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

[rkymtnman]

so you think bank robbing should have no penalty? i don't harm anybody except scaring the crap out of a bank teller with my finger as a fake gun.

get a clue dude. this isn't mad max and a lawless society.

 

[Rob Roy]

do you know what a burn ban is? it means no open fires.

Should the USA government get a "burn permit" when they bomb innocent people and cause property to be destroyed in the fires?

Did they have a permit when they fried the kids in Waco?

 

[rkymtnman]

Could you please wait until spring time so I can catch the Blue Jays home opener? Thank you for considering that possibility.

if we time it right you can catch a jays and leafs game and then i'll drop your stuff off at the YMCA

 

[Rob Roy]

so you think bank robbing should have no penalty? i don't harm anybody except scaring the crap out of a bank teller with my finger as a fake gun.

get a clue dude. this isn't mad max and a lawless society.

No, you would be harming somebody. Theft creates an actionable harm.

A society of nonsensical laws put in place by an entity that has a monopoly on coercion seems a little chaotic to me. How did the Feds acquire that land in the first place again?


Just curious but if you stuck your finger in my face and I was a bank teller and I pulled it...would you fart ?

 

[rkymtnman]

Should the USA government get a "burn permit" when they bomb innocent people and cause property to be destroyed in the fires?

Did they have a permit when they fried the kids in Waco?

now your talking about personal rights vs the right of the govt.
if everybody was allowed to do whatever they wanted on blm land, it would all be destroyed.

shit, i could rent a D10 dozer and go to some blm land near me and mine for minerals and gold and tear shit up so nobody could ever use the land again.

 

[rkymtnman]

No, you would be harming somebody. Theft creates an actionable harm.

A society of nonsensical laws put in place by an entity that has a monopoly on coercion seems a little chaotic to me. How did the Feds acquire that land in the first place again?


Just curious but if you stuck your finger in my face and I was a bank teller and I pulled it...would you fart ?

depends if i had mexican food lately. wouldn't want to shart all over myself now would I?

 

[pnwmystery]

Except you WEREN'T camping on that land then were you? How many people did the Hammond's burn to a crisp again ?

Is it their land too or just yours?

No but they endangered the lives of firefighters in the area. Duh.

I guess if I called in a bomb threat on a building I'd be a hero because no one was actually hurt, and instead I just sent a bunch of people home.

Your obedience to right wing media and infowars is disconcerting.

 

[Rob Roy]

now your talking about personal rights vs the right of the govt.
if everybody was allowed to do whatever they wanted on blm land, it would all be destroyed.

shit, i could rent a D10 dozer and go to some blm land near me and mine for minerals and gold and tear shit up so nobody could ever use the land again.

So you think a government can do things that if you or I did them would be wrong, but because its government doing it, it becomes okay? How does that work?

Or you could just join the EPA and go pollute a river.

 

[Rob Roy]

No but they endangered the lives of firefighters in the area. Duh.

I guess if I called in a bomb threat on a building I'd be a hero because no one was actually hurt, and instead I just sent a bunch of people home.

Your obedience to right wing media and infowars is disconcerting.

No, that would be fraud, fraud has elements of harm.

I encourage you to become familiar with something called the non-initiation of aggression principle. It disallows the use of offensive force and permits defensive responses to force. Consider checking it out.

I'm afraid you have me confused with somebody else, I don't participate in the false paradigm of "right wing / left wing".

I am a peaceful individual and reject the idea that an entity grounded in force (government) can also be an agent of peace. It is logically impossible.

 

[OddBall1st]

So you think a government can do things that if you or I did them would be wrong, but because its government doing it, it becomes okay? How does that work?

Or you could just join the EPA and go pollute a river.

I thought you had kids ?
What you just posted can be said about any parent bringing up kids.

You should know how that game goes. Merit system and all.

 

[Rob Roy]

I thought you had kids ?
What you just posted can be said about any parent bringing up kids.

You should know how that game goes. Merit system and all.

I do have kids, I'm also a grandfather.

Except, the government isn't my parent or my master. How much can an entity that has a basis in threats of force teach me about peace?

 

[pnwmystery]

No, that would be fraud, fraud has elements of harm.

I encourage you to become familiar with something called the non-initiation of aggression principle. It disallows the use of offensive force and permits defensive responses to force. Consider checking it out.

I'm afraid you have me confused with somebody else, I don't participate in the false paradigm of "right wing / left wing".

I am a peaceful individual and reject the idea that an entity grounded in force (government) can also be an agent of peace. It is logically impossible.

I'm sure you don't. I've read enough of your arguments to know that you probably flunked out of poli sci and went into philosophy. I mean, I commend you for having all these wild thoughts, but at the same time it's not how it works at all. According to your non-aggression principle, then why are the Bundys - who are from Nevada - with a lot of their buddies - who are also from Nevada - in Oregon - which is not Nevada - on Federal land - which is not theirs - claiming it as theirs? *With guns threatening to shoot at the Feds.

 

[Rob Roy]

prove i wasn't trying to camp there then.

I'll check with the NSA, they probably have some records on where you were and who you were with.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm sure you don't. I've read enough of your arguments to know that you probably flunked out of poli sci and went into philosophy. I mean, I commend you for having all these wild thoughts, but at the same time it's not how it works at all. According to your non-aggression principle, then why are the Bundys - who are from Nevada - with a lot of their buddies - who are also from Nevada - in Oregon - which is not Nevada - on Federal land - which is not theirs - claiming it as theirs? *With guns threatening to shoot at the Feds.

Ask a Native American.

 

[pnwmystery]

I'll check with the NSA, they probably have some records on where you were and who you were with.

Lol.

 

[pnwmystery]

Ask a Native American.

But they're not doing it for the Native Americans. They're doing it so that the land can be exploited, not protected for future use. They're doing it for the "miners" in the area, which actually want them to go home.

 

[Rob Roy]

But they're not doing it for the Native Americans. They're doing it so that the land can be exploited, not protected for future use. They're doing it for the "miners" in the area, which actually want them to go the hell home.

"There's no place like home" - Dorothy (with Toto scampering around near her feet)

 

[whitebb2727]

do you know what a burn ban is? it means no open fires.

Burn ban was in effect on only one fire. If it was a true ban then firefighters shouldn't back burn.


And what did blm do when they caused millions in damage? Did they make it right? No they used it to force people off their land to extend refuge land.

I provided a link to internal blm documents. It admits that flooding cause millions in damage. If you look at the drawings of the lakes it shows actual water line and historic water line.

All the info is there that supports residents claims of floods forcing them off their lands. Farmers claim it was due purposeful by blm.

 

[pnwmystery]

Burn ban was in effect on only one fire. If it was a true ban then firefighters shouldn't back burn.


And what did blm do when they caused millions in damage? Did they make it right? No they used it to force people off their land to extend refuge land.

I provided a link to internal blm documents. It admits that flooding cause millions in damage. If you look at the drawings of the lakes it shows actual water line and historic water line.

All the info is there that supports residents claims of floods forcing them off their lands. Farmers claim it was due purposeful by blm.

Where did you get information that the burn ban was in effect on only one fire? How does that even work? It was county wide because of a lightning strike and there were fire fighters in the area who were put in danger because of this.

 

[whitebb2727]

Where did you get information that the burn ban was in effect on only one fire? How does that even work? It was county wide because of a lightning strike and there were fire fighters in the area who were put in danger because of this.

Court documents. Already linked . This thread.

Yes a burn ban was in effect when they lit the back burn.

Lighting strikes caused multiple fires. It put their property in danger and possibly their family and animals life's.

I say if an emergency allows firefighters to set fires then the ranchers had the right to do the same.

With all of the harassment and ill doing on on the blm it is possible firefighters ignored the Hammond's or were not capable at the moment to help them.

Do they not have the right to protect what's theirs?

You can say we'll what if this or that happened. Nobody was injured and no real damage done.