Maker Of Shoes posted:

ToxicSlurpee posted:

If you're feeling lonely make a big dinner and tell your friends there's no way you can eat it all by yourself so if they'd like to come have some they're welcome to.

SpacePig posted:

I'm not too far off the "throw meat in a fire" style I mentioned, because I just basically season some chicken and throw it on an oiled pan, and then I know how to prepare rice, pasta, and vegetables. But it's not because of some manly-man thing, it's because I do all my cooking for one, and am sort of broke.

MAKE NO BABBYS posted:

There's no such thing as a four Michelin restaurant, Forbes guide rates on a five star scale, Michelin is a three star scale.

Klaus88 posted:

The most elaborate dish I can personally make is a quasi chicken and broccoli stir-fry. I'm certain that most real chiefs would cry if they had to watch me prepare the sauce.

Klaus88 posted:

The most elaborate dish I can personally make is a quasi chicken and broccoli stir-fry. I'm certain that most real chiefs would cry if they had to watch me prepare the sauce.

Fathis Munk posted:

Of course none of us can cook like a real chef, but then again that doesn't mean you can't cook. There are tons of good simple recipes and unless you're really dumb you can actually cook. You might never have tried to but you can.

It's just that like in most skills, being able to cook doesn't mean you're a loving 3 star chef.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

I can make very good baked chicken

ToxicSlurpee posted:

a can of mushrooms

EvilGenius posted:

Ok guys, men can cook, we get it.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

political correct ready made food

hyperhazard posted:

I think he's just looking for an excuse to drink beer.

Tardcore posted:

What? Oh god and that bit about naturally fermented foods, is he talking about high meat?

Tardcore posted:

What?

quote:

So, it looks like we get to start the year with an armed showdown in Oregon. Awesome.

If you aren't familiar with the story, here are the nuts and bolts: A group of about 12 or 13 (originally reported as a small army of 150) armed citizens "seized" a building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon to protest the unfair imprisonment of two local ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond. The refuge is a bird sanctuary, and the seized building, situated in the middle of the wilderness about 30 miles from the nearest town, was empty when it was taken. A couple of the protesters are Bundys, who came up from Nevada but are not affiliated with the Hammonds in any way.

As it stands right now, as far as I know, the "militia" members are sitting in a vacant visitor's center in a bird sanctuary and law enforcement are somewhere on the peripheral trying to figure out what to do next. Many liberals on Twitter have been rooting for a violent end to this situation, but those of us with souls of course would prefer that nobody die over an armed occupation of a small, uninhabited structure out in the forests of eastern Oregon.

Now that we've established the basics, I'd like to pass along a few thoughts on the subject:

1) No matter how you feel about the armed protesters, let's not lose sight of the injustice that sparked all of this. The Hammonds have owned a large plot of land adjacent to this bird sanctuary for a few generations. The government has been trying to chase them off their property for decades to no avail. If you research the long and complicated backstory of this dispute, which I highly recommend, you'll find that they've long been the victims of bullying, harassment, and abuse by bureaucratic tyrants from both the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Finally the government sensed an opportunity when the Hammonds accidentally burned a portion of federal land on two occasions. In both instances they started the fire on the their own land, once to prevent the spread of invasive species, and once to control a wildfire that was threatening to destroy their home. Eventually -- like 5 tears later, actually -- they were arrested and charged with arson under the Anti-terrorism Act. Sentencing guidelines require at least FIVE YEARS in prison for anyone convicted as a "terrorist," but the judge said 5 years would be cruel and unusual for such a minor offense. They served a much shorter term and were released.

However, a field manager for the BLM decided they should do the full five years, because apparently pencil pushers at the Bureau of Land Management can make those kinds of decisions now. The bully filed an appeal, and next thing you know the Hammonds were re-sentenced, and must now report to prison for another 4 years. That seems awfully close to something called double jeopardy, but what do I know?

There's a lot more to this story, but suffice it to say that the feds have been trying to chase a family off of their own land so they can expand their habitat for birds and other woodland creatures. If that means sending a father and son to prison, so be it. Part of the sentence, coincidentally, requires that the Hammonds sell their land to the feds, if ever they decide to sell at all. Of course all of this legal trouble, and now 5 years in prison, can be quite costly, meaning the Hammonds might have no choice but to sell -- and guess who ends up with the land when that happens?

It's outrageous. Our government is run by a bunch of petty, power hungry dictators, and it's about time we all realize it.

2) That said, the Hammonds have nothing to do with this armed "protest," and from what I understand, they do not support it. These people are almost certain to do more harm than good for the cause of liberty, particularly considering Obama's plan to make a hard push for gun control during his last year in office. Now the president has a very convenient case study to demonstrate the terrible dangers of letting folks buy guns all willy-nilly. I'd have no problem with a sit-in or protest at a federal building in response to an injustice like this, but if you do it while armed, you lose automatically.

3) That said, liberals are full of it when they claim a "double standard" because these armed white protesters haven't all been killed yet. Liberals all over social media have been claiming that if blacks or Muslims had pulled something like this, the cops would have come in guns blazing from the start. That's nonsense, obviously. First of all, Muslims always take over inhabited buildings and kill everyone inside them. A slightly different situation, don't you think? Second, black folks in Baltimore set fire to entire city blocks, looted, threw Molotov cocktails, and torched cop cars, and the police sat back and watched it happen. The mayor even declared that the looters should be given "space to destroy." So, no, there is no white privilege here. We've seen blacks lay siege to populated cities while law enforcement stood to the side and twiddled their thumbs. If there's any double standard here, it's in the reverse.

4) Last point, back to the Hammonds again: where does the federal government derive the authority to take ownership of land and give it over to birds and deer? The constitution grants the feds the power to build forts and so on, but why does the federal government own the woods in eastern Oregon? If land needs to be "protected" so that birds have some privacy, which I'm not sure it does to begin with, then it should be the state in charge of that sort of thing.

Blind Pineapple posted:

Who wanted hot takes on the situation in Oregon?

Nihilarian posted:

Fathis Munk posted:

Freep thread is having a field day with this bullshit. Apparently the guys are asking for people to send the "snacks and gear". Also they are freezing their rear end off because they can't get a fire going

Fathis Munk posted:

Freep thread is having a field day with this bullshit. Apparently the guys are asking for people to send the "snacks and gear". Also they are freezing their rear end off because they can't get a fire going

Eponine posted:

How many homeschooled kids are taught by their fathers?

Madkal posted:

Arsehole are going to end up accidentally burning the whole wilderness down, aren't they.

RareAcumen posted:

Teaching's not a man's job! That's women's work! Now, coaching, on the other hand, that's a real man's job.

Je suis fatigue posted:

They just gave up and turned themselves in so no

HOOLY BOOLY posted:

As long as it's not volleyball, because volleyball is a woman's game.

Or is it ESPECIALLY volleyball because of the short shorts on the girls?

DemeaninDemon posted:

Who? The ranchers who said they were before this poo poo show started?

Je suis fatigue posted:

Ah, I was just going by the CCN news update on my iPad without actually following this story very closely. I was under the impression that the fire starters were with the occupation guys in Oregon but I guess they were in California? Like it was a protection thing not a lovely stupid protest, so then the federal land squatting goes on.