Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Bundy Ranch 'militia' had strict women-first policy...in case of firefights with federal agency officers   (talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Ted Bundy, Bundy Ranch, police officers, firefighters, foreign exchange reserves  
•       •       •

12580 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2014 at 7:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



673 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-15 01:24:43 PM  

grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.


So are you actually supporting the rules of engagement used at Ruby Ridge by the snipers here?  Serious question.
 
2014-04-15 01:25:04 PM  

grumpfuff: Prank Call of Cthulhu: ThighsofGlory: Prank Call of Cthulhu: The more I hear about these traitorous morons, the more I wish the government had just solved the problem with a well-placed JDAM.

You want the US military to kill our citizens on our soil.

Seems to me they're trying their best not to be citizens. They've willfully broken the law, they're threatening federal agents with sniper rifles, they claim they don't recognize the government, they don't know how the legal system work. These aren't people that can be reasoned with, the only thing you can do is make an example out of them. Letting them have their way only emboldens them.

Dropping a few bombs on them turns them into martyrs.


So what? Ooooh, martyrs, booga-booga. I don't think letting the spoiled little children have their way is a workable solution.
 
2014-04-15 01:27:11 PM  

grumpfuff: Trying to act like Vicki was blameless is also silly, as she had fired shots at the feds as well.


[citation needed]
 
2014-04-15 01:28:48 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: So what? Ooooh, martyrs, booga-booga. I don't think letting the spoiled little children have their way is a workable solution.


so they need to be killed?
 
2014-04-15 01:29:23 PM  

HeadLever: grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.

So are you actually supporting the rules of engagement used at Ruby Ridge by the snipers here?  Serious question.


It wasn't the snipers call for the first shot.  They don't make the ROE they follow them.  The 2nd shot shouldn't have been taken since he couldn't verify that someone was on the other side of the door so it was his mistake but the ROE doesn't fall on the snipers shoulders they follow what they are told.
 
2014-04-15 01:30:40 PM  

HeadLever: Prank Call of Cthulhu: So what? Ooooh, martyrs, booga-booga. I don't think letting the spoiled little children have their way is a workable solution.

so they need to be killed?


If they will not come in peacefully sure, what is the other option?
 
2014-04-15 01:32:12 PM  

TNel: It wasn't the snipers call for the first shot.  They don't make the ROE they follow them.  The 2nd shot shouldn't have been taken since he couldn't verify that someone was on the other side of the door so it was his mistake but the ROE doesn't fall on the snipers shoulders they follow what they are told.


We are talking about the 'generalized' government here.  Not just the snipers.  They are only one cog in this massive screwup regarding the ROE.
 
2014-04-15 01:33:28 PM  

Baz744: Sorry to rain on your anti-America propaganda, but "free speech zones" are erected to protect First Amendment rights in situations where the potential for violence calls for heavy law enforcement to preserve order.


Also to protect people from themselves.

There were hundreds of heavy large animals being herded by dozens of large pieces of metal powered by diesel engines.

They wanted to avoid running over/trampling any of these idiots.
 
2014-04-15 01:34:05 PM  

HeadLever: grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.

So are you actually supporting the rules of engagement used at Ruby Ridge by the snipers here?  Serious question.


No. The entire situation was a clusterfark. Responsibility is shared by both sides. I'm just tired of the "Vicki was an innocent bystander intentionally gunned down" narrative.
 
2014-04-15 01:34:26 PM  

HeadLever: TNel: It wasn't the snipers call for the first shot.  They don't make the ROE they follow them.  The 2nd shot shouldn't have been taken since he couldn't verify that someone was on the other side of the door so it was his mistake but the ROE doesn't fall on the snipers shoulders they follow what they are told.

We are talking about the 'generalized' government here.  Not just the snipers.  They are only one cog in this massive screwup regarding the ROE.


except you specifically stated snippers, stop moving the goal posts:

HeadLever: So are you actually supporting the rules of engagement used at Ruby Ridge by the snipers here?  Serious question

 
2014-04-15 01:35:21 PM  

HeadLever: grumpfuff: It wasn't a "Feds ran in and shot first un-provoked"

You are right,  they didn't run anywhere.  They shot her from a hidden sniper position from several hundred yards away without any warning, let alone any provocation.

After they knew that they killed here they then taunted the family with "Did you sleep well last night, Vicki?" and "Show us the baby, Vicki? We had pancakes," over the loudspeakers.

Very classy as you can plainly  see.....


And that is SO obviously the same batch of federal agents we have today. I can't believe how they picked only the unarmed people out of this crowd, gutshot them, and then kneecapped anyone who tried to help, leaving them in the desert sun.

Wait, NO federal agents shot anyone? Hmmmm..... Not even the guy who was targeting them? Wow...
 
2014-04-15 01:36:14 PM  
On the plus side there would have been fewer militia members in the future. Take out the breeders first.
 
2014-04-15 01:37:05 PM  

thaylin: If they will not come in peacefully sure, what is the other option?


Maybe bring them in in a not-so-peaceful manner?  Do we default to shooting or bombing any gang-bangers, murderers, thieves or any other violent criminals just because they don't want to come in peacefully?
 
2014-04-15 01:37:13 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Baz744: Sorry to rain on your anti-America propaganda, but "free speech zones" are erected to protect First Amendment rights in situations where the potential for violence calls for heavy law enforcement to preserve order.

Also to protect people from themselves.

There were hundreds of heavy large animals being herded by dozens of large pieces of metal powered by diesel engines.

They wanted to avoid running over/trampling any of these idiots.


SHHHHH! Don't ruin their fantasies with logic.

/though calling it a First Amendment zone is pretty freakin' trollbaity.
 
2014-04-15 01:37:16 PM  

HeadLever: grumpfuff: Trying to act like Vicki was blameless is also silly, as she had fired shots at the feds as well.

[citation needed]


Can't find the article I read this in, so I'll give up on this point.
 
2014-04-15 01:37:20 PM  

stuffy: On the plus side there would have been fewer militia members in the future. Take out the breeders first.


most of them have already done their breeding, unfortunately.
 
2014-04-15 01:38:31 PM  

dr_blasto: WTF do illegal aliens have to do with this?


On his profile he lists a link to a geocentric website, which is too much crazy for one person. So I think he's trollin' us.
 
2014-04-15 01:40:03 PM  

grumpfuff: No. The entire situation was a clusterfark. Responsibility is shared by both sides. I'm just tired of the "Vicki was an innocent bystander intentionally gunned down" narrative.


When was she found guilty of anything?  She was definitely a bystander.  Or are you not supportive of Due Process, either?

Sounds like Civil Liberties and you don't get along very well.
 
2014-04-15 01:40:04 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: If they will not come in peacefully sure, what is the other option?

Maybe bring them in in a not-so-peaceful manner?  Do we default to shooting or bombing any gang-bangers, murderers, thieves or any other violent criminals just because they don't want to come in peacefully?


The question you posed was killing, not bombing. I know the original statement was about bombing, but that is not the question you asked.

how do you bring in people in a "not-so-peaceful manner" when there are 200 of them actively trying to kill you? You kill them until they stop trying to kill you. as for your other groups, if they dont come in peacefully they tend to get maimed or killed.
 
2014-04-15 01:40:13 PM  

grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.


This is the incident where the US Marshals arrived to seize a man on date different from that on the notice letter he received, for falsified charges, and which was escalated by four Marshals shooting a 14 year-old in the back as he retreated on his own property?

Waco can arguably be defended. Ruby Ridge was a colossal farkup by the government.

Weaver was likely the most honest party and the least inclined towards escalation involved in the entire thing.
 
2014-04-15 01:41:34 PM  

HeadLever: grumpfuff: No. The entire situation was a clusterfark. Responsibility is shared by both sides. I'm just tired of the "Vicki was an innocent bystander intentionally gunned down" narrative.

When was she found guilty of anything?  She was definitely a bystander.  Or are you not supportive of Due Process, either?

Sounds like Civil Liberties and you don't get along very well.


When someone is shooting at you, as a police officer, you dont wait for a court to find someone guilty of shooting at you, you defend yourself, or you end up dead.
 
2014-04-15 01:42:04 PM  

grumpfuff: an't find the article I read this in, so I'll give up on this point.


And you won't.  Vickie never fired a gun at anyone in this cluster.  Hence she was and 'innocent bystander'.  If you disagree, let me know what charges she should have faced?
 
2014-04-15 01:42:45 PM  

thaylin: except you specifically stated snippers, stop moving the goal posts:


The snipers are the ones that executed the ROE.  Again, one cog in the system.
 
2014-04-15 01:45:34 PM  

thaylin: how do you bring in people in a "not-so-peaceful manner" when there are 200 of them actively trying to kill you?


When was this?  Did I sleep through all the militate members firing on the LEOs?


You kill them until they stop trying to kill you. as for your other groups, if they don't come in peacefully they tend to get maimed or killed.

Now you are regressing into fantasy land.
 
2014-04-15 01:45:39 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: except you specifically stated snippers, stop moving the goal posts:

The snipers are the ones that executed the ROE.  Again, one cog in the system.


Except when you question the system, you dont target the cog that has little to know say in the system, you question the system itself....Trying to use a cog and system analogy does not work in a case where not everyone is on equal footing.
 
2014-04-15 01:47:05 PM  

thaylin: When someone is shooting at you, as a police officer, you dont wait for a court to find someone guilty of shooting at you, you defend yourself, or you end up dead.


We just discounted the point that Vickie (or anyone else at the time of this particular killing) was shooting at LEOs.  You point here has no bearing on the actual argument any of us were making.
 
2014-04-15 01:47:56 PM  

TNel: It wasn't the snipers call for the first shot. They don't make the ROE they follow them. The 2nd shot shouldn't have been taken since he couldn't verify that someone was on the other side of the door so it was his mistake but the ROE doesn't fall on the snipers shoulders they follow what they are told.


upload.wikimedia.org

about that
 
2014-04-15 01:49:47 PM  

ourbigdumbmouth: these OccupyTheRanch protesters are something else. They are kind of like the Occupy Wallstreet people.

Both are violating laws, trespassing, causing property damage and standing up to authority.

I'm surprised so many occupy people are calling for the ranchers death.

Must be a cognitive dissonance thing.


Occupy protestors: Frustrated (Among other things) that banks were allowed to socialize the costs/risks of their business,while keeping the profits to themselves.

This guy: Pissed that the government is trying to keep him from socializing the costs of his business (Grazing on public lands without paying) while keeping the profit to himself.

Yes. You're right.They're TOTALLY the same.
 
2014-04-15 01:50:37 PM  

grumpfuff: HeadLever: grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.

So are you actually supporting the rules of engagement used at Ruby Ridge by the snipers here?  Serious question.

No. The entire situation was a clusterfark. Responsibility is shared by both sides. I'm just tired of the "Vicki was an innocent bystander intentionally gunned down" narrative.


Harris was acquitted. Weaver was convicted of the original bail violation. No other Weavers were charged. The FBI sniper Horiuchi was indicted on a manslaughter charge. The government settled the two civil suits for $3.5M.

Which party appears to have been in the wrong?
 
2014-04-15 01:50:51 PM  

hardinparamedic: /though calling it a First Amendment zone is pretty freakin' trollbaity.


Oh, I fully agree.  That was retarded during the Bush administration and it's retarded still.
 
2014-04-15 01:51:39 PM  

thaylin: Except when you question the system, you dont target the cog that has little to know say in the system, you question the system itself...


You didn't read the original post that started this did you?.  It was a direct refutation of the point that the government never shoots first.   The snipers are part of that overall point as well as the ROE.  The snipers were just the examples used to refute said point.

Also as an aside, the LEOs do also have a duty to protect others rights as well.  Why do you think that a lawsuit was brought up against Lonnie-Boy?
 
2014-04-15 01:52:27 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: When someone is shooting at you, as a police officer, you dont wait for a court to find someone guilty of shooting at you, you defend yourself, or you end up dead.

We just discounted the point that Vickie (or anyone else at the time of this particular killing) was shooting at LEOs.  You point here has no bearing on the actual argument any of us were making.


It has more bearing as your ad hominem at the end of the post I responded to. Your question was when was she found guilty, which was responding to why she was shot, therefore my statement is in context and has bearing to that, not if she personally, shot at anyone, which has not been completely discounted, contrary to your statement.
 
2014-04-15 01:52:47 PM  

thaylin: When someone is shooting at you, as a police officer, you dont wait for a court to find someone guilty of shooting at you, you defend yourself, or you end up dead.


truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com

Maybe that's the problem.
 
2014-04-15 01:54:25 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: untaken_name: Good ol' confirmation bias. They're not trustworthy unless they agree with your preconceived notions say something that contradicts their own agenda.

This isn't necessarily confirmation bias. I also was willing to ignore the source of this article, until I realized it went counter to their usual spin.


I believe it is still technicallya fallacy, basically a "reverse confirmation bias" where because someone says something that contradicts their normal agenda it is given more weight than it is due.  A different form of selection bias probably, but I'm no debate coach.

I'd believe this story.
 
2014-04-15 01:54:35 PM  

thaylin: which has not been completely discounted, contrary to your statement.


Then find a citation.  I'll wait right here for you.....

You obviously have no idea what happened during this little event.
 
2014-04-15 01:54:53 PM  

Felgraf: Occupy protestors: Frustrated (Among other things) that banks were allowed to socialize the costs/risks of their business,while keeping the profits to themselves.

This guy: Pissed that the government is trying to keep him from socializing the costs of his business (Grazing on public lands without paying) while keeping the profit to himself.

Yes. You're right.They're TOTALLY the same.


That actually is a similar complaint. Bundy's problem is that the government wants to prevent him from socializing some of his costs for private profit, so it can instead confer that onto a large (and richer) group.

This is pretty much the same beef the Occupy protestors had -- "why can they do it, but not me?"
 
2014-04-15 01:55:55 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: Except when you question the system, you dont target the cog that has little to know say in the system, you question the system itself...

You didn't read the original post that started this did you?.  It was a direct refutation of the point that the government never shoots first.   The snipers are part of that overall point as well as the ROE.  The snipers were just the examples used to refute said point.

Also as an aside, the LEOs do also have a duty to protect others rights as well.  Why do you think that a lawsuit was brought up against Lonnie-Boy?


I did read it, and it does not matter. I was refuting that statement not previous statements. As a thread progresses statements, subjects and arguments change. If you change one of those why do you think I cannot target the new statement/subject/argument, and most stay on the original?
 
2014-04-15 01:56:37 PM  

This text is now purple: thaylin: When someone is shooting at you, as a police officer, you dont wait for a court to find someone guilty of shooting at you, you defend yourself, or you end up dead.

[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 522x284]

Maybe that's the problem.


Nice little picture that has no bearing on what I stated.
 
2014-04-15 01:57:38 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: which has not been completely discounted, contrary to your statement.

Then find a citation.  I'll wait right here for you.....

You obviously have no idea what happened during this little event.


Just because I dont have a citation handy while at work, or even at all, does not mean that it is discounted discounted....
 
2014-04-15 01:59:15 PM  

HeadLever: grumpfuff: No. The entire situation was a clusterfark. Responsibility is shared by both sides. I'm just tired of the "Vicki was an innocent bystander intentionally gunned down" narrative.

When was she found guilty of anything?  She was definitely a bystander.  Or are you not supportive of Due Process, either?

Sounds like Civil Liberties and you don't get along very well.


If she really was an innocent bystander, she should have taken her kids and gotten out of a very dangerous situation.
 
2014-04-15 02:00:08 PM  

This text is now purple: Maybe that's the problem.


What is funny is that you have the Fark-lib ITGs doing basically the same thing as the retard in this story.  Kind of like Ishkur yesterday saying that we need to string them up on crucifixes along I-15 just like the Romans used to or the idiots here saying that we need to bomb them.   And yet they have no clue on their hypocrisy that they are spewing.
 
2014-04-15 02:01:06 PM  

HeadLever: grumpfuff: an't find the article I read this in, so I'll give up on this point.

And you won't.  Vickie never fired a gun at anyone in this cluster.  Hence she was and 'innocent bystander'.  If you disagree, let me know what charges she should have faced?


Aiding and abetting the commission of a felony.

Harboring a fugitive.

Just sayin'. Ruby Ridge wasn't exactly a bunch of nice people making light mistakes, it was terrible people farking up in every possible way.

The problem, mainly, is that we expected professional law enforcement to have their shiat together. That was clearly too much to expect from that group of clowns.
 
2014-04-15 02:01:46 PM  

thaylin: I was refuting that statement not previous statements


So you are trying to nitpick a statement, even though you know full well the context of my argument?

Seriously?  Then go away mosquito.
 
2014-04-15 02:01:47 PM  

This text is now purple: grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.

This is the incident where the US Marshals arrived to seize a man on date different from that on the notice letter he received, for falsified charges, and which was escalated by four Marshals shooting a 14 year-old in the back as he retreated on his own property?


No.
 
2014-04-15 02:02:37 PM  

This text is now purple: grumpfuff: HeadLever: grumpfuff: Yea, there totally wasn't already one gunfight where a fed was killed already.

So are you actually supporting the rules of engagement used at Ruby Ridge by the snipers here?  Serious question.

No. The entire situation was a clusterfark. Responsibility is shared by both sides. I'm just tired of the "Vicki was an innocent bystander intentionally gunned down" narrative.

Harris was acquitted. Weaver was convicted of the original bail violation. No other Weavers were charged. The FBI sniper Horiuchi was indicted on a manslaughter charge. The government settled the two civil suits for $3.5M.

Which party appears to have been in the wrong?


OJ Simpson was found not guilty.
 
2014-04-15 02:03:50 PM  

TheBigJerk: Fuggin Bizzy: untaken_name: Good ol' confirmation bias. They're not trustworthy unless they agree with your preconceived notions say something that contradicts their own agenda.

This isn't necessarily confirmation bias. I also was willing to ignore the source of this article, until I realized it went counter to their usual spin.

I believe it is still technicallya fallacy, basically a "reverse confirmation bias" where because someone says something that contradicts their normal agenda it is given more weight than it is due.  A different form of selection bias probably, but I'm no debate coach.

I'd believe this story.


For what it's worth, federal rules of evidence and those of I dare say all or nearly all 50 states allow "party-opponent admissions" and "statements against interest" as exceptions to the rule against hearsay. The reasoning being exactly that such statements are more likely to be reliable than statements in one's own interests.

I dunno. It sounds pretty reasonable to me. Specific circumstances may change the assessment, but it makes sense that people are less likely to say something that hurts them than they are to say something that helps them.
 
2014-04-15 02:04:14 PM  

HeadLever: thaylin: I was refuting that statement not previous statements

So you are trying to nitpick a statement, even though you know full well the context of my argument?

Seriously?  Then go away mosquito.


It is not nitpicking. You changed thoughts, it was related to the original though, but still an independent thought.. Your new thought was incorrect.
 
2014-04-15 02:04:33 PM  

grumpfuff: If she really was an innocent bystander, she should have taken her kids and gotten out of a very dangerous situation.


Being an innocent bystander is not mutually exclusive with the fact that she stayed in her home with her family in this circumstance.
 
2014-04-15 02:05:08 PM  

This text is now purple: Felgraf: Occupy protestors: Frustrated (Among other things) that banks were allowed to socialize the costs/risks of their business,while keeping the profits to themselves.

This guy: Pissed that the government is trying to keep him from socializing the costs of his business (Grazing on public lands without paying) while keeping the profit to himself.

Yes. You're right.They're TOTALLY the same.

That actually is a similar complaint. Bundy's problem is that the government wants to prevent him from socializing some of his costs for private profit, so it can instead confer that onto a large (and richer) group.

This is pretty much the same beef the Occupy protestors had -- "why can they do it, but not me?"


Wow.
 
2014-04-15 02:06:49 PM  
thaylin: You changed thoughts, it was related to the original though, but still an independent thought.

Nope.  I just characterized the refutation through the lens of the snipers that executed the ROE, instead of those that ordered the ROE.
 
Displayed 50 of 673 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report