‘It Sure Looks Like Some Ferguson Protestors Were Paid To Do So By Liberal Organize Missouri’

a reply to: Boadicea

Not all protesters at the Bundy ranch were armed, they would have been in the middle of a massacre and most likely if one side or the other would have opened fire we would be knee deep in a civil war today.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Boadicea

Not all protesters at the Bundy ranch were armed, they would have been in the middle of a massacre and most likely if one side or the other would have opened fire we would be knee deep in a civil war today.

(bolded by me)

Doh! You're probably right. I obviously wasn't thinking it out to its natural conclusion, but that's gotta be a big part of it.

Shame on me!!!

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: xuenchen

The purpose of the thread was that some Ferguson groups had outside backing from groups.

The Bundy ranch got outside backing from groups including Sean Hannity and Americans for Prosperity and a host of media and political groups.

Laws were broken in Ferguson including rioting, looting theft and assault.

Laws were broken at the Bundy ranch including contempt of court, threatening federal officers, and transporting weapons over state lines.

Oh and Bundy is still grazing his cattle for free.

Both sides got outside help and both groups broke the law.

It's not illegal to transport weapons over state lines.

If were going to criticize people, we should do it for things that actually exist.

a reply to: Boadicea

The funds were for travel. A very common thing for groups of any sort for any reason... to do.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Incorrect Doc:

3) Criminal Charges Against Militia Members Who Brought Guns To Nevada Another federal law provides that “[w]hoever transports or manufactures for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder” may be fined or imprisoned for up to five years. This statute could potentially form the basis for criminal charges against some of the militia members who traveled to Nevada with their guns in order to support Bundy. In order to convict someone charged under this law, federal prosecutors would need to prove that the militia member transported their gun with reason to know that it would be used “unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder,” so this statute could not be used against someone who had no reason to suspect that they were traveling towards anything other than a peaceful protest. A civil disorder is defined as “any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual.”

Three Ways That Nevada Rancher And His Right-Wing Militia Supporters Could Wind Up Behind Bars

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Boadicea

The funds were for travel. A very common thing for groups of any sort for any reason... to do.

So the organizers have said... and it may very well be true, or it may only be part of the truth, or it may not be true at all. I sure don't know. And I'm not going to take their word for it.

I'd sure like to hear from the protesters themselves. Especially those recruited from within Ferguson. I'm not sure why they would need travel funds. I would still have to take whatever they claim with a grain of salt, but if enough give the same/similar answers, it might tell us something. Perhaps it would tell us that the funds promised were for travel... perhaps not.

I would assume the bottled water passed around to the people were also paid for by outside groups, oh the horror!

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm an activist, this is common... also if people could be paid to protest we'd see a hell of a lot more protest and they'd be huge. I've never been offered nor have I ever known anyone to be offered a paycheck for protesting.

a reply to: LDragonFire

An ultra-sensationalized article at the time.



I know many of the "guns" they brought were toys.

Sure did fool a lot of people didn't it.

AhhhhHaHaHa

a reply to: Boadicea

Protests began the night Micheal Brown was killed and continued for months. The people that live there started the protests. You really thing the first week of protests were funded by outside sources? You think political groups are standing by to fund protests in a moments notice?

I guess you think all the tea party rallies across the nation were spontaneous? Or were they funded by a political group?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: LDragonFire

An ultra-sensationalized article at the time.

I know many of the "guns" they brought were toys.

Sure did fool a lot of people didn't it.

AhhhhHaHaHa

Refute the law exists.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm an activist, this is common...

I tip my (tinfoil) hat to you. Good for you. And I trust you that it is common; it would seem quite practical for national issues. I've only participated in local issues, so I'll have to trust you!

The issue for me is that I just plain don't trust those "organizing" these protests -- neither their motives nor their strategies nor anything else. The squeaky wheel gets the oil -- I get that. Sometimes ya gotta get loud and proud in their faces. But these protests went far beyond that, guaranteeing as much condemnation as support, just more divide-and-conquer with no practical or productive results. And, yes, I believe that was deliberate -- but, by who?

... also if people could be paid to protest we'd see a hell of a lot more protest and they'd be huge. I've never been offered nor have I ever known anyone to be offered a paycheck for protesting.

Again, I trust that is absolutely true -- for you, and probably the vast majority of protesters. So why the exception -- if that's what it is -- in Ferguson? Perhaps the articles are grossly stretching the truth. I can easily believe that.

But I'd still like to hear from the Ferguson protesters themselves...

Billionaire George Soros spent $33MILLION bankrolling Ferguson demonstrators to create 'echo chamber' and drive national protests

Liberal billionaire George Soros donated $33million to social justice organizations which helped turn events in Ferguson from a local protest into a national flashpoint.
The handouts, revealed in tax filings from Soros's private foundation, were given to dozens of different groups which weighed in on the crisis.
Organizers from professional groups in Washington, D.C., and New York were bussed into the Missouri town to co-ordinate messaging and lobby to news media to cover events using the billionaire's funding.
The flood of donations were uncovered in an analysis of the latest tax return by Soros's Open Society Foundations by the Washington Times.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... national-protests.html#ixzz3aix7zZZI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

www.dailymail.co.uk... national-protests.html


its a growth industry

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Boadicea

Protests began the night Micheal Brown was killed and continued for months. The people that live there started the protests. You really thing the first week of protests were funded by outside sources?

Not at all. I believe the initial protests were a legitimate uprising born of righteous outrage.... Michael Brown never should have died the way he did.

You think political groups are standing by to fund protests in a moments notice?

I sure do!

I guess you think all the tea party rallies across the nation were spontaneous? Or were they funded by a political group?

I think many, perhaps most, and possibly all of the INITIAL protests were born of similar righteous outrage at the bailing out of the banksters. (And, yes, sadly, too many people regard that as a greater crime than Michael Brown's death.)

I also think -- I know! -- that the tea party was quickly co-opted and hijacked by exactly those political groups who could not have those upstarts throwing a wrench into the works of the establishment.

a reply to: Danbones

Thanks for the link.

The slew of organizations reportedly created their own online 'echo chamber', by using their extensive social media presences to 'like', repost and comment on articles putting across their point of view.

The Soros cash was also put to work driving buzzwords and social media campaigns to propel Ferguson into the national consciousness. One recipient of his funding is the Organization for Black Struggle, which in turned established a group called the Hands Up Coalition, that has helped make ubiquitous the 'hands up, don't shoot' slogan.

I suspect the same "messaging" team was in charge of excluding White folks from some protests...

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes and Soros NGO's are involved once again where there is trouble. I really really believe that ALL countries should ban ALL NGO's. It should be illegal for any government to give any money to them,and they shouldn't even be allowed to exist. Those that are 'non-profit',can be the only ones,and ONLY if NO ONE gets any money. If they 'really' believe in what they are doing is for the betterment of people,then let them do it for free. If not,they don't need to exist.They have causes trouble all over the world,and not just the ones that Soros is backing either. ALL of them cause trouble in this and other countries.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes and Soros NGO's are involved once again where there is trouble. I really really believe that ALL countries should ban ALL NGO's. It should be illegal for any government to give any money to them,and they shouldn't even be allowed to exist. Those that are 'non-profit',can be the only ones,and ONLY if NO ONE gets any money. If they 'really' believe in what they are doing is for the betterment of people,then let them do it for free. If not,they don't need to exist.They have causes trouble all over the world,and not just the ones that Soros is backing either. ALL of them cause trouble in this and other countries.

From your lips to God's ears. (The NSA is the only one listening in DC!)

And I completely agree with this:

[quote]If they 'really' believe in what they are doing is for the betterment of people,then let them do it for free.

I believe we would have a much better crop of non-profit leaders, and therefore far more effective charities, if they were run by those who truly believed in the cause -- not just themselves.

Here's some typical protesting....

Paid Ferguson Protesters Demand Their Back Wages From Acorn and Soros

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Thats debatable.

Well, of course my comment on people on welfare is debatable--my point was that you made an ignorant point about welfare and unemployment as if that meant anything--it didn't.

400 civilians killed by police 10 cops killed by civilians so far this year.

And this statistic means nothing when you can't show me each individual scenario--not all 400 are unwarranted police brutality--and that includes Mike Brown.

Citizens must say enough is enough unless they live in Ferguson or Baltimore? Both groups had one thing in common, they were both protesting the same perceived out of control government.

Wrong on Ferguson, correct on Baltimore...and I support protesting a perceived out of control government, and I absolutely believe that the death of Freddie Gray was due to an over-reactive LEO and a terrible, overreaching law (both aspects of out of control government). What I don't support are riots and acts of unwarranted violence and vandalism. The people at the Bundy ranch were relatively calm and collected--these idiots rioting were not. THAT is the main difference, here, that you seem to be failing to grasp--or are purposefully ignoring. I can't quite make out which of those it is...

originally posted by: Boadicea
I definitely agree... but what I don't understand (and maybe I'm overthinking it too much) is why did it work? Obviously, the feds (tho not necessarily the BLM), definitely out-gun all of us. So it's more than just who has guns... or the most guns... or the best guns... But what exactly? Were the Feds worried about looking like bullies and creating more sympathy for the Bundys? Were they worried about escalating the situation and bringing more attention to their bad behavior all over the west? Were they worried about giving more ammo (excuse the pun) for the states already fighting their overreach?

Just my thoughts... I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts.

It's like LDragonFire said--the feds know that they can't be responsible for a civil war, and it's quite apparent the way things in government and this country are going, that if the feds overstep their duties as law enforcement, they would end up losing. It's like the lyric in "Five to One" by The Doors says, "They've got the guns, but, we've got the numbers." Not to mention, I know many a law-enforcement officer (and some federal agents from my job) who would absolutely disobey any orders to attack Americans who are doing nothing more than protecting their freedoms.

But as to your question about creating sympathy for the Bundys--Yes, I think that played a large part in it, as did the concern over the media coverage and the PR disaster that it was creating for them. The longer a scenario like that plays out, the more time investigative reporters and the average citizen have to build up interest and pursue inquiries and research, and that would have looked even worse for the BLM folks and other feds that were there, because there's no limit to the bad # we could dig up on the government actions against private citizens that are unwarranted overreach.

The federal government has a major issue with overreach and being too big for its own good right now, and it's only forecasted to get worse, if using history and a guide tells us anything. If people like those who ran to the side of Bundy just ignored the issue, then in five years it would be another rancher encountering this issue--then another. In backing down in the face of a show of force (and many more would have shown up, if needed), the feds admitted either (a) that they were in the wrong or that their policies suck, or (b) that they're not willing to die just to enforce some (IMO) overreaching federal land policies in order to yank more money out of someone's pocket.

In either case, I'm glad it worked out the way it did, and it should act as a reminder to all Americans that the federal government isn't the dictator that it thinks it is, and that it's still accountable to average Americans for its actions.