(01-05-2016, 05:19 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I don't disagree that these people are dumbasses, but I do sympathize concerning the "resentencing".
I'm in the 2 wrongs don't make a right camp, ATM. 

(01-05-2016, 05:37 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I'm with you.  These Hammond's seem like they may have gotten the raw deal.  But that's nothing new unfortunately.  People get shit on all the time.  Only way to fight it is within the confines of the system.

These Bundy type's are total pieces of shit tho.  And for them to piggy back on these other guy's case?  Just going to make things tougher on them in the long term. 

Still nothing from macho man?  Wow.  This is right in his wheelhouse.  He must be fixin all those ground gears and figurin' an angle on this one.  

(01-05-2016, 04:02 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-standoff-armed-protesters-political-reaction-yallqaeda-n490031


It's the equivalent of "touch my fries and I'll slap the shit out of you."

Don't like food analogies?

It's the equivalent of me walking into your house, setting up in your living room and saying I won't hurt you... as long as you let me do what I want. Or taking over the picnic shelters at a local park and telling everybody if they come eat their potato salad near me, I'll shoot them.

And since I'm guessing this is going to be countered with "but... it's a public building," that's even worse. That's sitting up in the living room of everyone who pays taxes. That's my building they're "camping" in. Dad Bundy, the tax dodger? Even worse. He made millions by grazing his cattle on my land and didn't pay for it, then did the same thing, threatening violence if officials came to collect what he owed the public.

They aren't doing anything courageous. They're stealing from the public and damaging public property, and threatening violence if public officials come to collect what's due. I'm opposed to government encroachment. I'm opposed to imminent domain. This is neither.

(01-03-2016, 01:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Seems to be terrorism to me. Violent actions taken to push a political agenda.

(01-05-2016, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is not the equivilent to your French Fry analogy. They did not say they would be the ones creating the violence.

(01-05-2016, 06:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Group does something wrong. Law enforcement goes to arrest group. Group resist arrest and violence occurs.

The group created the violence.

(01-05-2016, 02:38 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Did they break into a private home or a government building? 

(01-05-2016, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The point is this is purely speculation; How do you know they will resist? You just suggest what could happen.

You and the others may have a point if they said "We will shoot anybody that tries to move us". Then whether os is considered Terrorisim can be debated. Other than that we just got a few people trying to hard and you have to ask yourself: What is their motivation?

IF they commit a violent act; then it is terrorisim. Re-read what the FBI considers Domestic Terrorisim I think it mentions something about an act.. Then ask yourself whay no Government Official has labeled this an act of Terrorisim; only Mother Jones and a few left-leaners.

(01-05-2016, 06:27 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: They broke into a government building.  Do you have a point? 

You're defending these dudes that in your own words "broke into a government building", said that they have no plans on leaving, and that if anyone tried to make them, they would consider violence.

It is insane that there are some defending these actions. 

(01-05-2016, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is not the equivilent to your French Fry analogy. They did not say they would be the ones creating the violence.

This quote more supports my POV.  

Who the hell said they were doing anything courageous?

I'm just saying they are not doing anything terroristic (yet); you disagree.

(01-05-2016, 06:39 PM)Benton Wrote: Sure it does.

The public building isn't their's. Just like the French fry. If I take someone else's stuff (be it a French fry, or a building) and tell them there's no negative repercussion (slapping the shit out of, or the use of violence) provided they don't do anything, then I'm... threatening violence to get an end result (eating your French fry, or getting a fellow terrorist's sentence reduced/undone).

(01-05-2016, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The point is this is purely speculation; How do you know they will resist? You just suggest what could happen.

(01-05-2016, 06:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm deleting the rest and not bothering because the post you quoted wasn't about the terrorism thing. I'm not beating that dead horse anymore. I was responding to your statement that they said they would not be the ones creating the violence. I was just pointing out that they would, in fact, be creating the violence. You seem to be neglecting the post of yours to which I was responding.

(01-05-2016, 06:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree IF there is violence then they are to be held responsible. Not sure where the disconnect is here. Arm you suggesting violence has already taken place?

(01-05-2016, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The point is this is purely speculation; How do you know they will resist? You just suggest what could happen.

You and the others may have a point if they said "We will shoot anybody that tries to move us". Then whether os is considered Terrorisim can be debated. Other than that we just got a few people trying to hard and you have to ask yourself: What is their motivation?

IF they commit a violent act; then it is terrorisim. Re-read what the FBI considers Domestic Terrorisim I think it mentions something about an act.. Then ask yourself whay no Government Official has labeled this an act of Terrorisim; only Mother Jones and a few left-leaners.

(01-05-2016, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure I'd go as far as calling them insane; but, i just try to limit the name calling and labels.

(01-05-2016, 06:55 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I'll call it terrorism for the sake of answering what is apparently the most important piece of this situation to you.  But in the end, I could care less what its called.  Dude's are trying to take MY SHIT.  I'm going to bring the full force of the law on them.  Isn't that what you guys are always calling Obama weak on?

Can't wait for all you posers to start beating up the POTUS for not being swift enough.  Lookin at you invisible Randy Savage.

(01-05-2016, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  How do you know they will resist? 

(01-05-2016, 06:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Roll with that. Just don't let the fact that they have not committed any violent act cloud your judgement.