Response to Oregon Militia Standoff Reveals Stark Double Standards

[Old Rocks]

That good ole "liberal media"

If you depend on the corporate media for your news, you may not have heard that 150 gun-toting militia are claiming U.S. government property for themselves. Social media users observing the media’s response to the armed takeover of a federal building by right-wing militia over the weekend are pointing out obvious double standards in how the media is treating white, right-wing militia members compared to black protesters.

Floyd‏@FloydXXI
Men with REAL weapons are being negotiated with, while #TamirRice, a young boy with a fake gun was shot right away...? #OregonUnderAttack

Hey @ABC I fixed that typo for you #OregonStandoff #OregonUnderAttack


How @AP covers the armed takeover of a federal building by white militia members

Glenda TheGoodBitch @jstcallmesweet
So what qualifies you as a "militia"? Cause last time I checked 150 men with semi automatic weapons in my hood is a gang #OregonUnderAttack


D.B.Anderson @DBAnderson1
I demand to see 24 hour/7 day coverage of #OregonUnderAttack on @CNN. Wolf Blitzer needs to use the word "thugs" & "terrorists" repeatedly

And why should we be worried when a bunch of wannabe militias take over an abandoned building out in the middle of nowhere.

Not an abandoned building at all. It was empty for the holiday weekend. Those outsiders best give up quick. The longer they cause trouble, the more that the locals may be inclined to remove them on their own.

 

[bodecea]

That good ole "liberal media"

If you depend on the corporate media for your news, you may not have heard that 150 gun-toting militia are claiming U.S. government property for themselves. Social media users observing the media’s response to the armed takeover of a federal building by right-wing militia over the weekend are pointing out obvious double standards in how the media is treating white, right-wing militia members compared to black protesters.

Floyd‏@FloydXXI
Men with REAL weapons are being negotiated with, while #TamirRice, a young boy with a fake gun was shot right away...? #OregonUnderAttack

Hey @ABC I fixed that typo for you #OregonStandoff #OregonUnderAttack


How @AP covers the armed takeover of a federal building by white militia members

Glenda TheGoodBitch @jstcallmesweet
So what qualifies you as a "militia"? Cause last time I checked 150 men with semi automatic weapons in my hood is a gang #OregonUnderAttack


D.B.Anderson @DBAnderson1
I demand to see 24 hour/7 day coverage of #OregonUnderAttack on @CNN. Wolf Blitzer needs to use the word "thugs" & "terrorists" repeatedly

And why should we be worried when a bunch of wannabe militias take over an abandoned building out in the middle of nowhere.

Not an abandoned building at all. It was empty for the holiday weekend. Those outsiders best give up quick. The longer they cause trouble, the more that the locals may be inclined to remove them on their own.

I still say, build a big fence around it and charge it to Daddy....tho, I must confess, Daddy is already a well-known dead-beat.

 

[OKTexas]

I read an article that said people are calling those nutters Yallqaeda and that they are committing Yeehawd. Funny stuff.

So why are you regressives refusing to acknowledge the constitutional issues these folks are bring up? Have you ever bothered to read Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 which describes the lands and for what purposes the congress may exercise its legislative authority over? The concerns these citizens are bring up are legitimate and ones I have been talking to my congresscritters about for years.

The issue here is that they have invaded Federal lands carrying weapons. They have threatened local law officers with the same. What should be done is that the Refuge be surrounded with National Guard and appropriate law officials, no one in or out until the crazies surrender. Cameras should be set up, and any that point a weapon at the National Guard or law officers should face assault with a deadly charges. All weapons should be confiscated and destroyed, and their vehicles confiscated and sold to cover costs.

So you have no problem with the feds having land that they have no constitutional right to have?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This clause defines the rightful use of land by the federal government, where do they get the authority within this definition to have wildlife refuges or national parks or any other lands not necessary to the function of the government itself?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ammon Bundy was just on the news. No longer claiming it is about the Hammond's, but claiming that they are taking back land stolen by the government from the people. So, they came there from the start to cause trouble, not to help the Hammond's. And those lands belong to all of us. I hope the lot of these assholes get more than ten years at hard labor.

 

[Old Rocks]

I read an article that said people are calling those nutters Yallqaeda and that they are committing Yeehawd. Funny stuff.

So why are you regressives refusing to acknowledge the constitutional issues these folks are bring up? Have you ever bothered to read Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 which describes the lands and for what purposes the congress may exercise its legislative authority over? The concerns these citizens are bring up are legitimate and ones I have been talking to my congresscritters about for years.

The issue here is that they have invaded Federal lands carrying weapons. They have threatened local law officers with the same. What should be done is that the Refuge be surrounded with National Guard and appropriate law officials, no one in or out until the crazies surrender. Cameras should be set up, and any that point a weapon at the National Guard or law officers should face assault with a deadly charges. All weapons should be confiscated and destroyed, and their vehicles confiscated and sold to cover costs.

So you have no problem with the feds having land that they have no constitutional right to have?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This clause defines the rightful use of land by the federal government, where do they get the authority within this definition to have wildlife refuges or national parks or any other lands not necessary to the function of the government itself?

Ah, shut it up, you mindless asshole. That Refuge has been there since Teddy Roosevelt and is loved by all that have ever visited it. Stupid bastards like you would sell off our National Parks for idiot Disneyland imitations. You, and the other nihilistic bastards have no say. The sane Americans will continue to enjoy the special places that are preserved for our descendents.

 

[boilermaker55]

Making this statement you are the dingleberry!

What do righties say in all the black lives threads ? "Just shut up and do what the cops say ."

Sorry Timmy, different rules for different people. Its the American way

wrong again, dingleberry. equal justice for all, no special treatment, no AA, no set asides, everyone equal, equal application of the law. Hillary held to the same standards as any American who has ever held a security clearance.

 

[boilermaker55]

So, Native Americans should ban together and take back anyone's property. If that is their consensus that the land was stolen from them. Then the land was stolen from the Native Americans.
Damn men,(Native Americans), band together and take anyone's property.
Open up a Pandora's Box. here, you teabaggers.

Ammon Bundy was just on the news. No longer claiming it is about the Hammond's, but claiming that they are taking back land stolen by the government from the people. So, they came there from the start to cause trouble, not to help the Hammond's. And those lands belong to all of us. I hope the lot of these assholes get more than ten years at hard labor.

 

[OKTexas]

I read an article that said people are calling those nutters Yallqaeda and that they are committing Yeehawd. Funny stuff.

So why are you regressives refusing to acknowledge the constitutional issues these folks are bring up? Have you ever bothered to read Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 which describes the lands and for what purposes the congress may exercise its legislative authority over? The concerns these citizens are bring up are legitimate and ones I have been talking to my congresscritters about for years.

The issue here is that they have invaded Federal lands carrying weapons. They have threatened local law officers with the same. What should be done is that the Refuge be surrounded with National Guard and appropriate law officials, no one in or out until the crazies surrender. Cameras should be set up, and any that point a weapon at the National Guard or law officers should face assault with a deadly charges. All weapons should be confiscated and destroyed, and their vehicles confiscated and sold to cover costs.

So you have no problem with the feds having land that they have no constitutional right to have?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This clause defines the rightful use of land by the federal government, where do they get the authority within this definition to have wildlife refuges or national parks or any other lands not necessary to the function of the government itself?

Ah, shut it up, you mindless asshole. That Refuge has been there since Teddy Roosevelt and is loved by all that have ever visited it. Stupid bastards like you would sell off our National Parks for idiot Disneyland imitations. You, and the other nihilistic bastards have no say. The sane Americans will continue to enjoy the special places that are preserved for our descendents.

Long standing wrongs don't make it right, you want national parks and all the other bullshit, amend the Constitution, that's what article 5 is for. Your little ad hom rant just says, yes I'm wrong, but I don't care. Typical regressive, no respect for what is supposed to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Now with that said, do you care to actually answer the questions or do you prefer to continue to act like a child?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

That good ole "liberal media"

If you depend on the corporate media for your news, you may not have heard that 150 gun-toting militia are claiming U.S. government property for themselves. Social media users observing the media’s response to the armed takeover of a federal building by right-wing militia over the weekend are pointing out obvious double standards in how the media is treating white, right-wing militia members compared to black protesters.

Floyd‏@FloydXXI
Men with REAL weapons are being negotiated with, while #TamirRice, a young boy with a fake gun was shot right away...? #OregonUnderAttack

Hey @ABC I fixed that typo for you #OregonStandoff #OregonUnderAttack


How @AP covers the armed takeover of a federal building by white militia members

Glenda TheGoodBitch @jstcallmesweet
So what qualifies you as a "militia"? Cause last time I checked 150 men with semi automatic weapons in my hood is a gang #OregonUnderAttack


D.B.Anderson @DBAnderson1
I demand to see 24 hour/7 day coverage of #OregonUnderAttack on @CNN. Wolf Blitzer needs to use the word "thugs" & "terrorists" repeatedly

And why should we be worried when a bunch of wannabe militias take over an abandoned building out in the middle of nowhere.

Not an abandoned building at all. It was empty for the holiday weekend. Those outsiders best give up quick. The longer they cause trouble, the more that the locals may be inclined to remove them on their own.

Round em up. If they're just rogueing around stirring up trouble, I've got no use for them. The locals know.

 

[koshergrl]

I read an article that said people are calling those nutters Yallqaeda and that they are committing Yeehawd. Funny stuff.

So why are you regressives refusing to acknowledge the constitutional issues these folks are bring up? Have you ever bothered to read Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 which describes the lands and for what purposes the congress may exercise its legislative authority over? The concerns these citizens are bring up are legitimate and ones I have been talking to my congresscritters about for years.

The issue here is that they have invaded Federal lands carrying weapons. They have threatened local law officers with the same. What should be done is that the Refuge be surrounded with National Guard and appropriate law officials, no one in or out until the crazies surrender. Cameras should be set up, and any that point a weapon at the National Guard or law officers should face assault with a deadly charges. All weapons should be confiscated and destroyed, and their vehicles confiscated and sold to cover costs.

So you have no problem with the feds having land that they have no constitutional right to have?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This clause defines the rightful use of land by the federal government, where do they get the authority within this definition to have wildlife refuges or national parks or any other lands not necessary to the function of the government itself?

Ah, shut it up, you mindless asshole. That Refuge has been there since Teddy Roosevelt and is loved by all that have ever visited it. Stupid bastards like you would sell off our National Parks for idiot Disneyland imitations. You, and the other nihilistic bastards have no say. The sane Americans will continue to enjoy the special places that are preserved for our descendents.

The sane Americans are enjoying it now. Why don't you head over there, statist, and blab your stupidity in the streets of burns?

 

[koshergrl]

That good ole "liberal media"

If you depend on the corporate media for your news, you may not have heard that 150 gun-toting militia are claiming U.S. government property for themselves. Social media users observing the media’s response to the armed takeover of a federal building by right-wing militia over the weekend are pointing out obvious double standards in how the media is treating white, right-wing militia members compared to black protesters.

Floyd‏@FloydXXI
Men with REAL weapons are being negotiated with, while #TamirRice, a young boy with a fake gun was shot right away...? #OregonUnderAttack

Hey @ABC I fixed that typo for you #OregonStandoff #OregonUnderAttack


How @AP covers the armed takeover of a federal building by white militia members

Glenda TheGoodBitch @jstcallmesweet
So what qualifies you as a "militia"? Cause last time I checked 150 men with semi automatic weapons in my hood is a gang #OregonUnderAttack


D.B.Anderson @DBAnderson1
I demand to see 24 hour/7 day coverage of #OregonUnderAttack on @CNN. Wolf Blitzer needs to use the word "thugs" & "terrorists" repeatedly

And why should we be worried when a bunch of wannabe militias take over an abandoned building out in the middle of nowhere.

Not an abandoned building at all. It was empty for the holiday weekend. Those outsiders best give up quick. The longer they cause trouble, the more that the locals may be inclined to remove them on their own.

Round em up. If they're just rogueing around stirring up trouble, I've got no use for them. The locals know.

The trouble is already there, and I haven't heard the locals speak out against them.

 

[koshergrl]

Harney county residents have been hounded and shit on by blm pigs for decades. People are sick of it...a people who aren't Fed at the state through are sick of it.

And not one Harney County resident is out in the Refuge. According the Ammon Bundy, they could get no locals to go with them at all. In fact, at one point they wanted to occupy the courthouse, then realized that the locals would pull there scuzzy asses out of there and stomp on them. So after the justified peaceful protest, they went down and occupied a federal building.

These people are crazies that just want bloodshed, and now face criminal trespass charges. They care nothing at all about the residents of Harney County, no more than you do, Kosher. They are outsiders, good for nothing bastards.

Where's your source for that, loser?

 

[koshergrl]

I read an article that said people are calling those nutters Yallqaeda and that they are committing Yeehawd. Funny stuff.

So why are you regressives refusing to acknowledge the constitutional issues these folks are bring up? Have you ever bothered to read Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 which describes the lands and for what purposes the congress may exercise its legislative authority over? The concerns these citizens are bring up are legitimate and ones I have been talking to my congresscritters about for years.

The issue here is that they have invaded Federal lands carrying weapons. They have threatened local law officers with the same. What should be done is that the Refuge be surrounded with National Guard and appropriate law officials, no one in or out until the crazies surrender. Cameras should be set up, and any that point a weapon at the National Guard or law officers should face assault with a deadly charges. All weapons should be confiscated and destroyed, and their vehicles confiscated and sold to cover costs.

So you have no problem with the feds having land that they have no constitutional right to have?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This clause defines the rightful use of land by the federal government, where do they get the authority within this definition to have wildlife refuges or national parks or any other lands not necessary to the function of the government itself?

Ah, shut it up, you mindless asshole. That Refuge has been there since Teddy Roosevelt and is loved by all that have ever visited it. Stupid bastards like you would sell off our National Parks for idiot Disneyland imitations. You, and the other nihilistic bastards have no say. The sane Americans will continue to enjoy the special places that are preserved for our descendents.

Long standing wrongs don't make it right, you want national parks and all the other bullshit, amend the Constitution, that's what article 5 is for. Your little ad hom rant just says, yes I'm wrong, but I don't care. Typical regressive, no respect for what is supposed to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Now with that said, do you care to actually answer the questions or do you prefer to continue to act like a child?

Or is a statist, a traitor, a liar and a puke. He approves of tyranny in all its forms because he's too big a loser to afford the lifestyle he wants unless the state forces other people to provide it for him.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So why are you regressives refusing to acknowledge the constitutional issues these folks are bring up? Have you ever bothered to read Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 which describes the lands and for what purposes the congress may exercise its legislative authority over? The concerns these citizens are bring up are legitimate and ones I have been talking to my congresscritters about for years.

The issue here is that they have invaded Federal lands carrying weapons. They have threatened local law officers with the same. What should be done is that the Refuge be surrounded with National Guard and appropriate law officials, no one in or out until the crazies surrender. Cameras should be set up, and any that point a weapon at the National Guard or law officers should face assault with a deadly charges. All weapons should be confiscated and destroyed, and their vehicles confiscated and sold to cover costs.

So you have no problem with the feds having land that they have no constitutional right to have?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This clause defines the rightful use of land by the federal government, where do they get the authority within this definition to have wildlife refuges or national parks or any other lands not necessary to the function of the government itself?

Ah, shut it up, you mindless asshole. That Refuge has been there since Teddy Roosevelt and is loved by all that have ever visited it. Stupid bastards like you would sell off our National Parks for idiot Disneyland imitations. You, and the other nihilistic bastards have no say. The sane Americans will continue to enjoy the special places that are preserved for our descendents.

Long standing wrongs don't make it right, you want national parks and all the other bullshit, amend the Constitution, that's what article 5 is for. Your little ad hom rant just says, yes I'm wrong, but I don't care. Typical regressive, no respect for what is supposed to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Now with that said, do you care to actually answer the questions or do you prefer to continue to act like a child?

Or is a statist, a traitor, a liar and a puke. He approves of tyranny in all its forms because he's too big a loser to afford the lifestyle he wants unless the state forces other people to provide it for him.

How many of these terrorist yeehawdists did you service at the truck stop?

 

[OKTexas]

The issue here is that they have invaded Federal lands carrying weapons. They have threatened local law officers with the same. What should be done is that the Refuge be surrounded with National Guard and appropriate law officials, no one in or out until the crazies surrender. Cameras should be set up, and any that point a weapon at the National Guard or law officers should face assault with a deadly charges. All weapons should be confiscated and destroyed, and their vehicles confiscated and sold to cover costs.

So you have no problem with the feds having land that they have no constitutional right to have?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This clause defines the rightful use of land by the federal government, where do they get the authority within this definition to have wildlife refuges or national parks or any other lands not necessary to the function of the government itself?

Ah, shut it up, you mindless asshole. That Refuge has been there since Teddy Roosevelt and is loved by all that have ever visited it. Stupid bastards like you would sell off our National Parks for idiot Disneyland imitations. You, and the other nihilistic bastards have no say. The sane Americans will continue to enjoy the special places that are preserved for our descendents.

Long standing wrongs don't make it right, you want national parks and all the other bullshit, amend the Constitution, that's what article 5 is for. Your little ad hom rant just says, yes I'm wrong, but I don't care. Typical regressive, no respect for what is supposed to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Now with that said, do you care to actually answer the questions or do you prefer to continue to act like a child?

Or is a statist, a traitor, a liar and a puke. He approves of tyranny in all its forms because he's too big a loser to afford the lifestyle he wants unless the state forces other people to provide it for him.

How many of these terrorist yeehawdists did you service at the truck stop?

You have no room to talk coward, you ran away when I asked you the same question as old rocks. You want to give it a shot now or are you going to run away again?

 

[PredFan]

Occupy Wall Street does it, the OP is ok with that, union terrorists do it in Wisconsin, the OP is ok with that, the black panthers do it at a POLLING BOOTH, and that's ok too.

There is a glaring double standard here and it isn't the stupid point that the OP is trying to make.

OWS does what?

Is this where you attempt to call an armed takeover the same thing as an unarmed protest?

Aw yiss! The same thing fairy strikes again

It's the same thing. They are protesting. I know, it doesn't fit what you want it to be but your desire doesn't change the facts. Unlike the unions and the BLM and the OWS, no one is destroying anything.

 

[Timmy]

sooner or later these BLM heros who insist on playing soldier/hero are going to get their way and a Blackhawk will scrape a bridge or building with 20,000 rounds of .50's and the military hero bullshit will come to a screeching halt.

Wow, so you are one of the nutters that gets their rocks off seeing their fellow Americans massacred by the government... like Clinton did in Waco.


Just remember, you could be next.

Liberals never think it will be them....until it is them.

Liberals are rooting for us to have a government like Mao's China because they think there Speshul and will be worshiped for overthrowing the USA

Please.

It's conservatives who cheer the jack boots.....so long as they are hassling brown faces .

 

[Timmy]

Occupy Wall Street does it, the OP is ok with that, union terrorists do it in Wisconsin, the OP is ok with that, the black panthers do it at a POLLING BOOTH, and that's ok too.

There is a glaring double standard here and it isn't the stupid point that the OP is trying to make.

OWS does what?

Is this where you attempt to call an armed takeover the same thing as an unarmed protest?

Aw yiss! The same thing fairy strikes again

It's the same thing. They are protesting. I know, it doesn't fit what you want it to be but your desire doesn't change the facts. Unlike the unions and the BLM and the OWS, no one is destroying anything.

Being armed to the teeth is not a peaceful protest .

 

[TheOldSchool]

So you have no problem with the feds having land that they have no constitutional right to have?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

This clause defines the rightful use of land by the federal government, where do they get the authority within this definition to have wildlife refuges or national parks or any other lands not necessary to the function of the government itself?

Ah, shut it up, you mindless asshole. That Refuge has been there since Teddy Roosevelt and is loved by all that have ever visited it. Stupid bastards like you would sell off our National Parks for idiot Disneyland imitations. You, and the other nihilistic bastards have no say. The sane Americans will continue to enjoy the special places that are preserved for our descendents.

Long standing wrongs don't make it right, you want national parks and all the other bullshit, amend the Constitution, that's what article 5 is for. Your little ad hom rant just says, yes I'm wrong, but I don't care. Typical regressive, no respect for what is supposed to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Now with that said, do you care to actually answer the questions or do you prefer to continue to act like a child?

Or is a statist, a traitor, a liar and a puke. He approves of tyranny in all its forms because he's too big a loser to afford the lifestyle he wants unless the state forces other people to provide it for him.

How many of these terrorist yeehawdists did you service at the truck stop?

You have no room to talk coward, you ran away when I asked you the same question as old rocks. You want to give it a shot now or are you going to run away again?

Any merit their point may have had was ceded when they threatened law enforcement with deadly force and captured a federal building. You terrorist sympathizing coward.

 

[OKTexas]

Ah, shut it up, you mindless asshole. That Refuge has been there since Teddy Roosevelt and is loved by all that have ever visited it. Stupid bastards like you would sell off our National Parks for idiot Disneyland imitations. You, and the other nihilistic bastards have no say. The sane Americans will continue to enjoy the special places that are preserved for our descendents.

Long standing wrongs don't make it right, you want national parks and all the other bullshit, amend the Constitution, that's what article 5 is for. Your little ad hom rant just says, yes I'm wrong, but I don't care. Typical regressive, no respect for what is supposed to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Now with that said, do you care to actually answer the questions or do you prefer to continue to act like a child?

Or is a statist, a traitor, a liar and a puke. He approves of tyranny in all its forms because he's too big a loser to afford the lifestyle he wants unless the state forces other people to provide it for him.

How many of these terrorist yeehawdists did you service at the truck stop?

You have no room to talk coward, you ran away when I asked you the same question as old rocks. You want to give it a shot now or are you going to run away again?

Any merit their point may have had was ceded when they threatened law enforcement with deadly force and captured a federal building. You terrorist sympathizing coward.

Exactly who are they terrorizing? They are citizens, on public land, petitioning their government for a redress of grievances. From what I've seen so far they are simply exercising their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, no matter how you pantywaists are trying to spin it. I guess you regressives only support civil disobedience for causes you support, that's, so you.

But it is nice of you to admit they have merit to their point.