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.

(Examiner)   Eric Holder has approved drone strikes against the Bundy Ranch. STUDY IT OUT   (examiner.com) divider line 256
    More: Scary, Attorney General Eric Holder, Bundy, Bundy ranch, Oath Keepers, drone strikes, domestic terrorists, Steve Schmidt  
•       •       •

2567 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2014 at 8:31 AM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-29 11:07:05 AM
Don't worry, the time will come when this sort of civil disobedience will be met with a swift and brutal response.  Right now, it's just not politically expedient.

Be patient, we'll get our boots on their throats soon enough.


rpatheoryofknowledge.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-04-29 11:08:14 AM

Satanic_Hamster: ongbok: Are you kidding? Whoever did that would be charged Depraved Indifference Murder. You know as soon as those idiots see that thing a few of them will start taking shots at it and screaming about government drones coming. Then that will escalate into more people screaming about the government is coming and paranoidly shooting at whatever is moving. And in about 10 minutes you would have half of them dead. I wouldn't be surprised if the idiots set up booby traps around there also and people would get killed in those trying to escape the paranoia that was started by one prankster with a radio controlled airplane.

I'm not seeing a downside.


Now that I think of it neither am I. Off to Hobby Lobby.
 
2014-04-29 11:08:26 AM

Muta: Mikey1969: Yeah, this is a legitimate way to portray the 'kicking the police dog' incident...

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x462]
Violent: An officer is seen firing a taser at Ammon Bundy as an aggressive police dog goes after him

http://www.njnewsday.com/national/25053-senator-speaks-out-in-favor- of -nevada-rancher-as-militias-join-battle-with-federal-agents-accused-of -acting-like-they-re-in-tienanmen-square-in-fight-over-disputed-ranch- land.html

Remember when conservatives were telling us that this was the proper way to handle people who didn't follow orders?

[www.davidmcelroy.org image 460x386]


Whereas in Nevada, nobody was pepper sprayed, yet they were crowing at the top of their voices...
 
2014-04-29 11:08:33 AM

Muta: Someone from the FBI or BLM should fly a radio controlled airplane around the ranch near where the militia is hunkered down... just for shiats and grins.


Skeet Practice?
 
2014-04-29 11:10:51 AM

dopirt: TheBigJerk: Bundy gang sets up highway checkpoints.

Oh Jeez,  I hope this thing can be defused peacefully. Have Bundy's people crossed the line into felonious actions, or can they still just walk away?


Local charge that could be brought: terroristic threatening.

IANAL, but the jury I was on convicted a guy of terroristic threatening for pointing a rifle at his ex.
 
2014-04-29 11:13:11 AM
The funny thing is that more than likely the DOJ does have a few surveillance drones flying around recording and these idiots don't even realize it. And anybody that they can identify from the recordings will not be let anywhere near an airplane for the rest of their lives. Welcome to the no fly list assholes.
 
2014-04-29 11:14:04 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Don't worry, the time will come when this sort of civil disobedience will be met with a swift and brutal response.  Right now, it's just not politically expedient.

Be patient, we'll get our boots on their throats soon enough.


[rpatheoryofknowledge.files.wordpress.com image 260x346]


Threating to shoot people is not "Civil disobedience". Nor is setting up highway checkpoints and harassing people who live there. That's called "Armed thuggery". Civil disobedience kinda normally has a non violent theme to it.
 
2014-04-29 11:15:52 AM

yakmans_dad: dopirt: TheBigJerk: Bundy gang sets up highway checkpoints.

Oh Jeez,  I hope this thing can be defused peacefully. Have Bundy's people crossed the line into felonious actions, or can they still just walk away?

Local charge that could be brought: terroristic threatening.

IANAL, but the jury I was on convicted a guy of terroristic threatening for pointing a rifle at his ex.


Being at the area with a firearm is not terroristic threatening. Now if they use that firearm to directly threaten a public official or anyone else from doing something legal , then you start to cross over that line.
 
2014-04-29 11:17:50 AM

ongbok: The funny thing is that more than likely the DOJ does have a few surveillance drones flying around recording and these idiots don't even realize it.


I am sure they are paranoid enough as they suspect it, even if they can't directly observe any overhead drones.  I am sure that they are also acting accordingly.
 
2014-04-29 11:21:27 AM

HeadLever: I am sure that they are also acting accordingly.


Everyone whose left is sitting around drinking beer and using the n-word.  Don't kid yourself into thinking this rabble would have any idea how to handle being observed by a military drone or scout.

You can't do counter-intelligence when you have zero intelligence to start with.
 
2014-04-29 11:28:33 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Don't worry, the time will come when this sort of civil disobedience will be met with a swift and brutal response.  Right now, it's just not politically expedient.

Be patient, we'll get our boots on their throats soon enough.


"Civil?"

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-29 11:29:02 AM

Super_pope: Super_pope: who "breaching"

practice "breaching"

ftfm


Should I make a pregnancy joke or a loafpinching joke? So tempting both.
 
2014-04-29 11:30:39 AM

Super_pope: Respond overwhelmingly the first time and any impression that this is a good idea will evaporate with the vaporized flesh of the bundy clan.


And if this were a true assertion about how people react to things, it would be a valid conclusion.  People don't react to degree of consequences, only their own estimation of whether they will face consequences at all.

More deterrence by sharper punishment does not work.
 
2014-04-29 11:31:49 AM

Last Man on Earth: FlashHarry: TheBigJerk: Bundy gang sets up highway checkpoints.

why the fark are these assholes not in jail? they've threatened federal officials with firearms. they're blocking roads. why aren't they in jail?

If the cops tried to arrest them, what do you think the reaction would be?  These nutjobs are just waiting for an excuse to open fire, and even peaceful arrest attempts will be the flashpoint.  Much as I'm opposed to police militarization, shiat like this is the reason for it.  About the only way this ends peacefully is to wait for the crazies to get bored/lose interest/see some new outrage and disperse on their own.


While I understand that sentiment. This shiat needs to be nipped in the bud. They're acting as if the law doesn't apply to them, running rampant and doing whatever the hell the want. Yeah, it could get violent. But it has to be done, otherwise law and order officially mean nothing.
 
2014-04-29 11:32:29 AM

Jackson Herring: oathkeepers


The clamshell sink ties in well with the single glove.
 
2014-04-29 11:33:05 AM

Super_pope: A lot of these guys are wierdo pussies who "breaching" on trailers out in the woods because they think its cool. Most of them have no knowledge that would in any way be applicable to a confrontation with an actual military power.


When I think about potential civilization-disrupting situations, such as a CME or deadly pandemic, it's these asshats that worry me the most.  They not only lack the knowledge that you mention, but any skill relevant to actual survival beyond "shoot people that have stuff becuase partriot and freedomz".

It amazes me that a group so worried about "the shiat going down" is so utterly and absolutely unprepared to do anything but shoot at it.
 
2014-04-29 11:34:20 AM

drill_sgt:  "or is it absolute bull to have us put out false info and destroy our credibility"...

Yes... THIS is what will destroy your credibility...


Eh... Maybe. TFA says they wanted to shine "sunlight" on this to make the government back down. So when the ranch doesn't get droned, they can claim victory.
OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a drone in the area for surveillance to give whoever's in charge of the situation real-time info.
 
2014-04-29 11:37:35 AM

Super_pope: Don't kid yourself into thinking this rabble would have any idea how to handle being observed by a military drone or scout.


Don't kid yourself into thinking that this rabble wouldn't have any idea how to handle being observed by a military drone or scout.  If it were I, I would much rather overestimate their ability than underestimate it.

Of course this is Fark where we are outside the firing lines and expected to mock and ridicule people.  So it is within this spirit that I say unto thee: Continue on Brave Soldier!
 
2014-04-29 11:39:16 AM

ikanreed: And if this were a true assertion about how people react to things, it would be a valid conclusion.  People don't react to degree of consequences, only their own estimation of whether they will face consequences at all.

More deterrence by sharper punishment does not work.


I don't understand where you get the idea a bunch of people gathering to threaten violence against government agents would expect to not face consequences if we dropped a bomb on the first guys who did it.

Holding territory against the federal government using an armed militia is very different from like... jaywalking.  Someone's gonna notice you doing it.
 
2014-04-29 11:41:16 AM

HeadLever: If it were I, I would much rather overestimate their ability than underestimate it.


So you agree that vaporizing them from 10 miles out is a pretty good way to go then.  Wouldn't want to underestimate them in case they have RPGs and stingers.
 
2014-04-29 11:41:20 AM

Sgt Otter: Zeb Hesselgresser: Don't worry, the time will come when this sort of civil disobedience will be met with a swift and brutal response.  Right now, it's just not politically expedient.

Be patient, we'll get our boots on their throats soon enough.

"Civil?"


Well, you have to go further down the list of definitions before you get to a definition that's synonymous with nice.

civ·il

adjective \ˈsi-vəl\

1: of or relating to the people who live in a country
2: of or relating to the regular business of the people in a city, town, state, etc. : not connected to the military or to a religion
 
2014-04-29 11:41:26 AM

Super_pope: I don't understand where you get the idea a bunch of people gathering to threaten violence against government agents would expect to not face consequences if we dropped a bomb on the first guys who did it.


Because you can expect push-back by citizens when due process rights have been violated?  Why would that not be expected at that point?
 
2014-04-29 11:41:54 AM

006deluxe: mutterfark: Can the government just sort of mind-fark them for a while? Maybe have some guys get out of military vehicle and obviously surveil them for a while. Have black helicopters fly by, maybe have an AWAC circle overhead. The full Dale Gribble treatment.

/okay none of that's probably a good idea ;p

/CSB
//I work in West Chester, PA right by the American Helicopter Museum. On occasion, a Blackhawk crew from VA will come up and visit and they'll usually circle really low around the area a few times. We're a pretty "blue" area but I wonder if there are any nutters in the area that freak out when that happens.
///End CSB


Oh hey I've been there. That's actually a pretty good museum. Kind of hard to find.
 
2014-04-29 11:42:20 AM

Super_pope: So you agree that vaporizing them from 10 miles out is a pretty good way to go then.


Yeah, I mean if you are going to burn the constitution, why not nuke it from orbit?
 
2014-04-29 11:43:10 AM

LectertheChef: While I understand that sentiment. This shiat needs to be nipped in the bud. They're acting as if the law doesn't apply to them, running rampant and doing whatever the hell the want. Yeah, it could get violent. But it has to be done, otherwise law and order officially mean nothing.


While part of me would like to see the Bundys massacre a group of 4 cops who go to serve them with more court documents, or to enforce those courts' decisions, I don't want people to have to die to make the rhetorical point that they're (sunglasses) left the reservation, and to get public opinion on their side (I'm not even sure that'd do it, sadly).

Unfortunately, it seems the Bundys won't give an inch until the shooting starts - further emboldened by supporters like those Fox drew out of the woodwork (thanks guys) - so the question becomes "Who would we rather get shot: Bundys or cops?" and this is one of those times where it sort of sucks to have to root against the little guy.
 
2014-04-29 11:43:24 AM

ongbok: Muta: Someone from the FBI or BLM should fly a radio controlled airplane around the ranch near where the militia is hunkered down... just for shiats and grins.

Are you kidding? Whoever did that would be charged Depraved Indifference Murder. You know as soon as those idiots see that thing a few of them will start taking shots at it and screaming about government drones coming. Then that will escalate into more people screaming about the government is coming and paranoidly shooting at whatever is moving. And in about 10 minutes you would have half of them dead. I wouldn't be surprised if the idiots set up booby traps around there also and people would get killed in those trying to escape the paranoia that was started by one prankster with a radio controlled airplane.


Yeah, and?
 
2014-04-29 11:43:25 AM

Super_pope: I don't understand where you get the idea a bunch of people gathering to threaten violence against government agents would expect to not face consequences if we dropped a bomb on the first guys who did it.


Do you think there's a rational basis to their behavior.  They genuinely think that killing them is outside the government's ability.  Because they're crazy.
 
2014-04-29 11:45:05 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Alphax: OutLawSuit: I'm all for this.

Cows + Hellfire Missiles = Excellent BBQ

Nah, that's overcooked.  Weapons that burn through a foot of steel?  What's left of the cow won't be tasty.

Jerky, then?


Nah, just let them get near a mesquite tree and do a little offset on the missle. Delicious wood smoked flavor.
 
2014-04-29 11:45:15 AM

ikanreed: They genuinely think that killing them is outside the government's ability.


Killing them when not being actively threatened with deadly force is outside the government's rights.  Not ability.
 
2014-04-29 11:47:25 AM
The schism within the GOP widens because of people like Bundy and the Teabaggers. They think they're winning, but they are losing badly.

Sure, next election, the Teabaggers will look for their compatriots, then just vote down the partyline, but the true GOPers, the TRUE conservatives, are sick of their shiat. The schism widens. The Left just need to keep their rhetoric the same and the Right will destroy themselves.

They've gone from being passionate about their cause to being swayed by crackpot beliefs of conspiracy theories that used to be the bailiwick of the Left, and took it for themselves and went free range with ideas. It's sad and embarrassing to see the party of Reagan being controlled by people like Palin, Cruz and Boehner. They're vainglorious egoists more worried about their pocketbooks than their constituents.

Teabaggers are a cancer within the GOP, and they're gonna kill it off.
 
2014-04-29 11:49:45 AM

HeadLever: Killing them when not being actively threatened with deadly force is outside the government's rights.


Of course it isn't!  Hey you know if a SWAT team shows up at your door because you told the Sheriff you'd shoot anyone who tried to repo the truck you've stopped making payments on, they're not allowed to come in and get you with weapons hot.  All you have to do is just explain you have a ton of guns in there and will gladly shoot them if they try violating your sovereign rights, and it's like you called "base".

Its in the constitution.
 
2014-04-29 11:49:54 AM
not even the Bush administration would be dumb enough to use a hellfire against Americans on American soil.

though frankly... Bundy and his Derp Brigade have been BEGGING for a god damn fight with the Federal Government... so if it did come down to violence, I myself would find it somewhat funny to have all these gun-farking AlexJones listening Tinfoil Hatwearing jackholes waving about their assault weapons , hiding behind their human shields (sorry...women and children) only to be able to do fark all against an airstrike.
 
2014-04-29 11:51:55 AM

HST's Dead Carcass: Sure, next election, the Teabaggers will look for their compatriots, then just vote down the partyline, but the true GOPers, the TRUE conservatives, are sick of their shiat. The schism widens. The Left just need to keep their rhetoric the same and the Right will destroy themselves.


While you overall point has merit, I really won't destroy the GOP.  I think of it more as a pendulum.  We have been here before back in the 90s.  There will always be crazies at the fringes and right now they are becoming a pain in the ass for moderates in the party.  They will eventually get put in their place and the pendulum will swing back some.
 
2014-04-29 11:52:41 AM

HeadLever: Killing them when not being actively threatened with deadly force is outside the government's rights. Not ability.


Yeah, no way cops shoot dangerous suspects all the time, when it's necessary.  No jurisprudence for "justifiable homocide in protecting the peace".  As long as we're in fantasyland.
 
2014-04-29 11:59:30 AM

ikanreed: HeadLever: Killing them when not being actively threatened with deadly force is outside the government's rights. Not ability.

Yeah, no way cops shoot dangerous suspects all the time, when it's necessary.  No jurisprudence for "justifiable homocide in protecting the peace".  As long as we're in fantasyland.


He obviously thinks the legalities of having the Air Force drop ordinance on a structure are significantly different (rightly) but I remember situation where the Philadelphia police force firebombed the fortified building to get entrenched gang members out.

Obviously this isn't territory we've walked a lot in modern times, but if you announce your private Army doesn't recognize federal authority and will defend your land to the last drop of blood, I think there's a good case for letting that be that and just blowing you up for being an invasion force in US territory.
 
2014-04-29 11:59:37 AM

Super_pope: Hey you know if a SWAT team shows up at your door because you told the Sheriff you'd shoot anyone who tried to repo the truck you've stopped making payments on, they're not allowed to come in and get you with weapons hot.  All you have to do is just explain you have a ton of guns in there and will gladly shoot them if they try violating your sovereign rights, and it's like you called "base".


Not sure what that has to do with my point.  A SWAT team has no more right to kill someone than any other LEO.  That is, that there needs to be direct threat (or an implication of such) of deadly force displayed by the perp before any LEO has the right to fire.

It doesn't matter if they are a Sovereign Citizen or not.  It doesn't matter if they are crazy or not.  Agree with it or not, all citizens have rights until they are removed through legal means.
 
2014-04-29 12:02:44 PM

ikanreed: Yeah, no way cops shoot dangerous suspects all the time, when it's necessary.  No jurisprudence for "justifiable homocide in protecting the peace"


Not sure if you missed or ignored by point about beingactively threatened.  Justifiable homicide does not include killing folks that have not 1) been found guilty of a death penalty type crime or 2) present a threat of deadly force.

There is this thing in this country called Due Process.  Maybe you should research it.
 
2014-04-29 12:08:01 PM

Super_pope: but if you announce your private Army doesn't recognize federal authority and will defend your land to the last drop of blood, I think there's a good case for letting that be that and just blowing you up for being an invasion force in US territory.


You need to read up on the history of Ruby Ridge.  The breach of due process rights in that case set a precedent that completely and directly goes against your proposed course of action here.  Making brash statements like this does not strip away your rights until you initiate direct force against the government or due process runs its course.
 
2014-04-29 12:08:38 PM

HeadLever: Not sure if you missed or ignored by point about beingactively threatened. Justifiable homicide does not include killing folks that have not 1) been found guilty of a death penalty type crime or 2) present a threat of deadly force.


Yes, they do.  They are armed and dangerous criminals.  That's not hard.

"Oh they're only promising to shoot innocents and haven't yet".
 
2014-04-29 12:09:03 PM

HeadLever: While you overall point has merit, I really won't destroy the GOP. I think of it more as a pendulum. We have been here before back in the 90s. There will always be crazies at the fringes and right now they are becoming a pain in the ass for moderates in the party. They will eventually get put in their place and the pendulum will swing back some.


I guess I meant destroy in a more discernibly recognizable way, as in the GOP we know and loathe today will be gone, and replaced with some monstrous and twisted version of it's corpse.
 
2014-04-29 12:10:34 PM

ikanreed: They are armed and dangerous criminals.


What crime have they been convicted of?  This due process thing is hard for you, isn't it?
 
2014-04-29 12:11:04 PM

HeadLever: Super_pope: but if you announce your private Army doesn't recognize federal authority and will defend your land to the last drop of blood, I think there's a good case for letting that be that and just blowing you up for being an invasion force in US territory.

You need to read up on the history of Ruby Ridge.  The breach of due process rights in that case set a precedent that completely and directly goes against your proposed course of action here.  Making brash statements like this does not strip away your rights until you initiate direct force against the government or due process runs its course.


Isn't what Bundy is doing similar to how AIM started? Will Bundy be the next Leonard Peltier?
 
2014-04-29 12:11:56 PM

Sgt Otter: Zeb Hesselgresser: Don't worry, the time will come when this sort of civil disobedience will be met with a swift and brutal response.  Right now, it's just not politically expedient.

Be patient, we'll get our boots on their throats soon enough.

"Civil?"

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 634x439]


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-29 12:12:17 PM

ikanreed: Oh they're only promising to shoot innocents and haven't yet


Threat of deadly force goes beyond just the verbal.  You say that these folks should die here in this thread.  Should that give them the right to shoot you first?
 
2014-04-29 12:15:35 PM

HeadLever: ikanreed: Oh they're only promising to shoot innocents and haven't yet

Threat of deadly force goes beyond just the verbal.  You say that these folks should die here in this thread.  Should that give them the right to shoot you first?


If he were camped out in their front yard with an arsenal daring them to come out? Totally.
 
2014-04-29 12:16:09 PM

HeadLever: ikanreed: They are armed and dangerous criminals.

What crime have they been convicted of?  This due process thing is hard for you, isn't it?


Holy christ, people who get gunned down by cops are also not convicted of shiat.  Sorry you don't understand basic law enforcement, but sometimes people get killed before they get to trial.  We have a duty to minimize that, but armed people who don't disarm when under arrest are liable(not the same as likely) to be shot.
 
2014-04-29 12:17:25 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: Isn't what Bundy is doing similar to how AIM started? Will Bundy be the next Leonard Peltier?


Very well could be.  Hopefully, the feds continue to use discretion at handling this situation.  I imagine that they have the place bugged by now.
 
2014-04-29 12:18:39 PM

Super_pope: If he were camped out in their front yard with an arsenal daring them to come out? Totally.


Nope.  Doesn't pass legal mustard, ITG.
 
2014-04-29 12:21:44 PM
julianvasquezheilig.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-04-29 12:22:14 PM

ikanreed: Holy christ, people who get gunned down by cops are also not convicted of shiat.


Did they present or imply an imminent use of deadly force against said LEO?

Sorry you don't understand basic law enforcement, but sometimes people get killed before they get to trial.  We have a duty to minimize that, but armed people who don't disarm when under arrest are liable(not the same as likely) to be shot.

So again, you ignore my point about threats.  That is too convenient, even for you and now it is apparent that your just trolling.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report