Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

@ehBeth,

I used to spend a lot of time doing contract work in Montreal. I had a green card to work in Canada. One of the best news articles I ever read was about an US serviceman who went berserk in the underground. His defense was he was used to drinking low powered American beer and he couldn't handle Molsons.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Does anyone have the address to the Oregon Federal building? I'm seriously thinking about sending a box of tampons to the place. When I mean seriously, I mean SERIOUSLY!

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

Its on their website.

The mooks put out the press that we could send them supplies via general mail.

I bet they could use that and a shower about now, the utilities have been shut off.

2 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

I rather not give them pageviews.... I'll look now.

Quote:

I bet they could use that and a shower about now, the utilities have been shut off.

I'll piss in a two liter Coke bottle and send that to them perhaps? That'll will have to do in terms of their bath facilities.

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

General Mail
Jon Ritzheimer or Blaine Cooper
Burns, OR 97720

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

NOOOOO, the Wildlife Refuge website!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

...the utilities have been shut off.

They have? I thought they couldn't shut off the power without shutting off nearby ranches as well. The only way to do it was send someone inside and cut the lines to the buildings.

1 Reply

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a11eb437b1be94aa50d4e651502de9e690307a40/0_19_3250_1950/master/3250.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=584aca0d5fcaa44463f2888f6826f0bd

anyone else cracking up that one of the guys is wearing a Palestinian keffiyah?

http://www.muslimhiphopshop.com/images/green-and-black-palestinian-scarf-keffiyeh.jpg

http://www.muslimhiphopshop.com/green-and-black-palestinian-scarfs-keffiyeh-p-89.html

yup

order them through the muslim hip hop shop Smile

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Thanks C.I., I try.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Should be easy enough. If it's like most places in the country, the power comes in above ground.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

And you, for some reason, seem annoyed or puzzled that I confirmed your reason? You know, it's not outside the realm of possibility that someone might have responded that it was deadly dull and incomprehensible. This place can be maddening sometimes in that you can't win for losing. I acknowledged you gave us an interesting sensible cite and you can't simply accept the compliment?

Quote:

I am restating the contents in a more concise fashion. Why do you care?

. . . the conservatives are correct about another aspect of original meaning. As understood at the time of ratification, the Constitution did not permit the federal government to retain and manage land indefinitely for unenumerated purposes. Massive, permanent federal land ownership would have been seen as subversive of the constitutional scheme. The federal government's authority to dispose was unlimited (except for trust standards), but its authority to acquire, retain, and manage was not . . .

I guess I have more faith in the average person's ability to comprehend the above. There is nothing ambiguous about it. That's why I determined that your clarification was redundant.

Quote:

The most obvious is that the government should provide social safety nets for citizens. In order to provide the financial assistance inherent in these programs there must be considerable resources and an extensive bureaucratic network to to administer them. The need for greater pools of money requires a more extensive ability to collect it, and again the federal bureaucracy must grow.

This is false. The Government Accounting Office report said it had been urging BLM to update guidelines for the burning or venting of natural gas since at least 2010, when it found 40 percent of it could be captured economically and sold. BLM has yet to do so . . .

Sometimes, bigger is not better.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

It's not really Palestinian. It's a Shemagh.

Complete hearsay, but:

Quote:

The Shemagh is actually NOT Arabic. It was first called a “Sudra” (compare it to the traditional Arabic word for it; Qutra) and was created and first worn by the Jews several thousand years ago. The Arabs adapted the Sudra and forbid the Jews then living under Arab rule to wear it as all non-Arab muslims were by law second class citizens and could not do or wear certain things and the Keffiyeh was very highly though of. Some Jews still wear it today though but usually wear it in bright colors (usually white or white/blue) in order to not confuse it with the modern Arabic Keffiyeh/Shemagh which usually is made in dark colors or the traditional Gulf colors; red and white. The IDF special forces wear it in black and white.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote Finn:

Quote:
Alas Hitchen is no longer with us, but it would have been wonderful if he had joined A2K.

In that case, you might want to head on over to YouTube. His acolytes have posted tons of videos paying homage to his wisdom.

Thanks for the tip but, regardless of who posted them, I have watched a number of the videos of debates Hitchens was involved in. One in particular is a debate with a Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim philosopher and writer, in which the question "Is Islam a religion of peace?" was addressed. It's an excellent display of Hitchens' intellectual and rhetorical talents. Ramadan is an intelligent man debating in a language that is clearly not his native tongue (although he is admirably fluent in it), however Hitchens clearly has the better of him (although I'm sure some would disagree with me).

I. myself, am an admirer of Hitchens, not an accolyte and there were plenty of positions he held that I thought were rubbish, but I freely admit that I enjoy someone who can make intelligent arguments and conversation liberally salted with wit . I now rarely agree with Gore Vidal about anything he said but I still enjoy watching clips of his television appearances. When William Buckley was appearing on TV with frequency, I rarely agreed with what he had to say, but always enjoyed watching him as well. Their debate on ABC during the Democrat National Convention held in Chicago in 1968 was great fun to watch. Buckley was, rhetorically, mopping the floor with Vidal until he lost his cool when his opponent called him a "Crypto-Nazi." Before then, it was Vidal who seemed somewhat hamstrung by his emotion, but right after Buckley's outburst and threat to sock him, Vidal, smirked, and got back his groove.

As accomplished a debater Buckley was, however, there is also a video available on YouTube of an episode of Firing Line wherein he debates a young Hitchens on the subject of whether or not liberalism was, essentially, washed up after Reagan drubbed Mondale, and comes out on the short end.

Critics of Hitchens may disagree with what he said; they may not like what he said, but there is no denying that he was highly intelligent, very well informed and remarkably articulate. If one can get past the positions he takes, it can be; it should be enjoyable, on some level, to watch his talents on display. I'm not a huge fan of Tchaikovsky but I can certainly enjoy and appreciate Sayka Shoji play his Violin Concerto in D Major.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I'm in the community here. Palestinians and Lebanese folks wear them. It's a keffiyah.

(the people selling them know what they are Wink

)

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I liked or almost loved Hitchens even when I disagreed; I'm very glad he lived and, gee whisikers, we can see him talk via the internet. Same with Gore Vidal, whom I'm connected to in the sense of six degrees of separation (friend typed his writing into proto books for a while, when she lived in Italy).

I miss them both. Re Vidal, I never did get around to reading his fiction.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

That's why I determined that your clarification was redundant.

Well, I suppose it was, as any rendering of a expressed concept into a more concise form may be.

"I" wrote:

The most obvious is that the government should provide social safety nets for citizens. In order to provide the financial assistance inherent in these programs there must be considerable resources and an extensive bureaucratic network to to administer them. The need for greater pools of money requires a more extensive ability to collect it, and again the federal bureaucracy must grow.

You wrote:

This is false.

What is false? That expanding government programs don't require an expanding bureaucratic network? I suppose that with simultaneous programs to improve bureaucratic efficiency, it's possible that a government program or the purview of a government agency could grow without a corresponding growth in the bureaucracy, but the history of governments doesn't suggest this is realistic possibility. In fact you've noted in your own reply that the BLM has, for the last five years, failed to heed GAO recommendations that could lead to improved efficiency.

I think that it's axiomatic that if government provided benefits increase, the funds that make them a reality must increase as well, even if they are only the dispensing of free cheese. Moreover, someone must collect the taxes and fees the government levies to pay for benefits and while, again, an increase of 20% in your taxes should not require any additions to IRS staff, the reality is that as the total dollars collected by the IRS increases, there will, at least, be requests from the IRS to grow staff. Whether or not Congress appropriates the dollars to fund the growth is another matter. Congress can and has acted as a check on the growth of the federal bureaucracy, but left to it's own devices it would simply expand. It is also important to note that what are usually described, by Democrats, as "cut backs" in federal spending are most often actually reductions in the rate of growth. In other words, the government still grows; just not as fast and as greatly as Democrats would prefer.

You wrote:

The Government Accounting Office report said it had been urging BLM to update guidelines for the burning or venting of natural gas since at least 2010, when it found 40 percent of it could be captured economically and sold. BLM has yet to do so . . .

Sometimes, bigger is not better.

I am confused here. The above follows your statement that what I have written is false, however I would argue it supports, not refutes my point.

Just as you misinterpreted my facetious comment concerning the degradation of civil rights in an America where the federal government delegates it's authority to the States, I think another instance of misinterpretation may have occurred, because "Bigger is not better" is precisely what I am arguing.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

yes, many people do wear them. For many different reasons.

But...

What that guys was wearing is a shemagh and makes him look like a military guy because they wear them while in the middle east. They are great for that and have multiple uses.

Snicker at these guys...

(I spent 15 minutes trying to resize that picture dangit. Someone figure that **** out for me....)

1 Reply

to resize

[img]your photo[/img]

[img width=600]your photo[/img]

(you can vary the number - 600 is good)

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I usually have a lot of patience for arrogance, at least when it's backed up by real life achievements, knowledge, or smarts. Knowledgeable people are often found arrogant by ignorant people.

Well, Hitchens certainly was knowledgeable so by your calculation...

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

n.b. this guy is wearing a black/white one - different meaning (and kind of makes me shudder on a cultural appropriation angle)

0 Replies

Hundreds of Armed Right-Wing Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know