ciceronianus - 07 January 2016 02:34 PM
These are people who have apparently benefited from government loans and subsidies, like other ranchers, who have a financial dispute with the feds. They want to make more money. That’s what this is about. They’re manipulating others into thinking something more is involved. As long as others think there is more involved, going after them directly will make it appear to the ignorant that they’re correct.
I think it’s likely that there are others who would be treated differently if they had occupied this refuge. And, simply ignoring the situation isn’t feasible, as it may encourage others to do the same.
Perhaps something less direct would be appropriate. Something like a siege. Nobody in; nobody out. Let them make good their claim they’ll stay for years.
This is the most sensible comment in this thread. There is no need for the Feds to go in guns-a-blazing. Cut off their electricity and water, close the roads and wait them out. They’ll give up eventually, unless they are as dumb as cats.
Signature
You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.
Ciceronious's post is right on the money IMO, the ranchers have already stated that they need more Federal land for their cattle and posturing about the "government" has drawn the militia nuts who are itching for a cause to support. Now, a few more bearded gun toters have shown up. I Hope they brought some Doritos and hand warmers because it may be a long stay. As this is also a political hot potato it looks like the DOJ is going to be cautious and wait them out, even though it would probably take only one well trained swat team to end the "takeover". It's what happens after that's problematic. My prediction is heavy fines and some light jail time.
Cap't Jack
These are people who have apparently benefited from government loans and subsidies, like other ranchers, who have a financial dispute with the feds. They want to make more money. That's what this is about. They're manipulating others into thinking something more is involved. As long as others think there is more involved, going after them directly will make it appear to the ignorant that they're correct.
I think it's likely that there are others who would be treated differently if they had occupied this refuge. And, simply ignoring the situation isn't feasible, as it may encourage others to do the same.
Perhaps something less direct would be appropriate. Something like a siege. Nobody in; nobody out. Let them make good their claim they'll stay for years.
This is the most sensible comment in this thread. There is no need for the Feds to go in guns-a-blazing. Cut off their electricity and water, close the roads and wait them out. They'll give up eventually, unless they are as dumb as cats.
That approach didn't work out so well for the Branch Davidians, or Janet Reno's public relations.
That is a false equivalency. The Branch Davidians were a religious cult living on a well armed and well-stocked compound on private land. They were largely self-sufficient and had adequate supplies for a long siege. They also had enough gasoline to incinerate themselves rather than submit to the government. Y'all Queda is comprised of a small group of grandstanding rednecks with less common sense than a squirrel.
Perhaps the government should just block access to the site and starve them out.
Aside from the incredible hypocrisy of accepting all sorts of government support and then complaining about government tyranny they continually make the odd claim that the land in dispute belongs to the people, not the government and that they are trying to take it back for the people.
The last time I checked the federal government IS the people (of the people, by the people, for the people.. remember?). What these guys are really saying then is that they want to be able to use OUR land for THEIR personal needs as they see fit without having to pay anything or follow any rules. As part owner of that property I disagree.
Yes, good point. They are actually demanding charity--welfare, if you will. They are making a tidy profit on their operations, yet they demand the right to graze their cattle on land that belongs to everyone, without compensation, increasing their profits. Frederal land does not mean individuals can use it any way they wish without restriction, yet that is what they are saying when that say they are trying to "take it back for the people." They mean themselves and their profit-making businesses. As part owner of that property, I, too, disagree with their position.
But the government should just wait them out, not allowing anyone in or out of the area. Anyone trying to enter or leave a buffer zone should be arrested on the spot.
Lois
They'll give up eventually, unless they are as dumb as cats.
They are idiots, and are being soundly lampooned on social media.
Y'all Queda is comprised of a small group of grandstanding rednecks with less common sense than a squirrel.
There is no need to rush in and start a battle. These idiots are not threatening anyone.
The Bundy led clan is being widely vilified as a bunch of idiots.
You've said they're dumb as cats about 4 times in the past week Darron.
So are they dumb or not?
Cats are not dumb. Cats would never have done anything so stupid.
They'll give up eventually, unless they are as dumb as cats.
They are idiots, and are being soundly lampooned on social media.
Y'all Queda is comprised of a small group of grandstanding rednecks with less common sense than a squirrel.
There is no need to rush in and start a battle. These idiots are not threatening anyone.
The Bundy led clan is being widely vilified as a bunch of idiots.
You've said they're dumb as cats about 4 times in the past week Darron.
So are they dumb or not?
Cats are not dumb. Cats would never have done anything so stupid.
And cats have no such need to bolster their own egos.
These are people who have apparently benefited from government loans and subsidies, like other ranchers, who have a financial dispute with the feds. They want to make more money. That's what this is about. They're manipulating others into thinking something more is involved. As long as others think there is more involved, going after them directly will make it appear to the ignorant that they're correct.
I think it's likely that there are others who would be treated differently if they had occupied this refuge. And, simply ignoring the situation isn't feasible, as it may encourage others to do the same.
Perhaps something less direct would be appropriate. Something like a siege. Nobody in; nobody out. Let them make good their claim they'll stay for years.
This is the most sensible comment in this thread. There is no need for the Feds to go in guns-a-blazing. Cut off their electricity and water, close the roads and wait them out. They'll give up eventually, unless they are as dumb as cats.
The trouble is people like Vyazma who say if they don't go in, guns blazing, that they're "weak" and others will see the "weakness" and will try something similar. There are plenty of people who think that if the Feds wait them out that they are being smart, not weak. There are strategies other than going in like gangbusters, but that takes more intelligence. It's the ones who insist the Feds are weak if they don't storm the gates who are the ignorant ones. It takes a lot more intelligence and courage to wait them out.
The trouble is people like Vyazma who say if they don't go in, guns blazing, that they're "weak" and others will see the "weakness" and will try something similar.
Exactly.
And let's also not forget the possibility of these things getting out of control and then subsequent hearings panning the authorities on why they didn't nip it in the bud.
But you're correct Lois. The Bundys did this once, saw the government was weak and are now doing it again.
There's a DHS internal report on this issue. It voiced concerns about these events emboldening further militia standoffs.
The trouble is people like Vyazma who say if they don't go in, guns blazing, that they're "weak" and others will see the "weakness" and will try something similar.
Exactly.
And let's also not forget the possibility of these things getting out of control and then subsequent hearings panning the authorities on why they didn't nip it in the bud.
But you're correct Lois. The Bundys did this once, saw the government was weak and are now doing it again.
There's a DHS internal report on this issue. It voiced concerns about these events emboldening further militia standoffs.
How many people have been killed or injured in these "demonstrations", so far? There is strength in not wanting to escalate tensions and wind up with a bloodbath.
The trouble is people like Vyazma who say if they don't go in, guns blazing, that they're "weak" and others will see the "weakness" and will try something similar.
Exactly.
And let's also not forget the possibility of these things getting out of control and then subsequent hearings panning the authorities on why they didn't nip it in the bud.
But you're correct Lois. The Bundys did this once, saw the government was weak and are now doing it again.
There's a DHS internal report on this issue. It voiced concerns about these events emboldening further militia standoffs.
How many people have been killed or injured in these "demonstrations", so far? There is strength in not wanting to escalate tensions and wind up with a bloodbath.
If only other law enforcement agencies would consistently show such "strength" with un-armed peaceful protests. (I recall the severe pepper spraying of sitting protestors, not that long ago.)