Oregon Standoff

Rand Paul, White House, Want Oregon Standoff Resolved Cautiously. Why Don't More Liberals Agree?

Relentlessly demonizing misunderstood opponents is a bad idea.

|

Bundy
CBS

Various Republican candidates are calling for a peaceful resolution to the armed occupation of a remote federal outpost in Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Sen. Rand Paul had this to say, according to The Washington Post:

"I'm sympathetic to the idea that the large collection of federal lands ought to be turned back to the states and the people, but I think the best way to bring about change is through politics," Paul told the Washington Post in an interview. "That's why I entered the electoral arena. I don't support any violence or suggestion of violence toward changing policy."

Sen. Ted Cruz called on the protesters to "stand down peaceably." Sen. Marco Rubio urged them to "follow the law."

The White House maintains the standoff is a matter for local authorities, and has urged caution. Given that no one's life is currently threatened by the antics of the Bundy family, this restrained approach seems especially wise.

It's a shame, then, that so many left-leaning commentators—having branded the ranchers as a bunch of terrorists intent on committing imminent violence—seem dismissive, or at least dissatisfied, with this wait-and-see approach. The Daily Beast's Sally Kohn has accused the federal government of encouraging right-wing militias by failing to crackdown on them with extreme prejudice. Kohn claims that authorities should have thrown the book at Cliven Bundy and his supporters after the previous standoff. "Talk about being 'soft on terrorism'," she writes:

What's even more disturbing, perhaps, is that nothing has changed in terms of the federal government's hyper-passive response to such flagrant acts of menacing and threats of domestic terrorism.

The Department of Justice did, wisely, revive the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee—recognizing the need to defend against and prevent the very real and comparable threat posed, for instance, by mostly white anti-government zealots and not just Muslim radicals. Yet the FBI said it was seeking a "peaceful" end to the standoff, and there are reportedly no signs of law enforcement being anywhere near the building. So maybe it's not even a "standoff" if the federal government is standing down.

Of course there's a strategic case to be made for a cautious approach on the part of the federal government that doesn't escalate violence nor feed a cult of martyrdom within the anti-government extremist movement as happened after Ruby Ridge and Waco. That would seem jarring enough juxtaposed with the violent over-policing of black Americans and conservative calls for blanket scrutiny against all Muslims. But in the face of the very direct connection between the Bundy conflict and the Oregon standoff, and the SPLC's evidence that the government's non-response simply gave anti-government extremists more power, the government now seems naïve about right-wing extremism at best and encouraging at worst.

Since Kohn references the "violent over-policing of black Americans and conservative calls for blanket scrutiny against all Muslims," one might expect her to better understand why relentlessly demonizing misunderstood groups and exaggerating the threat they pose is a bad thing. I suspect she can't see beyond her own partisan lens: the left-leaning protesters she respects and agrees with are innocent victims, the right-leaning protesters she despises are a threat to the republic.

It's important to note that this is the same kind of paranoia about "the other" that animates Donald Trump and his supporters. The calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. and the calls to crack down on right-wing militias aren't so different from one another, even though they come from distinct ideological groups with almost no overlap. I would say to both groups that there is just as much danger—if not more danger—in counselling the government to overreact to perceived threats. Advocates of saner government have little to gain, and a lot to lose, by distorting the definition of the word terrorist to include the likes of the Bundys and Hammonds.

For more on this subject, read Jacob Sullum, Ed Krayewski, and me.

Advertisement

NEXT: Peter Suderman on Quentin Tarantino's Analog Cinema Throwback, The Hateful Eight

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah, because attacking militia groups has gone so well in the past. These people are nuts, leave the damn people alone.

    1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

    2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

    3. They’re really not nuts though. They didn’t just show up out of nowhere; this is the culmination of decades of abuse by the federal government against peaceful and otherwise law-abiding ranchers. Their abuse has gotten zero publicity, zero sympathy in the mainstream press, no high-caliber celebrities to raise ‘awareness’, no trendy hashtags, nothing. What else was going to happen?

      Conservatives and libertarians especially are always talking about the ultimate purpose of the second amendment being the final backstop against government tyranny. Well, this is what that looks like. And you know what? It works. It worked at the Bundy Ranch and it’s working here.

      1. As the system will not be reformed, we need a revolution. This is a step towards the tipping point. The alternative is acceptance of a communist regime ruled by the likes of Obamacare,a and Cankles for the forseeable future. Personally, I don’t care how many progressives need to be liquidated to prevent that from happening.

  2. America has fallen. Where’s Janet Reno when you need her? Maybe the progs are busy trying to find her right now.

    1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

  3. Given that no one’s life is currently threatened by the antics of the Bundy family, this restrained approach seems especially wise.

    WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN THEY MIGHT HAVE IN THERE WITH THEM?

    1. They’re probably shooting them up with marijuana right now, or worse, forcing them to read NRA literature!

    2. They’d better storm the place with a gas that turns poisonous when exposed to flame, then. Didn’t they learn how to kill children properly in Waco?

      1. The progs are all calling for drone strikes and SWAT teams. I hope they remember that when Americans rise up and come for them.

        1. Also hope they remember that the people who are in the military arent typically the most devout progressive zealout to say the least

    3. Nuke the entire site from orbit–it’s the only way to be sure.

      1. I prefer hypervelocity rod bundles. Just blame it on a meteor.
        http://www.popsci.com/scitech/…..od?image=0

  4. but I think the best way to bring about change is through politics

    One side comes to the political table with a bunch of guns. And the other side is the ranchers.

    I wonder how the outcome of the “politics” will be, seeing that we already have detritus like Montel Williams saying “Kill Whitey Ranchers!” It’s like Montel Williams fashions himself as a Chicago Police.

  5. “Why don’t more liberals agree?”

    YOU KNOW WHY

  6. I’d wager that if the Bundy group weren’t armed and willing to shoot there wouldn’t even be as many calls for a peaceful resolution.

    1. I add that if the protesters were armed Black Panther members, the left would be supporting them and their violence… Clearly there are more factors at play here than merely being armed–their politics and skin color also matter.

      1. That was pretty much the left’s response when Eric Holder and his armed crew took over a Columbia University ROTC building back in 1970. In New York City, no less.

        1. And when Russell Means and his American Indian Movement took over the town of Wounded Knee in 1973.

      2. It’s all about hating the outgroup. The liberals hate just as deeply as conservatives. They just hate certain types of white people: members of Tribe Red.

  7. Libs haven’t had good right-winger boogeyman action since McVeigh or Ruby Ridge; but man have they been constantly ‘vigilant’ for it.

    This is best they’ve got, so it’ll have to do. Sort of like Trump-lover wanting to gun-down Sikhs, but in reverse.

    1. Meh, they’ve had a couple. Knoxville unitarian church shooting. The church shooting in SC.

      And yes, they do live in constant fear of the brownshirts – that’s why they fund SPLC, it panders to their worst fears.

      1. And yes, they do live in constant fear of the brownshirts – that’s why they fund SPLC, it panders to their worst fears.

        Republicans, free market types, libertarians, and social conservatives may be many things, but they aren’t “brown shirts”. “Brown shirts” are an extreme form of progressivism, i.e., ideologically close to Democrats.

        1. Well you said it. So it must be true.

  8. If I diddn’t know better, I’d almost start to think that “liberals” believed in acceptable forms of bigotry.

  9. “Given that no one’s life is currently threatened by the antics of the Bundy family, this restrained approach seems especially wise.”

    BBBUT BUT TEH TERRORISTIC THREATENINGS??

    Yesterday we had some liberal troll/tulpa incarnation suggesting their ‘property usurpation’ was a threat *to their own lives*… as well as something something something Federal Employees.

    Perhaps he meant the Federal Snow Geese

  10. I think the best way to bring about change is through politics,

    Definitely not a libertarian.

    I’d say calling the rhetoric from Kohn and others “a shame” is more of your patented soft-pedaling, but I’m glad you’re reporting on this. I wouldn’t know what these people are saying otherwise.

    1. Definitely not a libertarian.

      Then Rothbard wasn’t a libertarian.

      “I see no other conceivable strategy for the achievement of liberty than political action. Religious or philosophical conversion of each man and woman is simply not going to work; that strategy ignores the problem of power, the fact that millions of people have a vested interest in statism and are not likely to give it up? Education in liberty is of course vital, but it is not enough; action must also be taken to roll back the State?”

      1. Rothbury wasn’t libertarian enough. But he was certainly better than most.

      2. Rothbard was a mid-20th century economist, so it’s not surprising that he “saw no other conceivable strategy”. In fact, these days, technology gives us a lot more options to erode and circumvent state power without either breaking any laws or bothering with political action.

        Think of it this way: if we stopped adding to our debt, the current debt would tend to inflate away as the economy grows. Likewise, the only way the state can stay in charge is by continually coming up with new laws to try to keep up with technology and changing society; if technology and society change faster than politics can keep up, liberty increases.

        Therefore, the primary goal of libertarians in politics should be to induce political inaction.

    2. Excuse me if I’m wrong but isn’t warfare and Revolution just another aspect of “politics”?

  11. Demonization is the point of demonization.

    1. What, no yokel-voice?

  12. Isn’t it about time for Tony to show up and post pictures of guided weapons systems to show us libertarians why his master is da bestest ever and is really going to get us?

  13. There’s only one way to resolve “Oregon standoff” – not feeding trolls.

    1. I’m kinda curious how a bunch of guys hanging out at a station that is closed for the off-season anyway is a “stand-off”.

      What would happen if everyone just ignored them? Maybe had somebody from Parks check in periodically to see if they needed anything?

      1. if people just ignored terrorism it wouldnt really be terrorism. any reporting at all, much less obsessing over it, is absolutely necessary if you want to go beyond just run of the mill (?) violence and actually terrify people. i don’t know if i would go as far as any public discussion, but certainly any mass media coverage is 10000% complicit

    2. Oh, I like! Set up a barricade around the place, let them leave if they like, but let no one in. Either they willingly starve to death, or they pack up and leave.

      1. There wa a stadoff in Texas some years after waco.

        A family of some kinda group or other was surrounded on their land and armed and making threats against any gov employee that crossed their property lines.I think it was over an IRS beef or something.

        The county Sheriff just kinda kept an eye on them from time to time and their electricity was cut off.

        I never heard the end result so I know there was never a shootout.

        That’s the best way to handle it.

        1. Of course, this is why the government is pushing solar panels that turn off when the utility power is cut off. No need to encourage independent thought or action…

          1. Hey, croaker. Do you have sources for this?

          2. Hey: once o get my super duper efficient solar panels set up with my battery, and my well going:

            Get the fuck out of Brianland, or I’ll shoot!

  14. Rand Paul, White House, Want Oregon Standoff Resolved Cautiously. Why Don’t More Liberals Agree?

    Liberals do agree. Or did you mean “progressives”?

    1. Have there been any American liberals since 1933?

        1. Did they support the welfare state? If so they already sold out.

      1. Yeah, they’re now known as ‘libertarians’. Rare breed they are.

        1. There’s really only one.

          You can ask him. He posts here under the unlikely handle of “Palin’s Buttplug”. Pretty sure that’s not his real name.

          1. I wouldn’t be so sure it isn’t his real name.

            1. In the ancient tradition of creating a surname from a profession.

              1. Or a. Idea, invention, etc.. Like Joe Reacharound.

    2. In high-school humanities class, I impressed the teacher by pointing out the extent to which the meaning that Americans gave to the word “liberalism” had changed since the 19th century.

      1. Suprising they didn’t kick you out of class!

  15. The left is showing their true colors here. Many of them, though not all, feel that a violent response is the desired response to the flaunting of government authority and this situation is simply allows a socially acceptable airing of those views. Who here doesn’t think those calling for a bloody confrontation wouldn’t advocate for the same for us or conservatives if given the chance? These fools are serving as a proxy for the left’s hatred of all those who disagree with them.

    1. Considering Tony openly admitted to wanting to execute his political opponents a couple years ago, I’d say the likelihood is pretty high.

      1. He’s over on the ‘Making a Murderer’ thread right now pretending to care about other people. He’s even trying to use libertarian words like ‘nut punches’. It’s quite amusing.

        1. nut punches

          ” In a large bowl, combine the almond milk, sugar….”

      2. That’s ok. I have to admit the thought of seeing the life leave his fearful eyes as he is strangled is a heartwarming image for me.

    2. Liberals think that government should flaunt its authority with violence when the serfs presume to flout government authority.

      1. Err … progressives, that is.

    3. Gov = religion to proggies. An attack on gov is like an attack on allah, drives them into an insane rage and lobbed off heads is the only logical outcome.

      1. You’re right and that’s why they tend to react so strongly. To them it’s a form of blasphemy.

      2. lobbed off heads

        Punkin’ Chunkin’?

  16. Relentlessly demonizing misunderstood opponents is a bad idea.

    Sure it is, next you’ll say I should address my opponent’s actual arguments instead of what I think they are trying to say, and I suppose I shouldn’t point out typos and bad grammar either. How am I going to win any internets that way?

    1. That’s just what I expected someone of your identity categories to say.

      1. Yeah, those Hyperbolic-Americans. Always flying off the handle.

    2. Demonization can be an effective tool in discrediting one’s enemies. I have no problem demonizing progs. I’m not sure how many of you understand that reasoning with progs or bargaining with them is a waste of time, and in fact, counterproductive. They must be destroyed. The alternative is their Marxist slavery.

  17. William Kunstler’s gonna show up in solidarity, right?

  18. “Why don’t more liberals agree?”

    Question answers itself, doesn’t it.

  19. It’s not about a violent response per se. It’s about fairness and equal protection under the law and social justice. If you’re going to gun down a black 12-year-old in Cleveland and a big black guy in Ferguson trying to surrender, it is complete hypocrisy NOT to gun down whiteys occupying a federal building. It’s an insult to blacks and Muslims not to kill them all! And we know how bad insulting blacks and Muslims is.

    This is the closest I can get to progressive thinking, based on the progressives on my social media today.

    1. That’s part of it but there’s also a subset of the hard left that’d like to see their ideological enemies exterminated and this situation allows a socially acceptable airing of this view.

    2. So, they’re ok with gunning down innocent blacks and muslims as long as they gun down whitey too? Sounds like proggie reasoning to me.

      1. Not that they’re ok with it in the first place — more like, “if it happens, it should happen to everyone equally. Otherwise it’s racism.” And racism being, as far as I can tell, the worst evil anyone can commit, even worse than gunning people down.

        1. I will never understand how they seem to think that racism is some kind of multiplier that makes some particular evil 10 times worse…

          According to their apparent premises, a man who shoots a black person, a Hispanic, an Asian, and a Native American is evil, but he can redeem himself somewhat by shooting a white person.

          1. Well depending what state you’re in or what campus you’re on, shooting an Asian can go either way.

        2. what about rape?

          1. *narrows gaze

    3. I think there is a certain degree of envy in the vitriol the urban left heaps upon these farmers and ranchers.

      And while owning and running these ranches is certainly hard work, agricultural subsidies, price controls, and grazing rights have also amounted to big government subsidies to these families over the years. I think people are also upset at the government handouts to these groups, people who would be fairly well off simply based on the land they own.

  20. Has Sally Kohn ever said anything NOT retarded?

    It would be “a shame” if this were an example of some fall from grace on her part.

    Instead, she’s a fucking industrial-grade DerpPumpingMachine

    For the love of the Koch brothers, Robby, call a spade a spade at least once.

    1. How could you leave out Kohn’s stated intent to force her adoptive daughter into lesbianism, whether she identifies as one or not?

      1. Link limit?

        She exceeds the ‘Tard filter

        1. She’s like if Dean Obiedallah and Eric Liu had a child together.

          1. This should be Sally Kohn’s bump/intro music.

            1. Thought it would be the Black-eyed Pea’s “Let’s get retarded in here”…

              1. No, it needs to be music that’s everything Kohn isn’t.

              2. R word trigger warning, please!

    2. To answer your question, no.

  21. A lot of people love calling for violence on people they don’t like as soon as they can “justify” such calls. It isn’t hard to figure out.

  22. It’s so, so delicious that the Saudi-Iran row has knocked this story off the headlines.

  23. ” the SPLC’s evidence”

    The SPLC is a hysterical left-wing propaganda-pumping machine.

    Citing them as a credible source re: “Terrorism” is like quoting Iranian Fatwas when discussing Israel policy.

    Also = Every single article re: “Domestic Terror” links its bullshit claims back to this study

    Its complete and utter horseshit. It basically takes a ‘miscellaneous bin’ of ‘unaffiliated hate crimes’ and lumps them together as “Domestic Terrorism”. Ergo, 100 separate gay bashings over a period of 10 years? Is then contrasted with things like the San Berdoo shooters and a false equivalence is claimed.

    I’ve never seen a single journalist point this out. Which suggests to me that they’re either enormously lazy, or that they’re complicit in bullshit-narrative-pumping.

    1. Yeah, this. The SPLC should only be cited as an example of “relentlessly demonizing misunderstood groups and exaggerating the threat they pose.” Which, to be fair, is the context Robby places them in.

    2. Citing them as a credible source re: “Terrorism” is like quoting Iranian Fatwas when discussing Israel policy.

      Sheldon Richman: “Hmmm… That guy is onto something!”

    3. My direct experience with journalist’s indicate that most are not terribly bright, and definitely lazy.

  24. Has there been any explanation as to why this group is anti-government or right-wing extremism? Is it simply taken for granted that, if you think the Hammonds are being subject to double jeopardy or a wrongful terrorist designation, and/or you think that the feds should return some of its vast western lands, you are “anti-government”?

    1. “Anti-government,” like all other political and economic gems, has been purged of all meaning beyond “whatever I like” or “whatever I don’t like.” The point is to provoke the desired emotional reaction.

      1. Its a rhetorical ploy to avoid actually even taking note of any specific grievances.

    2. Anti-corrupt government, thank you very much.

      And the BLM qualifies on that count.

      1. The USDA and its subsidies and other handouts qualify as well, though; and the corrupt BLM isn’t just corrupt in trying to take the land away, it arguably was also corrupt in how it handed out grazing and water rights before. Live by government corruption, die by government corruption?

  25. From what I can see, Kohn’s comments are representative of progressive “thought” on the issue. If there’s a choice between a peaceful resolution with their opponents and violent suppression, they’ll go with the latter. Consistently. Tolerance isn’t a goal. It’s a tactic until they have power.

  26. “”Racist, anti-civil rights forces cloaked themselves in the benign language of “state’s rights”. Anti-gay religious entities adopted the glossy, positive imagery of “family values”. Similarly, though many Libertarians embrace a pseudo-patriotic apple pie nostalgia, behind this facade is a very un-American, sinister vision.

    Sure, most libertarians may not want to do away entirely with the idea of government or, for that matter, government-protected rights and civil liberties. But many do ? and ironically vie for political power in a nation they ultimately want to destroy. Even the right-wing pundit Ann Coulter mocked the paradox of Libertarian candidates: “Get rid of government ? but first, make me president!” Libertarians sowed the seeds of anti-government discontent, which is on the rise, and now want to harvest that discontent for a very radical, anti-America agenda””

    Strangely, the libertarian agenda has largely escaped scrutiny, at least compared to that of social conservatives. The fact that the political class is locked in debate about whether Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry is more socially conservative only creates a veneer of mainstream legitimacy for the likes of [insert arbitrary figure], whose libertarianism may be even more extreme and dangerously un-patriotic. With any luck America will recognize anti-government extremism for what it is ? before libertarians throw America overboard and render us all castaways.””

    – Sally Kohn, 2011

    1. With any luck America will recognize anti-government extremism for what it is ? before libertarians throw America overboard and render us all castaways.

      This is the sort of stuff that irks me about Reason’s cultural emphasis. All of the weed, Mexicans and ass-sex won’t do much when you have people who openly think that libertarianism is genocidal.

      1. “All of the weed, Mexicans and ass-sex won’t do much when you have people who openly think that libertarianism is genocidal.”

        Well, that’s presuming that Weed, Ass-Sex and Mexicans aren’t legitimate goods in themselves.

        Its not all just a ploy to appeal to nascent-lefties. We honestly enjoy our stoned mexican sodomy.

    2. So I see that Mrs. Kohn isn’t even “functionally” retarded.

    3. “Strangely, the libertarian agenda has largely escaped scrutiny”

      It’s strange? You guys get 1% of the vote nationally. That’s why right-wing libertarianism has escaped scrutiny, because people basically think it’s not credible.

      1. Since we’re talking about credible political parties, what is the approximate national vote share of the SPOA?

        1. Believe me when I say it, but I’m not happy to report to you that the person who most identifies with libertarianism is getting 1-4% of the vote in the Republican Party. The person who calls himself a democratic socialist and identifies with the heroic Eugene Debs is getting 30% of the vote in the Democratic Party. And that same democratic socialist beats the top Republican in head-to-head polling. Maybe it’s the socialist’s moment?

          1. Maybe it’s the socialist’s moment?

            Ooh, when do the famines start?

          2. When do the plastic bags around the heads make their debut?

          3. Will there be concession stands at the purges? Non-GMO, vegan fare?

          4. Will the gulags be constructed of all natural materials and have a neutral carbon footprint?

          5. So riddle me this, with the hildog’s brand of nationalism woven into her platform is she gonna get her nationalism mixed into your socialism or will your socialism get mixed into her nationalism?

            Und denkst du das ist sehr geschmek? Seig Hiellery!

            1. Reese’s Nazi Cups?

      2. “”You guys””

        This is the same dipshit that pretends to be libertarian whenever its pointed out that he’s a Stalin apologist.

        Earth to AmSoc = this isn’t the Libertarian Party HQ.

        1. I get that– especially when you are around posting.

          1. ZING!! AMsoc WINS THE THREAD!!!

            Man, with wit like that I’M gonna vote Socialist!!

            FEEL THE BERN!!!

            1. Careful, not sure AmSoc understands sarcasm.

              1. Or how to pay a mortgage………..

      3. Uh, that’s noted not-libertarian Sally Kohn saying “strangely”, Captain Reading Comprehension.

      4. Cool observation, legit actual racist asshole.

    4. With any luck America will recognize anti-government extremism for what it is ? before libertarians throw America overboard and render us all castaways.

      Someone needs to find the zero patient… the exact time when Progressives became so rabidly patriotic.

      1. Seriously, my progressive friends seem to be all about praising and honoring veterans of late. If a Republican gets in the White House, I assume this will change.

    5. “Libertarians sowed the seeds of anti-government discontent, which is on the rise, and now want to harvest that discontent for a very radical, anti-America agenda”

      Those damn libertarians!! They’re so powerful! Look at how they pull strings behind everything that happens in this country! Who can possibly rein in this Koch-funded juggernaught of political manipulation?!

  27. “I’m sympathetic to the idea that the large collection of federal lands ought to be turned back to the states and the people, but I think the best way to bring about change is through politics,” Paul told the Washington Post in an interview. “That’s why I entered the electoral arena. I don’t support any violence or suggestion of violence toward changing policy.”

    I basically agree, but we have a really big problem in this country, in that Americans the last few years have overwhelmingly voted to stop the Obama mommas in Washington, and it has done absolutely nothing. In fact, the dictator has openly and brazenly given the country the middle finger, and publicly declared that he’s going to do whatever the hell he wants to, and anyone who doesn’t like it can shove it.

    So, this is the kind of stuff that starts to happen when people are disenfranchised and have no representation left in government. We have an increasingly dysfunctional and dangerous situation because politics isn’t working.

    1. we were already being effectively disenfranchised by whatever the opposite of federalism is

      1. Ironically, the opposite of federalism (“centralize power in the federal government”) is federalism (“distribute power across the member states of a federation”).

        1. Without the sarcasm, though, local decision making is often referred to as “subsidiarity”, with “centralization” being the opposite.

  28. Rand Paul, White House, Want Oregon Standoff Resolved Cautiously. Why Don’t More Liberals Agree?

    Because they’re blood thirsty authoritarian assholes, that’s why. There’s nothing the left would love more than to see state sanctioned violence committed against their ideological opponents. 70 years ago these shitheads would have been more than happy to see “undesirables” loaded into cattle cars and hauled away.

    1. About 70 years ago these shitheads did just that with Japanese-Americans and about 13,000 Americans of German and Italian descent.

      1. At least the Japanese got $20k and a nice musical out of it.

    2. I’m not convinced that they wouldn’t like that to happen today as well.

    3. It’s ironic the progs don’t recognize that if shit boils over into a revolution (now or later) that they will be the ones slaughtered in droves. It’s not as if the shits are capable of actually fighting.

  29. They’re jumping on this because they’re desperate to find ANY equivalent of radical Islam. They need it to to advance their narrative that radicalism is not exclusive to Islam or that all religions and ideology have an equally violent sect.

    Their faces were red with glee when someone attacked planned parenthood, then not long after that, the Paris and SB attack occurred. Dang, why did those Muslims have to do those things to unravel our narrative?

    The left’s default response to Islamic terror is “Stop Islamophobia” and “Not all Muslims”. That’s it. They do not express one iota of outrage when ISIS slaughters even their own protected groups. But they spit at the NRA any time a mass shooting occurs. When clock boy was suspended and Rice was shot, the libs trotted out a bunch of lists of incidents in which white people in similar situations were apparently spared – which is stupid, since white people are suspended, tazed, and shot to death all the time.

    Liberalism isn’t a mental disorder. But it does prevent human beings from discerning reality.

    1. Do you think it’s possible that some Leftists hate ISIS and the NRA. BTW, before you pea brains say it, I’m not saying ISIS and the NRA are at the same level of perfidy. One is clearly worse than the other.

      1. Which one is worse?

        1. Of concern to me? Here? Hands down. The NRA.

          1. No in general.

            What is the nra doing to you exactly?

            1. The NRA and its dirty members are making sure guns are easily available and can therefore be used in mass shootings.

              Ignore the fact that in the 80s, the gun control movement actually promoted the so-called assault rifle as a realistic alternative to the easily concealable and too-cheap ‘saturday night special’ which was responsible for oh-so-many gun deaths. 25 years later, now they’re actually promoting the saturday night special.

              To use an example, France doesn’t have mass shootings because they have no NRA.

              1. “France doesn’t have mass shootings because they have no NRA.”

                Um, okay.

              2. “France doesn’t have mass shootings because they have no NRA.”

                Um, okay.

              3. France may or may not have an NRA but guess which country besides America does?

                http://www.riflesports.jp/ (even if you can’t read most of the font here look carefully at the icon in the upper right)

            2. They are not complying with Obama’s decrees. And the Lightbringer is their deity, so the NRA are heretics against the Progressive Orthodoxy.

          2. Nice comment, disgusting piece of shit racist. D-

          3. Goddamn you’re so stupid. When the revolution comes, it will end horribly for you.

      2. No, since they see ISIS as a) the authentic voice of Islam, which, paradoxically is a figleaf for a primarily political movement; and b) ISIS and other terrorist outfits utilize Leftist critiques of colonialism, etc. so in that respect they are kindred. If you hated ISIS, you’d be spending your time and effort talking about how to neutralize it rather than expounding on the legitimacy of its grievances and placing blame for its creation on your political opponents.

        1. So, if you hate colonialism you love ISIS?

          1. What “colonialism” would that be, exactly?

            1. The ongoing colonization of the dying Euro welfare states? Or maybe he meant Ottoman imperialism.

          2. You hate America, so you love ISIS. As they wish to destroy America. Plus, your kind always have some kind of fucked up Sockholm Syndrome for any person or group that wants to damage America. You think you can somehow make them like you because you’re a good little leftist. Or some such bullshit. Better to just be rid of you ,and ISIS.

      3. “Do you think it’s possible that some Leftists hate ISIS”

        Hitch would hate ISIS, but he’s dead. I think the rest of the left and establishment right (to the extent those are meaningfully distinct concepts) sees ISIS as a useful means for provoking social unrest, justifying expanded state authority and restrictions on arms, speech, and privacy, and perhaps even (in the face of total incompetence or perceived assistance to terrorists), provoking a domestic insurrection that would allow them to (in their estimation) completely crush their domestic enemies.

        Basically, it’s the plot of Demolition Man, except that the criminals and terrorists are brought in from the 7th century rather than the 20th.

  30. “The calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. and the calls to crack down on right-wing militias aren’t so different from one another, even though they come from distinct ideological groups”

    Robby, when is the last time an immigrant pointed a gun at a federal official and received offers of leniency from a federal official? What exactly is your fetish for dipshit rednecks who like to pull guns on cops? Is this like the beginning of the civil war between liberty lovers and ZOG/NWO Black Helicopter Squad?

    1. Who is having a gun pointed at them here?

    2. When was the last time your weren’t a racist pile of shit?

    3. News flash shitbag, you are NOT a ‘Liberty lover’. You’re a slaver and oppressor. And a vicious bigot.

  31. You’re missing the plot if you ignore the fact that – in just about every call for the Federal Government to engage in a violent confrontation – it is emphasized that the Bundy contingent consists of white males. There’s a real desire to see who they see as history’s top dogs laid low, and perhaps doubly so because it would be largely white males (whose politics are unlikely to be Left of center) who would be following the orders and presenting the Bundys’ scalps to Washington.

  32. Boohoo. {sob}… Why won’t liberals try to understand more about people pointing guns at federal agents after threatening to declare war against the federal government? They’re just misunderstood. If Black people in hoodies pointed guns at cops they’d be treated the same way as Cliven Bundy’s freedom fighters in Nevada.

    1. A riot is the voice of the unheard.

    2. “If Black people in hoodies pointed guns at cops”‘

      You mean like this?

      Dear AmSoc = using black people as a weapon to attack political opponents reveals your essential racism. Its disgusting and shameful.

      1. That’s pointing guns at cops?

        Do try to keep up with right-wing claptrap. That very picture was used by right-wingers to claim that Black people were defying liberals by openly carrying. Isn’t that why you knew about it?

        1. I support the right for all people – blacks and whites – to bear arms.

          The video was pointing out that you’re entirely wrong = black people can and do bear arms in protest of the government and are treated as being within their rights. as are the protesters at this ….remote wildlife preserve thing.

          That they were calling for the death of cops while doing so is just more proof that your desperate attempt to claim some racial disparity in treatment is utterly contrived.

          You seem to only care about black people when you can use their dead bodies for some political goal. Its disgusting and you should be ashamed.

          1. Ashamed? He would need a soul for that. And progressives have no souls. No, he is an evil thing. Mans he does what evil things do.

    3. Where are these folks pointing guns at cops?

      1. Metaphorically! METAPHORICALLY!

        1. Yes, yes, you know he doesn’t address the half-dozen people asking him “WHEN has one of these guys in Oregon POINTED A WEAPON at a cop or federal agent”.
          He just wants you to go along with his bullshit so he can claim he is right via false equivalency.
          Gosh, amsoc is a vile little racist…

    4. I’m a legit racist, hey look at this over here!

  33. Resolved cautiously? Sure.

    Rolling over and giving the terrorists what they want, like the last time the Bundy’s made the news? Hell no.

    So no. I don’t want violence. But I also understand that if you give someone an inch, they’ll take a mile. And that’s what’s happening here. The Bundy ranch was the inch. Here’s the first leg of the mile. If these men walk unpunished then we’re setting a very dangerous precedent.

    1. Sure bro

      #AssholesWantAWacoRe-Run

    2. You may want to be careful how far you define terrorism down. You might just get tagged with that label someday and you know what terrorists deserve, right?

      1. Oh, no, Grinch, surely the guns will never be pointed at Escher. If they’re in opposition to the government, why they must be terrorists. Surely, it could never be the case that the government might bulldoze through people’s rights. And the wheat harvest is expected to surpass last year’s by a million bushels!

    3. Given the grievances in play, sounds more like the principle is “if you fail to steal an inch now, you might be unable to steal a mile later”.

    4. What is the full extent of the “mile”? What do these people want, that they must not be allowed to have, which is so dangerous?

      1. Apparently they want to steal an inch of not going to prison unjustly, and maybe go the Mike of bringing attention to government theft. We can’t have that. If some people start believing they have rights, it could snowball to all people.

    5. Sure, you don’t want violence. You merely want to label those who are ideologically different from you as “terrorists” and call for them to be “punished” by the authority they dare to question.

    6. What is the precendent that is being set here? What makes them terrorists specifically? I havent seen any violence

      When unions occupied the statehouse of wisconsin, did you say the same thing?

    7. “By GOD, you’ll obey your betters elected leaders! You’ll take whatever the government wants to give to you, and like it!!”

      Did it ever occur to you, EE, that this is pretty much what the people, who wrote the Constitution for our country, had in mind when it came to acknowledging the right of ordinary people to arm themselves?

  34. Amsoc who are the ranchers pointing guns at police here?

    1. The ones that don’t exist.

      1. He AIN’T gonna address that asseveration….

  35. The lust to wield the power of the state against perceived political opponents is a symptom of the left’s sinking feeling that maybe… just maybe…. they’ve had their last, best shot at having political control in the US, and are now on the downslope, being forced to accept something as awful as Hillary as the “best of terrible options”.

    Basically, they just really want to kill some rednecks so they can feel morally superior for a brief moment.

    1. They’re calling them “Y’all Qaida.” Do Oregon farmers say “y’all?” I’m guessing they don’t.

  36. Remember how the Left condemned the film “Billy Jack” for its glorification of domestic terrorism?

    1. It was an ok movie, but the sequels got stupid pretty fast.

  37. These people that are losing their minds about this need to get a grip on reality. The only law that appears to have been broken at this point is trespassing. The media using words like ‘siege’ and standoff’ is ridiculous. They occupied an empty building in the middle of nowhere.

    1. This

    2. A building that represents the BLM land theft that has been going on for 50 years or more.

  38. Well, the solution seems simple. Napalm the top of that damn mountain!

  39. The solution seems simple. Napalm the top of that damn mountain!

  40. Did I mention it might not be a bad idea to napalm the top of that mountain? Or not. Maybe make it into some kind of Burning Man with high powered rifles or such?

  41. Who reads Kohn? She is one radicalized dumb cunt.

    1. Yea is she really that stoopid or just a good troll

    2. I remember when she briefly worked for Fox News. One day she was actually on the panel for Special Report. All the stupid bitch could do was spew Media Matters talking points. No real analysis or conversation with her. It was also the only time I’ve ever seen Dhalres Krauthammer visibly annoyed on Special Report. I never saw her again on that program. Which was not a shock. Her idiocy would probably even piss off a lefty like Kristen Powers.

  42. Amsoc….where is the gun pointing?

    Please explain how isis is not as bad as the nra. Thanks in advance

  43. I’m sure if the Bundys were protesting fracking on federal land, the lefties would be more sympathetic-Michale Moore would probably be there making a documentary.

  44. I have a feeling that if the Bundy family was black, they would be treated differently by … liberal politicians.

  45. What’s even more disturbing, perhaps, is that nothing has changed in terms of the federal government’s hyper-passive response to such flagrant acts of menacing and threats of domestic terrorism.

    This person gets paid to write for a living?

  46. See, and this is why I continue to be a libertarian. Because only a libertarian is able to see the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy of how the left and the right react to situations that aside from the characters involved are virtually identical, and then plausibly make the call for cooler heads to prevail. The left is calling for the Bundys’ heads and calling them “traitors to the Republic” (like patriotism is such an exalted value in their eyes to begin with) and they haven’t even harmed anyone yet. They have simply defied the authority of the state, which is the ultimate heresy in the eyes of a leftist and an unforgivable capital offense. But then you also have the rightists who are defending Bundy, which makes them just as stupid and part of the problem.

  47. I am liberal and I agree a nonviolent solution is best. Wait, don’t you guys accuse Obama of being liberal. A WHAT liberals do you refer?

    1. Go check out the commentary from your brethren at places like HuffPo on this subject. They’re all calling for SWAT teams and drone strikes.

  48. Glad to see It’s Pat found a career as a liberal columnist.

  49. “…response to such flagrant acts of menacing…”

    I wasn’t aware that being scary was a federal offense to a liberal. Although given the outcry over “assault weapons” I probably should have guessed.

    Also, I may have reached oversaturation with reading about politics in the last few months, because I am getting so damned sick of seeing palette-swapped versions of the statement “(CONSERVATIVES/LIBERALS) complained about (LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE PET GROUP) yesterday so why are they supporting (CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL PET GROUP IN VAGUELY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE).” It’s never an invalid complaint but it’s a self-perpetuating one because in itself it is a complaint, allowing the other team to accurately make the inverse complaint.

  50. It’s important to note that this is the same kind of paranoia about “the other” that animates Donald Trump and his supporters. The calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. and the calls to crack down on right-wing militias aren’t so different from one another

    No, they are vastly different.

    Ranchers & “right-wing militias” == the citizens whom the government is supposed to serve.
    Muslim immigrants == foreigners to whom the government has no obligation whatsoever.

    1. I should have said “Muslim would-be immigrants.”

  51. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  52. What’s Walker, Texas Ranger have to do with any of this?

  53. Liberals like Sally Kohn hate ordinary Americans, so naturally they’re eager for an excuse to kill off a bunch of them. If their chief concern really were preserving public order, they’d be even harsher to Black Shakedowns Matter — but they support them instead.

    1. She strikes me as an obsessive man-hating dyke that largely defines herself through being a commie piece of shit, and a clam digger.

  54. I think a lot of liberals actually would normally hope for peaceful resolutions. But the double standards of the right wingers are on display more than anything. So I think liberals are pretty much furious that patience is advocated now while calls for shooting black activists , if needed, were called by right wingers when the BLM movement was taking place. You had the Hannitys going batshit crazy over BLM protesters who were not even armed against the cops. Here we have a group saying openly they will not hesitate to use armed force if forced to evacuate , yet law enforcement is not threatened by the weapons and yet unarmed black guys get shot because cops all over the country refuse to be patient and create situations where they can say they had to act immediately or be shot by a fictional gun.

    1. Who was advocating shooting BLM unprovoked?
      And while BLM was not shooting at cops, some in the movement were advocating for it.

  55. Yes, that’s why right-wing libertarianism has escaped scrutiny, because people basically think it’s not credible.

  56. Muslims aren’t trying to take public lands, Y’allcaida rednecks are.

  57. Confused? Where here’s some clarity. Democrats have pushed their communistic ideas onto the ‘republic’ of the United States which included the theft of states, people and their property. There is no Constitutional enumerated power for the United States to Steal from their joined States in fact it is soundly prohibited.

    They will talk about “OUR” public land from Main to Southern California; completely abolishing the idea of people owning property at all. They will run around on their political horse with “Robbing Hoods” on insisting all your stuff is actually “THIERS” that needs to be turned over to “OUR” establishment.

    Prove me wrong.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.