I come here to the sports forum off topic board to recreate. On Fakebook I visit with distant friends. If it's intellect you're looking for you'll want to purchase one of my award-winning dvd's available from my publishing company, Symposiums Passed.
Well he never responded so what else is there to do? if he doesn't want to respond then fine, it's let go
They didn't threaten violence, they said they had weapons and were willing to defend themselves in the event of a waco-style assault. You can build it up all you want, the fact is they were protesting non violently, and had weapons for self defense. The biggest crime they committed was occupying a government building. It was funny to go on Oregon live when this was all going on. The comments sections were completely full of liberals, all practically frothing at the mouth praying for the occupiers to get killed by the government. I've seriously never been in an environment that was that encouraging of death and violence. It was actually pretty unnerving. I've known most liberals are completely full of shit for quite awhile, but that was a turning point. A real eye opener. I've never experienced a group that large where the overwhelming consensus was simply to kill a large number of people.
As to the original post, there have been several instances of government antagonism of targeted groups. Most of the time it eventually comes out that what ever letter divisions that were involved had been n the wrong, or handled the situation poorly. Sandy Hook, Waco, Wounded Knee are three that come to mind, in most instances, those that the Gov went after, have been compensated. Have a great read for anyone interested, Don't Know Much About History by Kenneth C Davis. This guy is an easy read, and reveals a lot of misconceptions, and brings to valid reasons to question almost every branch of the gov. So when those in topic receive pardons, this seems to follow a familiar pattern. To rehash what the gov released at the time, more than likely is only what the feds wanted the public to believe.
I followed the live broadcast from the Burns occupation and to say they weren't geared for violence is misleading...they lobbied for more armed insurgents to join them 24 hours a day....the only difference I see in these guys and any terrorist group is that they wore cowboy hats and drank a lot of beer..also trashed the site with cigarette butts and fast food wrappers....not exactly an impressive group of so called patriots...more a group of vigilantes
They said no one was going to remove them. The same people threatened law enforcement in Nevada along with other violent types. They showed up with guns galore and got right in the face of law enforcement in Nevada. There was no doubt they were loaded for bear.
Were the Bundy's truckers? I'm not sure what slang stupid cowboy criminals use but maybe it ought to be 'loaded for pig'? barfo
And they got hundreds of regular citizens to physically join them, and tens of thousands of people around the country supporting their cause. Not exactly fringe "terrorists" See if ISIS can garner that much support the next time they launch a jihad over cattle grazing rights. Lol. The fact is, you and many others on the left are exaggerating the severity of the situation because you see people in cowboy hats (cough* riverman and barfo cough*) and associate that stereotype with those who don't identify with you politically. It's the same as conservatives calling the fucking morons who run around Portland breaking shit "domestic terrorists" to justify the daydreams they have of murdering them. You want them to disappear, and the only way you can justify it is to exaggerate the severity of their crimes, disregard any grievances they might have, and spread fear with buzzwords like "domestic terrorism". You are Bush/Cheney circa 2003.
Hello class, welcome to Ignorant Intolerance Based on Stereotypes-101. I'm Mr. Barfo, I'll be your instructor this semester. Please remove your cowboy hats, and put your Marlboro reds in the basket.
