Armed Militia Takes Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge HQ

He came to troll
But stayed to rant

Happi, I tend to agree with that statement.

I find it interesting how all of the articles, and a lot of the comments on here focus on the pure stupidity of the Bundy clan idiots, while very conveniently side stepping the reality of the Hammond case. The idicoy of the Bundy crankloons was covered on page one, although its fun pointing out their stupidity, I agree.

Oh, they will go on about how they don't believe in mandatory minimum sentences as though they were throwing a dog a bone to make it sound like the Hammond's got a raw deal. As if the sentencing were the one transgression of the mean people of the forest service and blm.

But no one wants to touch the story of the decades of coercion by the public land managers to squeeze the Hammonds and their (previous) neighbors off their property.

Carry on and don't mind that elephant in the room. His crap doesn't stink if you don't acknowledge it either.

Looks like I'll be in Burns tomorrow shooting jacks off of haystacks. I'll look in on the refuge and make sure its still a model of cooperation between the federal government and local ranchers so you all can rest easy.

But no one wants to touch the story of the decades of coercion by the public land managers to squeeze the Hammonds and their (previous) neighbors off their property.

I want to add that the whole atmosphere of the forum makes it almost impossible to have a reasoned conversation about the issues that face this country. I try to look past peoples snide tones, but it wears me out.

I don't see any history where the stupidity of the law was challenged before white ranchers got caught up in it, but I welcome a link to your pointing out how stupid the law was before the Hammond case.

(and yes, I do believe Facebook is a spying and brainwash tool, engineered by certain elite with very specific purposes

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant.

Of course this term is pejorative, and it is meant to be; the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good. But nothing really prevents a sound program or demand from being advocated in the paranoid style. Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content. I am interested here in getting at our political psychology through our political rhetoric. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent…