Never, EVER, give in to Bullies and Terrorists.

[riqster]

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 11:41 AM - Edit history (3)

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/never-ever-give-in-to-bullies-and-terrorists/

"Waaaay back in the day, your humble correspondent was bullied at elementary school. The bullying continued and indeed grew more violent as time went on without punitive action from any source. Finally, I had had enough and the bully got the living s*** beat out of him, after which he stopped bullying my nascent blunt and cranky corpus. He did it as long as it was successful, and stopped bullying when it stopped being successful.

Back in the day, Ronnie Reagan negotiated with Iranian terrorists, giving the lie to our oft-stated “never negotiate with terrorists” policy (you remember the Iran-Contra scandal? That.) and thus encouraged decades of terrorist attacks against the USA: because our weak, two-faced actions did not match our tough rhetoric.

Somewhat later, Russia invaded Georgia, and the Bushistas made all manner of blustering, bellicose threats, none of which they could (or did) back up. So the Neo-Soviets in Moscow went right ahead and stole part of a foreign country, and just recently did it again (Crimea) and is currently doing it yet again as this is being written (Eastern Ukraine). Because the West showed that our big talk was just that: all talk, no walk.

And last weekend, a bunch of mouth-breathing domestic terrorists waved their cheap plastic guns at Federal agents, and the Feds showed their bellies and surrendered. Granted, no one wants bloodshed, but this sets a precedent and sends the same message to these un-American “militia” scumbuckets that Reagan sent to Iran, and Bush sent to Russia. And the results are all too likely to be similar.

Because you cannot reason with the unreasonable. Because humans tend to do this time what worked last time. So the treasonous bastard terrorists in America will say to themselves, “threatening to kill Feds worked so well, let’s do it again”.

Short-term appeasement of violent extremists might seem reasonable in a given moment: but it always ends badly. The BLM officials who caved to violent terrorists have emboldened these white, Teabagging, anti-America, strong-argument-for-retroactive-abortion yahoos, and you can bet they will take the same lesson that bullies and terrorists always do. Those stupid f***s."

Source info at the link.

On edit: I'm not peeved at the lack of gunfire: I'm pissed that the BLM backtracked and gave back the cattle, etc. Not necessary to avoid bloodshed. http://rt.com/usa/nevada-cattle-rachner-row-268/

[el_bryanto]

1. There's some logic there

On the other hand, I can also see the argument that by buying some more time, a more peaceful solution can be find. Whether that solution comes through solid police work that stops potential conspiracies before they start, or whether that means some sort of negotiated situation that takes the wind out of the sails of the movement who can say.

I believe that in any movement like this - the truly unreasonable are not in the majority (although probably the majority of the leadership).

Bryant

[riqster]

2. In this case, the unreasonable are in the saddle:

The thieving ranch owner and his domestic terrorist buddies are the majority of those who were facing down the Feds.

Unfortunately, the doubtless reasonable majority of ranchers and Nevadans had little or no say in the situation, any more than did the majority of Georgians or Ukrainians.

[Nye Bevan]

3. Yeah, let's send troops to Crimea NOW.

The correct response is ALWAYS to storm in with guns blazing.

[riqster]

4. Not what I said.

We have no treaty obligations to Ukraine, so that would be illegal. It's also not a good framing of the analogy:

The BLM agents were not, over the months of actions preceding the events of the past weekend, acting on a militaristic fashion: they were enforcing a court order. That is NOT "storming in with guns blazing".

[Lurks Often]

5. You're right! A bloodbath with a lot of dead people on both sides

is what should have happened!

It's disturbing that some here on DU were so eager to see people on both sides get killed, especially over, in the greater scheme of things, a relatively minor problem.

Someone made the proper decision to de-escalate the situation before people got seriously hurt or killed, because getting a bunch of people killed over grazing rights and a million dollars is NOT going to sell well to the majority of the American people.

[Nye Bevan]

6. I'm sure the widows and families of the fallen officers would have fully understood.

Taxes are important, after all. How does that saying go? Oh yes, "valor is better than discretion".

[riqster]

9. Everyone assumes the militia would have opened fire.

And on the basis of that assumption, that the BLM would have gone all Waco on their asses.

That is an unproven assumption. I believe that the BLM could have continued their lawful, court-ordered activities.

[Lurks Often]

17. The decision to de-escalate the situation remains the correct one

There was nothing there worth risking lives over.

You're betting that EVERYONE present was going to be responsible and reasonable, with lives possibly being at stake, I find that approach overly optimistic and maybe even reckless.

It is very easy for us to sit at our keyboards and say the person in charge should have done things differently, but we're not going to be the one left holding the bag when things go to shit or in a worst case scenario, we won't be the ones that end up dead either.

I wonder how many here would still want to take a hard line approach if they were on site and in uniform.

[riqster]

21. Again, I support not shooting. I do not support returning the cattle,

which is complete capitulation and will further trash the local ecology.

[treestar]

26. Is it complete capitulation?

Remember this has been going on for years. It's not a top priority until the idiot rancher saw his chance for his 15 minutes.

[riqster]

29. It is capitulation.

The rancher employed violent and seditious means, and won.

[treestar]

40. So he'll be able to keep his cattle on that land forever?

Let's see if it turns out that way. The government has taken the position he can stay there as he was because he threatened them with guns?

[riqster]

42. That is the situation on the ground.

Unless and until they act otherwise, the facts as they exist are the policy.

[treestar]

47. It's like legislation

A settlement. You can say they should have stood firm on keeping the cattle, but they were there trying to settle something for right then. I don't think he will end up owning that land in perpetuity. That would constitute total capitulation. It's just a good thing he settled for less than whatever he was demanding, and backed off on starting a pitched battle. Insane as he is, at least he is not as crazy as David Koresh, etc.

[riqster]

51. I hope you are right.

I don't think so, but I DO hope so.

[WhiteTara]

7. They all took an oath to uphold the constitution from enemies

both without and within. I fear this is a starting gate.

[randome]

8. Sure. The next time a hostage has a gun pointed at his/her head, just say goodbye.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[riqster]

11. No guns were pointed at any heads. Only threats.

The situations are not analogous.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. Next time a hostage has a gun pointed at his/her head

just tell the hostage taker to keep him/her because we don't want any violence.

[moondust]

10. Then you approve

of the Branch Davidian and Ruby Ridge operations?

Did the yahoos take any lessons from those? Remember Timothy McVeigh?

[riqster]

12. Not remotely similar.

The situations you describe were federal assaults on existing fortified compounds.

This situation was militia types intruding on an existing operation. Apples and oranges.

[treestar]

24. But supposing one of them had gotten shot?

And died? Janet Reno all over again. And they weren't holding hostages (though at Waco that is arguable).

You can negotiate with terrorists to get out of the immediately threatening situation - then deal with them later. innocent people die and who gets blamed?

[riqster]

27. These are possible outcomes and worthy of consideration.

And I am glad they de-escalated.

I am pissed that the BLM gave the cattle back and dropped decades' worth of legal activity to protect the rangeland and enforce laws. That, if you like, is rewarding terrorists.

[treestar]

41. They aren't terrorists

they were illegally grazing. In a civil matter, they had a dispute and made a settlement. Too man people think settling civil matters amounts to admitting you did wrong. It's a way of getting rid of the dispute. Do we even know the gun toting crowd had anything to do with the temporary settlement they made?

[riqster]

50. The rancher, by allying himself with a domestic terror group, is employing terrorist means.

Backing away from an armed confrontation is not capitulation: giving into a criminal's demands is.

[treestar]

76. Which domestic terror group?

It's legal to have guns (unfortunately). If they go to a protest with their guns, that alone doesn't mean they were going to hurt anybody.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. They are terrorists.

They arrived at a settlement by threatening a bloodbath at the hands of heavily armed militants. That's terrorism in my book.

You honestly believe they would have capitulated like that in the "settlement" without the threat of violence?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. SOCOM is always taking volunteers.

[Crunchy Frog]

67. I have no idea what you're even talking about.

I'm not planning to volunteer to fight terrorists, but I will call them out when I see them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. Well, thank Goodness you are here to defend the republic.

[Crunchy Frog]

69. I'm not defending the republic, just expressing an opinion.

Which I'll keep doing as long as I'm allowed to. Don't know how much longer that will be.

Thank Dog the violent right wing extremists have you to defend them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. Violence? Like when they broke-up OWS?

[riqster]

89. That's an interestiing point.

The Feds whup ass on unarmed Lefties, but cave to heavily-armed Righties. Sends the message that guns = capitulation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. Partly

If the police gave an order to vacate then -- according to some -- OWS was legally obligated to comply. Theoretically, there shouldn't have been any violence because OWS should not have been there once the police arrived.

However, let's assume the police attacked with minimal warning and less provocation. Why? Because they could?

Every endeavor is a risk/benefit analysis.

Was OWS creating a risk? Was there a risk OWS would retaliate? What was the benefit of attacking OWS? What would be the benefit of leaving them undisturbed?

[treestar]

78. So they capitulated too?

From the OP Link:

The authorities said that Bundy still owes taxpayers more than $1 million, and that the government would work to resolve the matter administratively, through the court system.

Several US senators and the state of Nevada this week criticized what has been called the result of an “overreaching” agency acting overzealously, especially after a no-fly zone was enacted for a 3-square-mile area around Bundy's ranch.

As usual. They are "weak" and yet "overreaching" at the same time.

[aikoaiko]

13. I don't think Mr. Blunt and Cranky has been in that many fights since his grade school days

You don't fight the fight if you don't think you win.

Even when you think you can win, you may not wish to fight if it damages you too badly to win.

The BLM will win this issue, but I suspect many of these people claiming they know how to handle bullies probably haven't thrown a punch since the fifth grade.

[randome]

14. Probably right. And also probably never served in anything like federal law enforcement, either.

Armchair quarterbacks and all that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[riqster]

15. Backing away from a gunfight, OK. Giving back the cattle? Stupid.

The degree of capitulation was excessive, and did nothing to avert bloodshed.

http://rt.com/usa/nevada-cattle-rachner-row-268/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. lol - the link says "cattle rachner"

[sarisataka]

52. I will take advice from Mr. Tzu

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.

Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/sun_tzu.html#XDG8ZSlPf5q73E85.99
I like to think the BLM has read the book.

[hollowdweller]

18. The BLM retreat will embolden the crazies.

That said the gov't did the right thing.

OK so Ruby Ridge and Waco led to Oklahoma City which actually dialed back the whole right wing revolution thing.

Right now the NRA and the Republican politicians trying to convince their segment that the gov't is the enemy and they need guns to fight the gov't. This is really to sell memberships and guns and get votes but the people take it dead serious.

After this retreat by the feds expect so see militias starting to form and make the public uncomfortable.

Eventually bullets will fly when some of the more mentally ill members get trigger happy.

At that point it is important for the government to be on the other side, not aggressive when the public outrage comes.

I believe when this happens not only will it pave the way for banning assault weapons but it will so turn the public against the right they will lose the house and senate for a generation or more.

Right now people may not like some of the stuff the gov't does but most people do not want us to have a Civil War or to be ruled by armed gangs. But a lot of the republican grassroots wants exactly that.

It's the gov't responsibility to not get in the way of the general public realizing this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. I always figured B&C was a parody site, now I know that it is --

the Bushistas made all manner of blustering, bellicose threats, none of which they could (or did) back up.

I chortled.

[riqster]

30. Factual rebuttals welcomed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. The fact is the author is guilty of the exact same thing it accuses others of being.

The author may as well have written --

the BLM-istas made all manner of blustering, bellicose threats, none of which they could (or did) back up.

[riqster]

39. Not convincing.

Can you refute the statement that the Bushies threatened Russia over South Ossetia, and that they could do nothing to back up their ill-advised rhetoric?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. .

Can you refute the statement that the Bushies threatened Russia over South Ossetia, and that they could do nothing to back up their ill-advised rhetoric?

I have no intention of refuting that statement. I believe the statement to be absolutely true.

I also believe the author is cut from the same cloth. All this cheering for civil war is nauseating, perpetrated by chickenhawks no different from the neocons.

[quinnox]

20. Ugh, being a primitive caveman whose first answer is violence is not

a very enlightened philosophy. Violence is not the answer.

[riqster]

22. And when violence is directed upon you, what is your answer?

The BLM agents were not the aggressors here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. 9/11 was directed at all Americans but I still suspect our response was an ill-considered one.

And when violence is directed upon you, what is your answer?

http://www.goarmy.com/

[riqster]

31. In that case, we are in agreement.

9/11 became the excuse the Bushistas needed to accomplish a nefarious agenda.

But again, an imperfect analogy.

[quinnox]

32. I'd prefer to talk and negotiate over lobbing some nukes

every time. If someone is actively doing violence, then of course they have to be dealt with, but there was no shooting at this place, so that didn't happen.

[riqster]

37. No shooting is good. Giving back the cattle, not so much.

Kiss that part of the ecosystem goodbye, along with green-lighting other violent responses to lawful court-ordered activity.

http://rt.com/usa/nevada-cattle-rachner-row-268/

[pinboy3niner]

45. Being able to say you were in the right is cold comfort when families are burying their dead

The potential for bloodshed here shouldn't be minimized. Even after the withdrawal announcement, leaders in the state were cautioning that tensions remained extremely high. Bundy supporters already had made one unsuccessful attempt to free the cattle from BLM's cattle pens and the standoff there was growing increasingly tense. That's why, hours after the withdrawal decision, BLM decided to release the cattle.

One of the many news reports I saw even quoted one of Bundy's supporters saying he wasn't sure he could count on the armed protestors not to do something stupid that could precipitate a gun battle.

If withdrawal gave the militias a victory and emboldened them, how much more fired up would they be after a bloody shootout? They'd be waving the bloody shirt and inciting more armed resistance with cries of "Remember Bunkerville!"

[riqster]

49. Possibly. But I contend that a defensive action is not equivalent to an offensive one.

There is never an easy way to handle a difficult situation, of course. But this action is guaranteed to backfire.

Other actions might have worked, or not worked. Picking a course that is definitely going to bite us in the ass? Bad idea.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Remember when Bush was in office and everything the neocons looked at was a terr'ism?

Remember how in those days Progressives cast a weary eye on the government because it threatened to become a thing that swept up the innocent more than actual threats it was probably manufacturing? Remember when we didn't want a militarized society and constant cheering for war by chest-thumpers sitting comfortably in their homes?

I miss those days.

[riqster]

33. No argument there.

But that is not equivalent to encouraging the violent Right to threaten the rest of us with armed violence.

[treestar]

23. If one of them had gotten killed

It would be all about how the federal government failed to handle a civil matter without killing anyone. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. We've seen them be blamed for Waco and that wasn't even a purely civil matter. They can settle this another way.

[riqster]

35. Non-violence is applauded. Rewarding the violent for their behavior is not.

The BLM did not just back away from a gunfight: they reversed decades of work, law and environmental activity into the bargain.

[treestar]

38. Do we know they will end up rewarded for it?

They've been doing it for years and so it's hard to think of it as of total importance. It's still a civil matter. The "reward" is but temporary, if you can call it that.

Hostage negotiators who talk the hostage taker out of the situation negotiate with him. And that's a violent act. This is just civil.

I can't see hoarded of militias doing the same thing. How many civil disputes are there out there with a nutcase willing to start something and enough followers with guns to show up? Unless this becomes a common occurrence, it's probably best they did as they did here.

[riqster]

46. He has already been rewarded. He is getting his cattle back, and will be grazing for free.

To him, it's pretty obvious: point guns at the Feds, and get everything he wants.

[treestar]

74. Did the actually point guns though?

A bunch of NRA nuts with permits still have the right to protest. The government has guns too.

And if they'd used them and one of these jokers were killed, IMO we would be all over the government for doing it. Look at how many anti-cop threads there are every time something happens. DU at least would be full of outrage that the government hadn't found a better way.

Like a say, damned if they do or if they don't.

[IronGate]

81. Point of order.

He didn't get all of the cattle back, he got back the 100 that were in the pens, the BLM had already collected 500 and moved them out, those he didn't get back.

[pinboy3niner]

82. AP reports that BLM released "about" 400

In the last count I saw, the total gather by BLM was up to about 389, so it looks like all of them were released back to Bundy to defuse the very tense and dangerous standoff at the cattle pens.

On Saturday, the bureau released about 400 head of cattle it had seized from Bundy. ....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RANGE_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-04-14-02-08-20

[Hugin]

85. Now if the BLM set a bounty of $500 on each trespassing cow brought in...

Bundy would see the bulk of his supporters fading into the sunset murmuring something about going hunting.

All for around $200,000.

I know, I know... It'll never happen, but, I can still dream.

[IronGate]

86. Thanks, I'd read somewhere that he only got 100 back.

Guess the earlier report was wrong.

[2naSalit]

83. The greatest misfortune in this

is, perhaps, that the BLM didn't plan very well in the first place. They knew this guy was a loudmouthed toad and willing to call up these militia types who did show up... he has been making threats of violence for some time... a similar scenario played out about 17 years ago and the BLM backed down then too.

I think that the issue could be resolved by other means that have yet to be employed, but that is going to take some time to implement when things cool down some. Not all the crazies have slithered back under their rocks yet.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. It stops being a civil matter

as soon as armed thugs start pointing guns and threatening violence as far as I'm concerned.

[treestar]

75. Who pointed a a gun?

As soon as you point a gun at a cop, you're dead. And have a good section of DU that will condemn the cop, not you.

Were they really about to fire or just a bunch of protestors lawfully armed?

I'm for gun control. But while it's legal, they can all protest the same way unarmed ones can. Of what did the "pointing" consist?

[pinboy3niner]

80. Here...

Most of the armed protestors were just carrying, but news photos of one guy in particular have gotten a lot of attention:


Eric Parker, who lives in central Idaho, aims his weapon from a bridge as protesters gather by the Bureau of Land Management's base camp in Bunkerville, Nevada. (Jim Urquhart/Reuters)

Did Eric Parker of Idaho break the law?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024821424

[JoeyT]

88. Wonder if they'll have the guts to arrest that guy for that.

Only the dumbest of libertarians would claim he's well within his rights to point a rifle at LEOs. If they don't arrest him, it'll happen again and again until they finally get one with an itchy trigger finger.

They don't even have to do it in the middle of all this mess. Just go pick him up at his house or on the way back home and charge him with a felony so he can't own guns anymore.

[treestar]

92. Who is he aiming at?

Looks like he is aiming at the other protestors. Or just posing.

NRS 202.290  Aiming firearm at human being; discharging weapon where person might be endangered; penalty.  Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person who willfully:

1.  Aims any gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm, whether loaded or not, at or toward any human being; or

2.  Discharges any firearm, air gun or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby, although an injury does not result,

Ê is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

So he could be arrested for that - there is photo proof of it. Though whether he would have the nerve to aim at a LE agent is another issue. Chances are he wouldn't live very long. And there would be the DUer cadre to claim LE was at fault, fascist and jackbooted, for shooting him dead.

[Hugin]

94. The BLM base was under the bridge on the opposite side of the armed mob.

He was indeed aiming at them through his scope.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Love the fact you say Russia stole part of a foreign country...

Then provide a link to RT.

[riqster]

48. Very well, how about Reuters?

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3B03Q20140412?irpc=932

[randys1]

43. Obama wont risk angering filthy teaparty racists

I am getting so sick of the filthy teaparty America hating racists, maybe this will be the start of a war

they want another one, they are sick, deeply sick people

very bad

and Hannity will provoke a war and get a raise at fox for doing it

America is broken, and the repair may be very painful

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. That sounds exactly like what a RWer expects a liberal to sound like.

maybe this will be the start of a war

Would you be disappointed if it wasn't?

[randys1]

72. do you also call the person who POINTS OUT RACISM

a racist?

nonsense, it isnt the liberals who are denying the president the right to be president

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. Lemme guess

Traffic made you late for work, you misplaced a customer file and the deli screwed-up your order again.

[meanit]

55. Does anybody really think

that these militias have now "made their point", are satisfied and are returning to their homes to hang up their guns?

It's really astonishing that some still do not have a clue as to what kind of people we are dealing with here.

[riqster]

58. Yah, that's part of my OP. Short term is one thing, long term another.

[LittleBlue]

59. Wrong. You don't fight battles to win Pyrrhic victories. Strategy 101

Mass killing of protestors over cattle grazing rights would not only be ridiculously immoral, it would backfire massively. Think Ruby Ridge x 100.

The people advocating action are bold because they have nothing to lose, neither their own lives (like the agents involved) nor political capital. It's depressing to know that so many actually wanted a bloodbath. On edit you say it's about the cattle but that doesn't seem to fit the tone of the article nor your replies.

[riqster]

60. Wrong back atcha.

I do not advocate bloodbaths.

Neither do I like the complete and total capitulation on the part of the BLM. Handing back the cows and allowing the resumption of illegal grazing isn't a victory of any sort for the government.

It IS a triumph of violent intimidation over the rule of law. And it increases the likelihood of other violent domestic terror groups using the same tactics in the future.

[LittleBlue]

61. I do not see capitulation

I see tactical retreat. You don't fight if you can't win.

The BLM's biggest mistake here was letting it get to a point where they gave the impression of backing down. It made them look weak. They are to blame for putting themselves in a lose-lose scenario over something as unimportant as grazing rights.

[riqster]

63. It's not just grazing rights. Environmental considerations are in play.

The damage to a fragile ecosystem caused these Teabagging fuckwits is substantial.

[meanit]

66. What bloodbath?

Because some of us think that we shouldn't bend over for the loony right and take it up to the tonsils again, that is somehow advocating for a bloodbath and a mass killings of ranchers? WTH?

Standing firm on the rule of law is better than negotiating with crooks, thugs and gangsters. If they want to start taking pot shots at federal officers, then the feds have a right to defend themselves.

Cowardly bullies usually take a different tone when you stand up to them.

[Vashta Nerada]

62. I really would not have shed a tear if the militia men were killed by

government officials if shooting occurred.

The bullies proved that any group of idiots with guns can do whatever the hell they want.

[riqster]

64. I agree with the second part of your post, but not the first.

Had these terrorist dickwads gotten killed, the propaganda value would have been considerable among right Wingnuts.

[Crunchy Frog]

70. I'm pretty much in complete agreement. I wouldn't shed a tear either.

My only concern would be the propaganda victory that their "martyrdom" would give them.

[treestar]

77. You'd be in a big debate here on DU

There are some posters who immediately blame the cop/government official when anything happens. Some were mad that Christopher Darden got shot, and he was a murderer, at large, and threatened to kill police.

I'm not one of them but I'm saying you'd run into that sentiment had it happened that way and you took that position.

[Crunchy Frog]

84. People here get angry when unarmed people are shot or brutalized by the police

especially when there was no resistance.

Some dick waving his gun around at a cop? Dead and good riddance as far as I'm concerned. I wish you wouldn't conflate the two scenarios as they are NOT the same.

[treestar]

91. I didn't, I merely discussed the fact there are people

who will not consider LE to be correct in any instance where someone gets hurt. If they wouldn't allow for Darden to be killed by cops, certainly these cattle grazers getting killed or even injured would raise a stink about how evil the LE is.

They already said up front they would wait until they were shot at. And you can bet they'd argue they were the ones shot at first even if they did shoot first. There is definitely a DU cadre that always find LE to be in the wrong.

[Phlem]

79. Been raised by a bully, I have

the PTSD to prove it. After I nearly beat the shit out of my step father (cause my real father wanted my mom to have an abortion), the mouth went into high gear. It was his house after all, and I did manage to get one of his blood kids off of him as they fought while he stayed with us...

You can never give into bullies, end it quick and save yourself.

I promise they don't give a SHIT about you!!!

-p

[ZombieHorde]

87. How do you determine who the bullies were? nt

[riqster]

90. The usual standard is that they use violence and the threats thereof to achieve their extralegal aim

Works pretty well here.

[ZombieHorde]

96. So both sides are bullies? nt

[riqster]

97. Oh, fuck no.

The BLM agents were executing lawful court orders. Thus they were not bullies.

[ZombieHorde]

98. So if your threats of violence are legal, then you're not being a bully?

Knowing some of the laws around the world, including the US, the law seems like a strange compass for morality. Especially if we use a historical context.

[Puzzledtraveller]

99. It's easy

It's based on who you like, and who you dislike. We hate Bundy, he's the bully, it's that simple.

[ZombieHorde]

100. Hey, that is pretty easy. nt

[tblue37]

93. The feds should use pics and videos to identify the armed teabaggers and

pursue them for obstructing federal officers in the performance of their duties.

[riqster]

95. Here's hoping.

That would be an application of Sun Tzu, as suggested upthread.

But so far, nothing indicates any such actions.

[randys1]

101. Yes, teaparty supporters should be in jail

But cattle, turtles, land, nah, to them this is SOLELY about brown skin on Prez

to the rancher, he is just a lazy freeloader like most corp CEO's and wall streeters

But to the teaparty, this is about a white racist like them saying hell no to that Black prez they hate

[riqster]

103. Truth:

"But to the teaparty, this is about a white racist like them saying hell no to that Black prez they hate."

[randys1]

104. ACA Benghazi Fast/Furious Cattle Food Stamps etc

none of their opposition has anything to do with the issues, not one scintilla

it is solely about Black skin in White House