Oregon Standoff

How Making a Murderer Helps Explain Liberals' Reaction to the Oregon Standoff

We all deserve fair treatment under the law, and we all lose when people let aesthetic and ideological differences obscure that basic truth.

|

USFWC Pacific/Flickr

For several days, America has been gripped by the seizure of a remote federal outpost in Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by a group calling themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. Led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy—the sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who fought the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in 2014 over cattle-grazing fees—these "Malheur Militants" claim they're sticking up for citizen rights. But liberal media have branded them dangerous, racist, and patriarchal, referring to the group as extremists, "heavily armed domestic terrorists," and "Vanilla ISIS." Many on the left have been calling for the government to come down on the group with all its might.

The Citizens for Constitutional Freedom are not terrorists, though, at least not by any normal definition. As Jesse Walker wrote in the Los Angeles Times today, "the question of what qualifies as terrorism is hotly contested, but the most compelling definitions hinge on whether the perpetrators target civilians." The Malheur group has not. In fact, it hasn't targeted anyone with violence. It says members only armed themselves in preparation for the worst, and will only use weapons if necessary for self defense. 

As to the charges of bigotry? Some, such as Slate writer Isaac Chotiner, have even portrayed the Malheur Militants as the antithesis of the Black Lives Matter movement. Others make it seem as if they're taking over land in connection with white nationalist politics. But whatever the Bundy family's general opinions on race, these have no relation to the current protest, which is rooted in objections to government policies.

Specifically, the Malheur group is concerned with federal land management in an area where the government owns 53 percent of the land. They also oppose the conviction and sentencing of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond, who were found guilty of terrorism-motivated arson after fires set on their own property inadvertently spread to federal land. Using a broad interpretation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (itself a reactionary measure, passed the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, that also limits habeas corpus rights) and a mandatory minimum sentencing requirement designed to get tough on terrorists, the government was able to overrule a judge's initially lenient sentencing and send both Hammond men to prison for five years, with no ability to appeal.  

In the Hammonds case, we have the overzealous application of anti-terrorism statutes, absurdly harsh mandatory minimums, and plenty of due process abuse—all things liberals would decry in many circumstances. In the broader land use battle, we have a group of relatively disempowered people fighting powerful interests for ownership of the land they've been laboring on. And in the Oregon standoff, we have non-violent but radical resistance to perceived government tyranny, in the tradition of groups like grassroots farm movements and the Black Panther Party. Again and again, what's not for the left to like?

Whether we call them patriots or radicals or activists, the underlying morality of fighting against oppressive power structures and civil-rights infringements does not change. Branding those who do as terrorists and thugs, however, is a favorite trick of the federal government. So why are liberals now encouraging such state propaganda? Why are they doing the work of the very people who would just as soon use these mandates against racial and religious minorities?

Two recent documentaries might provide some insight. The first, last year's Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution, focuses on the calculated destruction of the Black Panther Party by federal officials; highlights the racist roots of gun control laws and early police militarization; and shows how the FBI manipulated local police, media, and the public to see the Panthers as nothing more than violent extremists. In my mini-review for Reason's January 2016 issue, I noted that the film "serves as a reminder of authorities' interest in keeping Americans pitted against one another rather than them rallying together against a corrupt state."

For a brief moment in the 1960s, black organizers and student protesters had started trying to rally poor and rural whites around shared causes. But as the film makes clear, this kumbaya moment didn't play too well with authorities. They were too invested in stoking race and class tension for their own political gains. 

Portraying citizens fighting for their rights as terrorists and extremists is part of the fundamental work of the police state. That so many on the left should now do it so willingly shows how deep tribalism and fear of the other run.

Which bring me to Making a Murderer, the new Netflix true-crime series that's captured the early 2016 zeitgeist. The guilt or innocence of main subject Steven Avery—accused, along with nephew Brendan Dassey, of the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach—is currently a matter of much speculation. But prior to 2005, Avery served 18 years in prison for a rape that he definitely didn't commit. Both DNA evidence and statements from the actual perpetrator cleared him of the Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, crime. 

Making a Murder spends the first episode on Avery's arrest, conviction, and eventual exoneration on the rape charges. From the beginning, filmmakers highlight how the Avery family—an extended clan that owned an auto salvage business on the outskirts of town—was perceived by people around those parts as different. The Averys didn't get involved in community groups. Didn't dress well. Didn't speak well. Owned a lot of guns. Owned a junk heap. Some had learning disorders, drinking problems, or a history of petty run-ins with the law.

In other words, they were hillbillies. Rednecks. Hicks. And as such, fair game for mocking, rumors, contempt. Community members suspected the worst of the Averys, including incest and other sexual deviance. Their low social status and country ways were more or less all the proof that neighbors needed. 

When the Manitowoc County cops railroaded Steven Avery into jail for a sexual assault he didn't commit, they were egged on by local media and the community at large, whose prejudice against these backward-seeming outsiders made them both bloodthirsty and willing to believe anything. In both the rape case and the subsequent murder cases against Avery and Dassey, an undercurrent of class animosity and pro-authority bias runs strong. 

These are, of course, the same biases that drive middle- and upper-class whites to dismiss people of color's complaints about police harassment and label their resistance as mere thuggery. Meanwhile, poor people of all colors are prone to the same sorts of abuses under the law.

Sure, poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don't, just like Ammon Bundy and gang certainly benefit from their skin color in this Oregon situation. But the point of pointing out privilege is to extend its benefit to everyone, not ensure that everyone is mistreated equally. Is it bullshit that a group of black or brown Malheur militants would inspire a whole different conversation and response in America? Sure. But just because "no one would call them patriots" doesn't mean we shouldn't. And we can acknowledge, dissect, and decry this double standard without wishing the worst on white protesters, too. 

Like the family at the heart of Making a Murderer, the Malheur protesters may not be comprised of the most culturally sophisticated or socially sympathetic people. They might keep to themselves. Use uncool or unsavvy language. Hold some views on race or sexual orientation that folks find unpalatable or even abhorrent. They might be the kind of people that many would label "white trash," and this makes it easy for respectable types to dismiss their claims of mistreatment. Who wants to stick up for people like that?

But of course there's no good-person clause to the Constitution. There need be nothing redeeming in someone's personal beliefs for them to deserve fair treatment under the law. We all deserve that, no matter what our politics are. And we all lose when we let aesthetic and ideological differences obscure that basic American truth.

NEXT: Cop Who Arrested Sandra Bland Is Indicted for Perjury

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. Is there any good, fair-minded literature on such militias? I always got the feeling whenever they come into the news they’re depicted as ‘crazies’.

    1. Reason is one of the few outlets who have given decent, unbiased coverage to that movement. Some others in the liberty and contrarian press have, but the legacy media coverage is uniformly demonizing, and the advocacy press coverage is predictably gushy. The legacy media then turn around and try to discredit the liberty press for not demonizing them.

      Having said that, the militia movement is pretty rife with unsavory elements, once you scratch the surface. Not sure whether that’s inherent or due to the actions of government plants.

      [adjusts tinfoil headgear]

      1. What do you mean by “the militia movement is pretty rife with unsavory elements, once you scratch the surface.”?

        What do you mean by “unsavory”?

        How rife?

        If the unsavory elements embrace and honor the NAP, what’s the problem?

        1. I was unaware the NAP was the official ideology of militiamen everywhere.

          1. It would appear that Tonio is making assertions of fact evidence of which I requested.

            If the ranks of the militia are, indeed, rife with unsavory elements, I would like to know that which constitutes unsavory.

            If the unsavory does not consist of NAP infractions, then why bother to pen that which he did?

            1. Tonio’s comment was not an NAP violation, so why are you making such a big deal about this? Why do you care?

              1. Did I write that Tonio’s comment was an NAP violation?

                Why the non-sequitur?

                The point is why did he bother to ASSERT, as a matter of FACT, that militia groups are rife with unsavory elements?

                From a libertarian perspective, why make such an assertion if the alleged unsavoriness is not violative of the NAP?

                1. From a libertarian perspective, why make such an assertion if the alleged unsavoriness is not violative of the NAP?

                  Because when you’re talking about media portrayals of the militia, things like skinheads and other folks with unpopular opinions make your average person uncomfortable. It’s purely pragmatic.

                2. As a libertarian, what does it matter what Tonio says or believes? He’s not violating the NAP.

                  This is the complaint you frequently make, and you’ve done it again here. There are many (obvious) reasons for Tonio to care about the savoriness of these folks, even if they are consistently peaceful, as there are reasons for you to care if he’s making inaccurate statements. Not everything is a matter of the damn NAP.

                  1. No, in a libertarian forum, there is nothing more important than the NAP.

                    Note, he did not provide any evidence to support his grand, sweeping generalization that militia groups are rife with unsavory elements.

                    So, first, define “unsavory”.

                    Second, provide examples.

                    Third, illustrate how such unsavoriness is harmful to libertarianism.

                    Of course, what I think is at work here is that Tonio thinks that there may be some militia groups who include individuals who are not copasetic with Tonio’s sensibilities, i.e., they may be, OMG, against the state approving of same sex marriage.

                    1. It’s not so much a matter of “unsavory” elements in militias. Anyone can call themselves a militia, so it stands to reason that in any significant group, no matter how it’s defined, you will have “unsavory” elements. The main word of contention is “rife”. To me, this mainly means there is at least a large minority. I’d say at least 25%. Whether this is true or not depends on what you consider “many”. What percentage. Also, when talking about militias, I’d tend to use militia groups as the unit of measure, not individuals. If there is one or two large groups with all the “unsavory” elements and the other 999 have none, this is not “rife”. Again, anyone can call themselves a militia. To speak of “militia” as if they are some official organized institution is ridiculous. It does make it easier to paint all of them with one broad brush, though, which requires much less thinking.

          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. 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

          4. 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. How organized are these militias? I doubt they all have the same charter.

        3. Well, for starters, at least three of the people in this group are part of the “stolen valor” crowd, as they have claimed military service and awards that they did not earn. Any group will tend to gather an element of fringe personalities looking for a place to belong. The militia groups tend to attract “paintball commando” type people. That does not necessarily reflect the leaders or agenda of the group, but they need to keep those people under control.

        4. why are you complaining about napping? are they not getting enough sleep?

        5. why are you complaining about napping? are they not getting enough sleep?

    2. “Militias” by definition are right-wing extremist hate groups so the only counter-point to that is going to come from militia members themselves – and why the hell do you want to hear some nonsense from a right-wing extremist hate group? They’re a bunch of anti-government conspiracy nuts convinced an over-powerful government is spying on everybody, would have no qualms about killing them, think there’s some sort of international movement to standardize bureaucratic control of society, and that anybody organizing to resist this “New World Order” is going to be targeted as a right-wing extremist hate group.

      Don’t look now, but I think you might be surrounded by a bunch of right-wing extremist hate group sympathizers. Do the thoughts of Waco and Ruby Ridge fill you with pride at what a wonderfully benevolent government you have? Do you eagerly look forward to the globalization that will bring European norms of government to the USA? Do you keep a picture of the UN and the EU headquarters on your wall as a reminder of the fulfillment of the highest aspirations of mankind? Do you conscientiously remember to say “thank you for protecting our freedoms” to every cop you meet? Do you write letters to your Congressman urging more funding for the invaluable work done by those great patriots at the NSA? If not, you just might be suspected to be one of those right-wing extremist hate group sympathizers yourself.

      1. Whose definition? What extremist left-wing web site did you take this from? I’m pretty sure you don’t have the intellectual capacity to come up with it yourself.

        1. It think it’s sarcasm, dude.

          1. I’ll have to take my sarcasm meter in and get it tuned.

            1. A good rule of thumb around here is that if you see things like that it is either Tony or Tulpa or Amsoc being serious, or someone else being sarcastic.

      2. You know, I couldn’t actually tell it was sarcasm until the second paragraph.

        ” “Militias” by definition are right-wing extremist hate groups so the only counter-point to that is going to come from militia members themselves – and why the hell do you want to hear some nonsense from a right-wing extremist hate group?”

        That just seems so much like the kind of word games a “liberal” would play against their enemy.

    3. 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

    4. Rufus,

      No, not that I have found since your question made me curious. But the article made a glaring mistake to me, first pointing out that largely Black rioters in Brooklyn and at least traffic stopping and hostile to everyone appearing Black Lives Matter protester got lots of leeway, police holding off, and respect from many in authority and media. He then shows that the White rural types are getting arrest threats and called terrorists by many in media.

      The glaring mistake is that he then shows the the “white privilege” meme has infected his brain, because he types “…poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t, just like Ammon Bundy and gang certainly benefit from their skin color in this Oregon situation.” No, article writer, you just described that it was the other way around. Get somebody to deprogram you, quick, before the meme infection spreads in the membrane (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAlNrtcPCLw).

  2. Until a group both keeps 9-year-old girls as sex slaves and engages in a campaign of genocide, you don’t get to call them [adjective] ISIS.

    1. or young boys

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..-isis.html

      1. Argh! I had to scroll down and be reminded how much of an insufferable prick Asawin Suebsaeng is.

        1. wait, why? (she asks for no particular reason)

            1. IMO, having read more than my fair share of his articles and tweets, Mr. Suebsaeng hasn’t yet found a Progressive shibboleth to not smugly preen over.

              1. I should blame him too much. It has become a journalistic genre, best represented by Eric Liu, Dean Obeidallah, and Sally Kohn.

                1. He’s a friend of mine who actually mostly hangs out with libertarians and conservatives. Although I suppose he does refer to Soave & I as “rape denialists” sometimes…

                  1. fwiw, I’d suggest reading his tone as more of a nihilistic/amused/narcisstic apathy to the entire political process & culture

                    1. If a friend of mine called me a “rape denialist”, that person wouldn’t be my friend anymore. That having been said, as you know the guy, I’ll take your suggestion as to his tone in to account, as one sided as his targets seem to be.

                    2. I suppose I should clarify that he’s (mostly) kidding.

                    3. You don’t have to justify your friendship with him to me.

                    4. We should get HM to rant about Reason contributor Thaddus Russell again.

                    5. I know a friend of the good professor as well…

                    6. hi, asawin suebsaeng here (first time Reason commenter). What is your problem with the Cosby piece / why do you think i’m a Progressive shill based on my tweets, etc.

                      plus, hi, liz and robby, are we still on for friday?

                    7. I can’t answer any of those questions, but I do know this: you have to stop staring at me. I know I am majestic, and I am flattered by your interest, but eventually I just become uncomfortable. Thanks.

                    8. Sawatdee krap! I’ll try my best with Hit and Run’s 1500 byte limit per post, but my main problem with the Cosby piece, and why it comes across as insufferable prickness, is that it is essentially a non-story. There is no reason the Alis need to deface the mural on their story, regardless of their views of their friend’s innocence or not. From the title of the piece to the inclusion of your twitter comment hints that the reader should view the continued existence of the mural as a “bad thing”. The move to damnatio memoriae anything that hurts the sensibilities of a particular group (be it college buildings named after unsavory individuals, flags flown by slave-owners, or the visage of alleged rapists) is exactly the sanctimonious moral preening that Progressives are so fond of, that not only accomplishes nothing but is dangerous from the point of view of “those who forget history, etc….”

                      [cont.]

                    9. let me get this straight. if you owned a business, and their was a gigantic portrait of a serial rapist on your wall, you wouldn’t…. find that off, somehow?

                      you’re overcomplicating this by making this about liberal-PC or oversensitivity, or w/e the hell. this is really very simple. they wanna leave it up, fine. but people deserve to get called on it. just in the same way that everybody has the right to fly the Confederate flag and be ignorant of the slave-state oppression stuff. Fine.

                      Disney removed a statue. The Navy took away his honorary title. A mural was removed in Philly. They did so for the right reasons.

                      Anyway, Ben’s Chili Bowl is overrated, so i don’t go there anyways

                    10. if you owned a business, and their was a gigantic portrait of a serial rapist on your wall, you wouldn’t…. find that off, somehow?

                      They didn’t paint a portrait of a serial rapist; they painted a portrait of a family friend. If your father was accused of being a serial rapist, would you collect all of his pictures and burn them in a bonfire?

                      you’re overcomplicating this by making this about liberal-PC or oversensitivity, or w/e the hell. this is really very simple. they wanna leave it up, fine. but people deserve to get called on it.

                      You’re right, it is really simple. But it’s not about “PC”, it’s about having the decency not to lead a digital lynch mob against innocent people. Again, if your article led to a successful campaign to forced the chili shop to cover up the mural…what good will it have done. Will it have un-raped those women? Or will it have just made you feel “good”?

                    11. Um, they didn’t pick an anonymous aunt to put on the wall. They made a commercial statement that this super wonderful guy is a family friend, and therefore you should eat our chili.

                      Now that we know he’s not a super wonderful guy, it seems questionable to maintain the commercial association.

                    12. Bill Cosby’s never had children murdered by drone; interesting that it’s the right side of the wall that bothers you so much.

                    13. I know, right? Then again, it’s hard to see all those murdered children up there on the summit of Mt. Moral Superiority.

                    14. Furthermore, it’s telling that this article came within, what, 3 days of you calling out Cosby himself on your Twitter feed? Listen, I think the guy is guilty too, but there really is no need to use your bully pulpit to shame small business owners tangentially attached to him. That sort of behavior is, as I said, prickish.

                    15. Ruh roh. Somebody snitched.

                    16. We need to get Dean Obeidallah on here next…he really deserves a talking too.

                    17. “Meanwhile, poor people of all color are prone the same sorts of abuses under the law.”

                      maybe “of all colors” and “are prone to”

                    18. or perhaps “are subject to” I wasn’t 100% sure what you meant.

                  2. he does refer to Soave & I

                    *eye twitch*

                  3. Ask him some time if he’d be so hard on Bill Cosby if Bill Cosby were a black man like Bill Clinton. Portraying a black guy as a sex-crazed con man preying on the white wimmenz? Seriously?

                    1. The rage against Cosby in certain circles originates from his socially “conservative” views on Black popular culture (e.g., the Pound Cake speech) and activism. If he were reliably Prog, or even just neutral, he would be laughing it up with Roman Polanski right now on the beaches of Cannes.

                    2. Nice beatdown, HM, you are now my hero.

                    3. It is a shame I cannot put in a large flashing arrow pointing to HM’s comment here. Not only is that spot on, but I am still very suspicious even of the accusations against Cosby. At this point the accusations seem likely to be true but it is impossible to overstate the sliminess and dishonesty of the proggy crowd.

                    4. + Roman Polanski

                  4. So, what’s his opinion on Juanita Broaderick?

                2. Sally Kohn.

                  /face palm.

                  I can’t believe she’s on someone’s pay roll.

                  1. So… swintercourse.

                    You uh… you care to respond to HM’s point?

                    Because, uh, not to tack on, but how far does this scrubbing of Cosby have to go? Like do we retroactively strip the Cosby Show of Emmys?

                    Anyway, while I see it unlikely for you to come back, Id be interested to have your perspective. Welcome to HR, buddy. You’ll get used to it. Alcohol consumption helps.

                    1. ” just in the same way that everybody has the right to fly the Confederate flag and be ignorant of the slave-state oppression stuff”

                      I think this all ties into Mr Suebsaeng trying to define people’s symbols for them, whether it’s a Cosby painting or a flag. I mean take a flag. It’s a piece of colored cloth that people ascribe different meanings to based off of their experiences. If you’re a slave circa 1865 and the 7th Cav shows up waving a US flag, that flag may mean liberty and a new life free from slavery to you. If you’re a Native Merican seeing the 7th Cav at Wounded Knee just 15 years later… that flag might understandably mean something different.

                      Same thing with the Confederate flag, and that doesn’t mean that they’re ignorant of the slave state oppression. Chances are the average confederate reinactor or flag waver actually knows a lot more of that history than Suebsaeng does. I’ve never seen one of them deny the slave trade, but rather claim their flag is about their heritage, or whatever. It’s just Suebsaeng wants his meaning of a symbol to be adopted by everyone else. Which is of course what nearly everyone wants.

                    2. That’s what I’ve never understood about arguments against the Confederate flag.

                      If we applied the same standard to the American flag, we’d probably have to come up with a totally new flag every decade or so, as the old flag would likely be a symbol of oppression to someone, somewhere.

                    3. More than fun.

                      Revealing.

                    4. Run Forrest! Run!

    2. Sometimes you need a way to Godwin without technically Godwinning.

      1. We cool?

        Delivery notwithstanding.

        I’m the Michael Richards of Reason!

        1. We were never not cool, Rufus.

            1. I just don’t understand Californian behavior.

            2. We should all get together at my place for drinks. Bring your friends.

              http://www.snappypixels.com/wp…..hoto-5.jpg

              1. And when we’re done there:

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

                1. I was wondering what I was going to do when I retire (someday). Thanks Rufus!

    3. Oh, damn, HM, that’s good. I’d love to use that on some of the derpier SJWs on derpbook, but don’t have the patience to deal with the inevitable shitstorm.

      1. I’ve found that it’s very easy to win on this one particular issue. So damn easy.

        And by win, I mean deleted posts. Nobody ever admits that they’re wrong.

      2. I would think not using the most egregious example of human suffering in the present day to score cheap rhetorical points would be something one who has matured past early childhood would get. But even Piaget acknowledged that most people don’t reach the formal operations stage.

        1. Jeebus HM, you are worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mao rolled into one.

    4. I laughed at Vanilla ISIS, because it’s a fun pun. But I take it about as seriously as I take Y’all Qaeda, since people from Oregon, Utah, and Nevada are so fond of the word “Y’all.”

  3. Sure, poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t, just like Ammon Bundy and gang certainly benefit from their skin color in this Oregon situation.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    1. Maybe the fact that these guys are armed have more to do with this thing then skin color. Cops are bullies afterall.

    2. Assumes facts not in evidence.

      So, let’s have your positive assertion about the treatment that a similarly situated group of armed black guys would receive at the hand of the government.

      1. See below.

    3. They benefit more from the fact that they aren’t looting, burning, vandalizing and assaulting than they do from their skin color.

    4. Cops didn’t hesitate to gun down a bunch of white bikers in Texas.

      Because Texas isn’t racist?

  4. “just like Ammon Bundy and gang certainly benefit from their skin color in this Oregon situation”

    Are so sure about that? Basically they’re occupying the middle of BFE, not some metropolitan area. If they stayed there forever, no one would notice but the squirrels and the media. If they showed up somewhere urban and starting rioting and looting the response would be quick and lethal. The local cops have not responded the way you see in urban protest situations because there are no local cops.

    1. They’re enjoying the dubious benefit of being automatically painted as dangerous racists without any possible merit to their argument.

      1. That may possibly be the best definition of white privilege I’ve ever seen.

        1. Yeah, here we go: white privilege means never having the benefit of the doubt.

  5. White guys + guns == BAD

    /progtards

    1. Which is why I asked the question up top.

  6. Of course they aren’t terrorists because they aren’t targeting civilians.

    But they *have* taken over property that isn’t theirs and are prepared – or want people to think they’re prepared – to shoot at people who try to take the property back.

    “But this shouldn’t be government property in the first place! And anyway there’s this unjust prosecution…”

    So, there’s a This Is Really Important exception to the general rule against armed bands taking over property that isn’t theirs?

    1. Maybe some of them have some Native American ancestry…

      1. Then they can take over 1/32rd of the building.

    2. Put Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in google maps and check out the satellite view. That is not a situation that requires some emergency military response. Time is on the governments side. No need for a massacre.

      1. That’s not what I’m reading on Facebook. They need to be executed for treason now.

    3. It’s a government building, Eddy , so either:
      A) it’s public property and they are the public, or
      B) it’s a government building, built with stolen money on stolen land.

      1. The federal government was not given the power to own this property.

        Thus, no trespass.

    4. All protests are on public property, this is hardly unique. I don’t recall anyone saying OWS or other protestors need to be forced out because it’s not “their” property. I see no exception.

      1. Actually, OWS was eventually forcibly expelled in most cities.

        OWS is the parallel that comes to my mind also. Neither group had specific, actionable demands, or any plan to negotiate to attain those goals. Neither group seems to have made an effort to use the available democratic political system to address their grievances.

    5. Federal property
      “isn’t theirs”

      Chose one only, you fucking statist bastard.

  7. And I found this article about the Was President Chester Arthur Born In Canada controversy. Since it was published in 1970, at least they weren’t trying to use this as a vehicle to comment on Cruz and Obama.

    “it is clear, at last, that Chester Alan Arthur was a native of Fairfield, Vermont, the first son of the Green Mountain
    State to become President of the United States, and it is perhaps time that he be more readily acknowledged by Vermonters as one of their own.”

  8. Totally agree with everything ENB says, right up until the privilege bit.

    I’m sorry, but if anything the Oregon group is suffering as a result of their skin color, not benefiting. As a thought experiment, imagine that the Hammonds are black, and the group occupying the refuge are affiliated with the New Black Panthers, or maybe #BlackLivesMatter. Hold all else equal. By now, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would’ve spoken on their behalf; hell, Al might actually do live shows from the refuge. Academic elites and social commentators would be doing the rounds of cable news and Sunday morning talk shows explaining how this is a natural reaction to a history of oppression and injustice.

    It beggars the imagination to picture any way in which the Oregon protesters are benefiting by being white in this situation.

    1. Is it ironic that there are militia in what is a progressive state? How much love can they possibly get there?

      1. Apparently, only Portlandia is really progressive. The hinterlands, not so much.

        1. Ah. Like most regions on the bloody continent then.

          1. How much less politic fighting would there be if we divided up into city states instead of our current ones? Wouldn’t we be better off if these major cities were separate from the hinterlands?

            1. City-states in Athens and Renaissance Italy were constantly at war though.

        2. Plus Eugene, Salem and Corvallis. The rest of the state is great.

          Somewhat ironically the strip club scene is great and hookers abound in this progtopia. I guess the feminists are being othered in this version.

          1. Salem is a bit more conservative than the other cities. Still not red, but it’s at least a little purplish.

          2. The feminists ARE the strippers/hookers up there.

      2. Of course there are militia–Oregon is crawling with vessen.

    2. They’re committing a crime and possibly an act of terrorism, depending on who you ask. Black people have to behave absolutely upstandingly and then pray that none of their neighbors loot anything before they’re afforded the right not to be shot in the back–if they’re lucky. When they actually do commit crimes, as the Oregonians are, they’d be eliminated and nobody would know about it or care.

        1. “nobody would know about it or care”

          if you don’t care why are you so mad bro?

      1. I love how liberals are dubiously redefining and reclassifying what constitutes terrorism right before our eyes.

        1. Part of it is the whole terrorist =Muslim thing. The left is desperate for another Timothy McVeigh just so they can say “See white folks can be terrorists too.”

      2. When they actually do commit crimes, as the Oregonians are, they’d be eliminated and nobody would know about it or care

        I’m not sure how many people use the Tony account but, as the above suggests, some of them are coming from the bottom of the talent pool.

        1. Yay or Nay: Zidane.

          1. Don’t know enough about him or RM to have an opinion on the decision. It does appear that Real’s owner is, umm, mercurial.

            1. He’s not a coach; not to my knowledge anyway. If there’s potentially any positive for Roma having drawn Real, this may be it. Real may be in slight disarray.

              1. He was coaching there B team I think.

          2. The Zidane that won the CL against Leverkusen, or the Zidane that head-butted an opponent in the WC final?

          3. Could not care less. I fucking hate RM.

      3. They’re definitely committing a crime. but it’s not terrorism in the least. Even the government doesn’t believe that, hence the tepid response.

        While I absolutely agree that there is racist policing in this country, the situation you’re describing just doesn’t fit with anything that’s occurred in Ferguson or in LA or in any of the racially themed riots of the past few decades.

        The difference is that, being a bunch of white, country, anti-federal rednecks, they enjoy the special privilege of having no advocates in the halls of academia, the Twitterverse, or among the media.

      4. possibly an act of terrorism

        “Possibly”, huh? Gotta check that wind-sock first….

        1. Depending on who you ask.

          I’m a terrorist and Tony’s a terrorist, depending on who you ask. Pretty sure you could get a person or two here to say that Tony is a terrorist.

          1. Tony’s a terrorist. See, you were right!

        2. He was just waiting until the facts…

          Ha, I just can’t finish that.

      5. No, Tony. I’m not gonna get into whether being white helps our hinders them, but I will say that, until the protesters started looting in places like Ferguson, the authorities didn’t rush in and start shooting people. The police didn’t start shooting even after the looting started. But you want the government to go in and “get” these people.

      6. What do you know about what happens in poor black neighborhoods, Tony? You live in a gated community, remember?

      7. Tony:

        They’re committing a crime and possibly an act of terrorism, depending on who you ask.

        Yeah, and the world is quite possibly flat, depending on who you ask.

        Obama’s quite possibly from Kenya, depending on who you ask.

        Hillary Clinton is quite possibly guilty of federal crimes, depending on who you ask.

        “Some” always “say”, don’t they? How convenient for fact-free thinking.

      8. possibly an act of terrorism

        Well, if we’re going by the same logic that labels petty environmentalist vandalism as terrorism, sure. But that’s stupid logic.

      9. Tony stupid…it’s been awhile.

      10. Wait, so whether someone is a terrorist is dependent on who you ask? Can we all agree to string up some Kardashians on terror charges, then? Please?

    3. Hey now don’t mess up the narrative.

  9. I don’t know what the thesis is supposed to be here, but there is little connection here with respect to liberal reaction. Making a Murderer has had the effect of putting liberals on the side of the yokels against the yuppies. Whether you’re willing to admit it or not, liberals more than anyone else care about the injustices that come merely with being poor, whether white or black. Libertarians care about criminal justice reform in the abstract but are more hesitant to consider race or income as inherent factors in the injustices they’d like to fix. It’s just the faceless evil monster of government, as always.

    On the other hand, liberals don’t see the Bundy drama as an instance of especially galling state injustice. Maybe the sentence was harsh and based on bad law. I’d say welcome to being black… but then they get to occupy federally owned property with an arsenal, threatening violence, just because they don’t like the law, and nobody’s really doing anything about it. A lifetime of government subsidy then immunity from consequences any brown person would face, probably to the extend of being dead. Welcome to being white.

    There’s no fundamental reason the Bundys have to couple their militia bullshit with racism, but the two things do seem to go hand-in-hand nearly universally in this country. I’ll let someone else explain that.

    1. There are no fucking liberals in the USA, outside of libertarians. Shut up, you statist authoritarian fool.

      1. Libertarians are those freedom lovers who think government shouldn’t do anything to increase anybody’s freedom except shoot and imprison people, right?

        1. You hate poor people, and you want the government to kill your fellow Americans without due process. You said so. This renders your opinion without value.

        2. Libertarians are those freedom lovers who think government shouldn’t do anything to increase anybody’s freedom except shoot and imprison people, right?

          I’ve got news for you (well, not you, per se, since your a disingenuous moron, but for anyone reading the thread), shooting and imprisoning people, or threatening to do so, is all government does. That’s what government is. That sure as hell isn’t freedom.

          1. That’s what government is. That sure as hell isn’t freedom.

            And Tony wants more of it.

        3. Meanwhile, in Progressive Land, the 300,000+ excuses the government currently has to legally shoot and imprison people isn’t enough.

        4. Tony|1.6.16 @ 7:00PM|#
          “Libertarians are those freedom lovers who think government shouldn’t do anything to increase anybody’s freedom except shoot and imprison people, right?”

          It is not possible for a government to “increase” anyone’s freedom. To make that statement, you’ve proven yourself incompetent to comment on the matter.

          1. I think the proof was long ago submitted.

            1. And totally ignored by the likes of Tony. I’m not sure he/they are capable of grasping the concept of natural rights.

        5. No, libertarians are those people who think problems are best solved without government, thereby avoiding shooting and imprisoning people as a primary mode of operation.

          Where’s progressives ask themselves, “Really, what problem can’t be solved by threatening to shoot and imprison people?”

          Or, just go ahead and list the problems government solves that never involve the threat of imprisonment and or shooting.

          I’m pretty sure it’s an empty set.

    2. First paragraph: OK.

      Second paragraph: Cunty

      Third paragraph: Brain damage

      1. I would so love to see a professor in college grade in this manner and STAND BY IT.

        1. +1 “C+”!

          Wait….did I just write code?

    3. A lifetime of government subsidy then immunity from consequences any brown person would face, probably to the extend of being dead. Welcome to being white.

      Yeah, that white privilege worked out swell for the folks at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

      1. Back then, we had law and order. You see, ol Willy, he had him the right butch dyke for the job. Obama, he had him a butch dyke also, but she ran off for some fancy pants academic job. When you lose your bull dyke, see what happens? Anarchy!

    4. I’m sorry, but the politics of race and class do not enter in to anything the progenitors of liberalism would consider part of their philosophy. Whatever it is you believe, it is not liberalism. And that’s fine, just be accurate.

    5. then they get to occupy federally owned property with an arsenal, threatening violence, just because they don’t like the law, and nobody’s really doing anything about it

      But if it was the state property of Wisconsin (and it was actually being used… and it was the legislature itself, not some dinky station), and it was a different law they didn’t like, well…

    6. Tony:

      Whether you’re willing to admit it or not, liberals more than anyone else care about the injustices that come merely with being poor, whether white or black.

      You mean that liberals more than anyone else care only about the injustices that come with being poor, whether white or black, and the degree to which they can use such people as human shields to protect their own self-interest. You want SS/medicare for yourself, not poor people. Faux compassion is just a less unseemly way to beg.

      Libertarians care about criminal justice reform in the abstract but are more hesitant to consider race or income as inherent factors in the injustices they’d like to fix.

      No, libertarians care about criminal justice reform in total, while liberals are primarily concerned with making sure that all races are abused equally.

      I’d say welcome to being black… Welcome to being white.

      Just like every LA rioter, Katrina looter, Baltimore protester, and Ferguson protester were either killed or thrown in jail. Black people are just never allowed to protest and violate laws while the police sit back and wait. Never happens.

      There’s no fundamental reason the Bundys have to couple their militia bullshit with racism.

      And progressives are so found of calling anyone a racist at the drop of a hat that no one’s listening anymore.

    7. “Liberals more than anyone else care about the injustices that come merely with being poor, whether white or black.’

      And indeed they should!

      ….their shitty ideas having been the cause of their condition for most of the 20th century

      ….and having supported so many of the worst regimes that murdered those same people by the trainload.

      How do they ever sleep at night?

  10. I have to ask a serious question here, because this has been bugging me. Has their ever been a group of people in the history of humankind who have been so enthusiastically vocal in asking for the stripping of their own guaranteed rights? The progs are just begging to be stripped of all their constitutional rights, starting with the 1st and 2nd amendments. Is there something in the US water supply that makes people retarded?

    1. Has their ever been a group of people in the history of humankind who have been so enthusiastically vocal in asking for the stripping of their own guaranteed rights?

      Rome, Lupercalia, 44 BC.

      1. he did say “guaranteed”, a word that in the ancient world probably always got a great laugh.

        But my thought was actually similar

        “Has their ever been a group of people in the history of humankind who have been so enthusiastically vocal in asking for the stripping of their own guaranteed rights?”

        Didn’t the Athenians vote to get rid of Democracy in the midst of the Peloponnesian war? Because only a brutal dictator could “get things done” (i.e. strip resources from whomever had them, and use them in unilateral plans rather than wait for the Committee of Elders to vote on shit…)

    2. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

      But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

    3. The progs are just begging to be stripped of all their constitutional rights, starting with the 1st and 2nd amendments. Is there something in the US water supply that makes people retarded?

      No, they’re begging to have you stripped of your constitutional rights.

      1. Well, maybe they don’t get the implications of that for themselves, but…

      2. ^This. They don’t believe in 2A rights. They believe that “hate speech” is exempt from 1A.

      3. Yes, Paul has it right. Every one of them just knows that they are so special, so right thinking, that they will be in charge of the gulag, never an inmate of it.

        1. And they actually believe that the views they hold are the final and perfect morality that man has been striving for since prehistory. Since they believe this, they cannot be convinced that some day the things they believe will be seen as outdated and obsolete, even offensive. When that happens, as it always does, they will shocked.

          1. Exactly this. You nailed it. They basically see us as the political equivalent of the Neanderthal. Everyone will agree with them eventually we’re just a bunch of backward bitter clingers who refuse to evolve with the rest of the world.

        2. This is otherwise known as naivete.

    4. I think part of it is that the progs don’t exercise their 1st and 2nd amendment rights, and so they’re not losing anything.

      1. Well, they do try to exercise their 1st amendment rights. I mean, just because they aren’t very articulate at it.

      2. ^This, too.

  11. people of color

    Interesting how a word order switch can make all of the difference…

    Sure, poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t, just like Ammon Bundy and gang certainly benefit from their skin color in this Oregon situation.

    Cocktail parties!

    Oh and one interesting element of Segregation that has been glossed over was that it was created partly in reaction to 1890s discontent by poor Southern Whites. There was real fear that the poor whites and blacks could team up and toss out the Democrats. Segregationists played up the racial fears and ensured that the blacks could never vote against them.

    1. So I see their tactics haven’t changed much. The thing is these ranchers, and the people protesting the police killing of Tamir Rice both are fighting the same thing, abuse by the state, but race baiters and other assholes keep them divided.

      People supporting either side have so much in common with one another, but politics keep them divided instead of uniting against a common enemy.

      1. Yeah, they managed to take the uprising by the people against police brutality and turn it into a race war. WIN/WIN for the police state. Stupid progs always allow them to do this.

      2. Excellent point…

    2. When we use the terms people of color and white we’re making a value judgement.

      Color has value while the lack of color has no value or worth, therefore using these terms make you biased against white people. RACIST!

      /jk (kind of)

  12. when you show up to protest or register your complaints against the Federal government armed and saying idiotic things like If we are fired upon we will return fire you deserve scorn and not respect. Forget race, education, lack of sophistication, none of that matters. It is irrelevant. When you show up to register a complaint holding a gun< and I am as strong a 2nd ammendment supporter as anyone,you are posturing in a way that will automatically overshadow whatever your compaint happens to be. And thank god for the 2nd ammendment because if the shit were ever to hit the fan and we find ourselves as a nation thrust back into an agricultural/survival society for whatever reason..the people will need to be armed to protect themselves not only from the state but from assholes like the BUndys and their cohorts

    1. I’m curious on what you think the 2nd amendment is for.

      1. umm for when the shit actually hits the fan and violence is not only justified but essential for survival..the grievances these morons have may indeed be partially or even completely justified..there is NO justification introducing guns into the equation UNLESS their goal is to actually instigate some kind of showdown so that they can pretend to be patriotic martyrs

        1. If only the founders thought guns were only for when they are essential for survival…

        2. Sorry, which shit and what fan? It seems like you have a huge blind spot for one particularly noxious pile of shit…

        3. They’ve already thought of that. Which is why they are working on having everyone disarmed first.

        4. Would a tea tax be justified? How about a false imprisonment?

        5. They’re rural guys meeting up in the middle of nowhere, and they may not all know each other or know who will join them. Isn’t that justification enough?

          “I like the look of this gun and prefer to keep it near me” is good enough for me.

    2. Agreed.

      “We will not use our weapons in any case. They are symbolic of the protest we are staging and the rights we wish to preserve. If any violence is perpetrated it will be at the hands of overzealous federal agents hoping to quell our legitimate protest to avoid addressing our complaints.”

      Where the hell is my press brief writing gig??

    3. If we are fired upon we will return fire

      … what is the problem, exactly?

      1. They’re not appealing to the feds. They’re appealing to the public by forcing the issue with a peaceful protest. Either the guns are there as props to rally support for limited government, or they come off as lunatics.

        In any event, I wonder how many progressives are just dying to see another Waco.

        1. All of them. They’re ghouls. It’s absolutely shameful.

      2. That’s pretty much my default setting.

      3. Liberals would prefer to stand with their mouths hanging open while they are riddled with bullets.

    4. How many people have “assholes like the BUndys and their cohorts” caged, enslaved, droned, murdered, or robbed in the last 15 years?

      How about the state?

      1. How many people have gun totin rednecks like the Bundy’s, who American leftists hate, murdered compared to lefist regimes like the Soviet Union and Communist China, which American leftists love and want to replicate here?

        1. Did Gozorakgogo think before penning his derpotastic conflation of the one with the other?

          1. yes I thought about it and no I do not consider the Bundys terrorists or even dangerous..I do consider them to be misguided and stupid..you can say all you want that their guns and militarized language are just props…well good luck winning the people over with that,,they look like out of touch assholes. Perhaps I am out of touch with more of you than I would have ever thought. I mean no disrespect to anyone. To me this is a no brainer. Their tactics and actions and words and behavior, does more to alienate reasonable people from the legitimate concerns they may indeed have.

            1. These “reasonable people” you speak of… who were they again? the ones screaming “TERRORISTSS!!”

              1. not really Gilmore..not who I was referring to. Im out..this isnt my place. GOing to my THC, smoke infused safe space..let yall have fun discussing, let the other side have fun demonizing..sex drugs rock and roll a lot more interesting and less boring than this world..peace out Patriots

                1. Poochie is one outrageous dude

                2. Yeah, enjoy that smoke while you completely unironically rail against people protesting the actions of the federal government.

                3. GOing to my THC, smoke infused safe space..let yall have fun discussing, let the other side have fun demonizing..sex drugs rock and roll a lot more interesting and less boring than this world..peace out Patriots

                  The implication here being that the HnR crowd is a bunch of Pat Boone-listening, milk-sipping, celibate squares.

            2. Yeah maybe, I don’t know these guys. I’m also not sure why there’s any focus on the Bundy’s since this revolves around the Hammonds. The Bundy’s are just props.

              But the Hammonds have run the course of polite discourse. They have been running through the courts for 10 years and fighting with BLM their entire lives. They have been to prison, appealed and are going back. And nobody knew their names, nobody gives a shit.

              Polite discourse at this point is going to jail with nobody caring. If their story is true then they are certainly more restrained than I would expect anyone to be and I certainly see no great options here. What should they do?

              1. Probably ’cause the Hammonds said “thanks, but no thanks” and showed up for their prison sentences, and the Bundys were the ones that broke into a federal building and threatened to shoot any cops that tried to get them out?

    5. When you show up to register a complaint holding a gun< and I am as strong a 2nd ammendment supporter as anyone,you are posturing in a way that will automatically overshadow whatever your compaint happens to be.

      Oh man, I hope none of those open carry guys who congregated at Starbucks ever complained to the barista about their coffee.

  13. …didn’t get involved in community groups. Didn’t dress well. Didn’t speak well. Owned a lot of guns.

    But enough about me…

  14. I do have to say, excellent piece, Ms. Nolan-Brown. You should try branching out from the “sex” beat and doing more like it.

  15. Rednecks. Hicks. And as such, fair game for mocking, rumors, contempt. Community members suspected the worst of the Averys, including incest and other sexual deviance. Their low social status and country ways were more or less all the proof that neighbors needed.

    In modern ‘Murrica, these folks is fair game.

    1. I come from a long line of rednecks and hillbillies so I think I’m still allowed to say these things

      1. You are. I agree 100%. My mother was British… never really adapted to America. Considered herself to be “roughing it in the colonies” the entire time she lived here.

        I get to make merciless fun of the British. It’s the rules.

      2. I call your redneck and raise you some trailer trash.

        1. Balderdash. The only doublewide is your whirlpool.

        2. You really want to go down this road? Cuz I’ll go down this road.

          1. I come from PA stock but no way will I challenge FL.

          2. My parents are sixth? cousins.

            We found out filling in family trees where we had one name on one side with a blank space and the other name on the other side with a blank space. We realized what went in the blank spaces.

      3. You ain’t from round these here parts, ENB, and we don’t take kindly to the likes of you, you best just mozy on you dope smokin hippy.

      4. That would explain the three names.

      5. Flatlanders.

        If you aren’t at least 5th generation Ozarks, you’re a Yankee.

    2. In modern ‘Murrica, these folks is on a reality TV show.

  16. They have guns, and lefties are irrationally terrified of guns, which might go off for, like, no reason, therefore they’re terrorists.

  17. Sure, poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t, just like Ammon Bundy and gang certainly benefit from their skin color in this Oregon situation.

    Do they? I think that’s begging the question. I’m not saying the aren’t, I just don’t think there’s any evidence either way. For instance, if a group of BLM protesters… wait… #BLM protesters (don’t want to get all confused up on that) had taken over with a list of grievances about social justice, police brutality against minorities and… I dunno… I need a progressive cause du jour *grabs something off the pile* the debilitating effects of the capitalist system, I’m sure we’d be getting a lot of throat-clearing and “legitimacy” editorials out of America’s NewsPapers of Record.

    1. Yeah, the evidence seems to be muddy. I doubt many consider Ruby Ridge or Waco to be examples of privilege.

  18. Would be robber gets his gun taken away by Subway employee. DNA on gun gets him busted. Employee is lucky he didn’t get shot.

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/01/06/dn…..y-suspect/

    1. DNA on gun gets him [the suspect] busted.

      Gee, and all this time I thought it was the fact that since guns have to be registered this would lead to simple identification of suspects. What’s that, you say, criminals don’t buy guns?

      We need a common-sense, loophole-closing, DNA registry of every single American. /obama

  19. Rednecks. Hicks. And as such, fair game for mocking, rumors, contempt.

    Or as some here are wont to label them, “yokels”.

    1. The term “yokeltarian” arose a reaction to “cosmotarian”. I prefer “peckerwood populist”, myself.

      1. Cosmotarian = A libertarian who supports open border immigration

        Yokeltarian = a libertarian that does not support open border immigration.

        At least that is the definition I’ve gathered from reading comments here. Basically it’s like European politics where a left winger is a socialist that supports islamic immigration, and a right winger is a socialist that does not.

        1. At least that is the definition I’ve gathered from reading comments here.

          Lurk moar then and git gud, scrub.

        2. Cytotoxian = A libertarian who supports open borders and bombing the hell out of everyone who’s not already here.

          1. If it’s indiscriminate bombing, you may have just talked Almanian out of a vote this year.

          2. Love it.

          3. It’s like having beaters when you go hunting, that way you get the best pray coming up first.

        3. Yeah. You have no idea, and your self-pity is unattractive. Lurk more, post less, understand more.

          1. Self-pity? What the hell are you even talking about? You’re like some strange malfunctioning bot responding to comments nobody ever posted. And doing it in a very arrogant and dick headed way.

      2. I understand. But, I couldn’t help getting in the dig.

        It does seem that there are a few posters who throw the “yokel” reference around to dismiss sometimes reasonable arguments because their conclusions aren’t palatable to them.

        1. It does seem that there are a few posters who throw the “yokel” reference around to dismiss sometimes reasonable arguments because their conclusions aren’t palatable to them.

          And vice versa re: “cosmo”.

          1. Probably. I generally try to avoid the terms. They substitute signaling for substance. Obviously, I never sat at the cool kids’ table in high school.

            1. It was a bench, not a table.

        1. Ah yes, Episiarch’s term for anyone more concerned about any particular issue than he is.

    2. Yokels are simply Conservatives masquerading as libertarians.

      1. Francisco, you often say some intelligent, insightful things.

        This wasn’t one of them. It makes about as much sense as “Cosmos are simply Progressives masquerading as libertarians.”

        1. No, Bill, yokels are simply Conservatives that happen to have a few libertarian leanings, none of which stem from libertarian principle.

          Cosmo is a yokel slur for libertarians who adhere to libertarian principle when it diverges from Conservative positions.

          It’s that simple.

          1. No, it isn’t that simple. I’ve seen a number of commenters here pushing “thick” libertarianism with its focus on positive rights and heavy egalitarianism. And when people disagree with them they label the people “yokels”. Or mock them as illiterate or semi-literate. But, egalitarianism and positive rights aren’t libertarian principles. History has shown that they’re only destructive of those principles.

            Different libertarians come at libertarianism from different perspectives. I get that. And different libertarians are going to have different priorities on liberty. At best, you’d hope that people on all sides would try to look to first principles to see the value of other libertarians’ positions. But, a lot of the libertarians throwing around the term “yokel” want to take their particular take on libertarianism as being the libertarian True North with their particular blind spots glossed over and others’ being disqualifying.

            And don’t get me wrong the people shouting “cosmo” are just as guilty. But, pretending its a fight between the True Libertarians and the Pretenders doesn’t really get much at the truth.

          2. Cosmo is a yokel slur for libertarians who adhere to libertarian principle when it diverges from Conservative positions.

            Can’t happen.

            You have to go through ‘conservative’ to get to libertarian. Conservatism is to the left of libertarianism.

            You have to abandon the socialist malignancies that mark things like ‘social conservatism’, to see that they are nothing but dressed up collectivism.

            You have to realize that adherence to conservatism’s stated base principles–limited government, personal responsibility, individual freedom, private property, the free market– IS libertarian.

            You have to realize that anything the left offers is just pretty words designed to distract you as they expand the power of the state–because that is all they really care about.

            1. I’m not really sure I can agree with that. What if someone starts out left-anarchist and starts thinking through principles? Or you can start as a civil liberties liberal and arrive at libertarian thought there.

  20. “Sure, poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t”

    What, like Ivy league scholarships?

    1. Hey, trailer parks have their perks.

    2. Kudzu league. It’s been established.

  21. OT:
    Those cab companies deserve your business since the drivers are employees, safe drivers, and the companies are well-insured, I’m told:

    “S.F. Yellow Cab may file for bankruptcy”
    […]
    ” The move comes six months after a San Francisco Superior Court jury found Yellow Cab liable for an $8 million award to a passenger who suffered brain injury and partial paralysis in a Yellow Cab vehicle.
    […]
    …the case of Ida Fua, a Bay Area lawyer whose Yellow Cab driver allegedly didn’t notice a freeway traffic jam and rammed into a stopped car at 60 to 65 mph in 2011.
    […]
    Yellow Cab tried to duck liability on the premise that the driver was an independent contractor.
    […]
    Yellow Cab carries $1 million in liability insurance”

    1. “a passenger who suffered brain injury and partial paralysis in a Yellow Cab vehicle.”

      Do you mean to tell me that a company that purchases used police vehicles that are configured to carry handcuffed prisoners aren’t in fact safe?!? Where’s my couch??

      1. And doncha’ love the $1M liability; it just screams “we’ll go out of business if you sue us!”

        1. I think I have that coverage when using a butter knife.

  22. – Elizabeth calls them ” the Malheur Militia”

    Do these people actually define themselves as a “militia” at all? or is this just ENB committing the same abuses she’s “liberals” of?

    1. Jesse referred to them that way neutrally/lovingly! I’m taking my cues there

      1. Never… EVER take cues from Jesse.

        1. Jesse or jesse? I wouldn’t mind getting cues from jesse. I mean, I’d be flattered.

          1. I just wish I had Jesse’s girl…

            1. I just wish I had Jesse’s girl…

              So triggering. One of my former coworkers was a HUGE Rick Springfield fan. Still went to see any shows she could get to in the late aughts. Every time I’d walk into a room she’d start belting out that song. Not just once a day, every time she’d see me.

              I will say I got ninja stealthy walking through that part of the office.

              1. That is a living hell. One of my previous coworkers is a WWE fan. My first and middle names are very similar to a performer, which quickly became my nickname. That was obnoxious enough for me.

                1. I am going to assume you are referring to Shawn Michaels, and from now on I shall refer to you as The Heartbreak Kid.

                2. Blutus Briefcase!

              2. Sorry, the devil made me do it.

          2. I’m flattered you’d be flattered.

            1. With the paucity of libertarian women, you have to get your kicks where you can.

              1. Wait, there’s 6 of them now? Soon, we will have enough for The Plan…

              2. So reason is like English public schools then?

                1. Sigh. If only.

      2. “Jesse referred to them that way neutrally/lovingly! ‘

        Just looked at his LA Times piece, and the term “militia” is used once, and not to describe them, but rather the historical comparisons which everyone is trying to tar them with.

        “After those disasters, the government changed its strategy. In 1996, for instance, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno was more restrained against a Montana group called the Freemen, announcing that the FBI wanted “no armed confrontation, no siege, no armed perimeter and no use of military assault-type tactics or equipment.” (There’s a good chance she didn’t just have the Freemen’s potential for violence on her mind: Militia leaders around the country had declared that they’d intervene if they felt the feds stepped over the line, turning a local conflict into a larger one.) The incident ended peacefully.”

        He actually refers to the Malheur folks as “Occupiers” in that piece, which i thought was apropos, and making a cute, subtle point about the liberal hypocrisy re: “protests”

        1. It’s okay to occupy public property, trash it, and attempt to privately adjudicate rapes while generally smelling up the place… unless you’re a dirty conservative.

    2. To my point = as recently as 2 days ago, they announced to the press that they considered themselves, “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom“”

      Its one thing to not even mention what they “Self-Identify” as… (no matter how silly that might be! because we all know, its That’s Totally Not Okay)

      …its another thing to go out of one’s way to suggest they’re something else entirely, particularly something loaded with all sorts of ‘extremist’ baggage, as though they’re all Timothy McVeigh’s distant cousins.

      It strikes me as the journalistic equivalent of describing “black lives matter” as a “Gang Movement”

      1. Yes, i know you said it in the first sentence… its just the quick transition to “Those People” i was taking note of.

        And i’m not sure claiming its ‘de rigeur’ is any better an excuse.

    3. Hey, you know what? If the anti-gun crowd believes the 2nd only refers to actual militias, then let’s just say I’m starting a militia and waiting for the rest of the guys to get here.

      But seriously, a group of citizens who spontaneously take up arms for defense is pretty much the definition of militia. It’s not a dirty word.

      1. “”It’s not a dirty word.””

        To you?

        I’m skeptical of this idea of ‘slapping labels’ on groups for the purpose of narrative-pumping. “Militia” strikes me as a socially-acceptable (to journalists) version of “Thugs”

        1. Well, I also feel particular about the word ‘liberal’, and I’m not willing to cede the use of either.

          1. Just as I do not cede the meaning of the word “libertarian”; it means the NAP. Neither the state nor its monopolization of justice and money are contemplated by, or within the ambit, of the meaning of the word.

            1. Just as i …

              …wait a minute, fuck both of you. I had a point.

              1. Well, I agree with your point about the media’s conception of militia being thug.

                1. hugs all around!

        2. Militia. Security. We all have our linguistic buttons, as it were.

  23. Somewhat off topic but I decided to look into the history of gun control in Canada and boy was I surprised.

    Sounds as though, true to our once rugged individualism, we were a nation that believed in arming the people with language that was not different from America. Then, one-off events started to spook people starting with the Winnipeg strikes in 1920, mob violence in the 30s and 40s, the FLQ and general conflation of American culture with Canada, led to gun control and ultimately the obscene gun registry.

    All along gun violence in Canada was stable. In other words, it was all based on fear and faulty premises. Surprise, surprise. Anyway for those who are interested in such things:

    1. Gun Rights used to be a major part of the Rights of Englishmen (see the 1689 Bill of Rights) but this has changed. The only reason that it remains in the US is because of the Second Amendment while in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK parliament can just change the gun laws as they see fit.

      1. Looks like it.

      2. I’m trying to find that Olde English common law document that described the rights of free men to bear armes, keep them in their homes for “defens of same”. Unfortunately, all it comes up with are goddamned “defense of same-sex marriage” articles.

        1. Maybe this. Haven’t read it in a loonnng time:

          http://www.guncite.com/journal…..hardy.html

  24. http://www.cdnshootingsports.o…..ncana.html

    bit.ly/1Z6ItSy

    1. bit.ly/1Z6ItSy

      1. Fuh. One more time:

        http://bit.ly/1Z6ItSy

        1. Either those are HTML links, or you were trying to raise the devil

          1. I’m just plain incompetent, Gilmore.

  25. ENB, you are aware the feds have always been perfectly willing to kill white people for opposing them? The Civil War, Kent State, the Bonus Army, Waco, Ruby Ridge? Not to mention there has always been contempt for the rednecks. And not only did the LAO 1960s types hate rednecks they hated the white hippies too.

  26. Song of the day. If you don’t agree with the musical choice, mute it and stare at the picture.

  27. For several days, America has been gripped by the seizure of a remote federal outpost in Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by a group calling themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.

    You’re boring, America.

    Sure, poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t, just like Ammon Bundy and gang certainly benefit from their skin color in this Oregon situation.

    This is the one part I disagree with. These people have not done anything similar to blocking access to an airport, or disrupting shopping centers, acts which I assume have received far less reporting, and definitely inspired far fewer think pieces, than these goofballs in Oregon.

  28. Yeah, here skin color is working against the Bundys, not in their favor.

    Just look up the antics of the American Indian Movement in the 70’s sometime. They did things much worse than what the Bundys did and not a one of them served a day in jail.

        1. Yeah that was 2 years after the Wounded Knee occupation.

          Point is, the liberals now who are demanding that the Bundys be droned and firebombed would be gushing with sympathy and solidarity for the AIM crowd.

          1. Something about principles and Gavrilo Prinzip or something. I forget.

          2. I agree with your point, but I was being pedantic and reminding you Peltier was in prison.

    1. That had more to do with the prosecutor’s office fucking up the case after Wounded Knee than any sympathy for the red man.

    2. Rodney King riots anyone?

      sometimes an injustice catches fire. what happens next is up to .gov.

      .Gov’s best play is to ignore them and hope the militia makes themselves look stupid. Although this will make leftist look dumber as dumber as they scream for more blood as the days continue.

      1. How about a little MOVE? Granted the communal organization didn’t play too well with their neighbors nor the police, but they were bombed by police.

        Mayor Goode soon appointed an investigative commission called the PSIC (aka MOVE Commission), chaired by William H. Brown, III. Police commissioner Sambor resigned in November 1985, reporting that he felt that he was being made a “surrogate” by Goode.[21] The MOVE Commission issued its report on March 6, 1986. The report denounced the actions of the city government, stating that “Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was unconscionable.”[22] Following the release of the report, mayor Goode made a formal public apology.[23] No one from the city government was charged criminally.

  29. That’s some good writing, Liz. You’ll make Staff Editor for this.

    1. MJ, stop being a Brown-noser.*

      *Credit goes to Epi for that one.

      1. BOOOOOOOOOO!

      2. Where’s Swiss’s narrowed gaze?

  30. Even though my objection to the use of the term “militia” involved me making a ‘racial comparison’….

    I really don’t know why the fuck anyone injects any racial dimension into this shit at all.

    Some white guys take over a wildlife refuge to protest federal misconduct…

    …and all the media wants to talk about is *Race*? WTF It makes no sense at all.

    1. Can’t you hear the dogwhistles?

      1. His fog of racism cancels out the dog whistles.

        1. I can’t hear them through my white hood.

    2. For them, it’s basically a distraction from embarrassing issues.

      Despite the fact that Islamic terrorists are misogynist homophobic religious nutbars, the left hates the idea that the right can point to them as misogynist homophobic religious nutbars. It weakens the left’s attacks on white, Christian, American misogynist homophobic religious nutbars. Who, as we are constantly told, are the real terrorist danger.

      Similarly, the left needs to defend the antics of #BLM, Occupy, black rioters, and black criminality in general. One way to do that is to look r-e-e-e-a-a-l-l-y hard and find the odd rightwing nutbar doing something vaguely similar. Then they can claim that they have “proven” that White Privilege Exists.

  31. “Sure, poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t, just like Ammon Bundy and gang certainly benefit from their skin color in this Oregon situation.”

    At what point does the Reason commentariat recognize that ENB is moron #1 among the staff (sorry for those of you who think the cute chick thing should provide sanctuary)?

    1. RA is the opposite of a Brown-noser, which is a…?

      1. Nose browner?

    2. AND WHY IS THERE NO ‘WHITE HISTORY MONTH’?!?!?!?

      1. So do Mulattos get half of February?

          1. WHYCOME THE SHORTEST MONTH

        1. Half-Black History Month is actually March. They get 3 extra days due to their partial whiteness.

          Also, Starbucks is in on the celebration.

      2. It starts in October with Hockey, and last through the following November at the end of NASCAR

      3. WHYCOME AINT THERE A WAACP

        1. Worldwide Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

          I presume you meant something like NAAWP, or perhaps the United Cracker’s College Fund.

          1. White Ass Aryan Cracker People

          2. THAT’S THE JOKE

            1. I got it

            2. ….

              now i want to know what everything AFTER “N” was supposed to mean in the cracker-mind

              1. Niggers Are Actually Colored Polacks

      4. You should appreciate it more. Every four years you get a whole extra day!

    3. Poor whites primarily enjoy the privilege of living outside urban centers run by corrupt Democrats, and they’re not clustered around other poor whites and the cops are generally more reasonable.

      1. Sincere question – is living outside urban centers a privilege? Essentially, this a lower-cost option available to all. Rural, local po-po are generally unlikely to kill, but reasonable I wouldn’t assume based-on experience.

        1. Probably more reasonable to the locals since they’re either related or went to high school with them. Saw a show about these cops somewhere in podunk Ky and that was definitely the case. Still assholes about the WOD no doubt cause that’s fed bread and butter.

        2. My immediate response to the privilege canard is to make a point about institutions, and how poorly black have been served by the left. If they want to talk about privilege, they can talk among themselves.

        3. local po-po are generally unlikely to kill

          Got a dog?

      2. This is true. Unlike Great Britain and Europe, the US does not have much of an angry white underclass for lefties scoff at and feel superior to. Next best thigh… make one up out of rural gun owners and pickup truck drivers.

        1. Wanting to be left alone is pretty much by definition wanting to murder blacks and gays as a hobby.

    4. How dare you take try to steal Sheldon Richman’s hard earned title away from him

  32. Has anyone caught Cruz’s ‘Fonzi’s jump the shark’ response to Trump? Awesome. Nothing defined my tween years like Fonzi jumping that effen shark in his leather jacket.

    Also, Trump trolling Samuel L. Jackson doing too many commercials. Classic.

    1. I didn’t. I did notice a sudden uptick in the discussion over Cruz’s citizenship eligibility as it relates to running fro prez.

      1. For example

        http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrew……wkwo7LRPV

        1. CRUZ CANADIAN MEMES COMING UP!

          1. Post-racial America: nobody hates Cruz because he’s Cuban, they hate him because he’s Canadian.
            This is progress people!

            1. With Italian-Irish heritage to boot!

              What a mix!

              1. So, the perfect American? Or the most perfect American?

      2. without question he is qualified and would make the cut to be prime minister of Canada,

        *slaps palm on forehead*

        Why has no one thought of this before? The US could use is excessive political energy to elect the prime minister of Canada and we have Rob Ford be our mayor.

        1. John Tory is mayor now.

    2. Damn I feel old that you have to reference Fonzie wrt “jumping the shark” because that’s not what that phrase means. Happy Days “jumped the shark” when Fonzie jumped the shark – you’ve passed into self-parody and irrelevance and just god-awful stale silliness when you “jump the shark”. Happy Days was (off-and-on) a good show, but when you start doing the generic cliche “Happy Days goes to Hawaii!” show (or Las Vegas or New York or wherever – every damn sitcom ever made has certain formula episodes that are just like every other damn sitcom ever made and the cast making a trip to some exotic locale is one of them) and throw in some ridiculous bullshit that insults the viewers intelligence and is totally out of character for the show, you’re done. Go away. We really don’t want to see our heroes get old and feeble and senile and you’ve just crapped your Depends.

      Cruz is saying Trump is getting old and stale and his recycling old story lines like the birther crap is like something out of a bad SNL skit. Trump is no longer entertaining, he’s just a sad pathetic reminder of how entertaining he once was.

  33. Was there ever a time when public discourse wasn’t so bizarrely obsessed with race? I dunno. I’m trying to figure out if this self-flaggelation is a newish fad or a well-established link.

    1. Not in such a self-destructive way, no.

      We have always been obsessed with race but in my formative years (70s, 80s) it was much more positive than today.

      We are really not doing ourselves any favors by setting race-relations back so many decades like we are now.

  34. http://www.english.illinois.ed…..s/guns.pdf

    Thoughts? Hint: It’s about gun control and the Constitution.

    1. Excerpt: “Opponents of gun control have argued that there are linguistic reasons for dismissing the first part of the Second Amendment as merely “prefatory” or preambulatory,” even though18th-century readers would never have seen it that way. In addition, they reinterpret the meanings of the phrase bear arms and the word militia in ways that support their cause but go against the sense those words had in the federal period, and continue to have today
      .
      In support of the District of Columbia’s appeal to reverse that lower court ruling, we presented linguistic evidence arguing….”

      1. Dennis Baron.

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

        It all makes sense.

        Sooo. Now we know where liberals take their talking points from regarding the 2A – a linguist and English professor.

        1. Rufus, be nice to linguists as they lurk among us.

          1. Shh. We must not speak of HIM.

            1. On a serious note, I wonder if HE knows (of) Baron. Or has a friend who knows him.

      2. Opponents of gun control have argued that there are linguistic reasons for dismissing the first part of the Second Amendment as merely “prefatory” or preambulatory,” even though18th-century readers would never have seen it that way.

        It’s in there because it was plagiarized from Virginia’s state Constitution:

        That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, ? 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; “therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” added in 1971).

        It’s a nod to the premise that standing armies are dangerous to liberty and militias are the prefered method of defense.

    2. Standard team blue shit.

    3. The man is a fucktard. Forest/trees sort of bullshit.

    4. One of these days, I might pen a response to that. It’s noticeable to me that Baron elides over the 18th-century meaning of “well-regulated”.

      1. Oh man would I loved to read that.

        1. love.

          I’m really shitting up this thread tonight aren’t I?

          1. No worries…as long as you’re drinking the good stuff.

          2. My standing-on-one-leg response would be that Baron is correct that a modern reading would give “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”; however, in all his historical linguistics work he noticeably glides over the meaning of “well-regulated”. As I’ve pointed out on here before, back then “well-regulated” meant something like “well-trained”. Now, I’m not sure what Baron thought he was accomplishing with his discussion on the meaning of “militia”; because the Founders didn’t require militia service from Blacks, Indians, and women, they shouldn’t get to own guns? Skipping past that nonsense, Baron convienently leaves out the contemporary organization of a militia, that is they would be “well-regulated” on muster days, in which they would bring their own weapons to train with. It would be foolish to assume they trained only on muster days. Indeed, what the 2nd is saying is “Because a well-trained force of citizens is necessary to protect the country from invasion, people need to be familiar with weapons of war and the right to own and use them so that they are familiar with them shall not be infringed”.

            1. Of course, I would provided my own evidence, like the Manual of Regulations, etc.

              1. Okay, but does that square with the Constitution being a living document and therefore should read like the editorial board of the New York Times penned it between lunch and about one, one thirty yesterday?

                1. That’s what I find amusing about the brief by Baron et al., do you really want to play the Constitutional originalist game? I don’t think they would like where it would lead.

    1. Well they are into anal

  35. “Sure, poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t, just like Ammon Bundy and gang certainly benefit from their skin color in this Oregon situation.”

    It is not clear to me that the Bundy bunch benefits from their skin color in this Oregon situation–certainly not in the media.

    I wonder if it wasn’t meant that “The Bundy bunch in this Oregon situation enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t”. in other words, we’re talking about the people benefiting, not them benefiting in this situation.

    Also, I’d suggest that whatever “privileges” the Bundy kids enjoyed (living in a gang free neighborhood), these “privileges” are more tied to wealth and prosperity rather than race.

    I mean, it’s not like the Bundy kids were given office jobs, but the black kids that applied were turned down for being black.

    1. P.S. I left home at 14 and worked my way through a boarding/prep school. Worked my ass off on summers, worked on local farms bailing hay and cleaning out chicken coops during the school year–and when I turned 16, I got a job in a saw mill off campus.

      Do you have any idea how insulting it is to hear about how privileged I was because of my race?


      1. Obligatory reference #1

        “…and when there was no crawdad, we ate sand

        Obligatory reference #2

        “A chicken coop! A CHICKEN COOP! Oh, how we pined to have a chicken coop to clean! LUXURY”

        1. Cleaning chicken coops sucks–but bailing hay was probably the hardest work I ever did, and I was a drywall stocker for a while.

          My success is not attributable to my race. I went past plenty of black kids on the way to work every day who could have done the same things I was doing, worked their way through the same school, etc., and there were other black kids at my prep school. One of which, in his own way, is more successful than I am.

          I’m not even saying I had a hard time in boarding school–I had a frickin’ Bl’ast!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj00Mhu4OdI

          I absolutely loved it. But I am saying that my success isn’t due to any “privileges”.

          1. “…bailing hay was probably the hardest work I ever did,…”

            That is no shit right there.

    2. So what your saying is that if an armed group of BLACK LIVES MATTER people took over a federal building the police would patiently wait for the negros to calm down?

      REALLY. Perhaps you haven’t been catching what’s been going on. It’s all over TV/News. Black people are killed for much less.

      And, if you ask me (I know you people don’t give a shit about a bunch of niggers), the Black Lives Matter addresses the issue of black people being callously and recklessly killed by police. These white dudes are arguing over taxes and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has been killed.

      So yea, poor whites still enjoy privileges their minority counterparts don’t.

        1. Your Heroic half.

        2. Exactly, because braising fees trumps police brutality.
          I believe libertarians will always TRUMP commercial interest over lives of colored people.

          1. Colored peoplez don’t benefit from economic freedom. That where you going?

            1. Note that Mama speaks of taxes and grazing(?) fees – that’s the Bundy bunch crap that as I recall plenty here agreed were a bunch of assholes bitching because they weren’t getting enough free shit from the government. The Oregon group are protesting a couple of guys getting re-locked up after serving their sentences because the gov didn’t think they’d been prosecuted viciously enough, and possibly because the BLM wants their land and will steal it by any means necessary. Mama ain’t real sure where she’s coming from, much less where she’s going.

              And that last line with the all-caps TRUMP I assume is a dig at all us Trump-loving libertarians – we can’t fool her with all our platitudes about how much we love Trump because he’s just a peachy-keen fellow, she knows we all support Trump because we love rich capitalist pigs. Which completes the trifecta – Mama has no idea where the hell she is, either.

          2. What about colored libertarians? What do we do?

            1. *libertarians of color

              1. See, that’s just white privilege right there. Liber-splaining to me.

            2. P-shaw. Next you’ll tell us there are women libertarians.

          3. braising fees

            You just incited an insurrection.

          4. Mama La Pinga|1.6.16 @ 9:41PM|#
            “I believe libertarians will always TRUMP commercial interest over lives of colored people.”

            I remember many discussions about this, and you’re right. We *always* favor companies that shoot blacks at random!
            Right folks? I mean ALWAYS!

        3. “I give half a shit.”

          Yeah, but you get half a month!

          1. Mulatto February only lasts two weeks? Fuck, I want that kind of privilege. I hate February. Brrr.

            /doesn’t understand how astronomy and timekeeping works

      1. ‘Black people are killed for much less.’

        And white people. But their lives don’t matter-matter.

        “I know you people don’t give a shit about a bunch of niggers”

        I’m Canadian and not familiar with this word ‘nigger’. I do care for human life though.

        “These white dudes are arguing over taxes and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has been killed.”

        You make it sound like taxes -a form of oppression – is not a worthy issue.

        /Removes sunglasses. Dons monocle.

        1. Do they make sunmonocles?

          1. /strokes chin.

            Hm.

            Interesting idea!

      2. “(I know you people don’t give a shit about a bunch of niggers)”

        Aw, shucks! Caught us in our robes, burnin’ those crosses, did ja? We been busted by our newest troll!

        1. The first person to use such a term is usually the one who is the least racist in the conversation, dontcha know

        2. The lefty trolls are getting pretty predictable and boring.

          I almost miss the right wing trolls who used to come when Bush was in office–denouncing us as a bunch of lefty liberals.

      3. Have any black protesters been killed? Black men, women and children have been killed in isolated incidents in which police are doing their normal police bullshit, usually responding to calls. I can’t recall any BLM organizations being raided with brute force or protesters being gunned down over the last few years, even when there was immediate and violent criminal activity (looting).

        I can think of a couple examples in which the feds did raid and kill white people.

      4. These white dudes are arguing over taxes and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has been killed.

        OMG, the nerve of some people! Can’t they just get killed by police so we can have some goddamn equality already?!?

        1. Goddamnit. I missed a libertarians are really KKK troll? Because reason doesn’t report on police brutality AT ALL PEOPLE.

      5. I STAND WITH THE WHITE TROLL! ALL YOU RACISTS CAN SUCK IT

      6. “REALLY. Perhaps you haven’t been catching what’s been going on. It’s all over TV/News. Black people are killed for much less.”

        Ever heard of Radley Balko?

        https://reason.com/people/radley-balko/blogs

        We’ve been catching what’s been going on since Hit & Run started in 2003.

        Where have you been?

      7. “So what your saying is that if an armed group of BLACK LIVES MATTER people took over a federal building the police would patiently wait for the negros to calm down?”

        No, it’s my opinion that if they were a BLM group, they would be lionized in the media.

        They wouldn’t be smeared as terrorists.

      8. So did nobody bother following the link in the name to a very obvious reference to its trolliness or did it recently change the link to something that makes very obvious its trolliness?

      9. You mean like Eric Holder did in the 70’s?

      10. An armed group of black protestors surrounded a police station in Texas last year and shouted things like ‘the only good pig is a dead pig’ and everyone went home alive and unshot.

        So………?

    3. I assumed the privilege referred to their treatment by the police. Let’s have an armed group of black guys show up to occupy a federal building and see if the cops are so casual about “meh, they’ll probably get cold and hungry and bored and go home at some point so let’s just ignore them and they’ll go away”.

      1. Name any of the non-violent protests by blacks, that occupied govt space in the last 30 years that’s been met with police violence.

        1. We are not talking about that.

          1. Mama gon’ shove them goal posts! Push, Mama, PUSH!

        2. I don’t know right off the top of my head any non-violent protests by blacks – where the black protestors in question were armed and occupying government space – that were met with police violence. I don’t know of any non-violent protests by blacks – where the black protestors in question were armed and occupying government space – where the police just walked away and did nothing, either.

          And fuck you for helping make this thread all about race, goddammit.

          Ken made some comment about ENB mentioning white privilege and I made some reply that I didn’t get that out of her comment and now here we are like a bunch of fucking retards blatting back and forth about race shit instead of keeping the goddamn conversation focused where it should be. I shoulda just kept my mouth shut.

      2. What was the media response to Ferguson?

        What did Barack Obama and the federal government do?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ferguson_unrest#Reactions

        Why aren’t these guys getting the same sympathy and response to their allegations of misconduct?

        Is it becasue they’re white? Is it because they aren’t rioting?

        If they were black, yeah, I suspect the federal government and the media would be falling all over themselves trying to understand and explain what it is these people are protesting about–rather than vilifying them.

        Why isn’t the Justice Department promising to get to the bottom of their complaints–like they did with Ferguson?

        They don’t give a shit about these protesters–because they’re white. …and they’re aren’t rioting, perhaps…

        The police didn’t impose a curfew in Ferguson until a week after the rioting started.

        1. Ken, if these questions are addressed to me, I’m sorry but I have no idea why you’re asking me. I would agree with you completely that the media and political response would I think be completely flipped but all I was saying was just a trivial point that I assumed ENB was referring to the”privilege” of being treated a little less like toxic pond scum by the police, not “white privilege” in the SJW sense of”white people get everything handed to them for free by everybody”.

          1. It was supposed to be addressed to Big Mama the troll.

            Sorry ’bout that!

  36. “the question of what qualifies as terrorism is hotly contested, but the most compelling definitions hinge on whether the perpetrators target civilians.”

    Uh-huh. Now, simply define “civilian”.

  37. Poor Whites have privileges that poor non-Whites have?
    Name one. Just one. I’ll wait.

    A black guy attacks a cop and get shot, and the country, media, and academia explode. Weeks of excused riots ensue. The President lectures us weekly.
    Two white ranchers set a back fire to keep a lightning started fire from federal land to save their land, and they’re charged with terrorism, given 5 years, and fined $400,000.
    The media is silent. No riots. The progressive elite spit on them, and the only people who stand up for them to have a voice.

    White privilege is the privilege to be on your fucking own. No one cares, least of all other white people.

  38. I love the trolls who come here complaining that libertarians only care about white people. Type “police brutality” into Reason’s search and see what you get. You are only consistent if you oppose heavy handed government applied to colored people. Do we get to say “colored people” again?

    1. Only if you stick a ‘u’ in there.

      1. Call me slow, but I finally got the Sade joke.

        1. You know him better than that

    1. BUT DADDY IT’S SOOO MUCH FUN!

    2. I’M NOT A TROLL

      Just drinking.

      1. You too? I like you. Let’s be friends.

    3. Damn adults show up and ruin the fun!

    4. But I can’t help myself, and they’re so very stupid.

    5. We need better quality trolls.

      1. Sure. If you’re gonna do something, do it well.

  39. “It turns out the landowners were just dressed as the Malheur Militia to scare everyone off so they could claim the hidden gold for themselves

    1. And they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for you darn kids!

  40. SF winter night like we haven’t had in a while; gully-washer storm cells pushing through. Climate change, I’m sure.

  41. What the fuck did I just read? Whatever you’re just a bunch of lefty yokeltarian cryptoracists.

  42. Good read.

  43. None of which addresses why these guys in Oregon are being called “terrorist” and other things.

    They aren’t being called that because of a peaceful disobedience. Because they’re camping out in a sheriff’s or senators office until they get arrested or removed by cops. Because they’re camping out in a public park until the cops shuffle them along.

    They’re being called that because they *broke into* a building, have said they’re planning on staying there for *years*, and have made threats to anyone intent on arresting and removing them.

    That’s not civil disobedience. When a bunch of hippies camp out in a senator’s office or handcuff themselves to the White House fence, they *expect* to get arrested. But if you go into the senator’s office with a couple of guns and say you’ll kill and die to stay there until your demands have met? You’ve crossed a line.

    And after you cross that line whatever legitimate complaints you may have become pretty much moot.

  44. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.buzznews99.com

  45. OK. So they are committing a felony and we know they are “certainly not!” threatening to use force and violence on civilians, so simply make a citizen’s arrest on their leader.
    You can walk into the camp, it is public property, you can walk up to the man and inform him you are making a citizen’s arrest and using your legal authority as a citizen of the United States to return order to that federal building. Federal law respecting men who want nothing more than the Constitution to be upheld should understand you.
    You won’t go. They have displayed their guns, unofficially declared themselves a militia, and threatened violence on anyone who tries to depose them. Anybody. Have you never learned whose country this is? It’s ours, we are citizens first and that is your building. An agebt is a citizen with a uniform on.
    Nobody started a war with these guys and they’re not defending themselves, they’re not even defending the Hammonds. They are openly rebelling against the country and their efforts have been ineffectual so far. They are bringing in guns and capturing a federal building. Threatening to use violence in order to achieve… I forget the rest, but you can find it in a dictionary under ‘T’.

    1. Some have made threats, others have disagreed. They have killed no one, injured no one, destroyed no buildings, damaged no buildings, obstructed no public access. By contrast, Black Lives Matter may not have killed anyone (though they certainly encouraged the murders of policemen, and there have been some ambush killings possibly inspired by them), but they have done all the rest. I don’t say the government shouldn’t act against the Bundy group, but I do say that it should act first, and more forcefully, against the Sharpton/Jackson group.

      But it won’t, because the people who would have to act are liberals, and they react tribally (the Bundys are Enemies, Sharpton and Jackson are Friends) as well as using the legal system as a means of dirty politics rather than individual justice. (It helps that liberals prefer group justice to individual justice anyway, which combines well with their tribalism.)

  46. I wonder whether the nutjobs in Oregon know about this, have read the draft, have contacted their congressmen, plan to file comments? That’s the way grown-ups do things.

    “The [Malheur National Wildlife] Refuge is currently undergoing a public Comprehensive Conservation Planning process to draft a new Management Plan which will guide the next 15 years of wildlife, habitat, public use, and cultural resources management.”

    http://audubonportland.org/loc…..ife-refuge

  47. The MSM would never obfuscate the message/facts of a non-SJW or “politically double ungood” group in order to confuse and incite emotion in their “tweet followers” to cloud over any meaningful insight into their group or their problems. Never.

  48. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.buzznews99.com

  49. 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….

    ? ? ? ?www.HomeSalary10.com

  50. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ??????????? http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  51. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ??????????? http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  52. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.buzznews99.com

  53. 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

  54. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ???????????http://www.HomeSalary10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.