|
General_Disturbed posted:That is wonderful. I don't know about the stream stuff. Is there a way for you to pull up a few hours ago where he was dancing around the counter protester, screaming incoherently into a megaphone and hitting the siren button while the counter protester held his ears. I would love a video of that to spam to them. Just him being a garbage lunatic. Nah, he ended that stream so youtube is processing it before uploading it as a video. He has control of when/if that goes up and can edit it as well. But this guy is dumb enough to maybe just put it up. EDIT: speak of the devil and he shall appear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovLZ4WqfpXE Go to about 20min to see him start confronting the counter-protesters. Crain fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jan 17, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Video inside the Refuge center: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrzamFEktI0 Starts of great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Crain posted:Video inside the Refuge center: They seem to have a lot of supplies now, even if half of those supplies are gummy bears and sex toys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Crain posted:Nah, he ended that stream so youtube is processing it before uploading it as a video. He has control of when/if that goes up and can edit it as well. But this guy is dumb enough to maybe just put it up. At 19:00 he turns the megaphone over to siren mode, and walks around behind the counter-protestors blaring an air raid siren then screams "You're under arrest for BULLSHIT" that's pretty much what Pete Santilli feels about freedom of speech when it's not whatever message he's parroting. Somebody should make a video clip of him just being a lunatic to those guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
I know, I just despise the "postal service is broke/inefficient/useless" claims
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Apparently this will be the next Pete "gently caress the first amendment" Santilli livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aURMKijYRRw, scheduled to go on the air at 8PM EST
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Apparently this will be the next Pete "gently caress the first amendment" Santilli livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aURMKijYRRw, scheduled to go on the air at 8PM EST We'll see. He seems to have these set up to start every so often and just jumps on them as they go. Although maybe they're still at the airport
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Crain posted:Video inside the Refuge center: She's a sweet old lady, but cannot explain what's wrong with the government or what would solve the problem. Says a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:She's a sweet old lady, but cannot explain what's wrong with the government or what would solve the problem. Says a lot. We all know what their top 3 problems facing the country are: 1) Black guy in power 2) Black people everywhere 3) Black people not slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Crain posted:We all know what their top 3 problems facing the country are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTXYwBqXbcA
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Crain posted:We all know what their top 3 problems facing the country are: Time + microphone + sovcit = "they were better off with Jim Crow/as slaves"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Time + microphone + sovcit = "they were better off with Jim Crow/as slaves" Also independent women and gays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Time + microphone + sovcit = "they were better off with Jim Crow/as slaves" Gotta stick to your roots, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Crain posted:Nah, he ended that stream so youtube is processing it before uploading it as a video. He has control of when/if that goes up and can edit it as well. But this guy is dumb enough to maybe just put it up. It's up. The "pull the loving trigger now" comment is still in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLHAQjIwC14&t=860 I've linked 10 seconds before for a bit of extra crazy rambling about how the sheriff is "in his chain of command", and Pete's going to get him to come and kick the FBI out. (The rest of the video is Pete ranting over the phone at the sheriff's dispatcher, who eventually hangs up on him.) E: Fixed url Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Pete seriously worries me more than anyone else there and i would like him to be a nonliving person for the safety of others
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
General_Disturbed posted:At 19:00 he turns the megaphone over to siren mode, and walks around behind the counter-protestors blaring an air raid siren then screams "You're under arrest for BULLSHIT" that's pretty much what Pete Santilli feels about freedom of speech when it's not whatever message he's parroting. Somebody should make a video clip of him just being a lunatic to those guys. I thought reporters from the press were supposed to be neutral and report things, not take over the bullshit the cult leaders are supposed to do Man, you're a special brand of retarded that after confronting an armed FBI agent and he does jack poo poo nothing you feel your security is threatened SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I thought reporters from the press were supposed to be neutral and report things, not take over the bullshit the cult leaders are supposed to do Yes, they are. Pete is not press no matter how much he claims it. Other reporters have mentioned him in tweets/articles and basically the mentality is: What Pete has done would get him, at best, removed from being a field reporter. The worst case scenario is that he get's arrested with the rest of them because he is clearly part of their camp. Also some other journos have said that if he were actually in a warzone and was pulling what he's doing now, that he'd have been shot long ago. Journalists don't give hour long speeches about how "our side" is right. Pete should be arrested along with the rest of these militants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Pete seriously worries me more than anyone else there and i would like him to be a nonliving person for the safety of others
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Crain posted:Also some other journos have said that if he were actually in a warzone and was pulling what he's doing now, that he'd have been shot long ago. That's because he'd be the stupid gently caress shouting "Hey you camel jockeys, why don't you engage us?! We're all right here! I've got detailed locations!" All the muzzles would be pointed at him
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Luck? A number of people were injured during the Ferguson protests, including several serious gunshot wounds that very well could have been fatal. A mumber of police officers were also injured, yet shockingly the cops didn't just mow down the crowd like you seem to think they should do at the slightest hint of danger. Also, Ferguson didn't meet the conditions I described in the first place - though there were a number of violent clashes that very easily could have led to disaster, there was no siege, and in any case the police had little choice but to intervene since some of the protesters were openly rioting, which makes it hard to call Ferguson "peaceful". Armed protestors also are not "peaceful". That hasn't once stopped you from calling them that, though. Weird, huh? Now what could be different about these protesters compared to Ferguson that would make you give them more benefit of the doubt, I wonder...
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I thought reporters from the press were supposed to be neutral and report things, not take over the bullshit the cult leaders are supposed to do Pete isn't an actual reporter as much as he wishes he was. Some of the articles today about the protest, are listing him as a "Militia Sympathizer" and credit him with leading the protest. Even "Militia Sympathizer" is still being kind to him since at this point he's clearly one of the main instigators of everything that's happening there. He's been at every town meeting, screaming their spinwords at anybody who disagrees with them until he's thrown out. When counter protesters show up like today, he's all but physically assaulting them. There was one point where he was standing in a guys face, with a megaphone, just screaming at him while the guy was holding both of his ears clearly in pain. Today live on stream, he called the county dispatch office and put the dispatcher on mic so the livestream could hear her. He then spent 10 minutes demanding that she send the Sheriff out to help the protesters 'negotiate' with the FBI. The dispatcher finally just kept repeating "I've passed the message on" while he screamed at her "So the Sheriff is coming, YES OR NO" he then started demanding her name and number, wanting thousands of people watching live to hear her name and number and such. She wisely refused to tell him anything other than "This is county dispatch"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Armed protestors also are not "peaceful". That hasn't once stopped you from calling them that, though. Weird, huh? Now what could be different about these protesters compared to Ferguson that would make you give them more benefit of the doubt, I wonder... Wait, so mere possession of firearms which they aren't using is just as non-peaceful as looting and damaging businesses while throwing rocks at the police? I'm not pro-gun, but merely possessing a legally owned weapon which you have the right to carry does not, by itself, constitute violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wait, so mere possession of firearms which they aren't using is just as non-peaceful as looting and damaging businesses while throwing rocks at the police? I'm not pro-gun, but merely possessing a legally owned weapon which you have the right to carry does not, by itself, constitute violence. Threatening a shootout is, as these people have done, repeatedly. It was the basis of their whole thing; "we're taking this land and we'll shoot anyone who comes to kick us out."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Guns are not fashion accessories, they did not bring them because they pair well with their boots. They brought them as an implicit threat of violence, which pairs well with their explicit threat of violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wait, so mere possession of firearms which they aren't using is just as non-peaceful as looting and damaging businesses while throwing rocks at the police? I'm not pro-gun, but merely possessing a legally owned weapon which you have the right to carry does not, by itself, constitute violence. So they have all these weapons on them, but they have no intention of using? Wouldn't it be easier to leave them at home, if that were the case? I imagine some of those AR-15s would be quite heavy to carry around all day for no reason. This is of course also ignoring the fact that they have also (repeatedly) said that they actually plan on using said weapons on anyone that tries to interfere (this detail in particular seems to be constantly ignored for some reason..)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wait, so mere possession of firearms which they aren't using is just as non-peaceful as looting and damaging businesses while throwing rocks at the police? I'm not pro-gun, but merely possessing a legally owned weapon which you have the right to carry does not, by itself, constitute violence. The only reason to come armed is to commit violence. So yes, it does in fact constitute violence or at least a serious threat of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The only reason to come armed is to commit violence. So yes, it does in fact constitute violence or at least a serious threat of it. I don't have a particular problem with eg the Black Panthers (or the goofballs currently calling themselves the New ones) engaging in open carry protests. That's not what bothers me about these folks either as such - it's their strongly suggested threats of violence, their explicit threats of Engaging in threats of violence while carrying a firearm is more concerning than engaging in threats of violence while carrying a baked potato, mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
The USA does a lot of things that look weird as gently caress to an outsider so I'm not willing to say that they can't simultaneously be peaceful nonviolent protestors and ready to shoot any law enforcement types who look like they might try to stop them coming and going, but it seems like those two things would be mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
PROTIP: If your civil disobedience action is prolonged by threatening to shoot the authorities, it is no longer civil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Threatening a shootout is, as these people have done, repeatedly. It was the basis of their whole thing; "we're taking this land and we'll shoot anyone who comes to kick us out." ^^ The Tea Party had a number of protests where they showed up with lots of guns. And while I've got plenty to say about the difference between those protests and protests on the other end of the political spectrum, they did not, to my knowledge, threatened to shoot people with them. The threat of violence is, in itself, a form of violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I don't have a particular problem with eg the Black Panthers (or the goofballs currently calling themselves the New ones) engaging in open carry protests. That's not what bothers me about these folks either as such - it's their strongly suggested threats of violence, their explicit threats of I don't necessarily have problems with open-carry protests either, I just wouldn't call them peaceful. Peaceful protesting isn't the only valid form of protest. But I stand by my statement that the only valid reason to carry a firearm is because you are willing to use it, be it offensively or defensively, and that is a clear and serious threat. If you don't want to be seen as a non-peaceful protest then don't bring guns, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:PROTIP: If your civil disobedience action is prolonged by threatening to shoot the authorities, it is no longer civil. Accepting, even active seeking out, the consequences: beatings, jail, fire-hoses, etc is also fundamental to civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is about winning by suffering the consequences of losing publicly. I don't think any of these men would really be willing to do that. These guys are cowards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:45
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wait, so mere possession of firearms which they aren't using is just as non-peaceful as looting and damaging businesses while throwing rocks at the police? I'm not pro-gun, but merely possessing a legally owned weapon which you have the right to carry does not, by itself, constitute violence. Stop being a disingenuous rear end, you drat well know that they: 1. Have guns. 2. Have committed a laundry list of crimes. 3. Have said that if authorities try to arrest them that they will use the guns in their possession on law enforcement officers. How, pray tell, does this count as peaceful protest?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Accepting, even active seeking out, the consequences: beatings, jail, fire-hoses, etc is also fundamental to civil disobedience. The whole idea behind successful civil disobedience is that you have to demonstrate to the public at large that you and your compatriots are victims of the system, by making passive victimization (back of the bus, etc.) into active victimization (firehoses). You can't do that by actively being an aggressor or by fighting back with physical violence. Shooting a bunch of cops is not a good way to demonstrate that you are a victim of systemic brutality. If you're participating in an "open carry protest," you're threatening physical violence against the system, threatening (at best) to counter the system's violence with your own violence. At that point, you're not doing the gandhi/mlk/jesus thing any more. You're doing something else. It's substantively, mechanically different from nonviolent protest and works along different premises. Note that I'm not saying it can't work. It may even be necessary in some circumstances (how far would MLK have gotten without Malcolm X or the Panthers?) but it's fundamentally different from non-violent passive protest. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
They were just trying to auction off dildos during the stream. One had "We need more Waco's" written on it with a sharpie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
What is the current stream, I'd like to buy a freedong
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So they have all these weapons on them, but they have no intention of using? Wouldn't it be easier to leave them at home, if that were the case? I imagine some of those AR-15s would be quite heavy to carry around all day for no reason. Plenty of people carry guns around all day without using them. Roland Jones posted:Threatening a shootout is, as these people have done, repeatedly. It was the basis of their whole thing; "we're taking this land and we'll shoot anyone who comes to kick us out." They haven't threatened a shootout. What they have said (for the most part) is similar, but not quite that. Some individuals have probably threatened a shootout, but per the Hutaree precedent, those views can't be assumed to be shared by the others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:What is the current stream, I'd like to buy a freedong I too would like the current stream. This thread is so boring when it's the same 5 people having a constant circlejerk about whether or not these criminals should be arrested because they're peaceful. So many pages in and they're still yammering the same crap that's been said 30 times already on every page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
I think this is the stream they were talking about and the main one for this "happening," in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Bullshit. If law enforcement wasn't worried about getting killed, this would have been over weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 06:27
|
|