There just might be a little hope left for America. Not real sure about the reasoning but at least it's something. Somebody has to tell the cocksuckers no sometime and stick to it. Damn-it, You know Jeb?
>According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's writers include Byron York, Michael Barone, and David Freddoso.
>New York Daily News
We need a new type of governing system anyway and unlike any that exsist today or in the past. Something for the times that's more appropriate for our advanced world. All the leadership around the world right now is shit and so are the styles of government use.
Nothing. He's just one of those fags who goes "YEAH, THE REVOLUTION IS COMING!" and doesn't actually stand by his principles and convictions. Rather than do anything, he's gonna sit his ass comfortably behind the computer doing nothing because it's easier. Much like the very same people he ridicules for doing nothing and calls "sheep".
See: OP picture.
So, instead starting to put each other down do to the eminence of the situation. Why don't we start coming up with some solutions of how things are gonna be handled. So we don't get stuck with our dicks in our hands when it's over.
I'm listening or do you want me to just come up with it all by my little lonesome? That would be a dictatorship and it has already been done. It doesn't work. Neither does capitalism, communism,fascism,socialism, kings ,queens or any of the bs. So what? Anarchy? You might as well help or they'll through nukes on us because they're assholes. WTF do you want to do?
"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," he told The Oregonian. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."
get the popcorn and a comfy blanket, this show is going to have a long run, folks
I'm a Hammond, but I'm not too close with the ones causing trouble, I've only been up at the ranch a few times. Two years ago my dad talked to me about the serious legal problem our family had been dealing with, since then I haven't heard nor asked much. From what I recall, the BLM has been after that land since before I was born, there once was a time where this could have been avoided, but someone in our family is just making things worse. Damn shame, beautiful place. It's a lost cause and an embarrassment now.
Support for a cause doesn't require active participation. I was in Arab Spring, where were you when it was time to bring civilization to the Maghreb? Sitting home whining about how people are pussies for not participating?
How about a federal republic constrained by a constitution which delegates a very limited set of powers to each brand of government, that way individual citizens can blaze the paths of technological and economic progress without being hamstrung by inept government bureaucrats so things can work themselves out naturally.
The libcucks on my fb feed are all saying this is real terrorism. Here's the one that really made me cringe:
Militia? Lets call them what they really are, A gang of terrorist. Can you imagine the news coverage if this was an all muslim, mexican or black group? Donlad Trump would all ready be demanding we "Bomb Oregon off the map" and "This is why we need a wall!". This event clearly shows our confusion of what we label as terrerist. We sure can recognise a terrorist half way around the world but cant recognize the ones in our back yard. Lets make examples of these men and prosecute them like we would foreign terrorist.
I cannot understand why starting forest fires shouldn't be illegal.
"Controlled" my ass. Unless you have the support and approval of a firefighter brigade, it shouldn't be legal to set the woods on fire, regardless of your ability to control it, merely because some other fucker might do the same and get out of hands.
You cannot base the legality of your actions in "trust me officer, it was controlled, I'm different from your average idiot".
And given the premise that you cannot claim control over the fire, then you cannot say bullshit like "muh jurisditcion", because it affects on a federal level too.
If they had stormed the federal building to gain the rights to start controlled fires, I would have been sympathetic.
If you ask /pol/ it's the first battle of the second civil war...
It isn't their fault really, they get their news from shit tier sources like Alex Jones, who have a business interest in making people think the revolution and/or endtimes are here now today.
>literally every revolution ever
It's called aymmetrical warfare shithead. Jets cannot stand on street corners and enforce curfew. Tanks can't search your house for contraband and anti-gov propaganda. Even a huge tech gap doesn't guarantee victory for the government forces. Granted, guerillas probably wouldn't win without aid from another country, but they won't lose without it either. Strong public support is mandatory but not impossible to get in a police state when civil liberties are severely curtailed and this inconveniences everyday life (the sort of gov we'd have to have for an open revolution like that to be attempted)
>Jets cannot stand on street corners and enforce curfew.
>Tanks can't search your house
they wouldn't need to. Various companies have been collecting shit tons of data on everything you do. If revolution comes, the gov will just force access to all this data.
A revolution here would be vastly different than anywhere else. We aren't invading some shit hole country where we barely know the enemy. I don't think you understand how huge of a difference this creates.
Anyone can go onto your facebook right now and pick out the political beliefs of nearly every single one of your friends or acquaintances, then promptly walk into the house and dispose of them.
Big data is a secret police's wet dream.
Controlled forest fires help reduce the ferocity of wild forest fires. You plan to burn sections of dead wood to give the forest a new space to grow into again. If you don't burn the dead wood, the amount of fuel for wild forest fires increases over the years. Large uncontrollable fires will ravage the land because they have all the fuel they need and will damage nearby residences.
I don't think we would have to fight the government. A large portion of our population is proud to have served or currently serve in the military. A coup would be much more likely.
My point was that /pol/ has been whipped into a fervor about this story (mores than usual) and seem to think some kind of Waco-like siege is imminent. Many of the posters ITT are from /pol/.
>My point was that /pol/ has been whipped into a fervor about this story (mores than usual) and seem to think some kind of Waco-like siege is imminent.
/pol/ is posting cuck memes and shit bait as is usual. They don't even have any idea that this is happening. They aren't even a news board or a political board anymore. It's literally just copypasta memes.
>They don't even have any idea that this is happening
You could have just said you don't go there without the speech on how horrible /pol/ is. There have been about 100 threads about this in just the past 12 hours..way too may to crosslink here
>they've kept that dellusion from a time when the country's forces where based on civil militia with regular muskets.
I love how whenever they talk about overthrowing the government they always bring up The Revolutionary War but never the Civil War.
please help me get it straight.
libcucks are liberals or libertarians?
what is the difference between those?
Why the fuck are they called so similar?
Is it a common occurrence to confuse them, or I'm the only idiot that does it?
The Supreme Court of the US ruled in 1869 Texas v. White that the states never legally seceded and were in fact merely occupied by militants of an illegitimate and ephemeral nation state.
tl;dr they never overthew anythng
>set controlled burn on land that isn't yours
>burn "gets out of hand"
>government thinks there's enough evidence to show that they were covering up poaching
This is white peoples equivalent of Ferguson. Black people were upset over an obvious thug getting what came to him and now white people are getting upset over a poacher getting what comes to him.
well they'll probably be shot to death soon.
it's like if john brown the abolitionist lived again, but instead of fighting against slavery his family fought against cattle taxes or whatever that asshole wants so bad
I don't have stats for the whole family but Cliven is likely a 1% based on income
with them being shot to death?
read more plz
From context, I assume they meant liberals. libertarians are people who want no government and believe that corporations are being held back by government. 90% of people who know anything about libertarians recognize them as huge fucking idiots. their political ideology is seductive if you don't read very much, but is largely a subject of mockery and fun.
liberal is a much broader term. There are classical liberals, but that phrase only gets used by pedants and weirdos who insist on old definitions. they have literal to zero connection to modern liberals, which are basically left wing people. they are sometimes distinguished from leftists (leftists themselves are generally more interested in this distinction) who are less centrist than liberals. liberal is sometimes used a term of contempt by leftists and others (as in "love me, I'm a liberal") to describe an ineffectual and soft-minded person who feels they've fulfilled their democratic duty by voting once every four years.
I hope that helps you understand the place those words have in the culture. This, by the way, is all from an American perspective. Libertarian means something completely different in Europe (a sort of leftist anarchist. Noam Chomsky, a leftist, calls himself one.)
If you got any questions feel free to ask
>liberal is a much broader term. There are classical liberals, but that phrase only gets used by pedants and weirdos who insist on old definitions.
They did, "libtards" is a common pejorative in certain circles. A google search is hilarious imho.
Reminder these rednecks throwing a tantrum are by definition terrorists, and literally too stupid to affect change in any meaningful way so resort to MUH GUNZ, violence and extremely vague and improperly thought out demands.
They're looking more pathetic than ISIS at this point
An actual definition of the history and different definitions of the word "libertarian" would either be too short to be useful or too long to be read here. When I say 90% of people who know two things about libertarians think they're fucking retards, I'm not trying to make a judgement about the philosophy, I'm just stating a simple fact about their perception on message boards like this. I'm sure you'll agree if you take yourself at all seriously.
There's a funny distinction between how conservatives hate liberals and how leftists hate liberals. Conservatives hate liberals with Janeane Garofalo liberal memes, and leftists say shit like:
was that a typo or a subtle reference to the euro definition?
>about [...] perception
why'd ya cut that word? not trying to accuse you of nothin, just seemed like a weird move
The "actual libertarian" argument I've heard before, and it's frustrating because if the word means nothing, why do you insist on calling yourself a libertarian? Why not use a word that is understood, or at least paired with an adjective to be distinct?
I think they thought the people would rise up like Enjorales thought they would in Les Miserables before the vending machine was empty. They're probably in there right now, humming "Do You Hear The People Sing... singing the song of angry men... the song of a people who Will Not Be Slaves Again... When the sing.s.s.dg..sd.....
why am I typing out all these lyrics? oh right im drunk again. Okay peace, imma go get some pollo loco and check on this thread in a minute
15 guys take over a closed down ranger stations and left wing idiots are screaming terrorism.
These guys still haven't done anything that comes close to what your run of the mill black lives matter shit head has done.
Well for Europe, the absolute majority of people are European... so it would make sense.
Even then immigrants commit more crime.
Secondly, you are blatantly false.
Most murders and "mass shootings" (anything over 2) are committed by black males.
we aren't talking about the majority of cases, we are discussing the statement
>Except they don't have a history of terrorism around the globe, haven't done anything violent, and are somewhat organized.
>Except they don't have a history of terrorism around the globe, haven't done anything violent
White christian men do have a history of terrorism around the globe
Two people who commited crimes.
Terrorism and conquest are two entirely different things friend.
Muslims have statically soared above the rest of religious groups, and Arab muslims, above other ethnicities in acts of terror around the globe.
White Christian men don't.
Also, anders brevrick was not a Christian.
Ah now I see what you're saying.
Yes, all people commit all kinds of acts regardless of their race or affiliation.
Muslims and Arab Muslims just happen to commit a significantly higher amount of terroristic attacks; most likley because of their radical ideology and unchecked political structures.
Crimes with an intent to terrorise.
>Muslims have statically soared above the rest of religious groups, and Arab muslims, above other ethnicities in acts of terror around the globe.
White Christian men don't.
what does this mean?
The majority of politically motivated shootings in the US last year were comitted by white guys. No shit the vast majority of terror acts across the globe are committed by arab muslims, the arabian subcontinent is in the middle of a war. I dont know if you noticed this.
Just going to bring this discussion back around to the original point:
>If these people were brown you'd call them terrorists
And I wouldn't, because they aren't terrorizing anyone. But if it makes you feel better the gov't probably considers them "Sovereign Citizen Extremists", which are basically terrorists in their book.
If they were brown, they would be portrayed by the media and other libtards as peaceful protesters, much like the BLM, except they messed with airports and major centers of commerce instead of a remote park station more in line with this group's gripe.
Well, being 60% of the population sure helps when taking into account such things, but also that the current structure of schooling and politics targets white males in the United states and makes them feel more inclined to politically act out.
Anyway, statistically Muslims and African Americans still commit more politically motivated shootings.
Because you're talking about Europe.
>the current structure of schooling and politics targets white males in the United states and makes them feel more inclined to politically act out
Are you seriously acting as an apologist for white mass shooters?
You are way too far down the rabbit hole friend, seek help and question what you read on 4chan.
>African Americans still commit more politically motivated shootings
Cite a case, and there has only been one politically muslim shooting in the US in 2015
Are you an apologist for thugs and Muslim terrorists?
There have been dozens of cases that get caught early in the act, one would be the Texas shooting, there is the shooting at the army base, the one in California.
And so on.
>Are you an apologist for thugs and Muslim terrorists?
No. We are talking about white extremism here. Why d you feel the need to constantly refer to muslims and blacks?
You had to go back to 2009 for a poitically motivated black shooting? Where do you get the impression that "African Americans still commit more politically motivated shootings"?
Literally just had one.
Bryce Williams you dumb motherfucker.
I am referring to other groups because you are saying
>DEEZE WHITE CHRISTIAN RAYCISS IS BEING PROTECTED BY DEEZE STATE
This is hardly extremism, as this it's in an unoccupied federal building in a national park (placed there illegally a two hundred years ago).
As well as saying stupidly incorrect things such as
>WHITE CHRISTIAN MALES SHOOT UP EUROPE AND AMERIKKKA ALL THA TIME!
>>DEEZE WHITE CHRISTIAN RAYCISS IS BEING PROTECTED BY DEEZE STATE
Thats not what I am saying at all. I am arguing against the point that white people never commit political violence.
You were talking about the guy who shot two people because he was jealous of their love life? How is that political?
should I go on?
A. Where was that ever stated.
"White people", and by that I presume you mean Europeans, have had a monopoly on violence for over four hundred years.
We are the masters of violence, as it is in our primal but sophisticated nature.
He released a very clear political manifesto. That was quickly swept up and silenced by the government.
Listen child, this is what we call cherrypicking.
If you would like to complie this data in an orderly manner to make a statistical trend, and have it published and reviewed, go ahead.
But you won't like the results.
If they were brown, how do you think the media would cover the situation? What makes them terrorists in this case? Because they're armed and ready to defend themselves? If they were out for wanton destruction, carnage, and general mayham on as many civilians as they could manage, then yeah, I would say they're terrorists. I don't agree with their methods, but that doesn't mean their intent is to terrorize.
>he doesn't know it's already been "compiled" thousands of times
Here's a clue, genius:
Wrong, that post says nothing that you say it does.
You have inserted your own personal narrative here.
>>Except they don't have a history of terrorism around the globe, haven't done anything violent
Which was never said.
And now you're changing your position.
Seizing private property is worse than terrorism, and worse than seizing government property.
That wasn't the question. Muslims, particularly in this country, do have a much higher rate of terrorists conducted under the guise of religion or political agenda.
So what you're saying is that you believe that their acceptance of the 2nd amendment and decision to carry means they are using armed force to occupy a building? While that may be the case if they fire first, as established by law, but they have not. Libtards want to have it both ways, well it doesn't work like that.
Yes, the one the first Homeland Security Secretary told everyone to buy plastic sheeting to cover their windows with to protect themselves from... It came from a government lab and no legitimate arrests have ever been made. In fact the guy they thought did it had a rock solid alibi.
My point being, it wasn't islamic terror, but it was as much terror as 9/11 was.
For the newfriends: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
Let me dissect it for you since I see you are having trouble. Then I actually have to go to bed.
Was posted in response to this post:
>If these people were brown you'd call them terrorists
Answering in that way implies that brown people have perpetrated political violence.
Fair enough, they have.
But this militia is also of a demographic. A white christian demographic. The conversation is about the types of people who act and the way in which we percieve their actions.
If a group of muslims did this would you think
>omg this congregation has never done anything violent before, or comitted global acts violence
or would you think
>holy shit some muslims have started an armed occupation, this could turn violent
Why does this militia get to operate without answering for the baggage of white political violence? At the same time why do peaceful moderate muslims have to answer for political violence that occurs halfway accross the globe?
I don't think that these guys are terrorists. But they could become terrorists very quickly.
Where else are they calling them terrorists besides Fox News?
All the liberal blogs and CNN are calling them anti government protesters and MSNBC and SJW crowd are calling them extremists or Alex Jones wannabes.
Muslims want to kill people who don't believe what they do. These people want to take out our corrupt government, please do. They don't want to kill the American people. Not sure how it will happen with them in Oregon?
The media wants us to fear anything that's a threat to our government. That doesn't mean it's a actual threat to us the people, but our government through the last 100 years have done more bad then good and has to end.
>The media wants us to fear anything that's a threat to our government
Please, kid, Drudge and Breitbart.com are just as much "The Media" as the corporate owned so called liberal media is.
It's more that the media tends to get better ratings when it is fear mongering rather than dispassionately reporting events accurately. Even better when they can get some demographic riled up about or otherwise engaged in a story with additional ploys. This goes for news outlets as well as smaller media outlets, like radio hosts and even down to bloggers.
In this case, it does currently appear that it is primarily Fox among the major news outlets labeling these people as such. I haven't followed the stories well enough to be able to say it's always been the case. Follow the line into all sorts of other media, and you will find a lot liberals referring to them as such (especially those more in the news-entertainment line), even politicians.