Quote:Tamir Rice was holding a toy gun in an open carry state where people go into Chili's with AR-15s strapped to their backs. He was black. Therefore he was a "thug" and shot on sight. A bunch of white people with guns take over a building and everyone wants to talk it out. Seems simple enough.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/Ow59c0pwTPruU/giphy.gif)
So the media doesn't frame narratives based on race? Please. If armed black men took over a federal building tell me the response would be the same.
Quote:So the media doesn't frame narratives based on race? Please. If armed black men took over a federal building tell me the response would be the same.
No, they frame them based on what benefits the Democratic party.
Try not to hijack this into a race baiting thread there's enough substance on this topic to explore already
Ugh.. I'll bet you have the BEST bumper stickers.
Quote:Ugh.. I'll bet you have the BEST bumper stickers.
I don't do bumper sticker activism.
You take over federal buildings?
Quote:I understand their motivations but I would not say I agree with their motivations. I would want to know more about exactly what regulations have changed, why they changed, and more about how that impacted the lives of the people affected. Just because regulations affect people, that doesn't mean we should not have regulations. There are costs and benefits to everything, and I don't think I know enough to say whether we should tighten the regulations on use of federal land or not. The problem is, since federal land belongs to all the people, that means that federal land in Idaho belongs to a person living in Boston as much as it belongs to a person living in Idaho. Right or wrong, federal land belongs to everyone, not just to people who want to graze their cattle on it. And yet we have to understand how the people living next to federal land who have used it for generations are being squeezed out and having their lives affected. All I'm saying is, it's not an easy issue.
I know the response when I say it but here it goes, its all apart of the UN agenda 21 program. Federal governments buying up land and then restricting access for the explicit purpose of snuffing out small ranchers and farmers. It creates a monoploy of larger corporate farms which ar eaiser to control.
Quote:You take over federal buildings?
If there was an achievable goal, a clear purpose and it was a good tactical move I'd consider it.
Quote:No, they frame them based on what benefits the Democratic party.
Only half true. They frame them based on whatever the Feds wants them to say. Media outlets are corporate and State funded, just like our politicians.
Quote:If there was an achievable goal, a clear purpose and it was a good tactical move I'd consider it.
I wouldn't place what Y'all Qaeda is doing under this classification.
Quote:I wouldn't place what Y'all Qaeda is doing under this classification.
Agreed which is why I think this group is only doing more harm to their cause then help.
Quote:Here's an interesting article that details some of the motivations of the people who are doing this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/...ge%2Fstory
BURNS, Ore. — B.J. Soper has seen the frustration building for years in this rural corner of Oregon.
The federal government owns more than half the land in the state, as it does across much of the West. It used to be routine for ranchers to get permits to graze cattle or cut timber or work mines — a way to make a living from the land.
Then came increasing environmental regulations, and the federal land became more for owls and sage grouse than for local people trying to feed their families, said Soper, 39, who lives 100 miles up the road in Bend.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you look at a map of the land that is owned by the government (or, as some like to put it, all the people of the United States), you can see that the federal government owns what looks like half or most of the land in some western states.
https://www.google.com/search?q=map+of+f...kz7tjyw%3D
And as environmental regulations increase, people slowly get squeezed out of doing things they have done legally for decades.
So, even if you don't agree with these people and want to call them terrorists and wackos, it is always helpful to try to understand their motivations.
He does realize that what he's talking about is the federal park program setup by Teddy Roosevelt? Because that's exactly what that is and what these people believe is that the government can't setup regulations regarding federal parks and protecting them from commercial exploitation. If these people had their way there wouldn't be the Grand Teton Park and Yellowstone wouldn't exist as well hundreds of other nature areas. Some of the most beautiful scenery in the US and the world would have been turned over to the kind of people who would strip the land of whatever was valuable on or in it.
Quote:He does realize that what he's talking about is the federal park program setup by Teddy Roosevelt? Because that's exactly what that is and what these people believe is that the government can't setup regulations regarding federal parks and protecting them from commercial exploitation. If these people had their way there wouldn't be the Grand Teton Park and Yellowstone wouldn't exist as well hundreds of other nature areas. Some of the most beautiful scenery in the US and the world would have been turned over to the kind of people who would strip the land of whatever was valuable on or in it.
It's cool and also a general desire of the people that national parks exist and are protected. That's great. But don't be deceived, the federal government is not holding all this land because it wants to "save the planet" or whatever.
Just like everybody else, they are interested in the resources the land provides. They're sitting on an investment. When the Middle-East one day is utterly depleted, the people in charge will need some place to turn. Oh look, we have this land to give to whomever we wish. They will sell it to a corporation they are heavily invested in. $$$$, power, control, ect. flows from that.
Quote:He does realize that what he's talking about is the federal park program setup by Teddy Roosevelt? Because that's exactly what that is and what these people believe is that the government can't setup regulations regarding federal parks and protecting them from commercial exploitation. If these people had their way there wouldn't be the Grand Teton Park and Yellowstone wouldn't exist as well hundreds of other nature areas. Some of the most beautiful scenery in the US and the world would have been turned over to the kind of people who would strip the land of whatever was valuable on or in it.
No, I don't think this has much to do with the federal park program set up by Teddy Roosevelt. If you look at the link I provided, you can see that almost 85% of the state of Nevada is owned by the federal government. There aren't that many national parks in Nevada. Nationwide, the federal government owns about 28% of the land in the United States, almost all of it located in the western United States.
http://fusion.net/story/250995/oregon-mi...this-land/
So, this is not about federal parks.
I have very little sympathy for these "militia" guys, just as I have no sympathy for ISIS or Al Qaeda. Nonetheless, it is a good thing to understand their motivations, even if you reject them. Imagine yourself as a rancher out west who has been grazing his cattle on federal land for decades, and then all of a sudden, this land is reserved for some endangered species. Well, it sounds great if you live in New York City, by all means, preserve the land for the endangered species, but in the meantime, you are squeezing a rancher out of business.
You can be a big government person who believes in preserving the environment and providing for the common good, just as I am in most cases, but we should not forget, when the federal government rolls over, people get squashed.
Yeah. These anti govt patriots....here's one of them...
Ammon Bundy runs a Phoenix-based company called Valet Fleet Services LLC, which specializes in repairing and maintaining fleets of semitrucks throughout Arizona. On April 15, 2010—Tax Day, as it happens—Bundy’s business borrowed $530,000 through a Small Business Administration loan guarantee program. The available public record does not indicate what the loan was used for or whether it was repaid. The SBA website notes that this loan guarantee was issued under a program “to aid small businesses which are unable to obtain financing in the private credit marketplace.” The government estimated that this subsidy could cost taxpayers $22,419. Bundy did not respond to an email request for comment about the SBA loan.
Really caused a ruckus, no?
Days of looting and violence on end.
Oh, the humanity...
Quote:So the media doesn't frame narratives based on race? Please. If armed black men took over a federal building tell me the response would be the same.
Actually, you'd later become Attorney General.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/30/as-col...tc-office/
Sorry the truth hurts.
I could provide a detailed response to this, but I would hate to "hijack" this thread with "race baiting" comments. I will point out the Daily Caller is Tucker Carlson's personal soapbox. And I find him to be about as repulsive, calculated and full of manure as just about anyone in political commentary. He knows where his bread is buttered and plays to that crowd. While there may be some historical accuracy to the blurb, I don't buy that a black student union led sit in at an abandoned building on an Ivy League campus is in the same universe as an armed takeover of a federal building. A student protest fighting for a space for black students to congregate on a predominantly white, elitist campus is not the same as an armed takeover to protest a prison sentence for arson or grazing rights on federal land. Even if a couple of the black students had weapons. The article does not say Holder was armed, but of course makes a point to say he has not responded to inquiries about it (which means he likely had ten bazookas).