably being really cold there right now). Why? Could it be that you realize that the former is much safer than the latter. If so, wouldn't the safer place require less police action? Isn't that how it works?

The SWAT team didn't greet the folks in Oregon, not because all the protestors were white, but because, other than the local sheriff and maybe a deputy or two, there is no additional law enforcement there, much less a SWAT team. — Hanover

This rather misses the point. If some Muslim activists or Black Lives Matters took over an empty federal office with guns, want to make a bet they wouldn't be surrounded by SWAT and federal marshals with an ultimatum to surrender or die?

Just to give a little context about these leeches and their welfare lifestyle, BLM leases were so egregiously a waste of taxpayer money and a subsidy for welfare ranchers like Bundy during the 80s, that numerous environmental groups sued with some success. Ultimately, however,some groups starting bidding on the leases to outbid the welfare ranchers since the BLM refused to really get market rate. When the enviornmental groups outbid the leeches, the Bundy-types whined, claiming it was unfair to them and the purpose of the leases was to support their welfare lifestyle. The BLM actually agreed, and refused to grant leases to people who were willing to pay more for them if they protected the land rather than trashed it with overgrazing. I was involved in some of this litigation. It was a through the looking glass sort of thing.

So much for gun nuts love of free markets.

I guess in retrospect the environmentalists should have gotten guns and occupied the BLM offices saying we are the ones to decide the law, just like Arguing Aristotle above claims the goons have a right to do about arson.

I truly hope Obama does the right thing and sends a large force of armed marshals to the site to tell the welfare ranchers to surrender for arrest or die in a hail of bullets. Let's see how tough these gun nuts really are.

I didn't just allude to Ferguson, I said it in my first post. Along with Tamir Rice. I said these because of how close they are in time. There are always differences in events. There's also much more to the story than you're presenting, and I don't particularly want to take up that side of the jostle.

The one piece of context, in spite of your harping, that you seem to be either ignorant of or ignoring is the history of blacks in the United States. Recent history, even. A more salient comparison would be the MOVE bombings in 1985.

Do you really believe that this Oregon conflict will end with an air strike?

What will probably happen is they'll give them all free Wendy's burgers. I mean, Dylann "Stormfront-Disturbed-Youth" Roof got a free burger.

You got that right.

Rather, all people deserve to be treated as if they are human, with the needs and rights that entails. — Moliere

Ammon Bundy bears a startling resemblance to Torgo from Manos: The Hands of Fate a movie dear to the hearts of fans of MST3K. I wonder if they would best be besieged, as it were; nobody in and nobody out, until there is a resolution.

This rather misses the point. If some Muslim activists or Black Lives Matters took over an empty federal office with guns, want to make a bet they wouldn't be surrounded by SWAT and federal marshals with an ultimatum to surrender or die? — Landru Guide Us

Yes, I'll take that bet. If they were black or Muslim and in a remote Oregon outpost arguing that some ranchers got unfair treatment, then there would not be a response greater than what we see here. It'd be confusing no doubt given the strange demographics for the region, but I don't see a dissimilar response.

Here's where you say "it would too be different," and I say "no it wouldn't." We then would go back and forth calling each other out of touch for a little while and then we'd go on talking about something else.

To the extent that you want to change the facts to include an urban area or an argument over some other cause, then we'd have dissimilar, inapplicable facts.

There is a difference between protesting in favor of greater workers rights and physically blocking people from going to work. The first is legal, the second not. — Hanover

There is a difference between engaging in the (just barely) feasible and legal right to strike for better wages, job security or other desired ends and having the state and the corporation conspire to destroy the ability of unionized workers to withhold their labor as leverage to pry out a better share of reward for their work.

What the state got for it's interference was the loss of about 1200 jobs held by local citizens that paid quite well (and drove the local economy) in exchange for 1200 immigrant laborers (legal and otherwise) who worked for significantly less, repatriated a significant share of their wages south of the border, and to boot had to work in less safe, unhealthier conditions. (How unhealthy? the rate of injuries were high -- well over 100%--meaning all workers could expect at least 1 significant (usually) knife-related injury every year, plus injuries from slipping, lifting, standing, repetitive motion and so on.

The worse injuries were neurological -- from the "pig brain blaster" that was used to extract brains from pig skulls for use in Korean stir fry. Workers in the vicinity of this operation developed grave, immune/neurological problems from inhalable particles of pig brain.

Hormel was profitable before the strike (some years ago) and it is still profitable. The margin on turning a hog into Spam and pork chops is pretty generous. It isn't like the union was bringing the company to its knees. What was important to the Established Order was suppressing workers rights.

Do you really believe that this Oregon conflict will end with an air strike? — Moliere

I don't think it will, nor do I think it will end in a deadly inferno like Waco.

The bottom line here is that you likely admit that the danger posed in Ferguson was greater than that in Oregon. That being the case, why complain about the disproportionate response if the dangers are different?

Here's what's fairly obvious to me: The ranchers are upset because their livelihood is being negatively impacted by government action and they feel their way of life is being unfairly jeopardized. It's hardly ideological at its base, but they've tried to turn it into an over-reaching government argument, suggesting that if the government would just let them be, they could live independently. As we've all pointed out, their argument fails. They are just as dependent on the government as others, and their way of life, despite being romantic and rugged, is no more sacred than the hot dog vendor who depends upon his exclusive license to sell at the corner of 42nd and Main.

That their political views aren't terribly consistent makes them pretty much like every other group. Their just mad because it's their ox being gored. They've reacted in a political way (which makes them also pretty much like every other group) by drumming up support from those who idolize the Old West and the individualism it requires. As a group, they aren't terribly dangerous, although there are likely some nut jobs who might actually do something dangerous among them.

Ferguson was a street riot, causing imminent danger to all nearby. It was not a black lives matter movement. There was damage to people, property, and the community. It deserved immediate action. If everyone would ignore the Oregon situation, no person or property would be harmed.

Anyway, following your logic, if "all lives matter" and Ferguson is directly analogous to Oregon and you believe the Ferguson folks were treated too harshly, then the correct response would be to treat the Oregon folks as gently as you believe the Ferguson folks should have been treated. That is, if all lives matter, then neither should be mistreated, not that if you mistreat one group, you should mistreat the other. Your argument ought to be that everyone should be treated fairly, not that if one is treated unfairly then fairness requires the other to be treated unfairly as well.

Uhm, I mean, it's a little weird quoting myself, but that's exactly what I said to BitterCrank:

I don't believe the complaint is that SWAT should greet the white people, but that it'd be nice to be treated equitably -- and this is just another example in a long list of examples to highlight racial disparity in the United States.

So, equality in this case wouldn't be an equality of the lowest common denominator. Rather, all people deserve to be treated as if they are human, with the needs and rights that entails. — Moliere