drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 not one con here has actually debated the legal or moral justification for this act. even if one proposes a reasonable cause, the methods of protest here can't be reasonably defended. the con argument centers on supposedly analogous acts among disparate groups. i'm shocked! the act is illegal and traitorous. what other groups have done doesn't change that. Read a few posts up. Multiple posters acknowledge you can take issue with their method of protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 No, actually I just see a situation and judge it on its merits. You guys are bringing race into this? Why are you guys dragging race into an issue that is not about race? WTF? No, we're dragging liberal hypocrisy into this. If this were an inner-city minority being required to serve additional time after completing their original sentence, there'd be demonstrators rioting. Since it's a rural white guy, the demonstrators are terrorists. It illustrates the fact that the left doesn't really give a **** about justice or equality at all. They want inequality on their terms. Right wing gun thugs are taking over a Federal building and your conclusion is that black people are getting off easy? Wow! Nobody said that. Nobody said anything even remotely like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 No, actually I just see a situation and judge it on its merits. You never judge anything on its merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 not one con here has actually debated the legal or moral justification for this act. even if one proposes a reasonable cause, the methods of protest here can't be reasonably defended. the con argument centers on supposedly analogous acts among disparate groups. i'm shocked! the act is illegal and traitorous. what other groups have done doesn't change that. It's not meant to justify their actions. It's meant to demonstrate the left's hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 No, we're dragging liberal hypocrisy into this. If this were an inner-city minority being required to serve additional time after completing their original sentence, there'd be demonstrators rioting. Since it's a rural white guy, the demonstrators are terrorists. It illustrates the fact that the left doesn't really give a **** about justice or equality at all. They want inequality on their terms. Nobody said that. Nobody said anything even remotely like that. and it's not salient to the debate. just like almost all of your arguments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Nobody said that. Nobody said anything even remotely like that. Which is why you should ignore him. he is incapable of following any post logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It's not meant to justify their actions. It's meant to demonstrate the left's hypocrisy. so we're agreed that the act is illegal and treasonous? Read a few posts up. Multiple posters acknowledge you can take issue with their method of protest. take issue? do you mean condemn? are we agreed that the act is treasonous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 so we're agreed that the act is illegal and treasonous? Illegal, yes. Treasonous? and it's not salient to the debate. just like almost all of your arguments It's salient to the debate when you insist on criminalizing the act based on the political leanings of the actor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Illegal, yes. Treasonous? It's salient to the debate when you insist on criminalizing the act based on the political leanings of the actor. armed occupation of federal property is criminal and treasonous. how could it not be? Edited January 4, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It's not meant to justify their actions. It's meant to demonstrate the left's hypocrisy. And the right's - come on - you seem pretty smart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 here's a better analogy. an anti nuke group stages an armed occupation of a government run nuclear waste site. how do you think your far right wacko friends would view that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 And the right's - come on - you seem pretty smart No, just the left's in this case. "The right" you refer to in this case is less "the right" than they are the lunatic fringe, whom I discount entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I have learned from the past, The very first thing that we need to do is..............................ask why the demonstrators "hate us so".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 No, we're dragging liberal hypocrisy into this. If this were an inner-city minority being required to serve additional time after completing their original sentence, there'd be demonstrators rioting. Since it's a rural white guy, the demonstrators are terrorists. It illustrates the fact that the left doesn't really give a **** about justice or equality at all. They want inequality on their terms. Tom, respectfully I disagree. Ferguson was a cluster!@#$ where the black people were wrong in general, and the same could be said about Baltimore. The difference between the two situations is that a riot is not organized and would not be considered as terrorism directly. This Oregon situation could loosely be classified as it if they were to kill hostages (that they don't have) or blow up buildings (which I doubt that would happen). Taking over a government building is more treasonous than terrorist given the known parameters of the situation. The hypocrisy lies in the response to the action, if this was a group of black men or Muslims. The cops would be storming the building in no time. The media would label them as thugs or terrorists or Jihadists or what ever else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 No, we're dragging liberal hypocrisy into this. If this were an inner-city minority being required to serve additional time after completing their original sentence, there'd be demonstrators rioting. Since it's a rural white guy, the demonstrators are terrorists. It illustrates the fact that the left doesn't really give a **** about justice or equality at all. They want inequality on their terms. Nobody said that. Nobody said anything even remotely like that. How about just sticking to the facts of the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 here's a better analogy. an anti nuke group stages an armed occupation of a government run nuclear waste site. how do you think your far right wacko friends would view that? A worse analogy, actually, since occupying a nuclear waste site would be a major security concern. And I don't have any far right wacko friends. Most of them are far left wackos, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Tom, respectfully I disagree. Ferguson was a cluster!@#$ where the black people were wrong in general, and the same could be said about Baltimore. The difference between the two situations is that a riot is not organized and would not be considered as terrorism directly. The hypocrisy lies in the response to the action, if this was a group of black men or Muslims. The cops would be storming the building in no time. The media would label them as thugs or terrorists or Jihadists or what ever else. This is incorrect, the reponses in Ferguson and Baltimore were quite organized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 This is incorrect, the reponses in Ferguson and Baltimore were quite organized. If you call people on Twitter calling for houses of white people to be burned down, and instead people burning down and looting their own neighborhoods, organized, then maybe. However, I disagree with the organizational structure and direct plans than a terrorist attack typically has applying to said situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Tom, respectfully I disagree. Ferguson was a cluster!@#$ where the black people were wrong in general, and the same could be said about Baltimore. The difference between the two situations is that a riot is not organized and would not be considered as terrorism directly. This Oregon situation could loosely be classified as it if they were to kill hostages (that they don't have) or blow up buildings (which I doubt that would happen). Taking over a government building is more treasonous than terrorist given the known parameters of the situation. The hypocrisy lies in the response to the action, if this was a group of black men or Muslims. The cops would be storming the building in no time. The media would label them as thugs or terrorists or Jihadists or what ever else. Except it's not treasonous at all to occupy a federal building. Criminal? Yes. But calling it treasonous is an overly broad use of the term. (And in this case, the crime is little more than trespassing and B&E, given that they're occupying a vacant building. And under current statute, B&E could probably be prosecuted as terrorism.) And given a similar vsituation - #blacklivesmatter occupying a vacant building - no doubt the government response would be the same: let them stay where they are, since they're not hurting anything. The media would portray them as heroic, as always. Muslims, though...that's another matter. The FBI would probably go in hard, and the xenophobic American people would thank them for it. But what's your point? That the American application of justice is unequal? No ****. The real hypocrisy is that the people who claim to fight for equality of justice only want a different inequality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Tom, respectfully I disagree. Ferguson was a cluster!@#$ where the black people were wrong in general, and the same could be said about Baltimore. The difference between the two situations is that a riot is not organized and would not be considered as terrorism directly. This Oregon situation could loosely be classified as it if they were to kill hostages (that they don't have) or blow up buildings (which I doubt that would happen). Taking over a government building is more treasonous than terrorist given the known parameters of the situation. The hypocrisy lies in the response to the action, if this was a group of black men or Muslims. The cops would be storming the building in no time. The media would label them as thugs or terrorists or Jihadists or what ever else. Sorry, where exactly is the hypocrisy other than in your post? Instead of the media labeling them as thugs or terrorists they labeled them as "militiamen", which we all know is media code for "scary white people with guns". And cops have never stormed a building full of white guys? That's a hoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts