• 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!

Ferguson vs. Bundy Ranch

Do you or did you support the Ferguson and/or Bundy Ranch protests?

  • I support(ed) the Ferguson and Bundy Ranch Protests?

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • I support the Ferguson Protests and opposed Bundy Ranch Protest

    Votes: 7 17.9%

  • I supported the Bundy Ranch protest and oppose the Ferguson Protest

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • I oppose(d) both protests

    Votes: 16 41.0%

  • My opinion does not fit any of the options listed above

    Votes: 10 25.6%
  • Total voters
    39
SocialDemocrat

SocialDemocrat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
922
Reaction score
309
Location
The beautiful Pacific Northwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
I am curious about the breakdown of supporters of the Bundy Ranch farmers vs. the supporters of the Ferguson protesters. As far as defining "support" for a certain protest, in the context of the poll, you either believe the protests are justified or permissible.
 
A full blown riot where homes and businesses are burned to ground is so far worse than the Bundy Ranch. I'll gladly take a standoff where rednecks point their weapons at Federal Agents over the riots.

I don't support either cause, but the Ferguson riots had people die and homes destroyed. That alone makes it worse than some hick not paying taxes.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
I am curious about the breakdown of supporters of the Bundy Ranch farmers vs. the supporters of the Ferguson protesters. As far as defining "support" for a certain protest, in the context of the poll, you either believe the protests are justified or permissible.
Click to expand...

I picked other. I did not support the 'Bundy' cause or their rebellious little mob gathering. I think an injustice has probably been done in the Ferguson case and I sympathize with the anger and frustration but I'm generally skeptical of protests and have a knee-jerk dim view of them. Most of the protests in this case appear to be designed towards causing disruption or creating confrontation which further sours it for me.
 
I opposed both.

Not sure why they are being tied together, as they are not really similar at all.

One is a bunch of idiots destroying a town all because they don't like the outcome of a grand jury hearing. They are allowing emotion to get in the way of thinking clearly. The evidence was clear-cut, but it's easier to blame others than to take responsibility for the actions of your son/children/community.

The other is a rich white guy who just doesn't want to follow the rules set forth by the US Government.
 
Bundy ppl didn't riot and raze buildings.
From a moral equivalence, Bundy people are better off.

From the caliber of the threat, Bundy people were a lot more dangerous than fergusson rioters are (or have been thus far, who knows what the future holds).
But Bundy was a moron who used govt land illegally, and the govt response was disproportionate... and the response to that response was disproportionate.
 
Superfly said:
I opposed both.

Not sure why they are being tied together, as they are not really similar at all.

One is a bunch of idiots destroying a town all because they don't like the outcome of a grand jury hearing. They are allowing emotion to get in the way of thinking clearly. The evidence was clear-cut, but it's easier to blame others than to take responsibility for the actions of your son/children/community.

The other is a rich white guy who just doesn't want to follow the rules set forth by the US Government.
Click to expand...

I opposed neither based on the right to protest, even if both are lost causes, but both protests went well beyond what could be defined as peaceful. If they are to be compared based loss of property/income to others (innocent parties) then the Ferguson protest was worse.
 
CMPancake said:
A full blown riot where homes and businesses are burned to ground is so far worse than the Bundy Ranch. I'll gladly take a standoff where rednecks point their weapons at Federal Agents over the riots.

I don't support either cause, but the Ferguson riots had people die and homes destroyed. That alone makes it worse than some hick not paying taxes.
Click to expand...

what he said.
 
My answer wasn't listed on the poll which is this:

I don't support or oppose either "cause". I don't care about either one.

More buildings were destroyed and more lives were ruined by the "protestors" in Ferguson than at the Bundy Ranch.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
I am curious about the breakdown of supporters of the Bundy Ranch farmers vs. the supporters of the Ferguson protesters. As far as defining "support" for a certain protest, in the context of the poll, you either believe the protests are justified or permissible.
Click to expand...

I think protests in both incidences are fine. But in the Bundy case the protest was against the over reaching power of the federal government, in Ferguson it was against the over reaching power of the local police. Both was a protest of the little people against a much more powerful entity.

The huge difference is one protest did not developed into a riot, burning and looting, the other did. Once that happened all comparisons ceased to exist. One became Mars, the other Venus.
 
tres borrachos said:
My answer wasn't listed on the poll which is this:

I don't support or oppose either "cause". I don't care about either one.

More buildings were destroyed and more lives were ruined by the "protestors" in Ferguson than at the Bundy Ranch.
Click to expand...

And that is what the supporters of Ferguson riot protesters fail to realize or to admit to. I would say in the beginning, both were protesting against a more powerful entity in which that more powerful entity did the less powerful wrong. That is the only similarities. Once violence took place and I said this before, one has nothing to do with the other, apples and oranges.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
I am curious about the breakdown of supporters of the Bundy Ranch farmers vs. the supporters of the Ferguson protesters. As far as defining "support" for a certain protest, in the context of the poll, you either believe the protests are justified or permissible.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting anything remotely approaching honest responses.
 
I support the protests in Ferguson and despise the riots, the poll did not mention the riots, so I voted in favor of Ferguson. This obviously does not mean I approve nonsense like blocking highways, these are people going beyond their rights. It's funny since they think they could go about things without consequence not realizing that the right to protest is not and never was absolute, then they scream about something something oppression when the police deal with them, it's just idiotic.

The Bundy Ranch nonsense, well, only a white person could do that without getting shot. Voted against that hoopla.

For what it's worth, Ferguson is a way bigger mess than the Bundy Ranch nonsense was and ever could be, even with the Bundy related people being armed fools, and it's weird since I hear a lot of the rioting has been done by people not even from Ferguson. Policing was atrocious, media coverage was atrocious, social media was atrocious, rioting was atrocious, it's just an embarrassment. Just think, at least 25 businesses were burned down, people's livelihood, just sickening.
 
Last edited:
Bundy and Ferguson were both, on the whole, "in the wrong".


Both were also, arguably, a sort of "push back" resulting from MANY different occasions when the government (in its various forms and branches and departments) has gone too far and pushed The People to the brink of rebellion, and is a symptom of a governmental system that has grown too large, too intrusive, and too oppressive.


Neither was a very good example of what the push-back was about. In Bundy's case the legal issues were tangled and questionable, but there are ties to "open grazing" customs going back a long ways that at least lend it some air of commonality with other farmers and ranchers around. The Ferguson case is more egregiously wrong because the "victim" was a brutal thug, and the "protesters" chose to loot and burn businesses who had done nothing to them and committed no wrong, making it look like "justice for Brown" meant "I get to steal a free plasma TV and set the store on fire".


Neither was exactly ideal, but if the gov keeps pushing the limits in the many ways it has been doing so, there will be more 'push-back' in the future, justified or not.
 
Goshin said:
Bundy and Ferguson were both, on the whole, "in the wrong".


Both were also, arguably, a sort of "push back" resulting from MANY different occasions when the government (in its various forms and branches and departments) has gone too far and pushed The People to the brink of rebellion, and is a symptom of a governmental system that has grown too large, too intrusive, and too oppressive.


Neither was a very good example of what the push-back was about. In Bundy's case the legal issues were tangled and questionable, but there are ties to "open grazing" customs going back a long ways that at least lend it some air of commonality with other farmers and ranchers around. The Ferguson case is more egregiously wrong because the "victim" was a brutal thug, and the "protesters" chose to loot and burn businesses who had done nothing to them and committed no wrong, making it look like "justice for Brown" meant "I get to steal a free plasma TV and set the store on fire".


Neither was exactly ideal, but if the gov keeps pushing the limits in the many ways it has been doing so, there will be more 'push-back' in the future, justified or not.
Click to expand...

I have some questions.

Is it not the responsibility of each state to take measures necessary to protect its citizens from lawlessness?

Show me where this so called rebellion in Ferguson was justified? Because where I am sitting, I can show you where it was manufactured.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
I am curious about the breakdown of supporters of the Bundy Ranch farmers vs. the supporters of the Ferguson protesters. As far as defining "support" for a certain protest, in the context of the poll, you either believe the protests are justified or permissible.
Click to expand...

It's a waste. People are lumping the riot with the protest. While rioting is illegal, protest is not.
 
Perotista said:
I think protests in both incidences are fine. But in the Bundy case the protest was against the over reaching power of the federal government, in Ferguson it was against the over reaching power of the local police. Both was a protest of the little people against a much more powerful entity.

The huge difference is one protest did not developed into a riot, burning and looting, the other did. Once that happened all comparisons ceased to exist. One became Mars, the other Venus.
Click to expand...

But it's all against government overreach. Some here won't see it if it's not Obama doing it, but it is all against that.

I had to say none of the options really describe my opinion. A protest is fine. Rioting is crossing the line. Threatening an armed rebellion is too far. Can you imagine what would have happened at Bundy's ranch if a federal officer there decided that he was "being threatened?"
 
I opposed both because I think that the motives weren't clean.
 
Superfly said:
I opposed both.

Not sure why they are being tied together, as they are not really similar at all.

One is a bunch of idiots destroying a town all because they don't like the outcome of a grand jury hearing. They are allowing emotion to get in the way of thinking clearly. The evidence was clear-cut, but it's easier to blame others than to take responsibility for the actions of your son/children/community.

The other is a rich white guy who just doesn't want to follow the rules set forth by the US Government.
Click to expand...

First off the Bundy family aren't rich.
The family has been using the open range for over a hundred years to graze their cattle.

What the Bundy stand off was all about has been going on in the West for a few decades now, the BLM forcing ranchers off the open range. It has accelerated over the past six years because it's really the EPA and a water grab in America. To end extraction of minerals and controlling the peoples water, preventing Americans from having access to the peoples land. Have you noticed how often Obama has used executive orders to proclaim federal land as a national monument over the past six years ?

And why does the BLM have a SWATT ? They didn't have one six years ago neither did the U.S. Dept. of Education.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
It's a waste. People are lumping the riot with the protest. While rioting is illegal, protest is not.
Click to expand...
And how can one not lump the riots and protest together in Ferguson as they both happened simultaneously.
In all the media coverage of the riots in Ferguson, an annoying false premise has been allowed to stand as though it were an unquestionable truth. Talking heads on the left and right are saying while rioting is not the way, there is a need for change in America. What the heck change are they talking about?

By embracing the “need for change” premise promoted by Al Sharpton and company, the media is complicit in spreading the lie that America is racist and blacks are mistreated. For crying out loud, folks, look around. Blacks are thriving in this country. Those who aren't are those who made poor choices. And they are the ones tearing up their own neighborhoods. Enough!
 
Had to pick "other", it's apples vs. un-named alien fruit yet to be discovered.

Comparing either of these in the same breath is insanity personified.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Just because they happened simultaneously, it does not mean they were one and the same.
Click to expand...
It starts out as a protest due to false information spread by the media and race hustlers ratcheting up the rhetoric. Add to the mix professional agitators of activist groups from Democratic Socialists of America, to Nation of Islam, to union thugs, to Occupy Wallstreet, all with a political agenda, and no sooner a protest begins it turns into a riot by design.
 
As far as I'm concerned, I would have been happy to see a stand off between the Bundy Ranch protestors and the Ferguson protestors - shoot out until last man standing - Darwin at his finest and whole bunch of mentally deficient mouth breathers disposed of lickety-split.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom