Yeah, okay. I think I was just trying to point out that mandatory minimums are a larger social problem. It is _not_ solely because B. Obama hates ranchers.

@Tolstoy,
you basically described the parking ticket debacle in this country. It's bulshit. But that don't mean ranchers get to use public lands free of charge for profit and personal welfare.

"They are who they are and therefore aren't rational?"

My whole point is that I'm not going to try to convince you that they're dumb as shit and you're not going to convince me either, so I stopped trying and just said they are who they are and you can interpret that as you like.

"You're saying that the decision to occupy this wildlife preserve is the first response rather than the last one."

I'm saying that it's stupid that it even *is* a response. I don't care about the order. I don't care if they went to the edge of the earth first - resorting to this isn't a rational response.

I don't think five years for what turned out to be a harmless fire is unreasonable either. If it had gone out of control, five years would be a jokingly small sentence, though.

As for ridiculous things happening in court, yeah, I agree, mandatory minimums and adding to a sentence that's already been completed is ridiculous, but it's not illegal, which is what I'm saying. The grievance isn't against the court, it's against the actual law, and they aren't taking steps to change the actual laws at hand.

@dirge ... 130 acres of dry sage brush would burn in off of a single lightning strike (if it didn't rain straight after). I doubt the court cares, though.

And pangloss, before you tell me that "dumb as shit" and irrational are different things, I know. Again, I just don't care.

Civil disobedience with guns = terrorism.

Acting with the intention of creating terror = terrorism.

They called for protestors nationwide to depose the Government. I'm so certain this is the end of America.

If the government overthrow were called by a Muslim with a long beard and a turban, you bet your testicles we'd have a terrorist on our hands. But when it's white Christians, they're "crazy, armed, Christians fractionalists" in the words of seboomafou, who also says we shouldn't fight our own citizens when they said they want to overthrow the government.

bo, besides deflection, what's your motivation in trying to change the definition of "terrorism"?

By the way, the word your looking for is "treason".

*you're.

My point is that unarmed protestors are dying but these invaders are just being left alone.

You pick and choose what to address don't you? In the broad scope, taking into account as many variables as possible they aren't terrorists. In the literal sense of their causing terror, sure, they're "terrorists". That would make the Minute Men (border militia, not the ICBM), the Tea Party, large swaths of the right, and Donald Trump, terrorists. They are being dealt with with as little escalation as possible given that alternatives to raining fire and brimstone down upon them are still acceptable (and wouldn't doing so validate their self-proclaimed holy mandate?)

"That would make the Minute Men (border militia, not the ICBM), the Tea Party, large swaths of the right, and Donald Trump, terrorists."

Good point. Want me to argue this?

These people are both terrorists and traitors. Any argument against that stance, by literal definitions of the word, is null.
What is most concerning is their willingness to lay down their lives (since they most certainly will end if the National Guard gets involved) for their cause. They want to be martyrs. Plain and simple.

You guys are so creative with the word terrorist. If all you mean by "terrorist" is one who induces terror, then anyone and everyone could be a terrorist at any moment. It takes the onus away from the actor and puts it on everybody else. You are so willing to call the Bundy's, the right, or Donald Trump terrorists. How about BLM, unions, or Bernie Sanders? Certainly there are people "terrified" of them?

Take this example:

We should have a discussion about whether KC is a terrorist. People are definitely terrified of the US military.

If you think the above lines up with what I'm arguing, you can't read.

Then what precisely is your definition? You seem ready to define Donald Trump as a terrorist. As well as the Tea Party and border militias. Define what you think is a terrorist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

And this is why "/s" is so necessary...

buncha babies kek

The News:
Law enforcement agencies have not responded with force, hoping to resolve the situation without confrontation.

What Liberal Hear:
The Obama administration has chosen to ignore and protect White male Christian terrorists so they can use all available resource to murder Black children in inner cities and blow up Muslim babies in the Middle East.

What Conservatives Hear:
The Obama administration has ordered law enforcement agencies to stand down in order to allow the UN Black Helicopters to abduct all local church going ranchers who are to be taken to black sites in Belgium where they will be forced to learn the Koran and eat halal food.

"Liberals," obviously.

Sometimes I crack myself up.

Anyway, funny after all that, the wack jobs just got bored and went home.

er, spoke too soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BCX9h4PTxU

http://usuncut.com/news/5-government-handouts-bundys-receive/

"I'm saying that it's stupid that it even *is* a response. I don't care about the order. I don't care if they went to the edge of the earth first - resorting to this isn't a rational response."

It's an entirely rational response. They don't think they can get a satisfactory solution within the legal system, so they try something outside of it. Just because you find it objectionable doesn't mean that it's irrational.

"I don't think five years for what turned out to be a harmless fire is unreasonable either. If it had gone out of control, five years would be a jokingly small sentence, though."

Well, this ignores the fact that it didn't go out of control. Yes, if the fire had destroyed half the state, five years would be a little low. But it didn't. And it's not like this mandatory minimum sentence will teach them not to save their winter stores again.

"As for ridiculous things happening in court, yeah, I agree, mandatory minimums and adding to a sentence that's already been completed is ridiculous, but it's not illegal, which is what I'm saying. The grievance isn't against the court, it's against the actual law, and they aren't taking steps to change the actual laws at hand."

Yes, their grievance is with the law and with the body or bodies that implemented the law. They are of course taking steps to change the laws--but I suspect that their tactics won't be likely to bring about the change they are looking for. This does not mean that their tactics are irrational.

"If the government overthrow were called by a Muslim with a long beard and a turban, you bet your testicles we'd have a terrorist on our hands. But when it's white Christians, they're "crazy, armed, Christians fractionalists" in the words of seboomafou, who also says we shouldn't fight our own citizens when they said they want to overthrow the government."

You are probably correct that if some non-white people called for the overthrow of the government, the feds would probably swoop in and kill people. That's an argument for police restraint, not the labelling of the Bundys as terrorists or any sort of police violence against them. Just because the cops are awful to black people, Aboriginals, etc. doesn't mean they should be awful to white people. They should actually just be nice towards everyone.

Y'all Qaeda

I guess the simplest solution would be to declare them terrorists, use Predator drones, take out a nearby wedding by accident, then posthumously strip them of their citizenship for treason. #beataroundtheBush #'00-'08