• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Explosive Growth of Militias

AdamT said:
You're just throwing up another silly strawman. I never claimed that the Weavers were lying. Why do you keep suggesting that I did?
Click to expand...

I didn't.

You asked who's more credible.

I'm picking the ones who don't have a documented history of covering up and obfuscating what happened, and whose version was "believed" in court. This strikes me as the more reasonable thing to do.
 
taxigirl said:
His family were white separatists, this does not make them racist or anti-semitic as various misinformation campaigns would have you believe. Randy believes that by separating the races we can avoid conflict. Right or Wrong, that is his prerogative and he should not be persecuted for that. I think the "separatist" you are referring to is an "isolationist".
Click to expand...
How can the total separation of races where the "mixing" (miscegenation) of races is viewed as a negative not be racist? If the result of a mixed couple is inferior to that of "pure" racial couples, how is that not racist?
taxigirl said:
Side note: there are Black Separatists as well who have the same ideas, so why is it bad that a white man has that idea?
Click to expand...
As I argued above, the idea of separation includes the premise that the mixing is a negative, therefore it is racism....which is why all of it is "bad".
 
AdamT said:
You're just throwing up another silly strawman. I never claimed that the Weavers were lying. Why do you keep suggesting that I did? What I said is that there is no definitive way to tell who's lying, and thus we have to judge based on other factors. You suggest that there's no reason to question the Weavers' credibility. The facts suggest that they are bizarre family living off in the woods and are severely paranoid about the U.S. government and have some disturbing ideas about race and separatism. They are perfectly entitled to have those views, but I think it's also perfectly reasonable to conclude that these unusual views make their judgment suspect.

OTOH, there is also reason to be skeptical of the ATF's actions and their account of events. Even in view of that, however, I find it unlikely that the ATF agents failed to identify themselves before opening fire. Doesn't mean it didn't happen that way, but I find it more likely than not that the kids of the paranoid couple living in the woods overreacted than it is likely that federal agents who are trained to indentify themselves and say, "throw down your weapons" completely ignored their training.
Click to expand...

You did say "Right, so again it comes down to a swearing contest and who you believe. Do you believe a couple of hyped up kids who were raised by seriously paranoid parents, or two trained federal law enforcement officers?" Assuming the correct people to believe are the law.
 
taxigirl said:
You did say "Right, so again it comes down to a swearing contest and who you believe. Do you believe a couple of hyped up kids who were raised by seriously paranoid parents, or two trained federal law enforcement officers?" Assuming the correct people to believe are the law.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. I think that most of the time, when it comes down to a swearing contest between law enforcement officers and criminal defendants, reasonable people generally assign a higher level of credibility to LEOs.
 
Harshaw said:
I didn't.

You asked who's more credible.

I'm picking the ones who don't have a documented history of covering up and obfuscating what happened, and whose version was "believed" in court. This strikes me as the more reasonable thing to do.
Click to expand...

You did: "I asked you what the Weavers lied about."
 
Gimmesometruth said:
How can the total separation of races where the "mixing" (miscegenation) of races is viewed as a negative not be racist? If the result of a mixed couple is inferior to that of "pure" racial couples, how is that not racist?As I argued above, the idea of separation includes the premise that the mixing is a negative, therefore it is racism....which is why all of it is "bad".
Click to expand...

I do not think it is good or bad. If people want to live that way, let them They believe that conflict will be avoided. Who are they hurting? We have effectively separated ourselves from the Native Americans, we separate ourselves from each other culturally, religiously, politically, even with sports with separate ourselves. It happens all the time. Racial separation is a charged issue. I am not saying it is good by any means, but we separate all the time does it make it any worse just because it is based on race?
 
taxigirl said:
....We have effectively separated ourselves from the Native Americans, we separate ourselves from each other culturally, religiously, politically, even with sports with separate ourselves....
Click to expand...


we?

speak for yourself, please.
 
taxigirl said:
I do not think it is good or bad. If people want to live that way, let them They believe that conflict will be avoided. Who are they hurting? We have effectively separated ourselves from the Native Americans, we separate ourselves from each other culturally, religiously, politically, even with sports with separate ourselves. It happens all the time. Racial separation is a charged issue. I am not saying it is good by any means, but we separate all the time does it make it any worse just because it is based on race?
Click to expand...
You are still avoiding the point, the point that you made was that those who are separatists are not racists. This is false and does not hold up to a simple analysis, a simple test.

If racial separatism is based on the idea that a mixed union produces inferior offspring, how is that not racism...and therefore a "neutral" (not good or bad) thing?
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
You are still avoiding the point, the point that you made was that those who are separatists are not racists. This is false and does not hold up to a simple analysis, a simple test.
Click to expand...

racist: "i hate black people cause they are inferior".

racial seperatist: "I don't hate black people. I just dont to be anywhere near them. I don't want my children near them. I want to be as far away from them as possible. But I don't hate them".

;)
 
The point she made was that seperatists and Supremacists are different.


Seperatists are typically non-aggressive as they mostly want to be left alone. Supremacists are more inclined to aggression and violence as they wish to impose a view on others.
 
AdamT said:
You did: "I asked you what the Weavers lied about."
Click to expand...

Yes, and WHY I asked that is plainly evident from my post. :roll:

It's clear by now you have no intention of approaching this honestly. Like I said:

Harshaw said:
I think there's a difference between "more believable" and what you'd rather believe.
Click to expand...

You are simply picking the latter, in spite of the evidence.
 
Thunder said:
we?

speak for yourself, please.
Click to expand...

ok, I am part of the unfortunate group that is separated from the Native Americans. I used to live near Iroquois, Onondaga and Cayuga. Now I live near Hochunk. When I pass by I buy goods on their reservations and I cry because of what our system has done to them. Either we leave them alone and let them self-sustain or we integrate. Not this BS in between.

How often do you visit a reservation?
 
Goshin said:
The point she made was that seperatists and Supremacists are different.


Seperatists are typically non-aggressive as they mostly want to be left alone. Supremacists are more inclined to aggression and violence as they wish to impose a view on others.
Click to expand...

Taxigirl made the statement:
His family were white separatists, this does not make them racist
Click to expand...

I am showing that separatism IS racism.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are still avoiding the point, the point that you made was that those who are separatists are not racists. This is false and does not hold up to a simple analysis, a simple test.

If racial separatism is based on the idea that a mixed union produces inferior offspring, how is that not racism...and therefore a "neutral" (not good or bad) thing?
Click to expand...

Who ever said anything about offspring? The idea the Weavers were operating under is that it would reduce conflict.
 
taxigirl said:
ok, I am part of the unfortunate group that is separated from the Native Americans. I used to live near Iroquois, Onondaga and Cayuga. Now I live near Hochunk. When I pass by I buy goods on their reservations and I cry because of what our system has done to them. Either we leave them alone and let them self-sustain or we integrate. Not this BS in between.

How often do you visit a reservation?
Click to expand...


I am surrounded by folks who have American indigenous blood. They are called Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Peruvians, and Guatemalans.
 
taxigirl said:
Who ever said anything about offspring? The idea the Weavers were operating under is that it would reduce conflict.
Click to expand...
See now, you don't know what the ideology of white (or any ) separatism involves, but you are defending the idea.

AGAIN, the idea behind separatism is that the mixing of the races (namely intermarrying and having children) is a negative, it is wrong and creates "bad" things. There is no other conclusion to be reached other than that the ideology is racist.

You are still avoiding the overriding concept of separatism, still avoiding its racist premise.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody even know what we are talking about here? I believe the OP was on the growth of militias. I provided some very nice links and they were ignored. So we started discussing crazy militia people. Randy Weaver came up and that got me excited, because yes, as much as some of you would like to not believe I am an authority when it comes to Ruby Ridge. If you do not want to read the information I generously provided from my list of referenced work, then fine. I suggest that if you do not want to expand your knowledge on what is obviously still a heated to-pic that you find something else to spout about. I appreciate opinions and hearing theories, but when it comes to Ruby Ridge my research and defense of my thesis put me at a great advantage over you and some of your arguments are just downright silly at this point because you have not taken the time to review established facts. You are behaving just like Randy and Vicki Weaver as you just wanted you belief and not allow it to change regardless of the information at hand.

My whole point here was to provide good solid info. and show you that not all "crazies" with guns are wrong. The government did indeed come after him. He was right! we need to prevent that from happening again.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
See now, you don't know what the ideology of white (or any ) separatism involves, but you are defending the idea.

AGAIN, the idea behind separatism is that the mixing of the races (namely intermarrying and having children) is a negative, it is wrong and creates "bad" things. There is no other conclusion to be reached other than that the ideology is racist.

You are still avoiding the overriding concept of separatism, still avoiding its racist premise.
Click to expand...

I never thought or in any way said it was the right thing to do. I like diversity, so much that I wrote a poem about it. The Weavers believed the avoidancxe of conflict was important. Avoid conflict with government and with people whose culture may be different, They wanted to be left alone.
 
taxigirl said:
I never thought or in any way said it was the right thing to do. I like diversity, so much that I wrote a poem about it. The Weavers believed the avoidancxe of conflict was important. Avoid conflict with government and with people whose culture may be different, They wanted to be left alone.
Click to expand...

why would living around Jews, Hispanics, and blacks...bring conflict?
 
Thunder said:
I am surrounded by folks who have American indigenous blood. They are called Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Peruvians, and Guatemalans.
Click to expand...

You know I was referring to Native Americans some people identify as Indians. Or the tribes that were cheated, killed and stolen from by the people who colonized this country,
 
taxigirl said:
I never thought or in any way said it was the right thing to do. I like diversity, so much that I wrote a poem about it. The Weavers believed the avoidancxe of conflict was important. Avoid conflict with government and with people whose culture may be different, They wanted to be left alone.
Click to expand...
You keep on avoiding your own words, your comment that those that believe in white separatism, are not racist. You did not know that white separatism has as a basic idea that miscegenation is a negative. You do not want to acknowledge that white separatism is at its root a racist ideology.

I know you want to left alone on your faulty point, but the truth remains, those that believe in white separatism believe in a racist ideology, and that makes those that believe in it, racists.
 
The point is that being a Seperatist, or any other sort of idiot, does not in itself justify entrapment and murder-under-color-of-law.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You keep on avoiding your own words, your comment that those that believe in white separatism, are not racist. You did not know that white separatism has as a basic idea that miscegenation is a negative. You do not want to acknowledge that white separatism is at its root a racist ideology.

I know you want to left alone on your faulty point, but the truth remains, those that believe in white separatism believe in a racist ideology, and that makes those that believe in it, racists.
Click to expand...

If you argue that then you have to accept that it means the same thing for Black separatists, or do they get a pass on this one?
 
Goshin said:
The point is that being a Seperatist, or any other sort of idiot, does not in itself justify entrapment and murder-under-color-of-law.
Click to expand...
If that is directed towards me, you are not following along with my argument since that was not it.
 
taxigirl said:
If you argue that then you have to accept that it means the same thing for Black separatists, or do they get a pass on this one?
Click to expand...
Wow, you do not remember what I posted or the response you gave to that "point". I already covered that.

Are you EVER going to admit that racial separatism is at base a racist ideology due to the fact it views miscegenation as a negative?

Please, stop going around in circles and just address this point...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom