This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.

[spandy]

There's plenty of ranchers who pay their own way, for food, water and land for the cattle. These bums, Hammonds and bundys just want a free ride. How about I go graze my cattle on the public lands the bundys use and starve their cows off. I mean it's open to the public right? Or is it public to the bundys only. Im just confused why you defend the thieving bundys who have now taken to terrorism in the take over of a federal building.

These people did a back burn to save their home and land on ground the BLM was not maintaining and why it put their home in harms way. They all ready went to jail for doing this, and were released. Now they want MORE time out to them?

How about no.

 

[757growin]

Maybe you should graze them at a government school, they could feed alongside the sheep that are already there.

It's funny how you have zero answers to my questions. I also enjoy you American history knowledge, though I hardly feel your examples from 40 years to over 100 years ago pertain to current events.

 

[Rob Roy]

Very witty..

Thank you. I'm glad you liked it.



All together now, I pledge allegiance to the homeland....

 

[757growin]

These people did a back burn to save their home and land on ground the BLM was not maintaining and why it put their home in harms way. They all ready went to jail for doing this, and were released. Now they want MORE time out to them?

How about no.

They didn't serve the proper sentence. This is not the first time people have been brought back to prison for serving a correct sentence. Is it fair, maybe not. But hardly deserves the response of the bundys

 

[757growin]

Thank you. I'm glad you liked it.



All together now, I pledge allegiance to the homeland....

I guess this is what your left to when you know you've lost the arguement. Plus you said you were done with this thread yesterday. Lols. Good at sticking to your word. Try winning tomorrow maybe..

 

[Rob Roy]

It's funny how you have zero answers to my questions. I also enjoy you American history knowledge, though I hardly feel your examples from 40 years to over 100 years ago pertain to current events.

The answer is "question any authority which arises from coercion." It is nearly universally applicable.


There is no expiration date on freedom concepts.

 

[Rob Roy]

They didn't serve the proper sentence. This is not the first time people have been brought back to prison for serving a correct sentence. Is it fair, maybe not. But hardly deserves the response of the bundys

So, when slaves ran away, that was wrong ? The proper action for them was to petition government to pass laws to set them free?

Of course those slaves would have had to have been allowed to learn to read, but for a moment let's pretend they knew how....they shouldn't have disobeyed a bad law, is that what you are saying?

I suggest you light and a big fat joint and stop trying to justify obedience to bad laws.

 

[Rob Roy]

I guess this is what your left to when you know you've lost the arguement. Plus you said you were done with this thread yesterday. Lols. Good at sticking to your word. Try winning tomorrow maybe..

So, no prize for me ? Damn!

 

[spandy]

They didn't serve the proper sentence. This is not the first time people have been brought back to prison for serving a correct sentence. Is it fair, maybe not. But hardly deserves the response of the bundys

The sentences should be commuted.

I would hope anyone going to prison unfairly for any reason would get a similar response. These people are lucky to have the support they are getting as most are just fucked and on their own.

 

[Rob Roy]

No it's not lies because it happened. Prove it otherwise besides your sympathy for a bunch of White Supremacists.

If the "occupiers" are white supremacists I don't support that, but how does any of that change the fact that the Hammonds are being punished for harming nobody?



If the term "terrorist" can be applied to the occupiers in Oregon now, would it be fair to apply it to the armed Indians that occupied Wounded Knee in the 1970s and the armed black students (including future Atty. General Eric Holder) that occupied "government property" in the 1970s as well?

 

[Rob Roy]

 

[spandy]

They didn't serve the proper sentence. This is not the first time people have been brought back to prison for serving a correct sentence. Is it fair, maybe not. But hardly deserves the response of the bundys

Question...what sentence did members of the EPA serve when they spilled all that there oil that communities still dont have access to clean drinking water because of?

Oh but 140 acres of back burn to save a home in the middle of fucking no where, lock those fuckers up!

 

[pnwmystery]

A few decades ago in the early 1970s Native American activists, among them Russell Means, "took over" the site of the Wounded Knee massacre. You may recall the federal government massacred people there in 1890.

Should the Federal Government have killed the activists in the 1970s ? Were they criminals?

That's just disingenuous - you know there was more to AIM and Wounded Knee. Moreover it was on tribal not Federal land so your argument doesn't really fly here now does it.

If the "occupiers" are white supremacists I don't support that, but how does any of that change the fact that the Hammonds are being punished for harming nobody?



If the term "terrorist" can be applied to the occupiers in Oregon now, would it be fair to apply it to the armed Indians that occupied Wounded Knee in the 1970s and the armed black students (including future Atty. General Eric Holder) that occupied "government property" in the 1970s as well?

See here's the stupid thing with your first statement. They committed arson. They were charged of committing arson by a jury of their peers. On top of that, they were charged with committing arson and destroying Federal property. Was no one harmed? You're correct, no one was. Could they have harmed someone? Yes, they very well could have. They could have actually killed fire fighters n the area, or other people in the area (according to testimony one of their friends almost died because of a fire they started in 2001). Especially when they started fires during a burn ban when there were already forest fires going on. Please explain to me how this is responsible and harmless; you also show a complete lack of understanding on just how bad forest fires can get and what sort of destructon they cause. It's painfully obvious that this is so, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting there going, "It isn't such a big deal that they started a forest fire during a burn ban! No one was hurt, so what's the big deal?"

You really, really, really need to learn why Teddy Roosevelt set aside all this land as natural reserves. On top of that the Hammonds and Bundys are pretty much the biggest welfare queens out there. The BLM already subsidizes their cattle grazing permits by 93%, that 93% coming from tax payer money. What they want is either the Fed to just straight up give them the land, or subsidize them at 100%.

What armed students taking over government property in the 1970s? I know a few of the people that took over buildings and they weren't armed (family friends). Edited to add: Not saying that there probably wasn't, I'm just curious as to where the armed takeovers happened.

 

[pnwmystery]

So terrorists burned Ferguson and Baltimore.

Those fucking assholes!

Intent, intent, intent. Do I need to explain what intent is to you? Protests that turn into a riot = rioters. People who take over a Federal building to get the release of two people from prison who they have no relation to, armed to teeth with semi-automatic assault style weapons, wearing camouflage and threatening to open fire on Federal agents if they get too close is not a form of peaceful protest. Look at the definition of what the FBI calls domestic terrorism and tell me that this does not fall in line with it, and then justify it somehow. See how far it gets you if you march into your local Federal courthouse with a shotgun demanding a law be changed while racking rounds.

As I said, had they started out without weapons, had they chained themselves to something, handcuffed themselves to something, sat in, blocked the road with themselves, felled a tree to do so, that would be protesting. This is threatening violence to get the government to do something.

 

[spandy]

Intent, intent, intent. Do I need to explain what intent is to you? Protests that turn into a riot = rioters. People who take over a Federal building to get the release of two people from prison who they have no relation to, armed to teeth with semi-automatic assault style weapons, wearing camouflage and threatening to open fire on Federal agents if they get too close is not a form of peaceful protest. Look at the definition of what the FBI calls domestic terrorism and tell me that this does not fall in line with it, and then justify it somehow. See how far it gets you if you march into your local Federal courthouse with a shotgun demanding a law be changed while racking rounds.

As I said, had they started out without weapons, had they chained themselves to something, handcuffed themselves to something, sat in, blocked the road with themselves, felled a tree to do so, that would be protesting. This is threatening violence to get the government to do something.

And yet still, Ferguson and Baltimore fucking burned and many went to jail.

Oregon, no shots fired, no one arrested

But tell me all about intent again.

 

[pnwmystery]

And yet still, Ferguson and Baltimore fucking burned and many went to jail.

Oregon, no shots fired, no one arrested

But tell me all about intent again.

Are you incapable of the English language and history? I'm curious because I laid out my argument and you just asked me to repeat it. You're also completely ignoring bigger factors here: Minorities, urban, young versus whites, rich, ranchers, in a rural area. I'll let you get in your typical "That's just race baiting!" And I'll respond with: When it's a reality it's not race baiting.

 

[whitebb2727]

There's plenty of ranchers who pay their own way, for food, water and land for the cattle. These bums, Hammonds and bundys just want a free ride. How about I go graze my cattle on the public lands the bundys use and starve their cows off. I mean it's open to the public right? Or is it public to the bundys only. Im just confused why you defend the thieving bundys who have now taken to terrorism in the take over of a federal building.

The grazing rights were part of the deed when they bought the land. Blm forced people to sell and enclosed the Hammond's with rufuge land. When the grazing permits were revoked the Hammond's sold cattle off.

I'm afraid your not getting the point.

I support fish and game. I supports parks and wildlife management areas.

I just don't see the type of person that handed out matches and saying burn it all down just rolling over and peacefully going back to jail.

The government is the wrong here.

 

[whitebb2727]

That's just disingenuous - you know there was more to AIM and Wounded Knee. Moreover it was on tribal not Federal land so your argument doesn't really fly here now does it.



See here's the stupid thing with your first statement. They committed arson. They were charged of committing arson by a jury of their peers. On top of that, they were charged with committing arson and destroying Federal property. Was no one harmed? You're correct, no one was. Could they have harmed someone? Yes, they very well could have. They could have actually killed fire fighters n the area, or other people in the area (according to testimony one of their friends almost died because of a fire they started in 2001). Especially when they started fires during a burn ban when there were already forest fires going on. Please explain to me how this is responsible and harmless; you also show a complete lack of understanding on just how bad forest fires can get and what sort of destructon they cause. It's painfully obvious that this is so, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting there going, "It isn't such a big deal that they started a forest fire during a burn ban! No one was hurt, so what's the big deal?"

You really, really, really need to learn why Teddy Roosevelt set aside all this land as natural reserves. On top of that the Hammonds and Bundys are pretty much the biggest welfare queens out there. The BLM already subsidizes their cattle grazing permits by 93%, that 93% coming from tax payer money. What they want is either the Fed to just straight up give them the land, or subsidize them at 100%.

What armed students taking over government property in the 1970s? I know a few of the people that took over buildings and they weren't armed (family friends). Edited to add: Not saying that there probably wasn't, I'm just curious as to where the armed takeovers happened.

Teddy set a small piece away. The rest blm took by flooding homes and ranches.

 

[pnwmystery]

The grazing rights were part of the deed when they bought the land. Blm forced people to sell and enclosed the Hammond's with rufuge land. When the grazing permits were revoked the Hammond's sold cattle off.

I'm afraid your not getting the point.

I support fish and game. I supports parks and wildlife management areas.

I just don't see the type of person that handed out matches and saying burn it all down just rolling over and peacefully going back to jail.

The government is the wrong here.

Unfortunately you have multiple eyewitnesses - people who were there - say that he did it. What do they have to gain? Or is this going to run into a conspiracy where all of their family friends are now going to get land/water rights for dirt cheap because they put the Hammonds in jail?

 

[whitebb2727]

Unfortunately you have multiple eyewitnesses - people who were there - say that he did it. What do they have to gain? Or is this going to run into a conspiracy where all of their family friends are now going to get land/water rights for dirt cheap because they put the Hammonds in jail?

It wasn't a fair trial either. Just look into it.