|
The funny thing about Stolen Valor types is that I have never met a veteran of any kind that ever wanted to brag about their time in the service. Pretty much universally, it was just a lovely, often dangerous job that they've put behind them. I'm honestly surprised that anyone would think it was cool to pretend to be a veteran. It's like pretending to be a ex-firefighter or a ex-Alaskan crab fisherman. It's bizarre.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
Ratoslov posted:The funny thing about Stolen Valor types is that I have never met a veteran of any kind that ever wanted to brag about their time in the service. Pretty much universally, it was just a lovely, often dangerous job that they've put behind them. I'm honestly surprised that anyone would think it was cool to pretend to be a veteran. It's like pretending to be a ex-firefighter or a ex-Alaskan crab fisherman. It's bizarre. Being a veteran is like being a real-life superhero to many Americans. And just like superheroes, when it comes to homelessness they don't need any of our drat help to get off the streets. Get a job, Superman!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:The funny thing about Stolen Valor types is that I have never met a veteran of any kind that ever wanted to brag about their time in the service. Pretty much universally, it was just a lovely, often dangerous job that they've put behind them. I'm honestly surprised that anyone would think it was cool to pretend to be a veteran. It's like pretending to be a ex-firefighter or a ex-Alaskan crab fisherman. It's bizarre. Looks like someone has never been in a bar with crewmembers from Deadliest Catch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Being a veteran is like being a real-life superhero to many Americans. And just like superheroes, when it comes to homelessness they don't need any of our drat help to get off the streets. Get a job, Superman! Hey Bob, Supe had a straight job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Hey Bob, Supe had a straight job. You call working for the lamestream media a real job? Not in my America! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Hahaha the WA house rep who got his phony military record exposed when he took a trip to militialand just quit. Graham Hunt out of Orting if you want to pull up the stories. Intel&Sebastian posted:Lmao another city council member said he told everyone he was a marine, and the head of the states libertarian party leaked a social media DM where he said he was shot in Iraq and stabbed in Afghanistan  In his statement, Hunt apologized to “all those who have been affected by this situation.” He added: “I hope the people of this state can forgive me for my imperfections, just as I have forgiven those who have attacked me for my imperfections.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:
This is the best non apology ever. It's claiming the high road but still insulting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
What's up with you d&ders wishing they had executed the remaining confederate leadership after the civil war but now you want these guys to make it. Shoot them all in the face and dump them in the ocean. That guy has 11 foster slaves but let's make sure we figure out how to fairly judge what his punishment should be lmaoooooooo like he's just advocating for armed insurrection like if he was brown or black we would've drone strike his wedding but nah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
An alleged Burns resident is on the NTA stream saying he is going to quit his job at the gas station because they sold the FBI gas. The host is PRETTY SURE the ACLU is going to go to bat for him if he has to lose his job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:An alleged Burns resident is on the NTA stream saying he is going to quit his job at the gas station because they sold the FBI gas. The host is PRETTY SURE the ACLU is going to go to bat for him if he has to lose his job. "I quit! But I'm gonna sue you for violating my free speech because I quit, voluntarily!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:What's up with you d&ders wishing they had executed the remaining confederate leadership after the civil war but now you want these guys to make it. Shoot them all in the face and dump them in the ocean. You're missing the point. I would laugh if these dangerous chucklefucks and those like them fell on some bullets somewhere down the line, barring the problem of their nutbar followers committing terror attacks in response. Sure, if for some reason they start shooting at people? Kill every last one of them and salt their fields. Until that happens though, the FBI should keep doing what it's doing. Take it easy, arrest the scum when risk to the public is at it's lowest point, and throw them in a deep black hole to rot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:What's up with you d&ders wishing they had executed the remaining confederate leadership after the civil war but now you want these guys to make it. Shoot them all in the face and dump them in the ocean. Just reading this made me spill my latte.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
"If you're on the clock then they can control what you say, but if you're on your own time, that's the first amendment. That's protected speech, they can't do anything about that." The guy who thinks the government has no authority whatsoever is convinced labor and employment law will protect him. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Hey Bob, Supe had a straight job. I think that Yokel Haram would make Superman head right to the jungle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I think that Yokel Haram would make Superman head right to the jungle. they've done that, it didn't go well 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Since Huttaree keeps being referenced as though John Roberts wrote it on stone tablets and hand delivered it to the FBI, this seems like a good time to remind people that a district court in Michigan does not create binding precedent on any court anywhere, much less another district court in an entirely different circuit. it is something for the government to consider, however, there are two entirely separate month-long overt acts in furtherance when it comes to the Bundys. No, Hutaree isn't binding on every court in the US. But what is binding is that a federal judge straight-up threw a militia prosecution out of court on the spot, and the FBI doesn't want to take the slightest chance of that happening again. Before proving that someone is tied to a criminal agreement, you need to prove that there even is a criminal agreement at all. That was the problem in Hutaree. First of all, the judge concluded that there was never any conspiracy in the first place, just a bunch of people getting together to engage in protected political speech about how awesome it would be to overthrow the government and kill a bunch of cops. Second - and more importantly - the judge said that merely being a Hutaree member and participating in the Hutaree meetings did not amount to agreement with the leader's aims, and therefore no conspiracy charge could be brought even if the leader's aims had been criminal. There are several conclusions to be drawn from that. For example:
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
roymorrison posted:What's up with you d&ders wishing they had executed the remaining confederate leadership after the civil war but now you want these guys to make it. Shoot them all in the face and dump them in the ocean. OK yea but I don't want anyone to throw out due process or anything because I'm afraid one day it can be justified against them it could be justified against someone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
1st AD posted:"I quit! But I'm gonna sue you for violating my free speech because I quit, voluntarily!" This right here is a nice summary of the thought process that goes through SovCit heads. They're so desperate to feel like the brave badass that they'll voluntarily screw themselves an others over to make a non-point at some non-offense then, in the same breath, demand that it was their "enemy's" responsibility to let them avoid consequences for their stupidity. How desperate for attention do you have to be for this kind of thing? It's like sticking your finger into a wall outlet, then getting completely offended that the electric company doesn't offer you free power for life because you were brave. Geostomp fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Ran Mad Dog posted:It might have been the Feds mistake to release the video so late, as it gave all of the brainwashed idiots a good chance to absorb the "murdered" narrative and decide what reality was before actually seeing it. Even on Freep though, some old men are saying that after watching the video that Mr. Tarp hosed up and shouldn't have made the movements he did, even if they don't specifically say that he was going for a gun. I doubt that would have happened without the video. Remember, before the video dropped they were claiming he was on his knees with his hands up and was shot in the face execution style following the SUV getting hosed with hundreds of rounds but the occupants surviving through the power of prayer. Every single part of that was shown to be false and the narrative shifted so fast it gave me whiplash. There was never going to be a convincing of the true believers, the best outcome was showing everybody else how nutty they were. Unrelated to this, but people worrying about handing this with kids gloves because it might inspire attacks have the wrong impression. People like McVeigh or Nichols, wouldn't have just gone on to live normal lives if poo poo like Waco didn't happen. They would've latched on to any incident that conflicted with their narrative whether it was a federal government policy or a speeding ticket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Remember, before the video dropped they were claiming he was on his knees with his hands up and was shot in the face execution style following the SUV getting hosed with hundreds of rounds but the occupants surviving through the power of prayer. I think they're still holding onto the "they shot the SUV with 100 rounds!" claim. Probably because the FBI flash banged it and shot those tear gas rounds so a panickign teenage girl probably did think they were being shot at and all about to die even if that wasn't actually the case
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I think they're still holding onto the "they shot the SUV with 100 rounds!" claim. Probably because the FBI flash banged it and shot those tear gas rounds so a panickign teenage girl probably did think they were being shot at and all about to die even if that wasn't actually the case Is there any detail on how many shots were actually fired and where?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:Is there any detail on how many shots were actually fired and where? I don't believe it's been officially released, but the video only shows two officers pointing guns at Finicum. When they're going after the SUV after killing him, only two or three apparent shots go through the passenger side window and out the front windshield (possibly someone like Ryan Bundy trying to draw a gun while in his seat).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:Is there any detail on how many shots were actually fired and where? Besides the video, no. I believe that they've said that they are withholding details pending the ongoing investigation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:Is there any detail on how many shots were actually fired and where? About 74, based on my count of the video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
I've still yet to see any verifiable source state that any shots were fired at the SUV before it drove off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:Is there any detail on how many shots were actually fired and where? I'm guessing 5 or 6, absolute max 10. But several of them were through our brave hero tarpman
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, Hutaree isn't binding on every court in the US. But what is binding is that a federal judge straight-up threw a militia prosecution out of court on the spot, and the FBI doesn't want to take the slightest chance of that happening again. You need to figure out whether you think Hutaree is binding precedent or not. You cannot, in the space of two sentences, say Hutaree is not binding, and then in the very next sentence say the exact opposite thing. What Hutaree is, is persuasive authority. That means it can be cited as favorably or unfavorably as any other judge in the country wants. It means any lawyer arguing a conspiracy case anywhere else in the federal system can cite it as they see fit. And no more. You are correct that it likely informs the FBI's tactics in dealing with militia groups. You are profoundly incorrect in conjuring it into some insurmountable obstacle to prosecuting anyone before they actually shoot someone, or arguing that it is the single dispositive authority on matters of prosecuting militia conspiracies. You have chosen a very weird - and wrong - hill to die on. Hutaree and Bundy I / II are not remotely similar. Sitting around saying the government sucks and it would be great to kill police is not a conspiracy (though I imagine there are district courts that would not have tossed the Hutaree case). Getting together and saying "hey i don't like this federal agency, I want to stop them from doing their job, want to help?" and the other guy saying "yep I sure do, and I have a whole militia to help me" is not protected speech and is in fact an agreement to engage in a joint criminal endeavor. It became a conspiracy once either of them took an overt action in furtherance of the agreement, which they did when they converged on Bundy's ranch, sought supplies to accomplish the blockade, etc. When the various militia leaders went to their groups and said "hey guys, the BLM is trying to round up Cliven's cows, Cliven wants us to help stop them, are you in?" and the individual militia members said "yep I sure am, let's go," those individual militia members agreed to join the conspiracy. That is, incidentally, exactly what happened in both Bundy standoffs. Payne is on record describing meetings between himself and Cliven Bundy discussing exactly what they wanted to prevent the BLM from doing, and how they were going to accomplish that. Ammon Bundy is literally on camera discussing plans to occupy the Malheur Refuge with other leaders of the Oregon occupation. Numerous people who showed up to Bunkerville are on camera stating that they came to help Cliven thwart the BLM. Numerous people who showed up to Malheur are on camera saying they came to stop the USFWS from doing their work in Malheur. Pointing out that mere presence does not make one a conspirator is not particularly meaningful, unless showing up is literally the only thing someone did. O'Shaughnessy is trying to make that argument in his arguments to win pre-trial release, and it is an absurd argument. In sum he is saying he didn't agree with the Malheur occupation, he just came every day to be part of a "Constitutional Protection Force" to prevent federal agents from interfering with the occupation. That is exactly what the occupiers were there doing. Believing that is somehow not an agreement to be part of the criminal endeavor is like watching a bank robber tell his friend "boy, I sure don't agree with robbing banks," while shoveling cash into a bag with him. It is like listening to Kanye west and concluding that he was not in fact calling that woman a gold digger, because, well he said he wasn't. It is willfully ignorant. No doubt there is some hanger on who just showed up because he was curious, chatted with some people, and watched what was going on. That guy may very well not be part of the conspiracy. But that sort of person is hardly relevant to this conversation. Anyone who saw what was going on at Malheur, asked if they could be a part of it (either before or after arriving), and then did anything to further the occupation is a member of the conspiracy. The same with Bunkerville. That means anyone who showed up and stood a post. Anyone who showed up and ran supplies for them. Anyone who showed up and helped them tear down fences. Anyone who showed up and helped physically obstruct the BLM's roundup of Bundy cattle. Etc. And there are an awful lot more people who did those things than are currently facing charges. I just cannot get over how extravagantly you are overreaching on the basis of a single outlier case. You seem to think that if a cop had met McVeigh and Nichols in their Ryder truck on the way to Oklahoma City they would have had no choice but to conclude they were just a couple dudes chit chatting about their political views and out for a perfectly legal drive. We aren't even talking about a conspiracy with a hypothetical or speculative end. In both the Bunkerville and Malheur standoffs they did not just agree to obstruct the government and take a step toward doing that, they actually did it, openly, flagrantly, and quite successfully. Hutaree isn't even the only recent militia conspiracy case. The members of the Alaska Peacemaker Militia were convicted of conspiracy offenses at a stage of discussion and organization pretty similar to the Hutaree militia's. They agreed the federal government had no authority. They agreed they would kill agents and judges if they were prosecuted. They sought illegal weapons to accomplish that goal. And they were caught and prosecuted long before they were actually able to achieve that goal. If anything, the Alaska case suggests there may be grounds for a murder conspiracy charge against the guy photographed training his rifle on BLM agents, at least judging by his statement that every single one of them would have been dead if they made single wrong move. Sure sounds like he got together with the other people there and agreed that if the BLM did certain things, they would kill them, and it sure looks like they took a whole bunch of steps to get in a position to do that. Or maybe you're right. Maybe everyone showed up to the same place by pure random chance. Did the same exact things without ever having discussed them with each other. Offered the same public rationales without meeting and agreeing they were there to achieve those rationales. It's a really plausible hypothesis that i think we should explore more deeply. Maybe this is not a standoff at all. Maybe it is a stunning proof of quantum mechanics, and they all just appeared there by pure chance generated by vibrations of subatomic particles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:This right here is a nice summary of the thought process that goes through SovCit heads. They're so desperate to feel like the brave badass that they'll voluntarily screw themselves an others over to make a non-point at some non-offense then, in the same breath, demand that it was their "enemy's" responsibility to let them avoid consequences for their stupidity. How desperate for attention do you have to be for this kind of thing? Actually, this reminds me of an online conversation from a while back with people who were, with hindsight, sovcits (I didn't know there was such a term back then and assumed that they were particularly obnoxious libertarians - which I suppose is about right anyway). Their argument was that they had no relationship with the state because they'd never forged an agreement with it. Their childhood citizenship meant nothing once they became adults, because the change of legal state from child to adult didn't carry with it any legal obligations. The discussion sort of petered out once I observed that, under such circumstances, they then had a responsibility, once they became adults, to either physically leave or rejoin the state. The similarity lies in the fact that they felt no responsibility to do anything - that it was "the state" that had to come to them and ask them if they wanted to "join up" and it was consequently the state's fault that they weren't citizens. e: SlipUp posted:Unrelated to this, but people worrying about handing this with kids gloves because it might inspire attacks have the wrong impression. People like McVeigh or Nichols, wouldn't have just gone on to live normal lives if poo poo like Waco didn't happen. They would've latched on to any incident that conflicted with their narrative whether it was a federal government policy or a speeding ticket. Radicalisation is somewhat circumstantial, though, right? Analysis typically suggests that western adventures in the middle east, especially those involving the deaths of civilians, have increased the risk of terrorist attacks, for example. Even people who possess a natural urge to cause harm still need a trigger, even if it's a delicate one. The idea of being at least somewhat careful is to reduce the risk of more people being radicalised and reduce the risk of those who are already on the brink of "doing something" being tipped over. Perfectly Safe fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:About 74, based on my count of the video. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:Actually, this reminds me of an online conversation from a while back with people who were, with hindsight, sovcits (I didn't know there was such a term back then and assumed that they were particularly obnoxious libertarians - which I suppose is about right anyway). Their argument was that they had no relationship with the state because they'd never forged an agreement with it. Their childhood citizenship meant nothing once they became adults, because the change of legal state from child to adult didn't carry with it any legal obligations. Exactly. It's the worst sort of spoiled brat thinking: nothing's ever my fault, responsibilities/consequences are for other people, and the world always owes me something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I think they're still holding onto the "they shot the SUV with 100 rounds!" claim. Probably because the FBI flash banged it and shot those tear gas rounds so a panickign teenage girl probably did think they were being shot at and all about to die even if that wasn't actually the case They're still holding onto the "LaVoy wasn't armed" lie too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Sealed federal indictments delivered for Bundy and his crew  And more happenings at the refuge: https://twitter.com/JohnLGC/status/695009225462775808 https://twitter.com/JohnLGC/status/695009331649982466 https://twitter.com/JohnLGC/status/695009624047513601 https://twitter.com/JohnLGC/status/695009958157381632 https://twitter.com/JohnLGC/status/695010259287433217
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Hey Bob, Supe had a straight job. I may have been the only person to catch this. What's the counter sign? "Even though he coulda smashed through any bank in the united states"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:They're still holding onto the "LaVoy wasn't armed" lie too. I hope one or more of those troopers had body cameras on as well, since if they did and that footage is able to be released it's going to be in much greater clarity than the skycam. If they don't have body cams then maybe someone can get the militia riled up and demand camera on cops (doubtful).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Lol the fbi called and told them they were worried they were gonna poison themselves by sleeping in their cars with the engine running. Nothing says oppressive killer tyrant government like a concerned wellness/safety check hahahahah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
It's like reminding your five year old to pack their favorite teddy bear when they are filling up a backpack to run away from home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Lol the fbi called and told them they were worried they were gonna poison themselves by sleeping in their cars with the engine running. Honestly, I'm starting to feel kinda bad for the crazy people also.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Lol, David Fry explicitly called the occupiers the "good people" in comparison to the Ferguson and Baltimore protesters during his three hour interview the other day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Haha they're camping in the most pussified way possible, sleeping in running cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
That explains why they didn't seem to really be struggling with the cold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:48
|
|