Ok so I get the part where a bunch of people seized federal property at gun point. But that was days ago. Why is this still news? This shouldnt be a story. We know exactly what to do in this situation and its a really simple solution.
Kill Them.
Its not any harder or more complicated than that. I've decided the Republicans are right for once. This is what they believe, and I back them 100%
Now I know what your saying, we cant just outright kill a bunch of American Citizens can we?
You god damn right we can.
“Americans who choose to go [...] to fight with [...] terrorists are party to a terrorist organization committing horrific acts of violence [...] There can be no clearer renunciation of their citizenship in the United States, and we need to do everything we can to preempt any attempt on their part to [...]carry out further attacks on American civilians.”
That would be Senator Ted Cruz, currently the #2 in the polls in the Republican party. It was a part of a speech he gave trying to get his Expatriate Terrorists Act passed into law. The bill was also sponsored by Representative Steve King.
And he's not alone. Back in 2012, Senators Joe Liberman (I) and Scott Brown (R) and Repersentives Charlie Dent and Jason Altmire (both Republicans) introduced the
Enemy Expatriation Act to do the same as Cruz's bill.
Lets kill these bastards.
Now to be fair as I'm sure youve noticed, there IS a catch here, both the examples require the people in question to be affiliated with terrorists.
Again, not really a big problem. Per the FBI heres the definition of terrorism
"an act calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct and Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon)"
Hmm maybe its just me, but seems to me a group that claims to be 150 armed people taking over a federal building through threat of force would probably qualify....in fact even the 12 or so that actually appear to be there would qualify.
Though I guess it really depends on what the armed lunatics want......and to be fair it seems thats a bit up in the air.
First they said they did it because the government screwed a couple of farmers by extending their jail sentences......but then those farmers told them to go fuck off.
So then they said they were doing it because the federal government took the land illegally...presumably back in 1909 when the park was first created. Not sure why they decided only after 107 years that this was a problem.....especially since its pretty clearly not their land as the group mostly comes from Nevada, which Im pretty sure doesnt even share a border with Oregon.
However both reasons are about attempting to change federal policy through violence, so lets kill them already.
And actually turns out none of this really matters anyways.I turn, as all good republicans do, to the Founders to see what they would have done
Lucky for me that the first time a group of people took up arms against government policy in the Whisky Rebellion, no less a founding father than then-President George Washington personally led an army to try to kill them. And he didnt even claim he was revoking any rights, or that they were terrorists,....he just did it. SO I think Im on pretty solid ground here so
Ok, look I know what your saying, "dont they need to do something violent" before we can kill them?
Not partially. After all we did just decide as a country that we can shoot a 12 year old black kid with a toy gun......because we thought he was an adult carrying a real gun.....in a state in which is perfectly legal to be an adult waving a gun around.
But, even if you decide you want to stand firm on the violence thing, this guys are happen to oblige you. Theyve made it known that if the police/FBI or anyone else attempt to remove them, they will kill them.
Now as we saw with Quintonio LeGrier. Eric Garner and Trayvon Martian if you do anything (like say walk towards them) to make law enforcement (or anyone else) think you might even possibly sorta kinda be a threat, they are entitled to kill you.Again, not really a big problem. Per the FBI heres the definition of terrorism
"an act calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct and Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon)"
Hmm maybe its just me, but seems to me a group that claims to be 150 armed people taking over a federal building through threat of force would probably qualify....in fact even the 12 or so that actually appear to be there would qualify.
Though I guess it really depends on what the armed lunatics want......and to be fair it seems thats a bit up in the air.
First they said they did it because the government screwed a couple of farmers by extending their jail sentences......but then those farmers told them to go fuck off.
So then they said they were doing it because the federal government took the land illegally...presumably back in 1909 when the park was first created. Not sure why they decided only after 107 years that this was a problem.....especially since its pretty clearly not their land as the group mostly comes from Nevada, which Im pretty sure doesnt even share a border with Oregon.
However both reasons are about attempting to change federal policy through violence, so lets kill them already.
And actually turns out none of this really matters anyways.I turn, as all good republicans do, to the Founders to see what they would have done
Lucky for me that the first time a group of people took up arms against government policy in the Whisky Rebellion, no less a founding father than then-President George Washington personally led an army to try to kill them. And he didnt even claim he was revoking any rights, or that they were terrorists,....he just did it. SO I think Im on pretty solid ground here so
Ok, look I know what your saying, "dont they need to do something violent" before we can kill them?
Not partially. After all we did just decide as a country that we can shoot a 12 year old black kid with a toy gun......because we thought he was an adult carrying a real gun.....in a state in which is perfectly legal to be an adult waving a gun around.
But, even if you decide you want to stand firm on the violence thing, this guys are happen to oblige you. Theyve made it known that if the police/FBI or anyone else attempt to remove them, they will kill them.
Or as Jeb Bush put it
"In every community where you have these cases, the elected officials and the police chief need to engage with the community to rebuild trust, but the process worked. If there's a grand jury that looks at all the facts and doesn't indict maybe there’s reasons for that"
And he's 100% right.....the reason is we have decided we can kill people if they act violent. Well these guys are making direct threats to kill people.
So lets kill the motherfuckers already and move on with our lives? Whats the god damn hold up?
Now I would like to point out, I am saying KILL not shoot.
Because I actually DONT think we should shoot these people, and I'll explain why.
As Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have pointed out, we the government need to keep an eye or dangerous people, including their family members, the houses of whorship and any and all websites they visit.
This should all be done in the name of ensuring we stop spreading their ideology.
Well in this case, these people seem to strongly believe their guns will protect them from harm....that they can "use their guns to protect themselves from the government" if you will.
Now honestly, we the american people are responsible for pushing this dangerous ideology because you see, every time something like this happens, we always approach it from the direction of diplomacy. We try to talk these guys down....and by doing so we empower them. We teach them we are weak and we can be cowed by just a couple of guns. We teach them that guns make them the boss.
Hell this very same group of terrorist pulled this same stunt before in Nevada, they showed up with guns to try to stop federal authorities from enforcing US law there too....and were able to get the government to negotiate with them for months.
And we can all see where this weak willed leading from behind got us.
Plus even when the negotiations go south, as they did at Ruby Ridge and Waco, we attack with equal and reasonable force. Yet these kinds of things keep happening. So the way I see it we have only one option left, as we need to show these people how strong and how tough we are and that option is:
Overwhelming Force. Which I think in this case means Drone Strikes. Lets flex our muscle and show these terrorists who they are dealing with.
And its got the nice advantage of teaching these terrorists the truth....your puny ass guns aint going to protect you from shit and its time for you to stop preying on the politeness of the american people.
Because I actually DONT think we should shoot these people, and I'll explain why.
As Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have pointed out, we the government need to keep an eye or dangerous people, including their family members, the houses of whorship and any and all websites they visit.
This should all be done in the name of ensuring we stop spreading their ideology.
Well in this case, these people seem to strongly believe their guns will protect them from harm....that they can "use their guns to protect themselves from the government" if you will.
Now honestly, we the american people are responsible for pushing this dangerous ideology because you see, every time something like this happens, we always approach it from the direction of diplomacy. We try to talk these guys down....and by doing so we empower them. We teach them we are weak and we can be cowed by just a couple of guns. We teach them that guns make them the boss.
Hell this very same group of terrorist pulled this same stunt before in Nevada, they showed up with guns to try to stop federal authorities from enforcing US law there too....and were able to get the government to negotiate with them for months.
And we can all see where this weak willed leading from behind got us.
Plus even when the negotiations go south, as they did at Ruby Ridge and Waco, we attack with equal and reasonable force. Yet these kinds of things keep happening. So the way I see it we have only one option left, as we need to show these people how strong and how tough we are and that option is:
Overwhelming Force. Which I think in this case means Drone Strikes. Lets flex our muscle and show these terrorists who they are dealing with.
And its got the nice advantage of teaching these terrorists the truth....your puny ass guns aint going to protect you from shit and its time for you to stop preying on the politeness of the american people.
And it shouldnt stop there either. As Donald Trump has correctly pointed out
“You look at the attack [...] the other day — numerous people, [...] knew what was going on, [...]They saw ammunition all over the place. They knew exactly what was going on.”
“I would be very, very firm with families, Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”
So lets drop a drone on the Cliven Bundy ranch too, and the houses of anyone else who happens to be part of this group.
Its in the best interest of national security after all. And like I said, we totally do this shit all the time.
Like for example in 1985 the police in Philadelphia tried to evict one of these groups called MOVE, who were a militant black rights group, from their own building, and when the group resisted, a gunfight started....so the cops ended it by bombing the joint. And actually not only the one place....they actually managed to take out 65 homes.
Thats all I'm saying we do here. Overwhelming fire power.
Now I have a confession to make, as you may have noticed most of the quotes I've used so far are edited. I specifically removed the parts that referenced Muslims, ISIS and radical Islam. But the people in question overall opinion of what should be done with terrorists remained as I showed it.
So clearly they are all calling for the same thing with this group?
No actually not so much:
Per Ted Cruz:
"There is no reason for the federal government to own huge portions of any state, Mike pointed out to me that the value of all that federal land was roughly $14 trillion. At the time, the national debt also happened to be $14 trillion. That suggested to us an obvious and elegant solution for eliminating the debt and moving as much land as possible -- other than national parks -- into private hands."
“You look at the attack [...] the other day — numerous people, [...] knew what was going on, [...]They saw ammunition all over the place. They knew exactly what was going on.”
“I would be very, very firm with families, Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”
So lets drop a drone on the Cliven Bundy ranch too, and the houses of anyone else who happens to be part of this group.
Its in the best interest of national security after all. And like I said, we totally do this shit all the time.
Like for example in 1985 the police in Philadelphia tried to evict one of these groups called MOVE, who were a militant black rights group, from their own building, and when the group resisted, a gunfight started....so the cops ended it by bombing the joint. And actually not only the one place....they actually managed to take out 65 homes.
Thats all I'm saying we do here. Overwhelming fire power.
Now I have a confession to make, as you may have noticed most of the quotes I've used so far are edited. I specifically removed the parts that referenced Muslims, ISIS and radical Islam. But the people in question overall opinion of what should be done with terrorists remained as I showed it.
So clearly they are all calling for the same thing with this group?
No actually not so much:
Per Ted Cruz:
"There is no reason for the federal government to own huge portions of any state, Mike pointed out to me that the value of all that federal land was roughly $14 trillion. At the time, the national debt also happened to be $14 trillion. That suggested to us an obvious and elegant solution for eliminating the debt and moving as much land as possible -- other than national parks -- into private hands."
Or Rand Paul:
"There is a legitimate constitutional question here about whether the state should be in charge of endangered species or whether the federal government should be.”
Actually in fairness to both of those guys neither of those quotes is actually from this standoff......they are from the LAST one this same group pulled in Nevada in 2014. But at least, this time they arnt claiming the terrorists might have a valid point worth listening too.
This time around, if you want that kind of support you have to go to Marco Rubio:
"There are states… that are dominated by the federal government in terms of land holding and we should fix it, but no one should be doing it in a way that’s outside the law,”
You know what, nevermind. I give up, I cant do it anymore. I tried real hard to be a good Republican on this issue, but I just cant do it. I cant figure out which terrorists we bomb the shit out of and kill their families and shoot on sight and which terrorists we admit have a valid point. Its too confusing......
Oh wait, never mind I figured it out. We kill the black and brown ones (or anyone who might kinda sorta maybe not really be one) and agree with the white ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment