1
25

[–] newoldwave 1 points 25 points (+26|-1) ago 

The liberals can't stand anyone standing up to the government for anything other than a liberal cause.

11
-9

0
12

[–] Rottcodd 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

American liberals are deeply invested in an irrational faith in (leftist) government, so, just like any other religious fundamentalists, they're so threatened by the mere existence of those who spurn that faith that they actually wish for their deaths.

It's the exact same dynamic that led to, for instance, Christians in the Middle Ages cheering on the burning of heretics - the same sort of people with the same sort of faith and the same sort of reflexive hostility to those who don't share it.

0
9

[–] NedTaggart 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Liberals want the government to take care of them. They abhor self reliance. This is because their world view requires full participation from everyone in order to work. Self reliant people do not require the collective in order to function.

Anyone that wants to opt out, meaning not wanting to be part of the collective is an enemy to their world view.

0
1

[–] thelordofcheese 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They abhor self reliance.

Self reliance like using public land for private commercial enterprise and not bothering to pay even the nearly 100% discount given to them by the government to do so?

0
0

[–] NedTaggart 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

what does that have to do with the protesters?

1
7

[–] ilikeskittles 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

They're white (generally) they have guns and they're challenging the authority of the all powerful, all knowing, all Omni present federal government that can do no wrong. So naturally they have to be killed.

4
6

[–] Gerplunckamo 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago  (edited ago)

What's that? They're opportunists cashing in on someone else's misfortune, and the victims have clearly stated that the Bundy Bunch doesn't speak for them?

0
2

[–] Bradox 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The victims have only said this because they were promised harsher sentencing if they didn't

0
1

[–] toats 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Source?

4
5

[–] CatNamedJava 4 points 5 points (+9|-4) ago 

Welfare ranchers coming here and demanding public land for there own use.

1
5

[–] NeedMoarGuitars 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Your question is arguably loaded. For example, "Can someone please explain why some citizens are calling on the government to crack down on white militias much as they do with non-white protestors?" might be more balanced.

Personally, I think they are in violation of existing statute governing domestic terrorism (they are trying to coerce government policy through the use of force). And I'm just some nobody on the internet. The Attorney General of the United States is the arbiter of law, and she's responded by sending well-armed FBI agents to Oregon. I doubt this will end well for the "protesters".

0
0

[–] Ioxvm 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So you seem to be the only person with a rational answer here so I am going to ask you this (and I am not being sarcastic or trying to bait you, just want your opinion). Isn't what the government is trying to do to them double jeopardy, which is explicitly against the law? Or did I miss something?

0
1

[–] NeedMoarGuitars 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Since you mention double jeopardy, I think you're referring to the Hammonds (the ranchers sent back to prison for setting fire to federal land). IANAL, but my understanding is sending them back to prison is legal under existing law as they haven't been tried twice. Just their sentence was adjusted. And the Hammonds have been abundantly clear they have nothing to do with the Bundy crew.

There's a whole lot of deflection in this story. The Bundy crew are trying really hard to make everyone think they're in league with the Hammonds and are in Oregon to fight for them. Look at what they are actually asking for: free land. In a nutshell, armed people led by men from other SW states are trying to strong-arm the US government into providing them with free national forest land. I'm not putting words in their mouths, they are clear this is what they want. They believe the government has taken control of land that should rightfully "belong" to people who want to use it. Further, they expect the government to just give it to them, and by inference to anyone else they'd like to see get free land.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]
load more comments ▼ (16 remaining)